RESEARCHES 
 
 INTO 
 
 THE ORIGIN AND AFFINITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL LANGUAGES 
 
 OF 
 
 ASIA AND EUROPE. 
 
 BY 
 
 LIEUTENANT COLONEL VANS KENNEDY, 
 
 OF THE BOMBAY MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 Cum remotae Genticm Origines historiam transcendant, Lixgu-e nobis praestant veterum 
 monumentorum vicem. ieifrnitri Opera, torn. iv. p. 186. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 FR1NTED FOR 
 
 LONGMAN, REES, ORME, BROWN, AND GREEN, 
 
 PATERNOSTER-ROW. 
 
 1828. 
 
V 
 
 Un Homme de Lettres, cel^bre, grand ennemi des Etymologies, a dit qu'il falloit fitre sans raison 
 pour douter que pain vint de pants .• mais si cette Etymologie n'est point trompeuse, 1' Art Etymologique 
 n'est point trompeur, puisque toutes les Etymologies qui le composent et que nous donnerons, seront 
 aussi sures que celle-la ; qu'elles ne consisteront egalement que dans des comparaisons de mots, ou il 
 seroit aussi impossible de voir ce qu'on y voudroit voir, que de ne pas y voir ce qui y est. 
 
 Monde Primitif, torn. iii. p. 35. 
 
 Londok t 
 
 Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, 
 
 New- Street- Square. 
 
 
 ! 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It is much to be regretted that all writers who have entered into 
 etymological discussions, or who have employed etymology as the 
 medium of other researches, should have permitted their judgments 
 to be guided and influenced by some favourite hypothesis. For, how- 
 ever anxious an author may be to discover truth, still, if his mind 
 be occupied by preconceived opinions, it is impossible for him to 
 avoid giving more attention and more force to such circumstances as 
 support these opinions, than to such as oppose them. Too many 
 writers, also, in conducting an argument respecting the origin and 
 affinity of nations, or even respecting their idolatry, have indulged 
 in such absurdity of etymologies, and such mis-selection and per- 
 version of authorities, as must render their love of truth extremely 
 questionable. The ridicule, therefore, that is thrown on etymology, 
 and the distrust with which it is received as proof, are the natural 
 consequences of its having been employed so improperly. But, as 
 it is illogical to argue from the abuse to the use, no work ought to 
 be condemned on mere inspection of its titlepage, because erroneous 
 methods have been adopted in the previous discussion of the same 
 subject. 
 
 The following Researches, also, whatever other defects may be 
 attributable to them, are at least free from the spirit of hypothesis. 
 
 a 2 
 
i v PREFACE. 
 
 For, having occasion to compile a Maratha dictionary, I amused 
 myself, while collecting materials for that work, in noting down the 
 Sanscrit words which I recognised as belonging to any language with 
 which I was acquainted ; and it was not until I had collected five 
 hundred such words, that I began to enquire into the causes which 
 could have introduced them into five distinct languages. Until then 
 I had acquiesced in the correctness of the usual opinions entertained 
 respecting the origin and affinity of languages, although doubts of 
 their justness had often occurred to me. But, on further examining 
 the subject, I found that none of the systems which had been proposed 
 could adequately explain the causes of that intimate connection which 
 must have existed, at some remote period, between a people speaking 
 Sanscrit and the ancestors of the Greeks, Romans, and Goths. It 
 was, therefore, necessary to discover some more probable and satis- 
 factory explanation of so remarkable a circumstance, and I accordingly 
 stated the conclusions to which its investigation had led me, in a paper 
 which I laid before the Literary Society of Bombay, in November, 
 1822. This paper, however, I afterwards withdrew, as it occurred to 
 me that neither its limits allowed the subject to be fully discussed, 
 nor had I myself obtained all the information respecting it which was 
 requisite. For I conceive it incumbent on every writer to ascertain, 
 as far as possible, what may have been previously published on the 
 topic which he intends to discuss. But the want of books prevented 
 me, for some time, from having it in my power to enlarge and improve 
 the paper just mentioned in the manner that I wished. Having at 
 length, however, made myself, I believe, sufficiently acquainted with 
 the principal opinions which prevail respecting the origin and affinity 
 of languages, I now venture to lay the following Researches before 
 the public. 
 
PREFACE. v 
 
 The original object of this work was merely to exhibit the re- 
 markable affinity which exists between the Greek, Latin, Persian, 
 Gothic, and Sanscrit languages, and to explain the causes which had, 
 in my opinion, produced it. But, on further consideration, it appeared 
 to me that neither of these points could be satisfactorily demonstrated, 
 until the prevailing hypothesis respecting the existence of a primitive 
 tongue, and respecting the origin of the Greeks, Romans, and Goths, 
 had been first examined, and refuted. I have, in consequence, been 
 obliged not only to enter into a review of these subjects on which so 
 much has been already written, but, also, in considering them, to 
 differ in opinion, less or more, from every author by whom they have 
 been previously discussed. But no person has hitherto applied a 
 competent knowledge of Arabic, Persian, and Sanscrit to etymological 
 purposes, and from new data, therefore, it may be permitted to draw 
 new conclusions. 
 
 One writer, indeed, Dr. A. Murray, in his History of European 
 Languages^ has pretended to an acquaintance with Sanscrit and Per- 
 sian ; but the very erroneous judgment of the origin and nature of 
 these languages which he has expressed, evinces that his knowledge 
 of them must have been extremely superficial. He has himself, at 
 the same time, admitted that he had not the Sanscrit language com- 
 pletely before him* ; nor was it possible that he could, as no Sanscrit 
 dictionary was then published. But Persian was perfectly accessible 
 in grammars, dictionaries, and editions of works containing together 
 the original text and its translation ; and the ignorance, therefore, 
 of this language betrayed by Dr. Murray is altogether inexcusable. 
 It is not, however, so much the errors contained in this work, as 
 the dogmatic tone in which the opinions are expressed, that are 
 
 * Hist, of European Languages, vol. ii. p. 381. 
 
v i PREFACE. 
 
 particularly censurable. For nothing but the most indisputable proofs 
 could warrant such positive assertions as these: — "The Medes, Per- 
 sians, and Indians spoke the same language. They were allied to 
 one another in the degree of the Ionic and Doric Greeks. This 
 important fact is established, 1. by the close resemblance of the 
 ancient Median names to the Sanscrit in form and sense ; 2. by the 
 perfect coincidence of the remains of the Zend with the Sanscrit ; 
 3. by the easy derivation of almost every modern Persian word (the 
 Arabic terms excepted) from the Sanscrit.* .... The modern Persic 
 is Sanscrit, humbled and corrupted in a high degree. It is simple, 
 elegant, perspicuous ; but, at the same time, not capable of greater 
 powers of expression, than those which genius may impart to any 
 dialect, however defective by nature."]* .... Ocular inspection, assisted 
 by such knowledge as the comparison requires, demonstrates the 
 ancient identity of the Sanscrit and Chaldee letters.""]: That is, an 
 alphabet composed of fifty-two letters was derived from one con- 
 sisting of twenty-two letters only ! The reputation acquired by Dr. 
 Murray as a philologist has induced me to notice his work here, in 
 order to explain the reason why I have scarcely ever quoted it in 
 the following pages, either for the purpose of approbation or refutation. 
 But for the first of these purposes it is much too erroneous ; and, with 
 regard to the latter, I perfectly agree in opinion with Pinkerton, that 
 to confute absolute nonsense is surely as ridiculous as to write it. That 
 the reader, however, may not consider these remarks as too harsh, 
 I will leave it to him to decide whether that philologist is entitled 
 to any attention who, in the very commencement of his work, makes 
 such an assertion as this : — " By a careful study of the Anglo- Saxon, 
 
 * Hist, of European Languages, vol. ii. p. 222. 
 f Ibid. p. 391. 
 
 X Ibid. p. 227. 
 
PREFACE. v -« 
 
 Visigothic, and the elder English writers, more knowledge may be 
 obtained of the original structure of the Greek, Latin, Celtic, or 
 Sanscrit, than the deepest erudition can possibly supply ! ! ".* 
 
 With respect to the conclusions contained in this work, which are 
 deduced from etymological premises, the principles on which they 
 depend are sufficiently explained in the Second Part. I shall here, 
 therefore, merely observe that, in comparing together the words of 
 any two languages, I conceive that correspondence in signification 
 and in sound, subject to such slight permutations in the letters and 
 slight contractions of the syllables as are proved to be admissible on 
 clear and fixed principles, are the only criteria by which the identity 
 of the words compared can be determined. These Researches, there- 
 fore, differ materially from other etymological works : because they 
 contain no wearisome discussions respecting the changes which words 
 may have undergone in passing from one language into another ; nor 
 any tedious reasoning to prove that some particular word in one 
 language, notwithstanding dissimilarity of sound and meaning, may 
 still be identical with some other term of another language. For 
 the Comparative Table inserted in Part II. is the piece justificative of 
 the whole work ; and as all the words compared together in it cor- 
 respond in meaning, except in a few instances which I have noted 
 at the bottom of the page, the reader, if unacquainted with the lan- 
 guages compared, has merely to determine whether the agreement 
 of the words in sound is sufficient to prove their identity. Should 
 he, then, be convinced that 900 Sanscrit words have passed into five 
 
 * Hist, of European Languages, vol. i. p. 1 7. 
 
 No words can better characterise Dr. Murray's work, than those which he has himself 
 applied to Mr. Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology: — " A fanciful work, of which 
 the etymological -part is false, the historical dubious, and the theoretical imaginary" — Vol. ii. 
 p. 223. 
 
v iij PREFACE. 
 
 distinct languages, he will be the better enabled to form an opinion 
 respecting the justness of the remarks contained in the following 
 pages. 
 
 The origin and affinity of languages ascend far beyond the times 
 of which any information has been preserved by ancient writers. 
 But it seems undeniable that, with respect to the origin and early 
 state of nations, the credibility of the accounts given by different 
 authors must depend on their relative antiquity ; and it is impossible 
 to understand how Zonaras, in the twelfth century after Christ, could 
 be as well acquainted with the ancient situation of the world as 
 Herodotus, who flourished 450 years before Christ. The incorrectness, 
 therefore, of the following remarks of Mr. Bryant must be self evident: 
 — " It may be said that the writers to whom I chiefly appeal are, in 
 great measure, dry and artless, without any grace and ornament to 
 recommend them. They were, likewise, posterior to the Helladians ; 
 consequently, farther removed from the times of which they treat. 
 To the first objection I answer, that the most dry and artless historians 
 are, in general, the most authentic. They who colour and embellish 
 have the least regard for the truth. In respect to priority, it is a 
 specious claim ; but attended with no validity. When a gradual 
 darkness has been overspreading the world, it requires as much time 
 to emerge from the cloud, as there passed when we were sinking into 
 it : so that they who come later may enjoy a greater portion of light, 
 than those who preceded them by ages. Besides, it is to be considered, 
 that the writers to whom I chiefly appeal, lived in parts of the world 
 which gave them great advantages. The whole theology of Greece 
 was derived from the East. We cannot, therefore, but in reason 
 suppose, that Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Tatianus 
 of Assyria, Lucianus of Samosata, Cyril of Jerusalem, Porphyry of 
 
PREFACE. [ x 
 
 Syria, Proclus of Lycia, Philo of Biblus, Strabo of Amasa, Pausanias of 
 Cappadocia, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, must know more upon this subject 
 than any native Helladian. The like may be said of Diodorus, Jose- 
 phus, Cedrenus, Syncellus, Zonaras, Eustathius ; and numberless more. 
 These had the archives of ancient* temples, to which they could 
 apply : and had traditions more genuine than ever reached Greece. 
 And though they were posterior theirselves, they appeal to authors far 
 prior to any Helladians : and their works are crowded with extracts 
 from the most curious and the most ancient f histories. Such were the 
 writings of Sanction iathon, Berosus, Nicholaus Damascenus, Mocus, 
 Mnaseas, Hieronymus iEgyptius, Apion, Manethon : from whom 
 Abydenus, Apollodorus, Asclepiades, Artapanus, Philastrius, bor- 
 rowed largely. We are beholden to Clemens;}: and Eusebius, for 
 many evidences from writers, long since lost ; even Eustathius and 
 Tzetzes have resources, which are now no more." § On the contrary, the 
 justness of the following observations of Lord Bolingbroke can scarcely 
 be contested : — " There is a fourth class, of much less use than these, 
 but of much greater name. Men of the first rank in learning, and 
 to whom the whole tribe of scholars bow with reverence. A man 
 must be as indifferent as I am to common censure or approbation, to 
 avow a thorough contempt for the whole business of these learned 
 lives ; for all the researches into antiquity, for all the systems of 
 chronology and history, that we owe to the immense labours of a 
 Scaliger, a Bochart, a Petavius, an Usher, and even a Marsham. The 
 
 " * See Philo Biblius apud Euseb. Prsef. Evang. 1. i. c. 10. p. 32. He mentions applying 
 to a great number of authors, in Phenicia. 
 
 "f IToAA>)v e$;epevvr)<rct[j.evos uXrjv, ovw tyjv irctp 'E;\X»]<n. — Philo, apud Euseb. Prcef. Evang., 
 1. i. c. ix. p. 32. 
 
 " % Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., 1. i, p. 356." 
 
 § Analysis of Ancient Mythology, vol. i. p. 146. et seq. 
 
 a 
 
x PREFACE. 
 
 same materials are common to them all ; but these materials are 
 few, and there is a moral impossibility that they should ever have 
 more. They have combined these into every form that can be given 
 to them : they have supposed, they have guessed, they have joined 
 disjointed passages of different authors, and broken traditions of un- 
 certain originals, of various people, and of centuries remote from one 
 another as well as from ours. In short, that they might leave no 
 liberty untaken, even a wild fantastical similitude of sounds has 
 served to prop up a system. As the materials they have are few, 
 so are the very best and such as pass for authentic extremely pre- 
 carious ; as some of these learned persons themselves confess. Julius 
 Africanus, Eusebius, and George the monk opened the principal 
 sources of all this science ; but they corrupted the waters. Their 
 point of view was to make profane history and chronology agree 
 with sacred ; though the latter chronology is very far from being 
 established with the clearness and certainty necessary to make it a 
 rule. For this purpose, the ancient monuments that these writers 
 conveyed to posterity, were digested by them according to the system 
 they were to maintain : and none of these monuments were delivered 
 down in their original form, and genuine purity. The dynasties of 
 Manetho, for instance, are broken to pieces by Eusebius, and such 
 fragments of them as suited his design are stuck into his work. 
 We have, we know, no more of them. The Codex Alexandrinus we 
 owe to George the monk. We have no other authority for it."* 
 
 It is not, however, necessary for the object of this work, to enter 
 into any discussion respecting ancient chronology : for I conceive 
 that the poems of Homer are a fixed point in the history of all 
 languages cognate with the Greek; and, consequently, in tracing their 
 
 * Bolingbroke's Letters on the Study and Use of History, p. 6. et seq. 
 
PREFACE, x j 
 
 affinity or the locality of the people who spoke them, it is not requisite 
 to carry the research farther than two or three centuries beyond 
 the time when Homer flourished. It is, also, precisely at this period 
 that the traditional and historical notices preserved by ancient writers 
 begin to assume a degree of credibility which entitles them to every 
 attention. But in combining together these notices, and in drawing 
 conclusions from them, I have confined myself to such as are con- 
 tained in Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, 
 and Pliny; but the authors on which I have principally depended 
 are Herodotus and Strabo. Both these authors, I observe, are held 
 in little or no estimation by the writers whose hypotheses I am 
 under the necessity of refuting : but, after a most attentive ex- 
 amination of the works of Herodotus and Strabo, I cannot under- 
 stand on what grounds their authority can with any reason be 
 questioned. At least before the accounts given by the most 
 ancient historian now extant are thus disregarded, and those of 
 such a writer as Justin received in preference, some sufficient cause 
 ought to be assigned for adopting so singular a mode of weighing 
 historical evidence. I presume, however, that the only solid grounds 
 on which belief in human testimony can rest are the witness's dis- 
 cernment, judgment, and knowledge of the subject attested; and, 
 as it cannot be denied that Strabo * and Herodotus possessed these 
 qualifications in an eminent degree, it must necessarily follow that 
 they are the safest guides for determining, as far as it was then 
 known, the actual state of the world 500 years B. G, and its sub- 
 sequent changes. 
 
 * Strabo flourished about A. D. 20 ; but the great attention and judgment with which he 
 had consulted writers more ancient than himself, and had compared their accounts with 
 what had actually come under his own observation, are evident in every page of his work. 
 
 a 2 
 
x Ji PREFACE. 
 
 I have thus endeavoured to conduct the etymological and historical 
 discussions contained in these Researches on principles which appear 
 to me to be incontrovertible : but I am well aware that the execution 
 of a work is seldom, if ever, of equal excellence as the plan intended ; 
 and I cannot, therefore, flatter myself that I have been able to avoid 
 altogether the faults which I have observed and condemned in others. 
 If, however, my reasoning and conclusions meet not with approbation, 
 it will, perhaps, be admitted that I have contributed considerably to the 
 further improvement of philology, not only by the new data which 1 have 
 produced, but by condensing into a small compass the various opinions 
 hitherto published respecting the origin and affinity of languages. But 
 should any person be inclined to apply to this work the severe rules of 
 criticism which seem to prevail at this day, I beg that, before he 
 proceeds to judgment and execution, he will consider whether these 
 words of Plutarch do not apply equally to philological as to historical 
 researches, and, if so, whether they do not present a sufficient excuse 
 for any errors or defects that may be found in the following pages : — 
 
 T& pevToi (tvvtu^iv V7T0^e^X^f/.£vu 9 koci IvTooiav £^ ou tv p^o^ziptcv ouo otiteiav, aXXa 
 pivuv re tcov ttoXXoov aai oieT7rctpuevct)v ev erepotg cuviovcrctv avctyvucr^oci uv, ra 
 
 OVTt J/pVj TTQUTOV VTTO.pyj.lV KCtl jXOcXlCTTU TVjV TToXiV EVOOKlfAOV KOil QlhOY.Ct.'hOV KOU 
 
 7roXvav9pco7rov, cog (3i&Xicev re Truvro^wntdv atpOovixv £%«", xou oora. rovg ygutpovTag 
 StxcpevycvTci acaTVjpict pv^^S Z7rt(bocvecrTepciv siXvjtps ttio~tiv 9 67roXocy.Qavuv czkovi 
 Kca SiotTrvvQuvopevoGf py\ ttoXXuv pv\V c&vuyrtoiiuv tvdv.q U7rooiootr] to spyov' Tjfzeig 
 Se ftixpav oiKovpev 7toXiv. 
 
 Bombay, 
 1 5th January, 1827. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 T r^ Pa S e 
 
 Introductory Remarks , «„ l 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 The Language of the Hebrews 12 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Arabic Language 23 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Ancient Languages of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt 34 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 On the Scythians 46 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The Celtic Language 65 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 The Greek Language 86 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 The Latin Language 107 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 On the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit Alphabetical Systems 122 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 The German and English Languages , 136 
 
x i v CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 The Persian Language 159 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 The Sanscrit Language 193 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Concluding Remarks 214 
 
 PART II. 
 
 Grammatical and Etymological Illustrations 239 
 
 List of Sanscrit Words which are found in the Greek, Latin, Persian, German, and 
 
 English Languages 277 
 
 Appendix, No. I. 
 
 List of Sanscrit, Persian, and Arabic Words which occur in the Zend Vocabulary 
 
 of Anquetil du Perron 313 
 
 Appendix, No. II. 
 List of Persian and Arabic Words which occur in the Pahlvi Vocabulary of 
 
 Anquetil du Perron c 319 
 
 Appendix, No. III. 
 List of Pahlvi Words which are not contained in the Vocabulary of Anquetil du 
 Perron, extracted from the Fourth Section of the Appendix to the Firhang 
 
 Jihangiri «... , 323 
 
 r 
 
PART I. 
 
N.B. In Oriental words written in Roman characters, the vowels and diphthongs are to 
 be pronounced as in Italian, and the consonants as in English ; with exception of g, which 
 is always to be pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented by j. 
 
RESEARCHES 
 
 INTO 
 
 THE ORIGIN AND AFFINITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL LANGUAGES 
 
 OF 
 
 ASIA AND EUROPE. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 The result of all speculations respecting the origin of language must 
 be unsatisfactory, because no data exist from which any reasonable 
 conclusion on the subject can be deduced. For no tribe of men has 
 yet been discovered, however few in numbers or rude and miserable, 
 that did not possess a language adapted to all the purposes and wants 
 of its mode of life. It might, hence, be conjectured that speech was 
 one "of the qualities which belonged to man from his original forma- 
 tion. But, when it is considered that children learn the use of alpha- 
 betical sounds with much difficulty, and that strangers can never 
 acquire the proper pronunciation of a foreign language, it seems ne- 
 cessarily to follow that, although the power of forming articulate 
 sounds is inherent in man, still the converting such sounds into an in- 
 telligible language depends entirely on association, imitation, and 
 tuition. 
 
 Admitting, therefore, the Mosaic account of the creation of man- 
 kind, and supposing that the faculty and knowledge of speech were 
 communicated to the first man and woman by the supreme Being, 
 
 A 
 
2 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 nothing would seem more probable than the existence of a primitive 
 language. Moses, also, relates that such actually prevailed during the 
 earlier ages of the world, but he, at the same time, expressly declares 
 that this uniformity of speech was destroyed by a miracle. If, conse- 
 quently, the authority of Moses be admitted as proving the one point, 
 it must be considered of equal validity with respect to the other ; 
 because no other works now exist with which the narration of Moses 
 might be compared, and by means of which any errors that may have 
 occurred in it might be corrected. The whole, therefore, of the Book 
 of Genesis must be held to be authentic, or the whole must be re- 
 jected ; and that argument can deserve no attention which rests on a 
 partial admission and a partial rejection of the contents of this book. 
 
 But the following verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis prove, 
 beyond the power of controversy to dispute, that the primitive lan- 
 guage of mankind was totally destroyed. 
 
 Verse 1. " And the whole earth was of one language and one 
 speech." 
 
 V. 6. " And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have 
 all one language." 
 
 V. 7. ' ; Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, 
 that they may not understand one another's speech." 
 
 V. 9. " Therefore is the name of it called Babel ; because the Lord 
 did there confound the language of all the earth." 
 
 In the tenth chapter, also, of Genesis occur these verses ; — 
 
 V. 5. " But these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their 
 lands ; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." 
 
 V. 20. " These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their 
 tongues, in their countries and in their nations." 
 
 V. 31. " These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their 
 tongues, in their lands, after their nations."* 
 
 * As there is not the slightest ambiguity in the original Hebrew, I cannot understand 
 why the commentators on the Bible and other writers attempt to qualify or invalidate the 
 positive testimony of these texts, and to retain the language of Adam and Eve in the family 
 of Shem ; for, though the language of mankind was confounded, it is not said that the 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. g 
 
 So far, therefore, as the authority of the Book of Genesis is ad- 
 mitted, it must, at the same time, be admitted that the primitive 
 speech of mankind was abolished, and various distinct languages 
 created by the same power by whom the former was originally commu- 
 nicated to mankind. 
 
 Of this opinion was Sir William Jones, who has observed, — " that 
 the language of Noah is lost irretrievably ;" yet he has endeavoured 
 to establish " that the inhabitants of Asia, and, consequently, as it 
 might be proved, of the whole earth, sprang from three branches of 
 one stem." But in conducting this argument Sir William Jones has 
 not been able to avoid inconsistency and self-contradiction. For in 
 his fourth Anniversary Discourse he remarks, — " But a further com- 
 parison between the two languages (Sanscrit and Arabic) is here un- 
 necessary ; since in whatever light we view them, they seem totally 
 distinct, and must have been invented by two different races of men." 
 In the fifth Discourse — " If the ground work of the Western Turkish, 
 when separated from the Persian and Arabic with which it is embel- 
 lished, be a branch of the lost Oghuzian tongue, I can assert, with 
 confidence, that it has not the least resemblance either to Arabic or 
 Sanscrit, and must have been invented by a race of men wholly dis- 
 tinct from the Arabs or Hindus." In his sixth Discourse, — "But 
 without having recourse to other arguments, the composition of words 
 in which the genius of the Persian delights, and which that of the 
 Arabic abhors, is a decisive proof that the Parsi sprang from an Indian 
 and not an Arabic stock." It hence appears that the languages of the 
 three branches of one stem, the Sanscrit, Arabic, and Tartar have not 
 the slightest affinity to each other, and differ so much that they must 
 have been invented by distinct races of men. 
 
 It is, therefore, impossible to reconcile Sir William Jones's conclu- 
 sion with the premises from which it has been deduced ; because, as he 
 
 knowledge which men at the time possessed was in any manner affected, and, consequently, 
 the effect of this miracle extended no further than the causing this knowledge to be handed 
 down to posterity, not in one single language, but in a variety of different dialects. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 is perfectly correct in asserting that no resemblance exists between 
 these languages, it must be obvious that dissimilar effects could not 
 proceed from one and the same cause. If the Hindus, Arabs, and 
 Tartars spoke the same language three thousand years ago, as Sir 
 William Jones supposes, their ancestors, when they migrated from 
 their native country, must either have preserved their mother-tongue, 
 or adopted that of the country into which they migrated. In the latter 
 case, other languages, besides this supposed primitive one, must have 
 been in existence ; and it is directly contrary to the Mosaic history to 
 imagine that the world remained without people and without lan- 
 guages until a migration took place from Iran in the twelfth century 
 before the Christian aera. In the other case, it is impossible that any 
 material difference could have arisen between the Sanscrit and the 
 Arabic ; for, there is every reason to believe, that the former was a 
 written language at the time of this supposed migration, and it is in- 
 contestable that Arabia was never conquered or occupied by a foreign 
 race within the last three thousand years. Had, therefore, the Arabs 
 and Hindus ever spoken the same tongue, no conceivable cause can be 
 assigned for these two languages having become so radically dissimilar. 
 They might have been considerably affected by the dialects of the 
 countries into which these migrations are supposed to have proceeded, 
 but they would have preserved the greatest part of the words of the 
 parent language, and an indisputable resemblance in their grammatical 
 structure. 
 
 Similar remarks apply to the influence over the languages of Asia 
 and Europe which some writers ascribe to migrations of Scythians. 
 The earliest existing accounts, at the same time, of this people describe 
 them as rude and unlettered, living in various independent tribes, and 
 not united into one nation, and perfectly unacquainted with the 
 learning and arts of civilized society. For Herodotus characterises 
 the Scythians as the most ignorant of men, and every subsequent des- 
 cription of them fully confirms this remark of Sir W. Jones. " Our 
 first enquiry concerning the languages and letters of the Tartars 
 presents us with a deplorable void, or with a prospect as barren and as 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 5 
 
 dreary as that of their own deserts. The Tartars in general had no 
 literature; (in this point all authorities appear to concur), the Turcs 
 had no letters ; the Huns, according to Procopius, had not even heard 
 of them." To derive, therefore, from the scanty and imperfect dialects 
 of such a people the language of Homer or of the sacred books of the 
 Hindus must be obviously so inconsistent with probability as to render 
 the conjecture unworthy of the least credit. 
 
 If, however, no affinity exists between Arabic, Sanscrit, and Tartar, 
 and if all existing languages bear less or more relation to one or 
 other of these tongues,* the non-existence of a primitive language 
 seems sufficiently established. But the apparent simplicity resulting 
 from the derivation of all languages from one common origin, and par- 
 ticularly a mistaken opinion that the Mosaic account of the creation of 
 mankind would receive confirmation from proving that this common 
 origin was Hebrew, have led several writers into etymological re- 
 searches, which, so far from producing conviction, have merely cast 
 ridicule on the object of their studies. It cannot, however, be denied 
 that cognate and identical terms occur in some languages, and the only 
 error, therefore, of such writers consists in attempting to draw an 
 universal conclusion from particular premises. But the attempt is 
 equally hopeless in philology as in reasoning, and hence arises a 
 complete disregard of every principle of language and pretended 
 etymologies, which cannot be better described than in the words of 
 Sir William Jones. " But I beg leave, as a philologer, to enter my 
 protest against conjectural etymology in historical researches, and 
 principally against the licentiousness of etymologists in transposing 
 and inserting letters, in substituting at pleasure any consonant for 
 
 * Such is the conclusion of Sir W. Jones, as explained in his Ninth Anniversary 
 Discourse. But with respect to the Tartar, M. Klaproth observes, " Les Kalmouks sont 
 une branche de la grande race Mongole. Plusieurs savans, meme dans des temps 
 modernes, ont presque toujours confondu cette race avec les tribus turques (tatares) ; mais 
 elle en differe totalement par la langue et par la physionomie. — Voyage au Caucase, vol. i. 
 p. 68. 
 
 As, however, the Mongol language bears no affinity to Sanscrit or Arabic, its distinct 
 existence does not affect the argument, but only adds one more to the number of original 
 languages. 
 
Q INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 another of the same order, and in totally disregarding the vowels : for 
 such permutations few radical words would be more convenient than 
 cus or cush, since dentals being changed for dentals, and palatials for 
 palatials, it instantly becomes coot, goose, and by transposition, duck, 
 all water birds, and evidently symbolical ; it next is the goat wor- 
 shipped in Egypt, and, by a Metathesis, the dog adored is an emblem 
 of Sirius, or more obviously, a cat, not the domestic animal, but a sort 
 of ship, and the catos or great sea-fish of the Dorians."* 
 
 But the most singular manner of explaining the origin of language 
 is contained in the posthumous work of the late Professor A. Murray. 
 " The nations" (observes Dr. Murray), " from the confines of China 
 to the Atlantic ocean, from Novaya Zemlia to Africa, speak different 
 dialects of a language, of which the Teutonic is the simplest form ex- 
 isting." To prove this position, he proceeds to state that the elements 
 of all languages may be resolved into these nine syllables, — ag or 
 wag, bag, dwag, gwag, or cwag, lag, or hlag, mag, nag, or hnag, rag or 
 hrag, and swag, — " These nine words (lie adds) are the foundations 
 of language, on which an edifice has been erected of a more wonderful 
 and useful kind, than any which have exercised human ingenuity." f — 
 But he remarks with justice, " that taste and philosophy will receive 
 with aversion these rude syllables ;" and had he not been misled by a 
 favorite hypothesis the slightest reflection must have convinced him 
 that such words could never have been " the base of that medium, 
 through which Homer, and Milton, and Newton have delighted or 
 illumined mankind." For it must be obvious that if Ag had upwards 
 of two hundred significations (as ascribed to it by Dr. Murray,) it must 
 have been perfectly impossible for the person addressed to understand 
 in what sense the speaker intended to use it, and consequently that such 
 words could never have fulfilled the purposes of speech. Dr. Murray, 
 also, states that each of these words is a verb and name for a species of 
 action, consequently, according to the principles of all languages, these 
 words were incapable of being compounded together ; and thus, what- 
 
 * SirW. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 139. 
 
 f Murray's History of the European Languages, p. 28. et seq. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 7 
 
 ever prefixes or affixes might have been added to them for the purpose 
 of modifying their signification, no progress could have been made in 
 the formation of language. For the radical must have still continued 
 the same, and however the form might have been altered, it could 
 never be made to convey any further meaning than a modification of 
 the idea originally attached to it. 
 
 On Dr. Murray's hypothesis, therefore, language must have always 
 remained in the rudest and most imperfect state ; were it even ad- 
 mitted that any tribe of savages could ever have possibly carried 
 on the slightest intercourse with only nine radical words. But the 
 opinion, on which the whole of his system is founded, that particular 
 terms were derived from general, and not general terms from par- 
 ticular *, is in direct contradiction to the internal evidence that every 
 language affords. For the most cursory examination of different lan- 
 guages will shew that nouns, or the names of sensible objects, form their 
 basis ; and from the example of children and of persons speaking a 
 foreign language with which they are imperfectly acquainted, it is ob- 
 vious that such words are sufficient, with the assistance of gestures, to 
 communicate many of the wishes or wants of man. They are at the 
 same time the only parts of speech which possess an independent sig- 
 nification ; and it is therefore surprising that Dr. Murray did not per- 
 ceive that, if his nine elements of language were each " a verb and 
 name for a species of action," it necessarily followed that as action 
 could not be exerted without an agent and an object, these words could 
 not have been invented without the previous existence of others to 
 which they applied. The very examples that Dr. Murray gives, — 
 " the tree grows, ihejire bums, the stone hurts, the plant poisons," prove 
 that the verbs could have no determinate meaning without the sub- 
 stantives ; and it is, therefore, much more probable that a savage would 
 
 * " In short, our knowledge of language and man will warrant us to infer, that such 
 words as cave, tree, or river, are from general terms : a cave is a hollow ; a tree is a grower; 
 a river is a runner ; and it further appears, that the words hollow, grow, and run, are from 
 others still more general. The actual experience of savages always must extend to the 
 qualities of the external world, and the natural feelings."! Ibid. p. 179. 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 first invent a name for the sensible object, the tree, and that after 
 having observed the gradual growth of a plant he would then and not 
 before invent some term to express this process. Such a verb in par- 
 ticular, as burns presupposes the previous observation of the sensible 
 object which produced this effect, and this object would no doubt 
 receive a name before a general term was found to express the sens- 
 ation which it caused. 
 
 If, therefore, language was invented by man the theory of its form- 
 ation proposed by Adam Smith is certainly the most clear and satis- 
 factory. But this theory, it is evident, can apply to one people only, 
 for it attempts not to explain the causes which have occasioned that 
 variety of names which are given by different nations to one and the 
 same object. This difference the Mosaic History ascribes to a mira- 
 culous interposition of the supreme Being ; and had mankind ever 
 spoken only one language, such a miracle seems alone adequate to ac- 
 count for there now no longer existing any trace of this primitive tongue 
 in the different languages of the world. — For no instance occurs of a 
 language which has once existed becoming entirely extinct ; and conse- 
 quently, had this primitive tongue remained in use, some identical terms, 
 and particularly some similarity of grammatical structure, must still be 
 discoverable in every dialect of Asia and Europe. But not a single word 
 or grammatical inflexion, as far as I am aware, has ever been discovered, 
 or can be discovered which exists equally in Sanscrit, Arabic, and Tartar. 
 — Apply this test to the various languages that have been derived from 
 them, and it will be immediately observed, that although similar words 
 may be found in all of them, still every term that is contained in each 
 cannot be traced through all the dialects that belong to the same family. 
 In all such examinations the etymologist is obliged to confess that the 
 more the subject is investigated the more improbable becomes the con- 
 jecture, that all languages have been derived from one and the same 
 origin. For at every step that he prosecutes his researches, this sup- 
 posed identity gradually diminishes until it entirely disappears long 
 before he attains the end of his pursuit. But he finds, without the 
 least research, numerous words in all known languages which bear no 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 9 
 
 resemblance to each other, and the etymon of which it is impossible to 
 discover, or to trace to a parent tongue. It has been conjectured that 
 this world is composed of the fragments of an older world ; but the sup- 
 position applies with still greater force to language ; for in most of the 
 various dialects * now existing in Asia and Europe, the widely-scat- 
 tered remains of some more ancient tongues are so obvious, that they 
 cannot escape the most superficial observation. The nations, it is true, 
 which spoke these dialects have long perished, and their name has not 
 been preserved by history ; but language, the most indisputable of all 
 testimony, still declares that they once existed. 
 
 It cannot, however, be denied that cognate and identical terms, and 
 similarity of grammatical structure, are discoverable in several lan- 
 guages ; and this affinity, if it does not prove the derivation of one 
 from the other, must at least establish that they were all derived from 
 some one common source. The object, therefore, of the following 
 Researches is not to investigate the origin of speech, or to attempt to 
 reduce the various languages of the world to one primitive tongue ; 
 but merely to exhibit the striking affinity that exists between the 
 Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic languages. As, however, 
 mere etymological and grammatical disquisitions can afford little in- 
 terest, I have also entered into an enquiry respecting the causes to 
 which this affinity ought to be attributed. The relation that these lan- 
 guages bear to each other has already excited much attention ; but I am 
 not aware that any person has yet undertaken to investigate the subject 
 fully, or to support his opinions by any extended list of the similar 
 words that occur in them. As, therefore, the only satisfactory proof 
 in all etymological enquiries is identity of terms, I now produce a col- 
 lection of nine hundred Sanscrit words which exist either in Greek, 
 Latin, Persian, German, or English, f All these words are primitives or 
 
 * There would seem to have been no foreign terms in Arabic previous to the birth of 
 Muhammad, or, perhaps, to the accession of the Sassanian dynasty. 
 
 f Of this number, 339 are Greek, 319 Latin, 263 Persian, 162 German, and 251 
 English. Thirty-one belong to all these languages ; 527 to Greek and Latin, omitting 
 the words common to both; and 182 to German and English, without including those 
 common to both or to the other languages. 
 
 C 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 uncom pounded ; and when it is recollected that these form but a small 
 proportion of the words contained in any language *, it must appear 
 the more surprising that so many of the Sanscrit primitives can 
 still be discovered, after the lapse of ages, in languages now so widely 
 separated. 
 
 But since so many learned men have maintained, and still maintain, 
 that Hebrew is the parent of all languages, it became necessary to dis- 
 cuss at some length the correctness of an opinion which is in complete 
 opposition to the conclusions which I have been led to form. For, until 
 this point is determined, it is obvious that all etymological enquiries must 
 fail to produce a satisfactory result. This opinion, however, might be 
 ascribed to ignorance or an imperfect knowledge of oriental languages, 
 and thus any refutation of it might appear superfluous. But as these 
 writers understood Greek, and still persisted in deriving the most 
 copious of all tongues from one the most scanty and imperfect, some 
 enquiry whether any affinity can possibly exist between Hebrew and 
 other languages appeared indispensable. 
 
 The two following chapters, therefore, contain the remarks on the 
 nature of the Hebrew and Arabic languages which have occurred to 
 me : and if I have succeeded in showing that their influence was re- 
 stricted to Arabia, Syria, and the colonies of Phenicia, the reader will 
 be the better prepared to enter upon the immediate object of these 
 Researches. The origin, indeed, of nations is buried in obscurity ; 
 but the filiation and migrations of the people who composed them 
 may still be traced in some measure by the means of language. Ety- 
 mological enquiries, however, are in general considered of little or no 
 value, and at best are treated as ingenious speculations of no utility. 
 But the celebrity of the Greeks and Romans, the high antiquity of the 
 Chaldeans and Hindus, and the proud superiority of the descendants 
 
 * Of this circumstance an opinion may be formed by observing, that the number of 
 Greek primitives collected by MM. du Port Royal amount to 2200 only ; that the Latin 
 primitives contained in the Index Etymologicus of Gesner's Thesaurus amount to 2400 ; 
 and that of the 2000 or 2500 Sanscrit verbal roots, 566 only have distinct meanings. But 
 I am not aware of the exact number of simple words contained in Sanscrit, though it is not 
 likely that it exceeds that of the Greek or Latin. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. n 
 
 of the Gothic people, may, it is presumed, confer some interest on 
 any investigation that relates to the origin of these nations and of 
 their languages. Nor can an enquiry fail to excite some curiosity that 
 searches for the causes which have occasioned identical terms to be 
 preserved, after a lapse of more than three thousand years, on the 
 banks of the Ganges and the Thames, 
 
 c 2 
 
12 
 
 CHAR II. 
 
 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 
 
 The writers who have contended that the Hebrew was the primitive 
 tongue of mankind, from which all other languages have been derived, 
 have not explained the manner in which this derivation was effected. 
 They were no doubt embarrassed by the texts of Genesis before 
 quoted ; because, even if the language of Adam and Eve was preserved 
 in the family of Shem, still the other descendants of Noah were 
 deprived of it, and thus their respective tongues could bear no affinity 
 to Hebrew. But, without insisting on these texts, no criteria are 
 better adapted for ascertaining the correctness of an etymological 
 conjecture than Geography, Chronology, and History. An examin- 
 ation, therefore, of the Jewish history will at once show whether or 
 not the Hebrew ever exerted any influence over the languages of Asia 
 and Europe. 
 
 The only account that exists of this people is contained in the Old 
 Testament and in the works of Josephus. But the latter appears to 
 have possessed no other materials for his relation of the early history 
 of the Jews than the Old Testament. From this book alone, therefore, 
 is derived all that is known of the Hebrews.* To its authenticity, 
 either in the whole or in particular parts, I am aware that numerous 
 objections have been made, and the slightest examination of it shows 
 that it answers very imperfectly the purposes of history ; for there is 
 no fixed asra specified in it to which the events related can be 
 
 * Except with respect to their origin, for this is mentioned by several ancient writers. 
 Diodorus Siculus, for instance, observes, " It is said, that some Egyptians proceeding from 
 their own country gave rise to the Jewish people, who live between Arabia and Syria; 
 hence, ancient and hereditary usage has established among them the custom of circumcising 
 their boys, which they derived from the Egyptians," lib. i. c. 28. But Josephus has col- 
 lected into his tract against Apion a variety of passages from ancient authors on this 
 point, which he endeavours to refute. 
 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 13 
 
 referred, nor are there any uninterrupted genealogies or lists of 
 kings which could in some measure remedy this defect ; but a system 
 of chronology has been framed from the data that it affords, which, 
 however questionable in some points, brings down the Jewish history 
 with sufficient accuracy from the creation of the world to about 400 
 years before Christ. 
 
 The father, however, of the Hebrew people was not born until 1948 
 years after the creation, and 2060 years before Christ ; and his departing 
 out of his country and from his kindred was occasioned by the express 
 command of God. Abraham, after some journeying, finally fixed his 
 abode in the land of Canaan ; and there he and his family remained for 
 216 years, until his grandson Jacob, at the age of 130 years, removed 
 into Egypt. It is to be particularly remarked, that at this period " All 
 the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his 
 loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six ; 
 and the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two 
 souls : all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, 
 were threescore and ten."* For in the 12th Chapter of Exodus, 37., 
 it is stated, that the children of Israel who departed out of Egypt after 
 their bondage was " about 600,000 on foot that were men, beside 
 children," 
 
 In the same chapter also of Exodus, 40, 41., it is said, " Now the 
 sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. 
 And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the selfsame 
 day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from 
 Egypt." I cannot, therefore, discover on what grounds the received 
 system of chronology assumes that the bondage in Egypt lasted only 
 21 5 years. For these texts are confirmed by the following : " And he 
 (the Lord) said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall 
 be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them ; and 
 they shall afflict them 400 years." Genesis, xv. 13. ( " And God 
 spake on this wise, that his (Abraham's) seed should sojourn in a 
 
 * Genesis, xlvi. 26, 27. 
 
14 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 
 
 strange land ; and that they should bring them into bondage, and 
 entreat them evil 400 years." Acts, vii. 6.* 
 
 The children of Israel, however, were not permitted to proceed im- 
 mediately into the promised land, but were obliged to wander for forty 
 years in the desert which lies between it and Egypt. During this 
 period Moses delivered to the Hebrews those laws, and established 
 those customs and institutions, which have rendered this people so 
 perfectly distinct from all other nations ; and, after having ruled over 
 them forty years, he died at the age of 120 years, and in 1515 B. C. 
 
 The period that elapsed from the death of Moses until the reign of 
 David is the most intricate part of Jewish history, and writers differ 
 respecting the exact number of years which it comprised. But in 
 
 * But these texts do not agree with the genealogy assigned to Moses'; for, from Genesis, 
 xlvi. 11., it appears, that Kohath, his grandfather, was born previous to Jacob's descent 
 into Egypt. Supposing, therefore, that the filiation of Moses was as under : — 
 
 Jacob begets Levi at 35 years of age. 
 
 Levi begets Kohath SO — 
 
 Kohath begets Amran 35 — 
 
 Amran begets Moses 40 — 
 
 140 years.f 
 
 As Jacob died at 147 years of age, and lived seventeen years in Egypt, Moses must, con- 
 sequently, have been born seven years only after Jacob's death, and twenty-four after the 
 descent into Egypt. If, therefore, to this last be added the age of Moses, eighty years, 
 when he commenced his ministry, the period of the Hebrews' bondage in Egypt will have 
 lasted only 104 years. It is at the same time evident, that as Kohath was born previous 
 to the descent into Egypt, no probable mode of calculation can extend the period that 
 elapsed from his birth to the commencement of the ministry of Moses, either to 215 or to 
 430 years. But the manner in which this difference ought to be rectified can depend only 
 on conjecture ; yet, since the texts above quoted are so precise and explicit, they seem best 
 entitled to credit, as the memory of the descents that connected Amran with Kohath may, 
 not unreasonably, be supposed to have been lost in the course of four hundred years. 
 
 -f- It is impossible to admit the following filiation, given in the Armenian translation of Eusebius's 
 Chronicle and in Nicephorus : — 
 
 Jacob begets Levi at 86 years of age. 
 
 Levi begets Kohath - 46 — 
 
 Kohath begets Amran 63 — 
 
 Amran begets Moses - 70 — 
 
 Because it is evidently inconsistent with the common course of human nature. 
 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 15 
 
 Kings, vi. 1., it is said, " And it came to pass in the four hun- 
 dred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of 
 the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in 
 the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the 
 house of the Lord." Deducting, therefore, the forty years of Moses' 
 ministry and the forty years of David's reign, the period during which 
 the Hebrews were governed by Judges and by Saul would be about 
 400 years. 
 
 But the principal difficulty consists in understanding the manner in 
 which the occupation of the promised land was effected by the 
 Hebrews. For it has been before observed, that on departing out of 
 Egypt the children of Israel amounted to about 600,000 men, and Pa- 
 lestine exceeds not 200 miles in length, varying from eighty to fifteen 
 miles in breadth ; and yet Jerusalem was not taken until the seventh 
 year of David's reign *, 400 years after the Hebrews had entered into 
 this small country. It is also said that this narrow, confined, and 
 mountainous region was divided into a number of small principalities, 
 no less than thirty-three princes being particularized in the twelfth 
 chapter of Joshua. But, notwithstanding their evident weakness, the 
 numerous people of the Hebrews, so far from conquering these petty 
 chiefs, were themselves subjected to servitude during various intervals 
 of the above 400 years. At other times they appear to have lived in 
 a state of anarchy, which is best described in the words of the Old 
 Testament. " And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, 
 and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all 
 the great works of the Lord, that he did for Israel. ... And the 
 children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served 
 Baalim : And they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which 
 brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the 
 gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves 
 unto them, and provoked the Lord to anger. And they forsook the 
 
 * Yet its capture by the children of Judah, immediately after the death of Joshua, is 
 mentioned in the first chapter of Judges. It must have been afterwards retaken by the 
 Jebusites. 
 
16 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 
 
 Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And the anger of the Lord was 
 hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that 
 spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round 
 about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. 
 Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them 
 for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them : 
 and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the Lord raised up 
 judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled 
 them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they 
 went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them : 
 they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, 
 obeying the commandments of the Lord ; but they did not so. And 
 when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge ; 
 and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the 
 judge, for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of 
 them that oppressed them and vexed them. And it came to pass, 
 when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves 
 more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to 
 bow down unto them ; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from 
 their stubborn way."* 
 
 The result of this state of alternate independence and servitude is 
 equally pointedly explained in the following verses relating to Saul's 
 army in the third year of his reign. " Now there was no smith found 
 throughout all the land of Israel : for the Philistines said, Lest the 
 Hebrews make them swords or spears : but all the Israelites went down 
 to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and 
 his ax, and his mattock. Yet they had a file for the mattocks and for the 
 coulters ; and for the forks and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. 
 So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor 
 spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and 
 Jonathan : but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found." f 
 
 The reign of David, from 1059 to 1019 B. C, was occupied in con- 
 tinual wars ; but he appears to have completed the conquest of 
 Palestine, and to have at last succeeded in uniting the Hebrews 
 
 * Judges, ii. 7. et seq. f 1 Samuel, xiii. 19. et seq. 
 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. j^ 
 
 into one kingdom. But the prosperity resulting from his success 
 endured no longer than the forty years' reign of his son Solomon ; 
 after which the revolt of the ten tribes restricted that part of the 
 Hebrews which preserved the Jewish name to the small territory and 
 kingdom of Judea. But as the received systems of chronology consider 
 Homer to have been contemporary with Solomon, or not more than 
 a century posterior to him, it is not necessary that I should pursue 
 this subject further. 
 
 From these brief historical notices it must be evident that the 
 language of Abraham could have exerted no influence over any other 
 languages of the world than those of Egypt and Palestine. But when 
 Abraham journeyed from Ur of Chaldea into these countries, he found 
 them already civilised, and united into monarchical states of greater or 
 less extent. That their people, therefore, would exchange their own 
 tongue for that of a stranger, or even receive into it any foreign words 
 from such a source, is in the highest degree incredible. On the con- 
 trary, it seems extremely probable that the language of the stranger 
 would be considerably affected by that of the people among whom he 
 dwelt, and that after 216 years' residence in Canaan, the family of Jacob 
 did not speak the language of Abraham. It is still more impossible to 
 conceive how the Hebrews could preserve, in Egypt, their own tongue, 
 pure and unaffected by that of the country, during a period of 430 or 
 even 215 years, and, most particularly, while they were increasing from 
 seventy souls to 600,000 men, exclusive of women and children. 
 
 These circumstances, when duly considered, must evince that the 
 language of Moses could not be the same as that of Abraham, nor 
 does it even seem probable that, after the Hebrews had lived in Pales- 
 tine for 400 years in the state above described, and in such close com- 
 munication with the inhabitants as to adopt their idolatry, the language 
 of Moses and David were the same. To this last supposition it will 
 be immediately objected that the books of the Old Testament written 
 before the time of David prove the contrary. But the style of these 
 books, as it became antiquated, may have been rendered by the priests 
 correspondent to the current speech of the day ; and different phrases. 
 
IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 
 
 and passages have been pointed out in these books, indicatory of their 
 not being in the exact state in which they were originally written. 
 
 But, admitting that the Old Testament exhibits the Hebrew lan- 
 guage as it was actually used by Moses, it is perfectly obvious that the 
 Hebrews never had the means of extending its influence beyond the 
 confines of Palestine. From the Exodus to the reign of Solomon they 
 may be justly said to have contended for their existence as a distinct 
 people; and, during this whole period of 480 years, not the slightest 
 mention is made of their having ever been engaged in commerce or 
 foreign war. Even when they attained considerable prosperity under 
 Solomon, the position of their country effectually prevented their inter- 
 course with any other people, except such as spoke a kindred language. 
 Their peculiar customs and institutions, also, would alone prove that 
 from the time of Moses, when they were first established, the Hebrews, 
 and consequently their language, were completely cut off from the rest 
 of the world. " But we do not," says Josephus, " inhabit a maritime 
 country, nor find pleasure in commerce, and we, therefore, mix not 
 with other people. Our towns are situated at a distance from the sea, 
 and enjoying a fruitful soil we employ ourselves in cultivating it. We 
 also consider the education of our children, the observance of our 
 laws, and the piety inculcated by them, to be the chief business of our 
 lives. To which let our peculiar mode of living be added, and there 
 was no reason for the Greeks having any intercourse with us, as with 
 the Egyptians, for the purpose of importing and exporting. The sea- 
 coast was inhabited by the Phenicians, who, for the sake of lucre, were 
 most intent on interior and foreign commerce ; and our fathers did 
 not, like other people, turn their attention to piracy, nor undertake 
 wars for the purpose of aggrandisement."* 
 
 Geography, chronology, and history, therefore, demonstrate the im- 
 possibility of Hebrew being the primitive tongue from which all other 
 
 * Josephus contra Appionem, lib. i. cap. 12. 
 
 Bishop Lowth also observes of the Hebrews, " Lejribus et sacris ab caeteris hominibus 
 divisi nee admodutn mercaturee dediti, satis habuerunt eas artes colere, quae ad vitae usum 
 simplicem et incultum, seu incorr upturn potius, necessariae essent. Itaque praecipua erat 
 omnibus occupatio in colendis terris et curando pecore ; agricolarura et pastorum ferme 
 natio erant." — De Sacra Persi Hebraorum, vol. i. p. 78. 
 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 19 
 
 languages are derived : for the land of the Hebrews was bounded on 
 all sides by countries in which a kindred language prevailed, and with 
 the people beyond which they never had, in earlier times, any inter- 
 course whatever, as is fully proved by their own history ; nor could 
 the few individuals of Abraham's family or the slaves of the Egyptians, 
 who afterwards became the Hebrew people, have possibly commu- 
 nicated their language, even if they preserved a peculiar one, to other 
 nations. The argument a priori being, consequently, so irrefutable, it 
 becomes unnecessary to enter into any examination of the Hebrew 
 language itself; and I shall, therefore, merely observe, that I have care- 
 fully examined the lexicons of Buxtorf and Castell, and that I have 
 not been able to discover in them a single word which can be identified 
 with any term in Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Persian, German, or English. 
 If, however, this assertion should appear questionable, its justness 
 will, I think, become evident from the mere consideration of the 
 principles on which some etymologists attempt to torture the in- 
 tractable words of Hebrew into resemblances with the words of other 
 languages.* Mr. Townsend, for instance, who is the latest writer that 
 
 * These remarks of Cour de Gebelin deserve attention : — " Ce que nous avons dit dans 
 nos origines Latines sur ceux qui en rapportent la source a l'Hebreu, convient egalement 
 a la langue Greque. Ceux qui se sont occupes des origines de celle-ci, n'ont pas ete plus 
 heureux que ceux qui ont cherche celles du Latin ; procedant d'apres les m£mes vues, 
 marchant egalement au hasard ; sans principes, sans gout, sans critique, sans philosophic, 
 il ne reste rien de leurs ouvrages en derniere analyse. Ainsi tous ceux dont nous avons 
 parle dans nos origines Latines, operant sur le Grec comme ils avoient fait sur le Latin, 
 allongeant, raccourcissant, estropiant les mots, a volonte, ne nous ont rien dit d'utile et de 
 satisfaisant sur ces grands objets ; ils n'ont fait que confondre et brouiller tout, augmentant 
 les tenebres et les erreurs dans lesquelles on etoit plonge. Afin de demontrer que le Grec 
 descend de l'Hebreu, il auroit falloir; 1°. montrer le plus grand rapport entre ces deux 
 langues ; 2°. faire voir que ce rapport etoit uniquement le resultat d'une filiation necessaire 
 entre le Grec et l'Hebreu ; 3°. que les Grecs eux-memes descendoient en effet des Hebreus, 
 ou que ceux-ci communiquerent necessairement leur langue aux Grecs. Mais le rapport du 
 Grec avec l'Hebreu n'est pas plus grand qu'avec les autres langues, et la langue Hebreu, 
 ou des descendans d' Abraham, n'en a produit aucune autre ; les Grecs ne sont point du 
 nombre de ces descendans, et ceux-ci ne sont pas venus apprendre aux Grecs a parler." 
 — Monde Primitive, vol. ix. p. xix. xx. 
 
 But Mr. Townsend still maintains the contrary opinion, and in precisely the same manner 
 as is so justly condemned in the preceding quotation ; nor does he hesitate to observe, 
 " I shall, however, shortly take occasion to demonstrate that Greek and Hebrew are 
 
 D 2 
 
20 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 
 
 maintains that Hebrew is the primitive tongue from which all other 
 languages are derived, is of opinion, that the operation of any one of 
 the numerous causes of mutation, which he points out, would be 
 sufficient, in the revolution of ages, to disguise a language, and to 
 render its origin obscure ; that various considerations have a ten- 
 dency to produce despair of being ever able to demonstrate, or even 
 to make it probable, that all languages are radically one ; that the task 
 is painful, but patience and perseverance, with a little sagacity, an ex- 
 tensive knowledge of languages, and strict attention to analogy, may 
 accomplish that which at first sight appears impracticable. * The 
 correctness of these remarks, if restricted to the cognate dialects of 
 any one language, is obvious ; but, if extended to distinct languages, 
 their incorrectness is equally evident. For Mr. Townsend himself 
 observes, that " the novice in languages would consider the attempt 
 to connect or, the Hebrew word for light, with marble, as wild in the 
 extreme. But when we observe marmol in Spanish, marbre, in French, 
 and marmor in Latin, we readily conceive that marble is allied to these. 
 From marmor the progress is easy, through /xa^ai^u and^a^, to or, hor, 
 and mor of the same import ; and every one knows that to receive a 
 polish and to shine are the essential properties of marble."f But I must 
 confess myself such a novice in languages, as to consider this ety- 
 mology to be wild in the extreme.:]: At the same time, I readily admit 
 
 radically one, as I have adduced sufficient evidence to prove that a similar identity subsists 
 between Sanscrit and Greek. It will then, I trust, be clear to every one, that Sanscrit and 
 Hebrew have a radical affinity, and may claim descent from the same progenitor, existing 
 at a given time, when the whole earth was of one language. This conclusion is perfectly 
 agreeable to the axiom, that if two things are equal to a third, they are equal to each other. 
 The argument will then stand thus : Sanscrit and Greek are radically one, Greek and 
 Hebrew are radically one, therefore, Sanscrit and Hebrew are radically one, q. e. d." .'.' — 
 Ckaracier of Moses, vol. ii. p. 330. 
 
 * Character of Moses, vol. ii. p. 38, 39. t I° id - P- 51. 
 
 % As the m is a servile letter in Hebrew, it also errs against this very just rule which 
 Mr. Townsend has himself laid down : — "To investigate a root, we must begin with decom- 
 position ; we must get rid of all the prepositive particles and idiomatic terminations, with 
 such epenthetical syllables or letters as may have been introduced into the radical expres- 
 sion. In a word, we must reduce the term in question to its most simple and elementary 
 form." — Ibid. p. 39. 
 
THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 2 1 
 
 that such etymologies " will immediately connect all the languages of 
 Europe, and ultimately those also of Asia, and Africa, and of America, 
 in which the same elementary words are found, although variously 
 corrupted and disguised by adventitious ornaments and dress. For, 
 on examination, it will appear, that the original language has existed, 
 and does still substantially exist, diffused throughout the various 
 languages which ever have been or now continue to be spoken in any 
 quarter of the globe !" 
 
 But it is singular that such etymologists have not adverted to the 
 remarkable difference which exists between the grammatical structure 
 of Hebrew and that of Sanscrit and Greek. For various causes might 
 occasion the passing of single words from one original language into 
 another, and such terms, therefore, would be no proof of the affinity 
 or common derivation of these two languages. The grammatical 
 structure, on the contrary, is peculiar to each distinct tongue and 
 even to each cognate dialect of the same language, and must 
 have been coeval with the origin of each. If, therefore, Sanscrit 
 and Greek were derived from Hebrew, in what manner did these 
 languages acquire the numerous inflections which give their nouns and 
 verbs such precision and variety, when the alleged parent tongue 
 possesses scarcely any inflections ? In what manner did the daughters 
 learn to luxuriate in the compound terms to which they are indebted 
 for such elegance and beauty, when the mother abhors the ornament 
 of composition ? In short, to what causes shall be ascribed the copious 
 richness of Sanscrit and Greek, if they owe their origin to a language 
 which has been always remarkable for its irremediable poverty? Until, 
 however, these questions are satisfactorily answered, it must be evident 
 that a few forced resemblances between Hebrew words and those of 
 other languages will never prove, in the slightest degree, that Hebrew 
 is the primitive tongue from which all other languages have been 
 derived. * 
 
 * I observe, also, in the Journal Asiatique for February, 1825, the following remark, 
 extracted from a work of M. Bopp, the justness of which cannot be controverted: — " En 
 Sanscrit, la voyelle importe beaucoup au sens de la racine, qui change si elle est changee, 
 
22 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 
 
 toup signifie blesser (en Grec, run, ti>7tt«>), substituez y un i, tip signifiera arroser, a, tap 
 voudra dire bruler. II en est autrement dans les langues Semitiques : les voyelles y servent 
 plutot a. determiner les rapports grammaticaux, que la signification fondamentale. De Ratal, 
 en Hebreu, on ne peut former, par aucun changement quelqu'il soit, un mot qui ne se 
 rapporte pas a l'idee de tuer ; et tous les mots des langues Semitiques qui presentent les 
 memes consonnes rangees dans le meme ordre, sans aucun egard aux voyelles appartiennent 
 a la meme racine. Une racine Semitique est si indeterminee quant aux voyelles, qu'elje 
 est plutot comprise que prononcee." Such a radical dissimilarity is alone sufficient to prove 
 that no language, the formation of which depends on the vowels, as Greek and Sanscrit, 
 can possibly be derived from Hebrew. 
 
23 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 Did the primitive language of mankind still exist, there is no country 
 in which it can be supposed with greater probability to have been pre- 
 served than Arabia ; for the uncontradicted voice of tradition and 
 history attests that this country, though partially conquered, was never 
 occupied by a foreign people. * " But in an early period of antiquity," 
 observes Gibbon, " the great body of the Arabs had emerged from this 
 scene of misery ; and as the naked wilderness could not maintain a 
 people of hunters, they rose at once to the more secure and plentiful 
 condition of the pastoral life. The same life is uniformly pursued by 
 the roving tribes of the desert, and in the portrait of the modern 
 Bedoweens, we may trace the features of their ancestors, who, in the 
 age of Moses or Mahomet, dwelt under similar tents, and conducted 
 their horses, and camels, and sheep, to the same springs and the same 
 pastures." f The very nature of their country has impressed this un- 
 changeable uniformity on the mode of living of the Arabs ; for Volney 
 justly remarks, " Ce n'est pas sans raison que les habitans du desert 
 se vantent d'etre la race la plus pure et la mieux conservee des peuples 
 Arabes : jamais en effet ils n'ont ete conquis. . . . On peut dire qu'ils 
 ont conserve a tons egards leur independance et leur simplicite pre- 
 
 * " The kingdom of Yemen has been successively subdued by the Abyssinians, the Persians, 
 the sultans of Egypt, and the Turks ; the holy cities of Mecca and Medina have repeatedly 
 bowed under a Scythian tyrant ; and the Roman province of Arabia embraced the peculiar 
 wilderness in which Ismael and his sons must have pitched their tents in the face of their 
 brethren. Yet these exceptions are temporary or local ; the body of the people has 
 escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies ; the arms of Sesostris and Cyrus, of 
 Pompey and Trajan, could never achieve the conquest of Arabia ; the present sovereign of 
 the Turks may exercise a shadow of jurisdiction, but his pride is reduced to solicit the 
 friendship of a people, whom it is dangerous to provoke, and fruitless to attack." — Gibbon's 
 Roman Empire, vol. ix. p. 229. 
 f Ibid. p. 223, 
 
24 
 
 THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 mieres. Ce que les plus anciennes histoires rapportent de leurs usages, 
 de leurs meurs, de leurs langues, et meme de leurs prejuges, se trouve 
 encore, presqu'en tout, le meme ; et cette unite de caractere conservee 
 dans l'eloignement des temps subsiste aussi dans l'eloignement des 
 lieux, c'est-a-dire, que les tribus les plus distantes se rassemblent in- 
 finiment. ... A' l'egarde des Arabes, ils semblent condamnes d'une 
 maniere speciale a la vie vagabonde par la nature de leurs deserts. 
 Pour se peindre ces deserts, que Ton se figure, sous un ciel presque 
 toujours ardent et sans nuages, des plaines immenses et a perte de vue, 
 sans maisons, sans arbres, sans ruisseaux, sans montagnes ; quelquefois 
 les yeux s'egarent sur un horizon raz et uni comme la mer. En 
 d'autres endroits le terrein se courbe en ondulations, ou se herisse 
 de rocs et de rocailles. Presque toujours egalement nue, la terre 
 n'offre que des plantes ligneuses clair semees, et des buissons epars, 
 dont la -solitude n'est que rarement troublee par des gazelles, des 
 lievres, des sauterelles, et des rats. Tel est presque tout le pays qui 
 s'etend depuis Alep jusques a la mer d'Arabie, et depuis l'Egypte 
 jusqu'au Golfe Persique, dans un espace de 600 lieues de longueur 
 sur 300 de large." * 
 
 To this striking description of Arabia the province of Yemen, or Arabia 
 Felix, forms the only exception, the inhabitants of which seem always 
 to have led a sedentary life, and to have been united into one kingdom 
 at a very early period of the world ; for, of the forty-two towns which 
 the geographer Abulfeda enumerates in the whole of Arabia, the most 
 ancient and populous were situated in Yemen. The great body of the 
 Arabs, consequently, led a pastoral life, and were little acquainted with 
 agriculture or commerce. But their communication with the strangers 
 who frequented the Arabian ports on the coasts of the Red Sea, the 
 Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean, or their own occasional journeys 
 into Syria, were of much too weak and transient a nature to exert the 
 slightest influence over the language of so extensive a country, or to 
 produce the slightest change in the mode of living of the people. 
 
 The deserts of Arabia, therefore, were as powerful causes, as the 
 
 * Volney, Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, vol. i. p. 34>7. et seq. 
 
THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 25 
 
 peculiar and unsocial customs of the Hebrews, to prevent other nations 
 from maintaining an intercourse with its inhabitants, or from esta- 
 blishing themselves in the country. But the descendants of Ishmael* 
 did not, like the descendants of Isaac, live for eight hundred years in a 
 foreign land, nor did they ever suffer servitude and bondage to a foreign 
 people. The Arabic, consequently, was not liable to be affected and 
 changed, like the language of Abraham f , by the speech of other 
 nations ; nor is there any conceivable cause which could operate any 
 alteration in it, after it was once formed, and the Arabs had taken pos- 
 session of the country which they have inhabited from time imme- 
 morial. The very nature of language shows that, as its sole purpose is 
 to communicate the wants and wishes of man, its copiousness must 
 depend on the ideas which it is required to express ; and it is hence 
 obvious that when a people have adopted a particular mode of life, no 
 other cause than the creation of new wants and new ideas can possibly 
 occasion any accession to their language. But, until the time of Mu- 
 hammad, there appears not the slightest indication in history that the 
 Arabs had ever passed out of their own country, and thus acquired a 
 knowledge of things with which they were before unacquainted, or that 
 strangers had ever introduced into it any new objects of luxury or 
 learning ; and consequently their language, whatever refinement it may 
 have received from the Arabs themselves, must have, in other respects, 
 always remained in its original state, and must have been at all times 
 entirely free from exotic words and phrases. 
 
 The language of the Koran and of the modern Bedoweens, at the same 
 time, proves that Arabic has not been in any manner affected by the 
 languages of the countries which were conquered by the Arabs since the 
 
 * " The present Arabians, according to their own historians, are sprung from two stocks ; 
 Kahtan, the same with Joctan the son of Eber, and Adnan descended in a direct line from 
 Ismael the son of Abraham and Hagar." — Sale's Koran, Preliminary Discourse, p. 11. 
 
 t I must again observe, that the possibility of the language of Abraham remaining in its 
 original state, during the 216 years that he and his family resided in Canaan, and the 430 
 years that the Hebrews abode in Egypt, and the 400 years, from the Exodus to the reign 
 of David, that they dwelt in such intimate connection with the people of Palestine, is so 
 directly contrary to experience, as to render every argument or hypothesis that rests on the 
 assumed originality of the Hebrew language totally untenable. 
 
 E 
 
2g THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 time of Muhammad. In fact, from the period that Moaviah transferred 
 the seat of government from Mecca to Damascus, the further conquests 
 of the Moslems were not effected by the inhabitants of Arabia, but by 
 armies composed of converts made to Islamism, and of the descendants 
 of the conquerors born in the conquered provinces. It seems even 
 highly probable, that, within a century after the death of the prophet, 
 scarcely a single native of Arabia was to be found in the Muhammadan 
 armies. The impulse which he had communicated to the inhabitants 
 of the desert gradually ceased, and the Arabs, with the exception of 
 religion, returned to their former habits and their former mode of life. 
 So little influence, also, did the language of the conquerors exert over 
 that of the conquered, that it found not reception either in Persia or 
 Spain, and established its prevalence only in Syria, where a cognate 
 dialect existed, or in some parts of Africa, where the mixed languages 
 resulting from previous conquest were easily superseded by Arabic. 
 
 But the internal evidence alone of the Arabic language is sufficient 
 to prove its high antiquity and its perfect originality : for, with the 
 exception of a very few Persian and Greek words, not a foreign term 
 is to be discovered in it ; its grammatical structure is rude and im- 
 perfect ; and the number of ideas which its words radically express is 
 extremely limited. These ideas, also, relate entirely to the nature of 
 the country, and to the manner of life of the Arabs ; and any person 
 might obtain, from the mere examination of the Lexicon of Golius, 
 very full and correct information respecting these subjects. I am, at the 
 same time, aware, that, from the high encomiums which so many writers 
 concur in bestowing on the beauty and richness of this language*, the 
 opinion now expressed will most probably be considered as merely 
 hazarded for the sake of singularity, and therefore undeserving of 
 
 * A specimen of these encomiums may be taken from Richardson's preface to his Arabic 
 Grammar, as he has merely condensed into one sentence the principal subjects of panegyric 
 of other writers. " The dialects of their numerous tribes furnished them (the Arabs) with 
 rich mines ; from these they freely borrowed ; and formed from the whole a language 
 sublime, comprehensive, copious, energetic, delicate, majestic ; adapted equally for the 
 softness of love, or the poignancy of satire ; for the mournfulness of elegy, or the grandeur 
 of heroics ; for the simplest tale, or the boldest effort of rhetoric." 
 
THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 27 
 
 attention : but, if it be admitted that words are formed solely for the 
 expression of ideas, it must necessarily follow that the language of a 
 pastoral people, living in such a country as Arabia, but slightly ac- 
 quainted with agriculture and foreign commerce, unused to foreign war, 
 and entirely ignorant of all literature, arts, and science, except such as 
 consisted in the few rude approaches to the latter necessary for their 
 mode of life, and in the cultivation of their own tongue, never could 
 possess either copiousness or elegance. 
 
 Sir William Jones, however, is of opinion that " as the Arabic lan- 
 guage is unquestionably one of the most ancient in the world, so it 
 yields to none ever spoken by mortals in the number of its words, 
 and the precision of its phrases." But a number of words, when they 
 are merely synonymes for one and the same idea, as in Arabic, is the 
 most convincing proof of the barrenness of a language * ; for it incon- 
 trovertibly proves that the people who spoke it, or rather the persons 
 who cultivated it, having become sensible of the monotony arising from 
 the paucity of their ideas being always expressed in the same terms, 
 could devise no other means of producing variety than by the invention 
 of a new word, perhaps at first indicative of some qualification or mo- 
 dification of the original idea. The existence, however, of synonymes 
 in the Arabic language, at least to any extent, is very questionable f, and 
 the number of words, therefore, applies rather to what might be formed 
 according to grammatical rules than to the number which has at any 
 time existed in Arabic : for Sir William Jones observes, " The Arabic 
 roots are universally triliteral, so that the composition of the twenty-eight 
 Arabian letters would give near two and twenty thousand elements of 
 
 * " Tanta copia alias linguas (lingua Arabica) superat ut unius rei appellationes variae 
 earumque applicationes voluminis integri materiam prebeant. Leonis nomina habent 
 quingenta, serpentis ducenta, mellis octoginta, de quibus integrum libellum scripsit Firan- 
 zabadius. Ensis vero appellationes testatur idem esse supra mille, quas in libro a se 
 composito enumeravit. Emphasis vero et apta vocum significatio rerum ipsarum naturam 
 plene exprimentes, phrases porro et formulas tanta gratia et venustate pollent, ut Graecorum 
 XupiTe; cum his collatae a^apiTe; et Latinorum gratiae ingratae videri possint." — Walton, 
 Proleg. 14. 
 
 f I speak merely from what has occurred to me during my study of the language, as I 
 have never examined it for the purpose of ascertaining this particular point. 
 
 E 2 
 
2g THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 the language ; and this will demonstrate the surprising extent of it ; 
 for although great numbers of its roots are confessedly lost, and some, 
 perhaps, were never in use, yet, if we suppose ten thousand of them 
 (without reckoning quadriliterals) to exist, and each of them to admit 
 only five variations, one with another, in forming derivative nouns, even 
 then a perfect Arabic dictionary ought to contain fifty thousand words, 
 each of which may receive a multitude of changes by the rules of 
 grammar." A much more certain mode of ascertaining the extent of 
 the Arabic language would have been to have examined a dictionary, 
 carefully marking such words as were in use, and such as had been 
 merely formed by grammarians ; and it would then, if I be not greatly 
 mistaken, have satisfactorily appeared that the copiousness of Arabic 
 is only in posse and not in esse. 
 
 But to ascribe precision to Arabic is the most extraordinary praise that 
 has ever been bestowed on this language ; for in it, though the nouns 
 have three cases, the verbs have only two tenses, and no moods except 
 the indicative, imperative, and infinitive. Two additional past tenses 
 may, indeed, be formed by the assistance of the substantive verb ; but 
 the verb itself still remains deficient in a present and future tense, and 
 in a conjunctive, potential, and optative mood. These defects are 
 attempted to be remedied by the use of certain particles, which give to 
 the tenses of the Arabic verb a restricted or modified meaning ; but it 
 must be obvious that such a succedaneum can but imperfectly indicate 
 the various modifications of time and action, which are expressed by 
 the moods and tenses of the verbs of any language that is at all perfect. 
 Arabic, also, when written, becomes, in consequence of the imperfection 
 of its alphabet, the most indistinct of all languages : for almost all 
 the inflections of the noun and verb end in a short vowel ; and, as the 
 short vowels are not expressed by alphabetical characters, but by dia- 
 critical points which are in general omitted in writing, it is with the 
 utmost difficulty that it can be determined what the word is which is 
 actually intended, a^ (zrbt), for instance, may be the first person, the 
 second person masculine or feminine, and the third person feminine, of 
 the preterite of the active or passive voice, or it may be a form of the 
 
THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 29 
 
 infinitive of the verb V y£, or it may be a noun, according as the short 
 vowels may be supplied. The diacritical points, also, belonging to the 
 consonants are not unlikely to be omitted, and then three of them may 
 be taken for other letters of the same form. To predicate, therefore, 
 precision of such a language as this must be a strange abuse of terms ; 
 and to suppose it adapted for varied, beautiful, and expressive com- 
 position must be equally erroneous. 
 
 The very genius of the Arabic language consists in its rudeness and 
 imperfection ; for it was most sedulously cultivated for five hundred 
 years *, and yet not the slightest change was effected in its general 
 character, nor was it rendered in any degree more flexible, or better 
 adapted for the purposes of literature. Of this circumstance no more 
 conclusive proof can be required, than the Arabic works produced 
 during this period. These consist of interminable commentaries on 
 the Koran and the traditions, voluminous but subtle disquisitions on 
 Arabic grammar, ponderous works on jurisprudence with still more 
 ponderous glosses, several philosophical works, some meagre histo- 
 ries and a few monotonous collections of poetry -f : but, immensely 
 
 * From the accession of the Abbassides, in 750, until the capture of Bagdad by the 
 Tartars in 1258. 
 
 f The following observations of Sir W. Jones apply equally to modern as to ancient 
 Arabic poetry : — " Sed mos erat perpetuus antiquis Arabum poetis, aut ab amoribus poema 
 ordiri, aut amorum descriptionem medio poemati apte intexere ; deinde equum aut camelum 
 describere, quo vecti ad amicarum tentoria accederent ; et postea ad argumentum prae- 
 cipuum uberius tractandum properare, donee per suavem rerum varietatem carmen 
 deducentes, lapsu quodam molli et aequabili, in clausulam quasi subito caderent. . . . 
 Primum illius (Abi '1 Ola) in laudem principis Said carmen harum literarum cultoribus 
 non minorem affert delectationem, quam Graecae poeseos amatoribus primum et quartum 
 Pythium. Hujus elatissimi poematis illustriores quasdem virtutes exponam. Seipsum 
 initio alloqui videtur, et sententiarum seriem de vanis animse humanas cogitationibus 
 fundit. Mox de sua peregrinatione loquitur ; mulieres quasdam inducit de causa itineris 
 percontantes. Turn, ad principis laudationem facili aperto aditu, in elatam animi exul- 
 tantiam erumpit, et in magnificos versus sese effundit. Deinde bella principis, tanquam 
 venatoris potentissimi, describit. Hinc ad amores suos, more Arabico, transit; et 
 amicam sub juvencae imagine adumbrat. Tempestatem describit ac fulgura ; morales 
 quasdam sententias, ut Pindarus solet, intexit. Hinc occasionem sumit in tribum 
 Badia invehendi, quos inhospitalitatis insimulat; iisque Saidi liberalitatem tanquam 
 exemplum proponit, cujus fortitudinem ac potentiam mirificis coloribus pingit. Mox equum 
 
30 THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 numerous as these works are, the Arabic language, throughout the whole 
 of them, maintains its barren uniformity ; and never is the reader re- 
 freshed by any change in the unvaried structure of the sentences of 
 humbler prose, or in the dull modulation of rhetorical periods ; nor 
 even in poetry is he ever delighted by the variety, sweetness, and 
 beauty, which composition of words and the placing them as best con- 
 duces to harmony can alone bestow on verse. From what has been 
 mentioned of Arabic accidence it is obvious that this uniformity in the 
 structure of its periods could not be avoided ; for the least change in 
 the accustomed place of the noun, or verb, or particle, would at once 
 render the sense ambiguous, if not unintelligible. 
 
 But the peculiar characteristic of Arabic, and what distinguishes it in 
 particular from the other languages treated of in these Researches, is 
 its roots, and the manner in which all the other words are derived 
 from them according to certain grammatical rules. The Sanscrit, it is 
 true, is said by grammarians to be also formed by the same means : but 
 its roots have in themselves no signification, and require several changes 
 before they can be conjugated even as verbs ; and the derivation from 
 them of other words is often so forced and unsatisfactory, as to render 
 it evident that the roots could not have been a constituent part of the 
 original language. In Arabic, on the contrary, the root is the third 
 person singular of the preterite of the verb, and the derivations from it 
 
 principis ob celeritatem ac nobilitatem, Graecorum more, collaudat, et post nobilem gladii 
 prosopopceiam, variasque laudationes, poema claudit." — Sir William Jones's Works, vol. ii. 
 p. 392. 155. 
 
 The above remarks describe with accuracy the subjects which invariably occur in all 
 Arabic poems ; and the deductions which should be made from this strain of panegyric, will 
 be best ascertained by a reference to Sir William's translation of the Moallakat. The 
 smaller pieces of Arabic poetry, however, often possess much sweetness and beauty ; but 
 Dr. Carlyle's Specimens can convey but an imperfect idea of the originals which he has so 
 loosely paraphrased. 
 
 Arabic prose, when written rhetorically, requires that it should consist of periods 
 modulated in a certain cadence ; but such a style, though its occasional occurrence might 
 please, is extremely wearisome and disagreeable in a work of any length. Of humbler 
 Arabic and Hebrew prose a very correct opinion may be formed from reading a page or 
 two of any narrative part of the English Old Testament, and carefully omitting all words 
 that occur in italics. 
 
THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 31 
 
 are conducted in so simple and perspicuous a manner, that their relation 
 to the root becomes at once obvious. It is this circumstance, and the 
 method by which the verb receives various modifications in its original 
 meaning by its being formed into thirteen conjugations, each of which 
 denotes a particular mode of action or passion, that give to the Arabic 
 language, on the first view, so much the appearance of its being the 
 work of philosophical grammarians, and not of a rude race of men 
 scarcely emerged from the savage state. 
 
 This manner of forming a language, peculiar to Arabic and its cog- 
 nate dialects, and so different from the structure of all other languages, 
 is certainly a singularity deserving of attention : but the praises which 
 have been bestowed on it seem to have proceeded from an imperfect 
 consideration of the subject ; for, in the origin and progress of lan- 
 guage, there is no means of determining whether the invention of a 
 new word, or the modification of a word already invented, would be 
 a process of the greater difficulty. The former is the mode which has 
 been adopted by the greatest number of people, as their languages 
 attest; but the Arabic method appears the simplest, and the preserving 
 the letters of a root already in use, and giving it a further signification 
 by the mere addition of other letters, would seem to be a resource that 
 might occur to even the rudest people. It is at least obvious, that this 
 last method must have condemned the language so formed to irre- 
 mediable poverty : because the invention of roots would be regulated 
 entirely by the ideas which it was indispensable for a people to com- 
 municate, in that state of society in which they might be placed ; and, 
 as the Arabs adopted, at a very early period of the world, and have im- 
 memorially adhered to a pastoral life, it is evident that the objects and 
 ideas, for which words were at first required by them, must have been 
 few in number. It seems equally evident that, as their mode of life 
 never changed in its essential character, the new terms that might have 
 become necessary would have been such only as were requisite to ex- 
 press those accidental modes of being, thinking, and acting, a know- 
 ledge of which might be gradually acquired by a pastoral people from 
 long observation and association. For this purpose, therefore, the 
 
32 THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 original roots would have been sufficient. But, had even other words de- 
 noting new and unknown objects become necessary, the impossibility of 
 assimilating them to the peculiar genius of their own language must have 
 prevented them from availing themselves of such new ideas, and from 
 thus augmenting and improving their own barren and inflexible tongue. 
 The peculiarity, also, of such a structure of language renders the com- 
 position of words incompatible with the principles of its formation, 
 and thus deprives it of that resource which has contributed so much to 
 the richness of other languages without their being indebted to foreign 
 assistance. An attentive consideration, consequently, of Arabic and 
 its cognate dialects will, I think, evince that the simplicity and philo- 
 sophical precision of its formation are merely apparent; and that, so far 
 from its structure deserving praise, to it alone must be ascribed the 
 inflexible uniformity, and the want of variety and copiousness of ex- 
 pression, which have been at all times the distinguishing characteristics 
 of the Arabic language. 
 
 The same remarks apply to Hebrew, which, both in its words and its 
 grammatical structure, bears so intimate an affinity to Arabic*, as to 
 render it highly probable that they are both merely dialects of that 
 language which was spoken by the race of men by whom Arabia and 
 Syria f was originally peopled. But the imperfect state in which 
 Hebrew has been preserved, and the impenetrable obscurity which 
 conceals the early history of the world, preclude the possibility of 
 determining the origin from which such Hebrew words as do not exist 
 in Arabic have been derived. They conform, however, in every 
 respect, to the genius of this language ; and they may, therefore, with 
 much probability, be considered as terms which may have become 
 obsolete in it, or as belonging to that dialect of the parent tongue 
 which was at first spoken in Palestine or Canaan. 
 
 Were, therefore, history entirely silent, the peculiar structure of the 
 Arabic and Hebrew would alone prove that they never could have 
 
 * It is universally admitted that the roots of many Hebrew words, now lost, may still be 
 found in Arabic. 
 
 f I mean, of course, Syria in its largest extent. With the Syriac language I am not 
 acquainted ; but its intimate affinity with Hebrew and Arabic has never been disputed. 
 
THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 33 
 
 been the origin of the other languages of the world. But tradition 
 and history sufficiently show that from the particular nature and 
 position of the countries which they inhabited, and from their peculiar 
 mode of life, neither the Hebrews nor Arabs had ever at any time such 
 a communication with other nations as could ever have effected the 
 introduction into their languages of Hebrew or Arabic words. To this 
 conclusion Phenicia forms no objection ; for, if the Phenician language 
 was, as it is generally supposed, an Arabic or Hebrew dialect, the non- 
 existence in Greek of Arabic or Hebrew words* proves that the in- 
 troduction of letters into Greece by Cadmus (if such an event ever 
 happened) operated no change in the language of the country, and all 
 chronologists place the foundation of Carthage posterior to Homer. 
 The colonies of Carthage, therefore, were not established until long 
 after the Greek language was fully formed, and there is every reason 
 to believe that Sanscrit existed in its present state prior to the navi- 
 gations of the Phenicians ; and thus, the only means by which other 
 languages might have been affected by an Arabic dialect, were not in 
 operation until these languages had received such a fixed form and 
 such a currency as must have prevented the admission of foreign terms. 
 In the existing languages, also, of the countries to which the navi- 
 gations of the Phenicians were directed, and in which the colonies of 
 Carthage were established, no vestige of an Arabic dialect can now 
 be found, f It must, therefore, necessarily follow, that that portion 
 of Asia, which comprises Arabia and Syria, was peopled, or at least 
 inhabited from time immemorial, by a distinct race of men, who spoke 
 a language peculiar to themselves ; and that this language, with its 
 cognate dialects, has been at all times confined to these countries, and 
 that it never has extended its influence beyond their limits, except to 
 a small part of Africa. 
 
 * I am aware that it has been asserted (See F. Von Schlegel, Ueber die Sprache und 
 Weisheit der Indier, p. 74.) that the Greek contains more Arabic words than is generally 
 supposed, but, until these words are produced, and their identity established, I must doubt 
 the correctness of this assertion ; for I have never been able to discover any such identical 
 terms. 
 
 f The Arabic words in Spanish must be attributed to the conquest of that country by 
 the Arabs, until the contrary is proved. 
 
 F 
 
34 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 
 
 If I have succeeded in showing that Arabic* could not have been the 
 origin of the other languages of the world, it necessarily follows, that 
 the country in which it ceased to be spoken must have been conter- 
 minous to one in which another distinct language prevailed. To the 
 east of Arabia, therefore, the first country where an original tongue 
 can at this day be found is Persia. But between these two countries, 
 and also extending along the northern boundaries of Arabia and 
 Syria, is interposed that region which is bounded on the west by the 
 Euphrates, and on the east at present by the Tigris, but in early times 
 by Mons Zagros. Here was the seat of the Assyrian empire, and it 
 would, therefore, be desirable to ascertain what was the language 
 which was spoken by the subjects of Belus and Ninus. But the 
 primeval history of this country is involved in the utmost obscurity, 
 and it has been so often conquered as to render it extremely doubtful 
 whether any trace of its ancient language still exists. 
 
 Ancient history, however, both sacred and profane, attests that the 
 first monarchies were established in Babylonia and Assyria. But a 
 difference of opinion prevails respecting the manner in which Gene- 
 sis, x. 11. ought to be understood; and the learned have not yet 
 determined whether it ought to be translated, " Out of this land went 
 Ashur and built Nineveh j " or, " he (Nimrod) went out of this land 
 into Ashur and built Nineveh." If the last be adopted, and the word 
 " Ashur " be understood as denoting a country and not a man, there 
 
 * For the sake of brevity I shall in future comprise under the general term Arabic the 
 Hebrew, Syriac, and other cognate dialects. The German literati have adopted the term 
 Semitic for this family of languages ; but this term seems improper, as it involves an 
 hypothesis and may, therefore, exert an influence on reasoning without its being observed, 
 and the same objection applies to the use of the term Hebrew. 
 
ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 35 
 
 will be found no mention in the Mosaic account of the origin of the 
 Assyrian empire. At the same time the memoirs on this subject 
 inserted in the Histoire de l'Academie des Inscriptions, all written 
 with great fulness and great learning, merely prove that the more 
 carefully the passages relating to it, that are contained in ancient 
 authors, are collected and examined, the greater is the uncertainty 
 which is produced. But it sufficiently appears from them that the 
 only data, entirely free from doubt, from which a conclusion can now 
 be deduced, are the following : — Herodotus states that the Assyrian 
 empire was subverted after it had ruled Upper Asia for 520 years * ; 
 and Diodorus Siculus, on the authority of Ctesias, relates that thirty 
 generations of kings, from Ninus to Sardanapalus (both inclusive), 
 reigned in succession, sons succeeding to fathers, until the revolt of 
 the Medes, which took place after the Assyrian empire had continued 
 for upwards of 1360 years, f The other passages of ancient authors 
 which have been preserved are merely quotations made by later writers 
 from works no longer extant, and consequently there are no means of 
 determining how far they may have been faithfully extracted, or the 
 degree of credit to which they may be entitled..}: 
 
 Volumes have been written on the above two passages, but I shall 
 merely repeat the observation, that the number of generations given by 
 Ctesias is perfectly incompatible with the number of years, as each 
 king would, on an average, have reigned forty-five years, a period which 
 is quite irreconcilable to experience and the common course of nature. 
 But these generations apply accurately to the duration of the Assyrian 
 
 * Herodotus, lib. i. c. 91. 
 
 f Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. 21. 
 
 X See, however, on this subject, a Memoire by M. Treret and the Memoires de l'Aca- 
 demie des Inscriptions, vol. v. p. 331.; but he observes in a following Memoire, "La 
 connaissance que nous avons aujourd'hui de l'ancienne histoire, est presqu'entierement 
 fondee sur diverses citations, que nous trouvons repandues dans les ecrits de l'antiquite. 
 ...Mais, comme ces fragmens laissent souvent des vuides entr'eux ; que plusieurs sont 
 obscurs, et paroissent opposes les uns aux autres, ou avec des histoires dont la suite entiere 
 nous est connue, il ne suffit pas de determiner en general le degre d'autorite des 6crivains 
 dont on employe les fragmens ; il faut encore souvent les interpreter, et les supplier par des 
 conjectures, et des hypotheses, qui ne tirent leur force que de leur probability, et de leur 
 liaison avec le reste de Phistoire." — Ibid. vol. vi. p. 147. 
 
 p 2 
 
36 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 
 
 empire mentioned by Herodotus, as each king's reign would then, on 
 an average, have continued for only seventeen or eighteen years, which 
 is perfectly consistent with probability. I am, therefore, surprised 
 that most writers have contented themselves with adopting either 
 one or other of these accounts, and with arranging their systems 
 accordingly : for, if it be once admitted, as most consonant with 
 probability, that Herodotus and Ctesias both intend the same dynasty, 
 it is only further requisite to suppose that Ctesias, not possessing 
 any information respecting the prior kingdom of Babylon, has 
 confounded with it that of Nineveh, and has ascribed the esta- 
 blishment of the former to the actual founders of the latter. It 
 would, then, merely follow, that the history of the Babylonians had 
 irretrievably perished previous to the time of the first Grecian writer, 
 and that when Herodotus mentions Assyrians he means those of 
 Nineveh only. But the simple circumstance of a monarchy having 
 existed in Babylonia 800 years before it was conquered by Ninus 
 is a fact that might be easily remembered ; and it is, also, one 
 that would have flattered the pride of the conqueror ; as nothing 
 could be a more convincing proof of his greatness and power, than 
 the conquest of a kingdom which had flourished for so many ages. 
 To this supposition the only objection is the silence of Herodotus. 
 But all his works have not reached posterity ; and other ancient 
 writers have expressly ascribed the foundation of the Babylonian 
 monarchy not to Ninus, but to Belus, whose memory was long pre- 
 served by his name having been given to that remarkable tower in 
 Babylon which has been so often described. 
 
 Though, therefore, ancient history does not furnish sufficient proof 
 that Babylon was once a powerful and independent monarchy ; yet 
 it does not in any manner contradict such a supposition, but, on 
 the contrary, records many circumstances which, when combined, 
 depose strongly in its support. Nothing, certainly, can be more 
 probable, than that Babylon might, from small beginnings, have suc- 
 ceeded in extending its authority over the whole of that tract of 
 country which is bounded on the east by the Mons Zagros, on the 
 
BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 37 
 
 north by Armenia, and on the west and south by the Euphrates. 
 In process of time this state declines, and the governor of Nineveh 
 rebels, and renders himself so powerful that either he or his son 
 succeeds in conquering the whole country, and in transferring the 
 sovereignty from the reigning dynasty to his own family. It is, also, 
 to be remarked, that all ancient writers, I believe, agree in the essential 
 fact of there having been only one Assyrian empire, and that none 
 mention the existence, previous to the Ninus of Herodotus, of two 
 contemporary kingdoms, the one at Babylon and the other at Nineveh. 
 It is, therefore, merely requisite, supposing that the accounts of 
 Herodotus and Ctesias relate to the same dynasty, to weigh the 
 probability of the Assyrian monarchy having been founded at Babylon 
 2000 years B. C. according to Ctesias, or at Nineveh only 1200 years B. C. 
 according to Herodotus. * But as the high antiquity of the Babylonians 
 seems sufficiently attested by ancient history, and as the few words 
 of Herodotus do not necessarily imply that a kingdom did not exist 
 in Babylonia previous to Ninus, the number of years assigned to the 
 Assyrian empire by Ctesias seems most consistent with probability. 
 
 As scarcely any events of Assyrian history are related, this point 
 would be of little importance, were it not that, from the centrical 
 situation and acknowledged power of this empire, it is much more 
 probable that language should have been introduced into the adjacent 
 countries by its people than by the Egyptians. Nothing, however, 
 respecting the language of Babylonia can be learned from ancient 
 writers, but modern authors have, on no sufficient grounds, concluded 
 that it was Chaldaic. For Bochart himself admits, " Hanc linguam 
 etsi HebraicEe valde vicinam Judaeos ante captivitatem Babylonicam 
 non intellixisse testatur Jeremias, v. 15.;" and also, "Prima (lingua) 
 est Chaldaea seu Syra quo Daniel et Esdras multa scripserunt, et 
 Jeremias unicum comma, x. 11. "f Adelung, also, is of opinion, that 
 
 * In a paper contained in the second volume of the Transactions of the Bombay Literary 
 Society, I have endeavoured to prove, from Persian and other authorities, that the revolt 
 of the Medes, or rather the Persians, from the Assyrians took place in 749 B. C. 
 
 f Bocharti Opera, vol. i. p. 57. 
 
38 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 
 
 " The most ancient pure Babylonian dialect is unknown : Semitic it 
 certainly was. As little is it known what change the Kushites, an 
 Arabian colony, may have produced in it. After the emigration 
 of the Chaldaeans their dialect became predominant, which Daniel, 
 cap. ii.*, expressly calls Aramasan."']' But Adelung does not clearly 
 explain the reasons which induced him to conclude that the ancient 
 dialect of Babylonia was Semitic, nor does he attempt to fix the date 
 of this supposed immigration of Chaldeans into it, but admits that 
 for many centuries after the time of Jacob the Chaldeans are not 
 mentioned until the conquests of Asarhaddon, 673 B. C."J It there- 
 fore appears that the Jews had no knowledge of the ancient language 
 of Babylonia, and that their intercourse with this country did not 
 take place until after Nineveh had been conquered by the Medes, 
 and a new kingdom established at Babylon : consequently the Old 
 Testament affords no information on the subject ; for, admitting that 
 the language spoken in this latter kingdom was Chaldaic, it follows 
 not that such was the language which previously prevailed in Baby- 
 lonia and Assyria. 
 
 But even this last opinion rests on no sufficient grounds : because 
 the words in Daniel, ii. 4., " Then spake the Chaldeans to the king 
 in Syriac," prove not that the tongue of the Chaldeans was Syriac, 
 but merely that these wise men addressed the king in this language; 
 for, had they spoken in the vernacular tongue of the country, it seems 
 extremely improbable that Daniel would have noticed so trivial a 
 circumstance. Nor do the passages in Daniel and Esdras written in 
 Chaldaic afford more conclusive testimony, as no reasonable cause 
 can be ascribed for this] singularity : for there is no authority what- 
 
 * [" And the king (Nebuchadnezzar) spoke unto Ashpenaz the master of the eunuchs, 
 that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the 
 princes ; children in whom there was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all 
 knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the 
 king's palace, and >whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans." 
 Daniel, i. 3, 4. These texts seem to contradict the interpretation given by Adelung to the 
 one which he cites.] 
 
 -f- Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 329. % Ibid. p. 316. 
 
BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 39 
 
 ever for supposing that the Jews forgot their own language during 
 their seventy years' captivity, and adopted that of the people amongst 
 whom they resided * j and, had this been the case, the whole books of 
 Daniel and Esdras, and not a few passages only, would undoubtedly 
 have been written in this new language, or otherwise they could not 
 have been understood by the Jews. The Chaldaic Targums, also, 
 prove nothing, for the oldest ascends not beyond forty years before 
 Christ, and, consequently, there is no evidence that it is written in the 
 language which prevailed in Babylonia previous to its being conquered 
 by Cyrus in 538 B. C. Nor, with regard to the more ancient language 
 of this country, can any argument be founded on Ur being situated in 
 it, because I have already shown how impossible it is that the present 
 Hebrew can be the language which was spoken by Abraham. 
 
 It must, therefore, be concluded that the ancient tongue of Baby- 
 lonia and Assyria is either extinct, or that it must be sought for in 
 other languages which still exist. It is on this account that I have 
 entered into the preceding discussion ; and it will perhaps be admitted 
 that there is nothing contained either in sacred or profane history, 
 which can contradict any conclusions with respect to this language, that 
 may be formed in the courseof the following researches. 
 
 The only people to whom the unanimous voice of ancient history 
 ascribes the same antiquity as the Babylonians are the Egyptians. 
 From Egypt, also, the Greeks admitted that they had derived in a 
 great measure their people, their language, and their religion. But 
 the only authority on which the truth of these circumstances depends, 
 is the relation made to Grecian travellers by the priests of Egypt. 
 No written documents have ever been examined or produced ; and all, 
 therefore, that is known respecting the ancient state of this country 
 appears in a form the most questionable and liable to objection : for, 
 were it even admitted that the Egyptian priests communicated to 
 strangers nothing but the truth, still innumerable mistakes might arise 
 
 * As it appears, also, that Daniel, and the greatest part of the Jewish captives, lived in 
 Persia, it must follow, that had the Jews changed their language for that of the country, 
 this language must have been Persian and not Chaldaic. 
 
40 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 
 
 from the stranger's imperfect knowledge of the Egyptian language, 
 and from the difficulty that exists in understanding an explanation of 
 things previously unknown ; and, were even these causes of error 
 avoided, the information obtained must always depend on the abilities 
 of the enquirer, and its accurate transmission on his freedom from pre- 
 conceived opinions and prejudice. The accounts, consequently, given 
 by ancient writers, of the Egyptians cannot be received as conclusive; 
 and their authority may, therefore, be rejected, whenever it is incon- 
 sistent with probability, or repugnant to facts established on sufficient 
 evidence. 
 
 But an examination of the early history of this country, which has 
 exercised the skill of so many learned men, is unnecessary ; because, 
 with the exception of the conquests of Osiris and Sesostris, and the 
 colonies that may have proceeded from Egypt, it is not related that the 
 Egyptians ever traversed or occupied other countries. The Egyptians, 
 also, considered themselves to be autochthones ; but it is most probable 
 that their country was peopled from Arabia or Syria, and, consequently, 
 that their original language was Arabic. Volney, however, observes : 
 " En considerant le visage de beaucoup d'individus de cette race 
 (Copte), je lui ai trouve un caractere particulier qui a fixe mon atten- 
 tion : tous ont un ton de peau jaunatre et fumeux, qui n'est ni Grec ni 
 Arabe ; tous ont le visage bouffi, 1'ceil gonfle, le nez ecrase, la levre 
 grosse ; en un mot, une vraie figure de Mulatre. J'etais tente de 
 l'attribuer au climat, lorsqu'ayant ete visiter le sphinx ; son aspect me 
 donna le mot de l'enigme. En voyant cette tete caracterisee negre dans 
 tous ces traits, je me rappelai ce passage remarquable d'Herodote, ou 
 il dit : pour moi, jestime que les Colches sont une colonie des Egyptiens, 
 parceque, comme eux, Us ont la peau noire et les chevaux crtpus : c'est-a- 
 dire que les anciens Egyptiens etaient vrais negres de l'espece de tous les 
 naturels d'Afrique." He adds, with justice : " On peut meme donner 
 a cette observation une etendue tres-generale ; et poser en principe, 
 que la physionomie est une sorte de monument propre en bien des cas 
 a constater ou eclaircir les temoionages de l'histoire, sur les origines 
 des peuples. Parmi nous, un laps de neuf cents ans n'a pu effacer la 
 
BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 4]. 
 
 nuance qui distinguait les habitans des Gaules, de ces hommes du Nord, 
 qui, sous Charles-le-Gros, vinrent occuper la plus riche de nos provinces. 
 Les voyageurs qui vont par mer de Normandie en Danemarck, parlent 
 avec surprise de la ressemblance fraternelle des habitans de ces deux con- 
 trees, conservee malgre la distance des lieux et des temps. La merae 
 observation se presente, quand on passe de Franconie en Bourgogne ; 
 et si Ton parcourait avec attention la France, 1' Angleterre, ou toute autre 
 contree, on y trouverait la trace des emigrations ecrite sur la face des 
 habitans. Les Juifs n'en portent- ils pas d'ineffaeables en quelque 
 lieu qu'ils soient etablis ? " * 
 
 The only objection which can be made to this opinion, arises from 
 ignorance of the manner in which the world was originally peopled ; 
 for, according to the notions which are imbibed from infancy, it is 
 difficult to conceive how Ethiopia could have been inhabited before 
 Egypt. It seems, also, much more probable, that any tribes who mi- 
 grated from Arabia would have occupied Egypt long before they were 
 induced to pass over the Red Sea into Africa. But the remarks of 
 Volney, with respect to the features and hair of the ancient Egyptians, 
 are confirmed by the remains of their painting and sculpture ; and 
 Diodorus Siculus relates that the Ethiopians considered themselves 
 more ancient than the Egyptians, and asserted that the latter sprung 
 from an Ethiopian colony which had been led into Egypt by Osiris, f 
 
 * Volney, Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, vol. i. p. 74. 
 
 f Diodorus Siculus, lib. iii. c. 2, 3. 
 
 This was the opinion of Bruce, and it is further supported by Dr. A. Murray, who sums 
 up his arguments in these words : — 
 
 " But the points which have been attempted to be proved from the preceding arguments 
 are precisely these : 
 
 " Egypt was not peopled from Arabia, as is commonly believed ; for, 
 
 " 1. The Coptic and Arabic languages are radically different, and were so in the days of 
 Abraham. 
 
 " 2. The religion of Egypt (as has been shown elsewhere) is older than the days of 
 Joseph ; and bears internal marks of having been the native product of that country. 
 
 " 3. Egypt was peopled from south to north, from the Thebaid ; for the Delta, that 
 part of Egypt contiguous to Arabia, seems to have been originally uninhabitable, except a 
 small space about the extremities of the marsh ; and history assures us, that the inhabitants 
 of Upper Egypt descended and drained the country. 
 
 " 4.. It is improbable that an Arabian colony under Misrim (a word which does not signify 
 
42 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 
 
 If, also, the Egyptian language contributed in any degree to the form- 
 ation of the Greek, it could not have been Arabic, or one of its cognate 
 dialects ; because not an Arabic word can now be found in Greek, 
 and the grammatical structure of the two languages is radically dis- 
 similar. Probability, therefore, seems to establish the Arabian peopling 
 of Egypt, but physiognomy and perhaps language lead to a contrary 
 conclusion. 
 
 Could it, however, be proved that the Coptic was the ancient 
 language of Egypt, this circumstance might be extricated from the 
 obscurity in whicli it is at present involved ; for l'Abbe Barthelemy 
 has remarked, — " Nous avons done entre nos mains la veritable langue 
 des Egyptiens, et tandis que le moindre monument de ce peuple 
 celebre occupe depuis deux siecles les antiquaires, tandis que d'intre- 
 pides grammairiens ont depense beaucoup d'esprit et de temps a deve- 
 lopper les autres langues, on a presque entierement neglige celle ou une 
 nation eclairee, ancienne et puissante, a depose la plus grande partie 
 de ses idees."* But the preservation of a language, not cultivated nor 
 committed to books, for nearly 1500 years, and while the country was 
 occupied by three distinct races of conquerors, is so contrary to 
 probability as to require the most full and satisfactory evidence, in 
 order to render such a circumstance in the least degree credible. That 
 a number of ancient Egyptian words may exist in Coptic is possible, and 
 a collection of them might enable the philologist to determine the 
 affinity which that tongue bears to other languages f : but, as it is 
 
 a man, but two kingdoms,) would have crossed Syria from Babylon by the Isthmus of Suez, 
 and wandered as far south as Thebes to found its first settlement." — Bruce's Travels, 
 8vo ed. vol. ii. p. 479. 
 
 * Memoires de 1'Academie des Inscriptions, vol. xxxii. p. 218, 219. 
 
 f " Le langage est un autre monument dont les indications ne sont pas moins justes ni 
 moins instructives. Celui dont usaient ci-devant les Coptes, s'accorde a constater les faits 
 que j'etablis. D'un cote, la forme de leurs lettres et la majeure partie de leurs mots, 
 demontrent que la nation Grecque, dans un sejour de mille ans, a imprime fortement son 
 empreinte sur l'Egypte ; mais d'autre part, l'alphabet Copte a cinq lettres, et le dictionnaire 
 beaucoup de mots qui sont comme les debris et les restes de l'ancien Egyptien." — Volney, 
 Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, vol. i. p. 77. 
 
BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 43 
 
 admitted that numerous Greek and Arabic words occur in Coptic, in 
 what manner can their origin be proved ; or can it be shown whether the 
 Egyptians received them from the Greeks and Arabs, or the contrary ? 
 for the present grammatical structure of the Coptic cannot be admitted 
 as a proof, until some writing anterior to the time of Cambyses is pro- 
 duced, and it is there found to be exactly the same.* 
 
 But, whatever may have been the ancient language of the Egyptians, 
 it seems incontrovertible that they differed essentially from the Arabs 
 and Syrians in customs, institutions, and religion ; and, consequently, 
 that, if Egypt were peopled from Arabia, it must have received its 
 civilisation from some other country. The very brief accounts which 
 ancient writers have given of the Arabs and Syrians, do not afford the 
 means of drawing any detailed comparison between them and the 
 Egyptians ; but this very circumstance proves that there must have 
 been some peculiarity in the polity of the latter, which so much at- 
 tracted the attention of strangers. The cause of that peculiarity has, 
 in later times, been discovered in India, where the same system of civil 
 and religious institutions, in their essential principles, prevails at the 
 present day ; the same division into casts, the same objects of wor- 
 ship, the same form of government so intimately connected with 
 religion and subservient to the pre-eminence of the priesthood f, 
 strongly attest that systems so similar must have been derived from 
 one and the same origin. The universal belief, also, of the Greeks that 
 their gods were the same as those of the Egyptians, and their thus 
 considering Egypt as the source of their religion, while they derived 
 their letters from Phenicia, evince that they regarded the two countries 
 
 * Dr. A. Murray is, however, of opinion that " the Coptic is an original tongue, for it 
 derives all its indeclinable words and particles from radicals pertaining to itself. Its verbs 
 are declined from its own resources. There is no mixture of any foreign language in its 
 composition except Greek, which is easily distinguished, and as easily accounted for." — 
 Bruce's Travels, 8vo ed. vol. ii. p. 473. 
 
 f The sanctity of the cow may be added : but in mentioning this circumstance Hero- 
 dotus is evidently inconsistent ; for he restricts this sanctity to the female, and states that 
 the male was sacrificed and eaten. But Apis and Mneves were bulls, and he himself relates 
 that it was repugnant to the customs of the Egyptians to eat the flesh of any of their sacred 
 animals. 
 
 G 2 
 
44 
 
 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 
 
 in a different point of view. Nothing, in fact, can be found in ancient 
 writers which in the least assimilates the Arabians and Syrians to the 
 Egyptians, and the latter, therefore, must, if not in origin, at least in 
 civilisation, be considered as belonging to a distinct family of mankind. 
 But it seems obvious, from their distance and relative position, that 
 India could not have commu cated her institutions to Egypt ; and, as I 
 presume no argument will be founded on the conquests of Osiris and 
 Sesostris, that India could not have received them from Egypt. 
 Some intermediate country, therefore, must have existed, by means of 
 which this communication was effected ; and Babylonia immediately 
 presents itself as the only one which, from its acknowledged antiquity, 
 its centrical situation, and the power of the Assyrian empire, could have 
 introduced its customs, laws, and religion into other countries at an 
 early period, of the world. For this purpose, however, conquest was 
 not indispensable, but merely the migration of colonies ; and if the first 
 men inhabited this country, which seems very probable, the tide of 
 population must have necessarily flowed to the west and the east. Nor, 
 in so fruitful a country, is it necessary to suppose that these colonies 
 would branch off until numbers began to press on the means" of sub- 
 sistence ; nor until, therefore, a considerable degree of civilisation had 
 been attained : and, consequently, the colonists would have carried 
 with them a knowledge of the civil and religious institutions of their 
 country. This supposition is not, I believe, in contradiction to any 
 thing contained in ancient writers, excepting these words of Diodorus 
 Siculus : — " The Egyptians say that after this many colonies from 
 Egypt were spread over the world ; one of these Belus, the reputed 
 son of Neptune and Libya, led to Babylon, which is situated on the 
 river Euphrates, and established the priests, whom the Babylonians 
 call Chaldean, and whom he exempted, according to the Egyptian 
 custom, from taxes and public burdens."* But Brucker observes that, 
 " Although the Egyptians contended with the Chaldeans respecting 
 their antiquity, and maintained that Chaldea was a colony of Egypt, 
 
 * Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. 28. 
 
BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 
 
 45 
 
 and therefore boasted that they were the parents and teachers of all 
 that learning for which the Chaldeans had become so famous ; yet the 
 testimony of the ancients, agreeing with what is related of the origin 
 of the most ancient nations, proves that the kingdom of Babylon flou- 
 rished before the monarchy of Egypt, and that the Chaldeans were not 
 in any manner indebted for their learning to the Egyptians."* The 
 contrary may, therefore, appear most probable ; and the civilisation of 
 Egypt and the establishment of its peculiar frame of government may 
 be with much justice ascribed to Babylonia; 
 
 * Historia Critica Philosophise, vol. i. p. 102. 
 
46 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 In proceeding to consider the Greek, Latin, and Teutonic languages, 
 I find my progress impeded by the opinions of several learned men, 
 who ascribe their origin either to the Celtic or Scythic. For Wachter, 
 in Epilogo Glossarii sui, observes, — " Qui linguam Celticam tanquam 
 matrem Germanicae suspiciunt, sequuntur opinionem valde verisimilem, 
 et longi temporis traditione comprobatam, ut de rei ipsius testimonio 
 nunc nihil dicam. Verum dum iidem Graeca omnia, quamvis mani- 
 festo similia, fastidiunt, et ad fortuitas allusiones rejiciunt, causam 
 bonam male tuentur, et veram linguae Celticae faciem aut ignorare aut 
 dissimulare videntur, nam lingua Celtica Graecae adeo similis est, sem- 
 perque fuit ab omni retro memoria, ut ovum ovo similius esse non 
 possit. Hujus similitudinis documenta praebent innumerae voces Cel- 
 ticae, quae partim ab historicis sunt consignatae, partim apud Cambro- 
 
 Britannos hodieque perdurant Causa, cur tanta sit inter linguam 
 
 Celticam et Graecam convenientia, ut major esse non possit, quatuor 
 modis concipi potest. 1. Si lingua Celtica et Graeca sint sorores, et 
 filiae alicujus antiquioris, sive Scy.thicae, sive primigeniae, quorum illud 
 Salmasio, hoc Cluverio, se probavit. Tunc enim manifestum est, cur 
 facies sit non una duabus, 
 
 " ' Nee diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum.' 
 
 2. Si omnes Celtae sint a Graecis orti, quod non dubitavit asseverare 
 Bodinus in Methodo Historiarum. 3. Si Graeci voces suas, in quibus 
 est conformitas, acceperint a Celtis, quod multo eruditionis apparatu 
 ostendere conatur Pezuonius in Antiquitatibus Celticis. 4. Si omnia 
 Graeca sint contagia Celticae linguae affricta a commercio Graecorum, 
 qui Massiliam condiderunt, quod contra Bodinum demonstrandum 
 
 suscepit Cluverius Quaenam ex tot suppositionibus potissimum 
 
 assumenda est, ego ignoro, et nostra parum referre puto. Nam ex 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 47 
 
 dictis abunde manifestum est, si lingua Germanica sit dialectus Celtica 
 qua via, aut quibus hominibus, tot vocabula Graecis similia ad nos 
 pervenerint, quacumque suppositione utamur. 
 
 " Pone vero omnia, quag nobis Celtica videntur, a Scythis profecta 
 esse, ratio igitur reddenda erit, cur tarn magnus et incredibilis numerus 
 vocabulorum, quae non solum sono sed etiam significatu cum Graecis 
 conveniunt, in lingua nostra reperiatur, si Scythicae originis sit ? Nam 
 omnes istas consensiones meras assonantias esse, felices quidem, sed 
 nescio quo casu factas, non placet. Quicquid a summis viris excogitatum 
 est, ad duas rationes principales, parentelam et mixturam, reduci potest. 
 De parentela ita disserit Salmasius in Hellenistica, ut linguam 
 Scythicam Graecae et Germanicae matrem fuisse ostendat. . . . Atqui si 
 veritati consentaneum est, Scythicam linguam esse Gothicae parentem, 
 et Graecae sororem, qui fieri potest, ut neptis materterae omnino dis- 
 similis sit ? Merito igitur Junius in quasstione de ortu vocabulorum, 
 Graecam dictionem, quoties nostram refert, nobis pro etymo ostendit. 
 Nam hanc ostendisse, satis magnificum est, quoniam in ilia tanquam 
 speculo Scythicae vocis imaginem, nullis Uteris proditam, quodammodo 
 contemplari possum us. Altera similitudinis causa peti potest a mix- 
 tura. Nota est Scytharum et Graecorum ab ultimis inde temporibus 
 vicinitas, nota etiam commercia. . . . Hac via multa Graecos a Scythis, 
 multa Scythas a Graecis accepisse et propagasse, judicat Salmasius. . . . 
 Quod si pro vero accipiatur (et nihil accipere vetat), consequens est, 
 fines utriusque linguae tarn esse permixtos, ut hodie amplius discerni 
 non possint." 
 
 He observes in another place, — " Hanc utriusque [Persicae et Ger- 
 manicae] linguae harmoniam, quae omnibus temporibus doctissimos viros 
 stuporem rapuit, si quis casu factam contendat, nae ille parum harmonice 
 factus est. * Non equidem hoc volo, ut Germaniam a Perside, vel 
 hanc ab ilia, voces suas accepisse existimetis, sed ut similia ad similes 
 et communes ortus mecum redigatis, matricem inquam Scythicam, 
 nobilem sane, et utrique genti convenientem. Scythas enim non 
 
 * See p. 154. of this work, where the supposed identity of the Persian and German 
 languages is examined. 
 
48 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 solum in Europa (quod supra demonstravi), sed etiam in Asia, genus 
 et linguam suam proseminasse, multa nobis persuadent." * 
 
 But who were these Scythians, and what language did they speak ? 
 On these points the opinions of all writers, except Pinkerton, are vague, 
 inconsistent, and unsatisfactory. He, however, gravely states, — " From 
 these smaller lights, compared with Trogus or Justin, it will appear as 
 evident as so remote an event can well be, that the Scythian empire 
 was the first of which any memory has reached us. And it is a plausible 
 opinion, adopted by late mythologists, that Saturn, Jupiter, Bacchus, 
 &c, were monarchs of this first empire, whose glorious actions pro- 
 cured them honours from their subjects after their death. This empire 
 was perfectly barbaric, and the seat of war not of arts. All nations, 
 save the Egyptians, were then pastoral, and the Scythians, as described 
 by Herodotus, on the Euxine were certainly more advanced in society 
 than when holding the empire of Asia ; for agriculture was then known 
 to one or two nations of them, which there is no room to think they 
 knew at all in their first empire. The wandering state of pastoral 
 society will at once account for so many of the Scythae leaving their 
 dominions, on the Assyrian conquest, that eastern tradition reported 
 the dispersion of men to have followed that event. But, no doubt, vast 
 numbers still remained in Persia. Herodotus and Diodorus only 
 mention the Scythae Nomades of the north of Persia to have past the 
 Araxes ; and the Scythae in the south remained, and were ever known 
 by the name of Persians, as at this day. . . . We have already seen that 
 the Scythian empire, in present Persia, is the most ancient of which 
 history has preserved any memorial. This curious subject shall not 
 be here enlarged upon, but is left to some future historian of the 
 Scythians. This empire seems to have extended from Egypt to the 
 Ganges, and from the Persian Gulph and Indian Sea to the Cas- 
 pian. j 
 
 * Wachteri Glossarium, in praefatio. 
 
 f Pinkerton's dissertation on the Scythians or Goths, p. 27. 32. 
 
 But no authorities are quoted for this elaborate description of the primeval Scythian 
 empire commencing before 3660 B. C ; and, although the name of history is made use of, 
 I know no historian from whom it could be taken, except Annius of Viterbo. 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. 49 
 
 But, that the Scythians were even known in the time of Homer, 
 depends entirely on the meaning which is given to these lines, the only 
 ones to be found in his two immortal poems, which have ever, I believe, 
 been applied to these people, 
 
 Mvcruv t ay^£fioix uv t J4a ' ayotvuv t l7f7rvjfJi.oXyuv i 
 TyaKTofyayW) AQiuv t£ otzxiorccTuv ccvB^onruv* 
 
 Strabo has given an interesting criticism on these verses, and maintains 
 that Homer must have been acquainted with the Scythians * ; but his 
 arguments are founded on circumstances of too general a nature to 
 admit of any pastoral people being identified by them. The two 
 verses, also, preceding these, 
 
 AvTog h ttolKiv rp£7T£!/ otrcre (puetveo, 
 
 would seem to prove sufficiently that the 'iTnr^oXyoi, VXu-nTo^otyot, and 
 a£;o/ must have been a Thracian people, and Strabo himself contends 
 that the Mvcroi were Thracians. It therefore follows, that Herodotus is 
 the earliest ancient writer who has given any account of the Scythians, 
 and he expressly declares, 'Hg h Zkv9ou Xeyovcri, vecoTctrov ccttocvtuv tOvsuv etvoa 
 
 to o-<p£Tepoi/-f ; and he adds, that the Scythians were of opinion that 
 exactly one thousand years had elapsed from Targitaus, their first 
 king, until their country was invaded by Darius, about 500 years before 
 Christ. 
 
 To oppose, consequently, to the authority of Herodotus, such a 
 writer as Justin, who hesitates not to assert, that " his igitur argu- 
 ments superatis Egyptiis, antiquiores semper Scythae visi," can proceed 
 only from the spirit of hypothesis : but, were even the very imper- 
 fect notices which he has given of the Scythians not contradicted 
 by other writers (as in the instance of his stating, " His (Scythis) 
 igitur Asia per mille quingentos annos vectigalia fuit,") to be consi- 
 dered as entitled to any attention, in what manner could the country 
 
 * Strabo, ed. Amstel. p. 298. et seq. f Herod, lib. iv. c. 15. 
 
 H 
 
50 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 which they inhabited be determined by such a geographical description 
 as this, " Scythia autem in Orientem porrecta includitur ab uno 
 latere Ponto, et ab altero montibus Riphaeis, a tergo Asia et Phasi 
 flumine?" The only event, also, mentioned by Justin, the date of 
 which can be ascertained, is stated in these words, " Pendendi tributi 
 (Scythis) finem Ninus rex Assyriorum imposuit." But Ninus flourished, 
 according to the received system of chronology, 1267 years before 
 Christ*; and, consequently, if the Scythians had held the dominion of 
 Asia for 1500 years previously, their empire must have commenced one 
 hundred years before the flood. Mr. Pinkerton, indeed, asserts that 
 the Scythians made an attack on Egypt in the year 3660 B. C. 
 
 All discussions, at the same time, respecting the Scythians are ren- 
 dered obscure and perplexed, in consequence of both ancient and 
 modern writers employing the words Scythia and Scythians in so 
 vague and indefinite a manner, that it is scarcely ever possible to de- 
 termine what particular country or people is intended, whenever these 
 terms are used without qualification. But the opinion entertained by 
 Herodotus on this point is thus explained by Rennell : — " The country 
 of Scythia he (Herodotus) places next in order to Thrace, going north- 
 eastward along the shores of the Euxine and Maeotis. Where Thrace 
 ends Scythia begins, says he, Melp. 99. It will appear, however, that the 
 Scythians of Herodotus were the Sarmatae and Getae of the Romans ; 
 and his Massagetae the Scythians of the same people, as well as of the 
 
 Greeks in general, from the date of Alexander's expedition The 
 
 ancients distinguished two countries by the name of Scythia, the one 
 extending along the north of the Euxine, the other beyond the Caspian 
 
 and Jaxartes The Western, or Euxine Scythia, was the one invaded 
 
 by Darius Hystaspes ; on which occasion the Ionians, by preserving 
 his bridge of boats on the Danube, secured his retreat ; and the Eastern 
 Scythia, called also the country of the Massagetae, was the one invaded 
 by Cyrus ; in which, according to our author as well as Justin and 
 Diodorus, he lost his life So that the proper Scythians of Hero- 
 
 * But, according to other systems, 2127 B.C. 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. 51 
 
 dotus were those at the Euxine ; and those of succeeding writers at 
 the Caspian (or rather Aral) and Jaxartes." * 
 
 It deserves, also, to be observed, that if a line be drawn from the 
 western extremity of the Euxine along its southern shores due east to 
 Mons Imaus, and thence along that mountain to the Gulf of Bengal, 
 it will divide Asia into two perfectly distinct parts. For to the south 
 of this line are situated Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, Babylonia, Armenia, 
 Persia, and Hindustan ; all which countries have been known to his- 
 tory from the remotest antiquity, and, therefore, respecting their early 
 progress in civilisation no doubt can be entertained. Their languages, 
 also, remain at this day, in all probability, radically the same as they 
 were spoken more than three thousand years ago. But, to the north 
 of the line just mentioned, the country continues even to the present 
 times almost a terra incognita. Nothing more is known of it than that 
 it has been inhabited from time immemorial by nomadic tribes, dis- 
 tinguished by the manners and customs peculiar to their mode of life. 
 But not a single circumstance has ever been discovered which evinces 
 that these people had made the smallest progress in civilisation ; or 
 that they ever were qualified to communicate a cultivated language, 
 civil institutions, and a religious system, to other nations. On the con- 
 trary, the devastations and barbarity which have always attended, in 
 later times, the invasions of Tartar hordes, may be received as a very 
 strong presumption that such would inevitably have been the conse- 
 quences of similar invasions at a more remote period. 
 
 Leibnitz, however, observes, " Sane si ratum est homines Europae ex 
 Oriente quasi solis motum secutos venisse ; apparet hominum examina 
 instar sacri veris, ex Scythia progressa, Tanai, Istroque transmissis, 
 partim in occidentem, id est in Illyricum, Pannoniam, Germaniamque 
 penetrasse, unde tandem in Italiam, Galliam, Hispaniam progressi 
 sunt posted ; partim ad meridiem flexos in Thraciam, Macedoniam 
 Grseciamque vertisse : ubi serius ex Phoenicia et Egypto coloniae 
 supervenere ; unde litterae Graecorum Phceniciis, sacra etiam Egyptiis, 
 
 * RennelPs Geographical System of Herodotus, p. 46, 47. 
 
 H 2 
 
52 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 debentur. Sed Scythse fundamentum (ut sic dicam) jecere gentis 
 Graecorum, ut Celtae Italorum. Scytharum nomine hoc loco peran- 
 tiquos Euxini maris accolas intelligimus, quocunque nomine venerint. 
 Cimmerios illic Homerus* collocavit, hos a Scythis Herodotus 
 distinxit." f 
 
 But, adopting the name of Scythians in this restricted sense, it is ob- 
 vious that between them and the rest of Europe were interposed the 
 numerous and far extended people of Thracia ; and that, until they had 
 conquered or displaced them, the Scythians could not have exerted any 
 influence over the languages and civilisation of Europe. Of this ob- 
 jection most writers seem to be aware, and they therefore attempt to 
 prove, either that Thracia was occupied by the Scythians, or that the 
 Thracians were the same people as the latter. But, if this last sup- 
 position be admitted, it seems evident that the term Scythian, the use 
 of which is derived from Herodotus, ought to be discontinued ; be- 
 cause he distinguishes most clearly the Thracians from the Scythians, 
 and even ascribes an Asiatic origin to the latter ; for he expressly says, 
 
 Eo-n ae koci aXXog Xoyog f/uv code' tu fA.uXt(TToc Xeyopevu avrog 7rpo<r)tet[Aixr Y,uv&<xg 
 rovg vouaoocg, oitctovTag ev tyi Acnr, TtoXtfJico 7reto~9evTeg wrro Ma.(ro~ot.yeTeu)v i ot^scSui 
 SiuQavreg TTOTUftov Apa^ea £7n yvjv tv\v K.i[/,[/.ep>viv' tvjv yap vvv vz^ovtm £>cu$a/, 
 uvTvi XsytTcti roiva.Xot.ioy stvcu Kipptpiuv. J It is, however, impossible to learn 
 from subsequent writers any further circumstances respecting these 
 Scythians, than what has been related by Herodotus ; or even, as far 
 as I have been able to ascertain, any particulars respecting the eastern 
 part of the country, which he represents them to have inhabited. 
 
 * The words of Homer are, 
 
 H^ sj 7re»p«S' ihuvs SuSuppoov ilxsavojo* 
 
 EvfiaSs Kjju.ju.epiwv ai/Spwv Sy^os te, 7roXij t£, 
 
 Hep» xa« veipeXjj KSKuXufx^svoi' ouSe ttot' «utooj 
 
 'HsXtoj <pcte8wv sTndepxiTcti axTivs<r<riv, 
 
 Ov$" ottot a.v OTeip£]jo-» 7rpoj ovpuvov CMTTSpOeVTX, 
 
 Oofl' otccv «\J/ S7T» ycticiv sot' ovpctvoQsv TrpoTpavrjTUf 
 
 A\\' £*i Vu£ OKOy] T£T«T«J §SlA0J<7» SpOTOiCI. 
 
 f Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 189. t Herod, lib. iv. c. 1 ] . 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. 53 
 
 If, however, the other opinion is adopted, it will perhaps be urged 
 that it was anterior to the time of Herodotus that the Euxine Scythians 
 introduced their language, manners, and religion into Europe. In this 
 case, being deserted by all authority, the hypothesis must depend en- 
 tirely on its own internal probability, and on any collateral circumstances 
 that may have an unforced tendency to support it. But whence and 
 at what time did these Scythians come and establish themselves on the 
 Euxine * ? and on what grounds is it assumed that they were, twelve 
 or thirteen hundred years before Christ, so numerous and powerful' as 
 to effect the conquests enumerated by Leibnitz ? Until, however, these 
 questions are satisfactorily answered, it must seem utterly improbable 
 that a people who had attained no further stage of civilisation than that 
 described by Herodotus and who were divided into a number of dis- 
 tinct and widely dispersed tribes, could possibly have exerted any 
 influence whatever over the nations of Europe. Nor, had they 
 ever conquered other countries, and introduced into them their 
 language and manners, can any cause be assigned, which could 
 have prevented some traces at least of such important changes from 
 having been preserved until the time of Herodotus. But, on the con- 
 trary, he carefully distinguishes the Euxine Scythians from the neigh- 
 bouring people, and expressly declares, c O <Je itovTog EvPavog, e<p' ov eo-.Tpa- 
 
 reveTO Aaps<r?, '/a^zuv Trotcrzuiv Tra^e^erou, e^co tov ZkvQikov, s9veas otfAadeiTToiTot' ovte 
 yap sQvog tvTog tov TIovtov ouSev txopev TrpoCc&XttrOo&t trotptrjg 7rspi f ovte otvdpot Xoytov 
 oi$oc{a.£v yevopivov 7rape,? tov EkvQikov eOveog, icon Ai/ap^apax- And he further 
 remarks, 3eiviK0«rt vopotionri kui ovtoi (ol ZkvQui} aivug xpoto~()ou (pevyovtrt, fty toi 
 
 * Jornandes, indeed, says, " Ex hac igitur Scanzia insula quasi officina gentium, aut certe 
 velut vagina nationum, Gothi quondam memorantur egressi .... Haec igitur pars Gothorum, 
 quae apud Filimer, dicitur in terras Ovim emenso amne transposita, optatum potita solum. Nee 
 mora, ilico ad gentem Spalorutn adveniunt, consertoque praelio, victoriam adipiscuntur : 
 exindeque jam veluti victores ad extremam Scythiae partem, quae Pontico Mari vicina est, 
 properant: quemadmodum et in priscis eorum carminibus, pene historico ritu, in commune 
 recolitur : quod et Ablabius descriptor Gothorum gentis egregius verissima adtestatur 
 historia." — Jornandes de Reb. Get. cap. iv. 
 
 But Leibnitz himself observes, " Ego Jornandis autoritatem non plane contemno, etsi non 
 semper tutam fatear, praesertim in remotis, nee satis cohaerentia narrare deprehendam." — 
 Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 196. 
 
54 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 yt tuv ccXXyXuv, ' EXXvjvikokti Je xo&t yKHTTot, ug $<s$e£oiv Ava^^c-tg tb kcci ^evrspoi 
 oajTtg LKV^yg. * 
 
 The reasoning of Leibnitz, in opposition to such authority and to 
 such arguments as irresistibly proceed from it, must be admitted to be 
 altogether improbable and inconclusive. " Contra Germanos," says 
 he, " cum ab oriente utique hue venerint, ex Scythia potius et Ponti 
 Euxini vicinia ad Danubium Rhenumque venisse, vel ideo credibilius 
 est quod certis testimoniis veterum constat in illis regionibus olim 
 habitasse Germanicas gentes. f Quin etsi deesset antiquorum autoritas, 
 tamen res ipsa quod dicimus comprobaret. Nam ante pauca adhuc 
 cum Genuenses in Taurica dominarentur, illic habitabant Germani, et 
 vix ante seculum quoque Germanicae reliquiae in eadem religione 
 superstites memorantur. Et licet hodie fortasse nulla amplius ad 
 Pontum Euxinum supersint vestigia Germanorum, non magis quam 
 in Finnonia, et rerum conversionibus nihil novum sit stirpitus tandem 
 evelli veteres colonos, multum tamen interest inter ea, qute compro- 
 
 BANTUR NON MINUS QUAM DICUNTUR, ET EA QUJE DICUNTUR TANTUM J 
 ITEMQUE INTER MIGRATIONES SEDESQUE, quarum diu adhuc superfuere 
 INDICIA, ET EAS QUARUM NEC EXTAT MEMOR1A, NEC RELIQUIiE ALIQUANDO 
 
 extitisse memorantur .... Quod si ergo Germanicas gentes prius ad 
 Tanaim et Euxinum Pontum, vicinaque in Scythia habitavere, quam 
 in Finnonia et Suecia, cuivis jam aestimandum relinquo, utrum factu 
 credituque sit facilius, a Tanai ad Danubium Albimque et Rhenum 
 rectissimo apertissimoque, quin etiam commodissimo usitatissimoque 
 itinere ventum fuisse, quam omne genus Germanicum mirificis an- 
 fractibus per Sarmatiam ad Finnones, atque inde vel per Lapponas vel 
 per Botnicum mare ad Suecos, atque hinc deraura in Germaniam 
 nostram fuisse traductum. Ut nesciam an quicquam ab omni specie 
 veri alienius fingi possit."^: But after the very just remarks of 
 Leibnitz, in the preceding quotation, which are printed in capital 
 
 * Herod, lib. iv. c. 46. 76. 
 
 f But not a single ancient writer, that I am acquainted with, has made such an assertion ; 
 and the writers of the Ancient Universal History quote no other authority for it than that of 
 Jornandes. 
 
 J Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 201, 202. 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. 55 
 
 letters, any further observations on this hypothesis must be un- 
 necessary. 
 
 To this system, at the same time, there is one insuperable objection, 
 which its supporters do not seem to have thought it requisite to 
 obviate. For, previous to these migrations of the Euxine Scythians, 
 was Europe peopled, or was it not ? The first of these suppositions is 
 not, I believe, maintained by any writer ; and, in the latter case, as 
 the Thracians, from the days of Homer, have been represented by all 
 ancient authors as a numerous, powerful, and warlike people, in what 
 manner were they conquered by the Scythians, and nevertheless con- 
 tinued to preserve a distinct name and a distinct character from the 
 earliest dawn of tradition and history ? * The impossibility of satis- 
 factorily accounting, on the hypothesis of Leibnitz, for these re- 
 markable and undeniable circumstances, has induced some writers to 
 attempt identifying the Scythians and Thracians as the same people : 
 but their arguments are necessarily founded on mere conjecture, 
 because the concurrent authority of ancient authors most clearly proves 
 the contrary. j~ In the place, therefore, of authority and argument, 
 these writers produce nothing but groundless assertion ; and thus the 
 refutation of their opinion is rendered not only irksome but unsatis- 
 tory, as there are no first principles by which the extravagancy of an 
 hypothesis can be conclusively demonstrated. 
 
 Of this opinion the latest maintainer is, I believe, Dr. Jamieson ; but 
 the only reasons which he assigns in support of it are the following : 
 " The Thracians were of Scythic origin. As the Mosaic designation 
 Gomer seems to be retained in that of Cimmerii, Cimbri, or Cumri ; 
 there is a great probability in the idea generally adopted by the 
 learned, that the Thracians were the posterity of Tiras, or rather 
 
 * I am aware, that the exact period when the Thracians extended themselves to the 
 north of the Danube is a doubtful point, and, therefore, this argument would not strictly 
 apply to prove the non-occupation of Germany by the Euxine Scythians ; but it incon- 
 trovertibly shows that they could not have penetrated into Greece and Italy until they had 
 previously possessed themselves of Thracia. 
 
 f To quote authorities on this point must surely be unnecessary ; and I will, therefore, 
 content myself by referring generally to Homer, Herodotus, and Strabo. 
 
56 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 Thiras, who is last mentioned by the sacred historian among the sons 
 of Japhet. The learned Bochart has observed, that fy>a|, the name 
 given by the Greeks to a Thracian, is supposed to be merely Thiras, 
 the Greek S, corresponding to samech of the Phoenicians, and holding its 
 place in the alphabet." * Dr. Jamieson, however, proves satisfactorily 
 that the Getse were Thracians, and that it is very probable, if not 
 certain, that the Getag and Goths were the same people : but his 
 reasons for identifying the Getse with the Scythians are futile and in- 
 conclusive ; for he argues thus, " That the Getse and Scythians were 
 the same people is attested by incontrovertible evidence. On the 
 northern side of the Danube, opposite to the territory occupied by the 
 Scythians, and in the angle forming a part of Thrace, there was a small 
 nation in the time of Herodotus, who bore the name of Getse. But 
 this designation appears to have been the generic name given to 
 various branches of this great people, and most probably assumed by 
 themselves. We accordingly find it conjoined with different pre- 
 positive terms, which seem designed to mark its definite application to 
 one race as distinguished from another. Thus we read of the Massa- 
 Getse, the Thyssa-Getse, and the Tyro-Getse; it is obvious Getse must 
 have been the primary denomination. Herodotus speaks of this 
 people, who lived on the opposite side of the Danube, without seem- 
 ing TO HAVE SUPPOSED THAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY THE SAME AS THE 
 
 Scythians, calling them Thracians." f But all ancient writers most 
 
 * Hermes Scythicus, p. 12. 
 
 Gibbon very justly remarks, " Among the nations who have adopted the Mosaic history 
 of the world, the ark of Noah has been of the same use as was formerly to the Greeks and 
 Romans the siege of Troy. On a narrow basis of acknowledged truth, an immense but 
 rude superstructure of fable has been erected ; and the wild Irishman, as well as the wild 
 Tartar, could point out the individual son of Japhet from whose sons his ancestors were 
 lineally descended. The last century abounded with antiquarians of profound learning and 
 easy faith, who, by the dim light of legends and traditions, of conjectures and etymologies, 
 qonducted the grandchildren of Noah from the tower of Babel to the extremities of the 
 globe." — Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol. i. p. 350. 
 
 f Hermes Scythicus, p. 8. 
 
 The idea of a person writing in Edinburgh pretending to correct, without the assistance 
 of other ancient authors, the observations made by Herodotus 3200 years previously, is 
 irresistibly ludicrous ; but, however stubborn facts or authorities may be, they must either 
 bend or break if they oppose the hypothesis which any writer may think proper to adopt. 
 

 ON THE SCYTHIANS 
 
 57 
 
 clearly distinguish the Getse from the Massagetse, by placing them in 
 countries widely remote from each other. On Dr. Jamieson's own 
 verbal argument, also, the primitive word must undoubtedly have 
 existed first; and the race which it was intended to distinguish, by 
 affixing a prepositive term to the common name, must have branched 
 off from some parent stem, before such a distinction could possibly have 
 become requisite. This very argument, therefore, proves the direct 
 contrary of the opinion in support of which it is adduced ; for if the 
 Getse were not Scythians, but Thracians, it necessarily follows that the 
 Thracians also were a distinct people from the Scythians. 
 
 If, however, there is no ancient authority whatever, which in the 
 slightest degree proves, or even asserts, that the Euxine Scythians in- 
 troduced into Europe their language, manners, and religion ; and if the 
 very position alone of the country which they inhabited conclusively 
 demonstrates that it precluded them from extending their influence 
 beyond its limits, their real origin is a question of no importance. 
 Whether, therefore, they were autochthones, or the descendants of 
 Magog, or emigrants from Persia, or subjects of the Celtic empire 
 founded by Saturn, or Goths from Scandinavia, is perfectly immaterial : 
 but, to prevent their being identified with the Tartars *, it may be 
 necessary to consider this point ; for the derivation of the people, 
 languages, and civilisation of Europe, from the wilds of Tartary, is not 
 one of the least astonishing aberrations of the human mind. 
 
 On this point M. Abel Remusat, in his very interesting work, Re- 
 cherches sur les Langues Tartares, observes, " Voila les Tartares de- 
 venus, sous differens noms, les precepteurs des nations et les bien- 
 
 * " Les peuples qui habitent ces vastes contrees de la haute Asie, bornees au midi par 
 PInde, la Chine, et la Perse, a l'orient par la mer du Japon, a l'occident par les fleuves qui 
 se jettent dans la mer Caspienne et le Pont-Euxin, au nord enfin par la mer Glaciale, sont 
 
 connus sous le nom vulgaire et collectif de Tartares Quoi qu'il en soit de Porigine de 
 
 ce nom des Tatars, les Europeens, qui Pont legerement altere, s'en servent indifferemment 
 pour designer une foule de nations a. demi civilisees, qui different beaucoup entre elles, ainsi 
 que la suite de cet ouvrage le fera voir. Dans ce sens, je crois qu'il est bon de conserver a 
 ces nations le nom collectif de Tartares, quoique corrompu, preferablement a celui de Tatars, 
 qui paroit plus correct, mais qui appartient a un seul tribu ne doit pas servir a designer les 
 autres tribus en general." — Recherches sur les Langues Tartares, p. 1.3. 
 
58 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 faiteurs de l'humanite : ces vastes contrees couvertes des forets, ou 
 rendues desertes par les sables, que parcourent des tribus de nomades 
 grossiers, les voila presentees sous un jour nouveau, qui les rend dignes 
 
 d'etre etudiees avec attention D'ailleurs, il ne faut pas croire que 
 
 les idees de Bailly soient entrees dans la tombe avec lui : il y a 
 plusieurs personnes actuellement vivantes qui ont tente de les repro- 
 duce sous des formes variees, etqui se trouveroient peut-etre offensees, 
 si Ton decidoit que leurs opinions ne valent pas la peine d'etre re- 
 futees."* 
 
 This question might be at once decided by the irrefutable testimony 
 of language, could it be determined whether or not a nomadic people 
 would preserve their original language uncorrupted and unchanged 
 from time immemorial. But the wants and ideas of such a people 
 being extremely limited, and their intercourse with other nations being 
 precluded by their peculiar mode of life, there would seem to be no 
 conceivable causes which could produce any alteration in the primeval 
 tongue, after it was once formed. The Bedoweens of Arabia are con- 
 sidered to speak the purest Arabic ; and if the purity of a language 
 consists in its not deviating from its original structure, and in its not 
 admitting exotic inflexions or words, it is precisely amongst a nomadic 
 people that such purity might be most reasonably expected to be found. 
 But that the wilds of Tartary have been occupied by the same race of 
 men from the earliest dawn of tradition and history is undeniable ; and, 
 consequently, it seems not improbable that the various dialects in use 
 among the Tartars at this day are radically the same as those which 
 were spoken by their ancestors from the remotest antiquity. In this 
 case I may be permitted, from having carefully examined the words 
 contained in Klaproth's Asia Polyglotta, and from having been in the 
 habit of using Meninski's Turkish Lexicon f, to observe that not a 
 Tartar word can be identified with any terms contained in the Arabic, 
 
 * Recherches, &c. Discours Preliminaire, p. v. ix. 
 
 f The Turkish has adopted numerous Arabic and Persian words ; but it will, perhaps, 
 be admitted, that a person acquainted with these languages can find no difficulty in dis- 
 tinguishing such words as belong to them from the original Tartar ones. 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. 59 
 
 Persian, Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Celtic, or Teutonic, languages, and 
 thence to conclude that it was not from the Tartars that Europe de- 
 rived either its languages or civilisation. But, on a subject with which 
 I am so slightly acquainted, the reader will no doubt prefer the opinion 
 of a distinguished Oriental scholar, who has made it his particular 
 study. The judicious remarks, therefore, and important conclusions 
 contained in the following quotation, will amply compensate for its 
 unusual length : — 
 
 " Essayons maintenant de convertir en observations generales, les 
 faits particuliers rassembles dans les Recherches qu'on vient de lire, 
 et rappelons des resultats que le lecteur pourroit avoir perdus de vue, 
 afin de fortifier les conclusions que nous croyons etre en droit de tirer, 
 en finissant ce volume. Nous osons presenter comme certains les 
 points suivans, qui avoient ete jusqu'a present avarices sans examen, et 
 quelquefois revoques en doute sans motifs suffisans. 
 
 " Dans l'etat actuel, les langues de la Tartarie sont au nombre de 
 quatre principales, avec quelques dialectes. Les mots de ces quatre 
 langues, particulierement ceux qui designent des objets de premiere 
 necessite, et qui constituent le fond des idiomes, sont radicalement 
 differens, et ne se rapprochent non plus d'aucune autre langue 
 connue. 
 
 " Les ressemblances qu'on observe entre ces quatre idiomes portent, 
 presque en entier, sur des mots destines a exprimer des objets d'arts, 
 ou des titres de dignites, ou des idees philosophiques et theologiques ; 
 elles attestent les efFets d'un melange produit par le commerce, la 
 guerre, l'influence politique et religieuse. II en est absolument de meme 
 des mots etrangers qui se sont introduits dans les langues de la Tar- 
 taric 
 
 " Les difFerentes ecritures qui ont servi a peindre ces langues, ont 
 toutes ete apportees du dehors, par 1'erTet de circonstances dont 
 l'histoire a conserve le souvenir. L'adoption la plus ancienne ne re- 
 monte pas au-dela de Fere Chretienne. 
 
 " Les formes grammaticales sont en petit nombre etpeu compliquees. 
 Les rapports des noms s'y marquent par des particules affixes ou post- 
 
 1 2 
 
60 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 positions, sans erase. Les verbes n'ont point en general de conju- 
 gaisons. Les temps les plus usites sont impersonnels. La construction 
 est rigoureusement inverse. 
 
 " La litterature de tous les peuples Tartares se compose en entier 
 d'emprunts faits, assez recemment, aux nations voisines, aux Chinois, 
 aux Hindous, aux occidentaux. Leurs livres sont des traductions, ou 
 tout au plus des imitations de ceux des peuples polices et agricoles qui 
 habitent les "contrees meridionales. Ce que nous disons ici de la 
 litterature, doits'appliquer a toutes les branches des connoissances 
 humaines, mais en particulier aux idees philosophiques et religieuses. 
 
 " Les conclusions a tirer de ces faits, qui reposent maintenant sur 
 une base inebranlable, seront pour laplupart negatives : dans ces sortes 
 de matieres, il est plus ordinaire d'avoir d'anciennes erreurs a com- 
 battre, que des verites nouvelles a etablir. 
 
 " Aucun ouvrage historique, aucun monument, aucune tradition, 
 chez les Tartares ou chez les nations qui les ont le mieux connus, ne per- 
 mettent de faire remonter l'etat de demi-civilisation ou nous les voyons 
 parvenus a une epoque plus ancienne que le ll e . siecle avant notre 
 ere. 
 
 " A v cette epoque, les missionnaires Hindous, etablis dans la partie 
 meridionale de la Tartarie, a Khasigar, a Khotan, a Yerkiyang, com- 
 mencoient a y repandre les premieres notions des sciences et des arts. 
 L'ecriture indienne, la religion de Bouddhah, les Tibetains, lesnomades 
 du nord, n'ont connu tous ces objets que beaucoup plus tard. 
 
 " L' opinion qui placeroit en Tartarie le berceau du genre humain 
 avec le peuple primitif, ou ses descendans immediats, ou la patrie des 
 inventeurs des sciences, de l'astronomie, des alphabets de l'Asie, ou 
 merae l'origine des doctrines de l'Hindoustan, de Bouddhah, ou des 
 Hindous eux-memes, ou des Chinois, cette opinion non seulement 
 ne repose sur aucun fait positif, mais elle se trouve, a la bien examiner, 
 entierement inconciliable avec les observations philologiques et les 
 traditions historiques de toutes les nations de l'Asie, a eommencer par 
 les Tartares eux-memes. 
 
 " Le chamanisme n'a pris naissance ni dans la Tartarie, ni, selon 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 61 
 
 raon opinion, dans la Bactriane. Les Samaneens ont penetre assez 
 tard dans la premiere de ces conferees ; ils y onttoujours ete etrangers; 
 ils n'en ont jamais converti completement les habitans. Beaucoup de 
 ceux-ci sont restes attaches a leur culte primitif, qui est le plus simple 
 de tous les cultes, l'adoration du Ciel visible et des Esprits, avec dif- 
 ferentes pratiques superstitieuses. 
 
 " Enfin (et ceci, ne tenant qu'indirectement a l'objet de ces Re- 
 cherches, meriteroit d'etre examine dans un ouvrage a part), les re- 
 ligions qui ont eu cours dans la Tartarie, n'avoient pas, non plus que 
 1'art d'ecrire, pris naissance dans les conferees du nord. Le samaneisme, 
 ou bouddhisme primitif, la philosophie de Confucius, le magisme, le 
 manicheisme, le nestorianisme, le musulmanisme, le lamisme enfin, ou 
 le bouddhisme reforme, y ont ete successivement introduits, a-peu-pres 
 dans l'ordre ou je viens de les nommer, et cet ordre est quelque chose 
 de bien important a constater ; car, si c'est pour nous une question 
 historique de pure curiosite, que de savoir si Bouddhah est ne dans 
 l'Hindoustan ou dans le Tibet, ou si l'alphabet Devanagari a ete invente 
 sur les bords du Gange ou dans les montagnes d' Altai', e'en est 
 une de consequence que de determiner a, qui appartient la priorite, dans 
 les traits de ressemblance incontestable qui s'observent entre la discipline 
 et la hierarchie des Lamas et celles de l'E'glise Romaine. Cette 
 question, au reste, ne sauroit embarrasser une personne qui nous aura 
 suivis dans nos Recherches, ou qui saura remonter aux sources ou 
 nous avons puise. 
 
 " Ainsi tout ce qui, chez les Tartares, est au-dessus de ces pre- 
 mieres notions qui distinguent l'homme de la brute, leur est venu, a des 
 epoques connues, de leur communication avec d'autres nations plus in- 
 struites. Quafere ou cinq families se sont repandues et multipliers sur 
 d'immenses espaces. Les hommes qui en sont sortis ont fait quelques 
 efforts pour s'eclairer ; ils ont cultive quelques sciences, mais ils n'en 
 ont invente aucune. Ils n'ont ete ni tout-a-fait aussi grossiers que 
 le supposoit Voltaire, ni, a, beaucoup pres, aussi savans que l'imaginoient 
 BufFon et Bailly. Nous sommes done obliges d'en revenir, au sujet de 
 ces nations, a l'idee que nous en ont donnee les premiers auteurs qui 
 
Q2 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 en ont parle, les voyageurs du moyen age, les ecrivains orientaux, les 
 missionnaires en Chine, Bergeron, Deguignes, Deshauteraies, Mosheim, 
 Lequien, les deux Muller, Bayer, et tant d'autres. Ces conclusions sont 
 loin d'etre aussi brillantes que les hypotheses par lesquelles on a 
 cherche a suppleer a la connoissance precise des faits, tant qu'on a cru 
 impossible de l'acquerir ; mais il n'est pas inutile de les reproduire, 
 puisqu'elles ont etc plusieurs fois contestees par des ecrivains sys- 
 tematiques. On avoit trop compte sur le defaut de monumens, sur le 
 vague et l'obscurite des traditions. L'antiquite de la haute Asie etoit 
 en quelque sorte la region des hypotheses. On en connoitra la futilite, 
 et Ton s'instruira suffisamraent sur l'histoire de la Tartarie, quand on 
 voudra la chercher dans les ecrivains Chinois, que nous Font conservee. 
 Quelque peu detailles que soient les renseignemens qu'ils nous four- 
 nissent, c'est toujours apprendre quelque chose, que de determiner 
 precisement jusqu'ou Ton peut apprendre, et meme de s'assurer qu'on 
 n'a rien a apprendre du tout ; mais cette ignorance ne s'acquiert qu'avec 
 peine, et la fausse science coute beaucoup moins. Rien n'est plus 
 facile que de jeter au hasard des suppositions sur le papier, et d'annoncer 
 avec mystere qu'on pourra les soutenir un jour. 11 faut ensuite des 
 volumes pour refuter une seule parole de ce genre ; c'est done rendre 
 quelque service aux sciences historiques que de dissiper les tenebres 
 qui couvrent certaines parties de leur domaine, et ou l'imagination se 
 joue en liberte. Resserrer le champ de 1'erreur, c'est, en quelque sorte, 
 agrandir celui de la verite." * 
 
 But it is much to be regretted that M. Abel Remusat should have 
 published this work before he had collected and fully considered all the 
 materials which he deemed necessary for its completion ; because he 
 has, perhaps inadvertently, admitted into it the following two passages, 
 which tend strongly to invalidate the very conclusive remarks con- 
 tained in the preceding quotation : for he states, " Les faits que j'ai 
 rassembles sur ces dernieres sont assez nombreux, et assez positive- 
 ment enonces dans les ecrivains Chinois, pour qu'il ne reste aucun 
 doute a cet egard : et quelque paradoxale que paroisse cet assertion, je 
 
 * Recherches sur les Langues Tartares, p. 394. 
 
ON THE SCYTHIANS. g 3 
 
 crois qu'il demeurera prouve que la famille des nations Gothiques a 
 jadis occupe de grands espaces en Tartarie : que plusieurs de ses 
 branches ont habite dans la Transoxane, et jusques dans les montagnes 
 d' Altai", et qu'elles y ont ete bien connus des peuples de l'Asie orien- 
 tale, lesquels ne pouvoient manquer d'etre frappes de la singularite de 
 leurs langues, de leurs chevelures blondes, de leurs yeux bleus, de la 
 blancheur de leur teint, signes si remarkables au milieu des hommes 
 basanes, aux yeux bruns, et aux cheveux noirs, qui les ont definitive- 
 ment remplaces. On jugera si ce que j'advance est trop hasarde, 
 quand on aura lu les preuves que j'ai recueillies. Mais quoi qu'on 
 puisse en penser, on se rappellera, j'espere, que j'ai seulement voulu 
 dire que des nations Gothiques ont eu des etablissemens dans le centre 
 de la Tartarie, et nullement que les Gothes en fussent originaires. Une 
 critique malveillante un peu eclairee pourroit seule me preter une 
 opinion qui, si je l'emettois sans la soutenir de preuves nombreuses, 
 seroit a bon droit qualifiee d'absurdite."* In another place, however, 
 he observes, " La race Gothique d'une part, et la race Turke de l'autre, 
 ont precede de plusieurs siecles, dans leur conversion au bouddhisme, 
 les Mongols et les Tongous, situes trop loin a l'orient, de la contree 
 ou la communication est possible entre la Tartarie et l'lnde. Laissons 
 a d'autres le soin d'examiner les effets de cette communication 
 par rapport aux nations gothiques."f 
 
 It will be obvious that these two passages are apparently inconsistent 
 with the opinion which M. Abel Remusat has stated in the conclusion 
 of his work. It will, therefore, be necessary that he should either 
 retract this very questionable account of the Goths having been settled 
 at some remote period in Tartary, and of their having been converted 
 to Buddhism ; or that, after having satisfactorily proved this singular 
 circumstance by other authority than that of Chinese writers, he should 
 modify his present conclusions by distinctly pointing out the influence 
 which this Tartaro- Gothic people exerted over the population, civilisa- 
 tion, and religion of Europe. But it cannot have escaped the author, 
 that if Buddhism was introduced into Tartary a short time only before 
 
 * Recherches, &c. Discours Preliminaire, p. xiv. t Ibid. P« 289. 
 
6 4 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 
 
 the Christian era, and that if these Tartaro-Goths were converted to 
 this religion, their subsequent migration from Tartar y must have oc- 
 curred at a highly enlightened period of the world; and, consequently, 
 if no trace of such an event can be found in ancient authors, not even 
 in Jornandes, their silence, though negative testimony, will, in the 
 opinion of most persons, be considered as sufficient to disprove any 
 accounts of it which may be produced from Chinese writers. It 
 would be also necessary to show that Tartar words exist in some one of 
 the Gothic dialects ; for, otherwise, whatever may have become of these 
 Tartaro-Goths, if they ever existed, it must appear highly improbable 
 that they ever returned to Europe. The introduction, however, of 
 Buddhism into Tartary having taken place eight or nine centuries after 
 the poems of Homer were written, and consequently after the Greek, 
 Latin, and Teutonic languages were formed, as is so clearly proved by 
 the Sanscrit words that exist in them, any migrations from Tartary at 
 so comparatively recent a period deserve not consideration in investi- 
 gating the origin and affinity of nations and languages. 
 
65 
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE, 
 
 Pelloutier commences his history of the Celts with these words : — * 
 " Les Celtes ont ete connus anciennement sous le nom general de 
 Scythes." Wachter observes, — " Nunc ordo tangit Celtas, utpote 
 Scythis et Phrygibus setate inferiores, nee ante Bellum Trojanum 
 auditos. Nam primis temporibus floruit nomen Scythicum, deinde 
 
 innotuit Phrygium, Phrygio successit Celticum Phryges olim va- 
 
 stissimum imperium tenuisse, et coloniis suis non solum partem Asiae, 
 sed etiam Grasciam, Thraciam, et totum pene occidentem occupasse, 
 illustris Abbas Pezronius in Antiquitatibus Celticis tanto argumen- 
 torum copia et perspicuitate demonstravit, ut difficile sit illud negare."* 
 But Pinkerton maintains, " that the Scythians were neither Celts, Sar- 
 matians, nor Tartars, no more than a horse is an elephant, a lion, or a 
 tiger, but a horse ; so the Scythians were Scythians, a distinct, peculiar, 
 and marked people."f It is, however, singular that the supporters of 
 the Celtic and Gothic hypotheses should both concur in deriving the 
 population and languages of Europe from a people respecting whom 
 Pelloutier very justly observes, — " Les Celtes descendent veritable- 
 ment des Scythes, c'est-a~dire, d'un peuple sauvage et barbare, qui 
 n'avoit encore aucune connoissance des avantages que Thorn me peut 
 tirer de son industrie, ou du pays qu'il habite."^ But I have, perhaps, 
 evinced in the preceding chapter that, if either the Celts or Goths were 
 Scythians, it could not be from them that Europe received its inhabit- 
 ants and civilisation. Whether, however, the Goths were Scythians 
 will be examined in the ninth chapter. In this, therefore, I shall con- 
 
 * Wachteri Glossarium, in praefatio. 
 f Dissertation on the Scythians or Goths, preface, p. vii. 
 If. Histoire des Celtes, vol. i. p. 123. 
 
 K 
 
qq THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 fine myself to a consideration of the Celtic hypothesis, the discussion 
 of which is rendered at least more tangible than the Scythian ; because 
 sufficient remains of the Celtic tongue have been preserved, as must 
 clearly demonstrate whether or not it has an affinity to any other 
 language: for, if its examination on rational, and not Celtic, principles 
 clearly proves that no such affinity exists, it must necessarily follow 
 that Europe is not indebted to a Celtic people for its population and 
 languages. By such means alone, it must be obvious, since there 
 is no authority of any kind which supports the pretensions of the 
 Celtic people to a remote antiquity, can this point be satisfactorily 
 decided. In the following remarks, therefore, historical researches 
 must be exchanged for the uninviting examination of etymological 
 affinities.* 
 
 To a person, however, who approaches, free from all prejudice, the 
 much disputed question respecting the origin of the Celts, and the 
 country which they may have primitively or subsequently inhabited, 
 it must appear passing strange how such a difference of opinion could 
 ever have arisen ; for no one, in the least acquainted with ancient 
 authors, will deny the justness of these remarks of Adelung : — " The 
 ancient Greeks knew nothing more of these people than that they 
 lived in the west ; and they were so uncritical as to include among the 
 Celts all the people who lived in the west, from the Oder to the mouth 
 of the Tagus, and consequently to consider them all as belonging to 
 one branch of the same stem.f The Romans did not fail to avail them- 
 selves of the better opportunity which they had of distinguishing these 
 
 * I ought, perhaps, to observe, that I do not possess any knowledge of this language, and 
 that the opinion which I have formed respecting it is founded entirely on a careful examin- 
 ation of the Dictionaries of Bullet, Cour de Gebelin, Davies, and O'Brien. I have not 
 been able to procure Shaw's Gaelic Dictionary, but Adelung describes it as having no other 
 merit than that of having been copied from the good Irish Dictionary of O'Brien. 
 
 f To the same purpose, Strabo, in the following passage : — <E>y)/x* yap xa-va tyjv tow apyamv 
 'Ehkrjvcov 8o£av, wvnep tu Ttpoc, Boppav pspr) t« yviap^a evt ovopuTi Sxoflaj exxkovv, rj NojxaSaj, w$ 
 'H/A>)poj* (xTTspov 8e xai toiv •xpo$"E l <nrepa.v yvwQsvTwv, KsXrot, xai l§r\pe;, xai <rvfj.(j,ixTws Kskr^y\psc, 
 xai KskTO<rxvQott 7rpo<rYiyopeuovTO, y<p' Iv ovopx twv xudexcurTci eQvwv t«ttoju.=vo>v 8(« t>]v ayvoictv. — 
 Strabo, ed. Amstel. p. 33. 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. q*j 
 
 people from one another, according to their customs, origin, and 
 language ; but, notwithstanding, they too often, either through ignorance 
 or indifference, preserved the erroneous general names, and thus in- 
 cluded the Iberians, Germans, and Thracians among the Celts. Most 
 unpardonable it is that modern philologists and historians, who 
 have so incalculably better means of information, should adopt their 
 opinions ; particularly when it is so very improbable that so great a 
 part of the world should have been occupied by one people and one 
 language."* 
 
 But, if ancient writers afford not any information respecting the 
 early history of the Celts, it must necessarily follow that all the theories 
 on this subject rest on no other foundation than mere conjecture. 
 Nor could such conjectures have ever assumed even the appearance of 
 plausibility, had not the supporters of the Celtic hypothesis contrived 
 to confuse together in a most ingenious manner the history of every 
 ancient people ; and thus enabled themselves to ascribe to the Celts 
 alone the migrations and actions which properly belonged to very 
 distinct races of men. Before, however, it can be admitted that the 
 Scythians, Persians, Phrygians, Thracians, &c. were Celts, some proof 
 must be given in support of this supposition : but history is totally 
 silent on this subject ; and, on the contrary, from the earliest times of 
 which there is an}' tradition, not a single assertion or even surmise that 
 these people were either Celts, or the descendants of Celts, can be 
 found in any ancient writer. 
 
 In the absence, therefore, of such authority, it may seem that this 
 question might be at once decided by the irrefutable testimony of 
 language : but, unfortunately, it is admitted by both parties that the 
 remains of the Celtic tongue, which are still preserved, abound in 
 Greek, Latin, and Teutonic words ; and it therefore becomes indis- 
 pensable to determine, in the first place, whether these words are 
 original or exotic. For it must be obvious that, if the Celts never in- 
 habited the countries which were originally or subsequently occupied 
 
 * Adel ling's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 31. 
 K 2 
 
68 
 
 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 by the Greek, Latin, and Teutonic people, their languages could not 
 possibly have become affected by the Celtic, unless they had either 
 maintained a frequent friendly intercourse with the Celts, or had been 
 conquered by them : but it appears fully, from the whole course of 
 ancient tradition and history, that no such intercourse or conquest 
 ever took place ; and, consequently, if the Greek, Latin, Teutonic, and 
 Celtic people were not originally one and the same race of men, it 
 must necessarily follow that, as the Celts have been subdued by the 
 Romans and Germans, as history attests, it is from them that the Celts 
 have received the foreign words with which their language abounds, 
 and not the Romans and Germans who received these words from the 
 Celts. 
 
 Were it admitted, therefore, that the Celts possessed, at some remote 
 period, Asia Minor and Europe, it cannot be denied that, at the time 
 when they first became distinctly known to history, they were sur- 
 rounded by people who differed from them in language, customs, and 
 religion. For, as Bishop Percy observes, — " Caesar, whose judgment 
 and penetration will be disputed by none but a person blinded by 
 hypothesis, and whose long residence in Gaul gave him better means 
 of being informed than almost any of his countrymen ; Caesar expressly 
 assures us that the Celts, or common inhabitants of Gaul, ' differed, in 
 language, customs, and laws,' from the Belgae on the one hand, who 
 were chiefly a Teutonic people*, and from the inhabitants of Aquitaine 
 on the other, who, from their vicinity to Spain, were probably of 
 Iberian race. Caesar positively affirms that the nations of Gaul differed 
 from those of Germany in their manners, and in many other particulars, 
 which he has enumerated at length : and this assertion is not thrown 
 
 * With regard to the Belgae the author of the Vindication of the Celts observes, in 
 p. 87. — " In no one instance has Caesar himself called the Belgae Germans ; but plainly 
 distinguishes them from the four tribes who are particularly designated as Germans. 
 Had the Belgae been wholly German, we should have found infallible marks in his 
 description that they were so ; and he would not have made the distinction which he 
 constantly^ does, of the Germans as a different people. We submit the question to any 
 impartial person, who will read the account of Caesar's wars with the Belgae, whether the 
 smallest traces can be discovered that they were all Germans, or, on the contrary, whether 
 they were not for the most part evidently and palpably Celts." 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 69 
 
 out at random, like the passages brought by Cluverius against it ; but 
 is coolly and cautiously made, when he is going to draw the characters 
 of both nations in an exact and well finished portrait, which shows him 
 to have studied the genius and manners of both people with great 
 attention, and to have been completely master of his subject."* Strabo, 
 also, clearly shows that the Iberians, or inhabitants of Spain, were a 
 distinct people from the Celts f ; and no remark can be necessary to 
 evince that the Etrurians and Latins differed from them in every respect. 
 But, against such conclusive authority, the advocates of the Celtic hypo- 
 thesis can produce nothing but vague and unfounded conjectures, which 
 they are obliged to support by giving a sense to the passages in ancient 
 writers that oppose their hypothesis, which these passages do not admit. 
 Long, therefore, as the following quotation is, it so completely ex- 
 emplifies the singular manner in which these advocates maintain their 
 argument, that its length will be perhaps excused : — 
 
 " Cependant on est entre dans un detail aussi considerable pour faire 
 voir que les Celtes avoient anciennement une langue commune, qui se 
 partagea par la suite en plusieurs dialectes. On voit meme que la 
 
 * Preface to Northern Antiquities, p. xi. 
 
 " On a deja vu," says Schcepflin, " que ceux qui ont donne" aux Gaulois seuls le nom de 
 Celtes sont, parmi les Grecs, Herodote, Aristote, Polybe, Diodore de Sicile, Denys 
 d'Halicarnasse, Strabon, Denys Periegete, Plutarque, Ptolemee, Athenee, et Etienne de 
 Bysance ; parmi les Latins, Cesar, Tite-Live, Pomponius Mela, Lucain, et Pline. Les 
 auteurs Grecs, qui donnent aux Gaulois et aux Germains le nom commun de Celtes, sont 
 Appien, Pausanias, Dion Cassius, et si l'on veut, Arrien, quoiqu'il soit incertain quelle 
 est son opinion sur cette matiere ; on ne trouve aucun auteur Latin pour ce sentiment. 
 Les auteurs qui sont du premier sentiment, n'ont-ils pas plus d'autorite que ceux qui ont 
 adopte le second, et ne meritent-ils pas qu'on les prefere aux autres? lis n'ont point 
 certainement manque de talens, et n'ont pas neglige les moyens de connoitre la verite. La 
 plupart ont meme vecu dans le temps ou la langue Celtique etoit encore en usage, dans le 
 temps ou la nation se donnoit k elle meme, et dans sa prop-e langue, le nom de Celtes, dans 
 le temps enfin, ou Ton pouvoit porter un jugement plus assure sur la signification de ce 
 nom." — Schcepjlin, Vindicice Celtics, § 53., in the French translation annexed to the first 
 volume of Pel. Histoire des Celtes. 
 
 f This one of the several passages which occur in Strabo on this point will, perhaps, be 
 sufficient to explain his opinion on this subject: — Ei yap S») (IBHPES) cruvcto-ntgeiv e§ov\ovro 
 «XX>)Xoij, ovre K-otp^Yj^ovioig (nrrip^sv uv KUTa.<XTpefya.<jftui E7rs\8ov<ri ryv TtXeivrriv ocvtwv ex %eptov<rict;' 
 xa» en Trporepov Topioij, eiT« KEATOI2, ol vvv KeXTt^pej x«» Byjpovej kuXovvtui. — Strabo, 
 p. 158. 
 
70 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 langue Allemande descend de l'ancienne langue des Celtes, et conserve 
 la plupart de ses racines. Cette opinion peut, a la verite, etre com- 
 battue ; mais les objections se dissiperont d'elles memes, pourvu que 
 Ton fasse attention aux preuves deja rapportees. * 
 
 " I. Jules Cesar, qui avoit passe pres de dix ans dans les Gaules, 
 assure, dira-t'on, formellement que les trois nations, entre lesquelles 
 les Gaules etoient partagees de son temps, scavoir, les Beiges, les 
 Celtes, et les Aquitains, avoient une langue, des coutumes, et des loix 
 dijferentes. 
 
 " II. Strabon assure la raeme chose, au moins par rapport aux 
 Aquitains. lis different, dit-il, des autres peuples des Gaules, non 
 seulement par rapport a la langue, mais aussi a Vegard de la phy- 
 sionomie ; Us tiennent beaucoup plus des Iberes que des Gaulois. Le 
 temoignage de Strabon et de Jules Cesar suffit pour prouver que les 
 peuples des Gaules n'avoient pas la meme langue. 
 
 " III. II n'est pas moins certain, dira-t'on encore, que la langue de 
 Gaule difforoit aussi de celle des Germains. Jules Cesar romarque 
 qu' Arioviste, prince Germain, ayant fait un long stjour dans les Gaules, 
 parlait passablement la langue du pays, f Une semblable remarque 
 seroit ridicule, et ne pourroit etre pardonnee a un auteur aussi grave que 
 Jules Cesar, si la langue des Gaulois et celle des Germains eussent ete 
 parfaitement les memes. 
 
 " IV. L'autorite de Jules Cesar se confirme par celle de Suetone 
 
 * What these proofs are, if by proofs be meant the testimony of ancient writers or 
 arguments founded on such testimony, it is impossible to discover in any part of the work 
 preceding this quotation. 
 
 f The words of Caesar are, " Commodissimum visum est, C. Valerium Procillum, C. 
 Valerii Caburi filium, summa virtute et humanitate adolescentem, et propter fidem et 
 propter linguae Gallicae scientiam, qua multa jam Ariovistus, longinqua consuetudine, 
 utebatur." — De Bello Gallico, lib.i. c. 47. 
 
 In Oudendorp's edition I find this note on this passage : — " Observandum etiam est 
 frustra esse Fe. Holomannum aliosque, qui ex hoc loco colligunt, linguam Germanicam a 
 Gallica prorsus fuisse diversam, cum ejusdem tantum linguae erant dialecti ut multis probavit 
 Ph. Cluverius Germ. i. c. 5. Et sane discrepans pronunciatio, verba nova paullatim 
 
 introducta, multusque inter suos linguae Germanicse usus, possent facere, ut complures 
 anni transirent, priusquam Gallica commode usus fuerit Ariovistus. — Davis." 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 71 
 
 et de Tacite. Le premier dit que Caligula, revenant de F expedition 
 qu'il avoit entreprise contre les Germains, se decerna a lui meme 
 les honneurs d'un triomphe aussi vain que ses victoires et ses 
 conquetes etoient imaginaires. Comme il n'emmenoit avec lui qu'un 
 tres-petit nombre de prisonniers et de transfuges Germains, il prit le 
 parti de choisir dans les Gaules tout ce qui s'y trouva de gens d'une 
 taille gigantesque. II les obligea de laisser croitre et de rougir leur 
 cheveux, d'apprendre le Germain, et d'adopter des noms barbares, 
 dans la vue de les faire passer pour des Germains. 
 
 " V. Enfin, objectera-t'on, Tacite pretend que les Osces et les 
 Gothins, quoiqu'ils fussent etablis en Germanie, n'etoient pas ce- 
 pendant des peuples Germains. Cet historien le prouve, en 
 observant que les premiers se servoient de la langue Gauloise, et les 
 seconds de celle de la Panonie. II remarque, dans le meme endroit, 
 que les Marsignes et les Bures, voisins des Osces et des Gothins, 
 etoient reconnus pour Sueves, tant a la langue, qu'a leur maniere de 
 s'habiller. * C'est done une preuve que les peuples meme de la 
 Germanie n'avoient pas la meme langue. 
 
 " Ces objections paroissent d'abord specieuses et eblouissantes ; 
 mais elles portent toutes a faux. Quoique tous les peuples Celtes 
 eussent originairement la meme langue, on ne S9auroit pretendre qu'ils 
 s'entendissent tous. Les langues vivantes sont sujettes a se perfec- 
 
 tionner, et a se corrompre Seroit-il done surprenant que dans le 
 
 cours d'un grand nombre de siecles la langue de Celtes se fut partagee 
 en plusieurs dialectes ? Que ces dialectes eussent tellement varie par 
 la suite du temps, que les peuples Celtes ne s'entendissent plus, pour 
 peu qu'ils fussent eloignes les uns des autres."f 
 
 It hence appears, from the admissions of the advocates themselves 
 of the Celtic hypothesis, that the people immediately conterminous to 
 
 # The words of Tacitus are, " Nee minus valent retro Marsigni, Gothini, Osi, Burii > 
 terga Marcomannorum Quadorumque claudunt. E quibus Marsigni et Burii sermone 
 cultuque Suevos referunt. Gothinos Gallica, Osos Pannonica lingua coarguit non esse 
 Germanos ; et quod tributa patiuntur." — Tacit. Get: c. 43. 
 
 f Pelloutier, Histoire des Celtes, p. 106', et seq. 
 
72 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 the Celts, at the time when they became distinctly known to history, 
 differed from them in many respects, and also in dialect at least, if not 
 in language. It is further admitted, that the dialects alleged to be 
 derived from Celtic had become, in the course of time and long 
 separation, so dissimilar that their affinity with the parent tongue 
 could be discovered only by etymological research. For Pelloutier 
 remarks : — " Jules Cesar parle en homme de guerre. II dit que les 
 Aquitains, les Beiges, les Celtes, et les Germains, ont des langues 
 differentes. L'on conviendra sans peine que ces peuples ne s'en- 
 tendoient pas les uns les autres sans interpretes ; mais Jules Cesar n'a 
 pas examine en homme de lettres, s'il n'y avoit pas entre ces quatre 
 langues differentes quelque affinite, quelque ressemblance, qui put 
 faire juger qu'elles descendoient originairement d'une langue com- 
 mune." * 
 
 The question, therefore, is thus submitted to the test of language, 
 and no criterion is better adapted for its decision ; if the examination 
 of the Celtic words adduced as identical with those of any other 
 language be conducted on clear and rational principles. But many 
 pages of the works of Bullet, Cour de Gebelin, and other writers, are 
 occupied in showing that any one letter of the alphabet may be 
 changed for another; and that, in fact, the component letters of a 
 word are of no importance : for, if KV7reXXov be not Celtic, cuib 
 certainly is ; and it can be easily conceived that the former is merely 
 a corruption of the latter, -f This singular process of converting a 
 
 * Histoire des Celtes, vol. i. p. 108. 
 
 Pelloutier forgets that Caesar was also a man of letters, and even an etymologist in his 
 own language. Nothing, therefore, seems more probable than that, during the nine years he 
 resided in Gaul, he would amuse his leisure hours in making accurate enquiries into the lan- 
 guages, manners, and religions of Gaul and Germany. 
 
 f In case this singular etymology should appear fictitious, I must refer to Townsend's 
 Character of Moses, vol. ii. p. 227. 
 
 It is, at the same time, remarkable, that almost all the Celtic etymologies given by Cour 
 de Gebelin proceed on the same supposition, that a word in another language of two or 
 more syllables is merely a corruption of some Celtic monosyllabic word ; but experience 
 demonstrates, beyond the power of contradiction, that in all languages there ever has been, 
 and ever will be, a tendency to abbreviation and contraction. To derive, therefore, a poly- 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. ^o 
 
 Celtic word into Greek, Latin, Teutonic, or any other language the 
 etymologist pleases, is explained at length by Mr. Townsend, from 
 
 whose work I extract the following very convenient rules : 
 
 " Bh, mh, ch, gh, and ih have frequently the same sound ; but what 
 is more remarkable is that hy, y, i, ibh, nay, even camha, cogha, and 
 cocadh, are pronounced like o, so that coghan becomes owen, and camha- 
 nia becomes onia. * D after n doubles it, and therefore find is read finn. 
 " G and c are both hard. These are commutable, as are b and f, t 
 and d, m and n. Hence nemethce is pronounced momce. Ch, dh, and 
 g/i, at the end of words, readily change for each other. 
 
 " This operation of the aspirate naturally accounts for the licentious 
 changes we observe in words, and the substitution of one consonant 
 
 for another, with which it has no organic affinity A sufficient 
 
 acquaintance with this licentious practice, will enable us to trace the 
 affinity of words, which apparently have no connection. For instance, 
 between o<jco; and cedes we can see no resemblance, nor shall we be 
 able to discover their descent from one common ancestor, unless we 
 view them as related to the Gaelic. Here, in the family of omog, we 
 find oighthiarna and oighre, and oighedh. On the other hand, aoidheach, 
 aoidhidhe, oidhre, and oidhe, a guest, with aoidheachd and aidheacht, 
 lodging, are allied to cedes. But, from what I have stated, it is clear, 
 that, in pronunciation, not the least difference exists between oighidh 
 and aoidhidhe, which evidently refer the former to ww?, and the latter 
 to cedes"\ How far these rules given by Mr, Townsend apply to the 
 
 syllabic from a monosyllabic word, unless it is clearly proved to be the root, is contrary to 
 this obvious and indisputable principle, which alone is sufficient to show the futility of all 
 Celtic etymologies : but, even in ascertaining the supposed root, none of the component 
 letters of the word identified with Celtic ought to be rejected ; nor ought, therefore, the 
 Latin candidus to be derived from the Celtic can. 
 
 * I have not been able to ascertain whether these quiescent letters ought to be taken into 
 consideration in etymological researches or not ; for I find that Celtic etymologists either 
 -make use of them or reject them, just as it suits their convenience. 
 
 f Character of Moses, vol. ii. p. 180, 181. 
 
 But Mr. Townsend had just before said, " Dh and gh are either quiescent or sound like 
 
74 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 pronunciation of Celtic I know not, but it is self evident that, if 
 applied to other languages, no ingenuity is required for making 
 quidlibet ex quolibet. 
 
 It is at the same time very remarkable that, when Celtic is not 
 concerned, Celtic etymologists are themselves perfectly aware of the 
 impropriety of subjecting the words of the different languages com- 
 pared together to etymological tortures, in order to extort an appear- 
 ance of identity which does not exist ; for Cour de Gebelin very justly 
 observes : — " Au renouvellement des sciences en Europe, on s'appliqua 
 avec une ardeur inconcevable a l'etude des langues savantes : on 
 devora les livres Latins, Grecs, Arabes, Hebreux, &c, en meme terns 
 qu'on ne negligeoit rien pour remonter a l'origine de ces langues. A 
 cet egard il n'y eut en quelque sorte qu'une opinion ; on vit toutes les 
 langues dans 1'Heforeu ; chaque mot, Grec, Latin, &c, dut rassembler, 
 bon gre malgre, a un mot Hebreu : on Fallongeoit, on le raccourcissoit, 
 on le changeoit jusqu'a ce que le rapport flit parfait : jamais Phalaris 
 [Procruste] ne disloqua mieux les malheureux etrangers qui tomboient 
 entre ses mains, pour les assortir a la longueur de son lit. II parut 
 done dans les XVI e et XVII e siecles une multitude d'ouvrages ou 
 Ton se proposoit de prouver que la langue Hebraique est la 
 premiere de toutes les autres, la langue-mere, dont toutes sont 
 descendues ; ouvrages en general sans gout, sans principes, sans 
 critique, sans philosophie ; malheureux essais ou Ferudition est 
 presque toujours en pure perte, ou elle ne sert qu'a egarer." * But it 
 
 y in you, and thus dhean becomes yan ; ghabh is sounded yabh In terminations, dh and 
 
 gh are either quiescent or become oo, as dheanadh is yanoo and laogh is loo" Consequently, 
 if quiescent letters are to be rejected, aighidh does not sound like oixo; nor aoidhidhe like 
 cedes: but, it seems, these letters may be pronounced or not, just as best suits the etymology 
 which is to be demonstrated. 
 
 * Monde Primitif, vol. vi. p. xxiv. 
 
 Notwithstanding their violence, the following remarks of Pinkerton on Celtic etymologists 
 are equally just; at the end he gives specimens of Celtic etymology from that insane work, 
 the " Memoires de la Langue Celtique, par M. Bullet," from which it appears, that " a 
 man must be a lunatic who founds any thing upon a language so loose as to take any 
 impression. Such are Northampton (North Hampton): from nor, the mouth of a river; tan, 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 15 
 
 must be obvious that, if Celtic be the parent tongue from which the 
 languages of Europe are derived, such means cannot be requisite for 
 evincing their affinity : for, in the languages derived from the Latin, 
 or in the various Teutonic dialects, the common origin of which is 
 much more ancient, it is perfectly unnecessary to have recourse to 
 interchanging, adding, or rejecting, at pleasure, every letter of the 
 alphabet, in order to show their relation to each other, and their 
 derivation from one parent tongue. Even in languages, the direct 
 affinity of which is rendered questionable by distance of time and 
 place, it will be seen, by a reference to Table I. Part II. of this 
 work, that such arbitrary changes are not required for establishing 
 the identity of the words used by different people, however anciently 
 or widely separated from each other ; for it will be there observed 
 that no further permutations of letters occur, than in substituting one 
 vowel for another, or the hard for the soft sound of a consonant ; that 
 the syllables of each word remain untouched, and that no letters 
 are added or rejected except occasionally the final vowel or syl- 
 lable of the Sanscrit term ; and yet 900 Sanscrit words are incon- 
 trovertibly identified, by mere juxta-position, with a variety of words, 
 all of different meanings, occurring in five distinct languages. When, 
 therefore, the Celtic etymologist produces an equal number of Celtic 
 words identical with Greek, Latin, and Teutonic terms, the truth of his 
 
 a river ; ton, habitation. Northill (North Hill) : from nor, river ; and tyne, habitation. 
 Ringwood : from ren, a division ; ew, a river ; and bed, a forest. Uxbridge (Ouse Bridge) : 
 
 from uc, river ; and brig, division. Risum teneatis ? The few words peculiarly Celtic, 
 
 and of which a glossary, by a person of complete skill in the Gothic, would be highly 
 valuable, have so many significations, that to found etymology on them is worse than mad- 
 ness. In the Irish, one word has often ten, twenty, or thirty meanings : gal implies a 
 stranger, a native, milk, a warrior, white, a pledge, a conqueror, the belly of a trout, a wager, 
 &c This must be the case in all savage tongues ; but the Celtic, I will venture to say, is 
 of all savage languages the most confused, as the Celts are of all savages the most deficient 
 in understanding. Wisdom and ingenuity may be traced among the Samoieds, Laplanders, 
 Negroes, &c, but, among the Celts, none of native growth. All etymology of names is folly, 
 but Celtic etymology is sheer frenzy. Enough of Celtic etymology ! let us leave it to can- 
 didates for bedlam and go on." — Dissertation on the Scythians or Goths, p. 101. 
 
 L 2 
 
76 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 hypothesis will be immediately admitted; but, as mere comparison of 
 the words supposed to be identical, or permutations in their letters 
 and syllables on clear and indisputable principles, are the only criteria 
 by which the correctness of etymologies can be determined; it must 
 necessarily follow that, as the genuineness of Celtic etymologies cannot 
 support these simple tests, they must be considered as arbitrary, 
 fanciful, and unfounded. 
 
 To admit, also, this hypothesis, it must likewise be admitted that 
 conquest and the introduction of a new religion did not produce the 
 same changes in the Celtic tongue, which they have occasioned in every 
 other language which has been subjected to their influence.* The 
 dialects of Europe derived from Latin abound in Teutonic words, the 
 Spanish language in Arabic, the modern Greek in Turkish, and the 
 Persian in Arabic ; on what principle, therefore, of reasoning or common 
 sense can it be supposed that Celtic was alone exempted from similar 
 effects, when it was submitted to the operation of the very same causes ? 
 It cannot, also, be denied that the Celts were a rude people, and that 
 the Romans, and even the Anglo-Saxons and Normans, surpassed them 
 in civilisation ; and, consequently, that the language of the conquerors 
 must have been much more copious than that of the conquered people. 
 Pinkerton, therefore, may be excused for having affirmed that of all 
 
 * The Celts have not yet, I believe, answered these questions of Lanzi : — "II Latino, or 
 piii or meno schietto usato in Europa, oltre il 1200, al civile commercio e alia propagazione 
 del S. Vangelo, in ogni alpe, in ogni capanna, in ogni angolo ha dovuto lasciar vestigj di se. 
 Che mi si schierino que' tanti vocaboli Celti affini al Latino ; io gli posso credere nati nel 
 Lazio, e guasti fra Celti. So che questi 35 secoli addietro dovean essere molto scarsi di 
 termini. Fuoco potea dirsi fra loro ti o ulvu ; se nel Celtico si trova engil, come mi si prova 
 che da esso derivi ignis, piuttosto ch' esso sia guasto da ignis? Che mi si opponga non esser 
 Greci alquanti nomi degli Dei, siccome Saturno, Vulcano, Mercurio ; e che V. ultimo, per 
 esempio, dee venire da merchvvr (mercator) ed essersi recato da' Celti. Si provi ancor qui 
 in primo luogho che merchvvr sia anteriore a mercator ,- mi si dica poi perche i Celti non 
 recassero o non propagassero il nome di Mercurio fra gli Umbri? mi si spieghi in oltre 
 perche nemmen gli Etruschi lor posteri lo appellino se non Thurms, ch' e quanto to$ 'Hp^c ? 
 E quando bene accordassi che qualche voce non si potesse ascrivere se non a' Celti, come 
 dimosti'are ch' ella non siasi introdotta per via di commercio ? Vi commerciarono gli 
 Etruschi in tempi antichissimi, e questi molto influirono nella Latinita, come osservai nella 
 Parte I." — Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. ii. p. 14. 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. ^ 
 
 people the Celts are most deficient in understanding, when Celtic 
 writers gravely assert that y^utptiv is derived from grafaim, scribere 
 from scriobham, discere from dysgu, litera from llythyr, and liber from 
 leabhar ; and who contend that the Latin numerals were derived 
 from the Irish aon, da, tri, ceithair, coig, seisear, seached, ocht, naoi, 
 deic. But, if the Celts in Britain and Ireland are indebted to strangers 
 for words to express writing, and even for their numerals, as the mere 
 inspection of such etymologies sufficiently proves, it cannot for a 
 moment be supposed that either Greeks, Romans, or Germans could 
 have received, from so rude a people, any terms indicative of the 
 objects peculiar to a much higher state of civilisation than they had 
 attained. 
 
 With respect to this point, O'Brien, in the Preface to his Irish Dic- 
 tionary, very correctly obseives that " the sure method of discerning 
 those Celtic words resembling the Latin (or any other language) in any 
 European dialect of the Celtic nations, is by considering, in the first 
 place, if they are expressive either of such ideas or such objects of the 
 senses as no language can want words for from the beginning; because 
 no society of people, nay, none of its particular members enjoying all the 
 senses, could at any time or in any country be strangers to such objects 
 or ideas, and, consequently, none destitute of words to distinguish 
 them : and, secondly, to consider if such words be the only appel- 
 latives of their respective objects or ideas used in the language, either in 
 common practice or in old writings, for signifying the things they are 
 appropriated to. All words in any of the Celtic dialects, which can 
 stand the test of these two qualities, may, with full assurance, be re- 
 garded as mere Celtic (though probably changed somewhat from their 
 primitive form and pronunciation), and not derived from the Latin, 
 whatever resemblance or affinity they may bear with words of the same 
 signification in the language." But, when he proceeds to exemplify 
 these rules, it becomes impossible to admit the etymologies which he 
 adduces ; because all unimproved languages are deficient in names for 
 many natural objects, and in terms expressive of the operations of the 
 
78 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 mind ; and, consequently, their existence in a language is no proof of 
 their originality, but is, on the contrary, if the language were spoken 
 by an uncivilised people, a strong presumption of their foreign deriv- 
 ation. It is, therefore, inconsistent with this clear and obvious prin- 
 ciple to consider the following Latin and Greek words as derivatives from 
 the Irish, when the direct contrary appears so much more probable : — 
 Irish, Dia, Latin, Deus ; I. anam, L. anima ; I. intleacht, L. intellectus ; 
 I. meamhoir, L. memoria ; I. intin, L. intentio ; I. sprid, L. spiritus ; I.feall, 
 L. fallacia ; I. coh't, L. cortex ; I. stan, L. stannum ; I. or, L. aurum ; I. 
 iarun, \^.jerrum; I. crock, L. crocus; I. £ir, L. terra; I. cor cur, L,. pur- 
 pura ; I.grara, L. granum ; I. machiul, L. macula; I. mo/, L. mola ; I. ro£/«, 
 L. rota ; I. cahmeal, L. candela. Or, Irish, aer, Greek, «^ ; I. acbheis, 
 G. a£u<ro-o£ ; I. airget, G. a,^yv^oq ; I. cnaib, G. jcawa£<? ; I. ceatf, G. 
 sKuroi-y I. colon, G. koXuvy, ; I. Jileadh, G. <ptXo<ro<pos ; I. Jion, G. cw?i 
 I. neabhul, G. n$a.Xvi ; I. pz'aw, G. tto^ ; I. s/jeir, G. <r<p«^os ; I. 
 
 tiarna, G. TVgotvvcs ; I. fozV, G. QeXvjpx, ; I. agalla, G. ayysXXu ; 
 
 I. am, G. Ritrf. I add from Mr. Townsend's work a few identifi- 
 cations of Celtic and English words, which are equally objectionable : — 
 Gaelic, bolsgairam, English, oo^7; G. beathael, E. 6eos7; G. copehaille, 
 E. cop ; G. teidmh, E. deaf/* ; G. dimhnighm, E. dm?z ; G. dorws-, E. door; 
 G. smigein, E. cAm ; G. taos, E. dowg/* ; G. bacalta, E. oo&e ; G. blagair, 
 E. blast ; G. easlan, E. oz7; G. buachail, E. oo#. 
 
 But, in order that the reader may observe what the result of the 
 strict application of the principles proposed by O'Brien would be, I 
 subjoin the following comparative list of words, all of which are 
 likely to be found in a rude tongue, from which the total dissimi- 
 larity of the Celtic with other languages will be rendered perfectly 
 apparent.* 
 
 * It may, perhaps, be proper to observe that, in the Arabic column of this table, the 
 words are written according to the pronunciation of the letters which prevails in Persia and 
 India ; and that it is the third person singular of the preterite of verbs, and not the 
 infinitive, which is given. 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 79 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Welsh. 
 
 Irish. 
 
 German. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 ayaQoc 
 
 bonus 
 
 da 
 
 da 
 
 gut 
 
 taib 
 
 shubha 
 
 nik 
 
 i 
 
 sanguis 
 
 gward 
 
 cru 
 
 blut 
 
 dam 
 
 raktum 
 
 khun 
 
 avtavSa. 
 
 spina 
 
 eirinbarth 
 
 dealg 
 
 dorn 
 
 shuk 
 
 kantaka 
 
 khar 
 
 axovstv 
 
 audire 
 
 clywed 
 
 eualaim 
 
 hofen 
 
 samaa 
 
 shrotum 
 
 shaniden 
 
 aXfjBti^ 
 
 verus 
 
 cywir 
 
 dearbh 
 
 wahr 
 
 sahih 
 
 satya 
 
 rast 
 
 avE//.o$ 
 
 ventus 
 
 chwyth 
 
 deaith 
 
 wind 
 
 rih 
 
 wata 
 
 bad 
 
 avBoi; 
 
 flos 
 
 blodewyn 
 
 bla'th 
 
 blume 
 
 zahir 
 
 pushpum 
 
 gul 
 
 av8puTro<; 
 
 homo 
 
 dyn 
 
 duine 
 
 mann 
 
 rajul 
 
 nara 
 
 mard 
 
 apyvpo<; 
 
 argentum 
 
 arian 
 
 airgiod 
 
 silber 
 
 fizzah 
 
 rajatam 
 
 slm 
 
 ap-ro; 
 
 panis 
 
 bar a 
 
 aran 
 
 brot 
 
 khubz 
 
 annam 
 
 nan 
 
 acTTTI? 
 
 scutum 
 
 tarian 
 
 eirr 
 
 schild 
 
 tirs 
 
 charmam 
 
 sipar 
 
 CMTT'/jp 
 
 Stella 
 
 seren 
 
 reannan 
 
 stern 
 
 kaukab 
 
 tara 
 
 sitara 
 
 avrot; 
 
 ille 
 
 ef 
 
 e 
 
 cr 
 
 hu 
 
 sa 
 
 
 
 SaaiXtvi; 
 
 rex 
 
 llywydd 
 
 mal 
 
 konig 
 
 malik 
 
 raja 
 
 shah 
 
 ya.Xa.yiTa, 
 
 lac 
 
 laith 
 
 blith 
 
 milch 
 
 laban 
 
 dugdam 
 
 shir 
 
 ytpuv 
 
 senex 
 
 coth 
 
 criona 
 
 alt 
 
 shekh 
 
 jaran 
 
 pir 
 
 yka<T<ra, 
 
 lingua 
 
 tafod 
 
 eochai 
 
 zunge 
 
 lisan 
 
 jihwa 
 
 ziban 
 
 yvvi\ 
 
 mulier 
 
 guraig 
 
 bean 
 
 weib 
 
 nisa 
 
 stri 
 
 zan 
 
 'hast.pvziv 
 
 plorare 
 
 cwynfan 
 
 guilim 
 
 weinen 
 
 baka 
 
 ruditum 
 
 giristen 
 
 Sa/xaXi? 
 
 vacca 
 
 myswynog 
 
 eare 
 
 kuh 
 
 bakr 
 
 go 
 
 madeh-gav 
 
 SiSovai 
 
 dare 
 
 rhoddi 
 
 tabhraim 
 
 geben 
 
 ata 
 
 datum 
 
 daden 
 
 "bzvbpov 
 
 arbor 
 
 coedd 
 
 gnia 
 
 baum 
 
 shajar 
 
 wraksha 
 
 dirakht 
 
 £ y X o? 
 
 hasta 
 
 gwayu 
 
 carr 
 
 spiess 
 
 harb 
 
 shanku 
 
 sinan 
 
 eiSejv 
 
 videre 
 
 gweled 
 
 cim 
 
 sehen 
 
 basara 
 
 drishtum 
 
 diden 
 
 EITTUV 
 
 dicere 
 
 dywidydd 
 
 abraim 
 
 sprechen 
 
 kala 
 
 uktum 
 
 guften 
 
 ijATt'K-riBtlV 
 
 implere 
 
 llenwi 
 
 carcaim 
 
 fullen 
 
 taria 
 
 puritum 
 
 pur-karden 
 
 ep%e<r9ai 
 
 venire 
 
 dyfad 
 
 dighim 
 
 kommen 
 
 atu 
 
 etum 
 
 amaden 
 
 epui; 
 
 amor 
 
 hoffdar 
 
 dila 
 
 liebe 
 
 ishk 
 
 kama 
 
 yari 
 
 vfkioi; 
 
 sol 
 
 haul 
 
 grioth 
 
 sonne 
 
 shams 
 
 suria 
 
 aftab 
 
 $juh$ 
 
 nos 
 
 nini 
 
 sinn 
 
 wir 
 
 nahn 
 
 waium 
 
 ma 
 
 6a.va.TOs 
 
 mors 
 
 angen 
 
 andhacht 
 
 tod 
 
 maut 
 
 mritiu 
 
 mirg 
 
 6tp/j.oq 
 
 calidus 
 
 cynnes 
 
 te 
 
 warm 
 
 harr 
 
 gharma 
 
 garm 
 
 6pt 
 
 crinis 
 
 guale 
 
 gruag 
 
 haar 
 
 shaar 
 
 kesha 
 
 mu 
 
 %vya,Tt\p 
 
 filia 
 
 merch 
 
 dear 
 
 dochter 
 
 bint 
 
 duhitr 
 
 dochter 
 
 itvai 
 
 ire 
 
 myned 
 
 teadhaim 
 
 gehen 
 
 masha 
 
 gantum 
 
 raften 
 
 hi 
 
 sagitta 
 
 hobel 
 
 godas 
 
 pfeil 
 
 nabal 
 
 bana 
 
 tir 
 
 licit 0$ 
 
 equus 
 
 gorwydd 
 
 each 
 
 pferd 
 
 faras 
 
 aswa 
 
 asp 
 
 irrravai 
 
 stare 
 
 sefy 
 
 seasaim 
 
 stehen 
 
 kama 
 
 statum 
 
 istaden 
 
 via-Bevhetv 
 
 dormire 
 
 cysgu 
 
 faoidhim 
 
 schlafen 
 
 rakada 
 
 swapitum 
 
 khabiden 
 
 Y.a.H.o<; 
 
 malus 
 
 dwrg 
 
 eale 
 
 boss 
 
 sham- 
 
 dushta 
 
 bad 
 
 v.a.p'itot; 
 
 fructus 
 
 enwd 
 
 bliocht 
 
 frucht 
 
 samar 
 
 phullam 
 
 miwah 
 
 •asvoi; 
 
 vacuus 
 
 guag 
 
 falambh 
 
 leeren 
 
 khali 
 
 shunya 
 
 tahi 
 
 Y.t<paXtj 
 
 caput 
 
 penn 
 
 ceann 
 
 haupt 
 
 ras 
 
 shirasa 
 
 sar 
 
 vXivfi 
 
 lectus 
 
 gwely 
 
 cosair 
 
 belt 
 
 mihad 
 
 parienka 
 
 palang 
 
 Y.TUVEIV 
 
 necare 
 
 Had 
 
 facthad 
 
 todten 
 
 katala 
 
 wadhitum 
 
 kushiden 
 
 Y.VUV 
 
 canis 
 
 ci 
 
 cu 
 
 hund 
 
 kalb 
 
 shuna 
 
 sag 
 
 \a[A@a.v£iv 
 
 accipere 
 
 cymmeryd 
 
 ed 
 
 nehmen 
 
 akhaza 
 
 lipsitum 
 
 sitaden 
 
 Xvnot; 
 
 lupus 
 
 blaidd 
 
 criun 
 
 wolf 
 
 zaib 
 
 wrika 
 
 gurk 
 
 paxpos 
 
 longus 
 
 hir 
 
 fad 
 
 long 
 
 taul 
 
 dirgha 
 
 diraz 
 
 peyai; 
 
 magnus 
 
 mawr 
 
 mor 
 
 gross 
 
 kabir 
 
 mulia 
 
 buzurg 
 
 t*v$ 
 
 mus 
 
 llygoden 
 
 lueh 
 
 maus 
 
 far 
 
 musha 
 
 mush 
 
 vavi; 
 
 navis 
 
 Hong 
 
 eathar 
 
 schiff 
 
 safinah 
 
 nan 
 
 kashti 
 
 vrjiroi; 
 
 insula 
 
 ynys 
 
 1 
 
 eiland 
 
 jazirah 
 
 dwipa 
 
 anju 
 
80 
 
 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Welsh. 
 
 Irish. 
 
 German. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 £»?>»* 
 
 ensis 
 
 cleddyf 
 
 gen 
 
 schwert 
 
 seif 
 
 asi 
 
 tigh 
 
 0S0? 
 
 via 
 
 fford 
 
 raon 
 
 weg 
 
 sabil 
 
 marga 
 
 rah 
 
 ohovi; 
 
 dens 
 
 ysgitha 
 
 fecc 
 
 zahn 
 
 sinn 
 
 dantam 
 
 dan dan 
 
 obvvvj 
 
 dolor 
 
 gofid 
 
 diie 
 
 schmerz 
 
 asaf 
 
 pira 
 
 dard 
 
 OtKOq 
 
 domus 
 
 ty 
 
 lios 
 
 hans 
 
 beit 
 
 ghriham 
 
 khanah 
 
 oXfio? 
 
 dives 
 
 berthog 
 
 saidhbher 
 
 reich 
 
 ghini 
 
 shriman 
 
 tawangir 
 
 oXiyo? 
 
 parvus 
 
 coeg 
 
 diochuid 
 
 klein 
 
 saghir 
 
 laghu 
 
 khord 
 
 OfjLfxa. 
 
 oculus 
 
 llygad 
 
 deare 
 
 ange 
 
 ain 
 
 netram 
 
 chashm 
 
 »b>s 
 
 acutus 
 
 clym 
 
 sgathmhar 
 
 sch arf 
 
 hadd 
 
 tikshana 
 
 tiz 
 
 opvi9o$ 
 
 avis 
 
 edn 
 
 en 
 
 vogel 
 
 tair 
 
 pakshi 
 
 parandah 
 
 opo; 
 
 mons 
 
 mynydd 
 
 sliabh 
 
 berg 
 
 jabal 
 
 parwat 
 
 koh 
 
 opvrttiv 
 
 fodere 
 
 palu 
 
 ceabhaim 
 
 graben 
 
 hafara 
 
 khanitum 
 
 kanden 
 
 OtTTtOV 
 
 os, ossis 
 
 asgwrn 
 
 tee 
 
 bein 
 
 izm 
 
 asti 
 
 estukhwan 
 
 ova$ 
 
 auris 
 
 clust 
 
 dud 
 
 ohr 
 
 izn 
 
 karna 
 
 gush 
 
 ovpa 
 
 cauda 
 
 cynfFen 
 
 easal 
 
 schwanz 
 
 zanab 
 
 pucha 
 
 dum 
 
 maic, 
 
 puer 
 
 macewy 
 
 maccaomh 
 
 knabe 
 
 sabi 
 
 kumara 
 
 barna 
 
 itax v S 
 
 pinguis 
 
 bgas 
 
 reamhar 
 
 fett 
 
 semin 
 
 pina 
 
 farbeh 
 
 1 ite\ayo<; 
 
 mare 
 
 llyr 
 
 li 
 
 see 
 
 babr 
 
 samudra 
 
 daria 
 
 7T£V>JT5J? 
 
 pauper 
 
 bychodog 
 
 daidhblier 
 
 arm 
 
 fakir 
 
 daridra 
 
 gada 
 
 werea-Qai 
 
 volare 
 
 hedeg 
 
 eitlim 
 
 fliegen 
 
 tara 
 
 urritum 
 
 pariden 
 
 ireTp-q 
 
 Japis 
 
 carreg 
 
 onn 
 
 stein 
 
 hijar 
 
 pashana 
 
 sang 
 
 TtivcaOai 
 
 bibere 
 
 yfed 
 
 daif 
 
 trinken 
 
 sharaba 
 
 pitum 
 
 nushiden 
 
 ttoXh; 
 
 urbs 
 
 caer 
 
 cathgir 
 
 stadt 
 
 madinah 
 
 nagaram 
 
 shahar 
 
 T:o\if/.o<; 
 
 bellum 
 
 rhyfil 
 
 duchon 
 
 krieg 
 
 harb 
 
 yuddh 
 
 Jung 
 
 iroXvi; 
 
 multus 
 
 Uawer 
 
 dirini 
 
 viele 
 
 khaili 
 
 bahula 
 
 firawan 
 
 irov$ 
 
 pes 
 
 troed 
 
 cos 
 
 fuss 
 
 rijah 
 
 pada 
 
 pa 
 
 •Kpattuv 
 
 facere 
 
 peri 
 
 deanam 
 
 machen 
 
 faala 
 
 kartum 
 
 karden 
 
 •tivp 
 
 ignis 
 
 tan 
 
 tin 
 
 feuer 
 
 nair 
 
 agni 
 
 atish 
 
 pr,v 
 
 nasus 
 
 trwyn 
 
 commor 
 
 nase 
 
 anf 
 
 nasa 
 
 bini 
 
 craXrjvrj 
 
 luna 
 
 lloer 
 
 easconn 
 
 mond 
 
 kamar 
 
 chandra 
 
 mah 
 
 (T&ripot; 
 
 ferrum 
 
 arf 
 
 eabradh 
 
 eisen 
 
 hadid 
 
 loh 
 
 ah an 
 
 crrpaTOi; 
 
 exercitus 
 
 lin 
 
 creach 
 
 heer 
 
 jaish 
 
 sena 
 
 lashkar 
 
 <70!f/.a 
 
 corpus 
 
 corpt 
 
 eacht 
 
 leib 
 
 jism 
 
 deha 
 
 badan 
 
 Taxvs 
 
 celer 
 
 buan 
 
 daith 
 
 schnell 
 
 sari 
 
 kshipra 
 
 zud 
 
 v$up 
 
 aqua 
 
 dwr 
 
 bior 
 
 wasser 
 
 ma 
 
 udaka 
 
 ab 
 
 VETOf 
 
 pluvia 
 
 glaw 
 
 ainbheach 
 
 regen 
 
 ghais 
 
 warsha 
 
 baran 
 
 vloi; 
 
 filius 
 
 mab 
 
 mac 
 
 sohn 
 
 ibn 
 
 putra 
 
 pisar 
 
 i/xeti; 
 
 vos 
 
 chwi 
 
 sibh 
 
 cuch 
 
 intum 
 
 yuyam 
 
 shuma 
 
 «« 
 
 sus 
 
 mochyn 
 
 ceis 
 
 saw 
 
 khinzir 
 
 shukara 
 
 khuk 
 
 tpav\o; 
 
 vilis 
 
 gwaeh 
 
 lair 
 
 schlecht 
 
 haker 
 
 nicha 
 
 wakas 
 
 tptptiv 
 
 ferre 
 
 dwyn 
 
 malcam 
 
 fiihren 
 
 hamala 
 
 bharitum 
 
 burden 
 
 fQaip 
 
 pediculus 
 
 truedyn 
 
 sarog 
 
 laus 
 
 kaml 
 
 yuka 
 
 sipas 
 
 (fkeytiv 
 
 urere 
 
 llasgi 
 
 lasaim 
 
 brennen 
 
 sakara 
 
 ushtum 
 
 suliten 
 
 <po€eiv 
 
 tiraere 
 
 ofni 
 
 eaglaim 
 
 furchten 
 
 harasa 
 
 trasitum 
 
 tarsiden 
 
 ppovptov 
 
 castellum 
 
 trefan 
 
 rath 
 
 schloss 
 
 kila 
 
 durga 
 
 dizh 
 
 %"?■ 
 
 manus 
 
 hlaw 
 
 lamh 
 
 hand 
 
 yad 
 
 hasta 
 
 dast 
 
 X'6» 
 
 nix 
 
 eiry 
 
 laogh 
 
 schnee 
 
 sulj 
 
 hima 
 
 barf 
 
 In the preceding 100 Celtic words, all primitives and likely to occur 
 in the most unimproved tongues, not one bears the remotest resem- 
 blance to the terms with which they are compared in six different 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. gj 
 
 languages. When, therefore, Celtic etymologists find it impossible to 
 effect even the appearance of an identification of Celtic words with 
 those of other languages, except by arbitrary changes which are altoge- 
 ther inadmissible ; and when the words which are unquestionably Celtic 
 have not the slightest correspondence with those of any other tongue ; 
 it may be justly concluded that not a single language of Europe or 
 Asia has been derived from the Celtic, or has even the least affinity 
 with it. It must also necessarily follow, that the Latin and Teutonic 
 words*, with which the remains of the Celtic at present abound, are 
 not original, but derived from the people by whom the Celts were con- 
 quered, and from whom they received a new religion. 
 
 It is, however, possible that the Celts, if they once occupied the 
 whole of Europe, may have gradually receded, as they were attacked 
 by a perfectly distinct race of men, and may have left no part of their 
 people in the countries which they were thus compelled to forsake. 
 Hence, it may be argued, no Celtic words could pass into the language 
 of the conquerors, and their non-existence in it, consequently, though 
 it may disprove the affinity of the two languages, will not prove that 
 these countries were never possessed by the Celts. The maintainers, 
 therefore, of this hypothesis are prepared to show that almost every 
 name of man, town, mountain, or river , which occurs in ancient authors, 
 and even of many places at the present day, are pure Celtic, as is de- 
 monstrated by their being easily explained by the words of this copious 
 and expressive language. Bullet has written a folio volume on this 
 subject, but Pinkerton was so uncourteous as to call it an insane work, 
 and to declare that all etymology of names is folly, but Celtic etymo- 
 logy is sheer frenzy. 
 
 Harsh as this censure may appear, its justness cannot be disputed : for 
 the names contained in ancient authors have been principally preserved 
 
 * As far as I have observed, there seems, with a few solitary exceptions only, to be no 
 Greek words in Celtic, except such as are cognate with the Latin ; and it is, therefore, 
 most probable that they were derived intermediately through this language, and not directly 
 from Greek. FpctQeiv is the only Greek word, not cognate with the Latin, which I have 
 remarked, but there may be others. 
 
 M 
 
82 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 by Greek writers, and their distaste for barbarous names and fondness 
 of euphony cannot be denied ; for even Bryant, whose whole system 
 is founded on similar etymologies, observes, — " This was the standard 
 [the Greek language] to which every thing was brought ; and, if they 
 met with any names that would not abide the trial, they deemed them 
 barbarous, and entirely omitted them. Strabo fairly confesses that this 
 
 was his way of proceeding ; Ov Xeyu h rtov eOvcov t« ovcfxxja ra ttuXxix, 
 Sta. tvjv ctSorixv recti uy.x uro7ftxv ri\q eK$opxg avruv. The ancient historian 
 Cephalaon says the same ; Epoi $s v\ y^xtyvi ti re^irvov, y\ ti x a P l£V ^XAei/ 
 efceiv ovof/.ctK'hvioYiv ctvev 7r^x^euiv GapSapwy (puvoevn rvpavvovg, SeiXov; noa fjtxXoatag 
 
 €ap€apou?. On this account Josephus was afraid to mention the names 
 of the persons who composed the family of his great ancestor, Jacob, 
 lest they should appear uncouth to the nice ears of his readers ; Ta pev 
 
 ow ovofjLctrct 3rjXu<rxi tcvtuv ova eSoxif/.x^oVf xxt uxXhttu Sia, tv\v PvrxoXixv aUTwv."* 
 
 The Latin writers were less licentious in this respect ; but, had both 
 they and Greek authors been anxious to preserve the correct pro- 
 nunciation of proper names, it would have been impossible for them to 
 have effected this purpose : because no two alphabets, particularly 
 those of Europe and Asia, contain precisely the same sounds ; and, 
 consequently, had a writer been capable of conquering the almost 
 insuperable difficulty of accurately ascertaining the proper pronun- 
 ciation of foreign words, he could not have expressed it in the characters 
 of his own alphabet. In modern times it is only necessary to take 
 up the work of even a well informed traveller, in order to be con- 
 vinced of the absolute impossibility of correctly preserving the exact 
 sound of foreign proper names. Men and places, also, often receive 
 names from strangers which are perfectly unknown to the language of 
 the inhabitants ; and thus any etymology founded upon them proceeds 
 on an assumption totally erroneous, f 
 
 * Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology, 8vo ed. vol. vi. p. 39. 
 
 I am aware that Bryant made this complaint, because he could not convert the unfor- 
 tunate names preserved by Greek writers into good Hebrew ; but it will be found equally 
 impossible to make them good Celtic. 
 
 f If the reader wishes for examples, he may consult the works of Bochart, Bryant, and 
 Faber, passim. The following instance may be sufficient : — " We find, then, that the title 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 83 
 
 Until, therefore, it is proved that the proper name was actually used 
 by the inhabitants of the country to which it is supposed to belong, 
 and that the pronunciation has been correctly preserved, or, what would 
 be preferable, until the name itself is produced written in its proper 
 characters, no certainty of its genuineness can possibly exist. I admit, 
 at the same time, that could the word be identified without violence 
 with one of any known language, it might deserve attention ; and that 
 a number of such words would be a strong presumption that, in the 
 country in which they had occurred, this particular language must have 
 prevailed at some time or other : but, when there is no evidence what- 
 ever to evince that the people, to whose speech the name is alleged to 
 belong, ever occupied the country in which it is found, it must be 
 obvious that, unless its identity is rendered apparent by mere compa- 
 rison with its supposed etymon, the correctness of the etymology is 
 much too questionable to be admitted. That the Celtic etymologies, 
 however, cannot stand this simple test, is singularly exemplified, with 
 respect to comparatively modern times, in the difference of opinion 
 that exists between Dr. Jamieson and Mr. G. Chalmers relative to the 
 origin of the Picts. For Dr. Jamieson observes, — "A writer of great 
 research has, indeed, lately attempted to show that all the names of the 
 Pictish kings are British. The names of the Pictish kings, he says, have 
 not any meaning in the Teutonic, and they are, therefore, Celtic. They 
 are not Irish, and, consequently, they are British. Here I must make 
 the same observation, as before, with respect to the topography. I 
 cannot pretend to give the true meaning of these names, as there is no 
 branch of etymology so uncertain as this ; but, if I can give a meaning, 
 
 Samarim, or Semiramis, did not relate to one person but to many ; and it seems par- 
 ticularly to have been usurped by princes. The Cuthites settled about Cochin and 
 Madura, in India ; and the great kings of Calicut were styled the Samarim even in later 
 times, when these countries were visited by the Portuguese and English!" — An. Am: 
 Myth. vol. iii. p. 144. 
 
 But such a word as Samarim, or Zamorin, is unknown in the Malabar language. I may, 
 however, add, that both Mr. Bryant and Mr. Faber mention that Brahma is called Pra~ 
 japati, that is, the Lord Japhet ; but the word is Praja-pati, i. e. progeniei dominus, 
 
 M 2 
 
84 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 and one which is at least as probable as the other, it must appear that 
 the Teutonic, as far as names can go, has as good a claim to the royal 
 line of Picts as the British."* 
 
 " Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites : " 
 
 but, having carefully examined the two lists, I may be permitted to 
 observe that the Teutonic is just as probable as the Celtic etymology, 
 and that this example fully proves that the etymology of proper names 
 is mere folly, f 
 
 As, therefore, neither history, nor language, nor even the desperate 
 resource of etymology of proper names, supports in the slightest degree 
 the Celtic hypothesis, it must necessarily follow that it is totally 
 groundless. The Celts, consequently, however mortifying to their 
 lofty pretensions it may be, must acquiesce in the justness of this 
 remark of Mr. G. Chalmers : — " Yet were not the aborigines of 
 Europe, who, in subsequent ages, acquired the name of Celtae, any 
 where found in large assemblages. While Asia and Africa show several 
 
 * Dissertation on the Scottish Language, prefixed to Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary, 
 p. 35. 
 
 Dr. Jamieson had before observed, " Candour requires that it should be admitted, that 
 the Celtic dialects seem to excel the Gothic in expressive terms of a topographical kind. 
 The Celts have, undoubtedly, discovered greater warmth of fancy, and a more natural vein 
 for practical description, than the Gothic or Teutonic tribes ; their nomenclatures are, as 
 it were, pictures of the countries which they inhabit; but, at the same time, their explan- 
 ations must be viewed with reserve, not only because of the vivid character of their 
 imagination, but on account of the extreme ductility of their language, which, from the 
 great changes it admits in a state of construction, has a far more ample range than any of 
 the Gothic dialects. Hence, an ingenious Celt, without the appearance of much violence, 
 could derive almost any word from his mother tongue. Our author has very properly 
 referred to Bullet's Dictionnaire in proof of the great variety of the Celtic tongue^ for any one 
 who consults that work must see what uncertain ground he treads on, in the pursuit of Celtic 
 etymons." — Ibid. p. 12. 
 
 f It will be observed that I have not employed such etymologies in these Researches ; 
 but, had I availed myself of the licentious rules laid down by Celtic etymologists, I could 
 have converted, without much trouble, every proper name that I met with in ancient 
 writers into very good Persian or very good Sanscrit. Whether the value of this work 
 may have been diminished by this forbearance I must leave the reader to decide ; but it has 
 certainly deprived me of an opportunity of showing what seems considered to be both 
 ingenuity and erudition. 
 
THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 85 
 
 examples of empires vast and flourishing in the earliest times, we only 
 see, among the Celts, clans disconnected from habit, and feeble from dis- 
 union. At the recent period when the Romans entered Gaul, with 
 whatever design of revenge or conquest, that extensive country, the 
 appropriate seat of the Celtic people, was cantoned among sixty tribes, 
 who were little united by policy, and still less conjoined by the accus- 
 tomed habits of natural affection. Wherever we turn our inquisitive 
 eyes on the wide surface of Europe, we look in vain for a Celtic 
 empire, however the Celtic people may have agreed in their language, 
 in their worship, and in their customs."* That the Celts were a pri- 
 mitive people is sufficiently established by their language, but that 
 they were the aborigines of Europe is a point which can neither be 
 proved nor disproved : were it, however, admitted, the non-existence 
 of genuine Celtic words in any one language of Europe, must irre- 
 sistibly demonstrate that the Celts were anciently dispossesed of the 
 greatest part of the country which they may have once occupied, by a 
 perfectly distinct race of men. This very argument, therefore, evinces 
 that the present inhabitants of Europe are not the descendants of the 
 Celts, and that they did not receive from them their languages, 
 manners, and religion. With regard, also, to the languages of Asia, I 
 may adopt the words of Davis in the Preface to his Dictionary, after 
 substituting the word nullam for manifestam: — " Ausim affirmare lin- 
 guam Britannicam (Celticam), turn vocibus, turn phrasibus et orationis 
 contextu, turn literarum pronunciatione, nullam cum orientalibus 
 habere congruentiam et affinitatem." The Celtic, therefore, when di- 
 vested of all words which have been introduced into it by conquest and 
 religion, is a perfectly original language : but this originality incontro- 
 vertibly proves that neither Greek, Latin, or the Teutonic dialects, 
 nor Arabic, Persian, or Sanscrit, were derived from the Celtic, since 
 these languages have not any affinity whatever with that tongue. 
 
 * Chalmers's Caledonia, vol. i. p. 6. 
 
86 
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 The remarks contained in the two preceding chapters will, perhaps, 
 have evinced that it is not from the unknown Scythian or the rude 
 Celtic that the most copious, the most expressive, and the most har- 
 monious of languages derives its origin : but, though the beauty and 
 perfection of the Greek language is universally admitted, still Mr. 
 Mitford merely expresses the general opinion, when he observes that 
 " the origin of the Greek nation from a mixture of the Pelasgians, 
 and possibly some other barbarous hordes, with colonies from Phe 
 nicia and Egypt, seems not doubtful."* If, however, the cause as- 
 signed be inadequate to produce the alleged effect, its existence may be 
 reasonably questioned. As, therefore, experience proves that a bar- 
 barous people must speak a barbarous tongue, and as no attempts are 
 made to explain the manner in which the rude speech of a mixed 
 people, consisting of Pelasgians, barbarian aborigines, Phenicians, and 
 Egyptians, was refined into that homogeneous and polished language 
 by which the poems of Homer are distinguished, it may be justly con- 
 cluded that the real descent of the Greeks is a point which still remains 
 undetermined. Its investigation, also, is impeded by the deference 
 which is no doubt due to the opinions of ancient writers ; but it must 
 be recollected that these authors themselves avow that the subject is 
 involved in the greatest obscurity, and that the memory of events 
 prior to the Trojan war had been preserved solely by tradition, j- It 
 
 * History of Greece, vol. i. p. 20. 
 
 f Diodorus Siculus observes that " some writers have rejected the ancient fables 
 (j*wfloXoy»«?)» on account of the difficulty of discussing them," and acknowledges that his 
 first six books contain the deeds and fables which occurred previous to the Trojan war : 
 (lib. i. c. 24.) but Thucydides makes the same remark with respect to the events which 
 took place prior to the Peloponnesian war,—" For, before this," observes he, "it is impossible 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 87 
 
 may, therefore, be allowable to endeavour to ascertain, by means of such 
 traditions, and by the affinity of the Greek with other languages, who 
 the people were from whom the Greeks actually derived their origin. 
 
 This question has been further perplexed by the discordant opinions 
 which learned men have expressed with respect to the Pelasgi and the 
 Hellenes. But the accounts given of these two people by ancient 
 writers appear to me to be so brief and unsatisfactory as scarcely to 
 admit of a reasonable conclusion being deduced from them ; and it is 
 at least evident that all which has been since written on the subject 
 tends rather to obscure than to elucidate it * : for it is generally ad- 
 mitted that in ancient times the Pelasgi occupied the whole of Greece, 
 which was called from them, according to Herodotus, Pelasgia, and that 
 Hellen was the son of Deucalion who reigned in Thessaly ; and yet it 
 is requisite to believe that the posterity of Hellen, who grew up among 
 the Pelasgi, spoke a distinct language, and finally expelled the latter 
 from Greece. This last circumstance is possible ; but to render it 
 credible that the children of one family should speak a language differ- 
 ent from that of the people amongst whom they were born and lived, 
 requires much stronger testimony than is contained in the single, 
 
 to ascertain the more ancient events, on account of the length of time that has elapsed ; 
 but, judging from appearances, I am led to believe that, in remote antiquity, nothing 
 remarkable occurred either in war or otherwise ;" (lib. i. c. 1.) and Herodotus commences his 
 history with Candaules, king of Lydia, who reigned from 735 to 680 B. C. 
 
 * I ought to except that very learned work, the Horae Pelasgicse of Bishop Marsh ; 
 who remarks, in p. 25 ; — " Even independently of Homer's testimony, it is incredible that 
 the cause should have operated so long before the Trojan war, if, as Thucydides himself 
 declares, the effect was not produced till after the Trojan war. But, whatever was the 
 period when the descendants of Hellen obtained the superiority which led to the general 
 adoption of their name, there is no reason to suppose that they spoke a different language 
 from that which was used in the other parts of Greece, to which they extended their 
 dominion. At that time Greece in general was called IleAaa-y'a; and the very country from 
 which the 'EAAvjvej came was distinguished in particular by the epithet n=A«<ryixoj. 
 The substitution, therefore, of one term for another could not have been accompanied with the 
 substitution of one language for another ; and even if the family of Hellen had spoken a 
 different language from that of the Pelasgi, the language of that family could not have 
 superseded the language previously spoken in Greece, unless they exterminated as well as 
 conquered, which no Greek historian has ever asserted." 
 
gg THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 isolated, but often quoted passage of Herodotus : — " But, with regard 
 to the language which the Pelasgi used, I have nothing positive to say. 
 If, however, I may speak from the testimony afforded by those still 
 existing Pelasgi who inhabit the city Kreston, and Placia and Sylace 
 on the Hellespont, and other Pelasgian towns which have changed 
 their names, the Pelasgi used a barbarous language : but the Hellenic 
 people, as it appears to me, have from their first origin always spoken 
 the same language." Yet Herodotus, in the very same sentence, con- 
 tradicts his own opinion, by adding that " the Hellenes, when they 
 separated from the Pelasgi, were weak and few in number, but after- 
 wards increased to a numerous people, principally by incorporating 
 barbarous tribes with themselves :" * for it must be obvious that such 
 an incorporation could not take place without materially affecting the 
 Hellenic language. The conjecture, however, of Herodotus depends 
 entirely on the justness of the claim to a Pelasgic origin advanced by 
 these towns in Thrace, and of this no evidence whatever is given : but 
 it is at once assumed that they actually spoke the language of the 
 Pelasgi, who are supposed to have been expelled from Greece at least 
 600 years before, and an inference is then drawn from this assumption, 
 that the Hellenic differed from the Pelasgic language ; a mode of rea- 
 soning much too inconclusive to support any opinion that is founded 
 upon it.f 
 
 Were, however, this inference to be admitted, it would still be ne- 
 cessary to prove the precise period at which the Hellenic language 
 became predominant in Greece ; and it will scarcely be contended that 
 this could have taken place before the Greeks were distinguished by 
 the name of Hellenes : for this name is universally admitted to have 
 
 * Herodotus, lib. i. c. 58. 
 
 t As, also, the Ionians and iEolians were unquestionably comprised under the name of 
 Hellenes, the following words of Herodotus deserve particular attention, as he thus clearly 
 identifies them with the Pelasgi : — Iwvsg 8s, oo-ov pav xpovov sv ITsXoTroi/vvjo-w tvjv vvv xuXeopevvjv 
 A^«i»»jv, xai npiv Aa.va.ov ts xai Eu0ov «7nx=<70«j eg TIsKottovvyjo-ov, wj 'EAXrjvsj Asyoucn, sxaXeovro 
 fleAatryoi AiyaAssf S7n 8s loovog too avQov, Iwvsj. NrjtrJMTai 8s sTrraxaidexx Trapsi^ovTO vsac, 
 07rXi(Tj«.£V0i coj 'EAAtjvsj* x«i tovto UiXaaytKov e&vog, vo-Tspov 8s loovixov sx\y)Syi, xat a\ SuwSsxa 
 7roXi=j Iaivef, ol «7r'A9)jvswv, AtoXss; 8=, kfaxoVTa vsag 7rapzi%ovTO, s<TXsuacry.svoi ts wj 'EAAijvsj, xa< 
 Tw:uXa.i KaAeO|U,svoj ITsAa<ryoi, a>j 'EAAijvojv Xoyog. — Lib. vii. c. 94, 95. 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 89 
 
 originated from Hellen, the son of Deucalion ; and, if his posterity spoke 
 a different language from that of their countrymen, it must be con- 
 cluded that their name and language acquired a predominance exactly 
 in the same manner and at the same time ; but Thucydides observes 
 that, " before the Trojan war, Hellas [Greece] does not appear to have 
 acted in common. But it seems to me that the whole country was not 
 then even called by this name, and that not only this appellation did not 
 exist before Hellen, the son of Deucalion, but that parts of the country 
 were named after the different people [that inhabited them], and prin- 
 cipally the Pelasgi. Hellen, however, and his children becoming pow- 
 erful in Phthiotis, and introducing themselves into other cities for the 
 purpose of assistance, individuals from this intercourse were generally 
 called Hellenes ; but it was a long time before the application of this 
 name to all the people prevailed. Homer strongly proves this, who, 
 born long after the Trojan war, never applies this name to the Greeks 
 generally, but only to those who came from Phthiotis with Achilles, 
 and who were, in fact, the original Hellenes ; but he calls them in his 
 verses Danai, Argivi, and Achasi."* It may, therefore, be reasonably 
 concluded that, previous to the Trojan war, no such distinction prevailed 
 in the language of ancient Greece as Hellenic and Pelasgic. 
 
 Another circumstance in the early history of the Greeks, the intro- 
 duction of letters into their country by Cadmus, which is generally 
 admitted, appears to me to be completely disproved by the Greek 
 alphabet ; for, whether the eight letters said to have been unknown to 
 Homer are included or omitted in it, its system of letters and sounds 
 agrees not with that of either the Arabic or Samaritan alphabets,* 
 
 * Thucydides, lib. i. c. 3. The conclusions of Thucydides are controverted by Strabo ; 
 but, in the edition of Strabo, Amstel. 1 707, I find nothing but these two strange notes : — 
 in p. 370., " De hoc Thucydidis loco accurate disputatur infra libro xiv. Casaub. ; " in 
 p. 661., " Locus Thucydidis est in procemio : mihi vero, ut ingenue dicam quod sentiam, 
 non videtur Thucydides validis destitui rationibus, quibus suam sententiam contra Strabo- 
 nem nostrum tueatur ; verum htzc tractant quibus plus est otii. Casaub : " but the note of 
 Duker, in support of the passage above quoted, in his edition of Thucydides, is satisfactory 
 and convincing, though too long to be extracted. 
 
 f The Phenician is supposed to have been the same as the Samaritan alphabet ; but see 
 this subject farther discussed in Chap. IX. 
 
 N 
 
f)0 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 The Samaritan alphabet has twenty-two letters, the Arabic twenty- 
 eight*, the Greek either sixteen or twenty -four, and neither the Sama- 
 ritan nor Arabic has any vowels f*, though the Greek has seven : the 
 Samaritan has thus, at least, eleven, and the Arabic fourteen sounds 
 unknown to the Greek, while the latter, when complete, has seven 
 sounds unknown to the other two ; and, as it might be expected, 
 the arrangement of the letters in the Greek and the other two alphabets 
 is totally dissimilar. It is, therefore, surprising that such striking dif- 
 ferences did not convince learned men that an alphabet of twenty-two 
 or twenty-eight letters could not possibly have been the origin of one 
 of sixteen ; and that no colonists, who had sufficient influence to induce 
 a foreign people to receive their alphabet, would ever have given up, in 
 order to make use of seven sounds previously unknown, eleven or four- 
 teen sounds to which they had been accustomed from their infancy, and 
 without which their own language must have become unintelligible to 
 each other. It is not, therefore, the form of the letters by which the 
 alphabets of different people ought to be identified, but the system 
 of sounds essential to the proper pronunciation of their respective lan- 
 guages ; and, whenever this is radically dissimilar, as in the Greek and 
 Samaritan alphabets, it must necessarily follow that the. Greeks could 
 not have received theirs from the Phenicians. As, also, there seems to 
 be no doubt that the Phenician was an Arabic dialect, and as the 
 person or colony who is supposed to have introduced letters into 
 Greece must have exerted some influence on its language, the Greek 
 ought consequently at this day to contain many Arabic words : but, as 
 none such exist, their absence confirms the conclusion drawn from the 
 dissimilarity of their alphabetical systems, and both circumstances irre- 
 sistibly prove that Greece was not indebted, either for its alphabet or 
 for any part of its language, to any people of an Arabic origin.:): 
 
 * The present Arabic alphabet is a modern invention, but it cannot be supposed thai 
 letters would be invented to express sounds that were unknown to the Arabs. 
 
 f This remark must be restricted to the letters of the alphabet ; for, in speaking, the 
 Arabs, of course, make use of the three vowels, a, i, and u, of other people, but these are 
 not represented by distinct characters. 
 
 % The argument contained in a preceding note (p. 21.) had previously escaped my notice; 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 91 
 
 But, had a just conclusion been drawn from the premises which 
 ancient writers present, no uncertainty could ever have existed with 
 respect to the country from which Greece derived both her language 
 and her people. In a preceding quotation It has been seen that 
 Thucydides ascribes to the Pelasgi, amongst the other people of early 
 Greece, the principal importance ; and it appears from different 
 passages in Strabo and other writers, that they must at one time have 
 possessed nearly the whole country : but Strabo further states, " The 
 Pelasgi were a great nation, as history attests ; for Menecrates the 
 Elean, in his work on the foundation of cities, says that the whole of 
 the maritime country, commencing from Mycale, now called Ionia, 
 and the neighbouring islands, were inhabited by the Pelasgi." * The 
 settlements, also, of the Pelasgi in Italy and other places sufficiently 
 attest their numbers and their wide-spread migrations ; and the 
 epithet Ao< which Homer applies to them, and the honorific epithet 
 Pelasgic that not unfrequently occurs in Grecian poetry, fully prove 
 the former power of this once celebrated people, j" It is, therefore, 
 
 but it is so ingenious and so conclusive, that it must appear surprising how any person 
 acquainted with the peculiar structure of the Hebrew or Arabic tongue could ever have 
 derived any other language from it : for, in these words, it must be evident that they 
 receive their particular signification from the vowels alone, craXaj, <re\xs, ersXjj, avXvjg ; 
 malus, miles, moles, mulus ; tan, ten, tin, tone, tun, tune ; and in these Sanscrit ones, 
 pati, pita, puta, pota : but it is equally evident that the meaning of these Arabic 
 words, harama, hirman, muharram, hiramat, muhtarim, depends entirely on the radical 
 consonants hrm ; because these, and its other derivatives, are merely modifications of 
 the sense of the radical word. 
 
 * Strabo, p. 62 1 . 
 
 f The following passage in Strabo deserves particular attention : — " But almost every 
 person agrees that the Pelasgi, an ancient people, predominated throughout the whole of 
 Greece, and particularly among the .ZEolians of Thessaly ; and Ephorus is of opinion that, 
 though by origin Arcadians, they embraced a military life, and engaging many people to 
 associate with them they conferred their name on all, and obtained great celebrity, not only 
 among the Gi'eeks but among the other nations where they chanced to come : for even in 
 Crete were colonies of them settled, as Homer sings ; since Ulysses thus speaks to 
 Penelope, - 
 
 " ' Crete awes the circling waves, a fruitful soil ! 
 And ninety cities crown the sea-born isle : 
 
 N 2 
 
92 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 most unaccountable that, while aware of these circumstances, Grecian 
 writers should prefer to trace the origin of their nation from mixed 
 hordes of barbarians, rather than to derive it from so illustrious a 
 source. The names, also, of mountains and rivers in Thrace, and the 
 birthplaces of their earlier poets, ought to have led them to enquire 
 to what cause the early civilisation of a country, which afterwards 
 relapsed into barbarism, was to be attributed ; and they would then 
 have found that it had been occasioned by migrations from Asia 
 Minor of a civilised people, who, after residing some time in Thrace, 
 had proceeded into Greece. The very tract which bodies of men would 
 pursue, previous to the general use of navigation, was thus most 
 
 Mix'd with her genuine sons, adopted names 
 In various tongues avow their various claims ; 
 Cydonians dreadful with the bended yew, 
 And bold Pelasjri boast a native's due :' 
 
 and Homer also calls that part of Thessaly which is situated between the mouth of the 
 Peneus and Thermopylae, as far as Pindus, Pelasgian Argos, because the Pelasgi had ruled 
 over it : he further calls the Dodonaean Jupiter Pelasgic, — 
 
 " * O thou supreme ! high throned all height above ! 
 Oh great Pelasgic, Dodonaean Jove ! ' 
 
 " Many, also, call the people of Epirus Pelasgi, for that far did their sway extend : and 
 numerous heroes, from whom many people were named, were likewise called Pelasgi ; 
 for even Lesbos is called Pelasgic ; and Homer calls the people who bordered on the 
 Cilicians in the Troad Pelasgi, — 
 
 " ' The fierce Pelasgi next, in war renown'd, 
 March from Larissa's ever fertile ground : 
 In equal arms their brother leaders shine, 
 Hippothous bold, and Pyleus the divine.' 
 
 " The authority on which Ephorus thought that the Pelasgi were Arcadians was Hesiod, 
 who says, ' Six were the sons of godlike Lycaon, whom formerly Pelasgus begot ; ' and 
 Ephorus also mentions that the Peloponnesus was called Pelasgia ; and Euripides, in 
 Archelaus, says that Danaus, the father of fifty daughters, coming to Argos, founded the 
 city of Inachus, and established the custom of calling those who were formerly named 
 Pelasgiotae Danai. Anticlides writes that the Pelasgi founded Lemnos and Imbros, and 
 that some of them accompanied Tyrrhenus the son of Atys into Italy; the Attic historians, 
 also, relate that the Pelasgi were established in Athens, and that from their wandering about 
 like birds they were called Pelarge" [i. e. Storks]. — Strabo, lib. v. p. 220, et seq. 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 93 
 
 
 clearly pointed out by their own traditions ; and yet the writers of 
 Greece have most strangely overlooked the truth, to lose themselves in 
 the mazes of error. 
 
 The general opinion of antiquity, at the same time, attests that the 
 matchless poems of Homer were composed in Asia Minor ; but Thu- 
 cydides expressly states that no migrations took place from Greece 
 until at least eighty years after the Trojan war.* Whether, therefore, 
 Homer was born before or after the Ionian migration became, as it 
 appears from Strabo f, a subject of dispute amongst ancient writers ; 
 but the arguments and authorities by which they supported their 
 respective opinions, have not been so preserved as to admit of either 
 the one or the other being received as unexceptionable testimony, 
 were even the moderns capable of deciding on these grounds a 
 question which the ancients considered as doubtful : yet the received 
 system of chronology places the capture of Troy in 1184, the Ionian 
 migration in 1044, and the age of Homer in 907 B. C. According, 
 however, to every just principle of reasoning with respect to evidence, 
 the testimony of those Grecian writers who maintain that Homer was 
 born after the Ionian migration, is so evidently influenced by the desire 
 of increasing the glory of their country, by proving that so pre-eminent 
 a poet was of Grecian origin, as to render it of much less weight than 
 that of other writers, who, superior to national prejudice, claimed not 
 Homer for their countryman. Sir Isaac Newton, also, has satisfac- 
 torily shown that dependence cannot be placed on the received systems 
 of chronology, and that the dates assigned to the early events of 
 Grecian history rest on no sufficient grounds. He has, therefore, 
 
 * Thucydides, lib. i. c. 12. 
 
 f Strabo, p. 384. Tatianus, also, apud Euseb. Prep. Evan. lib. x. c. 11., enumerates 
 various writers by whom this subject was discussed; amongst whom Crates placed the 
 time when Homer flourished within eighty years after the capture of Troy, and before the 
 return of the Heraclidae; Eratosthenes, 100 years after the siege of Troy ; and Aris- 
 tarchus, about the time of the Ionian migration, which occurred 140 years after that event. 
 
 The French translators of Strabo decide this question magisterially, without condescend- 
 ing to give any reasons for their opinion ; for they observe, in a note on this passage, " La 
 naissance d'Homere est posterieure de deux siecles au moins a l'etablissement des Ioniens 
 dans l'Asie Mineure ; elle doit avoir lieu environ 900 ans avant notre ere." 
 
94 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 fixed the capture of Troy in 904, the age of Homer in 870, and the 
 Ionic migration in 794 B.C., and thus virtually expressed his opinion 
 that Homer was not a native of Greece. 
 
 In order, however, that I may not be accused of perverting autho- 
 rities in order to support a hypothesis, I must be allowed to avail 
 myself of a rather long quotation from Mr. Mitford's History of Greece, 
 as the reasoning contained in it seems to me unanswerable : — " These 
 are then, I believe, the only passages *, within Homer's extant works, 
 that speak at all affirmatively to the age in which he lived : they are 
 not conclusive, and yet, united, they are strong. But the negative 
 evidence, which his works afford in confirmation of them, is such that, 
 but for the respect due to those who have thought differently, and 
 still more perhaps to those who have doubted, I should scarcely 
 hesitate to call the whole together decisive. For, had the return of 
 the Heracleids preceded the times in which Homer flourished, is it 
 conceivable that, among subjects which so naturally led to the mention 
 of it, he should never once have alluded to so great an event, by whicli 
 so total a change was made of the principal families, and indeed of 
 the whole population of Peloponnesus, and of all the western coast of 
 Asia Minor, with the adjacent Islands ? His geography of Pelopon- 
 nesus is so minute and so exact, that Strabo has chosen to follow him 
 step by step, for the purpose of tracing, from remotest antiquity, a 
 complete account of that Peninsula, That in so particular an account 
 of the country, before the Dorian conquest, he should have been so 
 correct that no subsequent inquiry could convict him of any error, and 
 yet that he should not take the least notice of any of the great changes 
 in the property, the government, and the partition of the country, 
 which that revolution produced, if he had lived to see them, is not 
 
 * One of these passages is as follows : — "In the Odyssey again we find another remark- 
 able passage concerning subjects for poetry : The Gods wrought the fate of Troy, and 
 decreed the destruction of men, that there might be subjects for poetry to future generations. 
 Had the poet lived after the return of the Heracleids, the revolution would have furnished 
 subjects far more nearly interesting to hearers, in any part of either Greece itself, or the 
 Grecian settlements in Asia Minor, than the war of Troy." — History of Greece, vol. i. 
 p. 170. 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. gc 
 
 easily imaginable. How naturally, upon many occasions, would some 
 such pathetic observation have occurred concerning the Pelopeid, the 
 Neleid, and other families, as that which in his catalogue in the Iliad, 
 he makes upon the catastrophe of the royal family of iEtolia. How 
 naturally, too, especially as he mentions the wars of Hercules both in 
 Greece and Asia, would some compliment have fallen to the descend- 
 ants of that hero, had they been in his time lords of Peloponnesus, 
 instead of exiles in the mountains of Doris ; and how almost unavoid- 
 able, from an inhabitant of Chios, some notice of the acquisitions of 
 Agamemnon and Nestor in iEolis and Ionia, had he lived after the 
 iEolic and Ionian migration ? Such subjects being open to him for 
 compliment to all the princes both of the Pelopeid and Heracleid 
 families, would he have neglected all and paid particular attention 
 only to the extinct family of iEneas, the enemy of his nation ? With 
 these strong circumstances many others meet. To complete the 
 evidence which the poet himself furnishes concerning the time in 
 which he lived, we must add his ignorance of idolatry, of hero-worship, 
 of republics, of tyrannies, of a general name for the Greek nation, and 
 of its division into Ionian, iEolian, and Dorian ; we must add the form 
 of worship which he describes, without temples as without images ; 
 we must add the little fame of oracles ; and his silence concerning the 
 council of Amphictyons ; we must add his familiar knowledge of 
 Sidon, and his silence concerning Tyre ; and lastly we may add the 
 loss of his works in Peloponnesus, whose new inhabitants had com- 
 paratively little interest in them, and their preservation among the 
 colonists in Asia, who reckoned his principal heroes among their 
 ancestors. All these circumstances together appear to amount almost 
 to conviction that Homer lived before the return of the Heracleids : 
 all together afford also strong proof that the editors of the Rhapsodies 
 found them genuine and gave them so to the world." 
 
 The whole, therefore, of the preceding reasoning and authorities 
 seems to prove incontrovertibly that Homer was not a Greek, but a 
 native of Asia Minor ; and, consequently, that the language in which 
 his poems are written was formerly the language of that country. 
 
96 
 
 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 This last conclusion is evidently confirmed by the account of the 
 colony led into Greece by Pelops, the only one of which any particulars 
 have been preserved. But, even with respect to the grandfather of 
 Agamemnon, occurs the usual discordancy in the writings of ancient 
 authors : for by some he is represented as an exile who obtained a 
 small principality by marriage * ; Thucydides relates that, though a 
 stranger, he acquired power by bringing from Asia great riches into 
 a poor country "j" ; but Strabo, that he led people from Phrygia into 
 the country since called Peloponnesus. X That an individual would 
 become acquainted with the language of the people amongst whom 
 he lived is to be expected ; but that a colony so powerful that its 
 leader was enabled to possess himself of the country into which 
 he migrated, and to occasion its ancient name to be superseded by 
 his own, should give up its own language, and acquire a foreign 
 tongue by the second generation so perfectly as not to be distinguished 
 from the original inhabitants, is too inconsistent with probability to 
 appear in the least credible : but, if Pelops led a colony into Greece, 
 this change must either have taken place, as Homer notices no 
 difference in the language of the Peloponnesians from that of the 
 other Greeks, or the mother tongue of the colonists and of the Greeks 
 must have been exactly the same. 
 
 The original seat of the Pelasgi, therefore, and the language of 
 Homer, and probably of the colony led by Pelops, demonstrate that 
 Greece derived from Asia Minor her language and her people. The 
 researches of Mr. Mitford have led him to the same conclusion, for 
 he observes, " It appears from a strong concurrence of circumstances 
 recorded by ancient writers, that the early inhabitants of Asia Minor, 
 Thrace, and Greece, were the same people. The Leleges, Caucones, 
 and Pelasgians, enumerated by Homer among the Asiatic nations, are 
 mentioned by Strabo as the principal names among those, whom at 
 the same time he calls barbarians, who in earliest times occupied 
 Greece. § It has been supposed by some authors, but apparently 
 
 * Diodorus Siculus, lib. iv. c. 73. . f Thucydides, lib. i. c. 9. 
 
 % Strabo, 321. § Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 52. 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 97 
 
 without good grounds, that, before the Trojan war, migrations had 
 been made from Greece to Asia Minor. We have seen that the 
 earliest known people of the western parts of that country differed 
 little, in origin or in language, from the inhabitants of Greece."* 
 
 But there seems no doubt that Asia had advanced to a considerable 
 degree of civilisation at a very early period of the world ; and, had 
 migrations passed from it into Greece, it is impossible that its early 
 inhabitants existed in that rude and barbarous state described by 
 Grecian writers, and particularly by Thucydides. The picture is, 
 certainly, not flattering ; and hence it is concluded that nothing but 
 the truth could have induced a Greek to depict his ancestors in 
 colours so mortifying to his vanity. But from what source did He- 
 rodotus and Thucydides derive their knowledge of these circumstances ? 
 It is admitted that history was not in being ; and, most assuredly, these 
 were not the subjects which tradition would love to select and to dwell 
 upon f ; while the very existence of tradition necessarily implies a certain 
 progress in the formation of society, and the occurrence of events that 
 deserved to be remembered. It is evident, therefore, that these 
 descriptions are mere fancy pictures, which are entitled to no more 
 credit than the verses of Hesiod or Ovid ; and that nothing whatever 
 is known of the actual state of Greece until the time when Homer 
 composed his immortal poems. But, as usual, the very traditions 
 preserved by the Grecian writers themselves prove that, a considerable 
 time before the Trojan war, the state of society which they describe 
 must have ceased in Greece ; and here again I gladly avail myself of 
 Mr. Mitford's assistance, as his authority must be more satisfactory to 
 
 * Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 251. 
 
 f Observe these words of Thucydides, — " It appears that the country, now called Greece, 
 was anciently not inhabited in a permanent manner, but migrations were frequent, and those 
 who were compelled by superior numbers readily left their habitations ; for there was no 
 commerce, and no easy intercourse with each other either by land or sea ; each cultivated 
 what was necessary for his subsistence, and possessed no superfluity of riches ; none planted 
 trees, for it was uncertain whether some other would not carry away the fruit ; and thus 
 thinking that they would obtain their daily subsistence any where, the inhabitants migrated 
 without difficulty." Again, " In former times all Greece was armed, because their 
 habitations were defenceless, and because they could not otherwise move about in safety." 
 — Lib. i. c. 2. 6. 
 
98 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 the reader than any observations of mine : — " Herodotus asserts that 
 the ancient hymns, sung at the festival of Apollo at Delos, were 
 composed by Olen, a Lycian ; and Pausanias says that the hymns of 
 Olen the Lycian were the oldest known to the Greeks, and that Olen 
 the Hyperborean, who seems to have been the same person, was the 
 inventor of the Grecian hexameter verse. It seems a necessary 
 inference that the language both of Thrace and Lycia was Greek. 
 The hymns of Thamyris and Orpheus were admired for singular 
 sweetness even in Plato's time ; and the Thracians, Thamyras, Orpheus, 
 Musaeus, and Eumolpus *, with the Lycian Olen, were the ac- 
 knowledged fathers of Grecian poetry, the acknowledged reformers of 
 Grecian manners ; those who, according to Grecian accounts, began 
 that polish in morals, manners, and language, which, in after ages, 
 characterised the Greek and distinguished him from the barbarian." 
 It needs no argument, I presume, to show that poetry, which was 
 admired for its singular sweetness in a polished age, could not have 
 been composed in such a state of society as is described by Thucydides. 
 If the preceding discussion should appear too prolix, the importance 
 of the subject will, I trust, be considered as a sufficient excuse : for 
 the Egyptian and Phenician origin of the people, language, and 
 letters of Greece is so firmly established an opinion, that even Mr. 
 Mitford has not always been enabled to escape its influence, but has 
 sometimes drawn conclusions that are inconsistent with his own 
 premises ; and it therefore became necessary to show that the 
 received systems of chronology and of history, as applicable to the 
 early times of Greece, have been admitted without due examination. 
 The former writings, also, of learned men will evince that a persist* 
 ance in tracing all languages to the Hebrew, Scythian, or Celtic, must 
 render all enquiries into the affinity of languages an endless reasoning 
 in the same circle, not only without producing any beneficial result, 
 but with the positive disadvantage of giving rise to speculations which 
 
 * The period when these person flourished cannot be ascertained. Sir Isaac Newton 
 places Eumolpus 103 years, and Orpheus, who was one of the Argonauts, thirty-three years, 
 before the Trojan war ; but their antiquity seems to have been much greater. 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 99 
 
 cast a ridicule on etymology itself; but, if the language of Greece be 
 the same as that which was anciently spoken in Asia Minor, a new 
 object of enquiry presents itself, the pursuit of which may, perhaps, 
 lead to as much certainty as can ever be acquired with respect to 
 subjects of remote antiquity. 
 
 On this point Adelunghas advanced the following singular opinion : 
 
 " Asia Minor was in the oldest times probably inhabited by people 
 
 of the Semitic branch ; who were supplanted in the principal and 
 
 western division of this country by immigrating colonies of Thracians. 
 
 In the smaller and eastern division, part was possessed by the Semitic 
 
 Cilicians and Cappadocians, and part by various small tribes of distinct 
 
 origin and language." * But he does not sufficiently explain the 
 
 grounds on which was formed a conclusion that directly contradicts 
 
 both probability and history ; for, even according to the Mosaic 
 
 account, Babylonia was the country first peopled, and, consequently, 
 
 Asia Minor must have received its inhabitants from the conterminous 
 
 country at present called Mesopotamia. But it seems admitted that, 
 
 in the time of Jacob, his language and that of Chaldea were not the 
 
 same, and I have perhaps proved, that the language of Abraham could 
 
 not have been the present Hebrew ; whence it necessarily follows that 
 
 the original language of Asia Minor, if peopled from Babylonia f, 
 
 was not Semitic. It has also been seen that the first Grecian poet was 
 
 Olen, a Lycian ; and " Olympus, the father of Grecian music, whose 
 
 compositions, which Plato calls divine, retained the highest reputation 
 
 even in Plutarch's time, was a Phrygian. In the Grecian mythology 
 
 we find continual references to Asiatic and Thracian stories ; and even 
 
 in the heroic ages, which followed the mystic, the Greeks and Asiatics 
 
 appear to have communicated as kindred people. Pelops, a fugitive 
 
 Asiatic prince, acquired a kingdom by marriage in Peloponnesus ; and 
 
 Bellerophon, a prince of Corinth, in the same manner acquired the 
 
 * Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 344. 
 
 f For brevity's sake, I must be allowed to use this word for the whole country which was 
 bounded on the east by Mons Zagros, on the north by the mountains of Armenia, and on 
 the west and south by the Euphrates. 
 
 o 2 
 
 s 
 
UO THE greek language. 
 
 kingdom of Ly cia in Asia. Herodotus remarks that the Lydian laws 
 and manners, even in his time, very nearly resembled the Grecian ; 
 and the Lycians and Pamphylians were so evidently of the same race 
 with the Greeks, that he supposed them the descendants of emigrants 
 from Crete, from Athens, and other parts of Greece."* 
 
 When, therefore, their own mythology and traditions, and the lan- 
 guage of their most admired poet, so incontrovertibly proved their 
 origin, at least as far as it was remembered, it seems passing strange 
 that Grecian writers should have concurred in tracing their language, 
 letters, and religion, to Egypt and Phenicia ; that most modern writers 
 should have continued in the same error must be ascribed to that 
 necessary connection which they supposed to exist between the 
 Christian religion and the Hebrew language, on which I have before 
 remarked : but the existence of the Pelasgi in Greece is admitted, 
 and their Asiatic origin and their power can scarcely be disputed ; 
 in which case their expulsion from that country by rude and 
 innumerous tribes of barbarians must be considered in the high est 
 degree improbable. In what manner, however, their name disappeared 
 in history it is now impossible to ascertain : but there is every reason 
 to conclude that they were the inhabitants of Greece at the period of 
 Pelops's arrival in it ; and, as they were a kindred race, they may have 
 gradually become incorporated with the new colonists who, about that 
 time or earlier, migrated from Asia Minor and Thrace ; vague 
 conjectures, therefore, and untenable hypotheses must yield to 
 conclusions, the correctness of which are established by their pro- 
 bability, and by their accordance with all that is related in ancient 
 history. 
 
 The language, also, in which the Iliad and Odyssey are written, 
 appears much too perfect to render it at all credible that it could 
 have received its wonderful beauty and excellence in such a state of 
 society as Homer describes. When kings dressed their own dinners, 
 and princesses washed their own clothes, the formation of a copious and 
 polished language could not possibly take place ; for experience has 
 
 * Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 53. 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 101 
 
 sufficiently proved that a rude people speak a rude language, and 
 that its refinement is produced solely by the progress of civilisation. 
 To suppose, therefore, that the Greek language started forth at once, 
 like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, arrayed in all its strength and 
 majesty, might be consistent with fiction, but would be repugnant to 
 truth. Greek, also, had been employed, long before Homer, in 
 poetical compositions which were admired in later times ; and, con- 
 sequently, with whatever beauties his genius may have embellished 
 the style of his unrivalled poems, still the language had been previously 
 polished and adapted to poetry : but all former productions have 
 perished, and, as the Greeks were neither philologists nor judicious 
 antiquarians, no means now exist for satisfactorily determining the 
 cause to which this striking discordance between the language of 
 Homer and the state of civilisation which he describes ought to be 
 attributed. 
 
 I am averse to conjecture and hypothesis, but these Researches would 
 fail in connection did I not propose a solution of this difficulty; for it 
 appears to me extremely probable that, at some remote period, a power- 
 ful kingdom may have flourished in the delightful country of Asia Minor, 
 in which the language, afterwards called Greek, was spoken, and in which 
 it received its wonderful refinement and perfection. The rise and fall of 
 kingdoms in Asia seem sufficiently authenticated by history, and this 
 monarchy, therefore, may, either from internal dissensions or from the 
 attacks of a foreign power, have also fallen, and thus have given rise 
 to the number of small states in which Asia Minor was divided at 
 the time of Homer. This supposition receives support from a cir- 
 cumstance which is noticed by Mr. Mitford : — " Homer reckons time 
 upward no further than he can trace the genealogies of his heroes ; 
 which all end in a god, a river, or some unaccountable personage in 
 the second, third, or at most fourth generation beyond those of the 
 Trojan war. The royal race of Troy forms the only exception ; Jupiter 
 was ancestor to Hector in the seventh degree."* If, consequently, 
 Homer had the means of becoming acquainted with the ancestry of 
 
 # Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 168. 
 
102 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 his heroes, a knowledge always attributed to him by antiquity, his 
 ignorance of more than four, or at most seven generations, either in 
 Greece or Asia Minor, would seem to be a strong proof that about 
 two hundred years before the siege of Troy some revolution must 
 have taken place in each of these countries : at which time it may 
 be supposed that the small states in Asia Minor, which he enumerates, 
 may have arisen on the ruins of the monarchy which once existed in 
 that country ; and that, from the effect of this revolution, originated 
 those families of chiefs and kings, whose ancestry Homer was not able 
 trace beyond the fourth or seventh generation. 
 
 To this conjecture, I am aware that the improbability of the Greeks 
 and inhabitants of Asia Minor relapsing into the state of society 
 described by Homer, had they ever acquired a high degree of civilis- 
 ation under a once flourishing monarchy, forms a strong objection ; 
 but, had its subversion been effected by internal dissensions, and more 
 particularly by an irruption of barbarians, a state of comparative 
 anarchy might have ensued after the dissolution of the former govern- 
 ment. Hence, mutual intercourse becoming interrupted, and protection 
 insecure, the people might have gradually forgotten the manners of 
 more civilised life, and might have acquired those habits, and that 
 independency, which are the necessary consequences of every man 
 being obliged to depend on. his individual exertions for his subsistence 
 and his safety. In Greece, particularly, from the very nature of 
 colonies, and from their perhaps mixing with men less civilised, the 
 arts and institutions of the mother country would be sooner forgotten, 
 and the people would sooner and more completely relapse into that 
 semibarbarous state which is described by Homer. I admit, however, 
 that, unless some fact could be produced which showed that the 
 ancestors of a people so situated had been formerly more civilised, a 
 contrary conclusion would be the most probable ; but the language 
 of the Iliad and Odyssey is, I conceive, that very fact, which, like 
 Latin in the middle ages, is an indisputable proof that the people by 
 whom it was originally spoken, and among whom it acquired such 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 1Q3 
 
 beauty and refinement, must also have attained a high degree of 
 civilisation.* 
 
 There are, however, no sufficient means for fixing the precise period 
 when migration proceeded from Asia Minor into Greece ; but, judging 
 from the Homeric genealogies, and from the origin of the early 
 Grecian poets being ascribed to Thrace, it would seem most probable 
 that the intercourse been Asia Minor and Greece commenced about 
 two hundred years before the siege of Troy. It would, therefore, be 
 desirable to ascertain the state of that part of eastern Asia which 
 bordered on Asia Minor at this particular period ; but the conflicting 
 systems of chronology and ancient history render this impossible, as 
 the only event which could have effected any change in the govern- 
 ment of that country, would be the conquest of the Babylonian empire 
 by the Ninus of Herodotus, as I have before supposed. Were this 
 conjecture, however, admitted, and also that Homer could not have 
 been born more than one hundred years after the Trojan war, it would 
 follow that, Homer being born in 907 B. C, the siege of Troy must 
 have happened in 1007 B. C. : but the revolt of the Medes took place, 
 as I have before observed, in 749 B. C, to which add the duration of 
 the Assyrian empire according to Herodotus of 520 years, and the 
 commencement of the reign of Ninus will be in 1269 B. C, conse- 
 
 * In his History of Greece, vol. i. p. 93., Mr. Mitford remarks, but not with his usual 
 critical acumen and sound judgment, — " Nor does any circumstance in the early history of 
 the Grecian people appear more difficult to account for, even in conjecture, than the 
 superiority of form and polish which their speech acquired in an age beyond tradition, and 
 in circumstances apparently most unfavourable ; for it was amid continual migrations, 
 expulsions, mixtures of various hordes, and revolutions of every kind, the most unquestion- 
 able circumstances of early Grecian history, that was formed that language, so simple in its 
 analogy, of such complex art in its composition and inflexion, of such clearness, force, and 
 elegance in its contexture, and of such singular sweetness, variety, harmony, and majesty in 
 its sound. Already in the time of Homer and Hesiod, long before writing was common, 
 we find it in full possession of these perfections ; and we learn, on no less authority than 
 that of Plato, that still in his time the diction of Thamyras and Orpheus, supposed to have 
 lived long before Homer, was singularly pleasing." After these just and forcible praises of 
 the Greek language, can any thing be more unphilological, unphiiosophical, and contrary to 
 experience, than to ascribe its formation to such a state of society ; for security, leisure, and 
 a certain freedom of mind from other cares are, at least, indispensable for the cultivation and 
 refinement of language. 
 
104 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 quently 262 years before the siege of Troy. This date so exactly 
 synchronises with the probable commencement of the intercourse 
 between Greece and Asia Minor, as to render it not unlikely that 
 some revolution in the latter country was the consequence of Ninus's 
 victory over the Babylonian empire ; and thus, these several circum- 
 stances combined may give much probability to the conjectures that 
 I have proposed. 
 
 But the migrations of the Pelasgi must be ascribed to an earlier 
 period, and, supposing that they originally spoke the same language 
 as the colonies which subsequently immigrated into Greece, the identity 
 of this language with that of Asia Minor would become almost 
 demonstrated. Bishop Marsh, however, has remarked that, "after all, 
 then, we must be contented with tracing the Pelasgi up to their 
 European settlement in Thrace. Beyond that limit their history is all 
 conjecture. We may infer, indeed, from the known progress of 
 migration, that among the ancestors of the Thracian Pelasgi some 
 must have been once established in Asia Minor; and Menecrates 
 Elaita, in his work risp< K.Ti<reuv, asserted that they actually were 
 so. We may further conclude that their ancestors were once esta- 
 blished still wore to the eastward ; but Thrace will still remain the limit 
 of the actual knowledge which we possess on the origin of the Pelasgi. 
 And it is useful to know the limit ; for hence we know, when we are 
 arguing about the Pelasgi, whether we are building on a rock, or 
 building on the sand." * When, however, the assistance of ancient 
 writers fails, recourse may be had to affinity of language, as the most 
 certain means of ascertaining the origin of nations. If, therefore, a 
 language actually exists in Asia at this day, which can be incontro- 
 vertibly identified with Greek, not only in numerous words, but also 
 in grammatical structure, the Asiatic origin of Greek will scarcely be 
 disputed. 
 
 Greek, at the same time, is not an original language, as is 
 sufficiently proved by the impossibility of decompounding many of 
 
 * Horae Pelasgicae, p. 19. 
 
THE GREEK LANGUAGE. iq* 
 
 its words, or tracing all of them to roots existing in itself. The 
 abortive attempts, also, of several writers to find these roots in 
 Hebrew, Celtic, or Gothic ; and the equally unsuccessful endeavours 
 to determine the parent tongue of the cognate terms which appear in 
 Greek, Latin, and the Teutonic dialects, must evince that there is 
 some common origin from which all these languages have been 
 derived, which has not been yet ascertained. But, when the reader 
 examines the Comparative Table and remarks contained in the second 
 part of this work, he will perhaps admit that all the difficulties on 
 this point, that have hitherto perplexed etymologists, are satisfac- 
 torily and conclusively explained by considering the Sanscrit as 
 either the parent tongue from which the Greek, Latin, and the 
 Teutonic dialects have been derived, or at least as the language 
 which has best preserved the undeniable marks of their common 
 parentage. 
 
 But the only country in which Sanscrit still flourishes is India ; and, 
 consequently, if Asia Minor be not admitted to be the intermediate 
 country, through which Sanscrit words and Sanscrit grammar have 
 passed into the Greek language, in what manner can this singular 
 circumstance be accounted for ? Suppose, however, that Sanscrit was 
 the original tongue of Babylonia, and that Asia Minor was peopled in 
 an early period of the world from this conterminous country ; and 
 this supposition alone will, in the simplest and most probable manner, 
 explain the manner in which the Greek, Latin, and Teutonic dialects 
 exhibit such incontrovertible evidence of their common origin. For it 
 must be recollected that their radical affinity with Sanscrit must have 
 existed before the poems written by Homer, because in them the 
 Greek language appears completely formed ; and it is sufficiently 
 established by ancient writers, that after the time of Homer no such 
 communication took place among the Greeks, Latins, or Goths, as 
 could have effected any changes in the radical structure of their 
 respective languages : these, consequently, had received that form, 
 which they have in every essential respect preserved until the present 
 
106 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 
 
 day, at least 1000 years before Christ. Let, therefore, the attention be 
 fixed on this remote date ; let the relative position of India and Greece 
 be considered ; and let the remarkable affinity that exists between 
 Greek, Latin, Gothic, and Sanscrit be examined ; and then the 
 extreme probability of the hypothesis now proposed will at once 
 become evident, 
 
 
107 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 I should be relieved from considerable embarrassment, were the 
 following opinion of Home Tooke well founded : — " But it is a great 
 mistake, into which both the Italian and Latin etymologists have 
 fallen, to suppose that all the Italian must be found in the Latin, and 
 all the Latin in the Greek ; for the fact is otherwise. The bulk and 
 foundation of the language is Greek ; but great part of the Latin is 
 the language of our northern ancestors, grafted upon the Greek ; and 
 to our northern language the etymologist must go for that part of 
 the Latin which the Greek will not furnish. We want, therefore, the 
 testimony of no historians to conclude that the founders of the 
 Roman state and of the Latin tongue came not from Asia, but the 
 north of Europe ; for the language cannot lye." * But this opinion, 
 so positively expressed, is disproved by the simple circumstance of 
 there still existing in Latin many Sanscrit words which cannot be 
 found either in Greek or in any of the Teutonic dialects. 
 
 But that the antiquarians of Italy have not been able to throw any 
 light on the origin of its primitive inhabitants and their language, 
 appears from the first sentences of Tiraboschi's most learned work on 
 the literature of Italy : — " La Storia Generale," observes he, " della 
 Letteratura Italiana, ch' io intraprendo a scrivere, dee necessariamente 
 prender principio dagli antichi popoli, che in Italia ebbero stanza ed 
 impero. Ma chi furono essi ? D' onde, e come vi vennero ? Quali 
 furono i lor costumi e loro imprese ? Eccoci in una questione, involta 
 ancora fra dense tenebre, cui dottissimi uomini hanno finora cercato in 
 vano di sciogliere e diradare. Aborigini, Ombri, Pelasgi, Tirreni, 
 Liguri, ed altre genti di somiglianti nomi dagli antichi autori si 
 
 * Epea Ptereonta, vol. ii. p. 1 40. 
 p 2 
 
|08 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 veggono nominati tra quegli, che furon de' primi ad abitare e a 
 coltivare 1' Italia ; e molti trai moderni scrittori hanno 1' ingegno e il 
 saper loro rivolto a indagare 1' origine, e a descriver la storia di questi 
 popoli : ognuno di essi forma il suo proprio sistema ; ognuno crede 
 di averlo ridotto a quell' evidenza di certezza, a cui un fatto storico si 
 possa condurre ; ma questa evidenza comunemente non vedesi, che 
 dagli autori medesimi di tai sistemi : gli altri confessano, che siamo 
 ancora al bujo, e appena sperano di poterne uscire giammai." 
 
 As all attempts, however, to trace the Latin language to a Gothic 
 or Celtic origin must, I believe, prove fruitless, it necessarily follows 
 that Italy must have received that part of its inhabitants which has 
 transmitted this language to posterity, if not autochthones, from 
 beyond sea. The manner in which navigation, at so early a period, was 
 conducted is unknown ; but there is a singular uniformity in the 
 accounts of ancient writers, in describing Italy as occupied, previous to 
 the arrival of these colonies, by various savage tribes ; and in ascribing 
 to these colonies the subsequent civilisation of this delightful country. 
 Among these, the Arcadians of Evander, and the Trojans under iEneas, 
 have acquired such celebrity from the iEneid, that any remarks 
 respecting them are unnecessary ; of the (Enotrians, another Arcadian 
 colony, the name only has been preserved ; and thus the attention 
 becomes fixed on the people called by the Greeks Tyrrheni, and by 
 the Romans Hetrusci or Tusci. For Tiraboschi observes : — " Gli 
 Etruschi sono que' soli tralle nazioni, che prima della fondazion di 
 Roma abitaron 1' Italia, di cui qualche piu certa notizia ci sia rimasta. 
 Di essi veggiam farsi menzione in molti degli antichi scrittori, e le 
 cose, che essi qua e la ne dicono sparsamente, bastano a farci in- 
 tendere, quanto possente nazione essa fosse, e quanto grande imperio 
 avesse ella in Italia. II regno degli Etruschi (dice Livio) innanzi a' 
 tempi dell' Impero Romano ampiamente si distese e in terra e in mare. 
 Quanto potere essi avessero ne' due mari inferiore e superiore, da cui 
 1' Italia a guisa d' isola vien circondata, il monstrano i loro nomi, che 
 1' uno dagl' Italiani fu detto Tosco con nome plla lor nazione comune, 
 1' altro Adriatico da Adria colonia degli Etruschi. Quindi egli 
 
THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 109 
 
 aggiunge, che 1' Italia tutto fino alle Alpi fu da essi abitata, e signo- 
 reggiata, toltone solo il piccol tratto di terra, che a' Veneti apparteneva. 
 Ne punto meno onorevole testimonianza rende loro Diodoro Siciliano. 
 I Tirreni, dice egli, chiamando con questo nome gli Etruschi, benche 
 altri vogliano, che due diversi popoli essi fossero, uniti poi e confusi 
 in un solo, / Tirreni celebri per fortezza e a grande impero saliti, dimolte 
 e ricche citta furono fondatori. Possenti ancora in armate navali, avendo 
 lungamente signoreggiato il mare, dal lor nome medesimo chiamarono il 
 mar a" Italia. Furono ancora numerosi eforti i loro fanti, ec. Le quali 
 cose da phi altri antichi autori vengono confermate." * 
 
 According to Herodotus f, Strabo |, Velleius Paterculus, Pliny §, 
 and the general opinion of antiquity, the Hetruscans were a colony 
 who migrated from Lydia ; and Dionysius Halicarnasseus is the only 
 author who controverts this conclusion : for he contends that those 
 who assert that the Tyrrheni and Pelasgi were the same people 
 are mistaken, and that the Tyrrheni could not be colonists from Lydia, 
 because they differed from the Lydians in language, customs, and 
 religion. He, therefore, considers it most probable that the Tyrrheni 
 were an indigenous, and not a foreign people || : but he does not 
 
 * Tiraboschi, Stor. della Let. It., vol. i. p. 2. 
 f Herodotus, lib. i. c. 94. 
 t Strabo, p. 219. 
 § Plin. Hist. Nat., Jib. iii. c.5. 
 
 Virgil was also of the same opinion, or at least has availed himself of the popular belief 
 on the subject, as it appears from these passages in the iEneid : — 
 
 " Ad terrain Hesperiam venies ; ubi Lydius, arva 
 Inter opima virum, leni fluit agmine Thybris." Lib. ii. v. 781. 
 
 " Haud procul hinc saxo incolitur fundata vetusto 
 Urbis Agyllinae sedes ; ubi Lydia quondam 
 Gens, bello praeclara, jugis insedit Etruscis." Lib. viii. v. 478. 
 
 " Turn libera fati 
 Classem conscendit jussis gens Lydia Divum, 
 Externo commissa duci." Lib. x. v. 154. 
 
 || Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., lib. i. c. 29, 30. 
 
 " Abbia pur Dionisio dipinto i Tirreni come ora si fa de' Cinesi, per una nazione diversa 
 in costumi da tutte le altre : noi dopo il Lami in parte lo crederemo esagerato; in parte 
 veridico : ma non percio crederemo originali e senza esempio le usanze di Etruria. Come 
 
HQ THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 explain in what manner he was enabled to give, in the age of 
 Augustus, so decided a contradiction to the long established opinion 
 respecting the origin of the Hetruscans ; and, consequently, his observ- 
 ations on this point can be considered as nothing more than 
 conjectures that rest on no authority. The ancient writers, at the 
 same time, concur in stating that the Pelasgi once occupied part of 
 Italy ; but a doubt exists whether these Pelasgi were the same people 
 as the Tyrrheni, or not. Strabo describes them as having accompanied 
 the Lydians * ; but Pliny distinguishes them, for he states, " Adnec- 
 titur septimse in qua Hetruria est ab amne Macra, ipsa mutatis saepe 
 nominibus. Umbros inde exegere antiquitus Pelasgi ; hos Lydi, a 
 quorum rege Tyrrheni, mox a sacrifico ritu lingua Grsecorum Thusci 
 sunt cognominati." f 
 
 But, if I have succeeded in showing that the Pelasgi were a people 
 of Asia Minor, and that the Greek language was formerly spoken in 
 that country, this difference of opinion respecting the Pelasgi, and 
 whether or not they migrated directly from Greece, is immaterial ; 
 because their language would, in either case, have been precisely the 
 same. If, therefore, the Pelasgi possessed Hetruria at the time when 
 the Lydians arrived there, it would seem most probable that, being of 
 the same, or of a kindred race, they would, instead of having been 
 expelled from the country, have become incorporated with the new 
 colonists ; and that, in consequence of the superior power of the 
 latter, the Pelasgic name became superseded by that of the Tyrrheni 
 or Hetrusci. In which case the ancient language of Hetruria must 
 
 i suoi caratteri differivano a' tempi di Dionisio da quegli delle altre genti ; ma in eta 
 phi remote erano stati i caratteri della Grecia ; cosi alcune sue usanze differivano a' tempi 
 di Dionisio dal resto de' popoli, ma in altr' eta. erano state in moda nella Grecia, e nell' 
 Asia. Piu. che una nazione e superstiziosa, piu e tenace degli usi antichi ; 1' Etrusca 
 che in superstizione le vinse tutte, dovea vincerle anche in quest' attaccamento : cosi ella 
 differiva dalle altre non perche avesse origine da tutte diversa, come Dionisio vorrebbe ; ma 
 perche ella riteneva alquanti costumi, gia smessi e obbliterati da tutte. Alcuni anche ve ne 
 saranno stati unici e proprj suoi: ma qual popolo non ebbe i suoi usi ?" — Lanzi, Saggio di 
 Lingua Etrusca, vol. ii. p. 129. 
 
 * Strabo, p. 219. 
 
 f Plin. Hist. Nat., lib. iii. c. 5. 
 
THE LATIN LANGUAGE. -.jl 
 
 have been radically the same as Greek, and if, consequently, any remains 
 of that language have been preserved, they ought to exhibit this iden- 
 tity in a form the most unquestionable : but, on the contrary, if the 
 Eugubian tablets have been correctly deciphered, and if they contain 
 an accurate specimen of the Hetrurian tongue, Dionysius Halicar- 
 nasseus was correct in asserting that it bears no affinity to any other 
 language. 
 
 Of these tablets Gorius gives the following account * : — " Monumen- 
 torum omnium, quotquot exstant ad hoc tempus, iEgyptiis exceptis, 
 antiquissimae sunt aheneae tabulae Eugubinae, dubio etiam procul 
 genuinas ac sincerae, proindeque toto orbe celeberrimae, quae in 
 publico Eugubinorum tabulario nunc diligentissime adservantur. 
 Hae sunt septem : duae Pelasgicis f, quinque Etruscis litteris scriptae, 
 haud quidem unica, sed diversa manu, diverso etiam stilo ac forma. 
 His si addendam existimes illam, perbrevem quidem, votivam tabulam, 
 quae incipit lerpirior, editam a Sponio, a qua removendae sunt figurae 
 Apollinis et Clatrae, quae eidem inscriptioni Pelasgicae coaevae non sunt, 
 sed Trapepya, ab imperito exscriptore addita, censeri debent, ut nuper 
 erudite observavit V. C. Hannibal de Abbatibus Oliverius, Patricius 
 Pisaurensis, mihi amicissimus, erunt octo : et haec tabula non Eugubii, 
 sed Romae exstare dicitur : si vero addendam censes et alteram, a 
 reliquis diversam, quae incipit clavernivr, erunt novem j quarum 
 quatuor adveteres Pelasgos, quinque ad Etruscos, id literis perspicue 
 indicantibus, indubitanter pertinent. 
 
 " Eugubii sive, ut veteres dixere, Iguvii, Umbrorum urbe no- 
 bilissima, anno 1444, prope theatrum, in subterranea quadam 
 concameratione, hae tabulae insignes inventae sunt. Statim ac fama 
 hujus praeclari inventi increbuit, atque inscriptiones innotuere, minim 
 quantum in illustranda Etruscorum prisca lingua desudarint illustres 
 ingenio et linguarum scientia viri : quot alphabeta in lucem prodierint: 
 quot etiam adhuc ubique latitent, praesertim vero in Florentinis biblio- 
 
 * See also Gruteri Corpus Inscriptionum, p. 14-2. 
 
 f By this term Gorius means the Roman letters, as it appears from the contrasted 
 Hetrurian and Pelasgic alphabet which he has given. 
 
112 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 thecis, quae vidi. Per annos ducentos et octoginta ab eo tempore, 
 quo inventae sunt hae tabulae Eugubinae, qua concinnandis alphabetis, 
 qua ostendenda Etruscae linguae origine desudatum est: aliis ex 
 Hebraico et Chaldaico fonte ; aliis ex Syriaco, et ut volebant, 
 Aramaeo j aliis ex Hebraico sive Assyrio ; aliis ex Phcenicio saltern et 
 Punico ; singulis pro lubito, quod videbatur, vocum Etruscarum 
 etymon deducentibus ac proponentibus, irrito labore : nam quomodo 
 legendi essent cbaracteres et inscriptiones, quod erat faciendum, 
 nondum nemo monstraverat." * 
 
 But Gorius has been as unsuccessful as his predecessors in pro- 
 ducing a satisfactory explanation of these inscriptions ; for, in the one 
 that he has interpreted and analysed, I can only discover, out of ninety 
 distinct words, these four, frater, pure, tris, and sakre, which bear any 
 resemblance to Latin or Greek, or any other language with which I 
 am acquainted. Nor does the explanation of Gorius rest on identity 
 or similarity of words, but on conjectures that seem to me at variance 
 with every principle of philology. " PVRTVVITV, " he observes, 
 " vox composita ex duabus : altera PVR, Gr. ^upor, frumentum ; supra 
 scriptum est PIR, in vers. 21. quae vocales facile commutantur: altera 
 T WITV quasi TVFITV, a t.ktu, pario, gigno, creo : est etiam 
 n<p% ut diximus, frumentum. Nostrum belle respondet la portata ; 
 nempe segetum et frugum foetus, copiam." It must be obvious that 
 
 * Museum Etruscum, vol. i. p. 47. 
 
 Pignotti, in his Storia di Toscana, vol. i. p. 97., observes, " Finalmente, avendo 
 sempre davanti agli occhi la lingua Latina per iscorta, da il Lami una traduzione della stessa 
 Tavola Eugubina che il Gori ha interpretata, e da lui chiamata Carmen Orthium lamentabile. 
 Chi ama vedere in quanto diverse e lontane strade sieno talora deviati da' loro imaginarj 
 sistemi gli antiquarj, legga le due traduzioni : e certo che, quantunque confuse entrambe, si 
 cava senso piu netto da quella del Lami, benche quest' illustre letterato, forse accorgendosi 
 del comune errore, e di essersi anch' egli smarrito in questo laberinto, e forse deridendo le 
 inutili fatiche degli antiquarj, scherza con quei versi dell' Ariosto : 
 
 " ' Varj gli effetti son, ma la pazzia 
 E tutt' una pero che gli fa uscire, 
 Gli e come una gran selva, ove la via 
 Conviene a forza a chi vi va, fallire : 
 Chi su, chi giu, chi qua, chi la travia ec' 
 
 " Non si puo adoprare un' imagine piu atta a rappresentare i viaggi ipotetici degli anti- 
 quarj per gli oscuri sentieri delle congetture." 
 
THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 113 
 
 to compound and decompound the words of any language in this 
 manner, requires a most complete acquaintance with its grammar, its 
 analogy, and its rules of composition. But nothing is known of the 
 Hetrurian, except a few inscriptions which are supposed to belong to 
 it, and, consequently, unless the words contained in them were nearly 
 identical with those of some other language, all attempts to interpret 
 them must be fruitless.* That the letters, however, in which they are 
 written, are nearly the same as the Greek and Roman is evident, and 
 it must be concluded that these tablets were intended as a record of 
 some circumstance ; but it does not hence follow that the language 
 in which they are written is that which was spoken by the Hetrurians, 
 or, even were it, that its pronunciation is correctly represented by the 
 letters, f In this state of uncertainty, therefore, the Eugubian tablets 
 
 * Pignotti, however, observes, " Dopo le fatiche di tanti I' alfabeto del Gori e il piu 
 ricevuto : nondimeno il Sig. Ab. Lanzi, che con tanta copia di erudizione ha trattato il 
 soggetto, vi ha trovato da fare qualche cambiamento. Questo dotto uomo e d' accordo col 
 Gori sulla somiglianza della lingua Etrusca colla Greca e la Latina." — Storia di Toscana, 
 vol. i. p. 92. 
 
 Gibbon was also of opinion that, though " the savage dialect of the Eugubine tables has 
 exercised, and may still elude, the divination of criticism, the root is undoubtedly Latin of 
 the same age and character as the Saliare Carmen, which, in the time of Horace, none 
 could understand." — Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol. viii. p. 5. 
 
 f To make myself more clearly understood, it is well known that in Arabic and Persian 
 the short vowels are not represented by characters, and that the diacritical points which 
 may supply their place are generally omitted in writing ; and, in Sanscrit, the short a is 
 inherent in all consonants, and never represented by its character except at the beginning 
 of words. 
 
 I had written this remark before I had obtained Lanzi's valuable work, but I am glad to 
 find its correctness confirmed by him. For he remarks, " Nell' antica ortografia si tralasciava 
 qualche vocale nel mezzo della parola, ed era quella quam syllaba nomine suo exprimit ,■ v. 
 gr. IB. pronunziandosi Be ; invece di Lebero (cioe Libero) scrivevano solamente Lebro, come 
 nell' ara di Pesaro. Vittorino adduce questi esempj, Bne per bene, Cra per cera, Krus per 
 
 cams, Dcimus per Decimus Spesso anche son popolari accorciamenti come poclum, 
 
 vinclum, ove non si supplisce 1' ausiliare, ma diversa lettera." — Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, 
 vol. i. p. 118. 
 
 In another place, vol. ii. p. 21., he further observes, " Riferita V iscrizione, la leggo ove 
 pu6 esservi ambiguita ; aggiugnendo a ogni consonante la sua ausiliare come si usa in lingue 
 orientali, o la sua finale. Noi veramente non possiam sapere quali massime in cio avessero 
 gli Etruschi." In which case it must be evident, that the deciphering of the Eugubian 
 tablets proceeds on grounds much too uncertain to admit of the result being received 
 without caution and reservation. 
 
 Q 
 
H4 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 cannot be considered as in the least invalidating the testimony to the 
 origin of the Latin language, which is afforded by probability, by its 
 own internal evidence, and by the accounts of ancient writers. 
 
 I observe that it is a disputed point, whether the Hetrurians received 
 the arts from the Greeks or not; and the clear and just point of view 
 in which Pignotti has placed the question, applies so particularly to 
 the subject of this and the preceding chapter, that the reader will 
 perhaps be pleased with my quoting his remarks : — " E inutile pertanto 
 il perder tempo a investigare da qual altro popolo gli Etruschi abbiano 
 apprese le belle arti. Nulla vi e di sicuro tralle tenebre dell' antichita, 
 onde abbiamo tutto il dritto di supporre che siano nate, e cresciute in 
 Etruria, come lo furono in India, in Egitto. Che i Greci nelP antiche 
 emigrazioni in Etruria vi abbiano portate le belle arti, come ha creduto 
 Winckelmann, e non solo incerto, ma probabilmente falso, giacche 
 1' epoca della gloria dell' arti Greche essendo posteriore a quelladell' 
 Etrusche, sara difficile il dimostrare che i Greci coloni di quei tempi 
 fossero piii culti dei loro contemporanei Etruschi. Ma scorriamo varie 
 epoche dell' antica Grecia, dalle quali si possa dedurre, se in questo 
 paese si coltivassero le arti nei tempi, ne quali fiorivano in Etruria. 
 Nella prima sua epoca, di cui esiste memoria, dominata dai feroci 
 Pelasgi, e dai rozzi Elleni, niuna idea ebbe d' arti imitative. Suc- 
 cessero i tempi eroici ; e la nave Argo tanto celebrata non condusse 
 probabilmente che dei corsari, che andavano in Colco a rapire 1' oro 
 che si estraeva dall' arene del fin me Fasi. Successe la guerra de' sette 
 Eroi contro Tebe, e final mente la celebre guerra Trojana. Per tutti 
 questi tempi, non si ha il piu piccolo indizio che fossero coltivate le 
 belle arti in Grecia, ma solo la poesia, che fra le nazioni anche le piu 
 rozze e stata compagna degli eroi e dei guerrieri. Dopo la ruina di 
 Troja, i principi ch' erano stati tanti anni assenti dai loro dominj, li 
 ritrovarono tutti sconvolti, pronti a sollevarsi; onde turbata la pace 
 domestica, ne seguirono fierissime guerre civili, che desolarono quel 
 paese per circa quattro secoli, eloquentemente descritte da Tucidide. 
 II quattro secolo dopo la ruina di Troja coincide coll' origine di Roma, 
 tempo in cui gli industri Toscani, le di cui citta erano floridissime 
 
THE LATIN LANGUAGE. U5 
 
 e godevano una tranquilla pace, dipingevano, e gettavano maraviglio- 
 samente il bronzo ; giacche ci attesta Plinio, che le pitture di xlrdea 
 e di Lanuvio erano anteriori a Roma, e che il carro trionfale di 
 Romolo fu gettato in bronzo dagli Etruschi artefici." * 
 
 The preceding remarks will, perhaps, have shown that it was not to 
 Greece, but to Asia Minor, that Hetruria was indebted for her prin- 
 cipal people, her language, and her arts. The last, no doubt, acquired 
 in their new country greater perfection ; for Asia seems to have never 
 made any considerable progress in the cultivation of the fine arts : 
 but it appears equally evident that the Hetrurians cannot have held 
 in esteem either literature or poetry ; since, had this been the case 
 imperial Rome would unquestionably have appropriated to her own 
 use the literary riches of Hetruria, in the same manner as she has 
 adorned herself with the spoils of Greece. No Homer, however, arose 
 in Hetruria to immortalise the glory of his country, nor a single man 
 of genius to please and instruct the world. It is to this cause that the 
 Hetrurians must attribute the loss of their ancient fame : for, though 
 poesy may be the companion of heroes and warriors even among the 
 rudest people, still it and prose alone can transmit to posterity a know- 
 ledge of former events ; and a single book of Homer presents more in- 
 formation respecting the men and the times that he has celebrated, than 
 can ever be elicited from all the paintings and sculptures of Hetruria. 
 The philologist, in particular, has just reason to complain of this neglect 
 of literature, because it opposes an almost invincible obstacle to his 
 researches into the origin and progress of that language which was 
 spoken by the masters of the world : for the first work composed in 
 Latin must have been written a thousand years after Tyrrhenus, 
 Evander, and iEneas had led their colonies into Italy ; and thus all 
 conclusions respecting the formation of this language can be deduced 
 only from its own internal evidence, and from the affinity which it 
 bears to other languages. 
 
 But, if Hetruria and Latium were peopled by colonies from Asia 
 Minor, or by Pelasgi from Greece, it would necessarily follow that the 
 
 * Pignotti, Storia di Toscana, vol. i. p. 117. 
 Q 2 
 
1X6 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 Hetrurian and Latin languages were originally the same. Lanzi, also 
 observes, " Vi e stato chi ha asserito che le altre lingue sien quasi 
 altrettanti dialetti della Etrusca ; non eccettuandone la stessa lingua 
 Latina ; e ne da per fondamento si la potenza di questa nazione, si la 
 dottrina. Gli Etruschi signoreggiarono una volta quasi per tutta Italia, 
 se crediamo a Servio o a qualunque sia de' Grammatici, da cui egli 
 trasse quella nota in Tuscorum jure pcene omnis Italia fuerat. Per- 
 duto questo, tenner tuttavia il primato nelle scienze : da essi Roma, 
 non che altro popolo, era istruita nelle divine lettere e nelle umane. 
 Or chi non sa che un popolo bellicoso distendendo 1' impero distende 
 il linguaggio ; e che un popol dotto, insegnando e scrivendo, 
 comunica ai forestieri insieme con le sue cognizioni anche i suoi 
 vocaboli?" Lanzi, however, adds, " Nondimeno io non so recarmi a 
 credere, che quegli altri dialetti abbian origine dall' Etrusco, ancorche 
 vi abbiano somiglianza. Qualunque fosse 1' antica patria de' Tirreni, 
 di che tanto si e questionato, e tuttavia ne restiamo incerti, questo 
 almeno pud assicurarsi, ch' essi non sono il piu antico popolo d'ltalia." * 
 But, when the question is not respecting the derivation of the other 
 dialects of Italy from the Hetruscan language, but merely respecting 
 their affinity with it, the objections of Lanzi to the former do not 
 apply to the latter. He admits, at the same time, that traces of 
 Greek and Latin are to be found in the Hetruscan, and he observes, 
 " Che se Greci son questi nomi, il Greco dunque s' insinuo presto in 
 questa lingua : col Greco dunque potra indagarsi piu facilmente, che 
 con altro piu remoto idioma. Se poi consideriamo i nomi de' luoghi, 
 o delle persone e delle famiglie, troveremo, pressoche tutte esser voci 
 comuni a' Romani e agli Etruschi ; e con poche variazioni ridursi ¥ un 
 dialetto all' altro. Che se Latini sono nella parola ; nelle desinenza 
 spesso son nomi Greci ; onde ravvisare in essi il concorso delle due 
 favelle." f This last circumstance, in particular, must tend strongly 
 to prove that the Latin is not derived from the Greek, and to confirm 
 the supposition that these are merely cognate languages, and that 
 
 * Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p 16, 17. 
 f Ibid. p. 41. 
 
THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 127 
 
 both are derived from that primitive tongue which was spoken at some 
 remote period in Asia Minor. 
 
 Lanzi further remarks, " Aggiungasi che la letteratura de' Romani 
 ne' primi secoli di Roma era studiar la lingua e le scienze Etrusche, 
 come poi le Greche : ed e natural cosa ch' Etruscizzassero allora quei 
 che sapevano, quanto Grecizzarono di poi ; quindi certe iscrizioni 
 hella seconda Tavola, che pajono Etrusche piu che Romane." * I 
 avail myself, also, of the following clear and concise remarks of Lanzi, 
 for the purpose of stating the opinion which is generally entertained 
 respecting the origin of the Latin language : — " Or essendo V Italia 
 da ogni lato plena di Greci, conchiude il Sig. Olivieri, dopo simil' 
 enumerazione, chi mai creder potra che altra lingua si usasse in Italia 
 fuor che la Greca; o se cid par troppo, piu che la Greca? Per altro 
 dovea questa favella esser varia, perche discesa da varj luoghi ; scorretta, 
 perche serbata tra '1 volgo ; alterata, perche mista de' vocaboli primitivi 
 d' Italia; se deon' ammettersi altri progenitori fuor di quegli nominati 
 da Servio ; ma nondimeno Greca nel suo fondo, e in gran parte de' 
 suoi vocaboli. La lingua Latina, e la Greca, mille anni e poco piu 
 innanzi Augusto, non erano che due dialetti di uno stesso idioma, dice 
 il prefato Olivieri. La Etrusca stessa (non che le altre) non e che 
 una derivazione della Greca, come par che insinui Bochart, come 
 affirma Chisull, come accennano Bourguet et Gori, anzi in qualche luogo 
 dell' opera Lami stesso : ne forse per altra ragione due dialetti laterali 
 egli appella 1' Etrusco, e il Latino." -f 
 
 But, notwithstanding this generally received opinion, it seems much 
 more probable that Latin was derived from the same country to 
 
 * Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 45. 
 
 To the original identity of the Hetruscan and Latin, it may be objected, that their dis- 
 similarity in later times disproves their common origin ; for Livy, lib. ix. c. 36., in relating 
 the events of the year 308 B. C, remarks, — " Caere educatus [M. Fabius] apud hospites, 
 Etruscis inde Uteris eruditus erat, linguamque Etruscam probe noverat. Habeo auctores, 
 vulgo turn Romanos pueros, sicut nunc Graecis, ita Etruscis Uteris erudiri solitos." But this 
 dissimilarity may have been dialectic only, such as now exists among the Teutonic dialects, 
 and, consequently, does not disprove the derivation of the Hetruscan and Latin from a 
 common origin. 
 
 f Ibid. p. 28, 29. 
 
1[§ THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 which Greece herself was indebted for her language : for, as ancient 
 history attests that Pelasgi, Lydian, and Trojan colonies, far more 
 numerous and powerful than the Arcadian, migrated into Italy, and 
 that subsequent to these migrations no Grecian colonies settled in 
 Hetruria or Latium, it becomes impossible to understand in what 
 manner the dialects of the Hetrurians and Latins could acquire any 
 affinity to Greek, unless the languages of Asia Minor and Greece 
 were originally the same. The difficulties, also, under which learned 
 men have laboured in attempting to explain the cause of this affinity, 
 must alone render their opinions extremely questionable ; since, 
 being obliged to admit this affinity and at the same time the great 
 difference which exists between Greek and Latin, they substitute a 
 mere name for an explanation, and ascribe both the difference and the 
 affinity to the Latin having been derived from the iEolic dialect of 
 the Greek. But, before this alleged cause can be admitted, it must 
 be proved that iEolian colonies were established in Hetruria and 
 Latium, by means of which this dialect was communicated to their 
 inhabitants, and on this material point all ancient writers are decidedly 
 silent.* The affinity, therefore, between the Greek and Latin being- 
 undisputed, it would certainly seem most probable that these lan- 
 guages were originally the same, and that the difference now existing 
 between them has proceeded from long separation, and from the 
 Greeks having preserved the parent tongue more pure and less 
 subject to alteration than the Romans. The language, also, of Asia 
 Minor may not have acquired, at the time of the Pelasgic and Lydian 
 migrations into Italy, that degree of excellence which Plato admired 
 in the poems of Orpheus ; and, in the works of Homer and preceding- 
 poets, the Greeks possessed, at a very early period, a fixed standard 
 for their language. Greece, at the same time, seems to have been, 
 from the Trojan war, occupied solely by the people who have become 
 so celebrated under the name of Greeks, and, consequently, no essential 
 
 * I am aware that the Arcadian dialect is supposed to be the same as the iEolic ; but it 
 clearly appears that it could not be the Arcadian colonies who communicated their language 
 to Hetruria and Latium. 
 
THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 119 
 
 change could occur in their language. But Italy was very differently 
 situated, for there no poets arose to preserve the language of their 
 country; and, though the exact state of its original inhabitants, or the 
 foreign accessions which they may have received subsequent to the 
 migrations from Asia Minor, are unknown, it is still obviousthat the 
 language of these colonists must have been greatly affected by such 
 an intermixture. 
 
 It deserves, also, to be particularly remarked, that the existing dif- 
 ference between Greek and Latin demonstrates, on the soundest 
 principles of philology, that the latter was not derived from the former, 
 but that both languages were originally the same ; for they differ 
 principally in words, and bear the closest affinity to each other in their 
 grammatical structure. But no argument can be necessary to show 
 that the latter is such an essential and immutable part of language, 
 that, however words may become obsolete or new ones may be 
 formed or adopted, still, under all such changes, whether in the native 
 or in a foreign country, the grammatical structure remains almost 
 entirely unaffected ; because the vitality of this principle is fully ex- 
 emplified in the alterations which Latin itself has been subjected to, in 
 order to accommodate it to the scanty system of grammatical inflection 
 which characterises the Gothic languages. Words for objects before 
 unknown the conquerors received from the conquered, but cases, tenses, 
 and moods they disdained. The one might with a little attention be 
 remembered, but the other could not be acquired without submitting 
 to painful tuition. The grammatical structure, however, of the Latin 
 has suffered changes, as it evidently appears from the irregularities of 
 some parts of its grammar : but this circumstance was the necessary 
 effect of the intermixture of the colonists from Asia Minor with the 
 prior inhabitants of Italy, and, particularly, of the language having 
 remained, for perhaps a thousand years, merely a spoken tongue, with- 
 out being cultivated or employed in literary composition ; for experience 
 shows that, until a language has been fixed by its general employment 
 in writing, it is always subject to the greatest fluctuation. 
 
120 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 It will, at the same time, appear, from the second part of this work, 
 that there are 208 Sanscrit words in Greek which are not to be found 
 in Latin, and 188 in Latin which exist not in Greek.* Different 
 conclusions may, perhaps, be drawn from this circumstance ; and the 
 maintainers of the Greek origin of the Latin may observe, in the 
 words of Horace, — 
 
 " Ut silvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos, 
 Prima cadunt; ita verborum vetus interit a?tas, 
 Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata, vigentque." 
 
 But, as these Latin words have corresponding terms in Greek, and as 
 the genius of Greek is averse to synonymes, it must appear extremely 
 improbable that, at the time of the Arcadian migrations into Italy, 
 two synonymous words should have existed in Greek, the one of which 
 has been preserved by the Romans, and the other by the Greeks ; and 
 utterly impossible that the latter should have given up a term in 
 common use, in order to invent a new one. These, however, are the 
 only means by which the existence of Sanscrit words in Latin, which 
 are unknown to Greek, can be explained, had these words ever com- 
 posed part of the Greek language, after it acquired its present form. 
 Their improbability, if not impossibility, consequently, demonstrates 
 that these words actually belonged to that language which was originally 
 spoken by the progenitors of the Greek and Latin people. To evince 
 that this conclusion is well founded, the slightest inspection of these 
 words in the second part will be sufficient ; for they consist of all the 
 different parts of speech, and are applicable to such a variety of objects 
 and ideas, as to prove incontrovertibly that had they ever existed in 
 Greek, as polished and refined in the time of Homer, they would still 
 
 * What, also, is the precise number of words common to Greek and Latin? This is a 
 point which I have not been able to ascertain satisfactorily ; but, as in the 2200 roots given 
 by MM. du Port Royal, there are 183 words only common to both these languages, it 
 may be concluded that there are more Sanscrit than Greek words in Latin. As, likewise, 
 of these 183 words, 130 are Sanscrit; these circumstances must tend strongly to prove that 
 it is from Sanscrit, and not from Greek, that Latin is derived. 
 
THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 
 
 121 
 
 be found in that language. * Their non-existence in it, therefore, 
 and their perfect identity with the words of another language which 
 contains many terms both Greek and Latin, must be considered as 
 conclusive proofs that the generally received opinion, that Latin is 
 derived from Greek, rests on no sufficient foundation. 
 
 * " Vi sono in oltre nel Latino delle vochi che nel cognito Greco non si rintracciano ; 
 ond' e che Vossio ne cerco etimologia nell' Ebraico, altri nel Celtico, altri nell' Ibero. Di 
 tali voci dico io doversi almen dubitare che fossero nell' antichissimo Greco. Noi lo 
 
 possiamo distinguere in pristino Ellenico, ed in Pelasgico Egli non ci fa a dire qual 
 
 proporzione avesse all' Ellenico, se come lingua a lingua, se come dialetto piu antico o piu 
 [meno ?] misto a piu moderno e piu schietto ; congettura che posse barbaro, ma non F 
 assevera ; conclude che avanzi ancora ne rimanevano in Tracia e in Italia, ove dicemmo 
 
 che influi nelle nostre favelle; anche in quella della nascente Roma Ma poiche Erodoto 
 
 pel Pelasgico, Varrone ed altri per 1' antico Ellenico ci additan 1' Italia; per tracciarli 
 cerchiamone in essa e in Roma. Ne 1' uno ne 1' altro puo restringersi al Greco cognito, che 
 troviam nel Latino; adunque deon essere in quel Latino, la cui origine meno e cognita." — 
 Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 448, 449. 
 
 To a certain extent, these conjectures of Lanzi will be found verified in a singular manner 
 by the result of these Researches. 
 
122 
 
 CHAP. IX.* 
 
 ON THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 
 
 An apparently valid objection to the identification of Greek and Latin 
 with the language which was anciently spoken in Asia Minor, but 
 which has now become extinct, except so far as undeniable proofs of 
 its existence have been preserved, in Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, may 
 perhaps arise from a supposed dissimilarity in their alphabetical 
 systems. To obviate, therefore, this objection, it becomes indispensable 
 to enter into an examination of that obscurest and most contested of 
 all subjects, the origin of alphabetical characters. But it seems that 
 the generally received opinion attributes their origin to Phenicia, and 
 their communication to other nations to Cadmus or the Pelasgi. In 
 the search after truth, however, I may be permitted to profess myself 
 
 " Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri ; " 
 
 and to consider myself at liberty to reject the opinions of learned men, 
 if they be inconsistent with the plainest principles of common sense 
 and sound reasoning. For how is it possible to acquiesce in the correct- 
 ness of such an account as this ? — " The Pelasgi were of Phenician 
 original : we learn from Sanchoniatho, that the sons of the Dioscuri 
 and Cabiri wrote the first annals of Phenician history by the command 
 of Taaut, the first inventor of letters. These men made ships of 
 burden, and being cast upon the coast about forty miles from Pelusium 
 they built a temple ; this event happened in the second generation 
 after the deluge recorded by Moses. These Phenicians were called 
 Pelasgi, from their passing by sea, and wandering from one country to 
 another." f I prefer rather to adopt the opinion of Cour de Gebelin : 
 
 * For the illustration of the remarks contained in this Chapter, see Plates A No. 1., 
 A No. 2., B No. 1., B No. 2., C, D No. 1., D No. 2., D No. 3. 
 f Astle's Origin and Progress of Writing, p. 52. 
 
GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. J23 
 
 — " Tels sont," says he, " a peu pres les divers systemes qu'on a proposes 
 jusques ici sur les terns et sur les lieux ou parut l'ecriture pour la pre- 
 miere fois, et sur les objets qui servirent de modele a son inventeur. 
 On voit que ces systemes, semblables aux heros de Cadmus, se combat- 
 tent et s'entre-detruisirent tous ; et qu'apres les avoir tous lus, on retombe 
 dans les tenebres dont on esperoit sortir par leur moyen. Faudra-t-il 
 done abandonner tous ces guides, et renoncer a avoir des idees plus 
 nettes, plus precises, plus exactes sur un objet aussi interessant et aussi 
 etroitement lie avec l'Histoire de la Parole ? Mais, dira-t-on, comment, 
 etre plus heureux ? En n'imaginant point de systeme ; en reunissant 
 tous les mormmens, tous les faits, en les comparant, en se rendant 
 attentif a tout ce qu'ils nous apprennent ; en evitant les meprises de 
 ceux qui nous ont precedes, et qui ont presque toujours pris un champ 
 beau co up trop resserre."* 
 
 The opinion, at the same time, of ancient writers, that letters derived 
 their origin from Phenicia, seems to rest entirely on the authority of 
 Herodotus. But Herodotus invalidates his own account, by adding, — 
 
 npuTct pev roiCTi xai aTTavTiq xpuvTcci <f>oiviKe$* [astcc os, %pci/ou irpoQouvovTog, a,{A,CC 
 Ty <puvv\ f/,£Tt£u?iOv H.a,i tov pvQpov rcov y^ot-fAfjMTuv^ ; and further, loov ae xoci uVTog 
 Kafyrjia. yaoctApon a. ev tu tpw tov ATtoXXwvog tov Io~prjviov ev Qrj&ricri th\<ti Boiutcov, 
 stti T^nrcKri tio~i Byx.ex.oXa \ipiv a , tu 7roXXa opoiot eovToc. toicti loviiconrt. £ For, 
 if, at the time when Herodotus lived, the supposed Cadmean letters 
 greatly resembled the Ionian, either the latter had not materially 
 changed their forms and sounds, as first stated, or the former could 
 not have been the same as the Phenician ; because it cannot be 
 denied that, 450 years before Christ, the Greek and Phenician alpha- 
 bets were radically dissimilar. § As, therefore, the reason assigned by 
 Herodotus for denominating the ancient letters of Greece Cadmean is 
 inconsistent in itself, and as he merely says, Ovx. eowa [tu ypuppuTot] 
 
 * Monde Primitif, vol. iii. p. 398. 
 
 f Herod., lib. v. c. 58. t Ibid - P- 59 - 
 
 § " The Ionian letters on the medals and other monuments of his [Herodotus's] age 
 
 now extant, are evidently very different from the Phenician." — Knight's Analysis of the 
 
 Greek Alphabet, p. 120. 
 
 R 2 
 
224 0N THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT 
 
 #p*v 'Exx*?<n, 'flS EMOI AOKEEIN, it may be concluded that alphabetical 
 characters had been known in Greece previous to the arrival of 
 Cadmus ; in which case there is no conceivable cause which could 
 have induced the people to give up their own letters, and to adopt 
 those of a stranger. 
 
 Were, however, this account of Herodotus admitted, it would only 
 be explaining obscurum per obscurius ; for neither he nor any other 
 ancient writer explains the form, sound, and order of the Phenician 
 letters ; and without this indispensable information it is impossible to 
 form any opinion respecting their resemblance to the Greek. But the 
 authors of the Ancient Universal History remark, that " the language of 
 the Phenicians was a dialect of the Hebrew, the same with that of the 
 ancient Canaanites. Their letters were either the same with, or very 
 like to, those of the ancient Samaritans."* Bochart, also, is of the 
 same opinion ; for he observes, — " Denique res ipsa docet literas e 
 Phoenicia in Grasciam allatas. Primo si figuram spectes, Graecae literas, 
 maxime antiquiores illae, quarum exempla in Eusebianis profert doc- 
 tissimus Scaliger, vetustis Phcenicum literis, quibus hodie utuntur 
 Samaritani, in plerisque tarn sunt similes, ut nemini non pateat illas ex 
 his esse expressas." f But his identification of the Phenician or 
 Samaritan alphabet with the Greek is inadmissible ; because, if the 
 authority of ancient writers is considered sufficient to establish the 
 Phenician origin of letters, its validity to prove that the ancient Greek 
 alphabet consisted of sixteen or eighteen letters only ought equally to 
 be admitted. Bochart, however, is obliged in order to effect this 
 identification, to employ not only four of the letters which were 
 subsequently added to the Greek alphabet, but also the episemons, 
 bau, koppa, and sanpi, the existence of which as letters has never been 
 proved X ; while, on the contrary, he rejects both the upsilon and the 
 digamma, the existence of which cannot be disputed. His failure, 
 therefore, is sufficient to disprove the fancied identity of the Phenician 
 
 * Anc. Un. Hist., vol. ii. p. 20. f Boch. Cha., lib. i. c. 20. 
 
 $ They are not noticed in Mr. Payne Knight's Analysis of the Greek Alphabet. 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 125 
 
 and Greek alphabets, if the Samaritan is considered to be the same 
 as the former. 
 
 Apparently aware of this difficulty, other writers assume that the 
 Phenician alphabet consisted of sixteen letters only. Astle even 
 asserts that they were no more than thirteen in number.* But on 
 what authority these suppositions were founded, I have not been able 
 to ascertain ; for, on referring to the Phenician alphabets annexed to 
 the Memoire of M. Barthelemy on this subject, I find that No. 1. 
 consists of eighteen letters, No. 2. of twelve, and No, 3. of nineteen. f 
 It will, however, be admitted, that the collecting the letters of any 
 language from inscriptions and medals, is a method much too un- 
 certain to determine the number of letters of which its alphabet might 
 be composed ; and this variation in the number, resulting from an 
 examination of inscriptions and medals collected in three different 
 places, must render the completeness of these alphabets very doubtful. J 
 That all three must be incomplete is evident from there being no 
 character to represent p, or a substitute for this letter ; a deficiency 
 that does not exist in any known language. § From this circumstance 
 it might be much more justly concluded that, on a further examination 
 of Phenician inscriptions and medals, all the twenty-two letters of the 
 Samaritan and Hebrew alphabets would be found, than that the 
 Phenician alphabet itself consisted of thirteen or sixteen letters only. 
 
 It is further contended that, as the ancient Greek letters were 
 written from right to left, and as the Samaritan have been always 
 written in this manner, it must follow that the former were derived 
 from the latter. Bat it is incorrect to argue from the present day 
 to a remote period of antiquity ; for, in ancient times, Phenicia and 
 
 * Origin and Progress of Writing, p. 50. 
 
 f Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc, vol. xxx. p. 425. 
 
 The Phenician alphabet given by Cour de Gebelin, in Plate VI. of Monde Primitif, 
 vol iii., does not correspond in any respect with the alphabets published by the Academy. 
 
 X The Phenician alphabet taken from a marble at Oxford, and inserted in the first plate 
 of Astle's Origin and Progress of Writing, consists of fifteen letters; and that given by 
 Dutens, in his Explication des quelques Me"dailles Grecques et Pheniciennes, of nineteen. 
 
 5 The Arabs have no p, but they have an^ 
 
126 0N THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT 
 
 Samaria were not the principal nations of Asia, and it cannot be 
 supposed that the knowledge of letters was confined to these incon- 
 siderable and unfrequented countries. Until, therefore, it be proved 
 that 1600 years B. C. no other people in Asia, except the Phenicians, 
 wrote from right to left, it is evident that no just conclusion can be 
 drawn from this peculiarity. But there is one circumstance that 
 seems to be entirely overlooked, which is of itself alone sufficient to 
 disprove the Phenician origin of the Greek letters ; for Mr. Payne 
 Knight remarks that " None of the ancient oriental alphabets had 
 any vowels*, except the Phenician, and that had properly only two, 
 the aleph and the ain, signifying (as I am inclined to think) merely 
 the different degrees of aperture the mouth required to pronounce the 
 words represented by the consonants. The Greeks, even in the very 
 earliest stage to which their alphabet can be traced, had five ; all which 
 (except the alpha borrowed from the Phenicians) appear to be their 
 own invention." f But can any thing be more improbable, than that 
 the same people who could invent characters for four vowels should 
 find it necessary to receive one from strangers, and that vowel the 
 very one which is the easiest and most frequent of utterance ? If, 
 however, the Greeks invented any part of their alphabetical characters, 
 or rather if they were brought into Greece by the Pelasgi, it seems 
 most probable that the whole was also derived from the same origin ; 
 and this conclusion is much too consonant with reason, to be in the 
 least invalidated by the fancied resemblance which is supposed to exist 
 between some of the Phenician J and Greek letters. 
 
 The opinion of Pliny, therefore, seems most probable ; for he 
 
 * This remark ought to be restricted to the alphabets of Phenicia, Palestine, and Syria ; 
 because it is not known whether the alphabet of ancient Persia had vowels or not, and the 
 alphabets of India have not only vowels, but characters for the long and short sounds of 
 a, e, i, and u. 
 
 \ Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 16, 17. 
 
 \ I use this term in compliance with common usage, but it seems to me that the very 
 existence of ancient Phenician letters remains still to be proved ; for, hitherto, this 
 important fact appears to have been merely assumed, and never established by any evidence 
 whatever. 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 127 
 
 observes, — " Literas semper arbitror Assyrias fuisse * ; sed alii apud 
 Egyptos a Mercurio, ut Gellius ; aliique apud Syros repertas volunt. 
 Utique in Grseciam intulisse e Phoenice Cadmum sedecim numero. 
 Quibus Trojano bello Palamedem adjecisse quatuor hac figura, 9, |, q>, %. 
 Totidem post eum Simonidem melicum, £, y, ty f u ; quarum omnium 
 vis in nostris recognoscitur. Aristoteles x et viii priscas fuisse a, 
 £» y-> $t e i & h *•> *•» f-i v > °i ^j f » ^5 T » v i § ; et duas ab Epicharmo additas, 
 6, x* qnam a Palamede mavult. Anticlides in Egypto invenisse 
 quendam nomine Menona tradit xv annis ante Phoroneum antiquis- 
 simum Graecias regem ; idque monumentis approbare conatur, E 
 diverso Epigenes, apud Babylonios dccxx annorum observationes 
 siderum coctilibus laterculis inscriptas docet, gravis autor in primis ; 
 qui minimum, Berosus et Critodemus, cccclxxx annorum. Ex quo 
 apparet aeternus literarum usus. In Latium eas attulerunt Pelasgi." f 
 In support of this last observation, the Eugubian Tablets afford the 
 strongest evidence ; for, whatever difference of opinion may exist 
 with respect to the language in which they are written, there can be 
 no doubt that the characters are nearly identical with the ancient 
 Greek letters. Mr. Payne Knight, also, remarks, that " These are 
 probably the original Pelasgian letters, as first brought into Italy j 
 for, without admitting the conjecture of Gori, that this inscription 
 was engraved two generations before the Trojan war, we may safely 
 
 * The following words of Diodorus Siculus are generally applied to the inhabitants of 
 Syria, in its most restricted sense : — ITpoj 8s tov; XeyovTtxg, oti Tvpoi pev euperai twv ypotp- 
 jaaTWv s«r», mapa. 8s tov toov <i>oivixsg paQovTe; tojj 'EAA»)<ri irupudsdwx.oio-w. But Strabo observes, 
 p. 737. j — Aottc* 8s twv "^vpiwv ovo[/.oc 8<aTsii/«i, utto f/.ev tijj BaSv\ovixg /xsp£p< tov lao'txov xoXttov. 
 octto 8s tovtou ^x? 1 T0U Eu£s<vou tottuXohov. On this passage M. Gosselin, in the French 
 translation, remarks, — " Les Grecs donnoient aux Assyriens le nom de Syriens, et desig- 
 noient par le mot Syrie le pays compris entre la Mediterranee et le Tigre ; aussi les anciens 
 auteui's emploient a chaque instant Supia dans le sens de Ao-<rupi«. Dans iEschile ~2.vpwv 
 apfjiu. est pour Ao-o-vpioov ap^u, comme dit le scholiaste." The authority, therefore, of 
 Eusebius, who says, Praef. Evan., lib. x. c. 5., E«j-i 8= ol Supouj ypx/jifLccTa e7r»vorj(r«( Asyoucn 
 ■npooTOv;. 2opo» 8'«v eisv xcti E§p«»oi, T>]i/ yenovcc ( l>oivix.Yis, x«j a.VTy\v to ju.sv ttuXcuov 'I'oivixijv, 
 fx.sT' s7tsjt« 8s lou8ai«v, xctQ' rjju.aj 8s YIct\unrTiVY)v ovoputyixevyv, oikovvts;, cannot be considered 
 as sufficient for determining that the words of Diodorus Siculus ought to be restricted 
 to the inhabitants of Palestine. 
 
 f Plin. Nat. Hist., lib. vii. c. .56. 
 
128 0N THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT 
 
 allow it to be more ancient than any other written monument ex- 
 tant. * Whether," adds Mr. Knight, " these ancient nations received 
 
 their letters from the Phoenicians at a period anterior to the expedition 
 of Cadmus, or whether both the Phoenicians and Pelasgi received 
 them from the Assyrians, or from some people still more ancient, 
 it is impossible to conjecture." f But, as it seems indisputable that 
 the Pelasgi were originally settled in Asia Minor, it must appear 
 highly probable that this country derived a knowledge of letters, as 
 Pliny and perhaps Diodorus Siculus thought, from Assyria or Baby- 
 lonia ; and thus the invention of letters would belong to that part of 
 the world in which the first known empire flourished, and in which, 
 as I conceive, was the original seat of the Sanscrit language and 
 of the Sanscrit literature. 
 
 But, in the discussion of this question, had the sounds and not 
 the forms of the letters been attended to, it would, perhaps, have 
 at once appeared that the alphabetical systems of the Greeks and 
 Phenicians were too dissimilar, to admit of its being justly concluded 
 that the former was derived from the latter. For, though the proper 
 pronunciation of the Samaritan letters, which are supposed to be 
 the same as the Phenician, is uncertain, still there seems no doubt 
 but that he, vau, jod, and gnain were not vowels, and therefore had 
 no corresponding sounds in the Greek alphabet. That either teth 
 or tau, also, tsadi, koph, and shin were sounds unknown to the Greeks 
 cannot be disputed ; and, judging from the Arabic alphabet, it might 
 be concluded that pe ought to be sounded as the Arabic fa, a letter 
 which a Greek, as Cicero asserts, coul dnot pronounce. The zain 
 likewise, if equivalent to zeta, and cheth did not originally belong 
 to the Greek alphabet. Thus eleven sounds out of twenty-two could 
 not have been communicated to the Greeks, had Cadmus introduced 
 the Phenician letters into Greece ; while, on the contrary, the 
 Greeks must have invented, or rather received from the Pelasgi, the 
 vowels epsilon, iota, omicron, and upsilon, and afterwards increased 
 
 * Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 120. t Ibid. p. 121. 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. jgg 
 
 their alphabet by eight additional letters. It is totally impossible, 
 therefore, to discover such a similarity in these alphabets, as to render 
 it in the least probable that the Greek alphabetical system of sounds 
 could ever have been derived from the Phenician. 
 
 It is, however, difficult to form an opinion respecting the antiquity 
 of the Sanscrit alphabet ; for it seems much too artificial to admit 
 of its being supposed that it is original and unimproved. Mr. Payne 
 Knight remarks, — " Whether that alphabet be original, like the lan- 
 guage, I very much doubt, as both the forms and number of the 
 letters seem to imply that it is made up from the spoils of others." * 
 But several people of India speak vernacular dialects, far inferior to 
 the Sanscrit in copiousness and refinement ; and yet some of their 
 peculiar alphabets consist of more letters than the Deva Nagari. f 
 The sounds, also, of the last-mentioned alphabet are common to all 
 the people of India, and the proper pronunciation of several of them 
 is perfectly unattainable by a foreigner. On considering this circum- 
 stance, I am much inclined to think that the Brahmans, when they 
 migrated into India, gradually adapted their alphabet and their 
 writings to the sounds which they there found in common use ; for, 
 on judging of this point, it must never be forgotten that there is no 
 proof whatever that Sanscrit was the universal language of India, 
 as I shall perhaps satisfactorily evince in the twelfth chapter. This 
 language, therefore, was confined to a numerous priesthood, who were 
 at perfect liberty to give it whatever form they chose. Nor, though 
 all the Deva Nagari letters are at present indispensable for the ortho- 
 graphy of Sanscrit, does this seem to have been an absolute requisite 
 in the original formation of the language, as will clearly appear 
 from an examination of the Comparative Table in Part II. : because 
 half of the Sanscrit letters are merely characters for modifications 
 of the same sound ; and experience sufficiently shows that this is 
 
 * Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 16. note. 
 
 f The Malabar, for instance, has three r's and two 1% and, besides, distinct characters for 
 representing a final r and I. 
 
 S 
 
130 ON THE GREEK, HEBREW, AND SANSCRIT 
 
 a degree of nicety which the alphabets of few people have yet 
 attained. * 
 
 The Pelasgic alphabet, therefore, may not improbably exhibit the 
 first elements of the Sanscrit. For, if the modifications of sound 
 which are now represented by Sanscrit letters existed when this 
 language was first formed, characters for them might not have been 
 invented ; and thus among the colonies who migrated from Babylonia 
 these delicate intonations might have fallen into disuse: or, on the 
 supposition just stated, these modifications may have been a com- 
 paratively modern improvement, introduced into the original language 
 by the Brahmans after their arrival in India. Rejecting, therefore, 
 these nice distinctions of sound, the proper pronunciation of which 
 could only be acquired by being accustomed to it from infancy, it will 
 be observed that the Greek and Latin alphabets agree with the 
 Sanscrit, in possessing distinct characters for the essential vowels 
 a, e, i, o, u. If, also, it be admitted that i was sometimes pronounced 
 as ?/, and the spiritus asper as h, it will be found that there are four 
 Sanscrit sounds only, ch, j, w, and sh, which are not contained in 
 the Greek and Latin alphabets ; and one of these, the w, was certainly 
 at one time in use among the Greeks, and its sound, though not 
 a character for it, was preserved amongst the Romans. Nor does 
 the Pelasgic alphabet contain any sounds unknown to the Sanscrit j" ; 
 for the 9, <p, and % J, at whatever time received into use, are merely 
 aspirations of r, w, and k, and have, therefore, equivalents in the 
 Sanscrit alphabet. The Latin, however, contains one sound, f, 
 
 * The alphabets of Europe are a sufficient proof of the correctness of this remark, as all 
 of them are deficient in the characters requisite to represent the sounds which prevail 
 among the people who use them. 
 
 f I do not, of course, take into account the letters £, £, and \J/ ; because it is admitted 
 that these are merely characters for double letters, which are, consequently, resolvable into 
 8<r, xcr, and 7ro". 
 
 $ " Nam Grseci adspirare solent <f>, ut, pro Fundanio, Cicero testem, qui primam ejus literam 
 dicere non posset, irridet." — Quint. Inst. Or., lib. i. c, 4. Gesner observes, in a note on this 
 passage, — " Est enim <I> inventa pro IT et H spiritu aspero. Prise, i. p. 542, Atque hoc 
 solum interest (eodem teste, p. 543.) inter J" et ph, quod non tarn Jixis labris est pronuntianda 
 f quomodo ph. Hinc intelligitur quid peccaverit testis Graeculus." 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 131 
 
 unknown to the Sanscrit * ; and this last has no distinct character 
 for the sound of v, which the w sometimes assumes. But, in all 
 essential respects, the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit alphabetical systems 
 are similar ; and, whatever opinion may be formed respecting the 
 causes which may have produced the difference now observable be- 
 tween the Sanscrit and the two former, it must still be admitted that 
 they exhibit, even at this day, much more unquestionable evidence 
 of a common origin, than any ingenuity can possibly extract from 
 a comparison of the Greek and Phenician alphabets. When, also, 
 to this similarity is added the remarkable affinity which exists, after 
 the lapse of three thousand years, between the Greek, Latin, and 
 Sanscrit languages, it must appear most probable that Babylonia 
 communicated at the same time both her language and her letters 
 to Asia Minor, from whence they were conveyed by the Pelasgi 
 to Greece, Latium, and Hetruria. 
 
 But Lanzi observes, — " Or Lipsio nel comentare il citato passo di 
 Tacito f , confronta prima gli autori su i quali si fondano queste lettere 
 anticadmee ; poi conclude : vides in diversitate sententiarum consentire 
 tamen omnes de Egypto et Phcenice. Niuno dunque degli antichi avea 
 sospettato mai delF Etruria, ne de' Pelasghi Tirreni ; niun autorita 
 
 adunque favorisce il sistema nuovo almeno palesemente La base 
 
 del sistema Guarnacciano e, che in Grecia furon caratteri avanti 
 Cadmo ; parere non nuovo tra' moderni." X Ifj however, I have suc- 
 ceeded in showing that the Pelasgi migrated from Asia Minor, and if 
 the early civilisation of Western Asia be admitted, and if the con- 
 current opinion of ancient writers on this point rests merely on the 
 questionable authority of Herodotus, and if no similarity can be 
 
 * I know not what to make of q, respecting which Gesner remarks, — " Literam ludi- 
 brium et crucem grammaticorum, non minus atque alteram k dixeris ; " but, in the Sanscrit 
 words which have passed into Latin, the qu represents a simple k, or a k conjoined with w, 
 kwa, and, perhaps, ch. 
 
 f " Quidam Cecropem Atheniensem, vel Linum Thebanum, sexdecim litterarum formas 
 memorant ; et temporibus Trojanis Palamedem Argivum, mox alios, ac praecipuum Simo- 
 nidem, ceteras reperisse." — Tacit. Anna!., lib. xi. c. 14. 
 
 % Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 179. 178. 
 
 s 2 
 
132 ON THE GREEK, HEBREW, AND SANSCRIT 
 
 discovered between the Greek and Phenician alphabets, it must 
 necessarily follow that there is no proof whatever, which in the least 
 establishes that the Pelasgi were ignorant of letters, and that these 
 were first introduced into Greece by Cadmus. 
 
 It may, however, be contended that, if the Pelasgi carried letters into 
 Greece, Latium, and Hetruria, the same number of alphabetical 
 characters ought to be found in the ancient inscriptions which have 
 been discovered in these countries ; but, as this is not the case, con- 
 sequently this supposition respecting the Pelasgi cannot be correct. 
 But Lanzi justly observes, — " Io credo che non ogni lettera sia da 
 cercarsi in lingue poco coltivate e durate poco : ove F alfabeto era 
 regolata dalla pronunzia ; come avvenne un tempo nelle varie nazioni 
 di Grecia.* Quindi ogni nazione ebbe il suo. L'Osco, la Sannitica, 
 1' Umbra pronunziavano il b e V ammisero nella scrittura ; l' Euganea 
 ammise 1' o ricusata dalle tre predette perche la pronunziava ; la Volsca 
 ammise le altre Latine antiche per la stessa ragione. L' Etrusca, che 
 non pronunziava se non poche lettere, e quelle che le mancavano 
 suppliva con le loro affini, ebbe fin dalla origine un alfabeto limitato ; e 
 non cangiando dipoi pronunzia, non lo carico di nuove lettere : am- 
 mise al piule doppie ch e x che accrebbero 1' alfabeto, ma non variarono 
 la pronunzia della nazione. Nel resto, benche vicinissima al Lazio, 
 escluse sempre 1' o, perche secondo Plinio non proferivala : e per la 
 stessa ragione non adotto mai il g ne altra nuova lettera, fosse o non 
 fosse Cadmea. f In another place he observes, — " Ma Gori si fondo 
 specialmente nelle piu antiche iscrizioni de' Greci. Con esse alia mano 
 provo quanta connessione dovessero avere il Greco e 1' Etrusco : giacche 
 la forma delle lettere era quasi la stessa. II tempo ha comprovato in 
 
 * " L' alfabeto Greco conto da principio sedici lettere, secondo Plinio. Verisimilmente son 
 quelle, che compongono la iscrizione di Milo ; se vi si aggiunga il B, che non vi fu occasione 
 di adoperarvelo. Quei che ne contarono diciotto, forse vi computarono le aspirazioni H 
 e F. Alcuni v' includono la X e n' escludono la V, come Vittorino Grammatico. E vera- 
 mente in una delle iscrizioni Amiclee la figura dell' V non si discerne dalF O. Io non 
 deggio fermarmi in tali controversie. Noto solamente col Bianconi che 1' alfabeto Greco 
 non fu lo stesso in ogni luogo in que' primi secoli ; e dove conto piu lettere, e dove meno." 
 — Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 81. 
 
 f Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 201. 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 233 
 
 cid la sagacita, di quest' uomo. Piu che vanno scoprendosi Greche 
 iscrizioni di rimote tempi, piu si conosce 1' affinita de' due alfabeti." * 
 Pliny, also, observes, — " Veteres Grascas [litteras] fuisse easdem pene 
 quae nunc sunt Latinae ;" j~ and Tacitus is of the same opinion, for he 
 says, " Forma litteris Latinis, quae veterrimis Graecorum." ^ The first 
 part, therefore, of the following remark of Mr. Payne Knight cannot 
 be correct : — " The Latin [letters] are said to have been introduced by 
 Evander from the Peloponnesus about the time of the Trojan war, and 
 were, without doubt, such as were in use in that country in that age. § 
 Their number was then small ; but the Romans continued to add to 
 them, until they produced the alphabet which is now prevalent in 
 Europe. The Pelasgian, probably, came into the parts of Italy west 
 of the Tyber at a much earlier period. The Eugubian tablet has no 
 E, G, D, or O ; the three first being included in the correspondent 
 mutes of the same organ, and the last in the U, which being employed 
 as a consonant, or rather aspirate, formed the Pelasgian vau, the 
 Roman V, and our W. This letter is generally called the Phoenician 
 vau ; but, I believe, it is not to be found upon any authentic monu- 
 ment of that people ; whereas in the Pelasgian and Etruscan inscriptions 
 it occurs perpetually." || 
 
 If, however, a letter actually exists at this day in the Sanscrit alphabet 
 which resembles in every respect the Pelasgian vau and Latin V, will 
 not this be admitted to be a very strong proof that the Pelasgic, 
 Latin, and Sanscrit letters were originally the same? But the ^" of 
 Indian alphabets is generally pronounced as the English W, and 
 
 * Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 77. 
 
 f Plin. Nat. Hist., lib.vii. c. 58. t Tacit. Annal., lib. xi. c. 14. 
 
 § Mr. Knight had just before remarked, — " The Pelasgians are said to have been the first 
 colonists who settled in Italy after the Tyrrhenians; and, according to Pliny, brought 
 letters into Latium. In this, however, he seems to have been mistaken; for the Latin 
 letters, as well as language, are clearly derived from the iEolian or Arcadian, which were 
 nearly the same as the Cadmean, and had several characters of which the Pelasgian alphabet 
 of the Eugubian tablet is destitute." But this opinion is evidently founded on mere assump- 
 tions, the groundlessness of which has, perhaps, appeared from the above observations. 
 
 j| Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 121. 
 
134 0N THE GREEK, HEBREW, AND SANSCRIT 
 
 sometimes as the English V*, and occasionally in speaking as U. 
 Hence, in the Persian alphabet, this letter having been omitted on the 
 adoption of the Arabic characters, the _, (wav) assumes, as the pro- 
 nunciation of the word requires, the sounds of W, V, U, and O. That 
 the Pelasgian vau, or digamma, when in use among the Greeks, was 
 pronounced like the English W, would seem probable, from Dionysius 
 Halicarnasseus observing that it was the custom of the ancient Greeks 
 to prefix the syllable oo, written in one character, to words beginning 
 with a vowel, as veXta, Velia f ; and from the Greeks of later times 
 using the same character to represent the Latin V, as vxXepiog, Vale- 
 rius. Quintilian, also, remarks, — " Desintne aliquse nobis necessarise 
 literse, non cum Grasca scribimus (turn enim ab iisdem duas mutu- 
 amur), sed proprie in Latinis, ut in his, servus, et vulgus, iEolicum 
 digamma desideratur :" | from which it clearly appears, that the 
 digamma must have been pronounced as the English W, and not as 
 the English B, F, or V ; because these letters existed in the Latin 
 alphabet. 
 
 But it is equally clear, from the variety of opinions which have been 
 expressed respecting the proper pronunciation of the digamma, that 
 this could not have been its only sound ; and that it resembled the 
 Sanscrit letter, in admitting of its sound being varied from W to V 
 and U. Bishop Marsh, however, contends, in his Horse Pelasgicse, that 
 the proper sound of the digamma was the English F; but this is a sound 
 which the natives of India § cannot pronounce. Mr. Payne Knight, 
 also, remarks, that " it is generally supposed among the learned at 
 present, that the digamma was pronounced like our W, for it cor- 
 responded with the Latin V, the sound of which was certainly the 
 
 * This is the sound adopted by the Asiatic Society of Calcutta ; but incorrectly, I think, 
 as the prevalent sound of this letter in India is W. 
 
 The Sanscrit grammarians consider the W to be a semi-vowel; hence this rule in 
 Wilkins's Sanscrit Grammar : — " 36. y, r, and la, with their annexed [inherent] vowel, 
 are occasionally convertible into their corresponding vowels, i, ri, and u." 
 
 -j- Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., lib. i. c. 30. 
 
 X Quint. Inst. Orat., lib. i. c. 4. 
 
 § I mean the Hindus ; for the Muhammadans retain this sound, however long they may 
 have been settled in India. 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 13 5 
 
 same." * But the difference of opinion on this point is at once re- 
 conciled, by admitting that the sound of the digamma and the Latin V 
 was variable, and not fixed ; since Quintilian expressly states that this 
 was the case with respect to the latter : for this conclusion is strongly 
 confirmed by the identical words which still exist in Greek, Latin, 
 and Sanscrit ; as, for instance, S. widanti, G. eidovTui, L. vident ; 
 S. wdmati, G. s^enai, L. vomit ; S. diwam, G. <W, L. divum ; S. dwim, 
 G. oiv, L. ovem; S. navam, G. vuw, L. navem; S. ndwam, G. veov, 
 L. novum ; S. wdchdm, G, o<r<ruv s L. vocem.f 
 
 When, therefore, the whole of the preceding observations are duly 
 considered, it will perhaps be admitted that the similarity of the 
 Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit alphabetical systems is as remarkable as 
 the singular affinity which exists between these languages. The sim- 
 plicity, also, of the system which ascribes to Babylonia the invention 
 of letters, and the communication of them of Asia Minor, whence they 
 were carried to other countries by the Pelasgi, must alone render it highly 
 probable. Nor is it opposed by any sufficient authority, as the only 
 objection to it which can arise proceeds solely from the long received 
 but unfounded opinion, that the Greeks derived a knowledge of letters 
 from the Phenicians ; while, on the contrary, it is supported by all 
 that ancient history, sacred and profane, has related of Assyria, and by 
 the far-spread fame of the Pelasgi, the memory of which has been pre- 
 served by the poets and historians of antiquity. 
 
 * Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 11. 
 
 f But, besides the omission of the W, or digamma, in Greek words, it would seem 
 probable that, when it fell into disuse, its place was supplied by some other letter, as 
 S. sewete, G. o-eGercti ; S. tioagmi^ G. §«y/x« ; and S. wahate, perhaps, G. o^esTat, L. vehit. 
 
13<? 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 J3y letters has the glory of the Greeks and Romans been immortalised ; 
 but, amongst the ancestors of the Teutonic people, no poet or historian 
 arose to transmit to posterity an account of their origin, or the fame of 
 their deeds : for it was not until A. D. 360, that letters were first known 
 among the Goths. Gibbon, however, observes, — " In the beginning 
 of the sixth century, and after the conquest of Italy, the Goths, in 
 possession of present greatness, very naturally indulged themselves in 
 the prospect of past and future glory. They wished to preserve the 
 memory of their ancestors, and to transmit to posterity their own 
 achievements. The principal minister of the court of Ravenna, the 
 learned Cassiodorus, gratified the inclination of the conquerors in a 
 Gothic history which consisted of twelve books, now reduced to the 
 imperfect abridgment of Jornandes. These writers passed with the 
 most artful conciseness over the misfortunes of the nation, celebrated 
 its success, and adorned the triumph with many Asiatic trophies, that 
 more properly belonged to the people of Scythia. On the faith of 
 ancient songs, the uncertain but the only memorials of barbarians, they 
 deduced the first origin of the Goths from the vast island or peninsula 
 of Scandinavia."* Leibnitz, also, remarks, — " Ego Jornandis autori- 
 tatem non plane contemno, etsi non semper tutam fatear, prassertim 
 in remotis, nee satis cohaerentia narrare deprehendam. Secutus est 
 Ablabium, et Senatoris, id est Cassiodori libros de Gothicis deperditos. 
 Jornandes ergo Gothus, ex Scandinavia Gothos arcessit, etsi eos Getis, 
 longe antiquioribus Ponti Euxini accolis, confundat."-|" 
 
 Such is the only account of the ancestors of the Teutonic people 
 which was ever written ; but Gibbon very justly remarks that " We 
 
 * Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol.i. p. 387. 
 f Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 196. 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. \ 37 
 
 may safely pronounce that, without some species of writing, no people 
 has ever preserved the faithful annals of its history." The single, un- 
 supported assertion, therefore, of a writer in the sixth century, that the 
 Goths were the descendants of men who had migrated, two thousand 
 years previously, from Scandinavia to the Euxine Sea, cannot be en- 
 titled to any credit, and, consequently, deserves not consideration.* 
 Gibbon, however, states, — " If so many successive generations of 
 Goths were capable of preserving a faint tradition of their Scandinavian 
 origin, we must not expect, from such unlettered barbarians, any dis- 
 tinct account of the time and circumstances of their emigration. To 
 
 * The writers of the Ancient Universal History, indeed, gravely state, that " the time 
 when the Goths first settled in Scandinavia, and the period at which they first peopled 
 with their colonies the islands, the Chersonesus, and neighbouring places, are equally 
 uncertain. Their first settlement is said to have been conducted by King Eric, contem- 
 porary with Saruch, grandfather of Abraham The second migration is related 
 
 by Jornandes, and supposed to have happened several ages after, when, the above-mentioned 
 countries being overstocked with people, Berig, at that time king of the Goths, sailed with 
 a fleet in quest of new settlements." — Vol. xvii. p. 168. 
 
 As authorities for the first part of this account, they l-efer to Grotius and Sheringham. 
 I therefore extract what they have said on this subject : — " Prima migratio Getarum fuit 
 sub auspiciis Erici regis ; is sub temporibus Sarugi, qui proavus erat Abrahami, vixisse 
 dicitur; et Getis imperasse, primusque in illas terras colonias misisse. Chronicon antiquum, 
 rhythmice Gothica lingua centenis aliquot abhinc annis conscriptum, de Erico hsec habet. 
 .... i. e. Ego primus Gothlandice rexfui; turn nemo inhabitavit Skaniam aut Wetalaheedham, 
 ego primus regiones illas condidi, et in ditionem meam recepi, ideo oportet ipsos Gothis semper 
 tributum solvere. Iste Dyarius (i. e. heros) liabuit totam Wettalaheydham, quae nunc Zelandia, 
 Mona, Fionia, Lalandia, et Falstera vacatur ; turn vixit Sarug, qui proavus erat Abrahami" — 
 De Aug. Gent. Orig. Disc, p. 143. 
 
 Grotius says, — " Quod initium his regnis [Scanziae] fuerit cum non appareat, haud temere 
 et indigenis et vicinis creditum est, quo primum tempore post magnum diluvium ex Asia 
 homines in Europam se infundere cceperunt, has regiones inter primas ab iis insessas et 
 regna ibi, quod antiquissimum imperii genus haud falso dictum est, constituta. Nam ex 
 Armenia Syriaque, ubi primos post diluvium mortales vixisse profanis etiam testimoniis 
 constat, profecti Scythae trans eas qnas nunc Sarmatarum dicimus terras in Germanise 
 
 septentrionalia venere Scythicam vero linguam matricem esse Germanicae, cujus pars 
 
 Suedica ac Norwagica, multa sunt quae credi jubeant." — Proleg. in Hist, Goth., p. 7. 
 
 How such a writer as Gibbon could give any countenance to these reveries is most 
 surprising: but, in maintaining the Scythian, Celtic, and Scandinavian hypotheses, common 
 sense and the first principles of reasoning have been so completely disregarded, that, unless 
 an author is fully aware of this circumstance, he cannct easily avoid the errors of the writers 
 whom he is obliged to consult. 
 
 T 
 
138 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 cross the Baltic was an easy and natural attempt ; the inhabitants of 
 Sweden were masters of a sufficient number of large vessels with oars 
 and the distance is little more than 100 miles from Carlscroon to the 
 nearest parts of Pomerania and Prussia. Here at length we land on 
 firm and historic ground : at least, as early as the Christian asra, and as 
 late as the Antonines, the Goths were established towards the mouth 
 of the Vistula, and in that fertile province where the commercial cities 
 of Thorn, Elbing, Koningsberg, and Dantzic were long afterwards 
 
 founded In the age of the Antonines the Goths were still seated in 
 
 Prussia. About the reign of Alexander Severus, the Roman province 
 of Dacia had already experienced their proximity by frequent and 
 destructive inroads. In this interval, therefore, of about seventy years, 
 we must place the second migration of the Goths from the Baltic to the 
 Euxine ; but the cause that produced it lies concealed amono the 
 various motives which actuate the conduct of unsettled barbarians."* 
 
 But, if the Goths who attacked the Roman empire did not migrate 
 from the shores of the Baltic, this relation must necessarily be 
 erroneous. To found, also, a historical account on deductions drawn 
 solely from the countries which the Goths are supposed, without suffi- 
 cient grounds, to have inhabited, and unsupported by any collateral 
 authority whatever, is contrary to every principle of historical composi- 
 tion. If, therefore, it can be shown that the usual scepticism and 
 singular accuracy of Gibbon have deserted him on this occasion 3 and 
 that the Goths inhabited from time immemorial the very country which 
 they occupied when they first attacked the Roman empire, their 
 Scandinavian origin will be completely disproved. This point, I am 
 aware, has been already very fully discussed by former writers ; but, as 
 their opinions are founded on either the Scythian or Scandinavian 
 hypothesis, it becomes, in consequence, necessary to reexamine this 
 subject at some length. 
 
 Had not, however, such numerous instances occurred of learned men 
 preferring to search at a distance for that which was actually lying 
 before them, it might excite surprise how any doubt respecting the 
 
 * Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol. i. p. 392, 393. 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. |S9 
 
 origin of the Teutonic people could ever have arisen : for, from the 
 time of Homer until they began to be distinguished by the name of 
 Goths, frequent mention of their ancestors is found in ancient writers ; 
 among whom no difference of opinion exists, with respect either to the 
 original generic name of that people, or to the country which they had 
 inhabited from time immemorial. The Thracians are repeatedly 
 noticed by Homer* ; and from the time that they are more distinctly 
 described by Herodotus, until Procopius, during the course of nearly 
 1000 years, there appears not the slightest reason for supposing that 
 their country was ever occupied by another race of men ; but, on the 
 contrary, it is clearly established, by the authority of ancient writers, 
 that the Thracians extended themselves far and wide beyond the limits 
 of the country which they had originally possessed. From the Thra- 
 cians, also, as it has been shown in the seventh chapter, did the Greeks, 
 
 * I quote the following lines from Pope's translation : — 
 
 " When now the thunderer on the sea- beat coast 
 Had fix'd great Hector and his conq'ring host ; 
 He left them to the fates, in bloody fray, 
 To toil and struggle through the well-fought day ; 
 Then turn'd to Thracia from the field of fight 
 Those eyes that shed insufferable light : 
 To where the Mysians prove their martial force, 
 And hardy Thracians tame the savage horse ; 
 And where the far-famed Hippomolgian strays, 
 Renown'd for justice and for length of days; 
 Thrice happy race ! that, innocent of blood, 
 From milk innoxious seek their simple food ; 
 Jove sees delighted." Iliad, b. xiii. v. 1 — 13. 
 
 " Rhigmus, whose race from fruitful Thracia came." 
 
 Ibid., b. xx. v. 485. 
 
 " And last a large well-labour'd bowl had place, 
 The pledge of treaties once with friendly Thrace." Ibid., b. xxiv. 
 
 The translation of the two last verses does not sufficiently express the sense of the 
 original : — 
 
 Ex 8e Seiroi; TrepmaWs;, 6 o\ ©prjxej nopov uv$pe$ 
 
 Ej;e<riY}V e\dovri, psya. xrepois' oofie vv tod nep 
 
 <£>eio-ciT' svt lAsyapots 6 yepoov itepi 8' rjSsXs Qu/j.u> 
 
 Avo-otaQw fiXov vlov. Iliad, w, 234- 
 
 T 2 
 
140 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 even according to their own accounts, derive their language, civilis- 
 ation, and religion : for, that the Pelasgi were Thracians, will not be 
 doubted, after considering the following conclusive reasoning of Bishop 
 Marsh : — " But as we know that Europe was peopled from Asia, 
 either the first settlers in Peloponnesus traversed the Egean Sea, in 
 which case Greece might have been peopled from south to north ; 
 or the first migration from Asia Minor to Europe was across either the 
 Hellespont or the Thracian Bosphorus [or both], in which case Greece 
 was peopled from north to south. Now it is infinitely more probable 
 that the first settlers in Thrace should have crossed the Hellespont, 
 where the land on one side is visible from the land on the other, and 
 that Greece should have been peopled from Thrace, than that the first 
 settlers in Greece should have come immediately across the Egean Sea, 
 and have consequently embarked in Asia, without knowing that an 
 opposite coast was in existence. We may, therefore, fairly presume that 
 Thrace was the first European settlement of the Pelasgi, and that they 
 gradually spread themselves southward till they had occupied the whole 
 of Greece. Indeed Thrace was the original seat of Grecian song and 
 Grecian fable. Thamyris, who is said to have challenged the Muses, 
 was a Thracian ; so was Orpheus ; so was Musseus : and the mysteries 
 of the Cabiri were celebrated in Samothrace, before the temple of 
 Delphi existed." * 
 
 It is, at the same time, indisputable that the original seat of the 
 Thracians extended from Macedonia to the Euxine, along the shores 
 of the Hellespont, Propontis, and Thracian Bosphorus, and conse- 
 quently their Asiatic origin cannot admit of a doubt, f But the 
 
 * Horae Pelasgicae, p. 13. 
 
 f As, also, it is much more probable that the Thracians, after migrating from Asia 
 Minor, did not send any colonies there, the following passage of Strabo, p. 295., must be 
 considered as applying to that part of the same people which remained in Asia Minor when 
 the other migrated : — K«i ou; vuv Mvtrovs xa.\ovo~iv a.$' wv wp^y\crocv x«i ol vuv y.eTx%v 
 Avdvov, jc«» <£>pvyuiv, xui Tpwwv omovvti; Mixr or kou uvtoi 8' ol Qpuyeg Bpvye; ettri, Qpa.-x.iov rt 
 eQvo$, x.x8a.7rep xaj ol MuySovsj kou 1 Bs§pvx.s;, %a\ Me8o£i0uvoi, x«( BiSuvoj x«i Qvvot, 8oxw 8e 
 xai toi»5 MapiavSuvouj. 
 
 Herodotus, also, mentions the Thracian origin of the Phrygians and Bithynians, and 
 assigns a distinct place in the army of Xerxes to the Asiatic Thracians. 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. j41 
 
 western and northern boundaries of the country which they at first 
 occupied are uncertain: for Rennell observes, — "But as Thrace is 
 confined on the east and south by the sea, and on the north by the 
 Danube ; and as Macedonia and Paeonia are mentioned by Herodotus 
 as distinct countries ; the extent of Thrace, even allowing it to extend 
 into Dardania and Mcesia, must be much more circumscribed than 
 the idea of our author allows. It has, however, more extended limits 
 in his geography, than in that of succeeding authors ; and, perhaps, 
 might have included most of the space along the south of the Danube 
 between the Euxine and Istria, meeting the borders of Macedonia, 
 Paeonia, &c. on the south." * Respecting the inhabitants of this 
 country, Herodotus remarks that " The Thracian race is the most 
 numerous of all mankind, except the Indian ; and were the Thracians 
 governed by one person, or did they even act with one common 
 consent, they would be, in my opinion, the most invincible, and the 
 most powerful of men : " f but he gives no account of either their 
 origin or their history. 
 
 I admit that there are no authorities by which it can be proved that 
 the Thracians of Herodotus were the descendants of the Thracians 
 who existed in the times of Orpheus, Musasus, and Homer : but, that 
 they were, was the concurrent opinion of ancient writers ; and this 
 general belief ought certainly to be considered as much more valid 
 testimony of so probable a fact, than the authority of such a writer as 
 Jornandes to prove so improbable an event as the migration of 
 Scandinavians to the Euxine Sea a few centuries after the deluge, 
 and their subsequent conquest of Thracia. ^ But, from the time of 
 
 * Geography of Herodotus, p. 44. f Herod., lib. v. c. 3. 
 
 % The following remarks of Pinkerton are so just that I cannot omit them : — " Such is 
 the line which Jornandes pursues; and his account of the origin of the Scvthae was blindly 
 followed by Isidorus, by Beda, who calls Scandinavia, Scythia, by Paulus Diaconus, by the 
 geographer of Ravenna, and by innumerable others in the dark ages. Nay, such an effect 
 may even a very weak writer (for such Jornandes is) have upon literature, that one sentence 
 of Jornandes has overturned the very basis of the history of Europe. This famous 
 sentence is in his fourth chapter: Ex hac igitur Scandia insula, quasi ofi'icina gentium, 
 aut certe velut vagina nationum, cum rege suo nomine Berig Gothi memoranlur egressi. Upon 
 this one sentence have all modern historians, nay, such writers as Montesquieu, Gibbon, and 
 
142 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 Herodotus, until the general prevalence of the name of Goths, it is 
 undeniable that the Thracians remained unconquered, and that they 
 extended themselves from Macedonia to the Dniester, and from the 
 Euxine Sea to the confines of Germany. For, as the Getae are iden- 
 tified by ancient writers with the Thracians, and as neither proof nor 
 probability supports the assumptions that Thracia was ever occupied 
 by either Scythians or Scandinavians, it must necessarily follow that 
 whatever is predicated of the Getae must equally apply to the 
 Thracians ; and, consequently, if the Getae were Goths, the Goths 
 were also Thracians. To determine, therefore, the identity of the 
 Getae and Goths, it may be remarked, that from Strabo it appears that 
 the country immediately to the south of the Elbe was inhabited by the 
 Suevi ; then succeeded the country of the Getae, which extended along 
 the southern bank of the Danube, and also to the north of that river 
 as far as the Dniester ; but the exact boundaries of this country were 
 uncertain. The Mcesi, likewise, dwelt on both banks of the Danube, 
 and were, equally with the Getae, considered by the Greeks to be a 
 Thracian people. The Dacians, also, were a Thracian people, and 
 spoke the same language as the Getae ; and when Alexander the Great 
 attacked the Triballi, another Thracian people near the mountain 
 Haemus, he found that they extended as far as the Danube and its 
 mouth. Pliny, also, observes, — "Thracia sequitur, inter validissimas 
 Europae gentes, in strategias quinquagenas divisa." Among these 
 he enumerates the Mcesi and Getae, and remarks that the latter were 
 called Dacians by the Romans. * 
 
 From a consideration of these geographical details, it must appear 
 
 others of the first name, built ! Now it can be clearly shown that Scandinavia was, down to 
 a late period, nay, is at present, almost overrun with enormous forests, where there was no 
 room for population. Adam of Bremen, who wrote in the eleventh century, instructs us 
 that even in Denmark at that time the sea-coasts alone were peopled, while the inner parts 
 of the country were one vast forest. If such was the case in Denmark, we may guess that 
 in Scandinavia even the shores were scarcely peopled. Scandinavia is also a mountainous 
 region ; and, among a barbaric and unindustrious people, the mountains are almost 
 unpeopled." — Diss, on the Scythians or Goths, p. 23. 
 * Plin, Nat. Hist., lib. iv. c. 11, 12. 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 143 
 
 utterly improbable that a body of Scandinavians could not only have 
 conquered so numerous and powerful a people as the Getse*, but, 
 also, have suffered so little in the conquest as to be still able to attack 
 the Roman empire immediately afterwards. If, also, this migration of 
 Scandinavians took place at the time mentioned by Gibbon, when 
 considerable intercourse was carried on between the Romans and 
 Getas, some mention of such a revolution would most likely have 
 occurred in ancient writers : but respecting such an event they are 
 absolutely silent, and even Jornandes positively contradicts the 
 historian. I cannot, however, ascertain on what authority, if any, 
 is founded the relation which Gibbon has given of the progress of the 
 Scandinavians from the shores of the Baltic, until they arrived at 
 Nicopolis on the Jatrus. In this instance, therefore, the account of 
 Jornandes seems so probable as to be entitled to every credit ; for 
 he says, — " Nam gens ista [Getica] mirum in modum in ea parte, qua 
 versabatur, id est Ponti in littore Scythias soli innotuit, sine dubio 
 tanta spacia tenens terrarum, tot sinus maris, tot fluminum cursus, sub 
 cujus ssepe dextra Wandalus jacuit, stetit sub precio Marcomannus, 
 Quadorum principes in servitutem redacti sunt, Phil ippo namque ante- 
 dicto regnante Romanis, qui solus ante Constantinum Christianus cum 
 Philippo, id est filio, fuit, cujus et secundo anno regni Roma millesimum 
 annum explevit, Gothi, ut assolet, distracta sive stipendia sua ferentes 
 asgre, de amicis facti sunt inimici. Nam quamvis remolis sub regibus 
 viverent suis, Reipublicae tamen Romanae fcederati erant, et annua 
 munera percipiebant. Quid multa ? Transiens tunc Ostrogotha cum 
 suis Danubium, Mcesiam Thraciamque vastavit." j~ But the identity 
 
 * Strabo observes, in p. 304, 305., that the Getse and Dacians had at one time so 
 increased in numbers as to be able to form armies of 200,000 men ; but that, in consequence 
 of civil dissensions and wars with the Romans, they could not, at the time when he wrote, 
 raise an army of more than 40,000 men. 
 
 f Jornandes de Reb. Get., c. xvi. 
 
 Sheringham remarks, — " Getarum arma victricia in Scythia, Thracia, Dacia, Mcesia, ad 
 Istrum, et mare Ponticum exposuimus, eosque in illis regionibus, pro varietate sedis varia 
 habuisse nomina ; sed omnes uno communi nomine Getas, a Greeds et Latinis vocatos esse 
 diximus. Hi, vero, procedente tempore, legiones et vexilla sua in ultimos Europae fines 
 detulerunt, et quod bellicosius erat, ipsam Romam, et ferocientes Romanos magis cicures et 
 
144 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 of the Getse and Goths cannot be better proved than by these two 
 sentences of Capitolinus in Maximino : — "Sub Macrino a militia 
 desiit, et in Thracia, in vico ubi genitus fuerat, possessiones coin- 
 paravit, ac semper cum Gothis commercia exercuit. Amatus est autem 
 unice a Getis quasi eorum civis." * Spartianus, also, in Caracalla, after 
 relating the death of Geta, adds, — " Non ab re est etiam diasyrticum 
 quiddam in eum dictum addere. Nam cum Ger?na?iici, et Parthici, 
 et Arabici, et Alemannici nomen ascriberet Helvius Pertinax filius 
 Pertinacis dicitur joco dixisse, Adde si placet etiam Geticus Maximus, 
 quod Getam occiderat fratrem, et Gotti Getse dicerentur." j~ Pro- 
 copius, therefore, was perfectly correct in expressing this opinion : — 
 " The Goths were formerly, and still continue, a numerous people ; 
 but amongst them the greatest and most distinguished are the Goths, 
 
 © © o 7 
 
 Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepidae. In ancient times they were called 
 Sauromatse and Melanchlaeni, and by some the Getic nation. They 
 thus differ from each other in name, but in nothing else ; for they 
 are all fair, yellow-haired, and good-looking ; they observe the same 
 institutions, and worship the same God, as they are all of the Arian 
 sect j and they all use the same language, which is called Gothic. It, 
 
 mansuetos effecerunt, Romanumque imperium ita elumbaverint, ut mitius tractatu aliis 
 quoquegentibus exinde fuit; ex quibus plurimae arrepta dehinc occasione animos sustnlerint, 
 atque diutinam servitutem et exitiale jugum excusserint. Turn primum Getae Gothorum 
 nomine Graecis Romanisque noti sunt: deinceps vero scriptoribus nunc Getae nunc Gothi 
 appellantur. De his quidem apud antiquos, qui ea tempestate vixerint, qua Gothicum 
 bellum susceptum est, summa concordia ; postmille tamen annos Cluverius Germanicarum, et 
 Pontanus Danicarum rerum scriptores, cum nuperis aliis haec negant ; hi Getas a Gothis, 
 utrosque a Scythis diversam esse gentem magno conatu nixuque contendunt ; quorum sen- 
 tentia non minore falsitate, quam novitate referta mihi in hoc loco refellenda est." — De Ang. 
 Gent. Orig. Disc, p. 179. 
 
 Of Cluverius, Grotius observes, — " Apparet hinc supra omnium quas legimus his- 
 toriarum memoriam scandens regnorum Suediae Norwegiaeque antiquitas, bene observata 
 Germaniae descriptori, cujus ego diligentiam et eruditionem sic laudo, ut audaciam tamen, 
 spernentis saepe sine ullo firmo satis argumento codicum auctoritatem, consensumque 
 vetustatis, et acceptas ab ultimis sseculis lamas, multaque fingentis ex inanibus valde con- 
 jecturis, nee probaverim unquam nee sim probaturus." — Proleg. in Hist. Goth., p. 7, 
 
 * Hist. Aug. Scrip., vol. ii. p. 1 7. 
 
 f Ibid., vol, i. p, 73. 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 145 
 
 therefore, appears to me that they were all originally the same nation, 
 but have been subsequently distinguished by the names of their chiefs. 
 The people formerly dwelt beyond the Danube, and afterwards the 
 Gepidas possessed the country about Singedunum and Sermium, on 
 this and that side of the Danube, where they are now settled."* 
 
 But, to evince that the Thracians or Getas were the same people 
 as the Germans, no proofs can be adduced, except the extreme pro- 
 bability of the fact, and the irrefutable testimony of language. The 
 opinion on this point, entertained by the learned men of Germany, is, I 
 believe, correctly expressed in these words of Eccard : — " Habitaverunt 
 itaque primum majores nostri Celtarumque ibi locorum, ubi postea 
 Cimmerii Scythasque sese invicem, Herodoti testimonio, exceperunt, 
 circa paludem nempe Maeotidem, et sub jugis Caucasi montis. Inde 
 excursiones fecere, et Asiae Europasque sunt dominati." *f The futility 
 of this hypothesis I have perhaps demonstrated in the fifth chapter j 
 but the following remarks seem just : — " Nee audiendi sunt Septen- 
 trionales, qui ex Asia per Scythiam ad Finnones, indeque vel per 
 Lappones vel per Botnicum sinum ad Suecos, atque hinc demum 
 transmisso Balthico mari in Germaniam traductos fuisse majores 
 nostros ferunt. His et illustris Leibnitius peculiari dissertatione con- 
 tradixit. Difficultas et anfractus itineris illius, inclementia cceli, 
 infelicitas soli posterioribus demum temporibus exustis sylvis exculti, 
 migrationi huic adversantur. Nee verosimile est, spretis mitioribus 
 locis, asperrima deserta placuisse novas sedes quagrentibus. Multo 
 magis opinari licet, minorem gentis partem in Septentrionalia regna 
 ex majori, propinqua nempe Germania, venisse, trajectis maris Bal- 
 thici fretis, aut Codano sinu, quern olim, cum a maris violentia littora 
 nondum tot detrimenta accepissent, arctiorem, atque adeo trajectu 
 multo faciliorem, quam nunc est, fuisse, non sine causa forte statuit 
 Jo. Daniel Maior." | 
 
 If, however, Germany was not peopled from Scandinavia, or from 
 
 * Procopius in Bell. Van., lib. i. c. 2. 
 
 f De Origine Germanorum, p. 20. % Ibid, p. 39. 
 
 U 
 
146 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 Sarmatia *, as the want of affinity between the German and Slavonic 
 languages sufficiently proves, there can be no other country than 
 Thracia from which it could have received its inhabitants. Eccard, 
 indeed, remarks, — " Germani itaque fuerunt, qui primi nomina heec 
 sylvis, montibus, et fluviis nostris indiderunt. Nee praeter Germanicam 
 linguam ullius alterius idiomatis vestigia apud nos invenies, quod 
 indicio est, majores hie nostras primos et solos degisse, nullis aliarum 
 gentium incursionibus infestatos, aut coloniis mixtos. Atque errant 
 omnino, qui patriae nostras primo Scythas, inde Celtas, et postea Gothos 
 obtrudunt." f But he cannot have intended to revive the exploded 
 doctrine of the inhabitants of any country being autochthones; and, 
 as the population of Europe from Asia is proved by such numerous 
 circumstances, it must necessarily follow that Germany also received 
 a people whose ancestors had at some remote period migrated from 
 Asia. The very position, therefore, of Thracia is sufficient to evince 
 that the Thracians alone could have gradually extended themselves 
 from the Hellespont to the shores of the Baltic, and thence to Scan- 
 dinavia : for, to suppose that the ancestors of the Germans proceeded 
 from Mount Ararat across Caucasus to the Palus Masotis, and thence 
 to Germany, is equally incredible as these singular conjectures : — " In 
 Asia et hie Arminius enituit, multisque seculis Arminio Cherusco 
 antiquior fuit. Chaldaei Persseque duos deos venerati sunt, unum 
 bonum, Oromasdem, alterum malum, Arimanium. Non inepte suspi- 
 catur Leibnitius, Arimanium forte magna Asice parte perdomita, cum 
 
 * Pinkerton remarks, — " The first of these opinions, namely, that the Germans were 
 Sarmatians, proceeds from such gross ignorance, that I am really ashamed to mention, 
 much more to refute it. I have diligently perused most writers on German antiquities, 
 but they had all some degree of reading, and could never fall into an error which the 
 whole ancient authors, and complete modern knowledge, concur to refute. . . . Sorry I 
 am, at the end of the eighteenth century, to be showing, against a British author, that the 
 Germans were not Sarmatae ; that is, that a Saxon, or a Silesian, is not a Russian, and does 
 not speak the Sarmatic [Slavonic], but Gothic language. For if a German student, in his 
 first year at college, should happen to see this tract, he will conclude me as ignorant as my 
 countryman, Mr. M'Pherson ; to confute absolute nonsense being surely as ridiculous as 
 to write it." — Diss, on Scythians or Goths, p. 91. 93. 
 
 f De Origine Germanorum, p. 59. 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. J 47 
 
 Ormisda, orientalium populorum rege, conflixisse, et terrore sui nominis, 
 ut alter beneficiis, divinitatem meruisse. Graecis ex eodera Hermes sive 
 Mercurius confictus est, quia sapientiae illis author fuit. Nee repugnem, 
 si quis ex eodem Arimanio A^eioc, seu Martem Graecorum, rejecta 
 ultima syllaba man, prodiisse dicat." * 
 
 The very homogeneity, also, of the German language supports a 
 hypothesis which supposes that Germany was not merely occupied 
 by the Thracians as conquerors, but that it was actually peopled 
 by this race of men, or, at least, that it so far predominated as to 
 expel the former inhabitants, or to absorb them entirely within the 
 new population. The language, therefore, would be originally Thracian ; 
 but, in the course of time, and long separation, and, perhaps, from 
 the influence of the speech of the former inhabitants, it would gradually 
 assume a distinct character, and, losing its absolute identity, would 
 still retain undeniable traces of affinity with the mother tongue. Nor 
 can it be supposed that, among the widely dispersed tribes of Thracia 
 itself, leading a rude and uncivilised life, and unacquainted with 
 letters, the language of Asia Minor could have been long preserved 
 in its pristine purity. No information, however, respecting the 
 causes that may have occasioned the country which communicated 
 its language, civilisation, and religion to Greece, to relapse into 
 barbarity, can be derived from ancient writers : but, whatever the 
 causes may have been, the effect must have produced such an alteration 
 in the parent tongue, amongst the Thracian people, as to create that 
 difference which took place between the Greek and Latin, and the 
 Thracian languages. Even the latter, from the peculiar circumstances 
 under which the widely extended tribes of Thracia lived, must, in 
 the course of fifteen hundred vears, have become divided into various 
 distinct dialects : but, still, these languages and dialects would preserve 
 such a remarkable affinity, as to render it indisputable that they were 
 all derived from one common origin. 
 
 It is precisely in this state that the Thracian language presents 
 itself, in the earliest written monuments of it which have been pre- 
 
 * De Origine Germanorum, p. 18. 
 
 u 2 
 
X48 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 served. Unfortunately these are of comparatively modern date. For 
 Dr. Jamieson observes, in the Hermes Scythicus, — " The most ancient 
 proofs referred to in this inquiry, are from the justly celebrated 
 version of Ulphilas, Bishop of the Mceso-Goths. The year 360 is 
 the latest date assigned to this version. Many learned writers, how- 
 ever, have affirmed that it was made in the reien of Constantine 
 the Great. It is much to be regretted, that all that remains of the 
 labours of Ulphilas is his version of the four gospels, of which nearly 
 one half has been lost, besides some fragments of the Epistle to 
 the Romans. Our proofs from the Mceso- Gothic are thus extremely 
 limited. It is unquestionable that the Anglo-Saxon is merely a 
 daughter of the ancient Gothic. It was introduced into England 
 about the year 450, or nearly a century after the date of the version 
 of Ulphilas. We have, indeed, no Anglo-Saxon writer older than 
 Caedmon, who flourished three centuries later than the Bishop of 
 Mcesia. But so close is the affinity of these two languages, that the 
 learned Hickes included both in the same grammar. The Alemannic, 
 or Franco-Theotisc, has the next claim in point of antiquity. But of 
 this there are no memorials previous to the reign of Charlemagne."* 
 
 But, comparatively recent as these memorials are, since the separation 
 of the Greek, Latin, and Thracian people must have probably taken, 
 place at least two centuries before the poems of Homer were written, 
 or eleven hundred years before the birth of Christ, they incontestably 
 prove that the Teutonic dialects are the legitimate daughters of the 
 Thracian or Pelasgic language, and, consequently, that Germany must 
 have been peopled by the Thracians. j" The insuperable difficulty, 
 
 * Hermes Scythicus, Intr. p. 4. 
 
 ■f When and how this event took place it is useless to conjecture, because there are no 
 data on which any probable opinion respecting it can be formed ; but, from the manner in 
 which it seems most likely that the world was peopled, the unphilosophical incorrectness 
 of this opinion of Gibbon must be evident : — " When Tacitus considered the purity of the 
 German blood, and the forbidding aspect of the country, he was disposed to pronounce 
 these barbarians indigence, or natives of the soil. We may allow with safety, and perhaps with 
 truth, that ancient Germany was not originally peopled by any foreign colonies already 
 formed into a political society ; but that the name and nation received their existence from 
 the gradual union of some wandering savages of the Hercynian woods. To assert those 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 149 
 
 therefore, which learned men have hitherto experienced, in their 
 attempts to explain satisfactorily the wonderful affinity which exists 
 between these dialects and Greek and Latin, is at once surmounted ; 
 and it hence appears that this affinity proceeds from the simple 
 fact of the Greeks, Latins, Hetrurians, and Thracians having all at 
 one time spoken the same language, because they were all originally 
 but one and the same people. Nor can the Teutonic race desire 
 a more illustrious origin than those Pelasgi, whose far- spread fame 
 is still attested by the honorific epithets applied to them by ancient 
 writers : but the Teutonic people must regret that their ancestors 
 preferred a life of rude independence to cultivating those arts by 
 which their kindred, the Greeks and Romans, have acquired such 
 undying celebrity. 
 
 It is not, however, solely on the translation of Ulphilas that 
 depends the identification of the Thracian and German people and 
 their languages, but on the undeniable affinity of all the Teutonic 
 dialects ; while there prevails at the same time such a dissimilarity 
 between them, as to show clearly that no one of them could have 
 been derived from another. Dr. Jamieson, indeed, considers the 
 Anglo-Saxon to be merely a daughter of the Mceso-Gothic : but 
 the remains of Ulphilas's translation are much too few and imperfect 
 to warrant such an opinion ; and an examination of the various 
 Teutonic dialects must evince that they all originally agreed in their 
 grammatical structure, and differed merely in words. It is this cir- 
 cumstance, therefore, which so strongly proves that no one of these 
 dialects can be the parent language, but that they must have all 
 been derived from some common origin. A German, an English- 
 man, and a Swede cannot at this day understand each other ; but the 
 slightest acquaintance with their respective dialects at once shows 
 that their ancestors must have spoken, at some remote period, the 
 
 savages to have been the spontaneous production of the earth which they inhabited, would 
 be a rash inference, condemned by religion, and unwarranted by reason." — Roman Empire, 
 vol. i. p. 349. 
 
i50 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 same language. Words, also, identical with Greek and Latin terms 
 occur in some one of these dialects, which are not found in the 
 others : but what is still more remarkable are the 413 Sanscrit 
 words * which can still be discovered in German and English, of 
 which 43 are found in German and not in English, and 138 in 
 English and not in German, f 
 
 These singular facts, however, cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, 
 unless it be admitted that the Teutonic dialects are merely cognate, and 
 that they are all derived from one common origin, the Thracian or 
 Pelasgic language ; in which case the diversity now existing between 
 them may be justly ascribed to the different tribes having preserved a 
 greater or lesser number of the words that belonged to the mother 
 tongue, and to each of them having replaced such words as might 
 have fallen into disuse, and afterwards become requisite, by newly 
 invented terms unknown to the others. It is also impossible to 
 ascertain whether Germany and Scandinavia were peopled previous to 
 the immigration of the Thracians ; but, as they most probably were 
 inhabited at that time by distinct tribes, their speech must have 
 exerted an equal influence over the Thracian language, as has unques- 
 tionably been exerted over the Latin by that of the Aborigines of Italy. 
 From all these considerations, therefore, it may be justly concluded 
 that all the Teutonic dialects are derived from one parent language, 
 the Thracian, which was originally the same as the Greek and Latin, 
 and also the same as that which was originally spoken in Asia Minor, 
 and thence communicated by the Pelasgi to Thracia, Greece, and 
 Italy. 
 
 To the justness of this conclusion I am aware of only one objection : 
 for it may be contended that, if the Greek, Latin, and Thracian 
 languages were originally but one and the same tongue, a much greater 
 
 * See the Comparative Table in Part II. 
 
 f If I had had an opportunity of referring to dictionaries of the other Teutonic dialects, 
 it is probable that I might have discovered in all of them Sanscrit words, which do not 
 occur in German and English ; for I have observed a few, in merely perusing Hickes's 
 Thesaurus, the Saxon Chronicle, Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Edda of 
 Soemunde. 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. \^\ 
 
 similarity than what can now be discovered ought to exist in their 
 grammatical structure. For, though the Teutonic noun still retains 
 its inflections, had the verb ever possessed thirty tenses* as in Sanscrit, 
 or eighty-seven as in Greek, in what manner has it been reduced to 
 two or three only ? In the Latin, and even in the modern languages 
 derived from it, during all the vicissitudes of a long course of ages, the 
 verb has never been thus shorn of its moods and tenses. The sim- 
 plicity, therefore, which prevails in the inflection of a Teutonic verb, is 
 alone sufficient to indicate that this language cannot be derived from 
 the same origin as Greek and Latin ; but experience shows that a 
 rude people prefer the use of auxiliary verbs for the formation of 
 tenses, to the more artificial mode of inflecting the verb for this 
 purpose ; and, consequently, no just conclusion respecting the original 
 grammatical structure of their language, when existing in its primitive 
 purity, can be drawn from the Thracians, after having relapsed into 
 barbarity, having adopted this inartificial but convenient mode of 
 varying the sense of the verb. Though, also, this objection might 
 appear valid if it could not be controverted by arguments of greater 
 validity, it must entirely lose its effect when the number of words in the 
 Teutonic dialects which are cognate with terms in Greek, Latin, and 
 particularly Sanscrit, are taken into consideration : for the number of 
 hypotheses which have been proposed for the explanation of this fact 
 have all hitherto proved equally unsatisfactory; because not one of them 
 adequately accounts for it, and all are founded on the strangest and 
 most inadmissible assumptions. But the conclusions which I now 
 point out fully explain the cause of the remarkable affinity which exists 
 between these languages, and also recommend themselves by their 
 extreme simplicity and probability. 
 
 Mr. Turner, however, is of opinion that the Anglo-Saxon is by no 
 means in its original purity, and that it contains words corresponding 
 with those of other languages f : but it seems to me that its originality 
 
 * Including the participles, the inflections of the Sanscrit verb are forty-six. 
 f History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. ii. p. 461. He also observes, in the concluding 
 sentence of the following chapter : — " I should have been desirous to have stated some 
 
152 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 cannot be doubted, as the Sanscrit words, and those apparently Greek 
 and Latin, which it contains are all referable to the same parent 
 language. The very examples which Mr. Turner adduces in support 
 of his opinion irresistibly lead to this conclusion : for of the five 
 verbs*, the fragments of which form the Anglo-Saxon verb, four are 
 found in Sanscrit ; as will be evident from the following comparison of 
 its tenses with the Sanscrit verbs : — 
 
 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, eom es is * The plural sind or sint is not a 
 
 Sanscrit, asmi asi astif distinct verb, but the Saxon third 
 
 person plural, santi. 
 
 In the subjunctive mood the Anglo-Saxon preserves the root, but 
 rejects the inflection ; as, 
 
 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, sy sy sy 
 
 Sanscrit, siam siah siat. 
 
 The Anglo-Saxon beom bist bith 
 
 are the Sanscrit bhawami bhawasi bhawati j 
 and the Anglo-Saxon plural beoth is evidently formed from the 
 Sanscrit second person plural bhawathd : and the Anglo-Saxon beon 
 and German bin are the present participle of this Sanscrit verb bhawan. 
 The Anglo-Saxon xveorthe and German werde are equally Sans- 
 crit ; as, 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, weorthe weorthest weortheth 
 German, werde werdest werde 
 
 Sanscrit, wartami % wartasi wartati 
 
 The Anglo-Saxon plural weorthath is formed from the second person 
 
 opinions on the affinities of the Anglo-Saxon tongue, but that I found it a subject which 
 could not be accurately handled without a deep consideration of almost every other 
 language." 
 
 * As were does not exist in the Mceso-Gothic, it may, perhaps, be merely a corruption. 
 
 t Moeso-Gothic, ist. % I am, I exist. 
 
Nom. Gen. 
 
 Ac. 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, se thses 
 
 thsen 
 
 seo 
 
 
 thaet 
 
 thast 
 
 Sanscrit, sah tasia 
 
 tarn* 
 
 sa 
 
 
 tat 
 
 tat 
 
 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 153 
 
 plural of the Sanscrit verb wdrtdthd : but the German first and third 
 persons plural seem to be formed from the third person plural of the 
 Sanscrit verb wdrtdnti. 
 
 The Angrlo-Saxon wees and English was are the Sanscrit verb, without 
 its inflection, wdsdti, he abides. The infinitive wesan and German par- 
 ticiple gewesen are evidently the present participle of this Sanscrit verb 
 wdsdn. 
 
 The Anglo-Saxon article, also, is derived from the Sanscrit pronoun 
 of the third person ; as, 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, N. P. tha 
 
 Sanscrit, te. Eng. they 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, G. P. thsesa 
 Sanscrit, tesham 
 
 A knowledge of these circumstances would probably have prevented 
 Mr. Turner from observing, — 4i When we consider these facts [the 
 formation of the Anglo-Saxon verb and article], and the many Anglo- 
 Saxon nouns which can be traced into other languages, it cannot be 
 affirmed that the Anglo-Saxon exhibits to us an original language. It 
 is an ancient language, and has preserved much of its primitive form ; 
 but a large portion of it seems to have been made up from other 
 ancient languages." f But, even arguing a priori, from what other 
 people could the Anglo-Saxons have derived any part of their 
 language ? For it has been perhaps evinced that, from the time the 
 Thracians established themselves along the shores of the Hellespont, 
 the Propontis, and Thracian Bosphorus, until the migration of the 
 Anglo-Saxons into England, the country from the Hellespont to the 
 Baltic could have been inhabited by only one race of men, who all 
 spoke the same language, or at least dialects derived from the same 
 
 * Anglo-Saxon dative, tham. 
 
 f History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. ii. p. 463. 
 
154 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 parent tongue. The settlements, also, of Greece in Thrace, the 
 Chersonesus, and on the shores of the Euxine, and the subsequent 
 conquests of the Romans, all took place long after the Thracian 
 language had been completely formed, and were not, therefore, causes 
 sufficient to effect any change in it. At least their operation would 
 have been confined to the places in which their influence prevailed, 
 and it could not have been extended so as to affect the language of 
 those tribes, which had previously proceeded to the shores of the 
 Baltic. There appears not, consequently, any conceivable manner in 
 which the Anglo-Saxon could have lost its original purity, or could 
 have received any part of its words or structure from any other than its 
 parent language ; a conclusion which is fully confirmed a posteriori by 
 comparing the Anglo-Saxon with other languages. 
 
 It is, at the same time, a favourite opinion among the literati of 
 Germany, that the greatest affinity exists between the German and 
 Persian languages. On this point Adelung thus expresses himself: — 
 " But the finding so much German in Persian has excited the greatest 
 wonder and astonishment. The fact is undeniable, and the German 
 found in Persian consists not only of a remarkable number of radical 
 words, but also in particles, and is even observable in the grammatical 
 
 structure This circumstance will admit of two explanations, either 
 
 from a later intermingling of the two languages after they were 
 completely formed, or from their both being derived from the same 
 mother tongue. The first of these explanations seems probable from 
 the position and history of Persia. For it lies in the way which 
 all the wild hordes from the higher Middle Asia must have taken 
 in order to proceed to the west, so that its language could not have 
 remained unaffected by that of the conquering or conquered people. 
 It is, also, well known, that the Goths abode for many centuries 
 on the Euxine and Caspian seas at the very door of the Persians, 
 supported themselves by their savage bravery at the expence of 
 their neighbours, and were always endeavouring to establish them- 
 selves in the best countries. History even acquaints us that a whole 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 155 
 
 Gothic tribe, which had invaded Persia, became incorporated with 
 
 its former inhabitants Hence the remains of German in Persian 
 
 do not appear like newly arrived strangers, who might be dispensed 
 with, but as component parts which are deeply inwove with the 
 language itself; so that the second explanation (proposed above) 
 receives from them the utmost probability. The Parsi, Zend, and 
 Pehlvi are very old languages, as is also the Sanscrit ; and, though 
 not sprung from the primitive tongue, they may be derived from 
 one of its eldest daughters. The German also, both from itself and 
 from history, appears an unmixed, original tongue. The Germans, 
 as well as all the ancient western people, migrated from Asia ; and 
 although one cannot now ascertain the country which they occupied 
 previous to their migration, still there is no reason to prevent its 
 being supposed that they might have inhabited Thibet and Persia, 
 from which countries Europe has been more than once peopled and 
 overrun. The language, therefore, of the Germans, the Slaves, the 
 Thracians, the Celts, &c, as well as that of the Persians, might 
 have been derived from the same mother tongue, and afterwards 
 have become, through time, climate, and institutions, different from 
 each other." * 
 
 I have quoted the preceding long passage, because it contains in 
 a narrow compass all the errors in etymological research which it is 
 the object of this work to expose and refute : for Adelung assumes 
 that the world was peopled from Thibet, and hence the above 
 reasoning is entirely influenced by the wish of supporting this hypo- 
 thesis. For this purpose, geography, chronology, history, and even 
 affinity of language, are disregarded, and the same origin is ascribed 
 to perfectly distinct races of men. What people, also, are intended 
 by the term Goths it is impossible to conjecture ; and it is equally 
 difficult to understand how Persia's lying in the way through which 
 savage hordes necessarily proceeded to the west (supposing this to 
 
 * Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 277. et seq. 
 X 2 
 
156 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 have been the case), could have in any manner produced an affinity 
 between the German and Persian languages. But the slightest ac- 
 quaintance with Persian must have prevented Adelung from forming 
 such an opinion as the one above quoted : for, when divested of 
 Arabic words, never was there a more unmixed and original language 
 than the Persian ; and its grammatical structure differs completely 
 from that of German. 
 
 Leibnitz, therefore, is perfectly correct in remarking, — " Non potui 
 tantum Germanici invenire in Persico quantum Elichmannus Salmasio 
 dixit, et unico pene God excepto, caetera fere Germanis assonantia, 
 his cum Grascis Latinisque communia sunt:"* for it will be observed 
 in the Comparative Table in Part II., that, out of 52 German and 
 Persian terms, 41 are common to Greek and Latin. M. Von Hammer 
 has, indeed, given, in the sixth volume of the Mines de V Orient, a list 
 of 560 Persian words which he considers to be cognate with a similar 
 number in the languages of the West. But out of these 560 words 141 
 are not Persian, and of the remaining 419 there are 56 only the 
 identity of which can be admitted: because the others have not the 
 slightest correspondence with the words with which they are compared, 
 either in sound or sense ; the only tests, in my opinion, by which 
 the correctness of an etymology can be determined. But it will not 
 be denied that such Persian words as are found in German, and at 
 the same time in Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, must have been derived 
 from some common origin ; and that consequently such words merely 
 prove that German, also, is connected with that parent language, and 
 not that it bears any direct affinitv to Persian. Nor have I been able 
 to discover more than eighteen Persian words in German which are 
 not equally found in Sanscrit, f On what grounds, therefore, the 
 learned men of Germany have been led to suppose that so wonderful 
 
 * Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 189. 
 
 f The only Persian words, besides those contained in the Comparative Table in Part II., 
 which I have been able to identify with words in the languages of the West, are the 
 following : — 
 
THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 157 
 
 and astonishing an affinity existed between these two languages is 
 to me inexplicable. * Their grammatical coincidences, also, pointed 
 out by Adelung are merely the following: — " The Persian comparative 
 ends in ter, as choster, besser ; and the infinitive in den or ten, asgiriften, 
 greifen. The imperative is, as in German, the root of the verb, as 
 manden, bleiben, man, bleib." f In these examples it will be observed 
 that one letter of the Persian terminations is omitted, and consequently 
 er and en cannot be admitted to be the same as ter and ten. But the 
 slightest examination of Persian grammar must show that it is radically 
 
 alii 
 
 abad 
 
 abode, Eng. 
 
 s }..s» jarrah 
 
 jar, Eng. 
 
 bj*-*i;' 
 
 arasten 
 
 r listen, Ger. 
 
 j&s. jigar 
 
 jecur, Eat. 
 
 AJiJl 
 
 araid 
 
 arrayed, Eng. 
 
 V^r* julab 
 
 julep, Eng. 
 
 <jlO> ! 
 
 arzan 
 
 hirse, Ger. 
 
 ItXa; Khoda 
 
 God, -fiwg 1 . 
 
 i_j.J.Xwi 
 
 ashnud 
 
 nieset, G. sneezeth, E. 
 
 ^=i khord 
 
 curtus, Eat. 
 
 ^ 
 
 bazad 
 
 irou^sTeu, Gr. 
 
 s^Jj rabudah 
 
 l'obbed, Eng. 
 
 aJL^L 
 
 balakhaneh 
 
 balcony, Eng. 
 
 *^j rajah 
 
 ridge, Eng. 
 
 Aj 
 
 bad 
 
 bad, Eng. 
 
 iXxXilw safalid 
 
 sibilat, Eat. 
 
 JW 
 
 barbar 
 
 barber, Eng. 
 
 Aaaa» sinah 
 
 sinus, Eat. 
 
 q* 
 
 barna 
 
 beam, A. Sax. 
 
 ^•jl>»& shaban 
 
 shep-herd, Eng. 
 
 &J 
 
 bala 
 
 bale, Eng. 
 
 j.j.<i sharm 
 
 schara, Ger. 
 
 U»5 J . 
 
 bus 
 
 buss, Eng. 
 
 *.i gham 
 
 gram, Ger. 
 
 2*& 
 
 bahtar 
 
 better, Eng. 
 
 AjjS garid 
 
 greet, Scotch. 
 
 hi 
 
 bapar 
 
 ver, Eat. 
 
 aoL« madah 
 
 magd, G. maid, E. 
 
 y*i 
 
 bil 
 
 beel, Ger. 
 
 i>JL« manad 
 
 manet, Eat. 
 
 82^.5 L 
 
 paludah 
 
 pollutum, Lai, 
 
 j^ marz 
 
 march, Eng. 
 
 £#. 
 
 pari 
 
 fairy, Eng. 
 
 Sj^.0 murd 
 
 myrte, Ger. 
 
 U 
 
 ta 
 
 to, Eng. 
 
 (j^J nargas 
 
 narcissus, Eat. 
 
 Sp 
 
 tarak 
 
 dark, Eng. 
 
 y.&> honar 
 
 honour, Eng. 
 
 _j«\iu 
 
 tondar 
 
 thunder, Eng. 
 
 (i y^^\jt y asm in 
 
 jasmine, Eng. 
 
 a 3 
 
 tig- 
 
 degen, Ger. 
 
 
 
 * I have not an opportunity of referring to Adelung's Altesten Geschic/ite der Deidschen 
 bis zur Volkerwanderung, in which, he states in the Mithridates, he had examined at length 
 the affinity existing between the Persian and German, and had given a list of 221 identical 
 words in these two languages : but, judging of German etymologies from what I have 
 observed while preparing this work, I am afraid that they are just as visionary as the Celtic. 
 
 f Mithridates, vol. i. p. 277. 
 
158 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 dissimilar from that of German. * In neither words, therefore, nor 
 in grammatical structure do the German and Persian languages possess 
 any affinity ; but the cause which has occasioned the introduction of 
 words apparently Persian into Greek, Latin, and German will be best 
 explained in the two following chapters. 
 
 * In the German language there is an article and genders, and the noun admits of 
 several inflections ; but in Persian there is neither an article nor genders, and the noun 
 admits of but one inflection. The German adjective has genders, the Persian none, and 
 there is no resemblance in their mode of comparison ; as, for instance, P. buzurg, buzurgter, 
 buzurgterin ; G. gross, grosser, grosste. The Persian verb, indeed, taking the second person 
 singularof the imperative as the root, and excluding the infinitive and participles, has but 
 two inflections, like the German ; but it forms four of its tenses, in a manner entirely peculiar 
 to itself, by means of the particles mi and ba, and its other tenses and passive voice by 
 means of two auxiliary verbs only. It may also be remarked that, although Persian 
 delights in the composition of words, yet in the formation of words it differs completely 
 from German ; because it admits in a very sparing degree of the sense of the primitive word 
 being modified by any change in itself, or by its being compounded with particles. The 
 German, on the contrary, seems to possess very few primitive and uncompounded words. 
 
159 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 The course of these Researches has at length arrived at that country, 
 in which all the hypotheses hitherto discussed concur in placing either 
 the original or the temporary residence of that race of men, by what- 
 ever name at first distinguished, from whom Europe received its 
 population, language, and religion. " It has been shown above," says 
 Pinkerton, " that ecclesiastic authors of chief account ever regarded the 
 Scythians as the very first inhabitants of the East after the deluge. If 
 any reader inclines to look upon the deluge as fabulous, or as at most 
 a local event, and desires to learn whence the Scythians came to 
 present Persia, he need not be told that it is impossible to answer him. 
 With their residence in Persia commences the faintest dawn of history."* 
 Wachter observes, — " Quantum sermonis Scythici nobis supersir, non 
 aliunde melius et tutius cognoscitur, quam ex lingua Persica, in qua 
 magnus est vocabulorum Scythicorum proventus, quorum concentus 
 cum nostris tarn admirabilis tamque clarus est, quamvis immensis 
 terrarum spatiis interceptus, ut semel audita statim intelligi queant." f 
 Pelloutier remarks, — "A l'egard des Perses, ils etoient certainement 
 le meme peuple que les Celtes. Pour le prouver, il n'est pas besoin de 
 se prevaloir du temoignage d'Ammien Marcellin et de Tertullien, qui 
 font sortir les Perses de la Scythie. Henri de Valois, dont l'autorite 
 est si grande, pretend que ces auteurs ont confondu les Perses avec les 
 Parthes qui, de l'aveu de tous les historiens, etoient Scythes d'origine. 
 On en trouvera des preuves encore plus convaincantes dans le cours 
 de cet ouvrage. On fera voir que la langue des Perses, leurs coutuines, 
 et leur religion ne differoient pas de celles des Celtes." J And Adelung 
 
 * Diss, on the Scythians or Goths, p. 53. 
 f Wachteri Glossarium in Praefatio. 
 ± Histoire des Celtes, torn. i. p. 11. 
 
160 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 was of opinion that the Germans, the Slaves, the Thracians, the 
 Celts, &c, might have all at one time inhabited Persia. 
 
 But, when these different hypotheses are examined, they are found to 
 rest on no other grounds than mere gratuitous assumptions, completely 
 unsupported, if not directly contradicted, by history, tradition, and 
 affinity of language : for no ancient writer, as far as I am aware, 
 mentions that the Persians were not aborigines of the country which 
 they inhabited when they first became known to the Greeks, nor that 
 any migration ever took place from Persia. Because Diodorus Siculus 
 
 merely says, — 'Tiro Js tovtuv tuv \2u<ri\tuv [Zku9uv] ttoWu pev Koci tuv otXXuv 
 tuv Kot,TOi7To\i^viBivro)v s9vuv ^sToiycitrd^vca, duo as lAZyiVTctq aTrotKiaq t ysvecr9cci i ti\v 
 fjbiv ex. tuv Ao~o~v^uv fjHTctarraBuo-uv &i$ ttjv fxera^v xupotv Tv\q re YWa(pXot,yoviot.q tccti 
 tov IIovtov' rr,v Je ek Tv\q Mqdiccq 7rocpot tov Tuva.lv xa.&iSpvvQeto-ocv, v\q rovq Xuovq 
 
 I l ccv^o i ua.Tccq wopatrQvivbiu* But this compulsory expatriation of the 
 Medes cannot be considered as one of those migrations by which 
 the world was peopled. There seems, also, to be some misap- 
 prehension respecting the river Araxes ; for Pinkerton contends 
 that " Herodotus himself is a sufficient witness that the Scythians 
 did not originate from Scandinavia, but from present Persia ; for he 
 tells us, book iv. chap. 11., that they passed the Araxes, and entered 
 the Bosphorus Cimmerius. The Araxes, it is well known, is a large 
 river of Armenia, running into the Caspian Sea." f Rennell, how- 
 ever, has clearly shown that by the Araxes Herodotus frequently 
 means the Jaxartes $ : and that this is the river which he intended 
 in this place cannot be doubted, because both he himself § and 
 
 * Diod. Sic, lib. ii. c. 90. 
 
 f Diss, on the Scythians or Goths, p. 28. 
 
 % " Herodotus falls into a great mistake respecting the source of the river Jaxartes, which 
 he calls Araxes. Strabo, in one place, calls it by the same name ; but he was too well 
 informed to fall into the error respecting its souixe." — Geog. of Herod., p. 204. 
 
 § 'Q,; 8= tcu Ktifw nan tovto to s8vo$ xaTepycHTTO, enedu[i.y)<ieMat<ro-uyeTus m' ecoiJTui wotrjO-ato-Qcu' to 
 Se sflvoj tovto, x«i fj.eyct XeysTui sivui x«« «Xx»jiaov, oix.Yjfx.svov 8e nqoi >)</> ts xou ijXtov uvutoXu;, 
 •jrsprjv tov Apa£ea> i!OTOLp.ov, avTtov Ss I<rcrr)8ov«JV avBgoov, ej<n Se ol twe$ x«i 2xufi»xov Xeyovvi tovto 
 to eSvoj eivai. 'O §£ Aga£>)j XeysTut jx-s^mv xoa sXa.o~o~cov ejv«» tov \o~Tqov. — Lib. i. c. 201, 202. 
 But that Cyrus invaded Scythia to the north of Persia, and not Armenia, requires no 
 remark to evince. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. Igl 
 
 subsequent writers place the Massagetas to the north of the Jaxartes. 
 Pinkerton, also, is mcorrect in stating that Herodotus " mentions the 
 Scythae Nomades of the north of Persia to have past the Araxes ; " * 
 
 for his words are simply, ZxvQxg roug vopudovq, oixsovtus ev ry Atriy. That 
 
 the Scythians, therefore, were ever the inhabitants of Persia is an 
 assumption that rests on no proof whatever, and Diodorus Siculus, on 
 the contrary, expressly says that " the Scythians originally possessed 
 a small extent of country, but gradually increasing in numbers, they, 
 by their bravery and power, acquired an ample territory, and raised 
 their nation to glory and supremacy. They at first dwelt in small 
 numbers by the river Araxes, and were despised on account of their 
 poverty and ingloriousness ; but one of their ancient kings, being of 
 a warlike disposition, and an able general, possessed himself of all the 
 mountainous country of Caucasus, the champaign extending along 
 the Euxine Sea (nnsuvov) and the Palus Mseotis, and the rest of the 
 country as far as the Tanais." f This account seems so probable, 
 that, as it is not contradicted by any ancient writer, it ought to have 
 prevented the formation of such hypotheses as assume that the 
 Scythians were Persians, and the ancestors of the Celts, the Pelasgi, 
 or the Goths. 
 
 It cannot, however, be denied that the Persians became known 
 to history at so late a period as to have rendered it difficult, if not 
 impossible, to ascertain either their real origin or their subsequent 
 movements. It may, therefore, be contended that the silence of ancient 
 authors is not sufficient to disprove the alleged occupation of Persia 
 in remote antiquity by Scythians, or the supposed immigration into 
 Europe of people from that country. But conjectures which rest on 
 no other grounds than the imagination of the system-maker admit not 
 of being controverted ; because there are neither data nor first prin- 
 ciples by which their accuracy could be determined. This point, 
 however, might have been demonstrated even to the satisfaction of 
 
 * Diss, on Scyth. or Goths, p. 28. 
 
 f Diod. Sic, lib. ii. c. 89. Justin, also, seems to describe Scythia as being situated in this 
 same tract of country. 
 
1(32 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 these system-makers themselves, had not the originality of the present 
 language of Persia become also a subject of hypothesis. As, therefore, 
 the conjectures respecting the origin and affinity of the ancient and 
 present languages of Persia have assumed the appearance of generally 
 received opinion, it becomes necessary to enter at some length into 
 the examination of this subject : for, as it has been often remarked, 
 an erroneous assertion may be easily made in a few words, which may 
 require pages for its refutation. 
 
 On this subject the prevalent opinion is that Zend is the most 
 ancient language of Persia, which becoming extinct was replaced by the 
 Pahlvi, and the latter, in consequence of the conquest of the country by 
 the Arabs, by the modern Persian.* But it must appear singular that all 
 the arguments adduced in support of this opinion, rest on the assumption 
 of a fact which has never yet been proved ; namely, the existence at 
 any period in Persia of the two languages which have been named 
 Zend and Pahlvi. On the contrary, Anquetil du Perron himself 
 acknowledges, with respect to the Zend, — " Nous avons, il est vrai, 
 des histoires generates [anciennes] dans lesquelles les Perses trouvent 
 leur place, mais qui ne peuvent fournir les details dont une histoire 
 particuliere est susceptible ; aussi n'y voit-on rien qui designe quelque 
 connoissance du Zend. Les modernes sont aussi peu instructifs 
 lorsqu'il est question de cette langue ; a peine en trouve-t-on quelque 
 trace chez les Mahometans, et les ouvrages des Parses ne sont pas 
 plus satisfaisans sur cet objet. " f But I am not aware that any 
 Muhammadan writer has ever mentioned the Zend as a language, and 
 every one that I am acquainted with invariably understands the term 
 Zend as signifying the book in which Zardusht delivered the precepts 
 of his religion %\ for Firdausi says that, when Arjasp king of Turan 
 
 * It is also supposed that the Zend, Pahlvi, and modern Persian were three distinct 
 languages, coexisting at some remote period in different parts of Persia. 
 
 f Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc, torn. xxxi. p. 341. 
 
 \ Anquetil du Perron himself remarks, — " Ferdousi, dans le Schah-namah ; 1'auteur 
 du Tavarikh Schah-namah ; Mirkond, dans le premier volume de son Roset-eussafa ; le 
 Tebkat-Nasseri ; 1'auteur du Mudjizat, et les autres ecrivains Persans parlant de Zoroastre, 
 nous disent qu'il presenta a Gustasp le Zend-avesta ,• ils rapportent, d'apres les auteurs Parses, 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. J 53 
 
 took Balkh, every Zend and osta [avesta] were burned ; and even the 
 author of the Firhang Jehangiri, the work so generally quoted on this 
 subject, thus explains this word, — " Zend is the name of the book 
 which Zardusht pretended was sent down to him from the Most 
 High." But it is still more remarkable that the Parsis themselves 
 do not suppose that Zend was ever the common language either of 
 the whole or of any part of Persia ; but merely describe it as the 
 sacred language in which Zardusht recorded the precepts of his 
 religion.* 
 
 All the speculations, therefore, respecting the antiquity of the Zend 
 as a language, and the country in which it may have been spoken, are 
 strictly European ; and derive not the slightest support from either 
 the traditions of the Parsis, or from any thing which is contained in 
 Muhammadan authors. But, notwithstanding, the conjectures of 
 Anquetil du Perron, who, from his writings, appears to have possessed 
 a very superficial knowledge of Persian and other languages, to have 
 been unacquainted with the simplest principles of philology, and to 
 have been totally devoid of critical sagacity and sound judgment, have 
 been received as sufficient authority for admitting that Zend was the 
 most ancient language of the whole or at least of part of Persia : for 
 Adelung includes it in his Mithridates, under the head of the language 
 of the ancient Medes, and observes, — " Media, named by Moses Madi, 
 contains the present provinces of Azerbaijan, Shirwan, Gilan, and 
 Mazenderan, and was in latter times named Persian Irak. Of the 
 ancient languages spoken in this country, before the modern Persian 
 predominated, two are known, the Zend and the Pahlvi, one spoken in 
 
 northern, and the other in southern Media In the Zend some 
 
 writings still exist which have been made known by Anquetil du 
 Perron ; and these, when the grounds on which their antiquity are 
 maintained are duly considered, will be found to be the oldest works 
 
 que ce livre passoit pour divin, et gardent un profond silence sw la langue dans laquelle il est 
 ecrit" — Mem. de VAcad. des Insc. torn. xxxi. p. 345. 
 
 * Even Mulla Firuz, the editor of the Desatir, is of this opinion. 
 
 Y 2 
 
164 
 
 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 extant, except those of the Hebrews and the poems of Homer. But 
 this has been controverted by many, and particularly by the Briton, 
 Richardson, who goes so far as to assert that the Zend was invented 
 by the Parsee priests, and is merely a monstrous jargon composed 
 of the words of all known languages. But such an invention of a 
 language is contrary to all probability, and I might even say pos- 
 sibility, for no instance of it exists ; consequently it cannot be con- 
 tested that the Zend must be considered as a real lano-uao-e, which 
 was once actually spoken. When, therefore, one weighs without 
 prejudice all that Anquetil and his translator Kleuker have said and 
 written in support of the authenticity of the Zend language and Zend 
 books, and all that their opponents have with so much acuteness 
 advanced to the contrary, one will be obliged to decide in favour of 
 their authenticity." * But it cannot be denied that the Zend, if it was 
 ever a spoken language, has been so long extinct, that no mention of it 
 is to be found either in ancient or Muhammadan writers, and that 
 even amongst the Parsees no tradition exists of its ever having: been the 
 common speech of Persia. It is also indisputable that the language 
 in which the Zendavesta is written has not the slightest pretensions 
 to originality ; and that Richardson was perfectly correct in observing 
 that " the Zend, so far from having the slightest appearance of one of 
 the most regular languages in the world [the Persian], has more the air 
 of a Lingua Franca, culled from the dialects of every surrounding 
 country ; grouped together with little grammatical propriety ; and 
 more pointedly resembling the spells of necromancers, than the idiom 
 of a people famed at all times for the melody of their accents." 
 Nor has the Zend, as it will be immediately shown, the slightest affinity 
 with any known language. As, therefore, the existence of Zend as a 
 spoken tongue is not supported by history, tradition, or affinity of 
 language, and as even its originality cannot be maintained, on what 
 principle of reasoning or of human belief can Zend be considered 
 as a language which once actually existed, and which was commonly 
 spoken by the inhabitants of the whole or of any part of Persia ? 
 
 
 * Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 255, et seq. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 165 
 
 But, had antiquity and universality, as the language of Persia, been 
 ascribed to the Pahlvi, this supposition would have received some 
 countenance from the loose manner in which this word is used by 
 Muhammadan authors ; for Firdausi and other Muhammadan writers 
 certainly use this term to designate the ancient language of Persia. 
 But it is also applied by them not only to the ancient language, but 
 also to the ancient inhabitants, in order to distinguish them from the 
 people and speech of Persia of their own times, which had both 
 undergone so great a change from the necessary effects of the Arabian 
 conquest. Nor was this distinction improper, because the purity of 
 both had been greatly affected, and the language spoken in Persia 
 four hundred years after that event could no longer be considered 
 the same as that which was spoken by the kings and heroes celebrated 
 by Firdausi. But to infer from this circumstance that the Pahlvi 
 must have been radically dissimilar from modern Persian, is a con- 
 clusion which is totally unsupported by any thing which occurs in 
 Muhammadan writers. On the contrary, the author of the Firhang 
 Jehangiri clearly identifies these two languages, for he thus explains 
 this word : " Pahlvi or Pahlvani, the ancient Persian, as Firdausi says, 
 If thou do not understand the Pahlvi language, then name the river in 
 Arabic the Dijjel ; and again, By me has the hand of eloquence been 
 strengthened, for I have completed a work in the Pahlvi language." 
 
 According to Muhammadan authors, therefore, Pahlvi was the 
 ancient language of the whole of Persia ; but not one of them explains 
 the manner in which it differed from the modern Persian. From the 
 long poem, however, of Firdausi it clearly appears that this difference 
 consisted solely in the former not having been mixed with Arabic 
 words, and in there appearing in it numerous words which had 
 become little used or obsolete after the Arabian conquest. On what 
 grounds, therefore, could Anquetil du Perron with any justice remark, 
 " J'examine maintenant en quelles contrees le Pehlvi avoit cours ; ce 
 point discute donnera en meme temps le vrai sens du nom de cette 
 langue. Pour cela je suppose la Perse divisee en trois parties ; la 
 premiere, berceau du Zend et du genre humain, comprendra la Georgie, 
 
Iqq THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 l'lran, et FAderbedjan ou la haute Medie. La seconde, allant vers 
 le sud, sera composee du Pharsistan et de quelques pays situes entre 
 cette province et l'Aderbedjan ; c'est-la que le Parsi avoit particu- 
 lierement cours. La troisieme renfermera la Medie inferieure, le 
 Dilem, le Guilan, le Kohestan et l'lrak adjemi ; le Pehlvi etoit la 
 langue de ces pays meles de montagnes et de plaines." * For that 
 such a division of Persia ever prevailed is positively denied by both 
 Parsis and Muhammadans, who maintain that Persia has always been 
 one single and undivided empire, f Ancient writers, also, mention 
 that there never existed more than two kingdoms in Persia ; and, from 
 all that can be collected from Herodotus and other authors, it does 
 not appear that the inhabitants of Media differed in language from 
 those of Persia. But, notwithstanding these obvious objections, 
 Adelung observes, — " It appears that the Zend was not used as the 
 language of the court or of society, but merely employed for the 
 purposes of religion, and there was consequently no opportunity for 
 its improvement and refinement. But this was not the case with the 
 Pahlvi, which was the language of the people of Lower Media or Par- 
 thia, and of the Persian kings, from the accession of the Kaianian 
 
 dynasty, about 600 years B.C. for a period of 900 years The 
 
 ancient Parthia or Lower Media extended from Assyria to the Caspian 
 Sea, and comprised the present provinces of Dilem, Gilan, and 
 Kohestan ; and, as the princes and people of this country were dis- 
 tinguished by their rude bravery, it was called Pahle or Pahlvan, i. e. 
 the land of heroes, and its language received the name of Pahlvi." J 
 But these remarks are mere gratuitous assertions, unsupported by any 
 proof whatever ; and the reception, therefore, of Pahlvi into a history 
 of languages is contrary to every principle of historical composition, 
 which forbids the admission of a fact until it has been established by 
 applicable and adequate testimony. 
 
 * Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc., torn. xxxi. p. 407. 
 
 f For further remarks on the geography of ancient Persia, I beg leave to refer to a paper 
 inserted in the third volume of the 1 ransactions of the Bombay Literary Society, entitled 
 Remarks on the State of Persia from A. C. 331. to A. D. 226. 
 
 % Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 267. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 267 
 
 As the Zend and Pahlvi, if ever the actual speech of any people, 
 have not only become extinct, but have not left the slightest traces of 
 their existence in any language which is spoken at this day, it must 
 necessarily follow that the fact of their ever having existed at any 
 time must depend entirely on the authenticity of the books which 
 are said to be written in them. This subject has been very carefully 
 examined by Mr. Erskine, who has expressed this opinion respecting 
 these books : — " Under these circumstances, it would be in vain to look 
 for any authentic account of Zertusht, or of the origin of his sacred 
 volume. The Zend-Avesta does not belong to the age of history; 
 it remains single in # the Zend tongue ; and we cannot rely on any 
 thing recorded by the historians of Zoroaster, all of whom, besides 
 being comparatively modern, have allowed their imagination to run 
 riot in their accounts of his wonderful works and miracles. Nor is 
 there any thing in the remains of Pehlevi literature that can assist us 
 in this exigency. Translations from the Zend original of the Vendiddd, 
 the Vespered, the Yesht, and Khurda-Avesta of Zertusht exist in the 
 Pehlevi tongue. I know of only three other works in that language, 
 the Virdf Nameh, a description of the Parsi paradise and hell, ascribed 
 to the reign of Ardeshir Babegan ; the JBundehesh, an account of the 
 creation, according to the ideas of the Parsis, certainly not written till 
 after the Mussulman invasion * ; and the Tale of Ahliez Iddu and the 
 Destur Gusk-Perian, which was probably written at a still later period. 
 Of the Pehlevi histories and records, of which we have heard so much, 
 not a fragment has ever been given to the world ; we may safely say 
 that none such exist." j- Mr. Erskine, however, adds in another 
 place, — " To me it seems probable, that the Zend-Avesta was compiled 
 in the reign of Ardeshir Babegan, the first of the Sasani princes, and 
 the restorer or reformer of the old religion." X 
 
 " * This is plain from its conclusion, which alludes to the Mahomedans." 
 
 f Trans, of the Bombay Literary Society,- vol. ii. p. 311. 
 
 % Ibid. p. 315. In the third volume, however, of these Transactions, I have endeavoured 
 to show that this supposed restoration or reformation of the Zardushtian religion by 
 Ardshir Babagan does not rest on sufficient grounds. 
 
Igg THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 But the sole authority on which this fact and the authenticity of 
 the Zend and Pahlvi books depend, is the traditions of the Parsis. 
 Before, however, these traditions can be admitted as testimony, it must 
 be satisfactorily proved that the Zend-Avesta and its Pahlvi translation 
 actually existed at the time of the Arabian conquest; and that they 
 have been carefully preserved until the present day by the Parsis of 
 Persia and India. But no such proof has ever been adduced, nor has 
 it been yet established that the Parsis of either country possess any 
 well authenticated traditions, which ascend uninterruptedly up to that 
 event. * On the contrary, the silence of Tabari and Firdausi res- 
 pecting them is a strong presumption that they were not invented 
 at the time when these writers lived ; though those respecting 
 Zardusht seem to have been well known to Muhammad Amir Kha- 
 wand, who lived about 450 years after the latter, -f It may, indeed, be 
 said that the silence of Tabari is not fully proved, because there is 
 only a Persian translation of his history now extant: — but the Shah 
 Nameh fully evinces the extraordinary industry with which Firdausi 
 collected every circumstance relating to the ancient manners, customs, 
 and religion of Persia, which could contribute to the composition or 
 embellishment of his wonderful poem. It is also remarkable, that of 
 Zardusht himself these two writers have not given any account : 
 for Tabari merely mentions him incidentally in these words, — "The 
 Moghs have a prophet whom they name Zardusht, who claimed the 
 character of a prophet, and established their religion by instructing 
 them in the worship of fire ; " and Firdausi, speaking of Gushtasp, 
 
 * On the contrary, that most intelligent traveller, Chardin, has observed, — " Quant a 
 l'ancien Persan, c'est une langue perdue ; on n'en trouve ni livres, ni rudimens. Les 
 Guebres, qui sont les restes des Perses ou Ignicoles, qui se perpetuent de pere en fils 
 depuis la destruction de leur monarchic, ont un idiome particulier; mais on le croit plutot 
 un jargon que leur ancienne langue. lis disent que leurs pretres, qui se tiennent a Yezd, 
 ville de la Caramanie, qui est leur Piree, et leur principale place, se sont transmis cette 
 langue jusqu'ici par tradition, et de main en main; mais quelque recherche que j'en aye 
 faite, je n'ai rien trouve qui me put persuader cela." — Voyages en Perse et autres Lieux de 
 I'Orient, vol. ii. p. 105. 
 
 f Tabari died A. D. 923; Firdausi, A. D. 1025; and Amir Khawand, A.D. 1497: 
 and the conquest of Persia by the Arabs took place A. D. 641. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 169 
 
 says, — " When some time had thus passed, a tree appeared upon the 
 earth, which spread its shadow over the royal halls of Gushtasp ; a 
 tree abounding in roots and branches, every leaf of which was counsel, 
 and every fruit wisdom, (who that eats of such fruit will die for ever?) 
 of auspicious production, and its name was Zardusht, the destroyer of 
 the wicked rites of Ahriman. He said to the king, I am a prophet, 
 and the pointer out of the path that leads to wisdom, &c* .... When 
 the king heard from him the precepts of the Bihdin, he approved of 
 them, and embraced the new faith." But Firdausi gives no farther 
 account of Zardusht, neither of whence he came, nor whither he went, 
 and merely relates that the new religion was propagated through the 
 world by the exertions of Gushtasp, and still more successfully by the 
 victorious arms of his son Isfandiar. 
 
 If, therefore, no proof can be adduced to establish the authenticity 
 and antiquity of the Parsi books, it necessarily follows that they 
 cannot be received as evidence of the existence and antiquity of the 
 languages named Zend and Pahlvi. The opinion, consequently, of 
 Sir William Jones cannot be controverted; for he remarks, — "This 
 distinction convinces me that the dialect of the Gabrs, which they 
 pretend to be that of Zeratusht, and of which Bahman gave me a 
 variety of written specimens, is a late invention of their priests, or 
 subsequent at least to the Musulman invasion ; for, although it may 
 be possible that a few of their sacred books were preserved, as he 
 used to assert, in sheets of lead or copper at the bottom of wells 
 near Yezd, yet, as the conquerors had not only a spiritual but a 
 political interest in persecuting a warlike, robust, and indignant race 
 
 * This passage, and many others which occur in the Shah Nameh, clearly show that no 
 Muhammadan bigotry would have prevented Firdausi from making use of the traditions of 
 the Parsis had he been acquainted with them. 
 
 In another copy of the Shah Nameh the copyist has not shown so much tolerance, for he 
 thus amends this passage : — Gushtasp being seated in full court, " suddenly descended 
 from the sky a throne, on which was seated an ancient man, who, rising, proceeded towards 
 Gushtasp, while the nobles saluted him. The king said, ' Who art thou ?' he replied, 
 ' Ibrahim [Abraham] is my name : beneath my steps are the heavens, and from the paradise 
 of God am I come,' " &c. 
 
17() THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 of irreconcilable conquered subjects, a long time must have elapsed 
 before the hidden scriptures could have been safely brought to 
 light, and few, who could perfectly understand them, must then have 
 remained ; but, as they continued to profess amongst themselves the 
 religion of their forefathers, it became expedient for the Mubeds to 
 supply the lost or mutilated works of their legislator by new com- 
 positions, partly from their imperfect recollection, and partly from 
 such moral and religious knowledge as they gleaned, most probably, 
 among the Christians with whom they had an intercourse." * 
 
 The originality and antiquity of modern Persian have been, also, 
 questioned, but on other grounds, by the Baron de Sacy, who has re- 
 marked, — " Com me nous ne voyons la litterature Persane jeter quelque 
 eclat que sous la dynastie des Samanides,il est tres-naturel de penser que 
 le Parsi,s'il existoit effectivement des le temps desChoroes,aeprouve de 
 grands changemens dans les trois siecles qui separent les derniers desSas. 
 sanides du premier des Samanides. D'ailleurs, si Ton considere l'intime 
 structure de Persan moderne, on se convaincra que sa phraseologie et 
 son systeme entier de syntaxe se sont formes sous Tinfluence de la langue 
 Arabe." f But no opinion can be more erroneous ; because the Persian 
 bears not the slightest affinity to Arabic, and never were two languages 
 so strongly distinguished by dissimilar properties. In Arabic there is 
 an article, in Persian none ; in Arabic nouns have two cases, a dual 
 number, and two genders, in Persian they have no dual number, nor 
 gender, and only one case ; in Arabic their plural may be formed in 
 twenty-two different ways, in Persian in two only. X The verb, it is 
 true, has only the same inflections, but by means of two particles it 
 acquires tenses which exist not in Arabic ; its tenses have neither dual 
 number nor gender as in Arabic ; and a distinct passive voice is formed 
 by means of auxiliary verbs, the use of which is unknown to the 
 
 * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 82. 
 
 f Journal des Savans, Fevrier 1821, p. 75. 
 
 % In Arabic the comparative and superlative of adjectives are formed by prefixing a, as 
 akheir, better or best ; and the former is distinguished from the latter by placing certain 
 particles after the adjective: but in Persian they are formed by adding one and two 
 syllables to the adjective, as bih, bihtar, bihtarin, good, better, best. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. ]7l 
 
 Arabic. * The Persian language is, at the same time, distinguished from 
 the Arabic by its extreme regularity ; for in the latter the deviations 
 from one common paradigm are numerous ; as the infinitive, for in- 
 stance, may be formed in thirty-three different ways, while in Persian 
 it invariably ends either in ten or den. The genius, also, of the two lan- 
 guages is totally dissimilar: the Persian delighting in compound words, 
 inversions, and long flowing periods ; but the Arabic does not possess a 
 single compound term, and its syntax admits of scarcely any variety in 
 the length or arrangement of a period. The copiousness of the two 
 languages is equally distinguished by a peculiar character ; for the 
 Persian is rich in ideas, there being scarcely a synonymous term in it, 
 while the Arabic, on the contrary, is poor in ideas, but abundant in 
 terms for the same object. Such a total dissimilarity, therefore, in the 
 grammatical structure of these two languages, must incontrovertibly 
 prove that the formation of Persian has not been in the slightest degree 
 influenced by the Arabic. 
 
 From the preceding remarks it will perhaps appear that there are 
 not any grounds whatever for supposing that Persian f has been de- 
 rived from either Zend, Pahlvi, or Arabic ; and it ought, consequently, 
 to be concluded, on every just principle of reasoning, that it is actually 
 the language which has been spoken from time immemorial in that 
 country in which it is found to prevail, or, at least, the manner of its 
 introduction into Persia ought to be clearly pointed out, and a 
 satisfactorily proved. But, as it cannot be denied that no traditional 
 or historical accounts of its origin exist, this subject ought to be 
 considered as a mere philological question ; and the same principles 
 which regulate the tracing of affinities in other languages ought 
 equally to be applied to the Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian. For this 
 
 * There is in Arabic only one substantive verb, but in Persian two; by means of which 
 a variety of tenses are formed which are unknown in Arabic. 
 
 f It is scarcely necessary to observe that by this term I mean the modern Persian divested 
 of all Arabic words. Several dictionaries of Persian in this state have been compiled ; and 
 the Shah Nameh of Firdausi presents a poem of sixty thousand couplets in which Arabic 
 words are very sparingly introduced. 
 
 z 2 
 
172 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 purpose the vocabularies of Anquetil du Perron may be employed, 
 as there is no reason to suppose that they were not actually compiled 
 for the use of the Parsis themselves, but merely forgeries imposed 
 on him by his Parsi instructors, in order to conceal their sacred lan- 
 guages. A proof of this arises from the author of the Firhang Jehangiri 
 having inserted in the appendix to his work, the composition of which 
 was finished in A. D. 1608, upwards of 400 Pahlvi words, 300 of which 
 are found in Anquetil du Perron's Pahlvi vocabulary.* 
 
 With respect, therefore, to the language named Zend, Sir. W. 
 Jones observes, — " I was inexpressibly surprized to find that six or 
 seven words in ten were pure Sanscrit, and even some of their 
 inflexions formed by the rules of the Vydcaran [Sanscrit grammar] "f; 
 Dr. Leyden conjectures that the Zend may correspond with the 
 Suraseni dialect of the Sanscrit % ; and Mr. Erskine remarks, — " There 
 can be no doubt in what class of languages the Zend is to be ranked. 
 It is altogether Sanscrit." § But etymological resemblances are very 
 deceptive ; and a more attentive examination of those, which on a 
 first view may appear the more striking, will often evince that the 
 fancied similarity does not exist : for the Zend vocabulary, after 
 rejecting words inserted more than once, religious terms, and proper 
 names, consists of 664 words, and ought, consequently, according to 
 Sir W. Jones's opinion, to contain at least 398 Sanscrit words. But 
 on examining it I find that it only contains seven Arabic, ninety-three 
 Persian, and eighty-three Sanscrit words, with thirty that may be 
 
 * It is, however, impossible to form any opinion with respect to the accuracy of those 
 vocabularies, as Anquetil does not seem to have been sufficiently acquainted with the medium 
 through which they were communicated to him ; for at least seven of the Zend words 
 belong to the dialect of Guzerat, viz., bee, deux ; town, tu ; zeante (janto), connaissant ; 
 gnato (nahato), lavant ; te, toi ; kerete (kar/o), faisant ; petsche, derriere : and, what is still 
 more suspicious, the signs of the genitive case in Guzerati, no, ne, and also the third person 
 singular present tense of the indicative mood of the substantive verb che, are sometimes 
 affixed to the end of words. There is even a Turkish word with the Guzerati sign of the 
 genitive case aspereno, derem. 
 
 \ Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 83. 
 
 \ Asiatic Researches, vol. x. p. 213. 
 
 § Trans, of Bombay Lit. Soc, vol. ii. p. 299. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. j^o 
 
 either Persian or Sanscrit ; but, as they are found in a language 
 alleged to have been spoken in Persia, they ought to be ascribed to 
 the former, and there will then be 123 Persian, and fifty-three Sanscrit 
 words only, or rather less than one twelfth of the whole.* 511 words, 
 therefore, out of 664 remain which do not belong to either Arabic, 
 Persian, or Sanscrit, or to any other known language. As, also, this 
 vocabulary was compiled in India by a person no doubt acquainted 
 with Persian, it requires to be proved that these Persian and Sanscrit 
 words had passed into Zend, or vice versa, while Zend itself was 
 actually a language spoken in Persia : for, otherwise, it may be very 
 justly concluded that, during a residence of many centuries in India, 
 the Parsi priests may have learned many Sanscrit terms from even 
 the vernacular dialect of Guzerat, and that they may also have retained 
 or acquired many words originally Persian, Until, therefore, these 
 objections be satisfactorily answered, it will be admitted that, under 
 such suspicious circumstances, the existence of this small number of 
 Persian and Sanscrit words in Zend does not prove that Zend is a 
 dialect of Sanscrit, or that it ever was actually spoken in Persia. 
 While, on the contrary, the impossibility, of referring 511 words, out 
 of 664 contained in so small a vocabulary to any known tongue must 
 irresistibly lead to a conclusion that this pretended language was 
 invented by the Parsi priests, and never actually spoken or written by 
 any people upon the face of this earth. 
 
 These remarks apply with even greater force to the Pahlvi. For in 
 this vocabulary there are rather more than 800 distinct words, and 
 I have added 100 in the Appendix, so that there are 900 Pahlvi words 
 for the purpose of comparison with those of other languages : but 
 of this number there are sixty-four Arabic, two Hebrew, and thirty- 
 five Persian only, while there is neither a Zend nor a Sanscrit term to 
 
 * As assertions relating to etymologies are always unsatisfactory, I have inserted in the 
 Appendix a list of such Zend and Pahlvi words contained in Anquetil's Vocabularies as I 
 can trace to Persian, Arabic, or Sanscrit, which will at once show whether my calculations 
 are correct : but I must object to any etymological torture being applied to these words, 
 notwithstanding their defective orthography, and request that they may be allowed to speak 
 for themselves without any mutilation of limb or disfiguration of feature. 
 
1 74 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 be found in this vocabulary. There consequently remain 800 out 
 of 900 words, which do not belong to any known language. But Mr. 
 Erskine remarks that, " in the Zend and Pehlevi vocabulary, the pro- 
 portion of Pehlevi words that correspond nearly or altogether with the 
 modern Persian is very great, insomuch as in some pages to have the 
 appearance rather of a Persian than of a Pehlevi translation ; while, in 
 the Pehlevi and Persian vocabulary, the Pehlevi words that correspond 
 with the modern Persian are very few. The latter, it is probable, was 
 intended as a glossary of uncommon Pehlevi words for the use of 
 persons to whom Persian was familiar, rather than as a complete 
 vocabulary of the Pehlevi tongue, and would consequently comprehend 
 those Pehlevi words only which required explanation to a Persian, from 
 their being remote from his native language. In the Zend and Pehlevi 
 vocabulary the Pehlevi words, being used to explain the Zend, appear 
 without selection, and consequently we see the Pehlevi language in its 
 natural state, in which it visibly approximates to the Persian; a conclu- 
 sion that receives confirmation from the analysis of even a single page 
 of the Bundehesh, which Anquetil has printed in the original tongue, 
 as a specimen of the Pehlevi."* But this page contains, omitting 
 proper names, sixty-six distinct words, of which twenty, or not quite 
 one third, are Persian; and, of 664 apparently Pahlvi words contained 
 in the Zend vocabulary, 350, or more than one half, are Persian. It 
 would, therefore, seem much more probable that the explanation of 
 the Zend in this vocabulary was all that was required, and that its 
 compiler thought himself at liberty to substitute a Persian word 
 whenever a Pahlvi one did not occur to his recollection. Had this 
 not been the case, it must appear inexplicable how there should be 
 350 Persian in a collection of 664 Pahlvi words, while in another 
 collection of more than 900 there should be thirty-five only. In the 
 first, also, of these collections the Persian words remain in their 
 natural state, without undergoing the changes to which they are 
 subjected in the other, and many of the Persian words in the one are 
 replaced by Pahlvi ones in the other. So far, therefore, from the 
 
 * Trans, of the Bombay Lit. Soc, vol. ii. p. 299. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. tfg 
 
 Pahlvi part of the Zend vocabulary exhibiting a correct specimen of 
 that language, a comparison of it with the other vocabulary will at 
 once evince that on the latter only ought all opinions respecting the 
 Pahlvi language to depend. 
 
 It hence appears that in 664 Zend words 123 Persian only are 
 found, and in 900 Pahlvi ones no more than thirty-five Persian; that 
 in 900 Pahlvi words not one Zend can be found, and that out of 664 
 Zend words 511, and out of 900 Pahlvi ones 800, bear no resem- 
 blance to those of any known language. But it must be evident that, 
 had Zend ever been the common speech of Persia over which the 
 Pahlvi predominated, many Zend words ought to be found in the 
 latter, and, had Persian subsequently predominated over Pahlvi, many 
 Pahlvi and not a few Zend words ought to be found in Persian ; 
 because such has been invariably the effect produced by the 
 mother-tongue of every people on the language which may have, from 
 whatever cause, predominated over it. With respect to English, for 
 instance, Mr. Turner remarks ; — "In three pages of Alfred's Orosius 
 I found seventy-eight [Anglo-Saxon] words which have become 
 obsolete out of 548, or about one seventh ; in three pages of his 
 Boethius I found 143 obsolete out of 666, or about one-fifth ; in 
 three pages of his Bede I found 230 obsolete out of 969, or about 
 one fifth. The difference in the proportion between these and the 
 Orosius proceeds from the latter containing many proper names. 
 Perhaps we shall be near the truth if we say, as a general principle, 
 that one fifth of the Anglo-Saxon has ceased to be used in English. "* 
 Consequently, notwithstanding the Danish and Norman conquests, the 
 course of seven centuries and a half, and the astonishing progress in 
 civilisation which has taken place during this period, still four fifths 
 of the Anglo-Saxon prevail in the English language at this day. 
 Neither Tiraboschi, however, nor Pignotti, mentions the proportion of 
 Latin words in Italian. I, therefore, took the first 1000 words that 
 occur in the ninth story of the fifth day in Boccaccio's Decameron, and 
 I found that out of this number 750 were identical with Latin. But, 
 
 * History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. i. p. 444. 
 
X76 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 from the establishment of the barbarians in Italy under Odoacer king 
 of the Heruli, until Dante, when Italian began to assume its present 
 form, eight hundred years elapsed *, and yet the Italian has preserved 
 at least three-fourths f of that language which was previously spoken 
 in Italy. When, therefore, rather more than one sixth of Zend words 
 and one eighth of Pahlvi ones, only, can be found in the language that 
 prevails in Persia at this day, and when this country has suffered no 
 other change of importance than the Arabian conquest, which has in 
 no manner altered or destroyed the common speech which was pre- 
 viously current, it must be concluded, on every principle of etymology, 
 that the Zend and Pahlvi never could have been languages which were 
 at any time actually spoken by the inhabitants of Persia. 
 
 This argument, I admit, will not apply to the hypothesis which 
 assumes that the Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian were three distinct languages 
 which coexisted in different parts of ancient Persia : for, it may be 
 remarked, the English will no doubt in course of time predominate in 
 Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, without being in the least affected by 
 Scottish, Irish, or Welsh ; and such, therefore, may have been the case 
 with respect to the Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian in Persia. But this 
 division of Persia into three different parts, speaking distinct languages, 
 is a mere gratuitous assumption, unsupported by either probability or 
 proof; nor, were it even admitted, would it in the slightest degree 
 assist in explaining the manner in which the two former languages 
 have become extinct, and Persian has remained the sole tongue of the 
 existence of which in this country any traces can be discovered. 
 Why, also, are the translation of the Zend-Avesta and the other Parsi 
 
 * Tiraboschi, in the commencement of the preface to the fourth volume of his work, 
 remarks, — " Molti secoli noi dobbiamo trascorrere in questo tomo ; e dobbiamo tras- 
 corrergli senza mai incontrarci in oggetto, dalla cui vista possiam chiamarci pienamente 
 contenti. Uomini d' abito, di legge, di lingua, di costumi diversi, ma quasi tutti barbari e 
 incolti, Goti, Longobardi, Franchi, Tedeschi, Saracini, Normanni, inondan da ogni parte 
 P Italia, se ne contendon traloro, o se ne dividon 1' impero, e la rimpiono in ogni parte di 
 desolazione e di orrore." 
 
 f Pignotti observes, — " Si prenda un libro Italiano, e si cominci a leggere, si scorrera 
 talora un intera pagina in cui tutte le parole si troveranno d' origine Latina." — Star, delta 
 Toscana, torn. ii. Sag. Prim. p. 5. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 177 
 
 books written in Pahlvi, if Persian had predominated as the common 
 speech previous to the Arabian conquest ; or, if not, when did Persian 
 become predominant? To this question the answers are various. 
 For Anquetil du Perron observes, — " Je place la troisieme [epoque du 
 Parsi] sous les princes de la quatrieme dynastie, celle des Sasanides. 
 Le Parsi, devenu la langue de la cour, bannit entierement le Pehlvi de 
 l'usage familier."* Adelung, also, remarks, — "Under the Median 
 princes, the language of the land was Zend and Pahlvi ; but, under 
 the dominion of the Sassanian dynasty, the language of the province of 
 Fars, which had quietly improved itself, became predominant both in 
 the court and in the kingdom, and so completely expelled all the 
 other native languages, that none but itself prevailed throughout the 
 whole of Persia." f 
 
 But the Baron de Sacy observes, — " Or, sous la dynastie des Sas- 
 sanides, c'etoit le Pehlvi que Ton parloit et ecrivoit communement en 
 Perse, comme le prouvent incontestablement les inscriptions et les 
 medailles. C'est en Pehlvi que Nouschirevan faisoit traduire les 
 livres que Barzouyeh avoit rapportes de l'lnde." X But, with respect 
 to the last circumstance, it depends entirely on the authority of 
 Muhammadan writers, who, as I have before observed, consider Pahlvi 
 merely to have been the ancient language of Persia, without affording 
 any explanation of the manner in which it differed from the modern 
 tongue ; and Firdausi even calls the language in which he composed 
 the Shah Nameh Pahlvi. The deciphering, also, of the inscriptions 
 and medals depends solely on the assumption that Pahlvi was the 
 vernacular speech of Persia during the Sassanian dynasty. An assump- 
 tion which ought to have been proved previous to any arguments 
 being founded upon it : for, at present, these arguments labour under 
 the defect of a vicious reasoning in a circle ; since the language is first 
 adduced to support the authenticity of that which is supposed to be 
 written in it, whether books, inscriptions, or legends of medals, and 
 then these writings are adduced as a proof of the former existence of 
 
 * Memoires de l'Acad. des Insc, vol. xxxi. p. 416. 
 f Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 274. 
 $ Journal des Savans, Fevrier 1821, p. 75. 
 A A 
 
178 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 the language.* The explanations, indeed, of the inscriptions and 
 medals which the Baron de Sacy thinks he has deciphered are cer- 
 tainly very ingenious ; but it is merely requisite to read the description 
 of the process by which he arrived at these results, in order to perceive 
 that the premises are much too unsatisfactory and insufficient to 
 warrant the conclusions. For the Baron de Sacy concludes his first 
 Memoir with these words : — " De tout ce que j'ai dit dans la seconde 
 partie de ce Memoire, il result e, 1° Que les inscriptions en caracteres 
 inconnus de Nakschi-Roustam offrent deux genres d'ecriture differens, 
 Tun desquels est commun aux trois inscriptions A, N° 1, B, N c 1, et 
 C, N° 1 ; et l'autre aux inscriptions A, N° 4, B, N° 4, et C, N° 4 ; 
 et que ces deux genres d'ecriture se ressemblent neanmoins es- 
 sentiellement dans la forme des plusieurs lettres, de Yaleph, par 
 exemple, du mem et du tau. 2° Que le marche de ces deux ecritures 
 est de droite a gauche. 3° Que la langue de ces deux classes de- 
 scriptions n'est pas la meme. 4° Que presque tous les mots des 
 inscriptions A, N° 1, i?, N° 1, et C, N° 1, peuvent etre expliques par 
 la langue Pehlvie, ce qui autorise a, les regarder comme des monumens 
 de cette langue, ou du moins, d'un dialecte peu different. 5° Que la 
 langue des inscriptions A, N° 4, B, N° 4, et C, N° 4, paroit plus 
 eloignee des anciennes langues de la Perse que nous connoissons. 6° 
 Enfin, que dans ces deux genres d'ecriture les voyelles ne sont point 
 exprimees, ce qui les rapproche de la plupart des ecritures de 1' Orient, 
 meme du Pehlvi, et les eloigne, au contraire, du Zend, dont le 
 caractere est d'etre surcharge de voyelles." f In another Memoir the 
 Baron de Sacy remarks, — " J'observerai, avant de finir ce Memoire, 
 qu'il est un autre genre de medailles qui portent des legendes en 
 
 * In Dr. Grotefend's attempts to decipher cuneiform inscriptions, the reasoning is not 
 only founded on a similar assumption respecting the Zend, but also on these still more 
 extraordinary assumptions, that the accounts of Persia given by Grecian writers are per- 
 fectly accurate, and that the names ascribed by them to Pei'sian kings are equally correct ; 
 although the first of these points remains still to be proved, and the latter is fully disproved 
 by its being universally admitted that the Greeks adapted foreign names to their own 
 defective alphabet, and that, in this respect, they invariably sacrificed accuracy to their love 
 of euphony. 
 
 f Mem. sur Div. Ant. de la Pei'se, p. 122. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 179 
 
 caracteres inconnus, mais differens de ceux que je viens d'expliquer, 
 et qui paroissent devoir appartenir aux Arsacides ou aux Sassanides." * 
 It hence appears that the characters employed on some inscriptions 
 and medals differ from each other ; and that those given by the Baron 
 de Sacy differ also from the Zend and Pahlvi letters in which the books 
 of the Parsis are written cannot be denied f: but difference of character 
 is, prima facie, such strong evidence of difference of language as cannot 
 be invalidated, except by proving the contrary by something more than 
 mere conjecture. If, also, the characters of two inscriptions lead to a 
 conclusion that the language of each is different, on what principle can 
 it be supposed that they admit of being deciphered by means of one 
 and the same language ? At the same time, if these conclusions be 
 correct, there must have existed five or six distinct languages in Persia, 
 for mere dialects would not certainly have been employed in inscrip- 
 tions ; in which case, on what grounds is it assumed that, for the purpose 
 of deciphering these inscriptions, a particular one of these languages 
 ought to be used in preference to the others? Such objections as 
 these are obvious, but any satisfactory answer to them is not so 
 evident ; and, consequently, it cannot be admitted merely on conjec- 
 tures, which have not even consistency and probability to recommend 
 them, that the language engraved on ancient Persian inscriptions and 
 medals is actually Pahlvi : and hence it necessarily follows that this 
 supposed decipherment cannot be received as any proof that the 
 Pahlvi, if it ever existed, was at any time the common speech of Persia. 
 
 * Mem. sur Div. Ant. de la Perse, p. 201. 
 
 f Sir W. Jones has before observed, — " Assuming, however, that we may reason as 
 conclusively on the characters published by Niebuhr, as we might on the monuments them- 
 selves, were they now before us, we may begin by observing, as Chardin had observed on 
 the very spot, that they bear no resemblance whatever to the letters used by the Gabrs in 
 their copies of the Vendidad. This I once urged, in an amicable debate with Bahman, as a 
 proof that the Zend letters were a modern invention ; but he seemed to hear me without 
 surprise, and insisted that the letters to which I alluded, and which he had often seen, were 
 monumental characters never used in books, and intended either to conceal some religious 
 mysteries^from the vulgar, or to display the art of the sculptor, like the embellished Cufick 
 and Nagari on several Arabian and Indian monuments. He wondered that any man could 
 seriously doubt the antiquity of the Pahlavi letters ; and, in truth, the inscription behind 
 the horse of Rustam, which Niebuhr has also given us, is apparently Pahlavi, and might 
 with some pains be decyphered." — Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 85. 
 
 See, also, Plates E, F No. 1., and F No. 2. 
 
 A A 2 
 
j gO THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 The preceding remarks, therefore, will perhaps evince that there are 
 no grounds for supposing that Zend and Pahlvi ever prevailed as lan- 
 guages in Persia ; and I have, no doubt, sufficiently shown that neither 
 Celtic nor Gothic could possibly have been the language which was at 
 any time spoken in this country. But it is evident that this extensive 
 region, possessing every advantage of climate, must have been inha- 
 bited from the remotest antiquity ; and that, from its being so remark- 
 ably protected by natural barriers from all hostile attacks, a flourishing 
 kingdom must have been established in it at a very early period of the 
 world. For, as Sir W. Jones has very justly observed, " it would 
 seem unaccountably strange that, although Abraham had found a 
 regular monarchy in Egypt, although the kingdom of Yemen had just 
 pretensions to very high antiquity, although the Chinese in the twelfth 
 century before our sera had made approaches at least to the present 
 form of their extensive dominion, and although we can hardly suppose 
 the first Indian monarchs to have reigned less than 3000 years ago, yet 
 Persia, the most delightful, the most compact, the most desirable 
 country of them all should have remained until 900 years before Christ 
 unsettled and disunited."* But, had such a kingdom existed in Persia, 
 and its existence cannot be reasonably doubted, it necessarily follows 
 that the people must have spoken one uniform language ; and, as there 
 is not the slightest indication in history that Persia was ever occupied 
 by a foreign race, or even temporarily subjected, previous to the 
 Arabian conquest, to any foreign influence except that of the Greeks, 
 it must as necessarily follow that the modern Persian actually existing 
 is a dialect of either Arabic or Greek, or that it is, in fact, the very 
 language which has been spoken in Persia from time immemorial. 
 Because it cannot be denied that the ancient inhabitants of this country 
 must have made use of some common speech, and that, amongst a 
 people unaddicted to commerce or foreign war, incapable of making 
 any material improvements in the degree of civilisation to which they 
 had at a very early period attained, and unsubjected to the influence of 
 strangers, no conceivable cause can be assigned for any change taking 
 
 * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 77. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. Igl 
 
 place in their language, after it was once completely formed.* But 
 neither Greek nor Arabic words appear in pure Persian, to attest that 
 its originality was ever in the slightest degree affected by the languages 
 of the conquerors of the land, and, consequently, it must be concluded 
 that the pure Persian of this day is, in all probability, the very same 
 language which has been always spoken by the people of Persia. 
 
 The Grecian writers, indeed, describe this country to have been 
 anciently divided into two distinct nations, which were not united into 
 one kingdom until the reign of Cyrus, or about 558 years before 
 Christ : but such a division is perfectly unknown to both Parsis and 
 Muhammadans, and no word resembling Media is to be found in 
 either Zend, Pahlvi, or Persian. This supposition, also, is liable to so 
 many objections, arising from the great discrepancies which exist in the 
 accounts of Media given by the Greeks, that it cannot, on any just 
 principle of reasoning, be received as a well ascertained fact : and, were 
 it even admitted, it would merely prove that a language distinct from 
 Persian had at one time prevailed in the north-western part of Persia ; 
 but it would afford no explanation respecting either the nature of this 
 language, or the particular circumstances in which it differed from 
 Persian, or the causes which had occasioned its extinction. In dis- 
 cussing, therefore, the present subject, the existence or non-existence 
 of a kingdom of Media is perfectly immaterial ; because the former 
 would in no manner disprove the actual prevalence of Persian in the 
 greatest part of Persia, f 
 
 * The supposition, that any people would of themselves change the language which they 
 had received from their fathers, and by which alone they could make themselves intelligible 
 to each other, is so extravagant and contrary to experience, that this alone ought to discredit 
 every hypothesis which is founded upon it. But, in the present case, it is required to be 
 believed, that the fifteen millions of inhabitants, which Persia probably contained, first 
 spoke Zend, then Pahlvi, and finally the modern Persian ; notwithstanding the self-evident 
 refutation of this improbable assumption, which arises from the simple circumstance of there 
 not being a single Zend word in Pahlvi, and of there being two thirds more Persian words 
 in the former than in the latter. 
 
 f The opinion, however, that Zend was the language of Media must stand or fall with the 
 credit which is given to Greek writers ; for the existence of Media, as a distinct kingdom, 
 depends solely on their authority. But, if their positive testimony in one case is to be 
 received without question, I can see no reason why the negative evidence arising from their 
 
Ig2 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 The predominance, at the same time, of Persian, as the common 
 speech of this land, forms an insuperable objection to the possibility of 
 Zend or Pahlvi ever having been the spoken languages of Persia : for 
 the use of the latter is supposed to have ceased at the conquest of the 
 country by the Arabs ; and nothing is more fully established than that, 
 from the decisive battle of Nehavend until the first Persian author *, 
 no foreign power except the Arabs entered Persia. If, therefore, the 
 Persians had, in this interval of 300 years, changed their language, 
 they would, undoubtedly, have adopted that of their conquerors in the 
 same manner as they adopted their laws and religion : but, in Persian, 
 Arabic always appears perfectly distinct, and the words borrowed from 
 it consist solely of nouns, adjectives, and participles, which suffer no 
 alteration on being thus naturalised in Persian j- : nor is there, I am 
 certain, a single word in Arabic (with the exception of local, juridical, 
 and religious terms) which has not a corresponding term in Persian. 
 
 Of the copiousness also of this language, and of its requiring no 
 foreign assistance for commanding variety of expression, the Shah 
 Nameh is alone a sufficient proof; for in it Arabic words are very 
 sparingly used J, and yet no poem abounds in more diversified 
 
 silence ought to be rejected ; and, consequently, as no Greek writer mentions the existence 
 in Persia of three distinct nations, speaking three distinct languages, the hypothesis, which 
 supposes that Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian coexisted at some time or other in this country, 
 must be considered as totally groundless. 
 
 * The battle of Nehavend took place in A.D. 641, and Abu'l Fazl Ahmed, the translator of 
 Tabari, died in 946, but at what age I have not been able to ascertain, though he must have 
 been advanced in life, as he was vizier to Nuh Ben Nasser one of the Samanich princes. 
 
 f Except, I believe, that in Arabic a noun may sometimes form its plural in the Persian 
 manner. Adelung, therefore, is mistaken in stating that Arabic words adopt the Persian 
 terminations, as in German the French words complimenteren geniren. Mithridates, vol. i. 
 p. 286. 
 
 % To satisfy myself on this point, I examined three different passages of the Shah Nameh, 
 consisting of one thousand couplets, and the result, omitting five or six military terms, 
 generally repeated, was the following : — 
 
 First 1000 couplets contained 54 Arabic words 
 Second 1000 30 
 
 Third 1000 46 
 
 or not quite five words in each hundred verses. But all these words have corresponding 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 183 
 
 descriptions of all the beauties of nature, and all the various manners, 
 customs, sentiments, and actions of man. Firdausi, also, flourished 
 350 years after the Arabian conquest, and, notwithstanding, the style of 
 his 60,000 couplets is every where sustained, and every where exhibits 
 a completely formed and highly polished language. Compare this 
 poem with the works of Chaucer and Dante, and it will then incon- 
 testably appear that Firdausi wrote in a long established and refined 
 language, thoroughly adapted for all the grace and elegance of poetry ; 
 while the latter were obliged to compel a colloquial tongue, rude and 
 unformed, to express poetical conceptions to which it had never before 
 been accustomed. But it is utterly impossible that the Persian could 
 have acquired such perfection, had its formation, or even predominance, 
 not taken place previous to the Arabian conquest ; because, after that 
 event until the accession of Shah Ismail, the first prince of the Sefavich 
 dynasty, Persia continued to be divided into a number of inde- 
 pendent states, which would have completely prevented the uniform 
 formation and general adoption of one common language. 
 
 The opinions, however, respecting the origin of Persian and the time 
 when it became predominant, are as various as it might naturally be 
 expected they would be, when they are all founded on mere con- 
 jectures, in direct opposition to the plainest principles of probability 
 and etymology. For Anquetil du Perron remarks, — " Je la suppose 
 d'abord pure et sans melange d'Arabe, et je dis que le Parsi, pris dans 
 ce sens, vient du Zend et non du Pehlvi. . . . Sorties toutes deux d'une 
 meme mere, le Zend, il est naturel qu'elles aient des traits de famille, 
 et quelque chose malgre cela qui les differencie."* Sir William Jones 
 observes, — " From all these facts it is a necessary consequence, that 
 
 terms in Persian, which are much more frequently used in this poem ; and, consequently, 
 the use of the Arabic words was not absolutely necessary, though they have been employed, 
 probably, for variety, or for facilitating the versification. I recollect, indeed, three Arabic 
 words only, viz. kalb, the centre of an army, naal, a horseshoe ; and tank, an ornamental 
 collar, which Firdausi uses in exclusion of the corresponding Persian terms. 
 * Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc, vol. xxxi. p. 413. 
 
184 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 the oldest discoverable languages of Persia were Chaldaic and Sanscrit ; 
 and that, when they had ceased to be vernacular, the Pahlavi and Zend 
 were deduced from them respectively, and the Parsi either from the 
 Zend or immediately from the dialect of the Brahmans." * And 
 Adelung expresses a still more circumstantial opinion, — " Parsi, this 
 is the name of the people and language of the present southern 
 province Fars, a plain and fertile land under a warm and smiling sky. 
 Before Cyrus, and even at his time, it was principally inhabited by rude 
 nomadic tribes ; but afterwards it became the metropolis of the 
 kingdom, and the seat of Median refinement and luxury. The cultiv- 
 ation of its language succeeded, which, gradually acquiring predom- 
 inance, became, under the Sassanian dynasty, the language of the 
 court and of public business, and in time surpassed all its sisters in 
 softness, richness, and refinement." f 
 
 But, had these and other writers, instead of drawing fancy-pictures 
 from their own imaginations, merely submitted to the trouble of care- 
 fully examining the Persian language as it appears in the Shah Nameh, 
 they would themselves have been convinced that it is not derived from 
 either the Zend or the Pahlvi, and that it bears not any affinity 
 whatever to either J : because the slightest examination of it will show 
 that its complete originality admits not of a doubt; for its grammatical 
 structure is peculiar to itself, and it contains no foreign words except 
 
 * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 83. 
 
 f Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 274. 
 
 % Richardson very justly remarks, — " Zend [and he might have added Pahlvi] appears 
 not to bear the most distant radical resemblance to the modern dialect of Persia ; a circum- 
 stance which all observation declares to be impossible, had it ever existed as an ancient 
 Persian idiom. No convulsions of government, no efforts of the learned, can ever so alter 
 a language as to deface every line of resemblance between the speech of the present day 
 and that of even the remotest ancestry ; nothing but the absolute extirpation of the 
 aboriginal natives can apparently accomplish so singular a revolution. If we look into the 
 languages of modern Europe, we shall discover every where the strongest features of their 
 Celtic or Gothic original, amidst all the refinement of Roman and Grecian embellishment. 
 If we examine the dialect of the modern Greeks, notwithstanding their slavish subjection to 
 the despotism of the Turks, we shall find the corruption but slightly disguises the original 
 tongue." — Diss, prefixed to Persian Diet. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. Jg5 
 
 Sanscrit.* On what grounds, therefore, can it be supposed that it is 
 derived from any other language ? To this obvious objection it must 
 be evident there can be no answer ; for, if peculiarity of grammatical 
 structure and purity of words do not constitute an original tongue, there 
 can be no first principles by which the tracing the affinity of languages 
 can be regulated. But the consecutive extinction, amongst a people 
 never conquered by foreigners, of two languages, and the formation of a 
 third perfectly distinct from these two, are phenomena which have never 
 yet been witnessed, and which, it may safely be pronounced, are utterly 
 impossible. A hypothesis, therefore, which rests on such an absurdity 
 as supposes that Zend was first spoken in Persia, then Pahlvi, and 
 finally Persian, might appear undeserving of refutation, had it not 
 received the support of several distinguished writers. Nor is the 
 hypothesis which supposes these languages to have coexisted in this 
 country less absurd : because that part of Persia which spoke Pahlvi is 
 directly interposed between those parts in which Zend and Persian are 
 conjectured to have prevailed ; and yet it is contended that Persian is 
 derived from Zend, without adverting to the obstacle which these 
 system-makers had themselves erected, and which completely pre- 
 vented such a communication taking place between Media and Fars, as 
 would have admitted of the latter receiving any part of its language 
 from the former. The complete improbability, therefore, if not im- 
 possibility of such suppositions must irresistibly lead to the simple and 
 rational conclusion, that the pure Persian of the present day is not only 
 the very language which was spoken in the royal halls of the last 
 Sassanian prince, but also that which has prevailed from the remotest 
 antiquity throughout the whole of this delightful country, f 
 
 * The few Greek words that now occur in it were clearly introduced from the Arabic ; 
 and, after the above remarks, it will probably be admitted that the Persian words in Zend 
 and Pahlvi have passed from the former into the latter, and not from the latter into the 
 former. 
 
 f This conclusion might have been supported by adducing the words given as Persian in 
 ancient writers, had they not, unfortunately, been so disfigured by their orthography as to 
 render it impossible to identify them ; though they undoubtedly exhibit a much greater 
 
 B B 
 
286 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 There is, at the same time, another objection, already made by 
 Richardson, to the derivation of Persian from Zend, which has 
 not received that attention to which it is justly entitled ; for it is 
 undeniable that there are certain alphabetical sounds peculiar to 
 every nation, the proper pronunciation of which is unattainable by 
 foreigners. Supposing it, therefore, possible that any people should 
 themselves change their mother tongue, it is self-evident that they 
 could not acquire, by mere intuition, a knowledge of unknown sounds 
 and the capability of pronouncing them. But the harsh texture of 
 the Zend is perfectly incompatible with the genius of Persian 
 pronunciation, or, indeed, with the facility and rapidity of utterance 
 which are the invariable characteristics of every language which has 
 
 resemblance to Persian than to Zend or Pahlvi. The following, however, may be quoted 
 as in some degree confirmatory of the opinion above expressed : — 
 
 ganze% ,*sv : s (ganj), treasure. 
 
 ahastaran a , (j^jU**' (asteran), mules. 
 
 hega b *^.\yL (Jchajeh), eunuch. 
 
 i u,a ? T, X w § a c > jy^ ^r" ( n ^rd- kfior), man-eater. 
 
 TrupvSov* read xupv§ov, t-^y-sl^ (kah-rub), straw-attracting, i. e. amber. 
 
 aiirra x°P u c j j^ «\**« (sqfid-khar), white-thorn. 
 
 xvgov d , jj± {Jchur), the sun. 
 
 $ziyuve; e , (^Ifsi (dihgari), the head man of a village. 
 
 <Tuqa.ira.qa f , ^j m, (sari-bur), head-cutter. 
 
 uvamc, f , <W>UI (andhid), the planet Venus. 
 
 a^a§a f , j,j\ (azar), fire, a pyrseum. 
 
 xuqla f , $j5" (kord), brave, warlike. 
 
 traXavYjv s read <ra.Xa.gyiv, j^w (sala?*), a leader. 
 
 hypobarus h , jb v>^ (Jchub-bar), ra «y«8« tpepwv. 
 
 The following passage, also, of Pliny may be translated by means of Persian, so as to 
 retain the point which seems intended : — " Ultra sunt Scytharum populi ; Persae illos 
 Sacas in universum appellavere, Scythas ipsi Persas Khorsakas." ' i. e. The Persians call 
 the Scythians dogs, and they, in return, call the Persians dog-eaters. k 
 
 a Bocharti Chal., Jib. i. c. 15. b Esther, c. ii. v. 3., in the Septuagint tb ewo&%$>. 
 
 c Ctesias in Indicis. d Plut. in Artax. c Polybius. f Strabo. 
 
 s Procopius. h Plinius, lib. xxxvii. c. 2. 
 
 ' Plinius, lib. vi. c. 17. k From Ju* (sag), a dog, and^~; (khor), an eater. 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 187 
 
 been actually employed by a civilised people, as the medium of 
 colloquial intercourse. For instance, such words as vekanvaroesh, 
 veiaosetched, gueouastrieoereze, karschouetched, frekereioesch, reotcherg- 
 hanm, aperenaeokenanm, bameneouas, decoucied, ickhschteschtche, ictheou- 
 cante, azoanleouclesch, iaongliieouerete, peraontiao. These and other 
 Zend words have not the most distant resemblance to Persian, as the 
 reader will himself observe on referring to the Comparative Table in 
 Part II. Had, also, the latter language been derived from the 
 former, the numerous Sanscrit words that are found in Persian 
 ought to have undergone the same changes which they exhibit in 
 Zend : but, on the contrary? they have suffered less alteration, than 
 that to which they would have been subjected had they passed into 
 any of the vernacular dialects of' India. For example, S. shubha, 
 P. khub, Z. ehobie ; S. rochanam, P. roshan, Z. rotchenghem ; S. nara, 
 P. nar, Z. neresch ; S. bhima, P. bim, Z. bienghe. But, out of 176 
 Sanscrit words found either in Persian or Zend *, there are thirty only 
 which are common to both these languages : a circumstance that 
 strongly proves the impossibility of Zend having been the primitive 
 language from which Persian was derived ; because, in that case, the 
 latter ought to contain more Sanscrit words common to the former, 
 and Zend itself ought to contain a greater number of such words than 
 the Persian. 
 
 The pure Persian language, however, is not entirely original, 
 because it contains at least 260 Sanscrit words, but, with this 
 exception, not another foreign term can be discovered in it. But 
 the peculiarity of its grammatical structure evinces that it cannot 
 possibly have been derived from Sanscrit ; for this language 
 distinguishes the cases of nouns and tenses of verbs by inflections, 
 and delights in forming its words by various modifications of the 
 primitive, or by its composition with particles, f The Persian, on 
 the contrary, employs prepositions and auxiliary verbs for the first 
 
 * See Appendix, No. I. 
 
 f The suffixes and affixes used in Sanscrit for this purpose amount to 958, and in Persian 
 they do not exceed twenty. 
 
 B B 2 
 
188 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 purpose ; and admits in a very sparing degree of any modification 
 of the primitive. The formation, also, of four tenses of the verb 
 by means of particles is peculiar to itself; and it partakes of the 
 Arabic grammatical system, while it differs from the Sanscrit, in 
 affixing parts only of the pronouns to the noun or verb with which 
 they are placed in construction. The Persian, at the same time, 
 is dissimilar from the Sanscrit, in having neither dual number nor 
 genders, and in its adjectives being indeclinable. 
 
 But no conceivable cause can be assigned for such radical 
 differences, had the grammatical structure of Persian ever been the 
 same as that of Sanscrit ; because experience sufficiently proves 
 that conquest alone can effect any material change in language, 
 and that even its influence is not powerful enough to produce a 
 complete alteration in the grammatical forms to which a people has 
 been long accustomed. As, therefore, there is no indication in 
 tradition or history that a nation speaking Sanscrit ever conquered 
 Persia, it must be admitted that its grammatical structure is alone 
 sufficient to demonstrate that Persian is not indebted to that language 
 for its origin. But the Sanscrit words which are still discoverable 
 in Persian are much too numerous, and expressive of too great a 
 diversity of ideas, to sanction the supposition, that they could have 
 been introduced into it by mere intercourse, whether hostile or 
 commercial, between the Persians and a people speaking Sanscrit. 
 
 So far, therefore, as relates to the Hindus, these remarks of Sir 
 W. Jones would appear to be well founded, — " So that the three 
 families, whose lineage we have examined in former discourses, had 
 left visible traces of themselves in Iran [Persia] long before the 
 Tartars and Arabs had rushed from their deserts, and returned to 
 that very country, from which, in all probability, they originally 
 proceeded, and which the Hindus had abandoned in an earlier age, 
 with positive commands from their legislators to revisit it no more. 
 I close this head with observing, that no supposition of a mere 
 political or commercial intercourse between the different nations 
 will account for the Sanscrit and Chaldaic words, which we find in 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 189 
 
 the old Persian tongues : because they are, in the first place, too 
 numerous to have been introduced by such means ; and, secondly, 
 are not the names of exotic animals, commodities, or arts, but those 
 of material elements, parts of the body, natural objects and relations, 
 affections of the mind, and other ideas common to the whole race 
 of man." * Had, however, the original inhabitants of Persia been 
 Hindus, the people who remained in it must have spoken precisely 
 the same language as those who migrated from it, and the colony 
 must either have retained this language, or adopted a new one. 
 In the first case, consequently, Persian ought even at this day to 
 contain a greater number of Sanscrit words, and to exhibit a 
 grammatical system nearly similar to that of Sanscrit ; and, in the 
 other case, though Sanscrit might retain many terms common to 
 Persian, it ought at the same time to exhibit distinctly its mixed 
 origin : but, on the contrary, Sanscrit is the purest of languages, as 
 it does not contain a single exotic word, and, while the Sanscrit 
 grammatical system is easily identified in Greek, not a trace of it 
 can be discovered in Persian. 
 
 That part, therefore, of Sir W. Jones's hypothesis which supposes 
 that the aborigines of Persia were Hindus is untenable ; but it is 
 equally evident that a people speaking Sanscrit must have at some 
 time not only inhabited this country, but have also possessed such 
 influence in it as could have occasioned the introduction of so many 
 words of their own tongue into the vernacular language. As, also, 
 fifty-five of the Sanscrit words found in Persian are equally found 
 in Greek, it must necessarily follow that they had passed into Persian 
 one or two centuries before the poems of Homer were written, because 
 at that time the Greek language appears to have been completely 
 formed. But there is no indication in history, or in Sanscrit works, 
 that the Hindus ever made any foreign conquests ; and the contrary 
 would appear most probable, from the great antiquity of those 
 institutions which prevent a Hindu from leaving for any cause the 
 land of holiness. The establishment in Persia, therefore, of a people 
 
 * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 83. 
 
X90 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 speaking Sanscrit must evidently have preceded their entrance into 
 India, and, if not aborigines of the country, they must necessarily 
 have immigrated into it from some other kingdom. Thus, again, the 
 conjecture irresistibly presents itself, that this people speaking 
 Sanscrit could be no other than a numerous colony which had 
 migrated from Babylon on its conquest by the Ninus of Herodotus, 
 part of which established itself in Persia and part proceeded on to 
 India. 
 
 Nor, if this conjecture be admitted, can it seem improbable, from 
 the wide-spread fame of the Chaldeans, that this colony should be 
 enabled to improve the Persians in arts and civilisation, and thus to 
 occasion the introduction of many Babylonian or Sanscrit words into 
 the language of Persia : for the similar introduction of Latin words 
 into all the dialects of Celtic now existing, and of Sanscrit into the 
 vernacular dialects of India, sufficiently shows that the conquest of a 
 country is not the only means by which its language may become 
 affected by foreign influence. It may however, be objected that, in 
 these instances, this influence prevailed in consequence of a new 
 religion having been propagated in the foreign language ; and that the 
 universal voice of antiquity attests that the religion of Persia was 
 totally dissimilar from that of India., But it must be recollected that 
 the earliest writer who has given a description of the Persians 
 flourished so late as 450 years B. C, and, consequently, that his 
 authority cannot determine what the popular faith of the Persians may 
 have been 800 years before his time. All accounts, also, ancient, 
 Parsi, and Muhammadan, concur in ascribing to Zoroaster, or Zar- 
 dusht, the introduction of a new religion into Persia. Hence, it may 
 be reasonably concluded, from the systems of belief that existed in 
 the neighbouring countries, that the popular faith subverted by- 
 Zoroaster was idolatry ; and that his great merit must have consisted 
 in withdrawing the Persians from the worship of idols, and in im- 
 parting to them juster notions of the Supreme Being. 
 
 Although, also, the religion of Babylonia was no doubt idolatry, this 
 colony might have introduced, as in India, various alterations into the 
 
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. ^91 
 
 system of popular faith which might have then prevailed in Persia. 
 The memory even of one remarkable circumstance, the institution of 
 caste, has been preserved by Muhammadan writers, which identifies 
 the ancient Persian religion with that of the Egyptians and Hindus, 
 and thus renders its common origin almost demonstrated. For 
 Tabari, in his account of Jemshid, relates, that " he divided the people 
 into four classes, one consisted of soldiers, another of learned men, 
 another of scribes and artizans, and another of agriculturists : and he 
 commanded each class to follow their respective occupations, the 
 agriculturists to reside in the country, the scribes to exercise the office 
 of magistrates, the soldiers to attend at his gate, and he placed the 
 learned men over the three other classes, and commanded them to 
 take care that each class pursued its own occupation." These words 
 evidently show that this description depends not on any account of 
 a similar institution in India which Tabari might have heard of*, 
 but must have been derived from some tradition preserved in Persia. 
 No other traces, however, of the ancient religion of the Persians 
 previous to Zoroaster can now be discovered. But this tradition, 
 supported by the irrefutable testimony of language, must tend to 
 render it highly probable that a colony, similar in all respects to that 
 which introduced the Brahminical religion into India, was also about 
 the same time established in Persia, and that both these colonies 
 proceeded from one and the same country, the ancient Babylonia. 
 
 But, in whatever manner the cause of the existence of Sanscrit 
 words in Persian may be explained, it is undeniable that except them 
 no other foreign terms can be found in this language ; and, con- 
 sequently, its purity and originality demonstrate that neither Scythians, 
 Celts, Pelasgi, or Goths ever inhabited Persia. It hence, also, appears 
 that the words in Persian which seem to be cognate with terms in 
 Greek, Latin, and the Teutonic dialects, have been principally derived 
 
 * It is to be remarked that Tabari was born in A. D. 838, and that the Muhammadans 
 never made any successful attack on India until Mahmud of Ghoznin in A. D. J 000. Nor 
 does there appear to have existed any intercourse between India and Bagdad, which could 
 have enabled Tabari to acquire any knowledge of the institutions of the Hindus. 
 
192 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 
 
 from one common origin, the Sanscrit ; and that the few * which cannot 
 be traced to this source are not sufficiently numerous to invalidate this 
 conclusion ; because neither geography, chronology, nor history 
 warrants the supposition that they could ever have passed from these 
 languages into Persian, though it is not possible to point out the 
 manner in which they may have passed from the latter into the 
 former. The existence, at the same time, of 265 Sanscrit words in 
 Persian, most fully evinces that Pahlvi could not have been the 
 common speech of Persia at the time of the Arabian conquest ; for, 
 after that event, the state of the country rendered the introduction 
 into Persian of so many Sanscrit words expressive of such a diversity 
 of ideas utterly impossible. Nor, when the antiquity of the Hindu 
 institutions is considered, does the coexistence of three distinct 
 languages in Persia, and the introduction of such numerous foreign 
 terms into one of these only, appear in the least more probable. 
 To suppose, indeed, a colony, so powerful as to occasion so many 
 words of its own tongue to have passed into the vernacular language 
 of the whole of Persia, to have been established in the province of 
 Fars and its dependencies only, at least 1200 years B. C, is an opinion 
 much too absurd to be maintained by any person. These Sanscrit 
 words, therefore, and the remote period at which they must have been 
 introduced into Persian, must alone be sufficient to demonstrate that 
 the people of Persia have always spoken but one and the same mother 
 tongue ; and, consequently, affinity of language, the most indisputable 
 of testimonies, completely disproves the supposition that Persian is the 
 same language that was spoken by the Scythians, from which it has 
 been conjectured that the Celtic, Pelasgic, and Gothic have been 
 derived. 
 
 * I have inserted in the preceding Chapter such as I have been able to discover, amount- 
 ing to forty-one in number. 
 
193 
 
 CHAR XII. 
 
 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 The existence of more than 900 Sanscrit words in the Greek, Latin, 
 Persian, and Teutonic languages, incontestably proves that the people 
 speaking these tongues must have been at some time intimately 
 connected together ; and the poems of Homer equally prove that this 
 intercourse must have taken place at least nine hundred years before 
 the Christian era. It cannot, however, be supposed that the Hindus 
 received these words from the Greeks, Romans, Persians, or Thracians, 
 and it must consequently follow that the latter received them from 
 the former ; or that the languages of all these people, so widely 
 separated from each other when they first became known to history, 
 were derived from one common origin. But to this last conclusion 
 the perfect originality of Sanscrit forms an insurmountable objection : 
 for Sir W. Jones has with the greatest justice observed that " the 
 Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful 
 structure ; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, 
 and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them 
 a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of 
 grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident ; so 
 strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, 
 without believing them to have sprung from some common source, 
 which, perhaps, no longer exists." * It is, therefore, the structure of 
 Sanscrit which so peculiarly distinguishes it from other languages, 
 and which impresses on it a character of originality which cannot 
 be disputed ; for it contains no exotic terms, and, though I have 
 before observed that its roots are evidently the work of grammarians, 
 and not a constituent part of the language, still its words show that 
 
 * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 26. 
 
 c c 
 
194 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 they have been all formed solely by the people who spoke it, according 
 to some well known principle. * 
 
 These roots, indeed, are a strong proof of the great diligence with 
 which Sanscrit has been subjected to grammatical rules j but, as they 
 are merely monosyllables consisting of the radical letters which com- 
 pose the words that are derived from them, and have in themselves 
 no distinct meaning, it is evident that they must have been formed 
 long after the origin of the language. The suffixes and affixes, also, 
 employed in the formation of derivatives, are undoubtedly nothing 
 more than a classification by grammarians of such letters and syllables 
 of actually existing words as could not be comprised in these roots. 
 Such an analysis, however, of Sanscrit could not possibly have taken 
 place until the language was completely formed, and even perhaps 
 not until it had ceased to be a spoken tongue. The innumerable 
 Sanscrit works on philology, at the same time, show that the present 
 perfection of its grammar has been the result of a long consideration 
 of the subject, and that the multifarious rules which it exhibits could 
 never have been of any practical use to all classes of men ; but, when 
 they are understood even superficially, they fully justify this remark 
 of Mr. Forster, — " What hopes would the unremitted toil of a pro- 
 tracted life, even of one endowed with the intuitive genius, the all- 
 embracing faculties of a Sir W. Jones hold out, of attaining such an 
 incredible language, was not every step directed by etymological rules, 
 at once general, simple, and comprehensive?" f These rules relate 
 
 * It is, for instance, sufficiently evident that bkara, that which supports; bkarata, a 
 servant ; bharanium, wages ; bharaniu, a master ; bharatha, a king ; bharta, a husband ; 
 bharia, a wife ; bhara, a burden ; bhrita, hired ; bhriti, wages ; bhriij/a, a servant, are all 
 cognate words with the verb bibharti or bharati, he supports, maintains, or bears : but no 
 other person than a grammarian would have thought of deriving all these words from the 
 monosyllable bhri. 
 
 -f- Dedication to his Sanscrit Grammar. Mr. Forster had just before observed that the 
 roots amount to about two thousand four or five hundred : — " Each of these roots admits 
 of twenty-five or six of the suffixes termed kridantas, and forms as many verbal nouns, 
 participles, and the like, that is, above sixty thousand ; these roots take likewise one or 
 more of the particles as prefixes and become new roots, with a different signification, in 
 which state they also receive the above kridanta suffixes, and, consequently, form an equal 
 number of nouns with each particle. 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. jg^ 
 
 to the fixed application of 958 increments to 2,500 roots ; but it must 
 be obvious that, though this incalculable means of composition might 
 still further add to the multitude of Sanscrit words, and might define 
 the minutest modification of the same idea, it could not increase the 
 copiousness of the original ideas which the primitive words denoted. 
 It is not, consequently, either in the variety or comprehensiveness of 
 expression that the Sanscrit surpasses the Greek and Latin, because 
 in these respects it is inferior to each of them, but in the phi- 
 lological beauties of originality, and the synthetical precision of its 
 structure. 
 
 It is not, however, indispensable that a language should admit of 
 the majority of its words being decompounded and traced up to 
 simpler elements ; because the Persian evinces that a very copious 
 language may be formed without the assistance of modifying the 
 primitive by means of suffixes : but, when the whole frame and 
 analogy of the speech of any people, as that of the Greeks and 
 Romans, prove beyond a doubt that many of the words exist not 
 in their simplest state, it must be concluded that composition had 
 been essential to its formation j and, whenever, therefore, these simpler 
 elements cannot be discovered in the tongue itself, it as necessarily 
 
 " The whole of the above roots are capable of receiving five modifications, most of them 
 eleven, and form causals, desideratives, repetitives, causal desideratives, and so forth, all of 
 which admit of the foregoing verbal suffixes, and most of them of being preceded by the 
 particles. 
 
 " And lastly, these roots become verbs, taking either the active form, called the parismi 
 pad, or the middle form, denominated atmane pad ; they may likewise receive the above 
 five or eleven modifications of causals, &c, in their capacities of verbs, and may be likewise 
 preceded by the particles. All nouns may become verbs, by the addition of a class of 
 suffixes called < lid^hu.' All roots, besides, admit of the passive voice. 
 
 " Every verb has ten tenses in each form, that is, active or middle, and also the passive 
 voice ; each tense has three numbers, and each number three persons. 
 
 " Every noun admits of a variety of the suffixes termed ' tadd y hita,' as do the pronouns, 
 cardinal numbers, the simple affirmative adjectives, and those observed to be of doubtful 
 origin. 
 
 " Every substantive has three numbers, and eight inflections in each, and every adjective 
 has three degrees of comparison, three genders in each, and the cases and numbers like 
 substantives." 
 
 cc 2 
 
196 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 follows that it is not an original one, but derived from some other 
 language, It is in this respect that Sanscrit differs so materially 
 from Greek and Latin ; for, as the labours of the Sanscrit grammarians 
 have proved, it admits of being completely analysed by merely 
 reducing its compound words to certain simple elements which exist 
 in the language itself: but the Greek and Latin sufficiently prove 
 that this could not have been the case had the Sanscrit been derived 
 from any other language * ; for they contain many words that admit 
 not of analysis, and the irregularities that occur in their grammatical 
 systems evince that they have not been formed according to any lead- 
 ing and uniform principles. When, therefore, these circumstances are 
 considered, it would seem irresistibly to follow that Sanscrit itself is 
 that primitive language from which Greek, Latin, and the mother 
 of the Teutonic dialects were originally derived. 
 
 This conclusion would be conformable to the opinion of the Hindus; 
 for they believe that India was the part of the world first peopled, and 
 their sacred books contain accounts of many emigrations from it in all 
 directions. They, consequently, would find no difficulty in explaining 
 the cause which has introduced Sanscrit words into the languages of 
 
 * M. Klaproth, indeed, remarks that " the Sanscrit, which is generally considered as 
 so old a language, betrays in itself every appearance of recent formation, and is, in truth, a 
 remarkably modern language^ the newness of which is disguised and concealed by its roots." 
 — Asia Potyglotta, p. 45. But, as he has not explained on what grounds this oracular 
 observation rests, I cannot form any conjecture respecting the reason which may have led 
 him to such a conclusion. Like other writers, however, M. Klaproth seems to allow his 
 opinions to be influenced entirely by a favourite hypothesis ; for otherwise he would scarcely 
 have made the following remarks : — " The great similarity between the languages of this 
 people [the Indo-Germanic] has often induced antiquarians to derive them from one 
 another. This is ever the case with languages. At one time all languages were derived 
 from the Celtic of which we know nothing ; at another time they were all daughters of 
 German or Greek ; and at present their origin must be sought for in Persia or India, where 
 it is as little likely to be found as at Antwerp, which it has been attempted to identify with 
 Agyrta. It is a singular idea to suppose that languages like animals have sprung and been 
 procreated from one another ; but it is to be wished that the notion of derivation should be 
 given up, and that all languages related to each other should be considered as sisters, 
 whose parent is unknown." — Asia Potyglotta, p. 43. "That any person writing on the 
 affinity of languages should make such remarks as these must appear most extraordinary, 
 but that they are perfectly unfounded these Researches will perhaps fully evince. 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. I97 
 
 other people, as they would ascribe it to their having been descended 
 from the Hindus, and to their having preserved words of their 
 primeval tongue, although they had forgotten the civil and religious 
 institutions of their progenitors. It is, however, difficult to fix the 
 original boundaries of India ; because the Hindus describe it as having 
 been bounded on the -east and west by the sea, the land gradually 
 contracting until it terminated in a point on the south, and on the 
 north by the Himalayan mountain, which extended in a semilunar 
 form from sea to sea. The ocean thus sufficiently marks the east, 
 west, and southern boundaries ; but neither the position of the 
 Himalayah, nor of any chain of mountains connected with it, will 
 coincide with the Hindu geography : but the southern extremity of 
 the Himalayah so nearly approaches the upper and eastern part of 
 the Bay of Bengal, as to answer exactly enough to the description of 
 the Hindus, and the western extremity may be sought for in the 
 mountains of Baluchistan, extending to the Arabian Sea, while the 
 northern boundary is marked by the Hindu Cosh and the mountains 
 branching from it.* The ancient land of the Hindus would thus 
 comprise the whole of present India, with Butan, Nepal, Cab ul, 
 Kandahar, and the greatest part of Balkh : but the Hindus say that 
 the northern parts have been long occupied by barbarians, and that 
 the northern limit has in consequence been the Attack from a period 
 which they cannot specify. 
 
 On this point no satisfactory information is derived from ancient 
 writers, as they all seem to follow Herodotus in describing the country 
 to the west of the Indus, as forming part of the kingdom of Persia. 
 Strabo, however, after considering different authorities, states this to 
 be his opinion ; — " The Indus was the boundary of India and Ariana, 
 and the Persians possessed the country lying to the west of this river ; 
 but, subsequently, the Indians held great part of Ariana, having taken 
 
 * For the geography, and the Hindu legends respecting the Hindu Caucasus, see 
 Wilford's paper in the sixth volume of the Asiatic Researches. 
 
 See also, for the northern parts of ancient India, the map prefixed to Elphinstone's 
 Cabul, and the memoir of its construction. 
 
198 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 it from the Persians." * It appears, also, from Firishtah, that, as late as 
 A. D. 1000., Cabul was in possession of a Hindu prince, who opposed 
 the invasion of Mahmud of Ghoznin : but the want of Hindu histories 
 renders it impossible to determine the precise period to which the 
 numerous Hindu legends relate, the scene of which is unquestionably 
 laid in countries to the north and west of the Indus. 
 
 It must, therefore, appear surprising that the language of Pers ia 
 which country in either case was conterminous to India, should be 
 so radically dissimilar from Sanscrit : but, as this circumstance will not 
 perhaps after the preceding remarks be disputed, this dissimilarity 
 proves that the world could not have been peopled from India; 
 because, in this case, Persia must have been also occupied by a Hindu 
 race, and, as mutual intercourse would probably have been maintained 
 between a kindred people, the Sanscrit ought to have been preserved 
 in its greatest purity in Persia. It is, on the contrary, in Greece and 
 Italy, both situated to the west of India and Persia, that the languages 
 exhibit a striking likeness of their parent, not only in similarity of 
 numerous words, but in absolute identity of grammatical structure. 
 At the same time, Persian contains too many identical terms with 
 Sanscrit, to admit of its being supposed that they could have been 
 introduced into that country either by commerce or war. Were, 
 indeed, credit given to ancient writers, invasion and conquest were 
 on the side of the Persians, and, consequently, some Persian words 
 ought to be found in Sanscrit j but, as this is not the case, and as the 
 words belonging to both tongues can be analysed and reduced to 
 simpler elements, and have cognate terms in Sanscrit only, it 
 necessarily follows that the latter must have been the original lan- 
 guage. The Teutonic dialects, also, though now dissimilar from 
 Sanscrit in their grammatical structure, still contain many Sanscrit 
 words, while in their early state they appear to have been entirely free 
 from all other foreign terms. If, therefore, I have rendered it pro- 
 bable that Greek, Latin, and Thracian, or the mother of the Teutonic 
 dialects, were all originally the same language, that spoken in Asia 
 
 * Strabo, p. 688, 689. 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. I99 
 
 Minor about thirteen or fourteen hundred years before the Christian 
 era, it merely remains to place the people who then spoke Sanscrit 
 in a centrical position between Persia and Asia Minor, or, in other 
 words, in that very country in which were established the Babylonian 
 and Assyrian empires. 
 
 According to this supposition, the similarity between Sanscrit and 
 the languages of Europe is explained in a manner the most simple 
 and probable ; for, Asia Minor being peopled from Babylonia, the 
 inhabitants preserved the grammatical structure of their mother 
 tongue, but, from causes now impossible to ascertain, could not 
 prevent a great change from taking place in the words of which it was 
 originally composed. In migrating from Asia Minor, the Greeks 
 retained the grammatical structure with little alteration, but among 
 the Latins it became considerably affected, and among the Teutonic 
 people it has been in a great measure lost * : but the Sanscrit words are 
 as numerous in Latin and the Teutonic dialects as in Greek. Persia, 
 however, forms a difficulty to this conjecture ; for, from its position, it 
 ought to have been peopled from Babylonia in the same manner as 
 Asia Minor, and to have preserved, from its secluded situation, the 
 grammatical structure of Sanscrit in even greater purity. The solution 
 of this difficulty would be easy, could it be supposed that the Persian 
 language had lost its grammatical inflections from the same causes 
 that the Teutonic dialects have acquired their present simplicity. But 
 not even to support my own hypothesis can I admit that the structure 
 and general analogy of the Persian could ever have been the same as 
 Sanscrit ; for, had it been so, no instance exists of such a dissimilarity 
 having taken place in languages once identical, nor can any cause be 
 conceived, except that of foreign influence which never was exerted 
 in that country, which could effect it. Persia, therefore, may have 
 been originally, at a remote period, peopled from Babylonia ; but its 
 inhabitants, in whatever manner, acquired a language perfectly distinct 
 from Sanscrit. Subsequently, however, it is equally evident that a 
 
 * For further remarks on this point see p. 263. 
 
200 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 colony speaking Sanscrit must have been established and possessed 
 considerable influence in Persia ; for by no other means could so many 
 Sanscrit words, denoting such various ideas, have been introduced into 
 its language. 
 
 The very track, therefore, by which a people speaking Sanscrit 
 would have proceeded from Babylonia to India, is thus distinctly 
 pointed out, after a lapse of 3000 years, by the words of their language, 
 which are still preserved in the speech of the only nation that 
 intervenes between the two countries. The causes that may have 
 occasioned this migration, or the manner in which it was conducted, 
 are scarcely subjects of conjecture : but, if the whole of ancient 
 history be considered, the only event that could have occasioned it 
 was the conquest of the Babylonian empire by Ninus. On this 
 subversion of the ancient dynasty, a new ruler may have introduced 
 new customs, and it would probably at least be his policy to diminish 
 the power and influence of the ancient nobility and priesthood. 
 Under such circumstances, what can be more likely than that these 
 classes, becoming dissatisfied, should withdraw themselves from the 
 territories of their new sovereign, and should seek in other countries 
 for that liberty and that distinction which they could no longer enjoy 
 in their native land? Part of these emigrants may have proceeded 
 into Asia Minor ; but, from this country being so similar in language 
 and religion to Babylonia, any influence which they might have 
 exerted in it would not become perceptible in the slight notices 
 which have been preserved of these distant times : but in Persia a 
 distinct language prevailed, and the residence of such a colony in it is 
 proved by the words which it communicated to the speech of its 
 inhabitants ; and in India similar emigrants succeeded in establishing 
 an influence which has endured until the present day. It seems 
 probable, therefore, that the Brahmans belonged originally to the 
 priesthood of Babylonia : and, as they no doubt brought with them 
 into India the sacred books in which their religious doctrines were 
 contained, the antiquity of the vedas and earlier Hindu works need 
 no longer be questioned ; since they were the production of those 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 201 
 
 Chaldeans, whose remote antiquity and whose knowledge and learning 
 are attested by the whole of ancient history. 
 
 It may, however, be objected, that it is highly improbable that 
 a foreign colony should have been able to extend their influence from 
 the Paropamisan mountains to Cape Comorin ; and, in particular, to 
 establish so singular an institution as that of Cast. 
 
 But, as language is the most convincing testimony, an examination 
 of the vernacular dialects of India will render it evident that Sanscrit 
 is a foreign language, which has been superinduced on them, and not 
 they on N Sanscrit. Nothing can be a stronger proof of this than that 
 they have all retained their own grammatical structure, which is 
 distinguished from that of Sanscrit by the use of postpositions in the 
 declension of nouns, and of auxiliary verbs in the conjugation of 
 verbs. * The changes, also, which Sanscrit words have undergone on 
 being naturalised in these dialects, show that these changes were not 
 made merely for the purpose of adapting them to pronunciation, but 
 in order to subject them to the grammatical rules of a language 
 already formed, f On this point, however, I prefer availing myself 
 of the opinion of the late Mr. Ellis of Madras, who was distinguished 
 for his intimate acquaintance with Sanscrit and the languages of 
 Southern India. 
 
 "The members," observes Mr. Ellis, "constituting the family of 
 languages, which may be appropriately called the dialects of Southern 
 
 * Mr. Campbell, in the Introduction to his Teloogoo Grammar, p. 19., observes : — 
 " In the course of this work, it will be obvious to the Sanscrit scholar that the declension 
 of the noun by particles or words added to it, the use of a plural pronoun applicable to the 
 first and second persons conjointly, the conjugation of the affirmative verb, the existence of 
 a negative aorist, a negative imperative, and other negative forms in the vei'b, the union of 
 the neuter and feminine genders in the singular, and of the masculine and feminine genders 
 in the plural, of the pronouns and verbs, and the whole body of the syntax, are entirely 
 unconnected with the Sanscrit." 
 
 f That is, the nominative of the Sanscrit noun and the real root of the Sanscrit verb 
 are taken, and, after occasionally suffering some slight changes, are inflected according to 
 the grammatical rules of the vernacular dialect. Thus, in the Maratha language, padma, 
 a lotus, suffers no change, but sarpa, a serpent, becomes sap, and both are declined as 
 usual; and the verb karoti, he does, from the root kri, changed by grammatical rules to 
 kar, becomes karito, and is conjugated like other Maratha verbs. 
 
 D D 
 
202 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 India, are the high and low Tamil; the Telugu, grammatical and 
 vulgar ; Carniitaca or Cannadi, ancient and modern ; Malayalma or 
 Malayalam, which after Paulinus a St. Bartholomaso may be divided 
 into Sanscrit (Grandonico-Malabarica) and common Malayalam, 
 though the former differs from the latter only in introducing Sanscrit 
 terms and forms in unrestrained profusion ; and the Tuluva, the 
 native speech of that part of the country to which in our maps the 
 
 name of Canara is confined The Telugu, to which attention is 
 
 here more specially directed, is formed from its own roots, which, in 
 general, have no connexion with the Sanscrit, nor with those of any 
 other language, the cognate dialects of Southern India, the Tamil, 
 Cannadi, &c, excepted, with which, allowing for the occasional variation 
 of consimilar sounds, they generally agree ; the actual difference in 
 the three dialects here mentioned is, in fact, to be found only in the 
 affixes used in the formation of words from the roots ; the roots 
 themselves are not similar merely, but the same." * Again, " In 
 the preceding extracts the author, supported by due authority, teaches, 
 that rejecting direct and indirect derivatives from the Sanscrit, and 
 words borrowed from foreign languages, what remains is the pure 
 native language of the land ; this constitutes the great body of the 
 [Telugu] tongue, and is capable of expressing every mental and bodily 
 operation, every possible relation and existing thing ; for, with the 
 exception of some religious and technical terms, no word of Sanscrit 
 derivation is necessary to the Telugu. This pure native language of 
 the land, allowing for dialectic differences and variations of termi- 
 nation, is, with the Telugu, common to the Tamil, Cannadi, and the 
 other dialects of Southern India." f 
 
 Mr. Ellis does not specify the northern boundary of these southern 
 
 * Note to the Introduction to Campbell's Teloogoo Grammar, p. 3. 
 
 f Ibid. p. 18. In commencing his remarks, Mr. Ellis quotes the opinions of Carey, 
 Wilkins, and Colebrooke, and then thus proceeds : — "It is the intent of the following 
 observations to show that the statements contained in the preceding quotations are not 
 correct; that neither the Tamil, the Telugu, nor any of their cognate dialects, are 
 derivations from the Sanscrit ; that the latter, however it may contribute to their polish, 
 is not necessary for their existence, and that they form a distinct family of languages, with 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 203 
 
 languages ; but in that part of India which is situated to the north of 
 the river Krishna, and which comprises the Deccan and Hindustan 
 Proper, other languages prevail, entirely distinct from the former in 
 words, but similar in their grammatical system. Their particular 
 nature, however, has attracted scarcely any attention, and I have not, 
 therefore, the means of describing them with accuracy, or of specifying 
 the limits of the countries in which they are spoken.* But Mr. 
 Colebrooke has made the following observations with respect to the one 
 of most importance : — " The Canyacubjas possessed a great empire, 
 the metropolis of which was the ancient city of Canyacubja or Canqj. 
 Theirs seems to be the language which forms the groundwork of 
 modern Hindustani, and which is known by the appellation of Hindi 
 or Hindevi. Two dialects of it may be easily distinguished ; one more 
 refined, the other less so. To this last the name of Hindi is some- 
 times restricted, while the other is often confounded with Pracrit. 
 Numerous poems have been composed in both dialects, not only 
 before the Hindustani was ingrafted on the Hindi by a large inter- 
 mixture of Persian ; but also in very modern times, by Muhammedan 
 as well as Hindu poets. Dohras or detached couplets, and Cabits 
 or stanzas, in the Hindevi, may be found among the works of 
 Musleman authors : it will be sufficient to instance those of Melic 
 
 which the Sanscrit has, in later times especially, intermixed, but with which it has no 
 radical connection." 
 
 These very correct remarks apply with equal justness to the vernacular dialects spoken 
 to the north of the river Krishna. 
 
 * The vernacular dialects with which I have become acquainted during my residence 
 in India are the Maratha, Gurjrati, and the Hindi to the north of the Krishna, and the 
 Malayalam to the south of that river. The country in which the first of these is spoken 
 is bouVided on the east by the Satpur range of mountains ; on the north by a line drawn 
 from the northern termination of these mountains to Daman ; on the west from Daman to 
 Goa by the sea ; and on the south from Goa to near Chanda on the Warda, and thence 
 along that river to the Satpur mountains. The Gurjrati is confined to the province of 
 Gurjrat, which extends from Daman on the south to the confines of Ajmere on the 
 north, and is bounded on the east by Malwa and Kandeish, and on the west by the sea 
 and Cutch. But I am not acquainted with the precise limits in which the Hindi at present 
 prevails. 
 
 D D 2 
 
204 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 Muhammed Jaisi, Muhammed Afzel, and Amirkhan Anjam. Most 
 poems in this dialect are, however, the exclusive production of Hindu 
 poets. On examining them, the affinity of Hindi with the Sanscrit lan- 
 guage is peculiarly striking : and no person acquainted with both can 
 hesitate in affirming that Hindi is chiefly borrowed from Sanscrit. Many 
 words, of which the etymology shows them to be the purest Sanscrit, 
 are received unaltered ; many more undergo no change but that of 
 making the final vowel silent : a still greater number exhibit no other 
 difference than what arises from the uniform permutation of certain 
 letters ; the rest, too, with comparatively few exceptions, may be easily 
 traced to a Sanscrit origin. That this is the root from which Hindi 
 has sprung (not Hindi the dialect whence Sanscrit has been refined) 
 may be proved by etymology, the analogy of which is lost in Hindi, 
 and preserved in Sanscrit. A few examples will render this evident. 
 .... These examples might be easily multiplied, but unprofitably, I 
 fear : for, after proving that nine tenths of the Hindi dialect may 
 be traced back to the Sanscrit idiom, there yet remains the difficulty 
 of accounting for the remaining tenth, which is, perhaps, the basis of 
 the Hindi language. Sir William Jones thought it so ; and he thence 
 inferred that the pure Hindi was primeval in Upper India, into which 
 the Sanscrit was introduced by conquerors from other kingdoms in 
 some very remote age. This opinion I do not mean to controvert. 
 I only contend that, where similar words are found in both languages, 
 the Hindi has borrowed from Sanscrit, rather than the Sanscrit 
 from Hindi. It may be remarked, too, that in most countries the 
 progress has been from languages rich in inflections, to dialects simple 
 in their structure. In modern idioms, auxiliary verbs and appendant 
 particles supply the place of numerous inflections of the root. It may 
 for this reason be doubted whether the present structure of the Hindi 
 tongue be not a modern refinement. But the question, which has 
 been here hinted rather than discussed, can be decided only by a 
 careful examination of the oldest compositions that are now extant in 
 the Hindi dialect. Until some person execute this task, a doubt must 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 205 
 
 remain, whether the groundwork of Hindi, and, consequently, of 
 Hindustani, be wholly distinct from that of Sanscrit." * 
 
 It hence seems obvious that the opinion of Mr. Colebrooke, respect- 
 ing the derivation of Hindi from Sanscrit, was formed from the perusal 
 of Hindi works f, and not from an examination of this dialect as stil! 
 spoken in a considerable part of Upper India: for Dr. Hunter's 
 Hindustani Dictionary ^ contains upwards of 6000 Hindi words, which 
 have not the remotest resemblance to Sanscrit ; and, consequently, 
 according to Mr. Colebrooke's supposition, this language in its original 
 state must have contained 60,000 words. But the very structure of 
 Hindi, which admits not of composition or even the modification to 
 any extent of the primitive, renders such a copiousness evidently 
 impossible ; and, as Hindustani, which is composed of Hindi, Persian, 
 and Arabic, contains not more than 18,000 words, it may be reasonably 
 concluded that at least one half of the Hindi still continues in use ; 
 and, also, that Hindi is a language radically dissimilar from Sanscrit, 
 from which it has not been derived, nor has the Sanscrit been refined 
 from it. 
 
 This point is of the utmost importance, because the Hindi is the 
 
 * Asiatic Researches, 8vo, vol. vii. p. 220. 
 
 f The works in all the vernacular dialects of India are written in a style, which, on 
 on account of the profuse employment of Sanscrit words, and of such as are peculiar to 
 poetry, is totally distinct, even often in its grammatical inflections, from the same dialect 
 as spoken. In ascertaining, therefore, the affinity between these dialects and Sanscrit, all 
 words belonging to the latter language ought to be previously excluded. Mr. Colebrooke 
 has evidently not attended to this circumstance, and hence his reasoning on the nature of 
 the Hindi is somewhat inconsistent, and, no doubt, different from what it would have been 
 had he directed his attention to the basis of this dialect, and not to the Sanscrit words 
 which have been introduced into it. Because, on the same grounds, the existence in India 
 of any language distinct from Sanscrit might be equally disputed, as all the vernacular 
 dialects abound in Sanscrit words ; but they all at the same time present a basis radically 
 dissimilar from it. 
 
 % This dictionary is stated in the titlepage to have been originally compiled by Captain 
 Joseph Taylor for his own use, and to have been revised and prepared for the press, with 
 the assistance of learned natives in the college of Fort William, by Dr. William Hunter. 
 In it the language to which each word belongs is carefully marked by an appropriate letter; 
 and, to the etymological part of the work, the only objection that can be made is that n 
 good many of the derivations of Hindi words from Sanscrit seem forced, and by no means 
 obvious. 
 
206 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 basis of the present Maratha and Gurjrati, and, if I be not mistaken, 
 of all the dialects of Northern India. Numerous words, also, are no 
 doubt preserved in each of these dialects, which have been lost in the 
 others ; but as they all bear a cognate form which cannot be mistaken, 
 since it resembles neither Sanscrit, Persian, nor Arabic, the mere 
 trouble of collection and selection would, I am convinced, restore the 
 ancient language of Kanoje to its original purity, and, very probably, 
 to its original copiousness. But even the membra disjecta of this 
 language prove that it is radically distinct from Sanscrit ; for, were 
 it even admitted that the speech of any people, unaffected by foreign 
 influence, becomes simplified in the course of ages, a change, however, 
 of which no instance can be produced, it would still remain to explain 
 the cause of the total dissimilarity which exists in the structure of 
 Sanscrit and Hindi. The circumstance of the latter abhorring com- 
 position, while the former delights in it, is alone sufficient, according 
 to the opinion of Sir W. Jones, to establish that languages formed 
 upon such opposite principles are totally distinct, and must have 
 been invented by two different races of men. But the long estab- 
 lished influence of a powerful priesthood, and the originality and 
 purity of the Sanscrit language, sufficiently attest that the dialects of 
 Southern and Northern India could not have been introduced into 
 the country subsequent to the establishment of the Brahmans in it ; 
 they must, consequently, be considered to have been the vernacular 
 tongues of its original inhabitants : and, as the parent language of the 
 dialects of the south differs from that of the north, it would seem, also, 
 to follow, that India must have been either originally peopled by two 
 distinct races of men ; or, what is more probable, that the aborigines 
 of the north had, even prior to the immigration of the Brahminical 
 colony, been conquered by a foreign people. 
 
 Mr. Colebrooke is further of opinion that Sanscrit " has nearly 
 shared the fate of all ancient tongues, and is now become almost a 
 dead language." He adds, in reference to the manner in which words 
 are combined together in Sanscrit works, — "None but well known 
 compounds would be used by any speaker who wished to be under- 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 207 
 
 stood ; and each word would be distinctly articulated, independently of 
 the terms that precede and follow it. Such, indeed, is the present 
 practice of those who still speak the Sanscrit language ; and they deliver 
 themselves with such fluency, as is sufficient to prove that Sanscrit may 
 have been spoken in former times with as much facility as the con- 
 temporary dialects of the Greek language, or the more modern dialects 
 of the Arabic tongue." * That the Brahmans spoke Sanscrit amongst 
 themselves cannot be doubted, since this practice exists in several 
 parts of India at this day ; and that the princes and nobles studied this 
 language seems proved by various circumstances, and that they even 
 occasionally spoke it is highly probable : but that Sanscrit was ever 
 the vernacular tongue of the great mass of the people is equally 
 disproved, by the totally distinct nature, both in words and gram- 
 matical structure, of the languages which have prevailed, notwith- 
 standing conquest and the adoption of a new religion, in the north and 
 south of India until the present day. The Brahminical colony, there- 
 fore, seem to have used in secular intercourse the dialects of the 
 country ; and it must be obvious that it was by this means alone that 
 they could have rendered Sanscrit a mysterious and sacred language, 
 and that they could have preserved it pure and unaffected by those 
 innovations to which it would have necessarily been exposed, had it 
 been attempted to introduce its use amongst the original inhabitants 
 of India. 
 
 The indisputable testimony, therefore, of language proves that at 
 some remote period two powerful kingdoms flourished, the one in the 
 north, and the other in the south of India ; which afterwards became 
 divided into a number of distinct states, each distinguished by a 
 different dialect, and by a different and independent government f : 
 
 * Asiatic Researches, 8vo, vol. vii. p. 201. 
 
 f Mr. Colebrooke observes, — " There is reason to believe that ten polished dialects 
 formerly prevailed in as many different civilized nations, who occupied all the fertile pro- 
 vinces of Hindustan and the Dekhin Without passing the limits of Hindustan, it 
 
 would be easy to collect a copious list of different dialects in the various provinces which arc 
 inhabited by the ten principal Hindu nations. The extensive region which is nearly 
 denned by the banks of the Saraswati and Ganga on the north, and which is strictly limited 
 
208 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 but it equally appears that, at the period of Alexander's invasion of 
 India, the present system of civil and religious institutions must 
 have been long established amongst the Hindus. Such a uniformity, 
 however, could not have possibly originated amongst a number of 
 independent states from any conceivable circumstances of an internal 
 nature ; for it is evidently contrary to probability to suppose that a 
 conqueror could ever have arisen in India, who was able to subdue 
 the whole of the country, from the mountains of Baluchistan to the 
 Himalaya, and from the Paropamisan mountains to Cape Comorin, 
 and to impose on the conquered people his own institutions, laws, 
 and religion : but, if it be supposed that this uniformity was 
 produced by the gradual but unwearied exertions of a foreign 
 priesthood, the conjecture becomes at once probable ; since it is 
 supported by the fact, that the propagation and success of Christianity 
 were effected in exactly the same manner. Nor is it unlikely that 
 when this priesthood had acquired influence and power, the same 
 means by which Islamism was extended over so great a part of the 
 world, may have been employed in establishing the Brahminical 
 religion in India. 
 
 The introduction, however, into so extensive a country, by a 
 foreign priesthood, of so singular an institution as that of Cast, 
 appears to present a serious difficulty ; for it seems most reasonable 
 to suppose that so marked a distinction of ranks could only originate 
 when men first formed themselves into societies, and when they 
 could not foresee the consequences that might result from it ; and 
 that its permanency ought to be attributed to that veneration 
 with which institutions, however objectionable, become invested by 
 
 by the shores of the eastern and western seas towards the south, contains fifty-seven [six] 
 provinces according to some lists, and eighty-four according to others. Each of these pro- 
 vinces has its peculiar dialect, which appears, however, in most instances to be a variety 
 only of some one among the ten principal idioms." — Asiatic Researches, 8vo, vol. vii. p. 219. 
 But from the preceding remarks it appears that even these ten idioms are reducible to 
 two principal languages, one of which anciently prevailed in the south and the other in the 
 north of India. 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 209 
 
 antiquity and long established custom. But the situation of India at 
 the time when the Brahminical colony migrated into it is unknown, 
 and no opinion, therefore, can be formed respecting the degree of 
 civilisation to which the Hindus might have then attained, or the 
 extent and power of the states into which the country might have been 
 then divided. It must, also, be remarked that, amongst all nations, before 
 luxury has introduced artificial wants, the division of the people into 
 priests, king, and nobles, merchants and agriculturists, artificers and 
 servants, has been most distinctly marked, and that these different 
 classes have, in general, always intermarried with each other. In 
 India, consequently, it was merely necessary for a foreign priesthood 
 to sanctify this natural division by ascribing it to a divine origin, 
 to define its limits more precisely, and to guard against a transgression 
 of them by denunciations of consequent punishment in this world 
 and the next ; and the Hindu institution of cast would have at once 
 become established, without in the slightest degree interfering with 
 the previous customs and institutions of the people. But, if entire 
 credit could be given to the antiquity and authenticity of the sacred 
 books of the Hindus, this point would be at once decided ; for in 
 them the whole of the civil and religious institutions of India appear 
 to have been the result of one uniform system, and not the gradual 
 produce of time and circumstances. Nor, judging from the anomalous 
 laws and institutions of more civilised countries, is it possible to 
 conceive how time and circumstances could ever have produced that 
 uniformity which so peculiarly distinguishes the Brahminical code. 
 If, therefore, the uniformity of a work bespeaks the hand of a single 
 artist, it must be concluded that the existing civil and religious 
 institutions of the Hindus did not originate among themselves, but 
 were introduced, already formed and systematically arranged, by some 
 foreign influence. 
 
 I am, at the same time, perfectly aware that the antiquity of the 
 Hindu religion has been contested ; but, after the preceding remarks, 
 it will perhaps be admitted that the 339 Sanscrit words now found in 
 Greek must have passed into it before the time of Homer, and 
 
 E E 
 
210 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 that the origin of that identity of grammatical system in these two 
 languages, which is even at this day so remarkable, must be referred 
 to a still remoter period. As, therefore, it appears incontestable, from 
 the whole structure of Sanscrit, that every term expressive of an idea 
 relating to the peculiar institutions and religion of the Hindus must 
 have formed a component part of this language when it received 
 its present form, it necessarily follows that the Brahminical system 
 must have been completed in every essential part at least 1 LOO or 
 1200 years B. C. * But in a late work on Hindu Astronomy is this 
 singular assertion : — " It is by the investigation of truth, and the 
 exposure of Brahminical impositions, which can only be done through the 
 means of Astronomy, that the labours of those who are laudably 
 endeavouring to introduce true religion and morality among the 
 Hindus can have their true and beneficial effect. So long as the 
 impositions and falsehoods contained in the Hindu books, which the 
 common people are made to believe are the productions of their 
 ancient sages, are suffered to remain unexposed, little progress can be 
 expected to be made." f As I am not acquainted with the science of 
 
 * It will scarcely, I think, be denied that the name of the sacred books of their religion 
 is a word that the Brahmans would never, on any account, have changed. But veda is 
 derived from vedatt, contracted vetti, he knows, one of the verbs most commonly used in 
 Sanscrit, and from which several words are derived of equally frequent occurrence, as vidya, 
 learning ; vidivan, a learned man, &c. This verb, also, has been preserved in Greek, Latin, 
 and Anglo-Saxon, as S. vidanti, G. eidovrou, L. vident, A. S. "witon. 
 
 f Bentley's Hindu Astronomy, p. 213. 
 
 I cannot avoid quoting the following strange remarks of Mr. Bentley, for even more 
 absurd ones have obtained credit in Europe : — " In fact there is no imposition too gross ox- 
 absurd that a Hindu will not employ to gain his ends, if he can effect it by that means. 
 We see that by the means of this system of Brahma (invented in A. D. 538.), and of various 
 passages like the above, inserted in the books with a view to support it, the real Hindu 
 history and chronology have been completely destroyed ; so that Yudhisht'hira, Parasara, 
 Garga, and others, who lived from about 540 to 575 B. C, were thrown back into 
 
 antiquity about 2600 years more But to carry all this into effect, many things were 
 
 necessary. In the first place, it was requisite that all their ancient books on astronomy, 
 history, &c, that could in the smallest degree affect or contradict the new order of things, 
 should be either destroyed, new modelled, or the obnoxious passages expunged; and, 
 secondly, that others should be written or composed, having the appearance of antiquity, 
 by being fathered on ancient writers, to support, as it were, by their evidence, the existence 
 in ancient times, and through all ages, of the new system of years thus introduced This 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 2] 1 
 
 astronomy, I cannot form an opinion with respect to the correctness of 
 the conclusions which Mr. Bentley has deduced from astronomical 
 data ; but Mr. Colebrooke has remarked : — " The truth is, that the 
 observations of Hindu astronomers were ever extremely coarse and im- 
 perfect, and their practice very inferior to their theory of astronomy. 
 An improved theory, or the hint of it, was borrowed from the West ; but 
 they did not learn to make correct observations. They were content in 
 
 practice with a rude approximation We are not to try their rules 
 
 by the test of their agreement with accurate observation at any 
 assignable moment, and thence conclude that the rule and its correct 
 application are contemporaneous. This has always been the point at 
 issue between Mr. Bentley and me. He mentioned in his first essay, 
 that the age of a Hindu astronomical treatise can be so determined 
 with precision ; I have always contended that their practical astronomy 
 
 will account, not only for the books that now exist being either entirely modern, or else new 
 modelled to correspond with the new order of things, but also for the paucity of ancient 
 facts and observations that have reached our time." — Hind. Ast., p. 106. et seq. The 
 manner in which this destruction or remodelling of all the ancient books, and the composition 
 of new ones, throughout the whole of India, were effected, is thus explained by Mr. Bentley, 
 in p. 108. of the same work : — "To some it would doubtless appear as a thing impossible, 
 that a set of Brahmins in Ujein could impose such a system on the rest of India. Those, how- 
 ever, who are acquainted with the Brahminical character, know too well that every thing was 
 in their power : they were in possession of all the learning in the country, and their influence 
 was so great, that even the princes of the country were obliged to bow submission to their 
 will. Therefore, when they assembled together in convocation, to consult on the general 
 interest of the whole body, whatever resolutions they came to on that head would be univer- 
 sally adopted by the brethren ; and woe to the man that should dare oppose them, for their 
 power and influence far exceeded those of the popes in Europe, so that wherever they sent 
 their secret orders, they would be sure to be obeyed." But, with regard to such extravagant 
 and groundless suppositions, it is sufficient to remark, on the authority of Mr. Colebrooke, 
 that Mr. Bentley was unacquainted with Sanscrit, and, therefore, totally incapable of forming 
 any opinion respecting the authenticity or spuriousness of works written in that language. 
 The whole of his hypothesis, at the same time, rests entirely on an assumption which is 
 directly opposed to fact: for the Brahmans in India have never met in general convocation, 
 nor have they ever acted with one common consent; but, on the contrary, the Brahmans 
 of its different provinces have always viewed each other with jealousy, and have never met 
 together except at the courts of princes on some public occasion. It was, therefore, utterly 
 impossible for the Brahmans of Ujein to have effected that revolution in Sanscrit literature 
 which is so elaborately, but so groundlessly, described by Mr. Bentley. 
 
 E E 2 
 
212 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 has been too loose and imperfect for the application of that test, 
 except as an approximation. In one instance, by the rigorous use of 
 his test, he would have had to pronounce that the work under 
 examination is of an age yet to come (1454 years after A. D. 1799) : 
 see As. Res., vol. vi. p. 570. To avoid so monstrous an absurdity, he 
 rejected this case, and deduced a mean from the other results, varying 
 from 340 to 1105 years." * But, after this opinion of Mr. Colebrooke, 
 who is so peculiarly qualified for determining any contested point in 
 Sanscrit literature, it must be evident that conclusions founded on 
 Hindu astronomy are not of sufficient certainty or authority to 
 invalidate the incontrovertible testimony of language. 
 
 The antiquity and originality, however, of Sanscrit might appear 
 questionable, were this remark of Sir William Jones correct, — " The 
 Sanscrit of the three first Vedas (I need not here speak of the fourth), 
 that of the Manava Dherma Sastra, and that of the Puranas, differ from 
 each other in pretty exact proportion to the Latin of Numa, from 
 whose laws entire sentences are preserved, that of Appius, which we 
 see in the fragment of the Twelve Tables, and that of Cicero, or of 
 Lucretius, where he has not affected an obsolete style."j" This opinion 
 is, in part, supported by Mr. Colebrooke, who has observed, — " The 
 ancient dialect in which the Vedas are composed, and especially that 
 of the three first, is extremely difficult and obscure : and, though 
 curious, as the parent of a more polished and refined language (the 
 classical Sanscrit), its difficulties must long continue to prevent such 
 an examination of the whole Vedas, as would be requisite for extracting 
 all that is remarkable and important in those voluminous works.":]: 
 But, notwithstanding such high authority, I must still entertain doubts 
 respecting the philological correctness of this opinion ; for it appears 
 to me that the difficulty and obscurity of the Vedas and Manawa 
 Dharma Shastra proceed from the nature of the subject, and the style 
 adopted in discussing it, and not from the employment of words which 
 
 * Asiatic Journal for March 1826, p. 365. 
 t Sir William Jones's Works, vol. iii. p. 55. 
 X Asiatic Researches, vol. viii. p. 476. 
 
THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 
 
 213 
 
 have become obsolete in modern Sanscrit. The construction, also, 
 and the grammatical rules observed differ perhaps considerably 
 from those which have prevailed since the grammar of the language 
 has been so sedulously cultivated. So far, therefore, Sanscrit may 
 have been polished and refined ; but, in words, it no doubt remains 
 identically the same as when it was first introduced into India. 
 
 Reasoning, indeed, merely a priori, it must seem altogether im- 
 probable that a distinct priesthood, whose lives were dedicated to 
 learning and religion, would ever change the language in which their 
 sacred books were written, and which was employed by their order 
 alone. Unless, therefore, it can be proved that Sanscrit was at one 
 time the vernacular tongue of India, no conceivable cause could be 
 assigned for the ancient Sanscrit differing as widely from the modern, 
 as the Latin of Numa from that of Cicero. But, were there the 
 slightest grounds for this assumption, the supposed effects ought to be 
 visible in modern Sanscrit, as in this case it could not possibly exhibit 
 that perfect homogeneity of structure by which it is so peculiarly 
 distinguished. The inspection of a page or two of Cicero will at once 
 show that Latin has not the slightest pretension to originality ; but in 
 Sanscrit not an exotic term can be discovered. If, consequently, 
 words have become obsolete, in what manner were new ones invented 
 which accord so accurately with the original structure of the language ? 
 Is there, also, a single instance of any body of men discontinuing the 
 words to which they had been accustomed from their infancy, in 
 order to have the pleasure of inventing new ones? But, under this 
 assumption, if the supposed alteration in Sanscrit was not occasioned 
 by external influence, as its internal evidence most clearly proves it 
 was not, these totally improbable circumstances must have actually 
 taken place. It is further necessary to explain how 900 primitive 
 Sanscrit words, still existing in it, could have passed into five distinct 
 languages at least 900 years B. C. These and similar considerations 
 will, perhaps, evince that there are no reasons whatever for supposing 
 that Sanscrit has suffered any essential alteration since it was first 
 introduced into India. 
 
214 
 
 CHAP. XIII. 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 But, if the Sanscrit be as original a language as its internal structure 
 incontrovertible proves, and if it had received its present form before 
 the time of Homer, as the Sanscrit words in his poems unquestionably 
 attest, it must necessarily follow that it was not from Greek, Latin, Per- 
 sian, German, and English that Sanscrit received the words belonging 
 to these languages, but that these languages received them from the 
 Sanscrit. Since, also, these words are so numerous, and expressive of 
 such a variety of ideas, it must equally follow that a most intimate con- 
 nection must have at some remote period existed between the ancestors 
 of the Greeks, Romans, and Teutonic race, the Persians, and a people 
 who spoke Sanscrit. It is to account for this remarkable circumstance 
 that all hypotheses respecting the origin and affinity of languages 
 hitherto proposed are totally insufficient ; and, consequently, as the 
 causes assigned are inadequate to produce the effects alleged, these 
 hypotheses must now be considered to rest on no foundation whatever. 
 Mr. Colebrooke, however, has observed that " Sanscrit is a most 
 polished tongue, which was gradually refined, until it became fixed in 
 the classic writings of many elegant poets, most of whom are supposed 
 to have flourished in the century preceding the Christian asra. It is 
 cultivated by learned Hindus throughout India, as the language of 
 science and of literature, and as the repository of their law, civil and 
 religious. It evidently draws its origin (and some steps of its progress 
 may even now be traced) from a primeval tongue, which was gradually 
 refined in various climates, and became Sanscrit in India, Pahlavi in 
 Persia, and Greek on the shores of the Mediterranean."* But that 
 this opinion is clearly erroneous is evident from there not being 
 
 * Asiatic Researches, vol. vii. p. 200. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 215 
 
 a Sanscrit word in the Pahlvi vocabulary of Anquetil du Perron ; and 
 the poems of Homer, and the fame of preceding poets, equally prove 
 that it was not in Greece that Greek received its wonderful refinement 
 and perfection. As, also, the hymns of the Thracian Thamyris and 
 Orpheus were admired for singular sweetness even in the time of 
 Plato, it seems undeniable that the language, afterwards called Greek, 
 must have then acquired its present form ; and, consequently, this 
 question arises, Are there any indications in history, tradition, or affinity 
 of language, which evince that a primeval tongue did actually exist 
 1200 years B. C, from which Greek and Sanscrit were derived? But 
 it is evidently impossible to answer this question in the affirmative, or 
 to produce any proofs of the prevalence of such a primeval tongue ; 
 and the mere supposition, therefore, that it may have existed is not 
 sufficient to disprove the perfect originality of Sanscrit. 
 
 To refute general assertions is difficult. But, that this primeval 
 tongue could not be either Hebrew * or Celtic is evident from Sanscrit 
 containing no words that belong to either of these languages. Nor 
 could it have been Persian, which Wachter considers as the proper 
 representative of the Scythian tongue, because in that language there 
 are words which admit of decomposition, and which have cognate 
 terms in Sanscrit only, and the grammatical structure, also, of Sanscrit 
 and Persian is radically dissimilar. Where, then, are the words of this 
 primeval tongue to be found, and, if it be now extinct, how are the 
 words supposed to belong to it and to be still preserved in Sanscrit to 
 be ascertained ? For, if the cognate form of all its words, and their 
 
 * Even Mr. Townsend appears to find it impossible to identify Hebrew with Sanscrit 
 words ; for he observes, — "I might now proceed to examine and trace the affinity between 
 Sanscrit and Hebrew, which are certainly related, although not as sisters, nor as parent and 
 offspring, but for the present I forbear." — Hist, of Moses, vol. ii. p. 330. This is unkind ; 
 because it must be desirable to ascertain how far cousinship may exist among languages. 
 
 It would have been prudent, also, if Mr. Townsend had refrained from adducing any 
 examples to show that a well marked affinity exists between the Sanscrit and the Gothic : for 
 of fifty-six words which he has given, fourteen are not Sanscrit, and no person can admit 
 the identity of such words as these, — Gaelic, beatheach, Sanscrit, pasu,- G. dubhalri, S. davon 
 (not Sanscrit) ; G. moide, S. mahattara ; G. meall, S. malum ; G. bacalta, S. pafca 
 (paktum?) ; G. daighead, S. datum. Hist, of Moses, vol. ii. p. 219, 220. 
 
216 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 easy resolution on fixed principles into simpler elements existing in 
 itself, prove not the originality of a language, I know not any other 
 criteria by which this point can be determined. Whoever, therefore, 
 may be inclined to dispute the originality of Sanscrit must prove that 
 these qualities cannot be predicated of it ; because, if this postulatum 
 be once admitted, it must necessarily follow that Sanscrit has not been 
 derived from any other language. 
 
 Assuming, therefore, this point as proved, it must be further 
 remarked that the only languages in which Sanscrit words exist are 
 the Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic, and the vernacular dialects of 
 India. But, as it cannot be denied that the basis of these latter has 
 been derived from some primitive tongue radically dissimilar from 
 Sanscrit, and as the structure and grammatical system of Persian 
 prove it to be a distinct language, it seems evident that Sanscrit words 
 could not have passed into Greek, Latin, and Gothic, after the people 
 who originally spoke Sanscrit had established themselves in India. 
 The particular part, however, of the world which this people may have 
 at first inhabited is of no importance, because, wherever it may be 
 placed, the philological conclusions contained in this work would not 
 be affected by this circumstance. If, therefore, it be not admitted that 
 Babylonia was the original seat of the Sanscrit language and the 
 Sanscrit literature ; the reader may select any other country from 
 which he considers it more probable that .900 Sanscrit words could 
 have passed into the Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic languages. 
 But, as it can scarcely be contested that the Thracians, who migrated 
 from Asia Minor and occupied the country which extended from 
 Macedonia to the Euxine Sea along the shores of the Mediterranean, 
 the Hellespont, and the Thracian Bosphorus, were the ancestors of the 
 Grecian and Gothic people ; and that it was colonies from Asia Minor 
 who communicated their language to Latium and Hetruria ; it must 
 seem most probable that Asia Minor received the Sanscrit language 
 from a conterminous and not from a distant country. 
 
 On this subject it is difficult to understand the opinions of the 
 German literati who have written on the affinity of languages.' For 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 217 
 
 the earlier authors, adopting the usual interpretation of the Mosaic 
 history, considered Armenia to have been the country which was first 
 inhabited after the deluge ; but Adelung and other writers contend 
 that it was the high land of Middle Asia. In the last of which cases 
 the miracle which occasioned the confusion of languages is, if not 
 expressly, at least virtually denied ; because it seems impossible that a 
 migration from Thibet to the plain of Shinar could have taken place 
 in the period which Moses states to have elapsed from the deluge to 
 the building of the tower of Babel. But, if the world were peopled 
 from Middle Asia, a primitive tongue must have existed, and, con- 
 sequently, as its complete extinction is highly improbable, traces of 
 it ought to be found in all known languages. Adelung, however, 
 observes in his preface, — "I have no favourite idea, no hypothesis 
 to establish, and I merely state what is and how it is, without 
 concerning myself with what it might or should have been. I derive 
 not all languages from one ; Noah's ark is a closed castle to me, and 
 for me the tower of Babel may remain in perfect peace." * 
 
 M. Klaproth, also, disclaims the intention of deriving all languages 
 from one primitive tongue ; but he makes these singular remarks : — 
 " The wide dispersion of the Indo-Germanic f race took place pro- 
 bably before the flood of Noah : besides, it is the only Asiatic one 
 which appears to have descended after that event from two high 
 mountains ; namely, from the Himalaya into India and Middle Asia, 
 and on the west from the Kaukasus into Asia Minor and Europe. In 
 India this race mixed itself much with the dark-coloured aborigines, 
 and, though its speech predominated, its physical characteristics were 
 deteriorated ; as has ever been the case when a mixture has taken 
 place between a white and black or brown race ; when the physical 
 qualities of the latter, and the moral qualities of each undergo an 
 inevitable change. The brown or negro-like aborigines of India 
 
 * Adelung's Mithridates, preface, p. xi. 
 
 f Under this name M. Klaproth includes Indians, Persians, Afghans, Kurds, Modes, 
 Ossetes, Armenians, Slavonians, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, English, Greeks, 
 Romans, and all the people who speak a language derived from Latin. 
 
 F F 
 
218 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 probably saved themselves, during the flood of Noah, on the high 
 mountains of Malabar and the Ghauts. * In the dialects of the 
 southern parts of India there appears to be a number of roots and 
 words received from the aborigines, and some remains of such words 
 may perhaps be found among the wild mountain-people in the 
 
 northern parts From Kaukasus another branch of this stem seems 
 
 to have descended upon the banks of the Caspian Sea, and proceeded 
 into Media; and thence peopled Persia. Afterwards they probably 
 migrated into Asia Minor, and first into southern, and then into 
 northern Europe," f 
 
 But, if the Mosaic history be set aside, it is perfectly evident that 
 all speculations respecting the original peopling of the world can rest 
 on no foundation whatever ; for the first dawning of profane tradition 
 and history is scarcely discernible earlier than 1200 or 1300 years 
 B. C. It is impossible, therefore, to determine what may have been 
 ' the previous state of the world, or to ascertain the origin of the 
 languages which then prevailed: but, judging from their internal 
 evidence, it seems indisputable that neither Greek, Latin, nor Gothic 
 are original tongues, and, consequently, other languages must have 
 previously existed from which they were formed. One of these is 
 discoverable in Sanscrit, from which one seventh of the primitive 
 words of Greek, Latin, and Gothic have been derived, but whence did 
 the remaining six sevenths originate ? It is the same with most other 
 languages ; for it is now impossible to ascertain the source from which 
 Hebrew and Arabic have received the words not common to both, or 
 the Teutonic dialects the words which are found in one and not in all 
 of them. In the course, also, of these Researches, it has equally 
 appeared that the Sanscrit, Arabic, Persian, Tartar, and Celtic are 
 original and distinct languages which bear no relation to each other. 
 It seems, therefore, necessarily to follow that no traces of the existence 
 of a primitive tongue can now be discovered, and that all languages 
 
 * So in the original, but M. Klaproth might have known that the Ghauts were the same 
 as the mountains of Malabar. 
 f Asia Polygiotta, p. 43, 44. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 219 
 
 bear not an affinity to each other, and, consequently, that the people 
 who originally spoke them could not possibly be all branches of one 
 and the same stem. Conclusions which are so strongly supported by 
 geography, chronology, and history that they cannot be invalidated 
 by mere conjectures, which pretend not to rest on any other grounds 
 than the imagination of the system-maker. 
 
 If, however, these observations be correct, it must be admitted that 
 the filiation of languages has been hitherto misunderstood ; and that 
 their classification, in consequence, must have been equally erroneous. 
 On this last point the reviewer of Adelung's Mithridates, in the 
 Quarterly Review *, observes, — " It appears to be most convenient to 
 consider as separate languages, or as distinct species in a systematic 
 classification, all those which require to be separately studied in order 
 to be readily understood, and which have their distinct grammatical 
 flexions and constructions ; and to regard as varieties only those 
 dialects which are confessedly local and partial varieties of a language 
 
 manifestly identical In order, however, to avoid too great a 
 
 number of classes, which would arise from an inadequate comparison 
 of languages imperfectly known, it may be proper in some cases to 
 adopt a geographical character, as sufficient to define the limits of a 
 class, or its subdivision into orders. We are thus obliged to employ 
 an arrangement of a mixed nature, and this is what Professor Adelung 
 has actually done." f But the reviewer admits that a perfect natural 
 order of arrangement of languages ought to be regulated by their 
 descent from each other, and by their affinities ; and, no doubt, this 
 is the only proper manner of rendering their filiation and relation to 
 each other satisfactorily apparent. 
 
 In which case the arranging under the term Indo-European Sanscrit, 
 Median, Arabian, Greek, German, Celtic, Latin, Cantabrian, Celtic, 
 Slavic, must not only be erroneous, but must tend to create error and 
 
 * I am particularly induced to notice this article, in consequence of its having been 
 transferred in great part into the fifth volume of the supplement of the Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica under the title " Language." 
 
 f Quarterly Review, vol. x. p. 252. 
 
 F F 2 
 
220 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 confusion : for there is no such language as Median ; and. Sanscrit, 
 Arabic, and Celtic bear not the slightest relation, even geographical, 
 to each other. The subdivisions of the reviewer are equally objec- 
 tionable : because to place so well known and so long cultivated a 
 language as Persian under such an unknown term as Median is 
 contrary to every principle ; and equally so to place the vernacular 
 dialects of India* under the head of Sanscrit, as they are neither 
 derived from it, nor have in their structure any affinity with it. But, 
 in all classification of languages, the principal object ought to be the 
 conducting the mind with correctness and facility from a consideration 
 of the primitive to that of its derivatives ; or, if the parent tongue be 
 extinct, by still assigning it a place, in order that the relation which 
 its descendants bear to each other may be perfectly apparent. In the 
 annexed Table, therefore, the propriety of the arrangement will, 
 perhaps, be obvious ; for the languages contained in it are classed 
 according to their actual affinities, and not according to any geo- 
 graphical or hypothetical system. It cannot, also, be denied that, 
 although an acquaintance with any one of these languages does not 
 command the knowledge of another, still a conversancy with Latin 
 will greatly facilitate the acquisition of Sanscrit, and an Englishman will 
 learn German with more ease than an Italian, while the latter (were 
 they to study Latin as men) would no doubt acquire this language 
 with "much greater facility than the Englishman. But a knowledge 
 of Sanscrit, Latin, or English would be of no utility in facilitating the 
 acquisition of Celtic, Arabic, or Persian. Languages, therefore, so 
 totally distinct from each other ought never to be included in the 
 same class, as such an arrangement merely tends to perplex, and not 
 to facilitate a consideration of the subject. 
 
 * To include Moors (Hindustani) among these dialects is still more extraordinary : for 
 Adelung has very correctly observed that the Mongol-Indostani, or Moorish, is a mixture of 
 the vernacular dialect of Agra and Delhi with Persian and Arabic ; and, consequently, such 
 a jargon has no right to a place in a classification of languages and their subdivisions. 
 
 The Deccan, also, of the reviewer is a jargon composed of Telinga, Canara, Maratha, 
 Arabic, and Persian, occasionally used, I believe, in the province of Beejapore only, and 
 probably invented by the foreign soldiery of the Bhamani and Adil Shahi dynasties. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 FILIATION OF LANGUAGES. 
 
 221 
 
 BABYLONIAN, OR SANSCRIT. 
 
 Language of Asia Minor. 
 
 , 1 , 
 
 Latin. Greek.* Thracian, extinct. 
 
 i r i i I i 
 
 French. Italian. Spanish, &c. Anglo-Saxon. German. Swedish, &c. 
 
 SYRIA AND ARABIA. 
 
 Parent extinct. 
 
 r 1 1. 
 
 Hebrew. Arabic. Syriac, &c. 
 
 DISTINCT LANGUAGES WITHOUT AFFINITIES. 
 
 Persian in Asia. Celtic in Europe. 
 
 * I consider Greek to be the same as the language of Asia Minor, see Chapter VII., but 
 the above arrangement is necessary on account of the difference which exists between Greek 
 and the Latin and Thracian. 
 
222 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 INDIA. 
 
 North of the River Krishna. 
 Parent extinct. * 
 
 Marat'tha. 
 
 Gurjrate. 
 
 Hindi. Bengali. 
 
 1 
 Panjabi. 
 
 
 South 
 
 of the River Krishna. 
 Parent extinct, f 
 
 
 "amil. 
 
 Malayalam. 
 
 Telinga. Canara. 
 
 1 
 Tulava 
 
 In this article of the Quarterly Review, every philological error 
 which it is the object of these Researches to refute seems to have 
 been collected together with a singular precision. For the reviewer 
 observes, — " The Indo-European languages we have referred to a 
 single class, because every one of them has too great a number of 
 coincidences with some of the others, to be considered as merely 
 accidental, and many of them in terms relating to objects of such 
 a nature, that they must have been rather original than adoptive. 
 The Sanscrit, which is confessedly the parent language of India ? 
 may easily be shown to be intimately connected with the Greek, 
 Latin, and the German, although it is a great exaggeration to assert 
 anything like its identity with either of these languages." If the 
 
 * If a name be required for this language, it may be called that of Kanyakubja 
 or Kanoge. 
 
 f This language might be called Andhra, as there seems no doubt that the Telinga, or 
 Telugu, approaches the nearest to the parent tongue ; and the use of the Sanscrit word 
 would leave the vernacular term as the distinctive appellation of the Telinga dialect. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 223 
 
 term identical be here used in its strict sense, I am not aware that 
 any writer ever expressed such an opinion, or ever contended for 
 more than what the reviewer himself admits. But the slightest 
 knowledge of Sanscrit and the vernacular dialects of India would 
 have prevented Adelung from hazarding such a remark as this, and 
 the reviewer from so implicitly adopting it, — " The Sanscrit, even 
 in its earliest state, can scarcely have been altogether uniform through- 
 out all the countries in which it was spoken, and it has degenerated 
 by degrees into a great diversity of modern dialects." * Such, how- 
 ever, is invariably the consequence of a writer of reputation discuss- 
 ing a subject with which he is unacquainted ; for, however erroneous 
 may be the opinions respecting it which he expresses, they are certain 
 of being adopted by other persons : but the reviewer might have 
 been aware that there were not at the time when Adelung wrote, 
 nor are there even now, materials before the public sufficient to 
 enable the most ingenious and best qualified philologist to form a 
 correct judgment of the languages of India, if he be himself actually 
 unacquainted with them. 
 
 It would, however, be a tedious repetition of preceding remarks, 
 were I to notice all the errors which are, in my opinion, contained 
 in this article ; and I find it impossible to ascertain any leading 
 principles by which the reviewer's classification of languages, or his 
 observations respecting their origin, have been regulated. For he 
 adopts none of the hypotheses before discussed, nor does he 
 substitute any new system in their place ; but he concurs in opinion 
 with Adelung, that " Greek can only have been immediately derived from 
 the language of the neighbouring Thracians and Pelasgians, who seem 
 to have come originally from the middle of Asia through the countries 
 
 * Experience proves, on the contrary, that as mankind unite into larger bodies, the 
 dialects of different tribes become amalgamated into one uniform language, and no instance 
 can be produced of an improved language degenerating of itself into a number of dialects. 
 Foreign influence, as in the case of Latin, or the subsequent division of a people once thus 
 united into distinct and independent communities or states, may effect this, but nothing 
 else will ever occasion such a change. 
 
224 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 north of the Black Sea, and to have occupied part of Asia Minor as 
 well as Greece and Thrace." He also thinks that " with the German 
 it is easy to find a number of very near approaches to identity, even 
 in the Celtic which can be proved to be prior to the date of any 
 known or supposed mixture ;" and that the Latin is too evidently 
 derived from the Celtic mixed with Greek, to require particular 
 comparison. He likewise, with Adelung, considers the Thracians 
 to be a distinct people from the Germans ; and the reviewer seems 
 even to suppose that the Germans and Goths were different people. 
 
 But, if the assumption of Adelung that the world was peopled from 
 Middle Asia be unfounded, it must necessarily follow that all opinions 
 respecting the origin of nations and their languages, which depend 
 on this assumption alone, must be equally groundless. There exists 
 not, however, the slightest indication in any ancient author that the 
 earlier races of mankind had ever occupied Middle Asia ; and, had 
 this been the actual case, it seems impossible that no fabulous or 
 traditionary recollections of such a memorable circumstance should 
 have been preserved, and that, on the contrary, the very existence 
 of this country should have been unknown to the earliest writers. 
 This assumption, also, rests on another assumption, for Adelung is 
 obliged to argue in this manner : — " That all these principal races 
 possessed peculiar languages distinct from each other is at once 
 evinced by comparing their remains together. Besides, theory and 
 experience prove that every language is so changed, according to the 
 extent of time and space, that at their extreme limits new languages 
 spontaneously form themselves out of it. For it is a fact attested by 
 nature, as far as this earth is known, that one single language cannot 
 predominate in a part of the world which is 150,000 miles square. 
 In remote antiquity, also, mankind was divided into a number of 
 independent tribes, who, from natural incompatibility, avoided all 
 intercourse and connection ; and, consequently, a greater difference 
 would have taken place in their languages and dialects than if they 
 had been united into larger bodies. It is, therefore, easy to evince 
 that the Iberian, the Celtic, the German, the Thracian, the Slavonian, 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 225 
 
 and the Finnish were formerly, that is, at the commencement of our 
 history, as distinct languages as their daughters are at the present 
 day." * 
 
 But this reasoning is evidently erroneous ; for experience proves 
 that languages do not spontaneously form themselves, nor does a 
 people change its mother tongue unless compelled to do so by foreign 
 influence. From the time, therefore, that a language is once formed 
 it will continue essentially the same, as long as the people speaking 
 it remain the same ; and neither space nor time would of themselves 
 occasion any alteration. The Greek was certainly not indigenous to 
 Greece ; and yet, from the time of Thamyras and Orpheus to the 
 capture of Constantinople, during the course of 2500 years, and during 
 all the vicissitudes of so long an interval, it remained in every respect 
 the same language. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that the 
 Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Sanscrit, and pure Celtic are in essentially 
 the same state at the present day as they were 3000 years ago. If, 
 therefore, mankind be the descendants of Noah and his sons, and 
 if they originally inhabited Middle Asia, they must have all originally 
 spoken the same language; and, consequently, if the world were 
 peopled by migrations from that country, the colonists, however they 
 might have improved the parent tongue by the invention of new terms 
 to express new ideas, could not possibly have had any motive for 
 changing the language to which they had been accustomed from their 
 : nfancy, and by means of which alone they could have made them- 
 selves intelligible to each other. On this supposition, also, in no part 
 of the world were there any aborigines, whose speech might have 
 exerted an influence over that of the immigrants and hence, as no 
 conceivable cause can be assigned which could have produced any 
 alteration in it, undeniable traces of this primitive tongue ought to 
 be found, even at this day, in all known languages. But, as no 
 identical terms can be found in Sanscrit, Arabic, Celtic, the 
 dialects of Tartary, and, perhaps, other tongues, and as it is altogether 
 unsupported by tradition and history, it must necessarily follow that 
 
 * Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 7. 
 G G 
 
226 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 the hypothesis of Adelung, and his account of the origin of nations 
 and languages, rest on no grounds whatever. 
 
 The affinities, also, ascribed by the reviewer to Celtic, have been, 
 perhaps, sufficiently disproved in a former part of this work : but it is 
 singular that a professed critic should quote Cour de Gebelin as 
 authority on this subject j for his identifications of Celtic words with 
 those of other languages err against every principle of etymology, 
 and deserve, therefore, the censure and not the approbation of 
 criticism. It would, however, have been very desirable, had the 
 reviewer explained where that Celtic was to be found, which was 
 prior to the date of any known or supposed mixture with Gothic and 
 Latin ; because the difficulty of forming a decisive opinion respecting 
 the affinities of this language, proceeds entirely from the great number 
 of apparently exotic words which it contains. For, if it could be 
 proved that the Gothic and Latin words that now abound in it were 
 originally Celtic, it must be at once admitted that it was from this 
 language that Latin and the Teutonic dialects derived their origin: 
 but, until this is satisfactorily established, it must be concluded that 
 conquest and the introduction of a new religion exerted the same 
 influence in Gaul, Britain, and Ireland, that they have done in every 
 other part of the world ; and, consequently, that the Gothic and 
 Latin words now found in Celtic are exotic and not original. * 
 
 The reviewer's opinion respecting the Arabian family is equally 
 inaccurate. For he remarks that, " though not intimately connected 
 with the European languages, it is well known to have afforded some 
 
 * The author of the Vindication of the Celts, however, asserts, in p. 57., " that the Welsh 
 contains above 20,000 words similar to the Greek," and gives as examples such words as 
 these : — W. ambylu, G. ot^Xvm ; W. dagru, G. Saxpuw ; W. deuddeg, G. SwSsxa ; 
 W. dianghelu, G. SiayyeAAw ; W. dyddyscu, G. MavKM ; W. garan, G. yepuvo; ; W. haredd, 
 G. ocipsa-is ; W. llaith, G. Aijflij ; W. mel, G. jw.eA* ; W. genad, G. yevenj. But he does not 
 mention whether these words are in common use or not ; and the mere inspection of 
 the examples given by this writer is sufficient to evince that they are not such primitive 
 words as might have remained in any two languages derived from a common origin, but 
 evidently such as were likely to be communicated by the missionaries of a new religion, 
 who were obliged to remedy the defects of the vernacular tongue by the introduction of 
 numerous foreign terms. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 227 
 
 few words to the Greek and Latin : and it has, also, some terms in 
 common with the Sanscrit*, though apparently fewer than German." 
 But the latter part of this remark is altogether erroneous ; and the 
 former is equally so, unless such etymologies as these are admitted as 
 proofs in support of it: — Hebrew, ebas, saginavit ; Greek, £o<ncw; 
 Latin, pasco : H. ebek, pulvis ; G. irvypvi : H. ahab, amavit ; G. uyocnuu : 
 Arabic, silf, coaffinis; G. ahxtpog: H. nir, lux; G. Xetgiov : H. arab, in- 
 sidiatus est, G. u^na.'Qa : H. ael, cervus ; G. eX<x<pos : H. azen, auscultavit ; 
 
 Q.ovag: H. butz, bySSUS ; G. xXxGoitrr^ov : H. bor, arsit ; G. ^vj^uXXog:' 
 
 H. shekar, mentitus est ; L. scurra : H. shehad, testis ; L. testis : H. 
 
 tsar, lotus ; L. tessera : H. sherat, ministerium ; L. sartago : H, lahat, 
 
 Jlamma ; L. laterna : H. lehab, fiamma ; L. lampas : H. ebeh, densus 
 
 fuit ; L. opacus : H. aneb, uva ; L. uva : H. ezar, juvit ; L. uxor : H. 
 
 tur, explanavit ; L. tiro, f 
 
 According to either the Scythian, the Celtic, or the Gothic hypo- 
 thesis, no difficulty presents itself in accounting for the original 
 peopling of Germany ; but the supposition of Adelung, adopted by 
 his reviewer, that this country was first occupied at some remote 
 period by emigrants from Middle Asia, is much too improbable to be 
 admitted. For it is impossible to read the description of the state of 
 Germany in the first century of the Christian era, as given by Tacitus, 
 without being convinced that this country had been but recently 
 peopled, and that its inhabitants had no pretensions to that remote 
 antiquity which is ascribed to them by Adelung. " Terra," says that 
 celebrated historian, " etsi aliquando specie differt, in universum tamen 
 aut sylvis horrida aut paludibus fceda : humidior qua Gallias, ventosior 
 qua Noricum ac Pannoniam aspicit : satis ferax, frugiferarum arborum 
 impatiens, pecorum fcecunda, sed plerumque improcera. Ne armentis 
 
 * The examples given by the reviewer are, Chaldaic, bar, city ; Sanscrit, bara, buri 
 (there is no such Sanscrit word as this, but it may be intended fox pari); German, burg: 
 Hebrew, ben, son ; Sanscrit, bun (this word is not Sanscrit), child : Hebrew, esh ,• Chaldaic, 
 eshta, fire ,- Sanscrit, aster (not Sanscrit) : Hebrew, ish, man ; Sanscrit, isha, man or 
 lord (this word never signifies man in Sanscrit). 
 
 f These few examples, which might have been greatly increased, are taken from 
 Townsend's History of Moses, and Cour de Gebelin's Monde Primitif. 
 
 G G 2 
 
228 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 quidem suus honor, aut gloria frontis, numero gaudent, eaeque solse 
 et gratissimse opes sunt. Argentum et aurum propitii an irati dii 
 
 negaverint, dubito Nullas Germanorum populis urbes habitari, 
 
 satis notum est, ne pati quidem inter se junctas sedes Tegumen 
 
 omnibus sagum, fibula, aut si desit, spina, consertum ; caetera intecti, 
 totos dies juxta focum atque ignem agunt." 
 
 Probability, however, and consonancy with the indications afforded 
 by history, tradition, affinity of language, or even geographical position, 
 are restrictions much too inconvenient to be in the slightest decree 
 regarded by the framers or supporters of a hypothesis. For the 
 following is the manner in which Adelung explains the system which 
 he maintains : — " Europe is indebted for its inhabitants to Asia ; for 
 Middle Asia was the ancient and abundant nursery of mankind, from 
 which the northern parts of Asia, Europe, and America were peopled : 
 but Africa seems to have received its inhabitants from the south-west 
 of Asia. It is, also, probable that migration proceeded by land, as 
 this was the mode which nature herself pointed out ; as it was not 
 until a very late period that navigation acquired that perfection which 
 could have induced the different tribes, with their families and herds, 
 to trust themselves to so perilous an element as the sea. These 
 migrations, however, lie deeply concealed in the darkness of antiquity, 
 but many circumstances render them apparent ; since, at the com- 
 mencement of history, the whole of Europe from the Don to the Tagus 
 was occupied by people different in race and language, in consequence 
 of the great intermixtures and revolutions which they had undergone. 
 But among them we find six principal races, distinguished from each 
 other by their origin * and their languages, which possessed Europe 
 from west to east in the following order : — 1 . Iberians with the Can- 
 tabrians in Spain, part of Gaul, and on the coasts of the Mediterranean 
 as far as Italy. 2. Celts in Gaul, the British Isles, the country 
 between the Danube and the Alps, and part of Italy. 3. Germans 
 between the Rhine, the Danube, and the Vistula, as far as the remotest 
 
 * So in the original, herkunft ,■ but, if they all originally migrated from Middle Asia, 
 their origin must have been the same. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 229 
 
 parts of the north. 4. Thracians with the Illyrians in the south-east 
 of Europe and Western Asia. 5. Slaves in the north, and, 6. Finns 
 in the north-east of Europe. In this order was Europe first occupied 
 by these races, and in this manner did a continual accession of 
 numbers and a successive impulse from the east propel the first 
 occupants towards the west, until natural boundaries prevented all 
 further retrogression; and these races finally and permanently retained 
 the countries which I have just described, and in which their de- 
 scendants are, in a great measure, to be found at the present day." * 
 
 But this system, as far as it relates to the Germans, is a once refuted 
 by the undeniable fact that German, even in its most ancient state, 
 is not an original language, and, consequently, the Germans cannot be 
 admitted to be a primitive and unmixed race. It is in vain that 
 Adelung contends that, " if we consider all the people who inhabit 
 the country situated within the above-mentioned limits (viz. from the 
 Danube on the south to the farthest north, and from the Rhine on the 
 west to the Vistula on the east) as one whole, we must decide that 
 they are a primitive and self-existing race, perfectly distinct from all 
 
 their neighbours That these people should originally have been 
 
 connected with other ancient and more distant people is apparent 
 from the very nature of things, and is also proved by identical terms 
 which still remain in their languages ; but the time of this remote 
 connection lies so far beyond the confines of history, and so deeply 
 concealed in the darkness of their original abode in Asia, that neither 
 philologist nor antiquarian can make any further use of this cir- 
 cumstance, than to demonstrate the common origin of the Germans 
 and the people in whose languages identical terms are found." f For, 
 if the cause which has produced the common words found in any two 
 languages is to be referred to the original abode of the people speaking 
 them in Middle Asia, it must be evident that this system becomes 
 identical with the old hypothesis which maintains the existence of 
 a primitive tongue, and that Adelung's division of the people of 
 
 * Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 3, 4% 
 f Ibid., p. 168. 
 
230 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Europe into six races, distinct in origin and language, contradicts the 
 fundamental principle of his own system. 
 
 Adelung's account of the Thracians is equally inadmissible ; for he 
 remarks, — " There is no doubt but that this race, as well as all the 
 other people of Europe, migrated from the high land of Middle Asia. 
 But their migration must have been one of the last, as we find them 
 situated in the eastern parts ; although, also, it took place before the 
 commencement of history, still there appear to have been two roads 
 by which the emigrants might have proceeded, one to the north and 
 the other to the south of the Black Sea. The latter seems the nearest 
 and most natural, as there was merely the Hellespont to pass over : 
 but, when one considers that the Thracians were always weak in Asia 
 Minor, and on the contrary were numerous and powerful in Europe, 
 and that the time when the latter migrated from Asia was unknown, 
 and that Homer frequently mentions the Thracians of Europe, it must 
 appear most probable that, when they migrated, it was to the north 
 of the Black Sea that they proceeded from Middle Asia to the 
 Danube." * But it is obvious that this supposition is in direct con- 
 tradiction to history, both sacred and profane : for, if any point of 
 remote antiquity seems indisputable, it is that the peopling of Europe 
 proceeded from Asia Minor; and, most particularly, the very part 
 which the Thracians first occupied most clearly proves that they 
 could have migrated from no other country than Asia Minor. It is in 
 this respect that the absurdity of Adelung's system becomes so self- 
 evident. Because, had he conducted his emigrants from the high 
 land of Middle Asia through India, Persia, and Asia Minor, across the 
 Hellespont and Thracian Bosphorus into Europe, his system would 
 at least have had plausibility to recommend it, and it might, also, have 
 been in part supported by the Sanscrit words contained in Greek, 
 Latin, Persian, and Gothic. But the slightest inspection of a map will 
 show how utterly improbable it is that, in the early state of the world, 
 when, except in the countries just mentioned, the earth was uncul- 
 tivated, covered with forests and morasses, and traversed by deep and 
 
 * Adelung's Mithridates, vol . ii. p. 340. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 231 
 
 impassable rivers, any bodies of men could possibly have migrated 
 through the countries lying to the north of the Caspian and Euxine 
 Seas, from Thibet to the Danube. 
 
 No point, also, is better established by the concurrent testimony 
 of ancient and modern writers, than that the Goths were not the 
 descendants of the Germans. But Adelung includes them among the 
 Germans, and observes, ■ — " Amongst the ancient and now extinct 
 people who belonged to this race, the Goths were the most eastern 
 and the most renowned ; but they incorporated with themselves a 
 multitude of other people of distinct races and languages. It seems 
 probable, however, that they are the only ancient German people of 
 whose language any written monument has been preserved; as we 
 have important remains of it in Ulphilas's translation of the Bible." * 
 Whether, however, the Goths are considered to have been originally 
 Scythians or Scandinavians, or, as I think most probable, Thracians, 
 it is undeniable that, though the Germans may have descended from 
 them, they cannot be admitted to be the descendants of the Germans, 
 unless every circumstance which constitutes historical evidence be 
 entirely disregarded. 
 
 When, therefore, the inconsistencies and contradictions which are 
 so evident in the hypotheses that have been examined in this work, 
 and their inadequacy to explain the origin and affinity of languages, are 
 considered, it will, perhaps, be admitted that not one of them rests on 
 any sufficient grounds. But, if the cause of the striking coincidences 
 which exist in some languages proceeds not from the prevalence 
 among mankind, at some period in remote antiquity, of a primitive 
 tongue, into which supposition all these hypotheses actually resolve 
 themselves, it must necessarily follow that the principle on which 
 such researches have been hitherto conducted is erroneous. The 
 contempt, also, with which etymology is treated, and the apparent 
 conviction which prevails that the result] of etymological disquisitions 
 can never amount to presumption, far less to evidence, must be 
 received as strong proofs that the methods hitherto adopted in the 
 
 # Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 183. 
 
232 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 investigation of the affinities of languages have been not only in- 
 efficient but ridiculous. Still, it is admitted that the origin and 
 affinity of nations may be satisfactorily demonstrated by affinity of 
 language. Dr. Young, likewise, in an Essay on Probabilities, pub- 
 lished in the Philosophical Transactions, " has remarked that ' nothing 
 whatever could be inferred, with respect to the relation of two lan- 
 guages, from the coincidence of the sense of any single word in both 
 of them ; ' that is, supposing the same simple and limited com- 
 binations of sounds to occur in both, but to be applied accidentally to 
 the same number of objects, without any common links of connection : 
 ' and that the odds would only be three to one against the agreement 
 of two words ; but, if three words appeared to be identical, it would 
 be more than ten to one that they must be derived, in both cases, 
 from some parent language, or introduced in some other manner,' 
 from a common source; '• six words would give near 1700 chances 
 to one, and eight near 100,000;' so that in these last cases the 
 evidence would be little short of absolute certainty." * 
 
 On these principles, consequently, the existence of 339 Sanscrit 
 words in Greek, 319 in Latin, 263 in Persian, 162 in German, 251 
 in English, and 31 in all of them, must incontrovertibly prove 
 that these languages must have been derived from a common origin. 
 But I have, no doubt, evinced that Sanscrit is a perfectly original 
 tongue, and not derived from any other ; and that, though Persian has 
 received many words from Sanscrit, still its dissimilarity in gram- 
 matical structure disproves its derivation from it, and renders it a 
 distinct language. There hence remains only Greek, Latin, German, 
 and English, which can be considered as derivatives from Sanscrit ; 
 but the two latter spring evidently from one origin. It is equally 
 evident that the affinity of these six languages could not have 
 existed, had not an intimate connection subsisted at some period 
 among the different people who spoke them ; and I have, perhaps, 
 sufficiently proved that these languages bear no relation whatever to 
 
 * I take this quotation from the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 
 vol. v. p. 222. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 233 
 
 Celtic, Arabic, or the dialects of Tartary. But, when these people 
 first became known to history, they inhabited India, Persia, Greece, 
 Italy, and Germany ; and innumerable circumstances evince that no 
 intercourse between them could have prevailed for many centuries 
 previously. Unless, therefore, the common origin of such widely 
 separated people, and the distinctness of their race from that of the 
 nations who surrounded them, are satisfactorily demonstrated, and 
 unless the incidents of their separation, and of the changes introduced 
 into their parent tongue, are explained in a perfectly consistent manner, 
 the fallaciousness of any hypothesis respecting their origin and affinity 
 must be self-evident. 
 
 But, in all the systems on the subject hitherto proposed, the most 
 material part of the question, the existence of Sanscrit in Greek, 
 Latin, Gothic, and Persian, has not been taken into consideration, and, 
 consequently, the real relation which these languages bear to each 
 other could not be understood. It now, however, appears that the 
 affinity which was supposed to exist between them was no proof that 
 any one of them was derived from another ; because this affinity pro- 
 ceeds from their derivation from, or connection with, Sanscrit, in which 
 language most of the words common to Greek and Latin, or to Gothic 
 and Persian, can still be discovered. Gothic, therefore, was not derived 
 from Persian, according to the Scythian hypothesis, a supposition, at 
 the same time, which is completely disproved by the radical dissimi- 
 larity of the two languages in words, except such as are derived from 
 Sanscrit, and in grammatical structure ; nor has Persian any further 
 affinity with Greek and Latin. It hence necessarily follows that the 
 people who spoke Sanscrit must have inhabited a country situated 
 between Persia and Europe. But the concurrent authority of ancient 
 writers attests that Latium and Hetruria received their language from 
 Asia Minor ; and I have, perhaps, shown by philological arguments 
 that Latin is not derived from Greek. The extreme similarity, how- 
 ever, of the two languages equally proves that the ancestors of the 
 Greeks and Latins must have been originally the same people, and, 
 consequently, that they must have originally inhabited Asia Minor. 
 
 II H 
 
234 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 That Greek, also, was actually the language of this country seems 
 proved by many circumstances, which I have stated in the Seventh 
 Chapter ; and, therefore, as the first poets who employed this language 
 were Thracians, it irresistibly follows that the Thracians, also, originally 
 inhabited Asia Minor, and were the very same people as the ancestors 
 of the Greeks and Romans. Nor can their migration from Asia 
 Minor, and their subsequent occupation of the country which extended 
 from Macedonia along the Hellespont to the Euxine Sea, and thence 
 to the shores of the Baltic, be disputed on any grounds which do not 
 at the same time contradict both probability and history. Admit, 
 therefore, that Babylonia was the primeval seat of the Sanscrit 
 tongue, and that from this country Asia Minor derived its language, 
 which was thence communicated by the Pelasgi to Thracia, Greece, 
 Latium, and Hetruria, and that a colony from Babylonia once exercised 
 a predominating influence in Persia ; and the origin and affinity of 
 Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic are thus explained in a 
 manner the most consistent and probable, and the most consonant 
 with all indications respecting remote antiquity which are afforded by 
 geography, chronology, and history. 
 
 But these conclusions explain not the origin of the languages to 
 which these six bear no affinity, nor even of, perhaps, six sevenths 
 of the simple words of the language of Asia Minor. To evince, 
 however, this very circumstance is one of the objects of this work ; 
 because it appears to me that as long as the existence of a primitive 
 tongue, whether the Hebrew, the Scythian, the Celtic, the Gothic, or 
 that of Middle Asia*, continues a received opinion, no beneficial 
 
 * I have not taken any notice of the system of Cour de Gebelin, which he explains, 
 Monde Primitif, torn. viii. p. xiv., in these words, — " Qu'ainsi il n'existe qu'une langue, une 
 langue eternelle et immuable puisee dans la nature raisonnable, et dont les hommes n'ont 
 jamais pu se detourner : que par consequent toutes les langues existantes ne sont que des 
 modifications de cette langue universelle, a laquelle il est aise de les ramener, en les 
 comparant entr'elles et avec elle :" because I must confess that it is completely beyond my 
 comprehension. As the reader, however, may be more successful in understanding it, I 
 transcribe the following passage : — "En effet, le raport des langues ne consiste pas 
 simplement dans la ressemblance de leurs mots, dans cette ressemblance qui se reconnoit par 
 les memes lettres et par le mime sens, et qui a lieu pour la masse des mots de deux langues 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 235 
 
 result can possibly be derived from etymological researches. Adelung, 
 in the Preface to his Mithridates, professes to describe merely what 
 is and how it is ; and, had he restricted himself to such disquisitions, 
 the value of his work would have been greatly increased : but man 
 can never be contented with an account of things as they actually 
 exist, and have existed from a certain known time, but wishes, in order 
 to discover their hidden origin, to penetrate into the remotest and 
 darkest secrets of nature. With respect, however, to languages, this 
 wish is obviously vain : for the origin of nations cannot be ascertained 
 by the means of history ; and the most laborious etymological re- 
 searches will merely render evident that all languages cannot possibly 
 be derived from one primitive tongue, and, consequently, that all the 
 various races of mankind now existing cannot have descended from 
 one common parent.* If, therefore, the etymologist persist in com- 
 pelling all languages to depose to an identity which does not exist, it 
 must be obvious that the result of such etymological tortures must 
 exhibit such an appearance of improbability and contradiction to 
 common sense, as to render it totally undeserving of attention : but, 
 if he confine himself merely to tracing the real affinities of languages, 
 he will be enabled to elucidate at least the origin of some of the 
 people of this world ; and, by a continuation of researches conducted 
 on the same plan, the affinity, if not the actual origin, of all nations 
 might at length be demonstrated with the utmost certainty. 
 
 semblables C'est un raport beaucoup plus etendu, plus vague, moins caracterise, 
 
 qui exige de tout autres yeux pour etre saisi, qui ne peut etre que le resultat d'un tres- 
 grand nombre de comparaisons, qui ne considere pas les mots un a, un, mais par grandes 
 masses ; non les individus, mais les especes," &c. — Monde Primitif, torn. iii. p. 273. 
 
 * I ought to add, unless the miracle which occasioned the total confusion of tongues be 
 admitted ; because, in that case, the radical diversity of languages would be no argument 
 against the authenticity of the Mosaic history. 
 
 H H 2 
 
PART II. 
 
N.B. In Oriental words written in Roman characters, the vowels and diphthongs are to 
 be pronounced as in Italian, and the consonants as in English ; with exception of g, which 
 is always to be pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented byj. 
 
PART II. 
 
 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 I am perfectly aware of the ridicule to which etymologists, in general, so 
 deservedly expose themselves : but, as it is universally admitted that 
 the filiation of the different races of mankind, at those early periods 
 of the world respecting which history is silent, may be satisfactorily 
 determined by affinity of language, the extravagancies of etymologists 
 ought not to prove prejudicial to researches of so much importance, if 
 conducted on self-evident principles. For, if two words of distinct lan- 
 guages, similar or nearly similar in sound, bear precisely the same signifi- 
 cation, the identity of such words cannot with any reason be disputed. 
 Should, also, their meanings be not the same, but the difference consist 
 merely in one of the significations being such as might arise from a 
 natural connection of ideas, and the sound of the words be at the same 
 time similar, little doubt can exist with regard to their identity. For 
 instance, the Sanscrit kumam a lake and xvpcc a wave, stoma the head 
 and o-Topot. the mouth, btilam an army and bellum war, or even mcira 
 killing and mar a snake, are clearly identical terms. As long, there- 
 fore, as the etymologist confines his identification of words to those 
 only which agree in sound and meaning, he proceeds on the surest 
 grounds ; and, forjudging of the justness of his conclusions, nothing- 
 farther is necessary, than the mere inspection of the words of the 
 different languages which he compares together. The person who is 
 acquainted and he who is unacquainted with the languages compared, 
 
240 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 are equally capable of observing coincidences of so plain and evident a 
 nature. It is by these simple principles,which seem to me incontrovert- 
 ible, that I have been guided in selecting the words contained in the 
 following Table ; I have in no instance identified such words as soma 
 the moon with a-apa the body, or suria the sun with sura the leg, and I 
 have even abstained from producing any words, the identification of 
 which could not have been rendered apparent without entering into 
 grammatical and etymological discussions. 
 
 Sir W. Jones has observed, — " I beg leave as a philologist to enter 
 my protest against conjectural etymology in historical researches, 
 and principally against the licentiousness of etymologists in transposing 
 and inserting letters, in substituting at pleasure any consonant for 
 another, and in totally disregarding the vowels." * To the general 
 justness of this remark I fully subscribe : but the slightest attention 
 to the dialects of the Greek language, and to the patois of any country, 
 will at once evince that the identity and intelligibility of words do 
 not depend on the manner in which the vowels contained in them are 
 pronounced. No doubt the identity of the words of any two lan- 
 guages which may be compared together, will be most satisfactorily 
 established by the identity or close similarity of the vowels ; but, if 
 when the vowels are most dissimilar the meaning is exactly the same, 
 it may be reasonably inferred that the words also are identical. 
 For instance, it will scarcely be maintained that mira and mare are not 
 identical terms, since they both signify the sea; gala and gula, both 
 signifying the throat; and okam and oizov, both signifying a house. 
 As, also, no two nations ever possessed alphabetical and grammatical 
 systems precisely the same, it must be obvious that words could not 
 pass from the one into the other without undergoing some change 
 in their consonants. Were, indeed, the identity of no words to be 
 admitted, except of such as exactly corresponded in their vowels and 
 consonants, the etymologist might at once cease his labours, for very 
 few such words can be found. 
 
 But Sir W. Jones himself has observed, — " We know, a posteriori, 
 
 * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 139. 
 
GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 241 
 
 that both Jitz and hijo, by the nature of two several dialects, are 
 derived from Jilius ; that uncle comes from avus ; and stranger from 
 extra; that jour is deducible, through the Italian, from dies; and 
 rossignol from luscinia, or the singer in groves ; that sciuro, ecureuil, 
 and squirrel are compounded of two Greek words descriptive of the 
 animal ; which etymologies, though they could not have been demon- 
 strated a priori, might serve to confirm, if any confirmation were 
 necessary, the proofs of a connection between the members of one 
 great empire." * If the term .a priori is here used in its strict sense, 
 this remark is self-evident j for, until words had passed from one 
 language into another, and suffered certain changes in consequence, it 
 would have been impossible to know either that such changes would 
 have been found necessary, or to specify their precise nature. But, 
 after they had once taken place, nothing could be easier than the 
 ascertaining the permutations which the component letters of the 
 particular words had undergone, and whether these changes had pro- 
 ceeded on any fixed principle : for, in this case, it might be justly 
 inferred that in similar circumstances similar permutations would 
 always take place ; and it is only by adhering to this rule that 
 etymologies can ever be discovered or demonstrated. But, if it be 
 shown that in words passing from any one language into another 
 certain letters are always changed into others, and this postulatum be 
 once admitted, it necessarily follows that, however dissimilar in sound 
 the words compared may be, still, if the received principle applies to 
 them, their identity cannot be disputed. The error, therefore, which 
 etymologists commit, consists not in the permutation of letters, but in 
 changing them arbitrarily, and without having first established that 
 the permutations which they propose are sanctioned by the usage and 
 genius of the languages compared. 
 
 In comparing, however, Sanscrit with other languages, I have not 
 been obliged to have recourse to such questionable etymologies as 
 those pointed out by Sir W. Jones ; for the only permutation of 
 letters which becomes requisite, is occasioned by the Greek and 
 
 * Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 20. 
 I I 
 
242 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Roman alphabets being defective in several letters peculiar to the 
 Sanscrit alphabet. But, that many words of which these letters form 
 component parts have passed into Greek and Latin, is demonstrated 
 by these words retaining precisely the same signification. It becomes, 
 therefore, necessary to ascertain, by a consideration of the alphabetical 
 systems and grammatical structure of the languages compared together 
 in the following Table, how far difference of sound ought to affect 
 the identity of words, the meaning of which is precisely or nearly 
 similar. 
 
 ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 
 
 The Sanscrit alphabet consists of fifty-two letters, but only twenty- 
 two distinct sounds ; the remaining twenty-eight letters being merely 
 aspirations and modifications of these sounds.* To express, however, 
 Sanscrit words in another language, it is indispensable that its alphabet 
 should at least contain the following letters: — 
 
 a, e, i, o, u, k, g hard, ch soft, j soft, t, d, n, p, 1, m, y consonant, r, 
 1, w or v, sh, s, h. 
 
 With respect to the sounds of these letters in Sanscrit, it may be 
 observed that the vowels are pronounced as in Italian, and the con- 
 sonants as in English f ; with the exception that g must be always 
 pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented by j. It must 
 
 * The vowels a, e, i, and u, have distinct characters for their long and short sounds ; 
 there are three n's, two fs, two d's, two Z's, two sk's, two compound letters Jcsh and gn, 
 four peculiar letters scarcely ever used, and the rest are merely aspirations of ten of the 
 simple consonants, viz. Jc, g, ch,j, the two fs, the two d's, p, and b. 
 
 I do not include as requisite the diphthongs ai, au, because, when pronounced properly, 
 the sounds of the two vowels are distinctly perceptible. 
 
 f I am aware that the t and d most commonly used in Sanscrit are pronounced much 
 softer than in English, but it is impossible to note such modifications of sound of the same 
 consonant by means of the Latin alphabet. 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 243 
 
 also be remarked that ch and sh * are simple sounds, represented both 
 in the Sanscrit and Persian alphabets by single characters. 
 
 The only Sanscrit letter respecting the pronunciation of which a 
 difference of opinion prevails is the short a ; for Sir W. Jones thought 
 that its sound might sometimes be conveniently expressed by e, as 
 pronounced in men, and in this manner he has written the name of 
 the celebrated lawgiver Manu. M. Bopp, also, has observed that 
 " there is only one defect of which we may accuse the Sanscrit 
 alphabet, namely, that the short a, the short Italian e, and o are not 
 distinguished from one another. For I cannot believe that in the 
 language of the Brahmans, when it was a vernacular tongue, the 
 dkara had always the power of short a, and that the sounds of e and o 
 never occurred in it ; I rather think that the sign used for the short a 
 was put also to express a short e and o. If this was the case, it can be 
 accounted for why in words common to the Sanscrit and the Greek, 
 the Indian akara so often answers to e and o ; as for instance, asti, 
 he is, e<m; patis, a husband, 7rorig; ambaras, the sky, op,£pog, rain; &c." f 
 But the short a is considered to be inherent in all Sanscrit consonants, 
 and is, therefore, never expressed by any sign, except at the beginning of 
 words ; and, in all the attention which I have paid to the pronunciation 
 of natives from all the different parts of India, I have never been able 
 to detect any sounds similar to the Italian short e and o. I may add 
 that, on more than one occasion, I have not been able to make myself 
 immediately understood, by using the name Menu instead of Manu. 
 In the pronunciation, however, of the short a by the natives them- 
 
 * This is undoubtedly the pronunciation of the letter SJ throughout the whole of India ; 
 for, that the pronunciation proposed by Sir W. Jones, and adopted by the Asiatic Society 
 of Calcutta, is not even prevalent in Bengal, seems clearly proved by the missionaries of 
 Serampore giving to this letter the sound of the English sh, equivalent to the French ch, 
 and the German sch. 
 
 f Annals of Oriental Literature, Part I. Barretti says, in his Grammatica della Lingua 
 Inglese, prefixed to his Dictionary, with respect to e, — " II suono breve ha molta 
 similitudine col nostro e, come nelle voci cellar, separate, celebrate, men, then. E, dinanzi a 
 consonante raddoppiata o a due consonanti, e sempre breve, cioe, ha sempre il suono Italiano, 
 come in relent, medlar," &c. 
 
 The short sound of o is common to all the European languages, with scarcely any 
 difference in its pronunciation ; but it does not exist in India. 
 
 i i 2 
 
244 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 selves a considerable difference prevails : for, to the north of the 
 Krishna, its sound is certainly very similar to the English u in the 
 word sun, and the long a is proportionally shortened ; but, to the south 
 of that river, the long a preserves its proper sound, and the short a is 
 pronounced as in hand. But, in the former case, the representing this 
 sound by u is not only contrary to all analogy, but renders the words 
 used unintelligible to foreigners, as this pronunciation of u is peculiar 
 to the English. The sound, therefore, which will most correctly 
 represent this vowel, is that of a pronounced as short as may be 
 consistent with the due preserving of its distinct sound ; and this will 
 sufficiently account for its being changed into the short e and o of 
 other languages. 
 
 The visarga, a diacritical mark included by Sanscrit grammarians 
 amongst the vowels, is represented by some writers by s; but its 
 proper sound, in all parts of India, is a strong aspiration added to the 
 vowel which precedes it, and, consequently, in Roman characters it 
 becomes equivalent to //. It seems, however, very probable that, in 
 several Greek and Latin terminations and inflections, this h has been 
 changed into s. But, as this permutation does not always take place, 
 it ought not to be assumed as a general rule, nor ought a sound to be 
 given to the visarga which it does not possess : for it must be re- 
 collected that the changes to which this vowel is subject, occur only 
 when words are joined into the connected and artificial periods peculiar 
 to Sanscrit composition ; and that, when this language is spoken, the 
 words are not thus linked together, but pronounced with their full and 
 proper sounds. This permutation also errs against the analogy of 
 the Sanscrit language, because, whenever the crude nominative of a 
 noun ends in a consonant, this consonant appears in the oblique cases ; 
 as, manas, mens, manasah, mentis ; naman, nomen, namnah, nominis. 
 If, therefore, the nominative case Ramah be written Romas, its 
 genitive case ought to be Ramasasia, and not, as it actually is, Ra- 
 masia ; and, in the same manner, if pita be written pitra, the genitive 
 case ought to be pitrus, and not, as it actually is, pituh.* 
 
 * This mode of representing the visarga in Roman characters, seems to have been 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 245 
 
 The pronunciation, likewise, of one of the compound consonants, 
 $J, does not seem determined : for the Sanscrit grammarians consider 
 it as composed of j and n; but, on the western side of India, it is 
 pronounced at the beginning of words like the French gn t preceded 
 by the slightly perceptible sound of a soft d, and in the middle of 
 words in the same manner, except that the d receives a more distinct 
 and forcible pronunciation, as, dgnanam, knowledge, adgna, an order ; 
 were, therefore, the name of a celebrated lawgiver . to be pronounced 
 Yajnawalkia, it would be unintelligible to the natives. A similar doubt 
 exists with respect to the proper pronunciation of the Greek and 
 Latin gn ; as it is clearly impossible to give to these letters their usual 
 sounds in such words, as yvurog, gnarus. It is hence probable that 
 the Greeks and Romans employed the gn, in some words at least, as a 
 compound sound approaching to the French pronunciation ; and I 
 have, consequently, considered it in Greek and Latin words as equi- 
 valent to this Sanscrit compound letter. 
 
 It requires farther to be observed that in Sanscrit the consonants 
 are all sonant, the short a being considered annexed to each of them ; 
 and that when they become mute the consonants which coalesce are 
 represented by single distinct characters ; as, ^ ksha ; ^1 ktwa ; ^cf 
 trasta ; £?J1^T Syandana. With regard to the n in the last word, it is 
 most generally represented by a diacritical mark, named anuswar, 
 placed over the consonant preceding the one to which the n is to be 
 prefixed ; as ?3J<^5T, an d this is the orthography which I have adopted 
 in the following Table.* This ingenious method of rendering the 
 
 adopted for the purpose of rendering the affinity between the Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin 
 languages more apparent : but it is quite unnecessary, and all identifications of words by 
 means of arbitrary permutations repugnant to the analogy and grammatical structure of a 
 language must be always considered as very questionable. 
 
 * The anuswar is also used to represent the first of the ti's and the m, when forming 
 the first letter of a connection of consonants, or a final m mute. In referring, therefore, to 
 Wilson's Sanscrit Dictionary, the words in the following Table marked with anusxcar must 
 
 ♦ _ 
 
 be sought for under the letters which it represents; as for instance, 3f^i under \5\ ^-. 
 3f5f under 3fJ; 3f^X umlcr ^ST- 
 
246 
 
 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 consonants mute cannot be made apparent in Roman characters ; 
 and I have, therefore, in a few instances placed a bracket under the 
 letters which ought to coalesce ; as, «-<tjl«1 siona, the sun ; the first 
 three letters of which word form but one syllable in Sanscrit. 
 
 It will hence appear that the Greek alphabet is deficient in the 
 simple sounds of ch soft, j soft, w 9 and sh 9 and in most of the aspir- 
 ations and modified sounds of the Sanscrit letters : but of the last the 
 Greeks have either invented or preserved characters for the long 
 sounds of two vowels in y\ and u ; and for three aspirations in 9, p, and 
 X- The compound letters, however, in Greek, £", £, and if/, seem to 
 have no corresponding sounds in Sanscrit. 
 
 The Latin alphabet is deficient in the same simple sounds, and also 
 in all the aspirations and modifications of the Sanscrit letters : but 
 the Romans preserved the sound of w or v, though not a distinct 
 character for representing it. 
 
 The Persian alphabet contains all the simple and unmodified sounds 
 of the Sanscrit, and, at the same time, possesses five other letters, 
 viz kh guttural, z, zh represented by one character, and gh. The 
 pronunciation of this last letter is so peculiar that it cannot be 
 described ; but its sound partakes of g and r, and hence it is not 
 unlikely that, on account of this singular pronunciation, the German 
 gram 9 grief, may be derived from the Persian gharri signifying the same. 
 
 The German alphabet is deficient in ch soft, the ch of this language 
 being pronounced gutturally ; j soft, this letter being pronounced like 
 the English y consonant ; and w, as this letter is pronounced as the 
 English v, the v assuming in general the sound of/. 
 
 The English alphabet, by means of either simple or compound 
 letters, possesses all the simple and unmodified sounds of the Sanscrit ; 
 and the annexing an h to a consonant is sufficient to indicate that the 
 latter ought to be aspirated 
 
 From these remarks it will be obvious that, unless a change of 
 consonants were in some cases admissible, a very numerous class of 
 Sanscrit words must necessarily be excluded from all comparison with 
 those of other languages. But it is well known that, in the formation 
 
ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 
 
 247 
 
 of modern from ancient languages, certain consonants have suffered 
 permutation ; and, with regard to the Sanscrit itself, Mr. Wilson has 
 thus remarked in the Preface to his Sanscrit Dictionary, — " As to 
 the various readings arising from compounding the different nasals and 
 sibilants, and above all from the perpetual interchange of the letters 
 b and v (written by me w), they are innumerable, and of almost im- 
 possible adjustment ; the difficulty of separating them, indeed, seems 
 to have been long ago insurmountable, and to have given rise to the 
 following convenient rule, which renders the distinction a matter of 
 perfect indifference ; the letters r and b, d * and 1, j and y, b and w, sh 
 and s, a final visarga or its omission, are always optional, there being no 
 difference between them." The consequences of this rule, at whatever 
 time it may have been laid down, or rather perhaps the grounds on 
 which it has been admitted as a received principle, become most 
 apparent in the manner in which Sanscrit words have been naturalised 
 in the various vernacular dialects of India ; for in all of them the 
 interchange of b and w, of sh and s, of r and /, and of m and n, is very 
 obvious. Besides these permutations, in Hindi and Gurjrate the sh 
 and ksh are replaced by k, and the y is changed into j; as, ket, a field, for 
 kshetram ; harak, joy, for harsha; and joban, a youth, for ywwan. But the 
 greatest peculiarity in the adoption of Sanscrit words in most of these 
 dialects, is the dissolution or omission of one of the compound con- 
 sonants which so frequently occur in Sanscrit, particularly of r when- 
 ever it enters into their composition, and the rejection of the final 
 syllable of the nominative case of nouns : for instance, graham, a house, 
 is changed into ghdr-, sdrpa, a serpent, into sap ; kripdna, a miser, into 
 
 * This letter JjJ" is peculiar to the Sanscrit alphabet, and in sound partakes of d and r ; 
 but, though all well educated natives give this letter a distinct pronunciation, which is 
 unattainable by foreigners, it has always appeared to me that in most words the great body 
 of the people give it precisely the same sound as r, and the rule just quoted supports this 
 opinion, for its being interchangeable with I shows that in it the sound of r must 
 predominate. In the beginning of words however, and, before n, it is always pronounced 
 like d. 
 
 In the following Table I have, in consequence, given this letter the sounds of both 
 d and r. 
 
248 
 
 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 kirpdn; dwdra, a door, into ddr ; widgra, into bdgh ; hasta, a hand, into 
 hat ; skanda, a shoulder, into hdnda ; shushka, dry, into suka ; swarna, 
 gold, into sona. The /c, also, of Sanscrit words is often omitted ; as, 
 pdshaka, a die, pasha ; mrittika, earth, matt ; narikela, a cocoa-nut, narel. 
 
 Of the identity of these words there can be no doubt, and they may, 
 therefore, serve as examples of the changes which Sanscrit words may 
 have undergone in passing into other languages. In availing myself, 
 however, of these principles, I have been guided entirely by the 
 meaning of the terms compared ; but, whenever this was the same, I 
 have concluded that the words were also the same. For the identity 
 of krernilam and xapjAof ; shunam, xwa, and canem ; takshate, a-Tsyerui, 
 and tegit ; shushati and siccat ; kandati and scindit ; though these words 
 have become altered in their pronunciation and orthography, will 
 scarcely, I think, be contested. But I have not been able to satisfy 
 myself that the changes incidental to Sanscrit words in passing into 
 other languages have proceeded on any fixed principles. It seems, 
 however, probable that, in Greek, j was changed into y, sh into x and 
 occasionally into 9 and |, and ch into y, I find three words only 
 beginning with ch, and the w is generally dropped, but sometimes 
 changed into £. In Latin, ch is changed into c, and sometimes into 
 qu ; j into g ; bh into f; and sh into s or c; and, in Persian^ I merely 
 observe the occasional omission of the aspirated d, the change of sh 
 into kh, and sometimes the rejection of the final syllable of the 
 Sanscrit words ; for it will be seen in the following Table that, in 
 Persian, madhiam is changed into midn, and widhazva into biwd, shuba 
 into khub, and shukra into khuk. 
 
 But it will no doubt excite surprise that, in the 900 Sanscrit words 
 contained in the following Table, which have passed into five other 
 distinct languages, so little change has taken place either in their 
 vowels or consonants ; and that these changes are satisfactorily sup- 
 ported by the primary or secondary meaning of the words compared 
 being exactly similar. When, therefore, this simple and self-evident 
 circumstance is contrasted with the strange and forced etymologies 
 on which all etymologists have hitherto erected their systems, it will, 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 249 
 
 perhaps, be admitted that these systems are totally erroneous. The 
 derivation, consequently, of all languages from Hebrew, or the Greek 
 and Latin from the Celtic or Gothic, or the Teutonic languages from 
 the Scythian, unless it be established by an equal number of words, 
 equally identical in sound and meaning, must now be considered to 
 rest on no foundation whatever. 
 
 GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 
 
 Experience evinces that, in passing from one language into another, 
 the apparent identity of words will be affected by the grammatical 
 rules of the language in which they become naturalised ; for no two 
 languages agree perfectly in their inflections, or in the changes to which 
 the root is subjected previous to these inflections being joined to it. In 
 the verbs, for instance, of Persian, German, and English, derived from 
 Sanscrit, the root * only has being adopted, while in those of Greek 
 and Latin most of the Sanscrit inflections have been preserved. As, 
 however, the root is sufficient to prove the common origin of words 
 belonging to different tongues, any enquiry into the grammatical 
 structure of those contained in the following Table may seem un- 
 necessary. But the degree of affinity which exists between distinct 
 languages, and, consequently, the filiation of one people from another, 
 can be satisfactorily demonstrated by similarity of grammatical struc- 
 ture only : for commerce, conquest, and religion may introduce the 
 single words of a foreign language into any country, without its 
 inhabitants being descended from the people to whose mother tongue 
 these words belonged. The Greek and Latin words contained in 
 
 * Strictly speaking, not the root, but the third person singular of the present tense of the 
 indicative mood of the active voice ; which is the part always used by the natives when 
 speaking of a Sanscrit verb. 
 
 K K 
 
250 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 English do not prove that the English people are descended from the 
 Greeks and Romans. But the grammatical structure of a language 
 must have been coeval with its origin, and is so indispensably requisite 
 for its distinct existence, that, whenever the grammatical inflections 
 of one language are found in another, no possible causes can be 
 assigned for such a similarity, except that the one language was 
 derived from the other, or that they both sprang from the same 
 common source. 
 
 Could, therefore, any words be produced from the Arabic class of 
 languages which corresponded in sound and meaning with those of 
 other tongues ; still the peculiar grammatical structure of the Arabic 
 would evince that these words must have become common to the two 
 languages from some accidental cause, and would, consequently, be no 
 proof that any affinity whatever existed between them. For the 
 Arabic and its cognate dialects are distinguished by their verbs having 
 neither a present nor a future tense, by the persons of their solitary 
 two tenses having a masculine and feminine gender, and by their total 
 rejection of compound words, from all languages with which I am 
 acquainted ; and from the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, by the paucity 
 of inflections which apply to the Arabic noun and verb. For to me 
 it seems absolutely impossible that any language, which had at first 
 existed in the form of Arabic, could ever have so changed the 
 grammatical principles on which it was formed, as to produce the 
 numerous inflections, and the extensive system of composition of 
 words, by which the Sanscrit and Greek are so preeminently dis- 
 tinguished. 
 
 Numerous inflections, however, are not essential to language, for 
 their office is, perhaps, better performed by distinct words. But, 
 though there are many instances of words losing the inflections which 
 they once possessed, no example can, I believe, be produced of 
 words acquiring inflections which did not belong to them on the 
 original formation of the language. It is this circumstance which 
 renders it particularly necessary to examine the grammatical structure 
 of the languages contained in the following Table, in order to deter- 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 
 
 251 
 
 mine whether or not the Persian and Teutonic races of men were 
 descended from a people who spoke Sanscrit ; for, that the Greeks 
 and Romans were of a common origin with this people, no doubt can 
 possibly exist. 
 
 GREEK AND LATIN. 
 
 In pursuing this enquiry, it will be most satisfactory to commence 
 with the two last languages ; and, as comparative tables are much 
 more easily understood than any detailed explanation in words, I have 
 arranged in the following such coincidences as I have ascertained in 
 the grammatical structure of Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin : — 
 
 NOUNS. 
 
 
 
 SINGULAR. 
 
 
 
 PLURAL. 
 
 
 
 r narasia * 
 
 TJ/MJJ 
 
 ensis 
 
 
 
 
 •»•' 
 
 gireh 
 
 
 pennse rei 
 
 
 
 
 1 guroh 
 
 Aoys \eco 
 
 domus 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^swaminah 
 
 crcojxciTO; 
 
 hominis 
 
 swaminam -j- 
 
 Xoyoov 
 
 hominum 
 
 
 "narayah 
 
 Koyca 
 
 domino 
 
 narabhiah 
 
 fructibus 
 
 hominibus 
 
 D. < 
 
 giraye 
 
 ™M 
 
 pennae 
 
 
 
 
 guruwe 
 
 
 dotnui 
 
 
 
 
 
 swamine 
 
 crcofMctTt 
 
 homini 
 
 
 
 
 
 '"naram 
 
 T»/x.>jy Koyov 
 
 dominum rem 
 
 
 
 
 Ac. < 
 
 taram 
 
 fJ.8<TUV 
 
 pennam 
 
 tarah 
 
 jU.B(T«J 
 
 pennas 
 
 gurum 
 
 Sorpuv 
 
 domum 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^swaminam 
 
 OQiV 
 
 hominem 
 
 swaminah 
 
 TiTavaj 
 
 homines 
 
 j 
 
 "nare 
 
 T»/MJ 
 
 re 
 
 nareshu 
 
 ju-scraff \oyois 
 
 dominis 
 
 Ab. -1 
 
 girau 
 
 Xoya) 
 
 domino 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^swamini 
 
 0"O)jU,aTj 
 
 homine 
 
 swamishu 
 
 TITCtVt 
 
 
 * This is the most common termination of the genitive of masculine and neuter 
 parisyllabic nouns, but in imparisyllabic nouns in Sanscrit the termination sia is rejected, 
 and its place supplied by visarga or h. 
 
 f The most frequent termination of the genitive plural in Sanscrit is anam, which is not 
 found in Greek or Latin, unless it be supposed that in the latter anam has been changed 
 into orum and arum. 
 
 K K 2 
 
252 
 
 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 The terminations of the cases will, however, be best seen in the 
 declension of the following two adjectives : — 
 
 
 
 
 
 SINGULAR. 
 
 
 N. 
 
 kalah 
 
 kala 
 
 kalam 
 
 xaXog 
 
 xaXrj 
 
 xuXov 
 
 G. 
 
 kalasia 
 
 kalaya 
 
 kalasia 
 
 xaXov 
 
 xuXr\g 
 
 xaXov 
 
 D. 
 
 kalaya 
 
 kalayai 
 
 kalaya 
 
 xuXu> 
 
 xuXy 
 
 xuXw 
 
 Ac. 
 
 kalam 
 
 kalam 
 
 kalam 
 
 xctXov 
 
 xctXyv 
 
 xuXov 
 
 Ab. 
 
 kale 
 
 kalaya 
 
 kale 
 
 xuXca 
 
 xuXy 
 
 xuXm 
 
 
 
 
 
 PLURAL. 
 
 
 N. 
 
 kalah 
 
 kalah 
 
 kalam 
 
 xuXot 
 
 xuXui 
 
 xuXa 
 
 G. 
 
 kalanam 
 
 
 
 xaXcuv 
 
 
 
 D. kalebhiah 
 
 Ac. kalan kalah kalan i 
 
 Ab. kaleshu kalasu kaleshu 
 
 xuXovg xaXug xaXa 
 xaXoig xuXuig xaXoig 
 
 bonus bona bonum 
 
 boni bonae boni * 
 
 bono bona? bono 
 
 bonum bonam bonum 
 
 bono bona bono 
 
 boni bonae bona 
 
 bonorum bonarum bonorum 
 
 bonos 
 bonis 
 
 bonas bona 
 
 N. and Ac. kalau 
 G. kalioh 
 
 DUAL. 
 
 kale kale 
 
 xuXco 
 
 xaXoiv 
 
 xuXu XuXca 
 
 SINGULAR. 
 
 N. dhanih dhanini dhani 
 
 G. dhaninah dhaniniah dhaninah 
 
 D. dhanine dhaniniai dhanine 
 
 Ac. dhaninam dhananim dhani 
 
 Ab. dhanini dhaniniam dhanini 
 
 N. dhaninah dhaniniah dhanini 
 
 G. dhaninam 
 
 D. dhanibhiah 
 
 Ac. dhaninah dhaninih dhanini 
 
 Ab. dhanishu dhanishu dhanishu 
 
 fteXug 
 
 fj.eXuivu 
 
 fj.eXuv 
 
 inanis 
 
 inane 
 
 fj.sXavog 
 
 fj.sXuivr)g 
 
 fxeXavog 
 
 inanis 
 
 
 f.sXuvt 
 
 fj-sXaivr] 
 
 fj,eXavi 
 
 inani 
 
 
 fLsXuvu 
 
 fj.eXaivuv 
 
 fxsXav 
 
 inanem 
 
 inane 
 
 lt.sKa.vi 
 
 fj.sXa.ivri 
 
 fj.sXa.vi 
 
 inani 
 
 
 PLURAL. 
 
 
 
 
 
 fj.eXa.vsg 
 
 fj.sXa.ivui 
 
 fj.sXava 
 
 inanes 
 
 inania 
 
 fj,sXuvwv 
 
 
 
 inanum 
 inanibus 
 
 
 u.eXuvug 
 
 fj.sXa.ivag 
 
 u.eXuva 
 
 inanes 
 
 inania 
 
 fxsXavi 
 
 N. and Ac. dhaninau dhaniniau 
 G. dhaninoh dhaninioh 
 
 DUAL. 
 
 dhanini 
 dhaninoh 
 
 fj.sXavs ft-sXaivu. fj.eXu.ve 
 jxeXuvow fieXuivuiv fueXuvoiv 
 
 In other Latin adjectives the genitive ends in is. 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 253 
 
 In Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin, the adjectives are compared in the 
 same manner, and the terminations for forming the comparative and 
 superlative are nearly similar ; as, 
 
 kalam kalataram kalatamam xevov xsvorspov xsvotxtov citus citiorem citimum 
 
 The mode of comparison which is named in the Port Royal Greek 
 Grammar irregular, is also derived from the Sanscrit ; as, 
 
 laguh lagyan lagishta yXvxv; yXuxicov yXux»<rroj 
 
 but in both languages the adjective may be also compared regularly. 
 
 PRONOUNS. 
 
 The personal pronouns, as it might be expected, have suffered such 
 changes in passing from Sanscrit into other languages, that but few of 
 their inflections have been preserved. The nominatives, however, of 
 the first and second persons, aham and twain, may still be recognised 
 in eyu, ego ; <rv, Dorice ru, tu : but the first persons plural have been 
 preserved in English only, as, waiam, we ; yuyam, you. The dative 
 singular, also, remains nearly the same, as, mahiam, po:, mihi ; tubiam, 
 toi, tibi : and the accusative may be recognised in mam or ?na, pe, me ; 
 and in twdm or twa, re, te ; but these inflections may, perhaps, have 
 been formed from the Sanscrit contracted dative me : and the 
 contracted accusatives plural noli and wdh may not unlikely be 
 represented by nos and vos. 
 
 But in the adjective pronouns the coincidences are singularly 
 striking, as will be apparent from the following tables : — 
 
 
 
 
 
 SINGULAR. 
 
 
 
 
 
 N. 
 
 yah 
 
 yah 
 
 yah 
 
 os h 
 
 6 
 
 is 
 
 ea 
 
 id 
 
 G. 
 
 yasia 
 
 yasia 
 
 yasia 
 
 Q'j fa 
 
 01) 
 
 ejus 
 
 
 
 Ac. 
 
 yam 
 
 yam 
 
 yat 
 
 bv r;v 
 
 b 
 
 eum 
 
 earn 
 
 id 
 
254 
 
 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 PLURAL. 
 
 N. ye yah yarn ol a\ 
 
 Ac. yan yah yani oug aj 
 
 Ab. yeshu yasu yeshu 0I5 «!j 
 
 oij 
 
 11 ea ea 
 eos eas ea 
 
 eis 
 
 sah tat 
 
 tasia tasia 
 
 D. tasmai tasyai tasmai 
 
 Ac. tarn tarn tat 
 
 taya tena 
 
 N. sah 
 G. tasia 
 
 Ab. tena 
 
 SINGULAR. 
 
 6 t 
 
 TOU T»]J 
 
 TOV 
 TOO 
 
 Tt]V TO 
 T>) TM 
 
 Anglo-Saxon. 
 
 to se seo thet 
 
 too thes these thes 
 
 tham these tham 
 
 thon thane thet 
 
 DUAL. 
 
 N. and Ac. tau te te 
 G. tayoh 
 
 TOO TOC TW 
 TOIV 
 
 N. te tah tani 
 
 G. tesham tasam tesham 
 
 Ac. tan tah tani 
 
 Ab. teshu tasu teshu 
 
 PLURAL. 
 
 too; rug 
 
 TOlg TCilg 
 
 rx 
 
 T« 
 
 roig 
 
 tha 
 
 thesa 
 
 tha Dative, tham 
 
 N. esha esha etat 
 
 G. etasia etasia etasia 
 
 D. etasmai etasyai etasmai 
 
 Ac. etam etam etat 
 
 SINGULAR. 
 
 aoToj auTYj avTO 
 
 ctvTOU avTTji; uvtov 
 
 «utov «ot>)V auTO 
 
 iste ista istud 
 
 istius 
 
 isti 
 
 istum istam istud 
 
 N. ete eta etani 
 
 Ab. eteshu etasu eteshu 
 
 PLURAL. 
 
 aUTOJ UVTCM CtUTCt. 
 
 xvtoi; uvTcti; avroi; 
 
 isti istae ista 
 istis 
 
 N. kah 
 G. kasia 
 Ac. kam 
 Ab. kena 
 
 SINGULAR 
 
 kah kim * 
 
 kasia kasia 
 
 kam kim 
 
 kaya kena 
 
 qui quae quod 
 
 cujus 
 
 quern quam quod 
 
 quo qua quo 
 
 * According to the analogy of the other pronouns, this ought to be kat or kad, and such, 
 perhaps, was the original form. 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 255 
 
 PLURAL. 
 
 N. kah kah kani qui quae quae 
 
 G. kesham kasam kesham quorum quarum quorum 
 
 D. kebhiah kabhiah kebhiah quibus 
 
 Ac. kan kah kani quos quas quae 
 
 VERBS. 
 
 In the verbs, also, the coincidences are equally striking, as will be 
 apparent from the following tables : — 
 
 PRESENT TENSE. 
 1st Per. 2d Per. 3d Per. 1st Per. 2d Per. 3d Per. 
 
 Sing. lagami lagasi lagati Plur. lagamah lagatha laganti 
 
 Xsyw Xsyeig Asyei Xtyopev Xeyere Xeyovri Dor. 
 
 Mid. Voice. Xeyopai Xeyy Xeyertxi 
 
 lego legis legit legimus legitis legunt 
 
 FIRST PRETERITE.* 
 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Sing. alagam alagah alagat Plur. alagama alagate alagan 
 
 eXsyov eXiyeg sXeye eAeyojaev eXeyers eXeyov 
 
 Pres. Subj. legam legas legat legamus legatis legant 
 
 2. 3. 2. 3. 
 
 Dual, alagatam alagatam sXeysrov sXsysrriv 
 
 SECOND PRETERITE. 
 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Sing. lalaga lalagitha lalaga Plur. lalagima lalaga lalagul 
 
 Mid. Voice. lalagishe lalagitive lalagire 
 
 XeXe%oc XsXe%ct; AeAep^E AsAe^a/xev XsXs^sts XsXe^uai 
 
 cucurri cucurristi cucurrit cucurrimus cucurristis cucurrere 
 
 POTENTIAL. 
 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Sing. lageam lage laget Plur. lagema lagete lageyuh 
 
 Aeyoijai Xsyoi$ Xsyoi Xeyoiptv Aeyocrs Xeyoisv 
 
 Mid. Voice. Xeyoipyv Xsyoio Xsyono 
 
 laudem laudes laudet laudemus laudetis laudent 
 
 I adopt the terms used in Dr. Wilkins's Sanscrit Grammar. 
 
256 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 SECOND FUTURE. 
 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Si?tg. lagishiami lagishiasi lagishiati Plur. lagishiamah lagishiatha lagishiante 
 
 Xe%w Ae?£»J Xe%ei Xe^o^ev Xs^ens XefcowTt 
 
 Mid. Voice. Xe^o[/.ai Xs%r) Ae£eT«i 
 
 CONDITIONAL. 
 1. 2. 3. 1. . 2. 3. 
 
 Sing, alagishiam alagisheah alagisheat Plur. alagishiama alagishiate alagishian 
 Xegatfu Xe%ctis Xz%ou Xe£aiy.ev Xe%oi.its Xegctisv 
 
 lexissem lexisses lexisset lexissemus lexissetis lexissent 
 
 2. 3. 2. 3. 
 
 Dual, alagishiatam alagishisheatam Xs^onrov AejjfacDjv 
 
 IMPERATIVE. 
 2. 3. 2. S. 
 
 Sing, laga lagatu Plur. lagata lagantu 
 
 Xsys Xeyerm Xsysrs XeyovTcuv Att. 
 
 lege legito legite legunto 
 
 The Sanscrit infinitive is preserved in the first Latin supine ; as, 
 palitum, alitum ; sanitum, cinctum. 
 
 The present participle in the masculine gender is nearly similar ; as, 
 
 N. G. D. Ac. Ab. N. & Ac. G. D. Ab. 
 
 Sing, lagan lagatah lagate lagantam lagati Plur. lagantah lagatam lagadbhiah lagatsu 
 
 Xsycuv XsyovTog Xeyovrt Xsyovra XeyovT£{ Xeyovrcuv Xsyovtrt 
 
 legens legentis legenti legentem legenti legentes legentium legentibus 
 
 The feminine is formed regularly in Sanscrit, as laganti, and 
 declined like other feminine nouns ; but in Greek it is formed 
 irregularly, as Xeyova-a, and in Latin it is the same as the masculine. 
 
 The neuter thus forms the nominative and accusative, singular and 
 plural : — 
 
 agat laganti Xsyov Xsyovra. legens legentia 
 
 The present participle of the middle voice is also the same in 
 Sanscrit and Greek j as, 
 
 lagamanah lagamanah lagamanam Xeyopevo; Xeyopevri Xsyotj.evov 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 257 
 
 and the Sanscrit past participle has been preserved in Latin ; as, 
 
 lagatah lagatah lagatam 
 saktah saktah sactam 
 
 legatus legata legatum 
 lectus lecta lectum 
 
 It thus appears that of the ten Sanscrit tenses, viz. the present, the 
 three prseterites, the two futures, the potential, the conditional, the 
 imperative, and the infinitive, the inflections of six have been pre- 
 served both in Greek and Latin, and of one in Greek and Latin 
 respectively ; so that there remain two tenses only, the inflections 
 of which have been lost. 
 
 The middle and passive voices of Sanscrit verbs, however, being 
 formed merely by slight changes in the increments used in the active 
 voice, do not afford any coincidences which would admit of identifying 
 their tenses with those of Greek and Latin verbs.* 
 
 PARTICLES. 
 
 Home Tooke has observed that, " though abbreviation and cor- 
 ruption are always busiest with the words which are most frequently in 
 
 * The coincidences in the substantive verb have been given by other writers, but it may 
 be proper to add them here : — 
 
 PRESENT. 
 
 i. 
 Plur. smah 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 S. Sing, asmi 
 
 asi 
 
 asti 
 
 G. SljU-l 
 
 e<? 
 
 £<TTI 
 
 L. esum 
 
 es 
 
 est 
 
 2. 
 
 stha 
 
 eo"jU,ev sots 
 sumus estis 
 
 s. 
 santi 
 svti Dor. 
 sunt 
 
 IMPERATIVE. 
 
 2. 3. 2. 3. 
 
 S. Si?ig. edhi astu Plur. sta santu 
 
 G. ICT0I StXTOO SOTS StTTCtiV Att. 
 
 L. sunto 
 
 POTENTIAL. 
 1. 2. 3. I. 2. 3. 
 
 S. Sing, siam sia siat Plur. siama siata suili 
 L. sim sis sit simus sitis sint 
 
 L L 
 
258 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 use ; yet the words most frequently used are least liable to be totally laid 
 aside, and, therefore, they are often retained ( I mean that branch of 
 them which is most frequently used), when most of the other words 
 (and even the other branches of these retained words) are by various 
 changes and accidents lost to a language. Hence the difficulty of 
 accounting for them, and hence (because only one branch of each of 
 these declinable words is retained in a language) arises the notion of 
 their being indeclinable and a separate sort of words, or part of speech 
 by themselves."* But, if it be admitted that this opinion is correct, 
 the identity of so many of the Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin particles, 
 and the illustration which some in the two last languages receives 
 from Sanscrit, must tend still farther to demonstrate that the re- 
 markable affinity which prevails between these languages could not 
 have existed, had not Greek and Latin been actually derived from 
 Sanscrit. For instance, it has been found impossible to account for a 
 having in Greek both an intensive and a privative signification ; but 
 it is at once explained by observing that, in the first sense, it is equi- 
 valent to the Sanscrit preposition a (the same as the Latin ad), which 
 implies addition, excess, or superiority ; and in the last sense it cor- 
 responds with the Sanscrit privative particle. The same confusion 
 has taken place in the meaning given to the particle w 4 , as it is also 
 both privative and intensive, because the distinction between the 
 Sanscrit ni implying excess, and nir denoting deprivation, has not 
 been preserved. Again, £cu (equivalent to the Latin vce) is explained 
 by lexicographers as particula augendi, and very correctly, as it is 
 clearly the Sanscrit adjective bahu f , much, many. 
 
 Dr. Jamieson, indeed, observes that " many learned writers, in 
 former ages, have deduced Gothic words from the Greek, or from the 
 Latin language. This mode of derivation, however, has not only 
 excited a smile at their expense, but has in part contributed to subject 
 the science of etymology in general to ridicule. It has, with good 
 
 * Epea Pteroenta, vol. i. p. 127. 
 
 f In speaking, the aspirate is but slightly pronounced, and the two syllables might easily 
 coalesce ; as, to my ear, they often do in the actual pronunciation by the natives of the word 
 bahuwachan, plural. 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 259 
 
 reason, been deemed inconceivable, that the Gothic tribes should 
 borrow from the Greeks, with whom, during the historical age at least, 
 they had scarce any intercourse, nor were they better acquainted with 
 
 the Latins, when they inundated and subdued the Roman empire 
 
 This mode of derivation being justly scouted, an enquiry naturally 
 occurs to the mind : As a remarkable affinity has been observed between 
 the Gothic and Greek and Latin languages, may not the former idea 
 be inverted; is there not a possibility that the languages of Greece may 
 have originated from the ancient Scythian?" * But by the Scythians 
 Dr. Jamieson intends the ancestors of the Gothic people, and I have, 
 perhaps, not only shown that these were Thracians, and not Scythians, 
 but, also, that the Thracian language was originally the same as the 
 Greek and Latin. I have further evinced that there is every reason 
 to suppose that this language was actually the primitive tongue of 
 Asia Minor, and itself derived from that of Babylonia, or Sanscrit. 
 The particles, therefore, in Greek, Latin, and Gothic would naturally, 
 in many instances, retain their identity ; and, if such as are cognate 
 in these languages are, also, found in Sanscrit, their derivation from the 
 latter will scarcely be disputed, f 
 
 There is, however, one difficulty in this identification, which arises 
 from the various and even opposite meanings which particles, and 
 particularly prepositions, have acquired from long use ; and hence, 
 precise identity of signification cannot be resorted to in order to prove 
 the identity of the particles compared : but, notwithstanding, almost 
 all the particles selected by Dr. Jamieson are found in Sanscrit ; as 
 for instance : — 
 
 * Hermes Scythicus, Intr. p. 1. 
 
 f Home Tooke remarks, — " For these troublesome conjunctions, which have hitherto 
 caused them [etymologists] so much mistake and unsatisfactory labour, shall save them 
 many an error and many a weary step in future. They shall no more expose themselves 
 by unnatural forced conceits to derive the English and all other languages from the Greek, 
 or the Hebrew, or some primeval imaginary tongue. The particles of every language .shall 
 teach them whither to direct, and where to stop their enquiries ; for, wherever the evident 
 meaning and origin of the particles of any lanoruafe can be found, there is the certain source 
 of the whole." — Epea Ptcroenta, vol. i. p. J 46. 
 
 L L c 2 
 
260 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 3f«J [anu) ; G. avu ; M. G. ana. 
 
 f^TT (wina) ; G. uvm ; L. sine j M. G. inuh. 
 
 3ffr|qfi {antika), near, proximate ; G. avn j L. ante ; M. G. anda. 
 
 3fCJ" 3f^" (apa, awa) ; G. ocrto ; L. ab ; M. G. abu. 
 
 3ffif (abhi), junction, tendency ; G. tm j M. G. bi, 
 
 f^SJ" (mitha), together, junction, mutually ; G. [/.era ; M. G. mith. 
 
 mj (p&ra), far ; G. naga, ; M. G. faura. 
 
 TTTT (j°<^»&)> the opposite; G. jft$M\ M. G. fairra. 
 
 rjff^ (pari) ; G. ve^i.* 
 
 Z% [pro) ; G. 7r^o' y L. pro ; M. G. faur. 
 
 $PT (sa?n) ; G. <rw ; L. cum ; M. G. sam. 
 
 3T^"f^ (updri) ; G. uVeg> ; L. super ; M. G. ufar. 
 
 3^T (upa) -, G. 07ro ; L. sub ; M. G. uf. 
 
 3Jrf (yat) ; G. on ; L. uti ; M. G. at. 
 
 3JrT (yata) ; G. ef; j A. S. get. 
 
 3f5Tj {ama) ; G. a^ua ; A. S. em. 
 
 <H<^| (yctda) ; G. ore ; A. S. tha. 
 
 ff^J (tada) ; G. tote ; M. G. thade. 
 
 3JPT {ayu), age ; G. ae< ; M. G. aiw. 
 
 3Xf (uri), expansion f; G. ugi, egi ; Alem. er. 
 
 fl^fj (dxvisha), by twos, separately ; G. fe ; L. dis ; M. G. dis. 
 
 I add a few other particles, not adverted to in Dr. Jamreson's work, 
 belonging to either Greek, Latin, or Gothic, which are derived from 
 Sanscrit : — 
 
 3f?J (adya) ; L. hodie ; M. G. hita. 
 
 vi| |£|«i (asann) ; G. a<ro~ov. 
 
 Xfrf (^) j G-. e;t« ; L. ita. 
 
 * Dr. Jamieson is at a loss to fix on a Gothic preposition corresponding with nepi. 
 \ Wilson gives no etymon for this particle, but in this sense it seems formed from the 
 adjective uru, great, large. 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 261 
 
 3ffrT (ati) ; G. «<5V. 
 
 fT (tu) ; G. toi. 
 
 21^ ( dus) ; G. fo& 
 
 TT^rT (parut), the last year ; G. we^va-i. 
 
 TJ~^ [purds) ; G. ir^oq. 
 
 CTfcT (prdti) ; G. 7T£or/. 
 
 yrj (ma) ; G. px. 
 
 CT (sm) ; G. eu. 
 
 g; (&wa) ; L. qua 
 
 ^rf (ut) ; L. ut, conj. 
 
 qH (wdt) ; L. ut, adv. 
 
 TTSrjrT (paschat) ; L. post 
 
 3f^" (a^ra) ; A. S. hither. 
 
 cT^ (tdtra) ; A. S. thither. 
 
 3T^" (ydtra) ; A. S. whither. 
 
 3TfrT («^) 5 beyond ; A. S. ut. 
 
 3pJ^ (an), the privative before a vowel ; Goth. un. 
 
 '^H (sanhhu) ; M. G. sansaiw. 
 
 3fy*Tf (adhuna) ; M. G. guthan. 
 
 fcfiSTcT (kimuta) ; A. S. humeta. 
 
 ^irlri (santatam) ; M. G. sintaino. 
 
 3"^f (udaya), sunrising ; M. G. uhtwo, mane. 
 
 3fS[^7 (athwa) ; A. S. oththe. 
 
 M l^rl \r\ (purastat) ; Eng„ first. 
 
 The reader will now be enabled to judge whether it is not more 
 probable that the Greek, Latin, and Gothic particles have been prin- 
 cipally derived from Sanscrit, than that they have been formed in the 
 manner stated by Dr. Jamieson and other writers. But, if this be 
 admitted, Home Tooke must be mistaken in the account of the origin 
 
262 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 of particles, which he has given in these words : — " Language, it is 
 true, is an art, and a glorious one; whose influence extends over all 
 the others, and in which finally all science whatever must centre. 
 But an art springing from necessity, and originally invented by artless 
 men ; who did not sit down like philosophers to invent des petits mots 
 pour etre mis avant les noms ; nor yet did they take for this purpose des 
 premiers sons brefs et vogues qui leur venoit a la bouche • but they took 
 such and the same (whether great or small, whether monosyllable 
 or polysyllable, without distinction) as they employed upon other 
 occasions to mention the same real objects. For prepositions also are 
 the names of real objects, and these petits mots happen in this case to 
 be so, merely from their repeated corruption, owing to their frequent, 
 long continued, and perpetual use." * Because all the labour and 
 ingenuity of Sanscrit grammarians have not enabled them to class 
 such words under any roots ; or, at least, whenever they have done 
 so, the derivations are as far fetched and unlikely as most of those 
 which have been adduced by Home Tooke. For, as he admits that 
 language was invented by artless men, such an etymology as this must 
 appear utterly improbable: — " I imagine, also, that of (in the Gothic 
 and Anglo-Saxon of) is a fragment of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon 
 afora, posteritas, &c. ; afora, proles, &c. That it is a noun substantive, 
 and means always consequence, offspring, successor, follower" &c. f 
 But would it not be much more reasonable to conclude that, if 
 particles were originally significant in themselves, they have become 
 so disguised and corrupted by long use, that it is now perfectly 
 impossible to discover their real nature ; and, in this instance par- 
 ticularly, to suppose that the Gothic af and English of have been 
 derived from the Sanscrit apa or ava f 
 
 * Epea Ptercenta, vol. i. p. 317. 
 
 f Ibid., vol. i. p. 367. 
 
 Might not one be allowed with great justness to thus parody Home Tooke's own "words, 
 in a note in the 1 1 5th page of that volume ? — " Now if this, and such stuff as this, be 
 etymology, and that too of the greatest etymologist that ever existed, I do most humbly 
 entreat, if you still continue obstinate to discard common sense, that I may have the 
 etymologies of Dean Swift again." 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. ^63 
 
 TEUTONIC DIALECTS. 
 
 From the preceding observations the remarkable similarity of the 
 grammatical system in Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin will have been 
 rendered fully apparent ; but, amongst the Thracians, this system was 
 found too artificial for a people who did not cultivate the arts of 
 civilised life. In the Teutonic dialects, consequently, the grammatical 
 structure assumes a simplicity that might render their affinity with 
 those languages liable to doubt, did not undeniable traces exist in all 
 these dialects which attest that they, also, must have been at one time 
 distinguished by more numerous grammatical forms ; for the sub- 
 stantives and adjectives still retain three genders, and their cases are 
 formed by inflections and not by prepositions. In these cases, also, 
 a few of the Sanscrit terminations have been preserved, the identity 
 of which cannot be doubted, as they equally appear in Greek and 
 Latin nouns. In Anglo-Saxon, for instance, the genitive singular ends 
 generally in s, the dative in e, and in one -declension the accusative 
 plural of masculine nouns ends in as, equivalent to the Sanscrit ah, and 
 of feminine nouns in a, as in Sanscrit. The genitive plural, also, 
 seems to be formed by merely rejecting the last syllable of the 
 Sanscrit ; as, S. nardnam, A; S. smitha. In one declension, indeed, the 
 final letter only is rejected ; as, S. girinam, A. S. witigena. 
 
 But in the Teutonic verbs the ten Sanscrit tenses and their in- 
 flections have nearly disappeared, and of the distinct formation of a 
 middle and passive voice no traces remain. The number, however, 
 of Sanscrit verbs still discoverable in these dialects, and the almost 
 certainty that their parent language was the same as the Greek and 
 Latin, must place it beyond a doubt that the Gothic verb must also 
 have been originally conjugated by means of inflections, and not of 
 auxiliary verbs ; but the use of the latter for this purpose seems so 
 consonant to the habits of a rude people, that even the Latin has 
 been obliged to have recourse to it. It cannot, therefore, seem im- 
 
264 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 probable that the Thracians, unacquainted with letters and the arts of 
 civilised life, may have soon found these complicated modifications of 
 the verb inconvenient and unnecessary, and that they in consequence 
 rejected them, and supplied their places with other distinct words. 
 In its present state the Gothic verb, assuming the second person 
 singular of the imperative as the root, admits of only three inflections, 
 the present, preterite, and infinitive ; to which may be added the 
 present participle. The terminations, also, of the persons of these two 
 tenses are precisely the same, and vary merely in the singular, as there 
 is but one termination for the three persons of the plural. There, 
 consequently, remains scarcely any thing for comparison with the 
 Sanscrit verb. But in Mceso-Gothic the terminations have been better 
 preserved, and their identity with Sanscrit is evident ; as for instance, 
 
 1st Per. 2d Per. 3d Per. 
 
 Plur. shokamah shokatha shokanti 
 
 sokam sokith sokand 
 
 In Mceso-Gothic, also, Hickes has given a future, formed by in- 
 flection, which nearly agrees with the Sanscrit potential : — 
 
 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Sing. shokeyam shokeh* shoket Plur. shokema shoketa shokeyu 
 
 Mid. Voice, shokeya 
 
 M. G. sokau sokais sokai sokaima sokait sokaina 
 
 The Sanscrit substantive verb, at the same time, has been best pre- 
 served in Mceso-Gothic, though its present tense is compounded of 
 the persons of two of the Sanscrit tenses ; as, 
 
 ]. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 
 
 S. Pres. tense. Sing, asmi asi asti Plur. santi 
 
 Potential. syama syata 
 
 M. G. im is ist siyum siyuth sind 
 
 * This final h, or visarga, as I have before observed, is frequently changed into s. 
 
 
 1st Per. 
 
 2d Per. 
 
 3d Per. 
 
 Smg. 
 
 shokami 
 
 shokasi 
 
 shokati 
 
 Mid. Voice. 
 
 shoke 
 
 
 
 M. G. 
 
 soka 
 
 sokais 
 
 sokai th 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 
 
 265 
 
 I have already noticed, in p. 152., the Sanscrit verbs which contribute 
 to the formation of the Anglo-Saxon substantive verb ; but the 
 coincidences will be rendered still more apparent by comparing 
 other tenses of the Moeso-Gothic substantive verb with the cor- 
 responding ones in Sanscrit : — 
 
 1. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 i. 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 S. Potential. Sing, syam 
 
 syah 
 
 syat 
 
 Plur. syama 
 
 syata 
 
 syuh 
 
 M. G. Ditto. siyau 
 
 siyais 
 
 siyai 
 
 siyaima 
 
 siyaith 
 
 siyaina 
 
 1. 2. 3. 
 
 S. Potential. Sing, waseya waseh waset 
 M. G. Ditto. wasau wasais wasei 
 
 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Plur. wasema waseta waseyuh 
 waseima wasaith waseina 
 
 1. 2. 3. 
 
 S. Pres. tense. Sing, wartami wartasi wartati 
 
 Mid. Voice. warte 
 
 M. G. wairtha wairthais wairthet 
 
 i. 
 Plur. wartama 
 
 2. 
 
 wartatha 
 
 wartanti 
 
 wairtham wairthaith wairthand 
 
 The prasterite tense of the Gothic verb is clearly the past participle 
 of the Sanscrit, to which personal terminations have been added ; as, 
 S. shokita, M. G. sokida. 
 
 The present active participle of Mceso-Gothic in the accusative case 
 is identical with the Sanscrit ; as, M. G. habendan, S. bhawantam.* 
 
 These coincidences in the general structure of the Gothic and 
 Sanscrit languages will, perhaps, be sufficient to evince that the 
 dissimilarity which at present exists in their grammatical systems 
 affords no just grounds for doubting that the former was derived from 
 the latter. On the contrary, when it is considered that the Gothic 
 
 * It appears to me highly probable that the verb habeo in Latin, which has a corresponding 
 term in all the Teutonic dialects, is derived from this Sanscrit verb, as will perhaps be 
 apparent from contrasting the following tenses : — 
 
 1. 2. 3. 
 
 S. Potential. Sing, bhaveya bhaveh bhavet 
 
 Present tense. 
 
 L. Present tense, habeo habes habet 
 
 M. G. haba habais habaith 
 
 1. 2. 3. 
 
 Plur. bhavema bhaveta bhaveyuh 
 
 bhavanti 
 habemus habetis habent 
 habam habeith haband 
 
 The Latin perfect habui may be derived from Sanscrit bebhwwa, and the Latin supine 
 habitum seems clearly to be the Sanscrit infinitive bhavitum. 
 
 M M 
 
266 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 was in constant use, for, probably, fifteen hundred years, as the ver- 
 nacular tongue of the rude and widely dispersed tribes that inhabited 
 Thracia and Germany, before it was employed as a written language, 
 it must excite the greatest surprise that it should exhibit even at this 
 day such undeniable indications of its having originally possessed a 
 much more artificial grammatical structure. When, also, these in- 
 dications are confirmed by the remarkable circumstance of the Teutonic 
 dialects containing, after a lapse of three thousand years, at least 413 
 Sanscrit words, it will scarcely be denied that the cognate origin of 
 Greek, Latin, and these dialects from the Sanscrit language has been 
 as satisfactorily demonstrated as the nature of the subject admits of. 
 
 PERSIAN. 
 
 But in Persian there is not the slightest appearance that its gram- 
 matical system was ever different from that which has prevailed during 
 the last thousand years ; and I have, perhaps, fully shown in the Tenth 
 Chapter that, previous to the first Persian author now extant, no 
 external influence had ever effected any essential alteration in the lan- 
 guage which had been used in Persia from time immemorial. Its 
 peculiar structure, therefore, deserves the attentive consideration of the 
 philologist, because it differs entirely from that of all other languages. 
 The characteristics by which it is principally distinguished consist 
 in the nouns having no genders; in the substantives having only one 
 case ; in the adjectives being indeclinable ; in the verbs being all con- 
 jugated according to one paradigm, and in four of their tenses being 
 formed by particles ; and, particularly, in the words of a most copious 
 language being nearly all primitive, as it scarcely admits of the primitive 
 being modified by means of increments, or of its being compounded 
 with particles. In many respects, consequently, it approaches to 
 English in the simplicity of its structure, but it far surpasses the latter 
 in regularity and originality. 
 
GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. ^61 
 
 There exists not, therefore, the remotest similarity between the 
 Persian and Sanscrit grammatical systems ; for the Persian noun has 
 but one case, and the verb, taking the second person singular of 
 the imperative as the root, only three inflections including the 
 infinitive, and the personal terminations of the two tenses are pre- 
 cisely the same. Nor is there even any farther resemblance between 
 the Sanscrit and Persian substantive verbs, than in the third person 
 singular of the present tense. The Persian also differs from the 
 Sanscrit by forming several tenses and a complete passive voice by 
 means of auxiliary verbs. There is, in fact, not the least identity 
 between these two languages, except in the words which have passed 
 from the one into the other ; but these fully prove that, though the 
 Persian is not derived from Sanscrit, still the Persians must have had, 
 at some remote period, a most intimate intercourse with a people who 
 spoke that tongue. Unfortunately, however, as a negative cannot 
 be proved, it is impossible to demonstrate this truth to a person 
 unacquainted with these languages ; or to fully satisfy him that the 
 number of Sanscrit words found in Persian ought not to lead to 
 a conclusion, as in the case of Greek and Latin, that the latter was 
 derived from the former : but, as the dissimilarity of their grammatical 
 structure will not be denied by any person competently acquainted 
 with them, it is merely requisite to consider whether any instance 
 has ever existed of a derived language differing totally, in grammatical 
 structure, from the parent tongue ; for, if not, it must necessarily 
 follow that, notwithstanding the numerous Sanscrit words it contains, 
 Persian was not derived from Sanscrit.* 
 
 * Amongst the other innumerable errors which occur in Dr. A. Murray's History of the 
 European languages is the following strange opinion : — " The Persic, in the violence of 
 ages, like the Anglo-Saxon, has lost nearly all its inflections; though it be a perspicuous, 
 it is evidently a barren dialect. It has run the race which experience shows to be due to 
 articulate speech in its natural progress. Time destroys the more delicate and complex 
 parts of the structure, by the hand of ignorance and chance ; leaving the ruins, for the 
 materials of a smaller and less splendid edifice, to future ingenuity." — Vol. ii. p. J-40. How 
 any person, aware that Greek had remained, from before the time of Homer to the capture of 
 Constantinople, during a course of 2500 years, and during all the changes which the 
 Grecian people had suffered in that long interval, in every respect the same identical 
 
 M M 2 
 
268 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 From the preceding observations it will be evident that, on account 
 of differences in the alphabetical systems and grammatical structure 
 of the languages into which Sanscrit words have passed, these words 
 must necessarily have suffered changes both in their component letters 
 and in their final and penultimate syllables ; and, consequently, such 
 obviously unavoidable alterations would not justly render questionable 
 the identity of the words compared together in the following Table. 
 But it is most singular that such legitimate changes are scarcely 
 requisite for effecting this comparison ; and that by an occasional 
 permutation of vowels and two or three consonants, and the mere 
 rejection of a grammatical inflection, 900 Sanscrit words can be in- 
 controvertibly identified with the same number in five distinct lan- 
 guages. It will, also, be observed that in very few instances only has 
 either prosthesis, epenthesis, or metathesis occurred., The prefixing, 
 however, of an s to words seems common to several languages, and 
 that in Latin words an n has been occasionally inserted can scarcely 
 be doubted : for it will not, perhaps, be denied that the Sanscrit 
 sapta is identical with k-rrroc, and S. plina with G. o-ttXviv, L. lien ; 
 and that S. shata?n, G. exutov, L. centum; S. rasa, G. ef<rij, L. ros ; 
 and S. asim, L. ensem, are the same words ; as in these and similar 
 
 language, could write such remarks as these seems inexplicable. But, if by Anglo-Saxon 
 English be intended, the causes which have occasioned it to lose nearly all its inflections 
 are well known ; and, consequently, before it is produced as an example in support of any 
 philological argument, it ought to be first proved that the country, the language of which 
 may be under discussion, had undergone precisely the same revolutions as England. In 
 Persia, on the contrary, not the slightest indication exists, either in tradition or history, 
 which shows that, previous to the Arabian conquest, any foreign influence ever operated 
 the slightest change in the Persian language ; and every Persian scholar must admit that 
 the effects of that event have not in the least degree altered its original structure. The 
 writer, however, who can consider Persian as a barren dialect, must be so totally ignorant 
 of that language as to render his opinion respecting its origin and nature undeserving of 
 attention. 
 
GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. ggp, 
 
 cases the meaning is precisely the same. The identity of iog and 
 the Sanscrit ishu might appear more questionable, were it not for the 
 identity of their signification ; but zoq and the Sanscrit usha will no 
 doubt be readily admitted to be identical. Such changes, however, 
 occur very seldom, and I have, perhaps, adhered too strictly to my 
 own principles, in excluding words the derivation of which from 
 Sanscrit would not in all probability have been controverted.* 
 
 But, in case the words contained in the following Table should be 
 examined critically, it must be further remarked that in some instances 
 it is by the primitive, and not by the usual, signification of the Greek, 
 Latin, or Gothic terms that their identity with Sanscrit ones must be 
 determined. For instance, the Sanscrit loka does not correspond with 
 the usual acceptation of the Latin locus, but precisely with this 
 definition of the word given by Varro ; — " Loca, secundum anti- 
 quam divisionem, prima duo, terra et caelum ; deinde particulatim 
 utriusque multa. Cceli dicuntur loca supera, et ea deorum : terra loca 
 infera, et ea hominum." Fundus, also, is thus defined by Gesner ; — 
 " Proprie est ima pars uniuscujusque rei, qu.se aliquid in se liquoris 
 contineat, vel ad continendum facta sit ; " and, consequently, it may be 
 correctly identified with the Sanscrit phanda, the belly. Again, 
 Gesner thus defines fanum ; — " Fanum itaque secundum hagc diflfert 
 a Templo, quod sit area templi et solum, Templum vero gedificium," 
 
 * It will, also, be observed that I have rejected many words which appear in comparative 
 lists already published. But of the 429 given by Adelung seventy-eight are not Sanscrit, a 
 good many have no such meaning as he ascribes to them, and the identity of numerous 
 others cannot be admitted. For it is impossible to discover any correspondence in such 
 words as these : — S. aascha, desiderium ; Ger. heischen, poscere •• S. ari, hostis ,■ G. egivvuj : 
 S. arun, diluculum ; Heb. or, lux .- S. deva, deus ,■ G. Satju-wv ; Ger. teuf-el, diabolus : 
 S. gula, globus ; Heb. chul, circumvolvendo ligat .- S. krida (kirita), diadema ; Ger. kreis, 
 ciradus : S. mala, mons ; Lat. mala : S. oschna (ushna), calor ; Lat. sestus : S. ko-bilen 
 (go-pala), vaccarum custos ; Lat. Pales ; G. A-ttoWmv : S. pascha, animal ; G. 8ov; ; Lat. bos i 
 S. surgo (swarga), caelum ; Lat. surgere. The identifications given by M. Klaproth are often 
 equally objectionable ; as, S. ania, alius ; Ger. ander : S. vinasha, exitium, Lat. finis : 
 S. dutia, nuncium -, Eng. duty : S. sima, meta ,■ Pers. semin, terra : S. veda, lex sacra ; 
 Lat. veto: S. lakhu (laghu), levis ; Lat. levis ; Ger. leicht : S. sajaka ; Lat. sagitta : 
 S. lalana, oblectatio ; Lat. blandus : S. atma ; Lat. anima : S. vanigia, mcrcatura ; Lat. 
 vendere, &c. Several, also, of the words given by M. Klaproth are not Sanscrit. 
 
270 
 
 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 When, therefore, the construction of temples in sacred groves is ad- 
 verted to, what can seem more probable than that fanum is the same 
 word as the Sanscrit isoanam^ a grove. * But it is dangerous to indulge 
 in such etymologies as these, for they too often merely mislead ; and 
 the etymologist, pleased with such seemingly ingenious identifications, 
 is too apt to push them to the absurdest extreme. 
 
 It is, however, in tracing the origin of such words as the last, that 
 etymology might be applied to the most philosophical of purposes. 
 For, in the progress of civilisation and knowledge, all people have 
 found it more convenient to employ words already in use for the 
 expression of new ideas, than to invent new terms as they became 
 requisite. Hence, by ascertaining the primitive word and its original 
 signification, and then tracing it through all its modifications and 
 varieties of meaning, the process by which a people has proceeded 
 from the observation of sensible objects unto discrimination of the 
 most subtle operations of the mind, or the precise point at which this 
 process has stopped, may be investigated with the utmost certainty. 
 In the same manner the progress which a nation has made in the 
 useful and ornamental arts, and whether these have been invented in 
 the country or received from strangers, are equally demonstrated by 
 its language. But, hitherto, it has been in the investigation of sounds 
 and not of ideas that etymology has been employed, and the futility 
 of such researches has scarcely received more ridicule than it justly 
 merits. 
 
 In later years, also, a subject of investigation has been dignified with 
 the appellation of the philosophy and even the inductive philosophy of 
 language, which seems to me to be still more futile : for there are no 
 data whatever from which the original formation of any one language 
 can be ascertained; and, consequently, all opinions on the subject 
 must rest entirely on conjectures, without there being any criterion by 
 which their correctness could be determined. Such speculations, 
 therefore, are a mere waste of time, because their results cannot 
 
 * At least this etymology must appear much more probable than this one given by 
 Varro, — " Hinc fana nominata, quod pontifices in sacrando fati sint finem." 
 
GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 271 
 
 promote the increase or perfection of knowledge. Dr. A. Murray, 
 however, observes with respect to the indeclinable parts of speech : — 
 " The origin of this division of language was first explained by the 
 able and philosophical enquiries of Home Tooke. We are indebted 
 to these for the recent discovery, that there are no words in language 
 destitute of meaning, or without any signification save that which 
 they derive from others. He was the first writer who applied the 
 inductive philosophy to the history of speech, and the success equalled 
 the expectations which might have been formed from his distinguished 
 abilities."* But the slightest acquaintance with languages must in- 
 controvertibly evince that, in their present state, all words are not 
 derived from the noun and the verb ; and, if a language ever existed 
 composed only of nouns and verbs, it must have been so rude and 
 unformed as to be perfectly undeserving of consideration. On what 
 grounds, also, is it assumed that it would be more easy for a people to 
 corrupt the noun and verb into the other parts of speech than to invent 
 them ; or that the increments used for the inflection, or modification, 
 of the primitive word must necessarily have been significant in them- 
 selves ? For, until these two points be satisfactorily proved, the 
 whole of Home Tooke's system rests on no foundation whatever ; and, 
 consequently, before he applied his principles to the Gothic dialects, 
 he ought to have established, by numerous instances adduced from 
 various languages, that these principles were themselves correct and 
 capable of universal application. 
 
 It must, at the same time, be admitted that Home Tooke has sup- 
 ported his opinion with much ingenuity, and a very skilful selection 
 of examples : but, as his colloquist very justly observes, — " Thus it 
 is always with etymologists, when they chuse their own instances, 
 their explanations run upon all fours ; but they limp most miserably, 
 when others quote the passages for them." f Every reader, indeed, of 
 the Diversions of Purley must observe that Home Tooke was ignorant 
 of the languages of the East, and that he has even carefully refrained 
 
 * Hist, of European Languages, vol. ii. p. 1. 
 f Epea Pteroenta, vol. ii. p. 49. 
 
272 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 from availing himself for the illustration of his remarks of so copious 
 and perfect a tongue as the Greek. These circumstances alone are 
 sufficient to excite doubts respecting the correctness of his hypothesis ; 
 and I may affirm, without the fear of contradiction, that he would have 
 found it impossible to apply his principles, in the slightest degree, 
 either to the Greek *, Arabic, Persian, or Sanscrit languages ; for in 
 none of these would he have been able to trace every word to a noun 
 or verb. This opinion is, at the same time, disproved by the internal 
 evidence of all languages, in which many words exist in the state of 
 adjectives without the idea expressed by them having been denoted by 
 a noun or verb, or there having been any necessity for so denoting it ; 
 as for instance, good, bad, long, short, sick, well, round, strait, quick, 
 slow, &c. j" It seems equally evident that the pronoun expresses an 
 idea which could never have been conveyed by a noun or a verb, and 
 it is, therefore, impossible to understand how it could ever have been 
 corrupted from either. On the contrary, it may be more reasonably 
 supposed that the inconvenience of continually repeating the proper 
 name of the speaker and the person addressed, or a third person, would 
 have very soon occasioned the invention of a substitute for so tedious 
 a mode of conversation.^: If, also, the signs of the cases of nouns, and 
 the terminations of the persons of verbs, had originally been words 
 significant in themselves, and each of them had expressed but one 
 determinate idea, what could possibly occasion the variety of in- 
 flections which now prevail in the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit nouns and 
 verbs ? It might, however, seem reasonable to suppose that, unless 
 increments and particles had been originally significant in themselves, 
 they could not have answered the purpose for which they were in- 
 vented. But, unless a meaning can be discovered in English in the y 
 
 * Much of Home Tooke's reasoning is founded on the use made of the past participles 
 in forming such words as right, just, wrong, &c. ; and yet the Greek has no such past participle. 
 
 f In the Maratha dialect, though abstract nouns maybe formed from such adjectives, 
 they are scarcely ever used. 
 
 J Home Tooke has very skilfully confined himself to a few observations on the 
 demonstrative pronouns it and that ; but has not ventured to give any explanation of the 
 origin of the personal pronouns, 
 
GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 273 
 
 by which nouns are rendered adjectives, as greedy ; or in Persian in 
 the izafat, i. e. in the i annexed to a noun in construction with 
 another ; or to the y in Sanscrit by which also nouns are rendered 
 adjectives, as nasha, destruction, nashya, destructive ; it might be more 
 justly concluded that such increments were merely intended to indicate 
 that the word to which they were added was, except in the case of 
 a derivative noun, dependent on another word for its complete 
 signification.* 
 
 As, however, I consider all conjectures on the formation of lan- 
 guages to be a mere waste of time, I have no intention of entering 
 into a discussion respecting the prefixes, affixes, and particles, by which 
 primitives in Sanscrit are modified and compounded. Nor is it 
 necessary, because all comparison of languages must depend on their 
 actual and not on their original state. Every people, also, have 
 adopted different means for this purpose ; and in no respect was 
 Home Tooke more egregiously mistaken, than in supposing that 
 principles which might be applicable to the structure of the Gothic 
 dialects, would be also applicable to that of all other languages. For 
 it is precisely in the inflections, increments, and particles that changes 
 would first begin to take place in the parent tongue of a people who 
 had been originally the same, but who had separated and become 
 distinct nations. These changes are very perceptible in th§ Gothic 
 dialects ; and, had not Home Tooke been misled by a favourite hypo- 
 thesis, he must have observed in them strong indications that their 
 complete originality was very questionable, and that their gram- 
 matical structure no longer existed in its primitive state. These 
 
 * The anomalies, also, of most languages must prevent the possibility of reducing them to 
 their simplest elements on any certain principles. For nothing seems more probable than 
 that the cases of nouns were intended to denote those ideas of relation which are expressed 
 in the Gothic dialects by prepositions ; and such is actually their use in Sanscrit, in which 
 with, by, to, for, at, from, of, in, on, are signified by the cases of nouns without the assist- 
 ance of prepositions : but, why are the prepositions placed in construction, always in 
 Greek and sometimes in Latin, with the cases of nouns, if these were really significant in 
 themselves ? 
 
 N N 
 
274 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 dialects, therefore, being derived from another tongue, and their 
 original structure having been materially affected by the lapse of time, 
 and by all the corruptions to which vernacular speech is invariably 
 subject, were totally unadapted for furnishing any principles which 
 could be universally applicable, and thus lead to just conclusions re- 
 specting the original formation of language. 
 
 Sanscrit, in particular, is much too ancient and too refined a lan- 
 o-uao-e, to admit of its original formation being ever ascertained by the 
 analysis of the letters and syllables of which its words and particles are 
 composed. Nor, were it possible, can I understand that any benefit 
 could possibly result from it ; because, for all grammatical purposes, 
 Sanscrit has been sufficiently analysed and reduced to the clearest 
 principles, and the primitive and derivative meanings of its words 
 may be traced with the greatest certainty. Whether, therefore, its 
 inflections, increments, and particles were ever words significant in 
 themselves, or the manner in which they were first invented and 
 afterwards corrupted, are assuredly questions which deserve not con- 
 sideration ; as their most complete solution would not contribute in 
 the slightest degree either to the more easy acquisition, or to the more 
 perfect comprehension, of so copious and polished a language. It is 
 the actual elegance and symmetry of an edifice which command 
 admiration, and not the rude materials from which it was constructed ; 
 and the explorer of the elements from which languages have acquired 
 their present refinement resembles much the man who, instead of 
 gazing with awe and wonder on the church of St. Peter, should amuse 
 himself by endeavouring to ascertain the nature of the cement 
 and fastenings used in its erection. Such an analysis is equally un- 
 necessary for the purpose of comparing one language with another ; 
 for, if the same inflections and particles exist in any two languages, 
 this circumstance alone fully proves their affinity, and, consequently, 
 any further enquiry into the origin of these inflections and particles 
 becomes altogether useless. The preceding observations, therefore, 
 will, perhaps, be sufficient to evince that, although considerable dif- 
 
GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 275 
 
 ference now exists in the structure of the Greek, Latin, Gothic, and 
 Sanscrit languages, still such undeniable points of coincidence are 
 discoverable even at this day in their grammatical systems, as, united 
 to the 900 Sanscrit words still found in them, must render it in 
 the highest degree probable that Sanscrit is the parent tongue from 
 which the Greek, Latin, and Gothic languages have derived their 
 origin. 
 
 N N 2 
 
LIST OF SANSCRIT WORDS 
 
 WHICH ARE POUND IN 
 
 THE GREEK, LATIN, PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 *S ♦ 
 
 aphenam 
 
 OTTiOV 
 
 opium 
 
 afiun 
 
 opium 
 
 opium 
 
 
 <mQm 
 
 3T? 
 
 ashta 
 
 OXTW 
 
 octo 
 
 hasht 
 
 acht 
 
 eight 
 
 
 3TRrf 
 
 asti 
 
 upar 
 
 richate 
 
 kalamam 
 
 janu 
 
 tara < 
 
 twam 
 
 £<7T» 
 UTTSg 
 
 oqsysTcu * 
 
 KX\X[X0V 
 
 yovv 
 
 est 
 super 
 porrigit f 
 calamum 
 
 genu 
 
 astrum "i 
 sidera / 
 
 tu 
 
 ast 
 
 abar 
 
 rasad 
 
 kalam 
 
 zanu 
 
 ist 
 
 ober 
 
 recket 
 
 kiel 
 
 knie 
 
 is 
 
 over 
 
 reacheth 
 
 quill 
 
 knee 
 
 
 
 
 °h^ 
 
 ^111 
 
 ril<| 
 
 TSlQSCt 
 
 curry g 
 <rv tu 
 
 sitara 
 to 
 
 stern 
 du 
 
 star 
 
 thou. A. S. 
 
 thu 
 
 fr 
 
 dwi 
 
 Sua) 
 
 duo 
 
 do 
 
 zwey 
 
 two 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 nakham 
 
 owya. 
 
 unguem 
 
 nakhan 
 
 nagel 
 
 nail 
 
 
 =# 
 
 nawam 
 nawan 
 
 veov 
 sweet 
 
 novum 
 novem 
 
 nau 
 nah 
 
 neu 
 neun 
 
 new 
 nine 
 
 
 •w*i 
 
 ^ttt 
 
 nama 
 
 ovofxx 
 
 nomen 
 
 nam 
 
 nahme 
 
 name 
 
 
 * The o is, perhaps, the Sanscrit prep, a, ad. f The por is, perhaps, the Sanscrit prep, pra, pro. 
 X In Pracrit, tu. 
 
278 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 ^ 
 
 no 
 
 n 
 
 non 
 
 nah 
 
 nein 
 
 no 
 
 VK 
 
 padam 
 
 irofia. 
 
 pedem 
 
 pa 
 
 pfote 
 
 foot 
 
 fqrj 
 
 pitr 
 
 TtdTYlQ 
 
 pater 
 
 pidar 
 
 vater 
 
 father 
 
 H<^1 
 
 bharate 
 
 fsgerui 
 
 fert 
 
 barad 
 
 gebaret 
 
 beareth 
 
 tfTFJ 
 
 bhratr 
 
 tpgarng 
 
 frater 
 
 biradar 
 
 bruder 
 
 brother 
 
 *Mf* 
 
 madhyam 
 mashaka 
 
 pei<rov 
 
 fJLVHX 
 
 medium 
 musca 
 
 mian 
 magas 
 
 mitte 
 miicke 
 
 mid 
 midge 
 
 ^l<=h 
 
 ^TTrf 
 
 matr 
 
 firirrig 
 
 mater 
 
 madar 
 
 mutter 
 
 mother 
 
 f^^'^r) t 
 
 mishi'ayate 
 
 jCu£st«j 
 
 miscet 
 
 amizad 
 
 mischet 
 
 mixeth 
 
 3^ 
 
 musha 
 
 pug 
 
 mus 
 
 mush 
 
 maus 
 
 mouse 
 
 *PT 
 
 yugam 
 
 £evyos 
 
 jugum 
 
 yugh 
 
 joch 
 
 yoke 
 
 
 lakayate 
 sharkara 
 
 crctx^ocg 
 
 lingit 
 saccharum 
 
 lazad 
 shakar 
 
 lecket 
 zucker 
 
 licketh 
 sugar 
 
 *!<*< 
 
 OT 
 
 shash 
 
 % 
 
 sex 
 
 shash 
 
 sechs 
 
 six 
 
 TO 
 
 sapta 
 
 eirra. 
 
 septem 
 
 haft 
 
 sieben 
 
 seven 
 
 ssr 
 
 stha 
 
 Jcrra 
 
 sta 
 
 istad 
 
 steh 
 
 stay 
 
 ^T 
 
 swar 
 
 (rtpoiiga. 
 
 sphaera 
 
 siphar 
 
 sphare 
 
 sphere 
 
 3pT: 
 
 antah 
 
 evrog 
 
 intus 
 
 
 
 
 3TrfT x 
 
 ♦ * 
 
 antarah 
 
 
 intra 
 
 ander 
 
 unter 
 
 under 
 
 v±H< 
 
 ambaram 
 
 o^Sgov 
 
 imbrem 
 
 
 
 
 3pcr 
 
 amsha 
 
 0/x.og 
 
 ansa 
 
 
 
 
 
 aksha 
 ajate 
 
 a.%cov 
 
 axis 
 agit 
 
 
 achse 
 
 axis 
 
 3T^1d 
 
 * ^i 
 
 ajirum 
 
 wygov 
 
 agrum 
 
 
 acker 
 
 acre 
 
 3r^TrT 
 
 adanti 
 
 &QVTOU 
 
 edunt 
 
 
 essen 
 
 eat 
 
 3^r 
 
 adia 
 
 ijSt] 
 
 hodie 
 
 
 heute 
 
 
 * Prac. maki. 
 
 f In Pi 
 
 rac. the r, w 
 
 lien joined to a 
 
 nother cons 
 
 onant, is gei 
 
 lerally omitted. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 279 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 
 anya 
 
 evveoj ixXXoi 
 
 alii 
 
 
 
 any 
 
 v±MI 
 
 3HT 
 
 apa 1 
 awa J 
 
 oltto 
 
 ab 
 
 
 ab, auf 
 
 of, off 
 
 vi|R 
 
 awim 
 
 oh 
 
 ovem 
 
 
 
 ewe 
 
 3fft 
 
 ashrim 
 
 axf^v 
 
 aciem 
 
 
 
 
 3f*ft 
 
 asau 
 
 OS 
 
 is 
 
 
 
 
 3ft 
 
 aham 
 
 eywv 
 
 ego 
 
 
 ich 
 
 I. A. S. ie 
 
 3ffW 
 
 asthi 
 
 0<7TS0V 
 
 os ossis 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 3TTt 
 
 aptum 
 
 a.7TTe<T$xi 
 
 aptare 
 
 
 
 
 
 ayum 
 
 cacuv 
 
 aevum 
 
 
 
 
 <HM< 
 
 alayam 
 
 civXyv 
 
 aulam 
 
 
 halle 
 
 hall 
 
 3m 
 
 ashtra 
 
 aidyg 
 
 aether 
 
 
 
 
 <HkMI 
 
 atma 
 
 UT[J.0{ 
 
 
 
 athem 
 
 
 ^t 
 
 ita 
 
 ire 
 
 ite 
 
 
 
 
 ^fcT 
 
 iti 
 
 SITU 
 
 ita 
 
 
 
 
 
 itarum 
 
 krs^ov 
 
 
 
 
 other 
 
 <K»I 
 
 irinum 
 
 egypov 
 
 eremum 
 
 
 
 
 3H 
 
 uttam 
 
 uerov 
 
 udum 
 
 
 
 wet 
 
 3£ 
 
 udra 
 
 
 lutra 
 
 
 otter 
 
 otter 
 
 3^ 
 
 udhas * 
 
 ovQctp 
 
 
 
 euter 
 
 udder 
 
 Tq- 
 
 upa 
 
 V7T0 
 
 sub 
 
 
 
 
 3>ft 
 
 ubhau 
 
 apipw 
 
 ambo 
 
 
 
 
 3t 
 
 urum 
 
 eupuv 
 
 
 
 ur 
 
 
 • 
 
 ulkah f 
 karatram 
 
 Kgarrigoi 
 
 ulcus 
 craterem 
 
 
 
 
 =H*I 
 
 ■s 
 
 kalate 
 
 x=Ast«i 
 
 callet 
 
 
 
 
 eh^H 
 
 
 * The final s is ol 
 
 'ten changec 
 
 into r. 
 
 
 f Flame, 1 
 
 ire. 
 
280 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 • 
 
 kalasham -I 
 kumbhi 
 
 xuXafiov 
 xvXixct 
 
 KVfJ^Sr) 
 
 calathum 1 
 calycem J 
 
 cymba 
 
 
 kelch 
 
 chalice 
 
 
 f^s 
 
 kula 
 
 <xys\r) 
 
 
 gillah 
 
 
 
 
 kupam * 
 krittih 
 
 ctxutoj 
 
 cupam 
 cutis 
 
 
 kufe 
 
 coop 
 
 <$M 
 
 chR^ 
 
 krimilam 
 
 xajx>jAov 
 
 camelum 
 
 
 kamel 
 
 camel 
 
 
 kwa 
 khilam 
 
 xoiXov 
 
 quo 
 ccelum 
 
 ku 
 
 
 
 R^i^ 
 
 3T^ 
 
 gala 
 
 
 gula 
 
 galu 
 
 kehle 
 
 gullet 
 
 
 guram 
 
 •yugov 
 
 gyram 
 
 
 
 
 •MWM 
 
 grasate 
 
 •ygctcsTcti 
 
 
 
 
 grazeth 
 
 
 gharmam 
 
 Sep/iov 
 
 N. 
 
 garm 
 
 warm 
 
 warm 
 
 
 cha 
 
 X0CJ 
 
 que 
 
 
 
 
 
 churati 
 chusayati 
 chora 
 janitr 
 
 <paog 
 yevvYjTwg 
 
 urit 
 sugit 
 fur 
 genitor 
 
 chusad 
 
 sauget 
 
 charreth 
 sucketh 
 
 
 ^IHH 
 
 ITFT 
 
 gnatam 
 takshate 1 
 stagate J 
 
 yvwTov 
 o-Teyerai 
 
 notum 
 tegit 
 
 
 decket 
 
 theciath A. S. 
 
 ^3T^ 
 
 
 tanum 
 
 
 tenuem 
 
 tanak 
 
 diinne 
 
 thin 
 
 
 tapati 
 tar man 
 
 
 tepet 
 terminus 
 
 tabad 
 
 tei'min 
 
 term 
 
 HH*t 
 
 rTT^T 
 
 tanam 
 
 TOVOV 
 
 tonum 
 
 
 ton 
 
 tone 
 
 1% 
 
 trih 
 
 TgSS 
 
 tres 
 
 
 drey 
 
 three 
 
 ♦ ♦ 
 
 dantam 
 
 oSovra 
 
 dentem 
 
 dSndam 
 
 zahn 
 
 
 * A receptacle. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 281 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 ZJ3 
 
 dakshah 
 dadami 
 
 
 dexter 
 do 
 
 dadam 
 
 
 
 «ir 
 
 <i^i 
 
 datr 
 
 Borrjp 
 
 dator 
 
 dadar 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 danam 
 
 $011/0$ 
 
 donum 
 
 
 
 
 ^r 
 
 dasha 
 
 8sxa 
 
 decern 
 
 dah 
 
 
 
 ^m 
 
 dashamam 
 damayate 
 diwiam 
 dish ate 
 
 8(ov 
 
 8o?CET«J 
 
 decimum 
 domat 
 divum 
 docet 
 
 daham 
 
 zahmet 
 
 tameth 
 
 r^ * 
 
 
 
 duhitr 
 dewam 
 
 Seov 
 
 deum 
 
 dokhtar 
 
 tochter 
 
 dochter, Scot. 
 
 ** 
 
 deham 
 
 Bsfj-xg 
 
 
 andam 
 
 
 
 TO- 
 
 dhara 
 
 spa 
 
 terra 
 
 
 
 
 SJFT 
 
 dhama 
 
 dcUfjLU 
 
 domus 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 naktam 
 
 vvxra. 
 
 noctem 
 
 
 
 
 *WT 
 
 nabhasa 
 
 vefo; 
 
 nubes 
 
 
 
 
 ^TCT 
 
 naddham 
 
 
 nodum 
 
 
 knoten 
 
 knot 
 
 =TFT 
 
 nawam 
 nasa 
 
 vuuv 
 
 navem 
 nasus 
 
 nau 
 
 nase 
 
 nose 
 
 -1IMI 
 r*"* 
 
 MM 
 
 patim * 
 
 7ro<nv 
 
 potem 
 
 biid 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 path am 
 padatam 
 
 ■KOLTOV 
 
 peditem 
 
 piadah 
 
 pfade 
 
 path 
 
 M<ld 
 
 M$Jd 
 
 prachati 1 
 papracha J 
 
 
 poposci 
 
 porsad 
 
 fraget 
 
 
 MM^ 
 
 
 paru 
 
 Trvg 
 
 
 
 feuer 
 
 fire 
 
 M<d 
 
 pardate 
 
 /38e£T«* 
 
 * A 
 
 pedit 
 
 lord, a husban 
 
 
 d. 
 
 
 farteth 
 
282 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin; 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 <n^ 
 
 patram 
 
 pitam 
 
 piwate 
 
 putrarn 
 
 puyam 
 
 puras 
 
 purim 
 
 pra 
 
 pranta 
 
 proshate 
 
 plawate 
 
 plihan 
 
 psate 
 
 phullam 
 
 bhakshayate 
 
 bhawate 
 
 bhumi 
 
 bhrajate 
 
 bliruh 
 
 madate 
 
 madhu f 
 
 manate 
 
 manas 
 
 mahatwah 
 
 mahah 
 
 mahuim 
 
 7T0T0V 
 7nST«l 
 
 7TU0V 
 
 nugoc 
 
 7T0AIV 
 TTQO 
 
 ttXovstoci 
 
 QuWov 
 
 (ZoirxsTai 
 
 fverca 
 
 cpgvysTM 
 fxeSu 
 
 [AVCtSTOll 
 
 [x,svog 
 jAsyeOos 
 
 [4.01 
 
 paterem 
 
 potum 
 
 bibit 
 
 puerum 
 
 pus 
 
 prae 
 
 pro 
 
 frontem 
 
 lavat 
 lien 
 
 folium 
 
 pascit 
 
 fuit 
 
 humus 
 
 fiigit 
 
 madet 
 
 monet 
 mens, tis 
 
 magnus 
 mihi 
 
 pur 
 
 afruzad 
 
 bawad 
 bum 
 
 abru 
 
 mai 
 
 mah 
 
 vor 
 
 fronte 
 
 braune 
 
 meth 
 meynet 
 
 macht 
 
 mich 
 
 fore 
 
 burh, A. S. 
 
 front 
 spleen 
 
 beeth. A.S.beoth 
 
 brow 
 
 mead 
 meaneth 
 
 might 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MINcj 
 
 w™ 
 
 
 VT: 
 
 ^<d 
 
 TO" 
 
 * The root is U^f prush. 
 
 f Spirituous liquor ; also honey. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 283 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 £f 
 
 me 
 
 (X.S 
 
 me 
 
 
 
 me 
 
 5TT*T 
 
 masa 
 
 pet; 
 
 mens, sis 
 
 
 
 
 fsTrT 
 
 mitam 
 
 
 metitum 
 
 
 
 meted 
 
 f*T 
 
 mira 
 
 
 mare 
 
 
 meer 
 
 mere A. S. 
 
 ^ 
 
 mritam 
 
 
 mortuum 
 
 murdah 
 
 
 
 3"^ 
 
 yam, yam 
 
 OV, Y}V 
 
 eum, earn 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 yat 
 
 
 id 
 
 
 
 it 
 
 ^il(rl 
 
 yunjante 
 yuwanah 
 
 ^s'jyvvvToti 
 
 jungunt 
 juvenis 
 
 juwan 
 
 Jung 
 
 young- 
 
 *J<H': 
 
 T^r 
 
 ratham 
 
 petiyv 
 
 rhedam 
 
 
 
 
 TST 
 
 rasah 
 
 sga-Yj 
 
 ros 
 
 
 
 
 TFT 
 
 On 
 
 raga 1 
 rosha J 
 rajate 
 
 ogyv) 
 
 
 
 rasen 
 reisset 
 
 rage 
 
 t^Std 
 
 ORd 
 
 rohitam 
 lapana * 
 
 sgevSov 
 
 labium 
 
 lab 
 
 roth 
 lippe 
 
 red 
 lip 
 
 <^M-1 
 
 
 liptam 
 
 lubhiate 
 
 lochayati 
 
 ctXsKpQev 
 
 litum 
 lubet 
 lucet 
 
 
 liebet 
 
 / loveth. 
 
 \ A. S. lufath 
 
 A. S. lixeth 
 
 
 <3V4Niri 
 
 
 wakshate 
 
 wamate 
 
 warahah 
 
 
 auget 
 vomat 
 verres 
 
 
 wachset 
 vomiret 
 
 waxeth 
 
 vomiteth 
 
 boar. A. S. bare 
 
 <^H 
 
 
 3M<MM 
 
 wastyayati 
 
 
 vastat ■ 
 
 
 wiistet 
 
 wasteth 
 
 ♦ 
 
 wahate 
 wacham 
 
 0^£ST«» 
 
 otct«v 
 
 vehit 
 vocem 
 
 
 
 A CH *i 
 
 
 |R<M 
 
 widanti 
 
 stiovra.1 
 
 vident 
 
 
 weissen 
 
 A. S. witon 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 f The mouth. 
 
 
 
 
 
 o o 2 
 
 
 
 
284 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 Iwrr 
 
 widhawa 
 
 
 vidua 
 
 biwa 
 
 witwe 
 
 widow 
 
 f^TT 
 
 wina 
 
 uvev 
 
 sine 
 
 
 ohne 
 
 
 R<: 
 
 wirah 
 
 jjgCUJ 
 
 vir 
 
 
 
 A. S. wer, fira 
 
 3^ 
 
 • 
 
 wepate 
 shankham 
 
 xoyxw 
 
 concham 
 
 bafad 
 
 webet 
 
 weaveth 
 
 sn'^<Gi 
 
 STrT 
 
 shatam 
 
 sxxtov 
 
 centum 
 
 sad 
 
 
 
 STffi 
 
 shala 
 
 <TX oXy l 
 
 schola 
 
 
 schule 
 
 school 
 
 ^3J 
 
 shringa 
 
 
 cornu 
 
 sarun 
 
 horn 
 
 horn 
 
 sfcf: 
 
 santah 
 
 
 sanctus 
 
 
 
 saint 
 
 *rc; 
 
 sam 
 
 <TVV 
 
 cum 
 
 helm 
 
 
 
 ,, r>s 
 
 sarpate 
 
 kg-Kerni 
 
 serpit 
 
 
 
 
 MMr| 
 
 *nf*T 
 
 sami 
 siwati 
 
 V' 
 
 semis 
 suit 
 
 
 
 seweth 
 
 
 MI<M 
 
 sidati 
 
 
 cedet 
 
 
 
 cedeth 
 
 ^ 
 
 seru * 
 
 creiga. 
 
 serra 
 
 
 
 
 *i^ 
 
 strinute 
 
 GTgWVVVTtXl 
 
 sternet 
 
 
 
 
 
 swapnam 
 
 
 somnum 
 
 
 
 
 ^Rrl 
 
 swanitam 
 
 
 sonitum 
 
 
 
 sound 
 
 |^5f Zjl 2j"swiam,am,am 
 
 eov, sr\v, eov 
 
 suum, am,um 
 
 
 
 
 
 hanum 
 hayanam 
 
 ysvuv 
 
 svvov 
 
 annum 
 
 chanah 
 
 kinn 
 
 chin 
 
 ^*H 
 
 fit* 
 
 himam J 
 
 x e, P a 
 
 hyemem 
 
 
 
 
 ^T 
 
 hora 
 
 obgx 
 
 hora 
 
 
 uhr 
 
 hour 
 
 ~£<A 
 
 hradayam 
 
 Kuefiiu. 
 
 cor, cordis 
 
 
 herz 
 
 heart 
 
 ^T^frf 
 
 hladati 
 
 
 lsetatur 
 
 
 
 gladdeth 
 
 3f#i 
 
 anke 
 
 a w 
 
 
 
 
 
 * Binding. 
 
 f Jaw. 
 
 \ Frost, cold. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 285 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 * ♦ 
 
 <ir\~z{ an tram 
 
 SVTSPOV 
 
 
 
 
 
 * ♦ 
 
 vii<s| amblam 
 
 up&Xov 
 
 
 
 
 
 3f^J akam 
 
 *X°s 
 
 
 
 
 
 3f^T agram 
 
 agav 
 
 
 
 
 
 3pcf agham 
 
 ayog 
 
 
 
 
 
 3f3f ajam 
 
 uiyoi 
 
 
 
 
 
 3ffcf ati 
 
 aS>jv 
 
 
 
 
 
 31*?T[|rf adashat 
 
 e?«xe 
 
 
 
 
 
 3rRT adhi 
 
 «Si« 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 3f£.cT ad h warn 
 
 oSov 
 
 
 
 
 
 3f^T2f anaya 
 
 • 
 
 civicc 
 
 ansigov 
 
 
 
 
 
 sJ( M ^ aparam 
 
 3^"JfJ ama 
 
 oijx.a, 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^2r\ | <J^{ aiama * 
 
 apw[x.u 
 
 txpyrco-i 
 xgyov 
 
 
 aramid 
 
 
 
 ^ ij^^l aramate 
 
 vij-G(r1 arch ate 
 r ♦ 
 
 Nijv5l«1 arjunam 
 
 r *\ 
 
 aiTesTtx.1 
 
 UPKTTOV 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^I^^H arthayate 
 3j"2j" aria 1 
 
 ^ \ ^ arishtam J 
 
 -^ ^) alam 
 
 x\i$ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •N *\ 
 
 PgVSTM 
 
 
 
 
 
 sijcj 4j6rt awarohate 
 
 <ir\ t<H r\ asiate 
 
 UKTUBTCtl 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 3f[3T^" agraham 
 
 ctyqctv 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ j \ <i*\ q admawara 
 
 odvvriv 
 
 
 
 
 
 <H 1 \ &.<M \r\ adriyate 
 
 «lSs£T«« 
 
 
 
 
 
 * A garden. 
 
286 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 Englisli. 
 
 «\ 
 
 OTTofteSTXt 
 
 wfskip.ov 
 ugxSov 
 
 *gns 
 
 o\ov 
 uguov 
 
 aAei 
 
 spa. 
 I0J 
 
 CtdsTCtl 
 OtTOV 
 
 pesrui 
 ti\J/ov 
 
 egiov 
 so; 
 
 0PjJ.Y}V 
 UQ0VQO.V 
 
 onrai 
 
 sxarspov 
 otnov 
 auyyjv 
 axuvQ-qv 
 
 
 
 + Spe 
 
 aks. 
 
 •^i 1 M 1 <\*1 apadate 
 
 <$\ \l^\^ ) ^ \r\ aphalamana 
 
 • 
 
 3JJi-{ amam 
 
 3fl^ ardra 
 
 • 
 
 3fT^jQf arawam 
 
 <H | <: arah * 
 
 s*l \r*i alani 
 
 s^ |^j«-| asanna 
 
 ^% iddhe 
 
 < tJ ishu 
 £^<£{n idayate 
 
 ^<<Mn irayate t 
 
 ^T2( uchcham 
 
 ♦ 
 ^<; udam 
 
 3T/T urna 
 
 ^b| usha 
 ^T^T urmim 
 
 ^*3 O urwaram 
 
 ^^rl uhate 
 
 • 
 
 ^-^H ^ ekataram 
 
 ^[ 1°^ okam 
 
 •£\ |v5t ojam 
 « « 
 
 °h^ °h kantakam 
 
 * The planet Mars 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 287 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 kapalam 
 
 xsipaX*]v 
 
 
 
 
 
 «hMM 
 
 ^ 
 
 kara 
 
 akara 
 
 a%etg 
 
 
 
 
 
 <h<h 
 
 r • 
 
 karkaram 
 
 xawctpov 
 
 
 
 
 
 «tol< 
 
 
 kalyara 
 
 xaXov 
 
 
 
 
 
 <*Rr|< 
 
 kastiram 
 
 XOMTtTiTSgOV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 kalam 
 kirate 
 
 XS\a.V 
 
 xsgctercii 
 
 
 
 
 
 T^h<H 
 
 fert 
 
 kilate 
 
 KYiXeSTCtl 
 
 
 
 
 
 R^N 
 
 kilusha 
 
 jo)A«j 
 
 
 
 
 
 f^" 
 
 kilam 
 
 rjAov 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 kunda * 
 
 xovSu 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 kutih 
 
 kulayam 
 
 xutso; 
 xaXiav 
 
 
 
 
 
 $rtM 
 
 $* 
 
 kumam f 
 
 XVf/,Cl 
 
 
 
 
 
 *tftfr 
 
 konam 
 
 yovav 
 
 
 
 
 
 ch°<M 
 
 kravviam 
 
 xqectg 
 
 
 
 
 
 fft 
 
 kruram 
 
 xgvegov 
 
 
 
 
 
 SPJpt 
 
 kshanuti 
 
 xuivstoh 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 kshoni 
 
 ^Smv 
 
 
 
 
 
 fstRw 
 
 khalinam 
 
 ^a\ivov 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 khedah 
 
 XY]do$ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ * 
 
 kholam 
 
 ■%oXov 
 
 
 
 
 
 <^H 
 
 3TT 
 
 gam 
 
 yyv, yuv 
 
 
 
 
 
 f^TU 
 
 giram 
 
 yrjpvv 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?jt 
 
 guram 
 
 * A pitche 
 
 xugiov 
 r. 
 
 
 
 f A lake. 
 
 
288 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Sfft 
 
 ST?* 
 
 >A 
 
 3PTrT 
 
 feTT: 
 
 fi n 
 3TUT 
 
 rT rTT 
 
 i 
 
 ghoram 
 charma 
 
 yuvgov 
 iegjxci 
 
 chaya 
 
 <TKIX 
 
 ch urate 
 
 %VgiT0ll 
 
 jagarte 
 
 eyeigctrcti 
 
 jani 
 
 yvvrj 
 
 jirah 
 
 yrjgag 
 
 jiwate 
 
 IfjTUl 
 
 jirna 
 
 ysgoov 
 
 tarn, tarn 
 
 rov, rr\v 
 
 tanote 
 
 TEWCtTUi 
 
 tarpate 
 
 TBq-KSTUl 
 
 tijate 
 
 §i)y*Ttt.i 
 
 tokam 
 
 T0X.0V 
 
 trashiate 
 
 rgscrsTCit 
 
 trasayate 
 
 TOtpX(T<T£Tat 
 
 trikhate 
 
 T § s X STai 
 
 dasa 
 
 5*15 
 
 dahate 
 
 Saierai 
 
 dus 
 
 Suj 
 
 duyate 
 
 Su«st«» 
 
 dewaram 
 
 dxrjg 
 
 di'isham 
 
 $;g%iv 
 
 drate 
 
 lga.sra.1 
 
 drum 
 
 Sguv 
 
 dhonayate 
 
 8oV££T«J 
 
 nah 
 
 vpog 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 charm 
 say ah 
 
 German. 
 
 zan 
 
 ziad 
 
 tizad 
 
 tarzad 
 
 dehnet 
 
 English. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 289 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 nedate 
 nayate 
 
 0VS»5»£T«« 
 
 VESTCtt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IT 
 
 5ftt 
 
 *\ 
 
 nara 
 
 niram * 
 
 i 
 
 nemam 
 
 pachate 
 patate 
 
 ocvrjp 
 
 VYjgOV 
 VO[X.OV 
 ■7Te<7(TSTCH 
 7T17TTSTCH 
 
 
 nar 
 pazad 
 
 . 
 
 
 yr\r{ 
 
 W% 
 
 patram 
 patriate 
 
 7T«T££TaJ 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 HV\r\ 
 
 Tj7^ 
 
 paniam 
 parayate 
 
 KOVOV 
 
 iregotSTUi 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 MK^ri 
 
 TO 
 
 para 
 pari 
 parut 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^TTT 
 
 param 
 palan 
 
 7T£g«V 
 
 
 
 
 
 MfcH 
 
 
 pasham 
 piwam 
 
 mov 
 
 
 ° 
 
 
 
 
 puras 
 pelate 
 
 ngos 
 
 
 
 
 
 1*1 + 
 
 pradhana 
 
 prastaram 
 
 plushate 
 
 bibhete 
 
 bhalakam 
 
 bhakshate 
 
 -TTSTgOV 
 
 QtSoTM 
 
 (puysTcti 
 
 
 
 bebet 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 * Water. 
 
 
 
 fir 
 
 i Pracrit, pa 
 
 thdr. 
 
 p p 
 
290 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 *(1%: bhallih 
 
 fieXos 
 
 
 
 
 
 H7T bharam 
 
 /3«gov 
 
 
 
 
 
 HI<?VH bhalayate 
 
 /3«AXsTa» 
 
 
 
 
 
 ijf^" bhritim 
 
 fi§0T0V 
 
 
 
 
 
 i-|^ mantram 
 
 fAUVTtV 
 
 
 
 
 
 H \r\ matim 
 
 jttrjTiv 
 
 
 
 
 
 ♦ 
 
 *i r Q maniam 
 
 ]W.))VIV 
 
 
 
 
 
 r • 
 
 /Aotguytiov 
 
 fj.e\oc8gov 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ cf-^ markatam 
 
 • 
 
 H <?*yi i, malaturam 
 
 ^ \ <?y\ malinam 
 
 |U.sX«v 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ric^ mastaka 
 
 JfrJ J J 1 1 ^ mahagaram 
 
 [Aeya.gov 
 
 
 
 
 
 JfJ m5 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 f\*\ J, 
 
 Ofj.og^sTa.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 <Hm^H T amarkshiate 
 
 • 
 
 3T3cf mukham 
 
 [J.VX0V 
 
 
 
 
 
 IT^ muram 
 
 [/.oogov 
 
 
 
 
 
 *{<cj murkham 
 
 pctgyov 
 
 
 
 
 
 *-[U|ci mrinate 
 
 jxugvsrcn 
 
 
 
 
 
 lj"t|H medhate 
 
 j«,eSsTaj 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jf^ melam 
 
 0|U.iAov 
 
 
 
 
 
 H"]^ t moghah 
 
 iaa>v 
 
 
 
 
 
 i{ 1 ( £ rl mohite 
 
 M ^ *1 yawana 
 
 *s 
 
 ge^£T«< 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^•c( <>J r| rach ay ate 
 
 •^ "s 
 
 g££T«» 
 
 
 
 
 
 <J<l(r1 riyate 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ^3" laghum 
 
 sAap£UV 
 
 
 
 
 
 * Mahat agaram, a great house. 
 
 •j- The initial a is a preposition. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 291 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 
 laghishtam 
 
 lapsiate 
 
 laya 
 
 lawanatn 
 
 lupiate 
 
 wayas 
 
 warayate 
 
 wagmi 
 
 wanim 
 
 wate 
 
 watim 
 
 wadam 
 
 weshiate 
 
 shankuh 
 
 shakayate 
 
 shuniam 
 
 shete 
 
 samam 
 
 sityam 
 
 sima 
 
 su 
 
 suranga 
 
 sewate 
 
 stomam 
 
 sthawaram 
 
 sthiram 
 
 sKd^iCTTOV 
 
 Kyjiov 
 
 (3k>s 
 
 agesTXt 
 
 fiuyfiot. 
 
 «ST«» 
 
 «>)T>]V 
 
 auStjv 
 
 (TO)XS£Ta» 
 
 X6V0V 
 
 XHTOU 
 
 OfAOV 
 
 CTiTOV 
 
 0-yjy.x 
 
 sv 
 
 (rrigctyya. 
 
 creSsrott 
 
 <TT0fJ.CC 
 0-TSgSOV 
 
 wehet 
 
 bad 
 
 asaid 
 
 * A landmark, a boundary. 
 
 f The head. 
 
 PP 2 
 
292 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 
 spharate 
 
 sphalate 
 
 harate 
 
 hetu 
 
 helim 
 
 antagam 
 
 anjante 
 
 antamam 
 
 antaritam 
 
 anwitam 
 
 ambati 
 
 agnim 
 
 arati 
 
 arjati 
 
 artham 
 
 awagitam 
 
 awati 
 
 asim 
 
 aplutam 
 
 asiam 
 i i 
 
 arasia 
 
 idam 
 
 iwati 
 
 uttamam 
 
 udarum 
 
 ulwam 
 
 urwim 
 
 vntxiget 
 
 
 (TfOtWsTCil 
 
 ♦ ♦ 
 
 CtlgSSTOll 
 O.ITHX. 
 
 r)A»ov 
 
 
 
 * ♦ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^Rri 
 
 
 3rf?f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^hPm 
 
 
 <*H(d 
 
 
 3fRf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 3fW 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 Greek, 
 
 Latin. 
 
 antiquum 
 
 unguunt 
 
 intimum 
 
 interitum 
 
 unitum 
 
 ambit 
 
 ignem 
 
 ira, iratus 
 
 urget 
 
 artem 
 
 abjectum 
 
 avet 
 
 ensem 
 
 ablutum 
 
 os, oris 
 
 aeris 
 
 idem 
 
 ivit 
 
 optimum 
 
 uterum 
 
 alvum 
 
 arvum 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 erz 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 293 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 3R 
 3KfcT 
 
 ^rdfrr 
 
 ♦ 
 
 c^| rp] | ^ karagaram 
 
 f^rT kit 
 
 T c h'i|rl FTT kiyatam, tam 
 
 ch<^ T kulam 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ^r 
 
 ushitam 
 
 urdhawam 
 
 riksha 
 
 rha 
 
 erakam 
 
 kam 
 
 karri, kam 
 
 kanati 
 
 kati 
 
 kadati 
 
 karoti 
 
 karpasum 
 
 karman 
 
 kaluka 
 
 katam 
 
 kulam 
 
 kulati 
 
 krichram 
 
 ketayati 
 
 kesha 
 
 khandati 
 
 kharam 
 
 * An incantation. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 ustum 
 
 arduum 
 
 ursus 
 
 Rhea 
 
 ariem,hircum 
 
 aquam 
 
 quem, quam 
 
 canit 
 
 quot 
 
 caedit 
 
 gerit 
 
 carbasum 
 
 carmen 
 
 caligo 
 
 cautem 
 
 carcerem 
 
 quot 
 
 quantum, tam 
 
 cellam 
 
 collem 
 
 celet 
 
 crucem 
 
 citat 
 
 caesaries % 
 
 scindit 
 
 acrem 
 
 khirs 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 f An abode. 
 I Keshara also occurs in Sanscrit, but it signifies the filaments of a plant. 
 
294 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 * r^ 
 
 khetam 
 grawam 
 
 
 chandati 
 
 
 chakwati 
 chatur 
 
 
 chikete 
 jantam 
 
 
 janitam 
 
 
 jarjati 
 
 d^frT 
 
 ♦ • 
 
 rTrT 
 
 tandati 
 tautam 
 
 rTRT 
 
 tarjati 
 
 tata 
 
 tuliam 
 
 
 tejati 
 
 
 damitam 
 
 
 daritam 
 
 diwam 
 
 diwasa 
 
 
 j diwaspatih 
 durbalam 
 
 
 dolayati 
 
 nah 
 
 natam 
 
 naptam 
 
 nagam 
 
 * Protects. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 scutum 
 
 gravem 
 
 candit 
 
 coquit 
 
 quatuor 
 
 scit 
 
 gentem 
 
 genitum 
 
 jurgat 
 
 tundit 
 
 tentam 
 
 turget 
 
 tata 
 
 talem 
 
 tegit 
 
 domitum 
 
 territum 
 
 divum 
 
 dies 
 
 divespiter 
 
 debilem 
 
 tollit 
 
 nos 
 
 nutum 
 
 nepotem 
 
 anguem 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 f Sky, day. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 295 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 
 qr?r 
 ftfffF 
 
 nasham 
 
 nidam 
 
 pandati 
 
 patalam 
 
 padayati 
 
 param 
 
 paramam 
 
 paritam 
 
 parusha 
 
 palati 
 
 pashu 
 
 paschat 
 
 ■Ut \s w . • 
 
 parayati 
 
 pinkti 
 
 pinashti 
 
 pishtam 
 
 putam 
 
 paitram 
 
 polati 
 
 plawati 
 
 phandam 
 
 balam 
 
 balhati 
 
 bahih 
 
 bibheda 
 
 belayati 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 nex necem 
 
 nidum 
 
 pandit 
 
 patulum 
 
 vadat 
 
 purum 
 
 primum 
 
 peritum 
 
 ferox 
 
 alit 
 
 pecu 
 
 post 
 
 parit 
 
 pingit 
 
 pinsit 
 
 pistum 
 
 putam 
 
 patrium 
 
 pollet 
 
 fluit 
 
 fundum 
 
 bellum 
 
 valet 
 
 foris 
 
 fidi 
 
 vellit 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 floweth 
 
 * An army. 
 
296 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 3T3frT 
 
 f*FTTfcT 
 
 THtff 
 
 THTfrT 
 
 Tit 
 
 #* 
 
 fwfrr 
 
 r « 
 
 ^f^T 
 
 bharitam 
 
 mandati 
 
 mayati 
 
 maritam 
 
 mritiam 
 
 mahiySh 
 
 minati 
 
 muram 
 
 radati 
 
 raj am 
 
 ragnim 
 
 rajati 
 
 rayam 
 
 ritim 
 
 renum 
 
 romantha 
 
 ladati 
 
 linayati 
 
 locam 
 
 lokayati 
 
 wimshati 
 
 wah 
 
 wat 
 
 waram 
 
 warma 
 
 warmitam 
 
 ] 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 viridem 
 mandat 
 meat 
 
 mortem 
 
 majus 
 
 minuit 
 
 murum 
 
 radit 
 
 regem 
 
 reginam 
 
 radiat 
 
 rem 
 
 ritum 
 
 arenam 
 
 ruminatio 
 
 ludit 
 
 lenit 
 
 locum 
 
 loquitur 
 
 viginti 
 
 vos 
 
 ut 
 
 virum 
 
 arma 
 
 armatum 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 * Encircling. 
 
 f A husband. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 297 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 TOfcT 
 
 _% 
 
 SJErfcf 
 
 TO 
 
 walati 
 
 waste 
 
 wastram 
 
 wartati 
 
 wadim 
 
 wamani 
 
 wijitam 
 
 wedati 
 
 shamsati 
 
 shadati 
 
 shuddham 
 
 shush ati 
 
 shulwarim 
 
 shlutam 
 
 shwashuram 
 
 sanktam 
 
 sakhyam 
 
 chihnam 
 sapati 
 samam 
 sudati 
 
 suriam 
 
 i i 
 
 scandati 
 stanayati 
 slariman 
 spritam 
 
 } 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 velat 
 
 vestit 
 
 vestem 
 
 vertit 
 
 vatem 
 
 foemina 
 
 victum 
 
 di-vidit 
 
 censet 
 
 cadit 
 
 sudum 
 
 siccat 
 
 sulphurem 
 
 solutum 
 
 socerum 
 
 cinctum 
 
 socium 
 
 signum 
 
 sapit 
 summum 
 sudat 
 solem 
 s candit 
 tonat 
 stramen 
 spiratum 
 Q Q 
 
 Persian . 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 schwaher 
 
298 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin; 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 • 
 
 t^^ spriham 
 ^ 4 ^ ' ^ sprihati 
 
 
 spem 
 
 sperat 
 
 fcetum 
 
 suum 
 
 su-surrum 
 
 suadet 
 
 sonum 
 
 sepit 
 
 hora 
 
 angusht 
 
 anjir 
 
 ambar 
 
 hamishah 
 
 ab 
 
 ab 
 
 weiranah 
 
 arjad 
 
 arj 
 
 an 
 
 alu 
 
 aftab 
 
 ash 
 
 asp 
 
 astar 
 
 afat 
 
 yabad 
 
 ambra 
 essung 
 
 finger 
 fi g 
 
 AMBER 
 
 always 
 water 
 
 splendour 
 
 a desert 
 
 it costs 
 
 respect 
 
 that 
 
 an edible root 
 
 the sun 
 
 food 
 
 horse 
 
 mule 
 
 calamity 
 
 obtains 
 
 I ^"PTri sphitam 
 ^^" swam 
 
 • 
 
 i^{ i^ swaram 
 
 tqi^lrl swadati 
 
 ♦ 
 
 t*T!*T swanam 
 
 ^7M 1 ri swapati 
 
 ^ 1 i_ hora 
 
 • 
 
 <H j J^ angushta 
 
 3\ \ -S| ^ anjira 
 
 • 
 
 *$m \ ambara 
 
 ^PlXI anisham 
 
 ^ | M : apah 
 3]THT abha 
 
 3{^U5^ aranium 
 
 <H <cj^ M arghayati 
 
 3f^ archa 
 
 ♦ 
 3fSr amum 
 
 3R7S alu 
 
 s^j | cj fl 1 M awi, tap5 
 
 • 
 
 3J8,"(«"| ashanam 
 
 s^'^cj ashwa 
 
 sJT 51 ^"^ ^ ashwatara 
 
 ^HIM^ apat 
 
 ^IMM apati 
 
 * Two words ; am, the sun, and tapa, heat. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 299 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 
 asha 
 
 3nfstir 
 
 ashira 
 
 3n^K 
 
 ahara 
 
 ^r 
 
 imam 
 
 ^1 
 
 ushtra 
 
 >%ct8| 
 
 riktha 
 
 ^Tfi 
 
 eka 
 
 ^T 
 
 1 \J w 
 
 kansa 
 
 ^M 
 
 kachapa 
 
 ^rPt 
 
 kapi 
 
 ^TtrT: 
 
 kapotah 
 
 
 kapha 
 
 ^Om 
 
 karoti 
 
 *£• 
 
 karda 
 
 *<A< 
 
 karpura 
 
 *m 
 
 kama 
 
 
 karia 
 
 3^i< 
 
 kunjara 
 
 5* 
 
 kumbha 
 
 <3np^5\ 
 
 kubja 
 
 
 kushala 
 
 W^ 
 
 kurati 
 
 ^i=r: 
 
 ketah 
 
 «jl« 
 
 krishta 
 
 fcfiPr 
 
 krimi 
 
 ^trf: 
 
 kritah 
 
 
 * Mud, clay 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 az 
 
 
 desire 
 
 az 
 
 
 fire 
 
 ahar 
 
 
 food 
 
 in 
 
 
 this 
 
 ushtar 
 
 
 camel 
 
 rakht 
 
 
 valuables 
 
 ek 
 
 
 one 
 
 kas 
 
 
 goblet 
 
 kashaf 
 
 
 tortoise 
 
 kappi 
 
 
 monkey 
 
 kabutar 
 
 
 pigeon 
 
 kaf 
 
 
 foam 
 
 kard 
 
 
 does, has done 
 
 gird f 
 
 
 
 kafur 
 
 
 camphor 
 
 kam 
 
 
 love 
 
 kar 
 
 
 affair 
 
 kinjar 
 
 
 elephant 
 
 khum 
 
 
 ajar 
 
 kuzh 
 
 
 humpbacked 
 
 khush 
 
 
 happy 
 
 khorad 
 
 
 eats 
 
 kad 
 
 
 house 
 
 kashtah 
 
 
 tilled 
 
 kirm 
 
 wurm 
 
 WORM 
 
 kheridah 
 
 
 purchased 
 
 f Dust. 
 
 Q Q 2 
 
300 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 
 krosha 
 kroshati 
 
 
 
 karuh 
 kharushad 
 
 kreischet 
 
 a coss 
 
 CROAKETH 
 
 cJOTTrT 
 
 ^T 
 
 kshapa 
 
 
 
 shab 
 
 
 night 
 
 fin: 
 $tofrr 
 
 kshira 
 
 kshobhati 
 
 shona 
 
 
 
 shir 
 
 ashubad 
 
 khun 
 
 
 milk 
 
 agitates 
 
 blood 
 
 
 khadga 
 khanda 
 khanati 
 
 
 
 karg 
 kand 
 kanad 
 
 { 
 
 rhinoceros 
 any thing which 
 
 CANDIES 
 
 digs 
 
 4$FTfrf 
 
 ^T 
 
 khara 
 
 
 
 khar 
 
 
 ass 
 
 <c|^ 
 
 khala 
 
 khashati 
 
 khashpa 
 
 khani 
 
 khushati 
 
 
 
 gil 
 
 kushad 
 
 khashm 
 
 kan 
 
 kashad 
 
 
 earth 
 kills 
 anger 
 a mine 
 draws 
 
 <<=|MM 
 
 
 s3 
 
 3T3T 
 
 ganja 
 
 
 
 g» n j 
 
 
 treasure 
 
 WFi 
 
 gandhaka 
 
 
 
 gandak 
 
 
 brimstone 
 
 JT3T 
 
 g a J a 
 
 
 
 gaz 
 
 
 a cubit 
 
 
 gama 
 
 garjati 
 
 garhati 
 
 gaweshayati 
 
 gahwara 
 
 
 
 gamf 
 
 gharid 
 
 girad 
 
 kushad 
 
 gabara 
 
 { 
 
 makes a loud 
 noise 
 
 seizes 
 
 endeavours 
 cavern 
 
 JTffrT 
 
 ! 
 
 J l^< 
 
 jtut 
 
 guna 
 
 
 
 gun 
 
 
 colour 
 
 
 guha 
 godhumah 
 
 
 
 gau 
 gandum 
 
 
 a cave 
 wheat 
 
 Going. 
 
 f A step. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 301 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 fMtfrT 
 W 
 
 3RfrT 
 
 3fTrT: 
 
 3rR7rTT 
 
 :gfcr 
 
 ^3ffrT 
 
 rftt 
 
 ^T 
 
 37Tfcf 
 
 gauh 
 
 chakra 
 
 chamasa 
 
 charwati 
 
 chinoti 
 
 chuwra 
 
 chatra 
 
 janjati 
 
 jagati 
 
 jatah 
 
 jamata 
 
 jihwam 
 
 jiiti 
 
 jehati 
 
 i i 
 
 tanjati 
 
 tanu 
 
 tama 
 
 tapa 
 
 tiram 
 
 trasa 
 
 dawati 
 
 dama 
 
 daru 
 
 dirgha 
 
 duhanti 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 chirkh 
 chamchah 
 kayad 
 chinad 
 chihrah 
 chatar 
 jangad 
 giti 
 zadah 
 damad 
 ziban 
 zudi 
 jahad 
 zah 
 tanjad 
 tan 
 tam 
 tab 
 tii- 
 tars 
 dawad 
 damf 
 dar § 
 dir 
 dozand 
 
 German. 
 
 kuhe 
 
 kauet 
 
 zanket 
 
 English. 
 
 COW 
 
 wheel 
 spoon 
 
 CHAWETH 
 
 gathers 
 
 countenance 
 
 umbrella 
 
 fights 
 
 the world 
 
 born 
 
 son in law 
 
 the tongue 
 
 quickness 
 
 makes exertions 
 
 bowstring 
 
 tightens 
 
 the body 
 
 darkness 
 
 heat 
 
 arrow 
 
 fear 
 
 runs 
 
 SlOW 
 
 they milk 
 
 * A cord. 
 
 f A snare. 
 
 \ Wood, timber. 
 
 § A gibbet. 
 
302 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 
 dura 
 dosha 
 
 
 
 dur 
 dosh 
 
 { 
 
 distant 
 
 arm, and also 
 night 
 
 <1NI 
 
 ^HM 
 
 dhamati 
 
 
 
 damad 
 
 
 breathes 
 
 ^TfrT 
 
 dharati 
 
 
 
 darad 
 
 
 holds 
 
 VF5T 
 
 dhaniah 
 
 
 
 danah 
 
 
 grain 
 
 
 nagna 
 
 
 
 nangin 
 
 
 naked 
 
 *Wfrf 
 
 namati 
 namasia 
 
 
 
 namad 
 namaz 
 
 
 bends 
 prayer 
 
 -Wt<M 
 
 
 nabhi 
 
 
 
 naf, nab 
 
 nabe 
 
 NAVE 
 
 MKd: 
 
 nihitah 
 
 
 
 nihadah 
 
 
 placed 
 
 q^ 
 
 •-* "L ^ 
 
 pancha 
 
 
 
 panch 
 
 
 five 
 
 *3T 
 
 panda 
 
 
 
 pand 
 
 
 advice 
 
 
 paktum 
 
 
 
 pukhten 
 
 
 to cook 
 
 M<*jR 
 
 parediawi 
 
 i i 
 
 
 
 firda 
 
 
 to-morrow 
 
 mm(h 
 
 pasati 
 
 
 
 bast 
 
 
 ties, tied 
 
 mNr 
 
 parshni 
 pawaka 
 
 
 
 pashnah 
 pak 
 
 
 the heel 
 pure 
 
 MM«ti 
 
 S3 
 
 pilu 
 
 
 
 pil 
 
 
 elephant 
 
 gwf% 
 
 pushayati 
 
 
 
 pushad 
 
 
 covers 
 
 
 pura 
 
 
 
 pur 
 
 
 full 
 
 Tjfe 
 
 prishta 
 
 
 
 pusht 
 
 
 the back 
 
 MdIM 
 
 pratapa 
 
 
 
 partab 
 
 
 beaming 
 
 rfafrT 
 
 preshati 
 
 
 
 firistad 
 
 
 sends 
 
 ^r1% 
 
 bandhayati 
 
 
 
 bandah 
 
 bindet 
 
 BINDETH 
 
 
 barha 
 
 
 
 barz 
 
 
 greatness 
 
 slcW^t 
 
 balawan 
 
 
 
 pahlwan 
 
 
 powerful 
 
 m% 
 
 bahu 
 
 
 
 bazu 
 
 
 the arm 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 303 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 
 bukka 
 
 
 
 boz 
 
 bocke 
 
 he-goat 
 
 >ng* 
 
 bhanu 
 
 
 
 barm f 
 
 
 
 >fm- 
 
 bhima 
 
 
 
 bim 
 
 
 fear 
 
 *N + 
 
 bhumi 
 
 
 
 bhum 
 
 
 the ground 
 
 ijb^l 
 
 bheshaja 
 majaja 
 
 
 
 bazas hk § 
 maghz 
 
 
 the brain 
 
 H-^UI 
 
 *r^f 
 
 marttia 
 
 
 
 mard 
 
 
 man 
 
 3T^frT 
 
 marshati 
 
 
 
 amuzad 
 
 
 forgives 
 
 Ml^N 
 
 mahisha 
 
 
 
 gav, mish 
 
 
 buffalo 
 
 3H: 
 
 mah 
 
 
 
 mah 
 
 
 moon 
 
 «JKl 
 
 mara 
 
 
 
 mar 4- 
 
 
 
 
 masha 
 
 
 
 mash 
 
 
 a kind of pulse 
 
 RR< 
 
 mihira 
 
 
 
 mihr 
 
 
 the sun 
 
 5?cr 
 
 mudra 
 
 
 
 muhar 
 
 
 signet-ring 
 
 gffe 
 
 mushti 
 
 
 
 musht 
 
 
 fist 
 
 ^** 
 
 mriga 
 
 
 
 murgh -j-f 
 
 
 
 ^q 
 
 megha 
 
 
 
 megh 
 
 
 cloud 
 
 3FT 
 
 yawa 
 
 
 
 jau 
 
 
 barley 
 
 t?T 
 
 ranga 
 
 
 
 rang 
 
 
 paint 
 
 <^ 
 
 rajju 
 
 
 
 razhah 
 
 
 a cord 
 
 * 
 
 rawati 
 
 
 
 rawad 
 
 
 goes 
 
 <^M 
 
 rahasiam 
 
 
 
 raz 
 
 
 a secret 
 
 TT^ 
 
 raddha 
 
 
 
 rad 
 
 
 accomplished 
 
 
 rama 
 
 
 
 ram 
 
 
 pleased 
 poured out 
 
 RcM 
 
 riktSh 
 
 
 
 rikhtah 
 
 
 ft* 
 
 risha 
 
 
 
 rish 
 
 
 wound 
 
 * A prince. 
 Killing. 
 
 •f- A princess. 
 4- A snake. 
 
 f Medicine. 
 ** An animal. 
 
 § A physician. 
 
 ft A bird. 
 
304 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek, 
 
 Latin. Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 ^ *"> 
 
 rochate 
 
 
 
 rakhshad 
 
 
 <Wn 
 
 
 shines 
 
 0*i ^ 
 
 rochanam 
 rohati 
 
 
 
 roshan 
 ruad 
 
 
 splendour 
 grows 
 
 O^M 
 
 Wjfrf 
 
 langati 
 
 
 
 langad 
 
 
 limps 
 
 TO 
 
 laksha 
 
 
 
 Ilk 
 
 
 a lack, 100,000 
 
 <=![«-<: 
 
 wandih 
 
 
 
 bandah 
 
 
 prisoner 
 
 
 watsah 
 warjati 
 
 
 
 bachah 
 warzad 
 
 
 child 
 quits 
 
 q^llct 
 
 q-§ 
 
 warsha 
 walgam 
 waraka 
 wiasati 
 
 
 
 barish 
 ligam 
 barah 
 pashad 
 
 
 rain 
 bridle 
 horse 
 diffuses 
 
 cj^ir 
 
 
 °i|WM 
 
 sn^fi 
 
 shaka 
 
 
 
 shaka 
 
 
 doubt 
 
 ST^^T 
 
 shakuna 
 
 
 
 shagun 
 
 \ 
 
 omen 
 
 archer's guard for 
 
 SJWfi 
 
 shastaka 
 shakha 
 
 
 
 shast 
 shakh 
 
 the arm against 
 the bowstring. 
 
 branch 
 
 SMHsf 
 
 stwt 
 
 shana 
 
 
 
 shan 
 
 
 whetstone 
 
 STTTrT 
 
 shata 
 
 
 
 shad 
 
 
 glad 
 
 fs&T 
 
 shira 
 
 
 
 sar 
 
 
 the head 
 
 spr 
 
 shubha 
 
 
 
 khub 
 
 hiibsch 
 
 beautiful 
 
 ^ 
 
 shushka 
 
 
 
 khushk 
 
 
 dry 
 
 V*<" 
 
 shukara 
 
 
 
 khuk 
 
 
 hog 
 
 ^ 
 
 shurS 
 
 
 
 shir 
 
 
 lion 
 
 sgnftfrr 
 
 shrinoti 
 
 
 
 shunad 
 
 
 hears 
 
 sNi 
 
 shoka 
 
 
 
 sog 
 
 
 grief 
 
 WPT 
 
 shiama 
 
 
 
 siah 
 
 
 black 
 
 v 3d 
 
 shweta 
 
 
 
 safid 
 
 
 white 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 305 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German, 
 
 English. 
 
 r 
 
 sajja 
 
 sarshapa 
 
 sahasra 
 
 
 
 saz 
 
 sarshap 
 
 hazar 
 
 
 apparatus 
 mustard seed 
 thousand 
 
 ^NM 
 
 M^ 
 
 MK« 
 
 sadah 
 
 
 
 sadah 
 
 
 pure 
 
 wm 
 
 sayam 
 
 
 
 sham 
 
 
 evening 
 
 
 sara 
 sudate 
 
 
 
 sar 
 sudad 
 
 
 excellent 
 injures 
 
 U<^ 
 
 f?: 
 
 shrishtah 
 
 
 
 sirishtah 
 
 
 created 
 
 ^ 
 
 stutah 
 
 
 
 situdah 
 
 
 praised 
 
 ^o 
 
 sthuri 
 
 
 
 situr 
 
 
 beast of burden 
 
 sgpr 
 
 sthanam 
 
 
 
 stan 
 
 
 place 
 
 ?^TJTT 
 
 sthuna 
 
 
 
 situn 
 
 
 pillar 
 
 ^JT 
 
 sphura 
 
 
 
 sipar 
 
 
 shield 
 
 ^K 
 
 siada 
 
 
 
 zud 
 
 
 quick 
 
 ^ 
 
 hasta 
 
 
 
 dast 
 
 
 hand 
 
 ^K 
 
 hara 
 
 
 
 har 
 
 
 necklace 
 
 3f^ 
 
 U 1 u 
 
 anka 
 
 
 
 
 hanke 
 
 HAUNCH 
 
 3T7T3T ' 
 
 angaja 
 
 
 
 
 angst 
 
 ANGUISH 
 
 3ff|l 
 
 akshi 
 
 
 
 
 auge 
 
 eye 
 
 3tf* 
 
 arbha 
 
 
 
 
 erbe f 
 
 
 3p$ 
 
 • 
 
 ashru 
 ayasam 
 
 
 
 
 zahre 
 eisen 
 
 a tear 
 iron 
 
 <HN*i 
 
 ^1 
 
 uksha 
 
 
 
 
 ochse 
 
 ox 
 
 3^d 
 
 ubhayata 
 
 
 
 
 beide 
 eule 
 
 BOTH 
 
 ^*h 
 
 uluka 
 
 
 
 
 owl. 
 
 ot 
 
 usha 
 
 
 
 
 ash 
 
 a pot 
 
 * Child. 
 
 R R 
 
 f An heir. 
 
306 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 3^" 
 
 kania 
 
 grerfrr t 
 
 kusiati 
 
 •>ii<* 
 
 gara 
 
 ■Mllcl 
 
 gati 
 
 *fk 
 
 gaura 
 
 STR" 
 
 ghasa 
 
 ^§ 
 
 charma 
 
 
 challi 
 
 H^< 
 
 chicheda 
 
 f^TfcT 
 
 chinatti 
 
 
 jala 
 
 rl^(r| 
 
 tudati 
 
 H^rfrT 
 
 trashiati 
 
 ^fcT 
 
 l 1 
 
 dalati 
 
 f^rfrT 
 
 diwiati 
 
 ^iHpM 
 
 drakhitam 
 
 «Hfrf 
 
 dhwanati 
 
 
 dhwani 
 
 M^M 
 
 palati 
 
 Mid 
 
 pota 
 
 ^h 
 
 phullati 
 
 ^^frr 
 
 badati 
 
 ^ 
 
 bahula 
 
 m 
 
 bhanga 
 
 H£ 
 
 bhadra 
 
 >rafrr 
 
 bhujati 
 
 Greek. 
 
 * A young girl. f A woman 
 
 A screen. ** Divides. 
 
 Latin: 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 
 { 
 
 kivino f 
 
 
 
 M.G. 
 
 
 
 
 kiisset 
 
 KISSETH 
 
 
 
 gar 
 
 very 
 
 
 
 gehet 
 
 GOETH 
 
 
 
 grau 
 
 white 
 
 
 
 gras 
 
 GRASS 
 
 
 
 schirm || 
 
 
 
 
 schale 
 
 SHELL 
 
 
 
 schiede 
 
 divided 
 
 
 
 schneidet 
 
 cuts 
 
 
 
 zahl 
 
 number 
 
 
 
 tbdtet 
 
 kills 
 
 
 
 durstet 
 
 THIRSTETH 
 
 
 
 theilet 
 
 D.?ELATH,**A.S. 
 
 
 
 taget 
 
 D^EGIATH,! A. S. 
 
 
 
 trocken 
 
 dry 
 
 
 
 donnet 
 
 dinneth 
 
 
 
 don 
 
 din 
 
 
 
 fliehet 
 
 ELEETH 
 
 
 
 boot 
 
 BOAT 
 
 
 
 bluhet | 
 
 bloweth, like 
 a flower 
 
 
 
 badet 
 
 BATHETH 
 
 
 
 viel 
 
 much 
 
 
 
 bange 
 
 fear 
 
 
 
 bieder 
 
 good 
 
 
 
 beuget 
 
 BOWETH Xt 
 
 i. X Embraces. 
 
 § A shield. 
 
 4- Becon 
 
 ies day, daw 
 
 neth. 
 
 tt Utters 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 307 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 ^frf 
 
 *r£frr 
 
 
 
 TO 
 
 
 
 f^frf 
 
 * The head. 
 || A bamboo. 
 
 bhushati 
 
 manushia 
 
 march ati 
 
 marddhati 
 
 manawa 
 
 munda 
 
 muda 
 
 moha 
 
 mauli 
 
 rakhati 
 
 roma 
 
 lashati 
 
 wamsha 
 
 wartati 
 
 walka 
 
 wardaram 
 
 wahnim 
 
 wasa 
 
 wahanam 
 
 windati 
 
 wiwaha 
 
 wega 
 
 wen ati 
 
 wela 
 
 sunu 
 
 stambha 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 { 
 
 German. 
 
 putze 
 
 mensch- 
 heit 
 
 marschirt 
 
 mordet 
 
 mann 
 
 mundf 
 
 muth 
 
 muhe 
 
 maul § 
 
 reget 
 
 ram 
 liistert 
 binse ** 
 werde 
 
 balgtf 
 
 wasser 
 
 fon, M.G 
 
 haus 
 
 wagen 
 
 findet 
 
 ehe 
 
 we<re 
 
 o 
 
 wahnet 
 weile 
 sohn 
 stumpf 
 
 English. 
 
 f The mouth. 
 ** A rush. 
 
 X The head. 
 4- The bark of a tree. 
 
 R R 2 
 
 BUSKS, Scot. 
 
 mankind 
 
 MARCHETH 
 
 murders 
 
 MAN 
 MOOD 
 
 pain, trouble 
 
 moves 
 strength 
 
 LUSTETH 
 WEORTH, A. S. 
 WATER 
 
 fire 
 
 HOUSE 
 
 WAIN 
 
 FJNDETH 
 
 marr 
 
 WAY 
 WEENETH 
 
 while (time) 
 
 SON. A. S. SUNU 
 
 stupid 
 
 § The mouth. 
 
 XX Skin, husk. 
 
308 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 3T^fcT 
 3TWT 
 3T%T 
 3TT^f^ 
 
 W 
 JJUT 
 
 sthalam 
 
 sthira 
 
 siona 
 
 L 
 
 J 
 
 swastri 
 amsa 
 holati 
 ata 
 SrdSti 
 alasa 
 avvesh 
 awali 
 iddha 
 rita 
 
 karayati 
 kalpati 
 kuta 
 kuttaiati 
 kuyati 
 kurula 
 komala 
 kwelati 
 kshurati 
 khalati 
 khari 
 khiati 
 gana 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 * Wandering. 
 
 § Apprehends. 
 
 f Disponor. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 
 stelle 
 
 STALL 
 
 
 stier 
 
 a steer 
 
 
 sonne 
 
 sun 
 
 
 sch wester 
 
 sister 
 
 
 gans 
 
 goose 
 
 
 hiillet 
 
 covers 
 
 wathe, A. S.* 
 
 hurteth 
 
 lazy 
 
 awise, A. S. f 
 
 alley 
 
 heat 
 
 right 
 
 gars, Scot.:f 
 
 elyppath, A.S. § 
 
 cot, cottage 
 
 cutteth 
 
 cooeth 
 
 curl 
 
 comely 
 
 quaileth 
 
 scoureth 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 culleth 
 scar 
 quoth 
 ganoh, A.S. || 
 
 II M 
 
 t M 
 [ultitude. 
 
 akes to do. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 309 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 JTfrT gati 
 ^Tm gardha 
 ->HH gita 
 
 
 
 
 
 gait 
 
 greed 
 
 gyd, A.S.* 
 
 gusheth 
 
 grist 
 
 syls, Scot. % 
 
 cheat 
 
 churneth 
 
 sylath, A. S. || 
 
 gell, Scot.** 
 
 re-joiceth 
 
 jumpeth 
 
 that 
 
 tree 
 
 tosseth 
 
 dust 
 
 teareth, tore 
 
 daunted 
 
 dieth 
 
 drubbeth 
 
 deir, Scot. %% 
 
 thought 
 
 nigheth 
 
 poundeth 
 
 pot 
 
 pusheth 
 
 <4y[r\ ghashati 
 ST? 1 ghrashta 
 ^"^"f^jTrr ch al aya ti 
 Mid chata 
 
 ■^UU^Irt * churnayati 
 
 B^^l 1 r| chalayati 
 
 3T^i^\T jaluka 
 
 ^SlNM jushati 
 Sr^frT jhampati 
 rfr^ tat 
 
 rf^T taru 
 
 rlHm tasati 
 
 ♦ 
 
 rTtfT tustam 
 
 rT\<fri to.au 
 
 * 
 
 <^Tcf danta 
 
 ^ffrf drabhati 
 iff^ dhira 
 t£J |r1 dhiata 
 
 «1<i|("r1 nayati 
 
 ^-^m pundati 
 Tig- puta 
 "CrajfrT pushati 
 
 * A song. 
 Deceives. 
 
 f Grinded. 
 ** A leech. 
 
 \ Strains. 
 4- Decayeth, wasteth. 
 
 Grinds, pounds. 
 
 It Hold. 
 
310 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 ^ r- 
 
 pesati 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 paceth 
 
 MMM 
 
 Im^ 
 
 priya 
 
 
 
 
 
 fria, A. S. * 
 
 (M'Mri 
 
 priyantam 
 
 
 
 
 
 freond, A. S. f 
 
 rfV 
 
 prauda 
 
 
 
 
 
 proud 
 
 TOfrT 
 
 phalati 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 felleth 
 
 §FT 
 
 phena 
 
 
 
 
 
 faem, A. S. J 
 
 fS^rfrr 
 
 bhikshati 
 
 
 
 
 
 beggeth 
 
 f>rw 
 
 bhittam 
 
 
 
 
 
 bit 
 
 • 
 
 madati 
 maranam 
 
 
 
 
 
 maddeth 
 murrain 
 
 -H <U| 
 
 JT^pT 
 
 mashuna 
 
 
 
 
 
 messan, Scot. § 
 
 *rf|w 
 
 mShila 
 
 
 
 
 
 meowla, A. S. || 
 
 5TT^ 
 
 mala 
 
 
 
 
 
 male 
 
 w; 
 
 mrid 
 
 
 
 
 
 mud 
 
 ^(d 
 
 mathati 
 
 
 
 
 
 mateth 
 
 ^M 
 
 yata 
 
 
 
 
 
 yode 
 
 ?^ 
 
 yuddha 
 
 
 
 
 
 guthe, A. S. ** 
 
 1^ 
 
 yuyam 
 
 
 
 
 
 you 
 
 TTirfrr 
 
 ranati 
 
 
 
 
 
 runneth 
 
 fRtt 
 
 rudhira 
 
 
 
 
 
 rodra, Icelan. ff 
 
 ft^: 
 
 rodah 
 lawana 
 
 
 
 
 
 rodera, A. S. J^ 
 leven 
 
 cW*i 
 
 
 loka 
 watati 
 
 
 
 
 
 look 
 
 withath, A. S. §§ 
 
 <=idM 
 
 ^r 
 
 wadha 
 
 
 
 
 
 beadu, A. S. || || 
 
 Mr + 
 
 wanam 
 
 
 
 
 
 won 
 
 * Affection. 
 A woman. 
 
 §§ Joins. 
 
 f Loving, a friend. 
 ** Battle, war. 
 
 || || Conceals. 
 
 :f Foam. 
 ff Blood. 
 
 § A dog. 
 Xt The sky. 
 4- An abode. 
 
PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 
 
 311 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 *^Q waiam 
 
 ^"^Trf warati 
 
 cJS.1 washa 
 
 ^T^TkT wasati 
 
 ^"^Tm" waskati 
 
 cj \g warha 
 
 cfT*T wana 
 
 c( | ^^j \ rT warayati 
 
 ^TT<\T wida 
 
 ^"t|ij fr| wundayati 
 
 ^ eft wrika 
 
 ^<^U| wrikna 
 
 ^n^T wiadha 
 
 5U<^(rT shandati 
 
 SJofi^ shakala 
 
 «t,| ^ shara 
 
 SJ^T tt shalana 
 
 Srf^rT tt shalita 
 
 8[rt%J §§ shalitra 
 
 S[frfWf shilita 
 
 S[U5"frr shotati 
 
 VK<^| satya 
 
 $T^ sad 
 
 ^f^T sama 
 
 <-( ^ sara 
 
 HUT supa 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 * Guards. 
 Hunting. 
 
 && Coverer. 
 
 f Dried, withered. X Learning. 
 
 ** Arrow. f f Covering. 
 
 Illl Truth. 
 
 we 
 
 wriath, A. S. * 
 
 wish 
 
 was 
 
 whisketh 
 
 very 
 
 wan 
 
 warath, A. S. X 
 
 widda 
 
 woundeth 
 
 wargr, Iceland. $ 
 
 broken 
 
 veidi, Iceland. || 
 
 shendeth 
 
 scale of a fish 
 
 gar, A. S. ** 
 
 shieling, Scot. 
 
 shield 
 
 shelter 
 
 skilled 
 
 shutteth 
 
 sathr, Iceland. || || 
 
 sad 
 
 same 
 
 siar, Iceland. (- 
 
 soup 
 
 § Wolf. 
 XX Covered. 
 4 A lake. 
 
312 
 
 SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, ETC. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Greek. 
 
 Latin. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 German. 
 
 English. 
 
 I s ) -T-f^l 
 
 
 
 
 
 saileth 
 
 sack 
 
 steameth 
 
 steam 
 
 stoppeth 
 
 sinew 
 
 sweven 
 
 suurg, A. S. * 
 
 sorroweth 
 
 sweateth 
 
 sweir, Scot, f 
 
 hieth 
 
 harryeth 
 
 hiccough 
 
 hight. A. S. hast 
 
 vieth 
 
 ti^lrl selati 
 
 V|<Tcfi sewaka 
 f*rR^fri stimiati 
 ^rTJf sterna 
 ^rTlHfrr stobhati 
 SJT3J" snayu 
 <-cj g swapna 
 ^cj i \ swarga 
 
 ^ ^ m swarati 
 
 ^(jjrl swedati 
 <-cj ^ swaira 
 
 <^i| H hayati 
 
 ^^fd harati 
 f^fc| hikka 
 ^ri huta 
 ^ij fcl hwayati 
 
 * Heaven. 
 
 f Self-willed. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 LIST OF SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS WHICH OCCUR IN 
 THE ZEND VOCABULARY OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON. 
 
 Zend. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 edi 
 
 r~«- 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 <NK y adi 
 
 edenanm 
 
 \ij Vj^fT adhuna 
 
 
 
 maintenant 
 
 erthehe 
 
 3f5T artha 
 
 
 
 explication 
 
 ezaede 
 
 p~^ 
 
 
 s\. zada 
 
 il devient grand 
 
 este 
 
 «S\ \ *T\ asti 
 
 tlXw! ast 
 
 
 il est 
 
 astern 
 aspo 
 
 3TfrST asthi 
 
 i-mm\ asp 
 
 
 un os 
 cheval 
 
 si( *c| ashwa 
 
 ashte 
 ashtengom 
 
 3^? ashta 
 
 Ck&,& hasht 
 
 
 huit 
 
 huit angles 
 
 •^^ctllUl ashtakona 
 
 aschtesh 
 
 
 ^^S ashti 
 
 
 la paix 
 
 eghe 
 
 • 
 
 3Pcf agham 
 
 
 
 mechancete 
 
 emeshe 
 
 
 &iij^£> hamishah 
 
 
 toujours 
 
 ehmakem 
 
 vi^jfi-j |c^ asmakam 
 
 
 
 de nous 
 
 ehobie 
 
 
 «_^=i khub 
 
 
 bon 
 
 eetee 
 
 5T^" y ate 
 
 
 
 eux 
 
 eokhte 
 
 q \ pf; wakti 
 
 •s. 
 
 
 
 il dit 
 
 eoschtre 
 
 <±\)y oshta 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 
 levre 
 dedans 
 
 eantere 
 
 sjf rl \ antara 
 
 ^•\ ander 
 
 1 
 
 s s 
 
314 
 
 SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS 
 
 Zend. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 _ Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 baksched 
 bereete 
 
 r^ 
 
 bharati 
 
 «X>i«j bakhshed 
 2>jj barad 
 
 { 
 
 il donne liberale- 
 ment 
 
 il porte 
 
 H<M 
 
 beshe 
 
 
 
 U*f> besh 
 
 
 sant^ (bonne) 
 
 beodo 
 beouad 
 
 W$ 
 
 baddha 
 bhawati 
 
 *yi bud 
 
 
 jointure (liee) 
 il est 
 
 H^ld 
 
 bienghe 
 
 *frT 
 
 bhima 
 
 {+> bim 
 
 
 crainte 
 
 bonen 
 
 
 
 (jj bun 
 
 
 racine 
 
 buraie 
 
 *Pr 
 
 bhumi 
 
 f>J bum 
 
 
 la terre 
 
 ted 
 
 rT^T 
 
 tada 
 
 
 
 maintenant 
 
 tedjerim 
 terestche 
 
 ^^ 
 
 trasyati 
 
 <^y tarsad 
 
 cf'^sji' tajarri 
 
 courant 
 il craint 
 
 5|^M(r| 
 
 tesched 
 
 
 
 *)" tazad 
 
 
 il s'applique 
 
 tenom 
 
 ^ 
 
 tanu 
 
 tf tan 
 
 
 corps 
 
 teschro 
 
 
 tisra 
 
 
 
 trois 
 
 djeoueeto 
 
 ^fHM 
 
 jiwati 
 
 •Nsj ziad 
 
 
 il vit 
 
 djefre 
 
 
 
 j*j zafar 
 
 
 bouche 
 
 djened 
 khenghe 
 
 
 kanya 
 
 ^j zanad 
 
 
 il frappe 
 fille 
 
 ^1 
 
 khresio 
 
 
 
 U-A^ kharus 
 
 
 coq 
 
 kschefe 
 
 WW 
 
 kshapa 
 
 V*^ shab 
 
 
 nuit 
 
 kscheeo 
 
 
 
 s ^ shah 
 
 
 roi 
 
 kschecto 
 
 
 
 «** K shid 
 
 
 brillant 
 
 kschethro 
 
 ^T 
 
 kshatra 
 
 
 
 roi 
 
 kschtsum 
 
 W 
 
 shashtam 
 
 
 
 sixieme 
 
 kschnota 
 
 
 
 ^A-*jai khushnud 
 
 
 agreable 
 
 kschovesch 
 
 
 
 u^*« shash 
 
 
 six 
 
 khore 
 
 
 
 *;>*»■ khorad 
 
 
 il mange 
 
OCCURRING IN ZEND VOCABULARY OF ANQ. DU PERRON. 
 
 315 
 
 Zend. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 dedaete 
 
 r~^ 
 
 dadati 
 
 
 
 il donne 
 
 «IM 
 
 dakhmo 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 *si.i dakhm 
 
 
 cimetiere 
 
 dereto 
 desmehe 
 
 «fa 
 
 darati 
 dashama 
 
 v,ta darad 
 
 
 il a 
 dixieme 
 
 <*W 
 
 descheno 
 
 tfwt 
 
 dakshina 
 
 
 
 la main droite 
 
 deschte 
 
 
 
 £>*»2> dast 
 
 
 main 
 
 dentano 
 
 tF 
 
 danta 
 
 l$j|<>J.s dandanha 
 
 , 
 
 les dents 
 
 / 1 
 
 deosche 
 
 <)ni 
 
 dosha 
 
 jiji dosh 
 
 
 epaule 
 
 dkeescho 
 
 
 
 (Ji*S kish 
 
 
 loi 
 
 dradjo 
 
 
 
 jl,i diraz 
 
 
 etendu 
 
 doseh 
 
 ^ 
 
 dosh 
 
 
 
 le mal 
 
 doue 
 
 ft 
 
 dwi 
 
 ji do 
 
 
 deux 
 
 douetche 
 
 
 
 jfijl^i duazdah 
 
 
 douze 
 
 dad 
 
 *"\ . • 
 
 
 iJi dad 
 
 
 il donna 
 lumiere 
 
 reotchingem 
 
 <H«i 
 
 rochanam 
 
 ^ }J roshan 
 
 
 rane 
 
 
 
 (j_\)j ran 
 
 
 cuisse 
 
 zeescho 
 
 
 
 CJi,\ zasht 
 
 
 mauvais 
 
 zemo 
 
 
 
 ( ^ c j ) zamin 
 
 
 terre 
 
 zenghe 
 
 ir^T 
 
 , janga 
 
 
 
 jambe 
 
 zaresetche 
 
 
 
 sj.^j zahrah 
 
 
 fiel 
 
 zaouere 
 
 
 
 j!>j zur 
 
 
 force 
 
 sedid 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 • 
 
 Ju<x£ shadid 
 
 dur 
 
 stree 
 
 «ft 
 
 stri 
 
 
 
 femelle 
 
 staranam 
 
 
 
 I^IX* sitara 
 
 
 etoile 
 
 sreono 
 
 
 
 t^m~ sarun 
 
 
 carne 
 
 sreoni 
 
 
 
 uir surin 
 
 
 la fesse 
 
 sreoued 
 
 
 
 i^ «, surud 
 
 s s c 2 
 
 
 il chante 
 
316 
 
 SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS 
 
 Zend. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 snaouere 
 
 
 
 ,j amm sinah ber 
 
 { 
 
 jusques a la poi- 
 trine 
 
 se 
 
 
 
 *** sih 
 
 
 trois 
 
 scheeto 
 
 
 
 il& shad 
 
 
 heureux 
 
 schtoete 
 
 ^ 
 
 stute 
 
 
 
 il loue 
 
 schodem 
 
 
 
 *y* sud 
 
 
 profit 
 
 frezdaneom 
 
 
 
 Ll^^Jj* firzandan 
 
 
 enfans 
 
 freeschte 
 
 
 
 £«*«jqi fihrist 
 
 
 table des matieres 
 
 foehtane 
 
 
 
 ^jUu*u> pistan 
 
 
 mamelle 
 
 fedre 
 
 
 pitri 
 
 jjy pidar 
 
 
 pere 
 
 kerete 
 kestched 
 
 chOfa 
 
 karoti 
 kashchit 
 
 
 
 il fait 
 quelqu'un 
 
 ^ 
 
 keie 
 
 ^ 
 
 kah 
 
 ^ kah 
 
 
 qui 
 
 krschtee 
 
 ^& 
 
 krishta 
 
 #jj& kashtah 
 
 
 (champ) laboure 
 
 ganm 
 
 
 
 
 *M ghanam 
 
 betail 
 
 gueosch 
 
 
 
 LT^ g° sl1 
 
 
 oreille 
 
 gueete 
 
 
 
 t^f 'git* 
 
 
 le monde 
 
 gueoue 
 
 ^ 
 
 gau 
 
 ^ gav 
 
 
 boeuf 
 
 guerende 
 
 
 
 s<X>»f girandah 
 
 
 pleurant 
 
 guerevned 
 
 
 
 CJj? girift 
 
 
 il prit 
 
 gaem 
 
 *ft: 
 
 gam ah 
 
 f If gam 
 
 
 pas 
 
 maksche 
 
 TO! 
 
 makshika 
 
 (jX, magas 
 
 
 mouche 
 
 mediehe 
 
 
 
 S ^L<, madah 
 
 
 femelle 
 
 medo 
 
 *¥ 
 
 madhu 
 
 
 
 vin 
 
 merete 
 
 *R# 
 
 martya 
 
 «-* mard 
 
 
 homme 
 
 manm 
 
 
 
 - man 
 
 
 J e 
 
 menthre 
 
 
 mantra 
 
 
 
 parole 
 
 meete 
 
 Hl^ld 
 
 mayati 
 
 
 
 il mesure 
 
OCCURRING IN ZEND VOCABULARY OF ANQ. DU PERRON. 
 
 317 
 
 Zend. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian . 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 meschte 
 
 5« 
 
 mushti 
 
 u«>4 musht 
 
 
 poing 
 
 mejdem 
 
 
 
 $y« muzd 
 
 
 recompense 
 
 ma 
 
 HT 
 
 ma 
 
 
 
 non 
 
 mate 
 
 JTTrT 
 
 matri 
 
 j^Lo madar 
 
 
 mere 
 
 mae 
 
 3T^T 
 
 maha 
 
 *^o mah 
 
 
 grand 
 
 nereseh 
 neomehe 
 
 5TT 
 
 nara 
 navama 
 
 j-j nar 
 (»^j naham 
 
 
 un homme 
 neuvieme 
 
 *\dm 
 
 neemen 
 naere 
 
 *S 
 
 nari 
 
 **o nim 
 
 
 moitie 
 une femme 
 
 •ilO 
 
 nafo 
 
 fTTfX 
 
 nabhi 
 
 oLJ naf 
 
 
 nombril 
 
 vareete 
 
 r~- 
 
 
 ^,L barad 
 
 
 i] pleut 
 
 vedoue 
 
 R*H 
 
 vidvan 
 
 
 
 un savant 
 
 verekehe 
 
 
 
 
 o^ wark 
 
 feuille 
 
 vastre 
 
 ^ 
 
 vastra 
 
 
 
 habit 
 
 veso 
 
 3*scr 
 
 vasha 
 
 
 
 desir 
 
 vefro 
 
 
 
 ti^j barf 
 
 
 neige 
 
 veheschtem 
 
 
 
 t^£>#j bihisht 
 
 
 paradis 
 
 vetchao 
 
 
 vacha 
 
 
 
 parole 
 
 veedem 
 
 R<i 
 
 vida 
 
 
 
 savoir 
 
 veened 
 
 
 
 «X*aj binad 
 
 
 il voit 
 
 vispe 
 
 fq-sq- 
 
 vishva 
 
 
 
 tout 
 
 vatem 
 
 3TrT 
 
 vata 
 
 ^Ij bad 
 
 
 vent 
 
 vo 
 
 3": 
 
 vah 
 
 
 
 vous 
 
 veherkehe 
 
 ¥*' 
 
 vrika 
 
 
 
 loup 
 
 heksched 
 
 
 
 ^3^. khizad 
 
 
 il se leve 
 
 hede 
 
 3fsr 
 
 atha 
 
 
 
 a present 
 
 hapte 
 
 *nw 
 
 saptan 
 
 4^out> ha ft 
 
 
 sept 
 
318 
 
 SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS, ETC. 
 
 Zend. 
 
 Sanscrit. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 hathre 
 
 
 
 Ji\& hazar 
 
 
 mille 
 
 houere 
 
 
 
 jy± khur 
 
 
 soleil 
 
 iekere 
 
 
 
 /» jigar 
 
 
 foie 
 
 ioe 
 ioushmakem 
 
 * 
 
 yushmakam 
 
 3 \o 
 
 
 il 
 
 de vou» 
 
 ^pTTcfi 
 
 iotomeante 
 tchetro 
 
 
 chatur 
 
 (_^jL^iLa. jaduman 
 _jl$=> chahar 
 
 
 magicien 
 quatre 
 
 *<iK 
 
 petesh 
 
 Mid 
 
 pati 
 
 
 
 chef 
 
 peresne 
 
 Ml4 
 
 parswa 
 
 
 
 cote 
 
 pesouo 
 peoerim 
 
 q^ 
 
 pasu 
 parama 
 
 
 • 
 
 quadrupede 
 premier 
 
 M<^ 
 
 peo 
 peantche dese 
 
 • 
 
 paya 
 panchadasha 
 
 siyL panzdah 
 
 
 lait 
 quinze 
 
 M*K*I 
 
 pethni 
 
 q^fT 
 
 patni 
 
 
 
 femme (epouse) 
 
 petho 
 
 ttst 
 
 patha 
 
 
 
 chemin 
 
 pschie 
 
 
 
 
 <y£ shai 
 
 quelque chose 
 
 pothre 
 
 T* 
 
 putra 
 
 
 
 fils 
 
 pansenoseh 
 
 mg 
 
 pamsu 
 
 
 
 poussiere 
 
 paeri 
 
 *rf\ 
 
 pari 
 
 
 
 autour 
 
 pade 
 
 <K 
 
 pada 
 
 
 
 pied 
 
 onem 
 
 ^ 
 
 unnam 
 
 
 
 moiteur 
 
 oroue 
 
 
 
 
 ^lj^,i arwah 
 
 ames 
 
 opero 
 
 -4M< 
 
 upara 
 
 ,\ aber 
 
 
 dessus 
 
 opem 
 
 <MM 
 
 ap 
 
 .J ab 
 
 
 eau 
 
 othe 
 
 ^Tt% 
 
 yati 
 
 
 
 il va 
 
 thri 
 
 3(t 
 
 tri 
 
 
 
 trois 
 
 sete 
 
 §Trf 
 
 shata 
 
 <X* * a<1 
 
 
 cent 
 
319 
 
 No. II. 
 
 LIST OF PERSIAN AND ARABIC WORDS WHICH OCCUR IN THE 
 PAHLVI VOCABULARY OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON. 
 
 Pahlvi. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 ena 
 
 tfl in 
 
 
 ce 
 
 ab 
 
 
 v' ab 
 
 pere 
 
 abider 
 
 j<y>. pider 
 
 
 pere 
 
 am 
 
 
 j.5 umm 
 
 mere 
 
 amider 
 
 j^us madar 
 
 - 
 
 mere 
 
 amna * 
 
 
 j+=> harnru 
 
 ane 
 
 avvela 
 
 
 $ avval 
 
 premier 
 
 ann 
 
 (jjl an 
 
 
 cela 
 
 azdeman 
 
 lAiji azhdaha 
 
 
 serpent 
 
 asobar 
 
 Jtyh asvar 
 
 
 cavalier 
 
 aslobar 
 
 Jiykm\ astuver 
 
 
 fort 
 
 astoban 
 
 ^jl^aLy^-5 astukhan 
 
 
 OS 
 
 asder 
 
 
 <XaJ asad 
 
 lion 
 
 arta 
 
 
 ^jOj\ ardu 
 
 terre 
 
 arboudjina 
 
 sjjyii kharbuzah 
 
 
 melon 
 
 anboman 
 
 
 uUs anab 
 
 raisin 
 
 aporna 
 
 L*Jj biirna 
 
 
 jeune personne 
 
 avam 
 
 *)j vam 
 
 
 pr£t 
 
 bena 
 
 
 lo bina 
 
 avec (avec nous) 
 
 bonteman 
 
 
 CkL> bint 
 
 fille 
 
 bita 
 
 
 Ck.*j bait 
 
 maison 
 
 beba 
 
 
 <_>L bab 
 
 porte 
 
 * In the Firhang Jihangiri, amra. 
 
320 
 
 PERSIAN AND ARABIC WORDS OCCURRING IN 
 
 Pahlvi. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 bazanne 
 
 >Mj zanu 
 
 
 genon 
 
 bonai 
 
 >>L banu 
 
 
 femme (princesse) 
 
 balog 
 
 *JTaLp palang 
 
 
 leopard 
 
 penadj 
 
 U$j pahna 
 
 
 etendu 
 
 tina 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^xti tinu 
 
 boue 
 
 '■ topah 
 
 
 ^■Lxj' tafah 
 
 pom me 
 
 toum 
 
 
 (Lj tamm 
 
 entier 
 
 tora 
 
 
 j^j thaur 
 
 taureau 
 
 tiba 
 
 
 ^lo daba 
 
 cerf 
 
 toun 
 
 (jj tan 
 
 
 corps 
 
 ', tin 
 
 
 (jjj tin 
 
 figue 
 
 taba 
 
 
 V^i dahabu 
 
 or 
 
 djetta 
 
 
 «xX^» jild 
 
 peau 
 
 djak 
 
 
 uTli zaka 
 
 celui-la (il) 
 
 djanver 
 
 ^l?^?" janvar 
 
 
 qui jouit de la vie 
 
 hamih 
 
 *♦£> hemah 
 
 
 toujours (tout) 
 
 hater 
 
 
 jja { *-=> hader 
 
 present 
 
 hia 
 
 
 *a=» haiah 
 
 serpent 
 
 hamin 
 
 
 t5 *=» hami 
 
 chaud 
 
 hobesia 
 
 
 UM*.t» habs 
 
 prison (emprisonne) 
 
 dibe 
 
 
 i^i debu 
 
 loup 
 
 damia 
 
 
 I a dammu 
 
 sang 
 
 daman 
 
 
 ( ■ ^Ixij zaman 
 
 terns 
 
 dobal 
 
 j^i daval 
 
 
 couroie 
 
 dakia 
 
 
 </j zaki 
 
 pur 
 
 ras 
 
 *\j rah 
 
 
 chemin 
 
 remona 
 
 
 (. ^U, ram man 
 
 grenade 
 
 re J 
 
 jl, raz 
 
 
 raisin 
 
 raba 
 
 
 vl, rabb 
 
 grand 
 
 takar 
 
 
 j$2> zakar 
 
 male 
 
 sareh 
 
 
 _^i; sharru 
 
 mechant 
 
 sakina 
 
 
 (j*£«« sikkin 
 
 couteau 
 
 schmaha 
 
 
 U*» sama 
 
 le ciel 
 
 schemsia 
 
 
 *-£ shamu 
 
 soleil 
 
 schoka 
 
 
 Oyw suk 
 
 marche 
 
 schedjrai 
 
 
 ^■st^ shajru 
 
 arbre 
 
 schaptina 
 
 
 ilXi<& shafat 
 
 levre 
 
THE PAHLVI VOCABULARY OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON. 
 
 321 
 
 Pahlvi. 
 
 Persian, 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 scharita 
 
 
 clo Jm shariat 
 
 ordre (loi) 
 
 
 schenat 
 
 
 (IXaaw sanot 
 
 annee 
 
 
 schabha 
 
 *_vi shab 
 
 
 nocturne (nuit) 
 
 
 kamria 
 
 
 ^♦» kamru 
 
 lune 
 
 
 kokba 
 
 
 <r*£yJ kaukab 
 
 astre 
 
 
 kadba 
 keta 
 
 
 V^-^ kadbu 
 <-^\.Z$ kitab 
 
 mensonge 
 livre 
 
 
 kof 
 
 kand 
 
 kalba 
 
 <Xo kunad 
 
 CJIS kaf 
 V^ r kalb 
 
 montagne (nom d'une 
 
 il fait 
 
 chien 
 
 montagne) 
 
 kasra 
 
 
 j-te* kasr 
 
 etage (palais) 
 
 
 gandjober 
 lelia 
 
 ji^lojif ganjavar 
 
 *XJ laila 
 
 tresorier 
 nuit 
 
 
 lesan 
 la 
 
 
 (j_\U«.i lisan 
 iJ la 
 
 langue 
 non 
 
 
 metera 
 
 
 jhsc matar 
 
 pluie 
 
 
 mia 
 
 
 l*> ma 
 
 eau 
 
 
 malkonta 
 malka 
 
 
 d^xLo malkut 
 J^-La malku 
 
 royaute 
 roi 
 
 
 mazdobar 
 
 malahi 
 
 men 
 
 j2*'y* mazdur 
 
 *aL* milhu 
 Q,ro min 
 
 porte-faix 
 
 sel 
 
 de 
 
 
 medina 
 
 
 nJ-jtS^o madinah 
 
 ville 
 
 
 mazina 
 
 
 Q_}'j"*"o mizan 
 
 balance 
 
 
 nera 
 
 
 ^.xj nairu 
 
 feu 
 
 
 neka 
 
 nemra 
 
 varta 
 
 sUJ nigah 
 
 j+j namru 
 i;5 vardu 
 
 vue 
 
 tigre (leopard) 
 
 fleur 
 
 
 jedeman 
 
 ^ <Xj yad i man 
 
 Aj yad 
 
 main (ma main) 
 
 
 T T 
 
322 
 
 IN THE FOLLOWING LIST EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRHANG JIHANGIRI. 
 
 Pahlvi. 
 
 Persian. 
 
 Arabic. 
 
 French. 
 
 
 aasim 
 
 
 (•Jact aasim 
 
 eleve 
 
 
 aahi 
 
 y&>\ ahu 
 
 
 cerf 
 
 
 arshik 
 
 ,iC«, rishk 
 
 
 envie 
 
 
 andajah 
 
 xiytXJl andishah 
 
 
 pensee 
 
 
 damn 
 
 ^jl ji dar an 
 
 
 dedans 
 
 
 dir 
 
 j&* dir 
 
 
 loin 
 
 
 kalub 
 
 JuJLT kalbud 
 
 
 corps 
 
 
 kata 
 
 
 ta=i khatu 
 
 lettre missive 
 
 
 kamikht 
 
 dXix-ol amikht 
 
 
 mele 
 
 
 mad 
 
 j^Lo madar 
 
 
 mere 
 
 
 roj 
 
 jij ™z 
 
 
 jour 
 
 
 
 
328 
 
 No. III. 
 
 LIST OF PAHLVI WORDS WHICH ARE NOT CONTAINED IN THE VOCABULARY 
 OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON, EXTRACTED FROM THE FOURTH SECTION OF 
 THE APPENDIX TO THE FIRHANG JIHANGIRI. 
 
 Aasim, exalted. 
 
 Aafaringan, one of the nusks of the Zend. 
 
 Aahi, a deer. 
 
 Aayishm, moonshine. 
 
 Aradush, a particular sin of a heinous nature. 
 
 Arshik, envy. 
 
 Urmud, a pear. 
 
 Uraur, plants, vegetables. 
 
 Arvis, a tablet of stone. 
 
 Azarik, male. 
 
 Asud, abstinent, virtuous. 
 
 Ashtau, haste, speed. 
 
 Ashu, paradise. 
 
 Agirift, a particular sin. 
 
 Alka, the earth. 
 
 An, a mother. 
 
 Antunitam, to have. 
 
 Andajah, thought. 
 
 Angapir, a grape. 
 
 Udurdun, to die. 
 
 Uzayish, increase. 
 
 Avizah, sincere, pure. 
 
 Ayardah, the commentary of the Zend. 
 
 Irikan, men. 
 
 Iri, a man. 
 
 Bazra, seed. 
 
 Bazindar, a lattice. 
 
 Paptaras, a retribution for evil. 
 
 Patimar, haste, speed. 
 
 Pala, calling out, noise. 
 
 Ped, a father. 
 
 Pasanitam, to throw, to scatter. 
 
 Pasta, perseverance. 
 
 Pus, a son. 
 
 Paku, a priest. 
 
 Pag, a date tree. 
 
 Pagvi, a priest. 
 
 Panam, the cloth placed over the mouth 
 when reading the Zend. 
 
 Panik, a prune. 
 
 Popishmin, a helmet. 
 
 Puzhdas, pure. 
 
 Paitia, a message. 
 
 Tarsustudan, the reading of the Vandidad, 
 in order to allow the spirit of the dead to 
 quit the neighbourhood of the body. 
 
 Tarmunishn, wickedness. 
 
 Tuma, garlic. 
 
 Jazango, an attendant on the Pyraea. 
 
 Jatrah, polluted, stained. 
 
 Jaja, an eagle. 
 
 Juchin, a tumour. 
 
 Jih, a prostitute. 
 
 Jahishn, nature, quality. 
 
 Jihmarz, a frequenter of prostitutes. 
 
 Chichist, a mountain. 
 
 Kharah, a woman. 
 
 Khurih, light. 
 
 Danaminukhird, one of the nusks of theZend. 
 
 Durun, a particular prayer. 
 
324 PAHLVI WORDS NOT IN VOCABULARY OF ANQ. DU PERRON. 
 
 ion. 
 
 Darun, within, in. 
 
 Das, that. 
 
 Dushvargar, mountainous. 
 
 Daknia, a date tree. 
 
 Dim in, I. 
 
 Doprub, evil. 
 
 Dah, ^ . 
 
 Ti h 'r\ f P arf i c ^ es °t negati 
 
 Dir, distant. 
 
 Daima, splendour, light. 
 
 Dina, a judicial decision. 
 
 Rawka, laying. 
 
 Roj, a day. 
 
 Zofak, a raining cloud. 
 
 Zika, a mother. 
 
 Satina, a lip. 
 
 Sapitaminu, God. 
 
 Sanhana, the world. 
 
 Siratir, an arrow. 
 
 Sazda, a culprit. 
 
 Sahistan, to fear. 
 
 Sia, the breast. 
 
 Shaigan, ample. 
 
 Shatan, a year. 
 
 Shatmin, a seat, a carpet to sit on 
 
 Shanunitan, to write. 
 
 Kalu, kalub, the body. 
 
 Kata, a letter. 
 
 Kamtaran, a pear. 
 
 Karik, a hen. 
 
 Kamikht, mixed. 
 
 Kozbarta, coriander seed. 
 
 Kahist, a stone. 
 
 Gabmin, the skin. 
 
 Gabka, grass. 
 
 Gumashun, they. 
 
 Guna, a lamb. 
 
 Mad, a mother. 
 
 Mazdistan, pure, free from sin. 
 
 Makir, the day after to-morrow. 
 
 Madmunitan, to fear. 
 
 Marguziran, a capital crime. 
 
 Mizhu, a kind of grain. 
 
 Mastah, force, violence. 
 
 Mug, a date tree. 
 
 Manash, the heart, the mind. 
 
 Mahist, weighty. 
 
 Niushad, he learns, he teaches. 
 
 Vadyah, useless, trifling. 
 
 Vazhah, a word. 
 
 Vicharishan, to lessen. 
 
 Var, the breast. 
 
 Varzanitan, to go. 
 
 Vishadan, to open. 
 
 Hadukht, one of the nusks of the Zend. 
 
 Hak, an egg. 
 
 Havush, kindred. 
 
 Havin, the first Gah. 
 
 Hatan, to give. 
 
 Hajim, I give. 
 
 Hajid, he gives. 
 
 Hubasim, a tooth. 
 
 Husrub, good, distinguished. 
 
 Hib, end. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 London : 
 
 Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, 
 
 New-Street- Square. 
 
A ~N?\ . 
 Phabyivoi/oin/. 
 
 ***. 
 
 ■?1* 
 
 ■f t 
 
 ^f^iZ^ Jf )(.v/\ 
 
 A 
 
 9 V 
 
 9 
 
 
 9 S<} 9 9 9 1 y yj 
 
 B 
 
 a & 
 
 c\ 
 
 ^ q ^j 
 
 7717^77/ 
 
 G- 
 D 
 
 
 V -cy, 
 
 v 
 
 ^' J } 3 ^ 
 
 * # 
 / 
 
 H 
 Z 
 
 H H 
 
 $ 
 
 w 
 
 # # ^ H # s 
 
 CH 
 
 hi 
 
 
 /TA-V 
 
 ^-n* * 
 
 l 
 
 I 
 
 7* y 
 
 
 L, 6« 
 
 
 K 
 L 
 
 7 ? 
 
 .5 > 
 
 
 
 
 ■v V 
 
 o 6 
 
 y y y ^ cy uy ^3 
 c 9 ^ C\> 
 
 m: 
 s 
 
 A IN 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 r 
 
 TS 
 KJH 
 R 
 
 SH 
 
 Z 7 
 
 /? 
 
 A 
 
 f t~*bh />^ // /> M \ + f X1 " 
 
 TH 
 
 ' Fr/rrrb Mbm : OLv J ' Joou^: oLvs In. 
 LtXbrta. Jol.30.jfi. *tt 
 
 ; . vTr$blU& 
 
 FromZlwlvns , ~ExpbiocubionioUs p~u vlaru vs 
 
 
 
 
 /Wm*^a iy h 
 
 faUm&njttt 
 
 
< cQ l_ 
 
 4 v 
 
 <J Id L. 
 
 <3 <^ ^ 
 
 Q> ^ ^ 
 
 
 O p. 
 
 <^ co [— V b 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 r CD } dUL. |<) 
 
 <3 pq f_ <| p£j If S3 
 
 "3^ X ^ S~~ 
 
 
 
 ■*■ --4 
 
 < 5 z I'l 
 
 * r 
 < ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 - L. " cr ^ 
 
 J" 
 
 'I 
 
 M 
 
 <1 
 
 
 « J b- > * 
 
 C L. ^ £*- ~ |- 
 
 * E 
 
 m 
 
 
 ^ o ^^ e- 
 
 * ^ Q ^ '" =° * 
 
 - CH ^ 
 
 E 
 
 jo O o ^ U #3 $ ^ Q- *Z * ^ 
 
 va ^ f r ca ^0 x< 0~ ^ -^ K^ 
 
 ^^r^ co(5ro) V o<T3->x 0< 
 
 ^ ^ co ^ 
 
 tf 
 
 £ £ <>tf jJ H o 
 
 | ^ pq ^ p pq 
 
 l*% ^ w 
 
 r3 
 
 M Hi N fc efl o n, 
 
 £ o> rt ~|~h 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 :0- 
 
 k. 
 
 "1 ^ ^ m t ^ 
 
 ^ ^ ^r > v^ ^ 
 
 
 
 3 p" OT) C3 
 
 
 
 p ^ o- r-^ 
 
 < 
 
 o ^ 
 
 ru 
 
 
 53j® n ^ $1 >:r , c 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^»^ 
 
 VWipvouir 
 
 ,,„ 
 
 wvifis'vpj' 
 
 oannj' 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 -o— 
 
 
 
 ^r 
 
 v^ 
 
 
 5 
 
 X 
 
 
 3 
 9 
 
 i- 
 
 •— > 
 
 O-^ 
 
 
 VJ 
 
 U 
 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <1 
 
 pq 
 
 o fi 
 
 H 
 
 FN 
 
 s 
 
 
 i— i 
 
 h- 1 
 
 q 
 
 3 
 
 fe 
 
 o 
 
 PM 
 
 Q> 
 
 & 
 
 iZJ 
 
 H 
 
 Id 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <<- 
 
 
 On ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 t> 
 
 
 
 
 
 vj 
 
 ^ 
 
 V 
 
 vs 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 c^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 h 
 
 V^ 
 
 
 < 
 
 cd 
 
 O S> 
 
 UJ 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 ^O 
 
 ^> 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 vs 
 
 SL> 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 <y 
 
 Q^ 
 
 K 
 
 V- 
 
 
 er 
 
 CD 
 
 u o 
 
 m 
 
 
 D 
 □ 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 ~7 
 
 5. 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 r-j 
 
 H 
 
 n 
 >- 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 
 o 
 
 / - 
 
 < 
 
 - > 
 
 "X 
 
 
 r 
 
 CT 
 ^3 
 
 
 ^ v o. ^ ^ «- °- n w ^z^/ ^ ^ ^ @ ^ t Ux i^rf "« 
 
 a* 
 
 ^ 
 
 < ffl 3 
 
 S t> « W i3 
 
 ^ ^ ^ c^ 
 
 FM 
 
 o» 
 
 PH CC 
 
 H 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 p" 
 

 •infod iy GJM,i>naMdel. 
 
 Y 
 
 OAK Q ; 
 
 i'A T fc 6 [TO 
 
 y/xy y| O \ O C| H 
 
 [Jo K pH t H/> 
 
 q J ^ : vi O Av O // / A 
 
 P-vrA^vA / o /v 
 
 Efvf i/v 
 
 o 
 
 
 mr A3 
 
 1 i 
 
 it 
 
 ^ 
 
 ' 1 <T- 
 
 I <FM KOJ I kO E V^I-TOfJL 
 |^onOr:X.OT/\C\>|o^q« 
 
 rfcllO:|<|Uo.;KPkHP/f 
 A©3HIA>l.v\OT^>^ l 14* 
 
 bf:E XrpvT/\M; 10 /v : -£ - 
 
 JP3' V 1: V 1-3 V 1.|A43N3 /NA I 
 ■.|A*.-io r \oPi <H. :v ia^3 
 
 '1111111 
 
 (rre&/c dlphoolefc. 
 
Phoenician . 
 
 
 
 ^Ancient ImcrzpUo/ti 
 
 V^O Hnn , q 
 
 7 
 
 — =si~ — ] — : ^Z~___^____^_~^— — = 
 
 Oto/vA.TV^AMAoT^M-PO)! 
 
 ;( A-PA/^^opjOM TA P/J |op 
 v A/A.rpo t E^o^(/vKo/V. 
 'AP/^o-t-^^^OAA-AIAO^p 
 \/oAA- o ^TAf^£pSKop 
 O M. 
 
 —J 
 
 P^ VKffo/vv^A/o^TOTyf 
 
 Greek. 
 
 o/t/iyTO«do£/wxi&?NSKmTos4£f>ism 
 
 
 T'TJarthvlowiiw Zzikoq, 
 
 jfrmded ty (IMilbrumdd. 
 
 O A K O, A ! ;< o 
 
 >| O Mid |^a 3 
 M TIS O [TO 
 
 //vf v, O )| O <] n 
 
 £7° K PH t H/> 
 
 P ^ T H P ■ I o r ■' K 
 
 P v r/\ /v A / o a/ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 9/1 /VOJ I |<0 £\ / M|.-TO 
 O^O^Of.'XOT^o^c]: 
 
 r&iio:/(Mo.:Kp&KB 
 
 ••hiv\£1 9 o 1 
 
 -From 30 f 1 Vol ■ Mem : de> I 'Mood. • de-s 7?ir?or^>. ' 
 
 Jrom Jfiugho'.t Jlruvlysw of the* Gree/c oityfablefr. 
 
C^. <^ QSJ 
 
 X 
 
 a; 
 <2> 
 
 ITS 
 
 V" 
 <C\A 
 
 CO 
 
 a: 
 
 ?~ 
 
 > 
 
 oo 
 "A 
 O 
 rr\ 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 PA 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 ft 
 
 S 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 X 
 
 £ 
 
 c<\ 
 
 s: 
 
 > 
 
 C 
 
 cc 
 
 > 
 
 CO 
 
 (X 
 
 e 
 
 co 
 
 H 
 
 > ^ 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 ON 
 
 co 
 
 >-- 
 
 X 
 X 
 
 rr\ Cc 
 
 > 
 
 cc <^ 
 
 C > 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 x s 
 
 
 ^\ s: 
 
 £ > 
 
 ^ > 
 
 
 
 cc 
 
 > > 
 
 > > 
 
 > >^ 
 
 E > 
 
 T? C7 
 
 ^ > 
 
 n\ 
 
 > 
 
 t— X 
 > £ 
 
 > 
 
 C 
 
 •• 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 cc. 
 
 ^> 
 
 cx, 
 
 s: 
 x 
 
 On 
 
 sz 
 X 
 > 
 
 m. — 
 ?c —_ ^ 
 D 
 
 pa 
 
 cc x 
 
 x o 
 
 — n\ 
 
 ON » 
 
 E *- 
 
 CX ^ 
 
 rs> C7 
 
 (X — 
 
 S > 
 
 — ^A 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 rx 
 
 cc 
 
 C7 
 > 
 
 > <<\ 
 
 OX fO 
 
 x a; 
 
 > co 
 
 — o 
 
 > CC 
 
 r- >• 
 
 r-' > 
 
 
 cc 
 x 
 
 c? 
 
 x ™ 
 v- x> 
 
 X > 
 > ^ 
 
 ro 
 
 
 cc 
 >- 
 
 £ > 
 
 >. n> 
 
 "^ /A 
 
 > * 
 
 fX X 
 
 r- rrs 
 
 n> — 
 
 .. X 
 
 — > 
 >- " 
 
 
 CX 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 c^ 
 
 
 rx 
 > 
 
 n\ • ■ 
 a > 
 TS © 
 
 X 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 r\ 
 as 
 
 
 = S s 
 
 cc 
 
 r— 
 HA 
 
 X 
 > 
 
 ns 
 
 > 
 
 X ~ 
 
 > i- 
 
 > ^ 
 
 > • 
 
 ■- 3: 
 
 ^" ex 
 
 > D 
 
 ^X 
 
 > 
 
 x: 
 
 «i 
 
 
 > > 
 
 i— C7 
 
 
 > 
 
 x~ 
 <^ 
 
 TV >- 
 
 (X <^ 
 
 xi cr 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 > D 
 
 c rx 
 
 ■■ >- 
 
 a 
 > 
 
 x. 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 ^cx - 
 
 ^r > 
 
 
 CO 
 X 
 
 >• 
 
 co 
 c 
 
 a: 
 >~ 
 
 >' 
 
 Ti 
 
 a; 
 x 
 
 v- 
 IX 
 
 o 
 
 7S" 
 
 >- 
 
 C7 
 
 c 
 
 CC 
 IX 
 
 fY\ ^X 
 
 -0 a; > 
 
 > © C7 
 
 CA X ^ 
 
 - 00 
 
 oo t 
 
 s5\ ■- 
 
 C7 ^~ 
 
 — riN 
 
 x: -^ 
 
 as <y> 
 
 <x> 
 
 X 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 CO 
 
 ^\ — 
 
 ex 
 <T 
 
 C7 
 > 
 
 ns 
 >• 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 ■J > 
 
 CX 
 
 ^ a^ 
 
 > ? ^ 
 
 ? 5 
 
 ^ o > 
 
 > <* u 
 
 CX 
 CO 
 
 /\ 
 
 X 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 c 
 CX 
 
 =x 
 
 r- 
 CX 
 
 CD 
 
 > 
 > r 
 
 rx 
 
 CTA - 
 
 > > 
 
 > 
 
 ct: 
 
 rA n\ 
 
 X °° 
 > CC. 
 
 > 
 
 (VJ 
 
 2} 
 /s 
 
 CX 
 
 >- 
 > 
 
 n^ 
 
 n>> 
 
 o 
 rh 
 
 -C7 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 CC 
 
 > 
 
 "A 
 
 > 
 
 "\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 X 
 
 A 
 
 C7 
 
 CO 
 tfA 
 
 > 
 
 f-s 
 
 
 C7 
 
 <c\ 
 
 
 T" 
 
 X- 
 
 o 
 
 CX 
 
 rA 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 fV 
 
 X 
 
 ^x 
 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 rA 
 
 X 
 
 
 c<\ 
 
 a 
 
 ~7 
 
 DC. 
 
 f\y 
 
 r^ 
 
 > 
 
 X- 
 
 > 
 
 > 
 
 
 > 
 
 X" 
 
 CC 
 
 > 
 
 >- 
 
 > 
 
 X 
 
 ex 
 
 CO 
 
 cx 
 
 vX 
 
 > 
 
 a 
 
 
 <CJ 
 
 >. 
 
 r\ 
 
 > 
 
 <A 
 
 > 
 
 cc 
 
 rJ 
 
 TA 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 —? 
 
 _- CA 
 
 ^ ^: x: 
 > cc. x 
 
 s ^ > 
 
 cc co ^ 
 s: iT) s 
 
 X 
 
 > 
 
 X. 
 
 > TS 
 
 > 
 
 (T) ~" 
 
 cc > 
 
 s: co 
 
 X (X, 
 
 
 CC 
 
 
 <c- :=\ ^ <<x 
 
 x o I X 
 
 ■ ■ ^ 
 
 V > 
 
 >> fa 
 
 cc 
 
 C7 
 
 > 
 
 ex. 
 
 X 
 
 
 m 
 CX 
 
 <CN 
 
 r 
 
 7" 
 
 ^A 
 
 > 
 
 -i > 
 
 rO CC 
 
 > s: 
 
 ^ >- 
 
 >~ ^ 
 
 oo 
 rr\ 
 
 •a 
 
 X 
 
 > 
 
 <N 
 
 rvJ 
 
 
 
 n\ 
 
 x> 
 
 \— 
 
 o 
 
 ~> 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
? 
 
 ul 
 
 o 
 
 
 CJ « ?2> 
 
 1 
 
 ? ? 
 
 ^0 
 
 $ £ -f r? y 
 
 in 
 
 
 W « ^ J^j^jJ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 5 «l 
 
 
 3° 3 
 
 o ^ 
 
 ffi H-3 
 
 00 rt 
 
 >q 
 
 FT^S 7 
 
 § 
 
 § 
 
 ^ 
 v 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 S> -^ 
 
 V> 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 
 
 in a M 
 
 « 
 k 
 
 s 
 
 *s 
 
 
 S ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 tC 
 
 
 *5 
 
 
 g* 
 
 -g 
 
 >& 
 
 s 
 
 * 
 
 IS r^ 
 =S .Ho 
 
 
 *«*- 
 
1 1 
 
 
 I V hi i.v 
 
 ./ /. /■//.// 
 
 E T .? 
 
 
 A ST '-57 
 
 
 
 
 1 A 
 
 
 A "«= 
 
 a ajr <5r 
 
 A 
 
 S\j- 
 
 A 
 
 <y 
 
 A ' v gs 
 
 I $ ■£ 
 
 I 
 
 r' 
 
 I 
 
 y 
 
 I ^ 
 
 I c * 
 
 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ©t 
 
 I O/DO 
 
 U -5 ■© 
 
 u 
 
 V 
 
 IT 
 
 c 
 
 u <s 
 
 u § * 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 U 
 
 -&■ 
 
 U c^ 
 
 Bl %\ * 
 
 Rl 
 
 Ri 
 
 im 
 
 Ri JL 
 
 Ri ^ 
 
 Ri 
 
 i. 
 
 Ri 
 
 ZW R! 
 
 Liu ^ *gr 
 
 Lri 
 
 ^r 
 
 Lai 
 
 <2 
 
 Lri ^ 
 
 LRI *t 
 
 Lri 
 
 ~^k 
 
 E 
 
 z, 
 
 Lri ^? 
 
 E T£ rr 
 
 E 
 
 1 
 
 E 
 
 % 
 
 E ^ 
 
 Al T* ^37 
 
 Oi 
 
 A.i 
 
 p 
 
 Ai ^" f ' 
 
 
 
 Ou 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^i 
 Au -^to 
 
 Am 5^ "33 
 
 Om 
 
 G5 
 
 Au 
 
 T7 
 
 Am i£-do 
 
 Ah 3T; ^ : 
 
 Oh 
 
 m 
 
 K 
 
 S 
 
 Ah "« : 
 
 K fr TT 
 
 K 
 
 7F 
 
 Kh 
 
 Jj 
 
 K <* 
 
 ksh ^r ?r 
 
 Kh 
 
 -i 
 
 G 
 
 A 
 
 Kh «_, 
 
 Kh JSf tr 
 
 G 
 
 ri 
 
 Gh 
 
 MJ 
 
 G ^ 
 
 e T If 
 
 Gh 
 
 ft 
 
 &H 
 
 » 
 
 Gh "ti 
 
 &H ^ ^ 
 
 N 
 
 2 
 
 Ts 
 
 ^ 
 
 N ^, 
 
 N 5- 
 
 'i'SH 
 
 r 
 
 CH 
 
 to 
 
 CH ^ 
 
 Ch ^ =7 
 
 TSH.H 
 
 $L 
 
 Ch.h 
 
 »p 
 
 Ch.h ji^> 
 
 J <§T T 
 
 Tz 
 Tzn 
 
 
 Dz 
 
 T 
 
 
 J ^ 
 
 Jh £f 51 
 
 NY 
 
 16 
 
 Th 
 
 04' 
 
 Jh tc; 
 
 Cx <g 
 
 D&X i=p ^ 
 
 T 
 
 £ 
 
 Ny 
 
 ^ 
 
 DorR s 
 
 3 3T 
 
 TH 
 
 I 
 
 T 
 
 & 
 
 1)11 o 
 
 t t: i 
 
 D 
 
 X" 
 
 Th 
 
 G 
 
 T & 
 
 Th 5 cX 
 
 Dh 
 
 F 
 
 D 
 
 Cj 
 
 T i, 
 
 DorR ^ ^ 
 
 N 
 
 ^ 
 
 Dh 
 
 V 
 
 T o, 
 
 »h £ -s- 
 
 T 
 
 VT 
 
 N 
 
 n 
 
 s TIf m 
 
 Th 
 
 a] 
 
 T 
 
 o 
 
 Th u 
 
 T CT T 
 
 D 
 
 *T 
 
 Th 
 
 Q 
 
 D 3 
 
 TH -gp TT 
 
 DH 
 
 ^ 
 
 D 
 
 Q 
 
 Dh xj 
 
 11 J ? 
 
 5T 
 
 ; 
 
 Dh 
 
 P 
 
 N 03 
 
 I)h Vf §r 
 
 P 
 
 t 
 
 N 
 
 CO 
 
 P ,0 
 
 N «^T *7" 
 
 PH 
 
 n* 
 
 P 
 
 
 Ph ^ 
 
 B -^^J 
 
 F TT •& 
 
 P 
 
 
 Ph 
 
 V 
 
 Ph tp 71 
 
 Bh 
 
 3" 
 
 B 
 
 & 
 
 Bh 3 
 
 B ^ T 
 
 M 
 
 4 
 
 Bh 
 
 t> 
 
 M ^ 
 
 Bh *T "*T 
 
 J 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 »U 
 
 Y -ssL- 
 
 M JT U 
 
 R 
 
 a 
 
 Y 
 
 =MJ 
 
 R >d 
 
 Y 1} ^7 
 
 L 
 
 a 
 
 R 
 
 O 
 
 L ^ 
 
 R T T 
 
 V 
 
 a 
 
 L 
 
 (^ 
 
 W ^j 
 
 l <3 T 
 
 SH 
 
 ri 
 
 V 
 
 =Ci 
 
 Sh v3 
 
 L 55 ^ 
 
 SH 
 
 <a 
 
 SH 
 
 ■s 
 
 Sh ^ 
 
 \v cf T 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 Sh 
 
 <A 
 
 S r -v 
 
 s H "^r 3J 
 
 H 
 
 V 
 
 s 
 
 [0 
 
 H ' 1 ^ 
 
 sn T|" 
 
 K 
 
 $ 
 
 H 
 
 o^ 
 
 Ksh <^ 
 
 s Tf ti 
 
 
 
 L 
 
 V 
 
 R [^ 
 
 H £ B- 
 
 
 
 Sh 
 
 Jl 
 
 L £ 
 
 
 
 
 R 
 
 &0 
 
 N At j 
 
 • V.S Ti, ,,.'„; .11 , 
 
 y ■■ /.*■<>,*«, 
 
 M 
 
 0. 
 
 R -4 
 
 ■■' 1" ■ ■ 
 
 > , 
 
 
 
 1 • _, , y /;-,„/ 
 
 . . , . 
 
 ■ .. 
 
 
 X 
 
 C 1 L "H ( 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 L < 1 
 
 # i» 
 
r 
 
 ■^ 
 
 $ 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 b 3 
 
 a i 
 
 <3 O 
 * -0 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 L, n 2 # i 
 & * j? P§ 2a 
 
 >2 
 
 o 
 
 ^ fl v? 
 
 ^ nt^ 
 
 Q**)^ £$ 
 
 -H 8 
 
 o P 
 
 f 43 
 
 yi < 
 
 XO 
 
 X3- 
 
 k J 3 & 1 £ 3 ? 2 i * 8 * 
 
 P. X3 
 
 i. 
 
 
 « t -^.^ $ £) rt 2 >?, f () ,',; 
 
 »3 2 5 3 <rP 3 * ^ ^ - ' 
 
 * 
 
 
 £0 V? 
 3 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 
 >2 
 
 ., £ 
 
 >3 f 
 
 b 5 ° 
 
 -to 
 >3 
 
 a 
 
 
 (To) 
 
 Ff Sj ^ vb 
 
 61 O b 
 
 Ml 
 
 S 
 
 x<? 
 
 <8 
 
 >S 
 
 -^ p^J 
 
 o 
 
 ^3 
 
 
 ^l 3 
 
 yp 
 
 >6 
 
 Y 
 
 ,^ 
 
 y3 O 
 
 fe 
 
 i 
 
 1> ^ 
 
 V2 ^P 
 
 0< 
 
 ft^a^foS^ao 
 
 
 c® 
 
 
 Yi 
 
 % 
 
 >3 
 o vs 
 
 # 
 
 S v2 >» ,S x 
 
 K) c? fi H ± 
 
 3 »^ 
 
 h P ® 
 
 K © Xo 
 
 <h si uo 
 
 ? -^ ^ 
 
 >§ ^ o 
 
 ?1 
 
 Yi' 
 
 
 v 
 
 I 
 
 
 er 
 
 'W 
 
 I 4 
 
 IE 15 
 
 Si 
 
 <9 
 
 
 % 
 
 •fer 
 
 II 
 
 fid 
 
 a3 
 
 ^_ 9 
 
 5 ^ft(p 
 
 
 l 
 IT 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ? 
 
 (c- (jzr 
 
 
 
 ^ IT ^ 
 
 r (o- 'fe 1 <& 
 
 t * £ & £ 
 
 f & feJf & 
 
 Sy. K> IS 1 IF F 
 
 IP 
 ill 
 
 P »y tf 
 
 f 
 
 I? 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 ikr 
 
 T 
 
 I 
 
 d2 
 
 $ 
 
P6M tXUJf 6'H \j lt6A,H6L 
 H/fUJ-B :-u±} AX H^DUX+ex Uo 
 i-+ Xj+ HJI 0+6+ U £J\p\ AJ^ 
 
 A'AHCt fL±t«& + b(XX+ ClUd5«0 
 cC^t 1+0? W(U XA+U Atf + \,X 
 
 C^ + d" ft+iJcf Ar/\L6CXyX6 U6dXU + 
 Cd-fX H H: K<C+ 6tf++< 1+0 41 Add £6 
 irixil ^iHlol6 6t<tl6 If'lAil 
 £>x£4 1UX<51 X(tcTA-8<U AXiVx^X 
 JULfoCX d<#>X ti.i'A: WUl D6J,<T 
 HXGcWB&^tfX 2t£vA6X »£XX6*6XX 
 JLAilt ^iC^A^ XxWiXt £6X^X1 
 K/JL6JLX HotfrltX d6^XX liXH<tl AXX 
 IX.6XX XUA-^CXd £iXX AlllUfAiJ, 
 
 ( d6- ^h+^+j t>6cn xjtxx ixx^x 
 
 A (CI IXAlX dAoXX dA-tfXlU tf^XXAX 
 -J11- X+C6X X6Xf<S(CX6 l L H^XUM HX 
 H-A-J+X W_<$XX abX^XX+fX 
 
D.N?2. 
 Sjoi/oivnt/njs of In/Hvourv WriUnir. 
 Ins orivhtms wv un known/ Oi&ra/cftvrs 
 
 
 PrmtbH o\ J.jffufUnt&neLtZ 
 
 P6±'U ClUJf 6"H (/ XttfX U X 
 
 ju^m :-tfx}u Wxx+ex xxo 
 
 i+ <U+ )\J1 Q+6+ U X'S^i AJC 
 
 XrH l+b? UJ(U (U+U A^ + XX 
 rUdAU XU^MM Xd^jU 
 l^ + cr rl-t-Xd" An^ji6CX^X6 H6bXLA + 
 Cd-F^X HtUcfr 6tf+-K 1+C41 Ux£i 
 IfU^l ^iWXoX6 4U16 1^1A6X 
 fcx£6 XUX^X UdA-tfcU *«UV±\MJb 
 lL$6lt tfc^x U^A: WUx D6X<T 
 HXtXo-8a)H^3u Xt>£U6X >£ -Cj^ 6X1 
 L\61t W^ XXHXit ^61-VXl 
 Xl>A6JuX HotftLU d6HX liX^U AXX 
 VX6cVl AcN&tctol iAU AXllO^Jt 
 ( dtf- >H+y-j >6CH1 £)TXX 1XJTX<S1 
 AXX V-Lii^X dAtfcU djwtox H^cCXXjt 
 xJl} 2+C6X X6dp<S(LX6 l L W&\\X Hi 
 
i > . r<i v .-4 
 
 In/soryofcons wo u>wk/n/owvu Ch/O/rcooto/rs . 
 
 <WvlfA03^j d^J^y <W* si/ of ^ & 6 
 
w 
 
 s 
 
 "Jj-^M^»^-«s.ll | 
 
 
 
Persian 
 
 Jrtrjn tfu ZcndavusTv tf.dnfitfft? etu^c 
 
Spe/owwv7is of J}> 
 lo/yi/ol/. 
 
 y)aj -*>jS* f O ♦ r ^H l it-**-" fV^^^j^j 
 wwj^ t _ t y avpg, ^j*^, fd«f^S v^^. 
 
 r^K^-* .^ru^ fs* ^_« O-c/t r= > — * ♦ ;=* ! 
 
 Inmtht, ifm . of Sir W.J,m,s's Wvrhs 
 

 ?as~h/Zvi>. 
 
 ) wtfito wwv j,^^<g ^, ^ ^ ^ 
 

/U^UUjit>[lipt>>ft22ufr/72AUnj^?* j>-a<2) 
 /U^??? ^2) jHu/^J/22 u/>i>S jV cS{bf>u 
 
 £ 2 <*(^ *> 1 1 ] 9. U { [h'j» Z2 J b U }iA2/u} ^22/ UVT2«3J^ 
 
 F N°2 
 Jiwo-ipliD/hs in, undec^pAcrcd Ckaraelm 
 
 r. 
 
 n K- -W\f T T Tt ve\ «TT ~< ttj -11 
 
 T« ;1'M TiT -fTT fir sT ',' -^ n, ft V \ « | T 
 
 << y fTi £T « w\ <<jt <{ rTH<~T<T rf l<r~ 
 ^TET-T^T <( hta«YU< m^KHa< 
 ttty<-i<i T t K- ttt~< frT -M\ Ann ht T < T<i 
 Hf<^ r\ <c < i.<- <ft -< fTr -U v. fT -<_< < fTH - T~T 
 ~( tTt r< TTt >w\ «tt < < m K-UTlru-A 
 
 It 
 
 >i?? >-U Vh->J 22.' 2 J> U ^ 2 !A /O ;> tf 
 
 1 ^ p r^\ 
 
 'N 
 
 // S m s s c 7i/>i')y^ s^?*f )y^ ) Jiy? H ?y>)^> U #a jgy<--' r ^Tn 2<-_m -v-j <kj<& tt u~Tr\v »■ 
 ^ Jj>wJi,4^>>74/>JJa w ^)^^^> Vj ^) Jj £ J>^-pn^ ' i^ tt7 ^r t>Sfe<\Vr<\ << tt 
 
 insj »>^J &dn ->y> J?* ij*? k>j ii hjj^ 
 
 mTfunnn -t<- ttt -<^ jF<M^<-<~<< rr 
 
 Y»Y Y,r r< 
 
 << m T(~\ YM ryT-^T, yf \ «H 
 
 1-T £t Tr \ ^ K- A Iti E< m \ ^ ^Y ^ItTMiT 
 
 m 5 ~W £VM\Yc£Y£YfY»-W \ Ty Hf £ \ ^ 
 
 •y T l^-lrT\H> r< --v. m ~V TtT < t t SMiTM rrTtr 
 
 (z<\ ^Tt <X< 77 ^<M^-YrY -V HfiT ^ -TtT ^ Wi Tt £T 
 
 -YrT T-r Tt Tn \ ?, m m- <v -j£ \ <=^< Tt ui\ " T 
 
 ar-rr ^y m r< < m ^ t t yTt -w ttt<— ^ <( ." g 
 
 Try v < r r ~WKr * ^M Y<-MtT y M ^ ^t ^tT -YtT 
 

 4^ ,«' 
 
 P*