{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_27810/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_27810","id":"gutenberg_27810","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27810","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: German Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Comparative linguistics","Folklore","Literature -- History and criticism","Mythology","Religions"],"text":"CHIPS FROM A GERMAN WORKSHOP\n\n                                    BY\n\n                          F. MAX M\u00dcLLER, M. A.,\n\n               FOREIGN MEMBER OF THE FRENCH INSTITUTE, ETC.\n\n                                VOLUME V.\n\n                       MISCELLANEOUS LATER ESSAYS.\n\n                                NEW YORK:\n\n                         CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS.\n\n                                  1881.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nI. On Freedom\nII. On The Philosophy Of Mythology.\nIII. On False Analogies In Comparative Theology.\nIV. On Spelling.\nV. On Sanskrit Texts Discovered In Japan.\nIndex.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    I.\n\n\nON FREEDOM.\n\n\n Presidential Address Delivered Before The Birmingham Midland Institute,\n                            October 20, 1879.\n\nNot more than twenty years have passed since John Stuart Mill sent forth\nhis plea for Liberty.(1)\n\nIf there is one among the leaders of thought in England who, by the\nelevation of his character and the calm composure of his mind, deserved\nthe so often misplaced title of Serene Highness, it was, I think, John\nStuart Mill.\n\nBut in his Essay \u201cOn Liberty,\u201d Mill for once becomes passionate. In\npresenting his Bill of Rights, in stepping forward as the champion of\nindividual liberty, he seems to be possessed by a new spirit. He speaks\nlike a martyr, or the defender of martyrs. The individual human soul, with\nits unfathomable endowments, and its capacity of growing to something\nundreamt of in our philosophy, becomes in his eyes a sacred thing, and\nevery encroachment on its world-wide domain is treated as sacrilege.\nSociety, the arch-enemy of the rights of individuality, is represented\nlike an evil spirit, whom it behooves every true man to resist with might\nand main, and whose demands, as they cannot be altogether ignored, must be\nreduced at all hazards to the lowest level.\n\nI doubt whether any of the principles for which Mill pleaded so warmly and\nstrenuously in his Essay \u201cOn Liberty\u201d would at the present day be\nchallenged or resisted, even by the most illiberal of philosophers, or the\nmost conservative of politicians. Mill\u2019s demands sound very humble to\n_our_ ears. They amount to no more than this, \u201cthat the individual is not\naccountable to society for his actions so far as they concern the\ninterests of no person but himself, and that he may be subjected to social\nor legal punishments for such actions only as are prejudicial to the\ninterests of others.\u201d\n\nIs there any one here present who doubts the justice of that principle, or\nwho would wish to reduce the freedom of the individual to a smaller\nmeasure? Whatever social tyranny may have existed twenty years ago, when\nit wrung that fiery protest from the lips of John Stuart Mill, can we\nimagine a state of society, not totally Utopian, in which the individual\nman need be less ashamed of his social fetters, in which he could more\nfreely utter all his honest convictions, more boldly propound all his\ntheories, more fearlessly agitate for their speedy realization; in which,\nin fact, each man can be so entirely himself as the society of England,\nsuch as it now is, such as generations of hard-thinking and hard-working\nEnglishmen have made it, and left it as the most sacred inheritance to\ntheir sons and daughters?\n\nLook through the whole of history, not excepting the brightest days of\nrepublican freedom at Athens and Rome, and you will not find one single\nperiod in which the measure of liberty accorded to each individual was\nlarger than it is at present, at least in England. And if you wish to\nrealize the full blessings of the time in which we live, compare Mill\u2019s\nplea for Liberty with another written not much more than two hundred years\nago, and by a thinker not inferior either in power or boldness to Mill\nhimself. According to Hobbes, the only freedom which an individual in his\nideal state has a right to claim is what he calls \u201cfreedom of thought,\u201d\nand that freedom of thought consists in our being able to think what we\nlike\u2014so long as we keep it to ourselves. Surely, such freedom of thought\nexisted even in the days of the Inquisition, and we should never call\nthought free, if it had to be kept a prisoner in solitary and silent\nconfinement. By freedom of thought we mean freedom of speech, freedom of\nthe press, freedom of action, whether individual or associated, and of\nthat freedom the present generation, as compared with all former\ngenerations, the English nation, as compared with all other nations,\nenjoys, there can be no doubt, a good measure, pressed down, and shaken\ntogether, and sometimes running over.\n\nIt may be said that some dogmas still remain in politics, in religion, and\nin morality; but those who defend them claim no longer any infallibility,\nand those who attack them, however small their minority, need fear no\nviolence, nay, may reckon on an impartial and even sympathetic hearing, as\nsoon as people discover in their pleadings the true ring of honest\nconviction and the warmth inspired by an unselfish love of truth.\n\nIt has seemed strange, therefore, to many readers of Mill, particularly on\nthe Continent, that this plea for liberty, this demand for freedom for\nevery individual to be what he is, and to develop all the germs of his\nnature, should have come from what is known as the freest of all\ncountries, England. We might well understand such a cry of indignation if\nit had reached us from Russia; but why should English philosophers, of all\nothers, have to protest against the tyranny of society? It is true,\nnevertheless, that in countries governed despotically, the individual,\nunless he is obnoxious to the Government, enjoys far greater freedom, or\nrather license, than in a country like England, which governs itself.\nRussian society, for instance, is extremely indulgent. It tolerates in its\nrulers and statesmen a haughty defiance of the simplest rules of social\npropriety, and it seems amused rather than astonished or indignant at the\nvagaries, the frenzies, and outrages of those who in brilliant\ndrawing-rooms or lecture-rooms preach the doctrines of what is called\nNihilism or Individualism,(2)\u2014viz., \u201cthat society must be regenerated by a\nstruggle for existence and the survival of the strongest, processes which\nNature has sanctioned, and which have proved successful among wild\nanimals.\u201d If there is danger in these doctrines the Government is expected\nto see to it. It may place watchmen at the doors of every house and at the\ncorner of every street, but it must not count on the better classes coming\nforward to enrol themselves as special constables, or even on the\nco\u00f6peration of public opinion which in England would annihilate that kind\nof Nihilism with one glance of scorn and pity.\n\nIn a self-governed country like England, the resistance which society, if\nit likes, can oppose to the individual in the assertion of his rights, is\nfar more compact and powerful than in Russia, or even in Germany. Even\nwhere it does not employ the arm of the law, society knows how to use that\nquieter, but more crushing pressure, that calm, Gorgon-like look which\nonly the bravest and stoutest hearts know how to resist.\n\nIt is against that indirect repression which a well-organized society\nexercises, both through its male and female representatives, that Mill\u2019s\ndemand for liberty seems directed. He does not stand up for unlimited\nindividualism; on the contrary, he would have been the most strenuous\ndefender of that balance of power between the weak and the strong on which\nall social life depends. But he resents those smaller penalties which\nsociety will always inflict on those who disturb its dignified peace and\ncomfort:\u2014avoidance, exclusion, a cold look, a stinging remark. Had Mill\nany right to complain of these social penalties? Would it not rather\namount to an interference with individual liberty to deprive any\nindividual or any number of individuals of those weapons of self-defence?\nThose who themselves think and speak freely, have hardly a right to\ncomplain, if others claim the same privilege. Mill himself called the\nConservative party the stupid party _par excellence_, and he took great\npains to explain that it was so not by accident, but by necessity. Need he\nwonder if those whom he whipped and scourged used their own whips and\nscourges against so merciless a critic?\n\nFreethinkers\u2014and I use that name as a title of honor for all who, like\nMill, claim for every individual the fullest freedom in thought, word, or\ndeed, compatible with the freedom of others\u2014are apt to make one mistake.\nConscious of their own honest intentions, they cannot bear to be misjudged\nor slighted. They expect society to submit to their often very painful\noperations as a patient submits to the knife of the surgeon. This is not\nin human nature. The enemy of abuses is always abused by his enemies.\nSociety will never yield one inch without resistance, and few reformers\nlive long enough to receive the thanks of those whom they have reformed.\nMill\u2019s unsolicited election to Parliament was a triumph not often shared\nby social reformers; it was as exceptional as Bright\u2019s admission to a seat\nin the Cabinet, or Stanley\u2019s appointment as Dean of Westminster. Such\nanomalies will happen in a country fortunately so full of anomalies as\nEngland; but, as a rule, a political reformer must not be angry if he\npasses through life without the title of Right Honorable; nor should a\nman, if he will always speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but\nthe truth, be disappointed if he dies a martyr rather than a Bishop.\n\nBut even granting that in Mill\u2019s time there existed some traces of social\ntyranny, where are they now? Look at the newspapers and the journals. Is\nthere any theory too wild, any reform too violent, to be openly defended?\nLook at the drawing-rooms or the meetings of learned societies. Are not\nthe most eccentric talkers the spoiled children of the fashionable world?\nWhen young lords begin to discuss the propriety of limiting the rights of\ninheritance, and young tutors are not afraid to propose curtailing the\nlong vacation, surely we need not complain of the intolerance of English\nsociety.\n\nWhenever I state these facts to my German and French and Italian friends,\nwho from reading Mill\u2019s Essay \u201cOn Liberty\u201d have derived the impression\nthat, however large an amount of political liberty England may enjoy, it\nenjoys but little of intellectual freedom, they are generally willing to\nbe converted so far as London, or other great cities are concerned. But\nlook at your Universities, they say, the nurseries of English thought!\nCompare their medi\u00e6val spirit, their monastic institutions, their\nscholastic philosophy, with the freshness and freedom of the Continental\nUniversities! Strong as these prejudices about Oxford and Cambridge have\nlong been, they have become still more intense since Professor Helmholtz,\nin an inaugural address which he delivered at his installation as Rector\nof the University of Berlin, lent to them the authority of his great name.\n\u201cThe tutors,\u201d he says,(3) \u201cin the English Universities cannot deviate by a\nhair\u2019s-breadth from the dogmatic system of the English Church, without\nexposing themselves to the censure of their Archbishops and losing their\npupils.\u201d In German Universities, on the contrary, we are told that the\nextreme conclusions of materialistic metaphysics, the boldest speculations\nwithin the sphere of Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution, may be propounded\nwithout let or hindrance, quite as much as the highest apotheosis of Papal\ninfallibility.\n\nHere the facts on which Professor Helmholtz relies are entirely wrong, and\nthe writings of some of our most eminent tutors supply a more than\nsufficient refutation of his statements. Archbishops have no official\nposition whatsoever in English Universities, and their censure of an\nOxford tutor would be resented as impertinent by the whole University. Nor\ndoes the University, as such, exercise any very strict control over the\ntutors, even when they lecture not to their own College only. Each Master\nof Arts at Oxford claims now the right to lecture (_venia docendi_), and I\ndoubt whether they would submit to those restrictions which, in Germany,\nthe Faculty imposes on every _Privat-docent_. _Privat-docents_ in German\nUniversities have been rejected by the Faculty for incompetence, and\nsilenced for insubordination. I know of no such cases at Oxford during my\nresidence of more than thirty years, nor can I think it likely that they\nshould ever occur.\n\nAs to the extreme conclusions of materialistic metaphysics, there are\nOxford tutors who have grappled with the systems of such giants as Hobbes,\nLocke, or Hume, and who are not likely to be frightened by B\u00fcchner and\nVogt.\n\nI know comparisons are odious, and I should be the last man to draw\ncomparisons between English and German Universities unfavorable to the\nlatter. But with regard to freedom of thought, of speech, and action,\nProfessor Helmholtz, if he would spend but a few weeks at Oxford, would\nfind that we enjoy it in fuller measure here than the Professors and\n_Privat-docents_ in any Continental University. The publications of some\nof our professors and tutors ought at least to have convinced him that if\nthere is less of brave words and turbulent talk in their writings, they\ndisplay throughout a determination to speak the truth, which may be\nmatched, but could not easily be excelled, by the leaders of thought in\nFrance, Germany, or Italy.\n\nThe real difference between English and Continental Universities is that\nthe former govern themselves, the latter are governed. Self-government\nentails responsibilities, sometimes restraints and reticences. I may here\nbe allowed to quote the words of another eminent Professor of the\nUniversity of Berlin, Du Bois Reymond, who, in addressing his colleagues,\nventured to tell them,(4) \u201cWe have still to learn from the English how the\ngreatest independence of the individual is compatible with willing\nsubmission to salutary, though irksome, statutes.\u201d That is particularly\ntrue when the statutes are self-imposed. In Germany, as Professor\nHelmholtz tells us himself, the last decision in almost all the more\nimportant affairs of the Universities rests with the Government, and he\ndoes not deny that in times of political and ecclesiastical tension, a\nmost ill-advised use has been made of that power. There are, besides, the\nless important matters, such as raising of salaries, leave of absence,\nscientific missions, even titles and decorations, all of which enable a\nclever Minister of Instruction to assert his personal influence among the\nless independent members of the University. In Oxford the University does\nnot know the Ministry, nor the Ministry the University. The acts of the\nGovernment, be it Liberal or Conservative, are freely discussed, and often\npowerfully resisted by the academic constituencies, and the personal\ndislike of a Minister or Ministerial Councillor could as little injure a\nprofessor or tutor as his favor could add one penny to his salary.\n\nBut these are minor matters. What gives their own peculiar character to\nthe English Universities is a sense of power and responsibility: power,\nbecause they are the most respected among the numerous corporations in the\ncountry; responsibility, because the higher education of the whole country\nhas been committed to their charge. Their only master is public opinion as\nrepresented in Parliament, their only incentive their own sense of duty.\nThere is no country in Europe where Universities hold so exalted a\nposition, and where those who have the honour to belong to them may say\nwith greater truth _Noblesse oblige_.\n\nI know the dangers of self-government, particularly where higher and more\nideal interests are concerned, and there are probably few who wish for a\nreal reform in schools and Universities who have not occasionally yielded\nto the desire for a Dictator, of a Bismarck or a Falk. But such a desire\nsprings only from a momentary weakness and despondency; and no one who\nknows the difference between being governed and governing one\u2019s self,\nwould ever wish to descend from that higher though dangerous position to a\nlower one, however safe and comfortable it might seem. No one who has\ntasted the old wine of freedom would ever really wish to exchange it for\nthe new wine of external rule. Public opinion is sometimes a hard master,\nand majorities can be great tyrants to those who want to be honest to\ntheir own convictions. But in the struggle of all against all, each\nindividual feels that he has his rightful place, and that he may exercise\nhis rightful influence. If he is beaten, he is beaten in fair fight; if he\nconquers, he has no one else to thank. No doubt, despotic Governments have\noften exercised the most beneficial patronage in encouraging and rewarding\npoets, artists, and men of science. But men of genius who have conquered\nthe love and admiration of a whole nation are greater than those who have\ngained the favor of the most brilliant Courts; and we know how some of the\nfairest reputations have been wrecked on the patronage which they had to\naccept at the hands of powerful Ministers or ambitious Sovereigns.\n\nBut to return to Mill and his plea for Liberty. Though I can hardly\nbelieve that, were he still among us, he would claim a larger measure of\nfreedom for the individual than is now accorded to every one of us in the\nsociety in which we move, yet the chief cause on which he founded his plea\nfor Liberty, the chief evil which he thought could be remedied only if\nsociety would allow more elbow-room to individual genius, exists in the\nsame degree as in his time\u2014aye, even in a higher degree. The principle of\nindividuality has suffered more at present than perhaps at any former\nperiod of history. The world is becoming more and more gregarious, and\nwhat the French call our _nature moutonni\u00e8re_, our tendency to leap where\nthe sheep in front of us has leapt, becomes more and more prevalent in\npolitics, in religion, in art, and even in science. M. de Tocqueville\nexpressed his surprise how much more Frenchmen of the present day resemble\none another than did those of the last generation. The same remark, adds\nJohn Stuart Mill, might be made of England in a greater degree. \u201cThe\nmodern _r\u00e9gime_ of public opinion,\u201d he writes, \u201cis in an unorganized form\nwhat the Chinese educational and political systems are in an organized;\nand unless individuality shall be able successfully to assert itself\nagainst this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents and its\nprofessed Christianity, will tend to become another China.\u201d\n\nI fully agree with Mill in recognizing the dangers of uniformity, but I\ndoubt whether what he calls the _r\u00e9gime_ of public opinion is alone, or\neven chiefly, answerable for it. No doubt there are some people in whose\neyes uniformity seems an advantage rather than a disadvantage. If all were\nequally strong, equally educated, equally honest, equally rich, equally\ntall, or equally small, society would seem to them to have reached the\nhighest ideal. The same people admire an old French garden, with its\nclipped yew-trees, forming artificial walls and towers and pyramids, far\nmore than the giant yews which, like large serpents, clasp the soil with\ntheir coiling roofs, and overshadow with their dark green branches the\nwhite chalk cliffs of the Thames. But those French gardens, unless they\nare constantly clipped and prevented from growing, soon fall into decay.\nAs in nature, so in society, uniformity means but too often stagnation,\nwhile variety is the surest sign of health and vigor. The deepest secret\nof nature is its love of continued novelty. Its tendency, if unrestrained,\nis towards constantly creating new varieties, which, if they fulfil their\npurpose, become fixed for a time, or, it may be, forever; while others,\nafter they have fulfilled their purpose, vanish to make room for new and\nstronger types.\n\nThe same is the secret of human society. It consists and lives in\nindividuals, each meant to be different from all the others, and to\ncontribute his own peculiar share to the common wealth. As no tree is like\nany other tree, and no leaf on the same tree like any other leaf, no human\nbeing is, or is meant to be, exactly like any other human being. It is in\nthis endless, and to us inconceivable, variety of human souls that the\ndeepest purpose of human life is to be realized; and the more society\nfulfils that purpose, the more its allows free scope for the development\nof every individual germ, the richer will be the harvest in no distant\nfuture. Such is the mystery of individuality that I do not wonder if even\nthose philosophers who, like Mill, confine the use of the word _sacred_\nwithin the very smallest compass, see in each individual soul something\nsacred, something to be revered, even where we cannot understand it,\nsomething to be protected against all vulgar violence.\n\nWhere I differ from Mill and his school is on the question as to the\nquarter from whence the epidemic of uniformity springs which threatens the\nfree development of modern society. Mill points to the society in which we\nmove; to those who are in front of us, to our contemporaries. I feel\nconvinced that our real enemies are at our back, and that the heaviest\nchains which are fastened on us are those made, not by the present, but by\npast generations\u2014by our ancestors, not by our contemporaries.\n\nIt is on this point, on the trammels of individual freedom with which we\nmay almost be said to be born into the world, and on the means by which we\nmay shake off these old chains, or at all events learn to carry them more\nlightly and gracefully, that I wish to speak to you this evening.\n\nYou need not be afraid that I am going to enter upon the much discussed\nsubject of heredity, whether in its physiological or psychological\naspects. It is a favorite subject just now, and the most curious facts\nhave been brought together of late to illustrate the working of what is\ncalled heredity. But the more we know of these facts, the less we seem\nable to comprehend the underlying principle. Inheritance is one of those\nnumerous words which by their very simplicity and clearness are so apt to\ndarken our counsel. If a father has blue eyes and the son has blue eyes,\nwhat can be clearer than that he inherited them? If the father stammers\nand the son stammers, who can doubt but that it came by inheritance? If\nthe father is a musician and the son a musician, we say very glibly that\nthe talent was inherited. But what does _inherited_ mean? In no case does\nit mean what _inherited_ usually means\u2014something external, like money,\ncollected by a father, and, after his death, secured by law to his son.\nWhatever else inherited may mean, it does not mean that. But unfortunately\nthe word is there, it seems almost pedantic to challenge its meaning, and\npeople are always grateful if an easy word saves them the trouble of hard\nthought.\n\nAnother apparent advantage of the theory of heredity is that it never\nfails. If the son has blue, and the father black, eyes, all is right\nagain, for either the mother, or the grandmother, or some historic or\nprehistoric ancestor, may have had blue eyes, and atavism, we know, will\nassert itself after hundreds and thousands of years.\n\nDo not suppose that I deny the broad facts of what is called by the name\nof heredity. What I deny is that the name of heredity offers any\nscientific solution of a most difficult problem. It is a name, a metaphor,\nquite as bad as the old metaphor of _innate ideas_; for there is hardly a\nsingle point of similarity between the process by which a son may share\nthe black eyes, the stammering, or the musical talent of his father, and\nthat by which, after his father\u2019s death, the law secures to the son the\npossession of the pounds, shillings, and pence which his father held in\nthe Funds.\n\nBut whatever the true meaning of heredity may be, certain it is that every\nindividual comes into the world heavy-laden. Nowhere has the consciousness\nof the burden which rests on each generation as it enters on its journey\nthrough life found stronger expression than among the Buddhists. What\nother people call by various names, \u201cfate or providence,\u201d \u201ctradition or\ninheritance,\u201d \u201ccircumstances or environment,\u201d they call _Karman_,\ndeed\u2014what has been done, whether by ourselves or by others, the\naccumulated work of all who have come before us, the consequences of which\nwe have to bear, both for good and for evil. Originally this _Karman_\nseems to have been conceived as personal, as the work which we ourselves\nhave done in our former existences. But, as personally we are not\nconscious of having done such work in former ages, that kind of _Karman_,\ntoo, might be said to be impersonal. To the question how _Karman_ began,\nwhat was the nucleus of that accumulation which forms the condition of\npresent existence, Buddhism has no answer to give, any more than any other\nsystem of religion or philosophy. The Buddhists say it began with\n_avidy\u00e2_, and _avidy\u00e2_ means ignorance.(5) They are much more deeply\ninterested in the question how _Karman_ may be annihilated, how each man\nmay free himself from the influence of _Karman_, and Nirv\u00e2_n_a, the\nhighest object of all their dreams, is often defined by Buddhist\nphilosophers as \u201cfreedom from _Karman_.\u201d(6)\n\nWhat the Buddhists call by the general name of _Karman_, comprehends all\ninfluences which the past exercises on the present, whether physical or\nmental.(7) It is not my object to examine or even to name all these\ninfluences, though I confess nothing is more interesting than to look upon\nthe surface of our modern life as we look on a geological map, and to see\nthe most ancient formations cropping out everywhere under our feet.\nDifficult as it is to color a geological map of England, it would be still\nmore difficult to find a sufficient variety of colors to mark the\ndifferent ingredients of the intellectual condition of her people.\n\nThat all of us, whether we speak English or German, or French or Russian,\nare really speaking an ancient Oriental tongue, incredible as it would\nhave sounded a hundred years ago, is now recognized by everybody. Though\nthe various dialects now spoken in Europe have been separated many\nthousands of years from the Sanskrit, the ancient classical language of\nIndia, yet so close is the bond that holds the West and East together,\nthat in many cases an intelligent Englishman might still guess the meaning\nof a Sanskrit word. How little difference is there between Sanskrit _s\u00fbnu_\nand English _son_, between Sanskrit _duhitar_ and English _daughter_,\nbetween Sanskrit _vid_, to know, and English to _wit_, between Sanskrit\n_vaksh_, to grow, and English to _wax!_ Think how we value a Saxon urn, or\na Roman coin, or a Keltic weapon! how we dig for them, clean them, label\nthem, and carefully deposit them in our museums! Yet what is their\nantiquity compared with the antiquity of such words as _son_ or\n_daughter_, _father_ and _mother_? There are no monuments older than those\ncollected in the handy volumes which we call Dictionaries, and those who\nknow how to interpret those English antiquities\u2014as you may see them\ninterpreted, for instance, in Grimm\u2019s Dictionary of the German, in\nLittr\u00e9\u2019s Dictionary of the French, or in Professor Skeats\u2019 Etymological\nDictionary of the English Language\u2014will learn more of the real growth of\nthe human mind than by studying many volumes on logic and psychology.\n\nAnd as by our language we belong to the Aryan stratum, we belong through\nour letters to the Hamitic. We still write English in hieroglyphics; and\nin spite of all the vicissitudes through which the ancient hieroglyphics\nhave passed in their journey from Egypt to Ph\u0153nicia, from Ph\u0153nicia to\nGreece, from Greece to Italy, and from Italy to England, when we write a\ncapital F [Cursive F], when we draw the top line and the smaller line\nthrough the middle of the letter, we really draw the two horns of the\ncerastes, the horned serpent, which the ancient Egyptians used for\nrepresenting the sound of f. They write the name of the king whom the\nGreeks called _Cheops_, and they themselves _Chu-fu_, like this:(8)\u2014\n\n                         [Three Egyptian signs.]\n\nHere the first sign, the sieve, is to be pronounced _chu_; the second, the\nhorned serpent, _fu_, and the little bird, again, _u_. In the more cursive\nor Hieratic writing the horned serpent appears as [Egyptian character]; in\nthe later Demotic as [Egyptian character] and [Egyptian character]. The\nPh\u0153nicians, who borrowed their letters from the Hieratic Egyptian, wrote\n[Phoenician character] and [Phoenician character]. The Greeks, who took\ntheir letters from the Ph\u0153nicians, wrote [Greek character]. When the\nGreeks, instead of writing, like the Ph\u0153nicians, from right to left, began\nto write from left to right, they turned each letter, and as [Phoenician\ncharacter] became [Greek character], our k, so [Phoenician character],\nvau, became F, the Greek so-called Digamma, [Greek character], the Latin\nF.\n\nThe first letter in _Chu-fu_, too, still exists in our alphabet, and in\nthe transverse line of our H we may recognize the last remnant of the\nlines which divide the sieve. The sieve appears in Hieratic as [Egyptian\ncharacter], in Ph\u0153nician as [Phoenician character], in ancient Greek as\n[Greek character], which occurs on an inscription found at Mycen\u00e6 and\nelsewhere as the sign of the spiritus asper, while in Latin it is known to\nus as the letter H.(9) In the same manner the undulating line of our\ncapital L [Cursive L] still recalls very strikingly the bent back of the\ncrouching lion, [Egyptian character], which in the later hieroglyphic\ninscriptions represents the sound of L.\n\nIf thus in our language we are Aryan, in our letters Egyptian, we have\nonly to look at our watches to see that we are Babylonian. Why is our hour\ndivided into sixty minutes, our minute into sixty seconds? Would not a\ndivision of the hour into ten, or fifty, or a hundred minutes have been\nmore natural? We have sixty divisions on the dials of our watches simply\nbecause the Greek astronomer Hipparchus, who lived in the second century\nB. C., accepted the Babylonian system of reckoning time, that system being\nsexagesimal. The Babylonians knew the decimal system, but for practical\npurposes they counted by _sossi_ and _sari_, the _sossos_ representing 60,\nthe _saros_ 60 \u00d7 60, or 3,600. From Hipparchus that system found its way\ninto the works of Ptolemy, about 150 A. D., and thence it was carried down\nthe stream of civilization, finding its last resting-place on the\ndial-plates of our clocks.\n\nAnd why are there twenty shillings to our sovereign? Again the real reason\nlies in Babylon. The Greeks learnt from the Babylonians the art of\ndividing gold and silver for the purpose of trade. It has been proved that\nthe current gold piece of Western Asia was exactly the sixtieth part of a\nBabylonian _mn\u00e2_, or _mina_. It was nearly equal to our sovereign. The\ndifficult problem of the relative value of gold and silver in a\nbi-metallic currency had been solved to a certain extent in the ancient\nMesopotamian kingdom, the proportion between gold and silver being fixed\nat 1 to 13-1/3. The silver shekel current in Babylon was heavier than the\ngold shekel in the proportion of 13-1/3 to 10, and had therefore the value\nof one tenth of a gold shekel; and the half silver shekel, called by the\nGreeks a drachma, was worth one twentieth of a gold shekel. The drachma,\nor half silver shekel, may therefore be looked upon as the most ancient\ntype of our own silver shilling in its relation of one twentieth of our\ngold sovereign.(10)\n\nI shall mention only one more of the most essential tools of our mental\nlife\u2014namely, our _figures_, which we call Arabic, because we received them\nfrom the Arabs, but which the Arabs called Indian, because they received\nthem from the Indians\u2014in order to show you how this nineteenth century of\nours is under the sway of centuries long past and forgotten; how we are\nwhat we are, not by ourselves, but by those who came before us, and how\nthe intellectual ground on which we stand is made up of the detritus of\nthoughts which were first thought, not on these isles nor in Europe, but\non the shores of the Oxus, the Nile, the Euphrates, and the Indus.\n\nNow you may well ask, _Quorsum h\u00e6c omnia?_ What has all this to do with\nfreedom and with the free development of individuality? Because a man is\nborn the heir of all the ages, can it be said that he is not free to grow\nand to expand, and to develop all the faculties of his mind? Are those who\ncame before him, and who left him this goodly inheritance, to be called\nhis enemies? Is that chain of tradition which connects him with the past\nreally a galling fetter, and not rather the leading-strings without which\nhe would never learn to walk straight?\n\nLet us look at the matter more closely. No one would venture to say that\nevery individual should begin life as a young savage, and be left to form\nhis own language, and invent his own letters, numerals, and coins. On the\ncontrary, if we comprehend all this and a great deal more, such as\nreligion, morality, and secular knowledge, under the general name of\n_education_, even the most advanced defenders of individualism would hold\nthat no child should enter society without submitting, or rather without\nbeing submitted, to education. Most of us would even go farther, and make\nit criminal for parents or even for communities to allow children to grow\nup uneducated. The excuse of worthless parents that they are at liberty to\ndo with their children as they like, has at last been blown to the winds,\nand among the principal advocates of compulsory education, and of the\nnecessity of curtailing the freedom of savage parents of savage children,\nhave been Mill and his friends, the apostles of liberty and\nindividualism.(11) I remember the time when pseudo-Liberals were not\nashamed to say that, whatever other nations, such as the Germans, might\ndo, England would never submit to compulsory education; but that\nfaint-hearted and mischievous cry has at last been silenced. A new era may\nbe said to date in the history of every nation from the day on which\n\u201ccompulsory education\u201d becomes part of its statute-book; and I may\ncongratulate the most Liberal town in England on having proved itself the\nmost inexorable tyrant in carrying it into effect.\n\nBut do not let us imagine that compulsory education is without its\ndangers. Like a powerful engine, it must be carefully watched, if it is\nnot to produce, what all compulsion will produce, a slavish receptivity,\nand, what all machines do produce, monotonous uniformity.\n\nWe know that all education must in the beginning be purely dogmatic.\nChildren are taught language, religion, morality, patriotism, and\nafterwards, at school, history, literature, mathematics, and all the rest,\nlong before they are able to question, to judge, or choose for themselves,\nand there is hardly anything that a child will not believe, if it comes\nfrom those in whom the child believes.\n\nReading, writing, and arithmetic, no doubt, must be taught dogmatically,\nand they take up an enormous amount of time, particularly in English\nschools. English spelling is a national misfortune, and in the keen\ninternational race among all the countries of Europe, it handicaps the\nEnglish child to a degree that seems incredible till we look at\nstatistics. I know the difficulties of a Spelling Reform, I know what\npeople mean when they call it impossible; but I also know that personal\nand national virtue consists in doing so-called impossible things, and\nthat no nation has done, and has still to do, so many impossible things as\nthe English.\n\nBut, granted that reading, writing, and arithmetic occupy nearly the whole\nschool time and absorb the best powers of the pupils, cannot something be\ndone in play-hours? Is there not some work that can be turned into play,\nand some play that can be turned into work? Cannot the powers of\nobservation be called out in a child while collecting flowers, or stones,\nor butterflies? Cannot his judgment be strengthened either in gymnastic\nexercises, or in measuring the area of a field or the height of a tower?\nMight not all this be done without a view to examinations or payment by\nresults, simply for the sake of filling the little dull minds with one\nsunbeam of joy, such sunbeams being more likely hereafter to call hidden\nprecious germs into life than the deadening weight of such lessons as, for\ninstance, that _th-ough_ is though, _thr-ough_ is through, _en-ough_ is\nenough. A child who believes that will hereafter believe anything. Those\nwho wish to see Natural Science introduced into elementary schools\nfrighten school-masters by the very name of Natural Science. But surely\nevery school-master who is worth his salt should be able to teach children\na love of Nature, a wondering at Nature, a curiosity to pry into the\nsecrets of Nature, an acquisitiveness for some of the treasures of Nature,\nand all this acquired in the fresh air of the field and the forest, where,\nbetter than in frowzy lecture-rooms, the edge of the senses can be\nsharpened, the chest widened, and that freedom of thought fostered which\nmade England what it was even before the days of compulsory education.\n\nBut in addressing you here to-night, it was my intention to speak of\nhigher rather than of elementary education.\n\nAll education\u2014as it now exists in most countries of Europe\u2014may be divided\ninto three stages\u2014_elementary_, _scholastic_, and _academical_; or call it\n_primary_, _secondary_, and _tertiary_.\n\nElementary education has at last been made compulsory in most civilized\ncountries. Unfortunately, however, it seems impossible to include under\ncompulsory education anything beyond the very elements of knowledge\u2014at\nleast for the present; though I know from experience that, with proper\nmanagement, a well-conducted elementary school can afford to provide\ninstruction in extra subjects\u2014such as natural science, modern languages,\nand political economy\u2014and yet, with the present system of government\ngrants, be self-supporting.(12)\n\nThe next stage above the elementary is _scholastic_ education, as it is\nsupplied in grammar schools, whether public or private. According as the\npupils are intended either to go on to a university, or to enter at once\non leaving school on the practical work of life, these schools are divided\ninto two classes. In the one class, which in Germany are called\n_Realschulen_, less Latin is taught, and no Greek, but more of\nmathematics, modern languages, and physical science; in the other, called\n_Gymnasia_ on the Continent, classics form the chief staple of\ninstruction.\n\nIt is during this stage that education, whether at private or public\nschools, exercises its strongest levelling influence. Little attention can\nbe paid at large schools to individual tastes or talents. In Germany\u2014even\nmore, perhaps, than in England\u2014it is the chief object of a good and\nconscientious master to have his class as uniform as possible at the end\nof the year; and he receives far more credit from the official examiner if\nhis whole class marches well and keeps pace together, than if he can\nparade a few brilliant and forward boys, followed by a number of\nstraggling laggards.\n\nAnd as to the character of the teaching at school, how can it be otherwise\nthan authoritative or dogmatic? The Sokratic method is very good if we can\nfind the _viri Socratici_ and leisure for discussion. But at school, which\nnow may seem to be called almost in mockery \u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae, or leisure, the true\nmethod is, after all, that patronized by the great educators of the\nseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Boys at school must turn their mind\ninto a row of pigeon-holes, filling as many as they can with useful notes,\nand never forgetting how many are empty. There is an immense amount of\npositive knowledge to be acquired between the ages of ten and\neighteen\u2014rules of grammar, strings of vocables, dates, names of towns,\nrivers, and mountains, mathematical formulas, etc. All depends here on the\nreceptive and retentive powers of the mind. The memory has to be\nstrengthened, without being overtaxed, till it acts almost mechanically.\nLearning by heart, I believe, cannot be too assiduously practised during\nthe years spent at school. There may have been too much of it when, as the\nRev. H. C. Adams informs us in his \u201cWykehamica\u201d (p. 357), boys used to say\nby heart 13,000 and 14,000 lines, when one repeated the whole of Virgil,\nnay, when another was able to say the whole of the English Bible by rote:\n\u201cPut him on where you would, he would go fluently on, as long as any one\nwould listen.\u201d\n\nNo intellectual investment, I feel certain, bears such ample and such\nregular interest as gems of English, Latin, or Greek literature deposited\nin the memory during childhood and youth, and taken up from time to time\nin the happy hours of solitude.\n\nOne fault I have to find with most schools, both in England and on the\nContinent. Boys do not read enough of the Greek and Roman classics. The\nmajority of our masters are scholars by profession, and they are apt to\nlay undue stress on what they call accurate and minute scholarship, and to\nneglect wide and cursory reading. I know the arguments for minute\naccuracy, but I also know the mischief that is done by an exclusive\ndevotion to critical scholarship before we have acquired a real\nfamiliarity with the principal works of classical literature. The time\nspent in our schools in learning the rules of grammar and syntax, writing\nexercises, and composing verses, is too large. Look only at our Greek and\nLatin grammars, with all their rules and exceptions, and exceptions on\nexceptions! It is too heavy a weight for any boy to carry; and no wonder\nthat when one of the thousand small rules which they have learnt by heart\nis really wanted, it is seldom forthcoming. The end of classical teaching\nat school should be to make our boys acquainted, not only with the\nlanguage, but with the literature and history, the ancient thought of the\nancient world. Rules of grammar, syntax, or metre, are but means towards\nthat end; they must never be mistaken for the end itself. A young man of\neighteen, who has probably spent on an average ten years in learning Greek\nand Latin, ought to be able to read any of the ordinary Greek or Latin\nclassics without much difficulty; nay, with a certain amount of pleasure.\nHe might have to consult his dictionary now and then, or guess the meaning\nof certain words; he might also feel doubtful sometime whether certain\nforms came from \u1f35\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9, I send, or \u03b5\u1f36\u03bc\u03b9, I go, or \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af, I am, particularly\nif preceded by prepositions. In these matters the best scholars are least\ninclined to be pharisaical; and whenever I meet in the controversies of\nclassical scholars the favorite phrase, \u201cEvery school-boy knows, or ought\nto know, this,\u201d I generally say to myself, \u201cNo, he ought not.\u201d Anyhow,\nthose who wish to see the study of Greek and Latin retained in our public\nschools ought to feel convinced that it will certainly not be retained\nmuch longer, if it can be said with any truth that young men who leave\nschool at eighteen are in many cases unable to read or to enjoy a\nclassical text, unless they have seen it before.\n\nClassical teaching, and all purely scholastic teaching, ought to be\nfinished at school. When a young man goes to a University, unless he means\nto make scholarship his profession, he ought to be free to enter upon a\nnew career. If he has not learnt by that time so much of Greek and Latin\nas is absolutely necessary in after-life for a lawyer, or a student of\nphysical science, or even a clergyman, either he or his school is to\nblame. I do not mean to say that it would not be most desirable for every\none during his University career to attend some lectures on classical\nliterature, on ancient history, philosophy, or art. What is to be\ndeprecated is, that the University should have to do the work which\nbelongs properly to the school.\n\nThe best colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have shown by their\nmatriculation examinations what the standard of classical knowledge ought\nto be at eighteen or nineteen. That standard can be reached by boys while\nstill at school, as has been proved both by the so-called local\nexaminations, and by the examinations of schools held under the Delegates\nappointed by the Universities. If, therefore, the University would\nreassert her old right, and make the first examination, called at Oxford\nResponsions, a general matriculation examination for admission to the\nUniversity, not only would the public schools be stimulated to greater\nefforts, but the teaching of the University might assume, from the very\nbeginning, that academic character which ought to distinguish it from mere\nschool-boy work.\n\nAcademic teaching ought to be not merely a continuation, but in one sense\na correction of scholastic teaching. While at school instruction must be\nchiefly dogmatic, at the University is it to be Sokratic? for I find no\nbetter name for that method which is to set a man free from the burden of\npurely traditional knowledge; to make him feel that the words which he\nuses are often empty, that the concepts he employs are, for the most part,\nmere bundles picked up at random; that even where he knows facts he does\nnot know the evidence for them; and where he expresses opinions, they are\nmostly mere dogmas, adopted by him without examination.\n\nBut for the Universities, I should indeed fear that Mill\u2019s prophecies\nmight come true, and that the intellect of Europe might drift into dreary\nmonotony. The Universities always have been, and, unless they are diverted\nfrom their original purpose, always will be, the guardians of the freedom\nof thought, the protectors of individual spontaneity; and it was owing, I\nbelieve, to Mill\u2019s want of acquaintance with true academic teaching that\nhe took so desponding a view of the generation growing up under his eyes.\n\nWhen we leave school, our heads are naturally brimful of dogma\u2014that is, of\nknowledge and opinions at second-hand. Such dead knowledge is extremely\ndangerous, unless it is sooner or later revived by the spirit of free\ninquiry. It does not matter whether our scholastic dogmas be true or\nfalse. The danger is the same. And why? Because to place either truth or\nerror above the reach of argument is certain to weaken truth and to\nstrengthen error. Secondly, because to hold as true on the authority of\nothers anything which concerns us deeply, and which we could prove\nourselves, produces feebleness, if not dishonesty. And, thirdly, because\nto feel unwilling or unable to meet objections by argument is generally\nthe first step towards violence and persecution.\n\nI do not think of religious dogmas only. They are generally the first to\nrouse inquiry, even during our school-boy days, and they are by no means\nthe most difficult to deal with. Dogma often rages where we least expect\nit. Among scientific men the theory of evolution is at present becoming,\nor has become, a dogma. What is the result? No objections are listened to,\nno difficulties recognized, and a man like Virchow, himself the strongest\nsupporter of evolution, who has the moral courage to say that the descent\nof man from any ape whatsoever is, as yet, before the tribunal of\nscientific zo\u00f6logy, \u201cnot proven,\u201d is howled down in Germany in a manner\nworthy of Ephesians and Galatians. But at present I am thinking not so\nmuch of any special dogmas, but rather of that dogmatic state of mind\nwhich is the almost inevitable result of the teaching at school. I think\nof the whole intellect, what has been called the _intellectus sibi\npermissus_, and I maintain it is the object of academic teaching to rouse\nthat intellect out of its slumber by questions not less startling than\nwhen Galileo asked the world whether the sun was really moving and the\nearth stood still; or when Kant asked whether time and space were objects,\nor necessary forms of our sensuous intuition. Till our opinions have thus\nbeen tested and stood the test, we can hardly call them our own.\n\nHow true this is with regard to religion has been boldly expressed by\nBishop Beveridge.\n\n\u201cBeing conscious to myself,\u201d he writes in his \u201cPrivate Thoughts on\nReligion,\u201d \u201chow great an ascendant Christianity holds over me beyond the\nrest, as being that religion whereinto I was born and baptized; that which\nthe supreme authority has enjoined and my parents educated me in; that\nwhich every one I meet withal highly approves of, and which I myself have,\nby a long-continued profession, made almost natural to me: I am resolved\nto be more jealous and suspicious of this religion than of the rest, and\nbe sure not to entertain it any longer without being convinced, by solid\nand substantial arguments, of the truth and certainty of it.\u201d\n\nThis is bold and manly language from a Bishop, nearly two hundred years\nago, and I certainly think that the time has come when some of the\ndivinity lecturers at Oxford and Cambridge might well be employed in\nplacing a knowledge of the sacred books of other religions within the\nreach of undergraduates. Many of the difficulties\u2014most of them of our own\nmaking\u2014with regard to the origin, the handing down, the later corruptions\nand misinterpretations of sacred texts, would find their natural solution,\nif it was shown how exactly the same difficulties arose and had to be\ndealt with by theologians of other creeds. If some\u2014aye, if many\u2014of the\ndoctrines of Christianity were met with in other religions also, surely\nthat would not affect their value, or diminish their truth; while nothing,\nI feel certain, would more effectually secure to the pure and simple\nteaching of Christ its true place in the historical development of the\nhuman mind than to place it side by side with the other religions of the\nworld. In the series of translations of the \u201cSacred Books of the East,\u201d of\nwhich the first three volumes have just appeared,(13) I wished myself to\ninclude a new translation of the Old and New Testaments; and when that\nseries is finished it will, I believe, be admitted that nowhere would\nthese two books have had a grander setting, or have shone with a brighter\nlight, than surrounded by the Veda, the Zendavesta, the Buddhist\nTripi_t_aka, and the Qur\u00e2n.\n\nBut as I said before, I was not thinking of religious dogmas only, or even\nchiefly, when I maintained that the character of academic teaching must be\nSokratic, not dogmatic. The evil of dogmatic teaching lies much deeper,\nand spreads much farther.\n\nThink only of language, the work of other people, not of ourselves, which\nwe pick up at random in our race through life. Does not every word we use\nrequire careful examination and revision? It is not enough to say that\nlanguage assists our thoughts or colors them, or possibly obscures them.\nNo language and thought are indivisible. It was not from poverty of\nexpression that the Greeks called reason and language by the same word,\n\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. It was because they knew that, though we may distinguish between\nthought and speech, as we distinguish between force and function, it is as\nimpossible to tear the one by violence away from the other as it is to\nseparate the concave side of a lens from its convex side. This is\nsomething to learn and to understand, for, if, properly understood, will\nit supply the key to most of our intellectual puzzles, and serve as the\nsafest thread through the whole labyrinth of philosophy.\n\n\u201cIt is evident,\u201d as Hobbes remarks,(14) \u201cthat truth and falsity have no\nplace but amongst such living creatures as use speech. For though some\nbrute creatures, looking upon the image of a man in a glass, may be\naffected with it, as if it were the man himself, and for this reason fear\nit or fawn upon it in vain; yet they do not apprehend it as true or false,\nbut only as like; and in this they are not deceived. Wherefore, as men owe\nall their true ratiocination to the right understanding of speech, so also\nthey owe their errors to the misunderstanding of the same; and as all the\nornaments of philosophy proceed only from man, so from man also is derived\nthe ugly absurdity of false opinion. For speech has something in it like\nto a spider\u2019s web (as it was said of old of Solon\u2019s laws), for by\ncontexture of words tender and delicate wits are ensnared or stopped, but\nstrong wits break easily through them.\u201d\n\nLet me illustrate my meaning by at least one instance.\n\nAmong the words which have proved spider\u2019s webs, ensnaring even the\ngreatest intellects of the world from Aristotle down to Leibniz, the terms\n_genus_, _species_, and _individual_ occupy a very prominent place. The\nopposition of Aristotle to Plato, of the Nominalists to the Realists, of\nLeibniz to Locke, of Herbart to Hegel, turns on the true meaning of these\nwords. At school, of course, all we can do is to teach the received\nmeaning of _genus_ and _species_; and if a boy can trace these terms back\nto Aristotle\u2019s \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, and show in what sense that philosopher\nused them, every examiner would be satisfied.\n\nBut the time comes when we have to act as our own examiners, and when we\nhave to give an account to ourselves of such words as _genus_ and\n_species_. Some people write, indeed, as if they had seen a _species_ and\na _genus_ walking about in broad daylight; but a little consideration will\nshow us that these words express subjective concepts, and that, if the\nwhole world were silent, there would never have been a thought of a\n_genus_ or a _species_. There are languages in which we look in vain for\ncorresponding words; and if we had been born in the atmosphere of such a\nlanguage, these terms and thoughts would not exist for us. They came to\nus, directly or indirectly, from Aristotle. But Aristotle did not invent\nthem, he only defined them in his own way, so that, for instance,\naccording to him, all living beings would constitute a _genus_, men a\n_species_, and Sokrates an _individual_.\n\nNo one would say that Aristotle had not a perfect right to define these\nterms, if those who use them in his sense would only always remember that\nthey are thinking the thoughts of Aristotle, and not their own. The true\nway to shake off the fetters of old words, and to learn to think our own\nthoughts, is to follow them up from century to century, to watch their\ndevelopment, and in the end to bring ourselves face to face with those who\nfirst found and framed both words and thoughts. If we do this with _genus_\nand _species_, we shall find that the words which Aristotle defined\u2014viz.,\n\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\u2014had originally a very different and far more useful\napplication than that which he gave to them. \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _genus_, meant\ngeneration, and comprehended such living beings only as were believed to\nhave a common origin, however they might differ in outward appearance, as,\nfor instance, the spaniel and the bloodhound, or, according to Darwin, the\nape and the man. \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, or species, on the contrary, meant appearance, and\ncomprehended all such things as had the same form or appearance, whether\nthey had a common origin or not, as if we were to speak of a species of\nfour-footed, two-footed, horned, winged, or blue animals.\n\nThat two such concepts, as we have here explained, had a natural\njustification we may best learn from the fact that exactly the same\nthoughts found expression in Sanskrit. There, too, we find _g_\u00e2ti,\ngeneration, used in the sense of _genus,_ and opposed to \u00e2k_ri_ti,\nappearance, used in the sense of _species_.\n\nSo long as these two words or thoughts were used independently (much as we\nnow speak of a genealogical as independent of a morphological\nclassification) no harm could accrue. A family, for instance, might be\ncalled a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the _gens_ or clan was a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the nation (_gnatio_) was\na \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, the whole human kith and kin was a \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; in fact, all that was\ndescended from common ancestors was a true \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. There is no obscurity of\nthought in this.\n\nOn the other side, taking \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or species in its original sense, one man\nmight be said to be like another in his \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or appearance. An ape, too,\nmight quite truly be said to have the same \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or species or appearance\nas a man, without any prejudice as to their common origin. People might\nalso speak of different \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7 or forms or classes of things, such as\ndifferent kinds of metals, or tools, or armor, without committing\nthemselves in the least to any opinion as to their common descent.\n\nOften it would happen that things belonging to the same \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, such as the\nwhite man and the negro, differed in their \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or appearance; often also\nthat things belonged to the same \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, such as eatables, differed in\ntheir \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, as, for instance, meat and vegetables.\n\nAll this is clear and simple. The confusion began when these two terms,\ninstead of being co\u00f6rdinate, were subordinated to each other by the\nphilosophers of Greece, so that what from one point of view was called a\n_genus_, might from another be called a species, and _vice vers\u00e2_. Human\nbeings, for instance, were now called a _species_, all living beings a\n_genus_, which may be true in logic, but is utterly false in what is older\nthan logic\u2014viz., language, thought, or fact. According to language,\naccording to reason, and according to nature, all human beings constitute\na \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, or generation, so long as they are supposed to have common\nancestors; but with regard to all living beings we can only say that they\nform an \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\u2014that is, agree in certain appearances, until it has been\nproved that even Mr. Darwin was too modest in admitting at least four or\nfive different ancestors for the whole animal world.(15)\n\nIn tracing the history of these two words, \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, you may see\npassing before your eyes almost the whole panorama of philosophy, from\nPlato\u2019s \"ideas\" down to Hegel\u2019s _Idee_. The question of _genera_, their\norigin and subdivision, occupied chiefly the attention of natural\nphilosophers, who, after long controversies about the origin and\nclassification of _genera_ and _species_, seem at last, thanks to the\nclear sight of Darwin, to have arrived at the old truth which was\nprefigured in language\u2014namely, that Nature knows nothing but _genera_, or\ngenerations, to be traced back to a limited number of ancestors, and that\nthe so-called _species_ are only _genera_, whose genealogical descent is\n_as yet_ more or less obscure.\n\nBut the question as to the nature of the \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 became a vital question in\nevery system of philosophy. Granting, for instance, that women in every\nclime and country formed one species, it was soon asked what constituted a\nspecies? If all women shared a common form, what was that form? Where was\nit? So long as it was supposed that all women descended from Eve, the\ndifficulty might be slurred over by the name of heredity. But the more\nthoughtful would ask even then how it was that, while all individual women\ncame and went and vanished, the form in which they were cast remained the\nsame?\n\nHere you see how philosophical mythology springs up. The very question\nwhat \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or species or form was, and where these things were kept,\nchanged those words from predicates into subjects. \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 was conceived as\nsomething independent and substantial, something within or above the\nindividuals participating in it, something unchangeable and eternal. Soon\nthere arose as many \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b7 or forms or types as there were general concepts.\nThey were considered the only true realities of which the phenomenal world\nis only as a shadow that soon passeth away. Here we have, in fact, the\norigin of Plato\u2019s ideas, and of the various systems of idealism which\nfollowed his lead, while the opposite opinion that ideas have no\nindependent existence, and that the one is nowhere found except in the\nmany (\u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac), was strenuously defended by Aristotle and his\nfollowers.(16)\n\nThe same red thread runs through the whole philosophy of the Middle Ages.\nMen were cited before councils and condemned as heretics because they\ndeclared that _animal_, _man_, or _woman_ were mere names, and that they\ncould not bring themselves to believe in an ideal animal, an ideal man, an\nideal woman as the invisible, supernatural, or metaphysical types of the\nordinary animal, the individual man, the single woman. Those philosophers,\ncalled _Nominalists_, in opposition to the _Realists_, declared that all\ngeneral terms were _names only_, and that nothing could claim reality but\nthe individual.\n\nWe cannot follow this controversy farther, as it turns up again between\nLocke and Leibniz, between Herbart and Hegel. Suffice it to say that the\nknot, as it was tied by language, can be untied by the science of language\nalone, which teaches us that there is and can be no such thing as \u201ca name\nonly.\u201d That phrase ought to be banished from all works on philosophy. A\nname is and always has been the subjective side of our knowledge, but that\nsubjective side is as impossible without an objective side as a key is\nwithout a lock. It is useless to ask which of the two is the more real,\nfor they are real only by being, not two, but one. Realism is as one-sided\nas Nominalism. But there is a higher Nominalism, which might better be\ncalled the Science of Language, and which teaches us that, apart from\nsensuous perception, all human knowledge is by names and by names only,\nand that the object of names is always the general.\n\nThis is but one out of hundreds and thousands of cases to show how names\nand concepts which come to us by tradition must be submitted to very\ncareful snuffing before they will yield a pure light. What I mean by\nacademic teaching and academic study is exactly this process of snuffing,\nthis changing of traditional words into living words, this tracing of\nmodern thought back to ancient primitive thought, this living, as it were,\nonce more, so far as it concerns us, the whole history of human thought\nourselves, till we are as little afraid to differ from Plato or Aristotle\nas from Comte or Darwin.\n\nPlato and Aristotle are, no doubt, great names; every school-boy is awed\nby them, even though he may have read very little of their writings. This,\ntoo, is a kind of dogmatism that requires correction. Now, at his\nUniversity, a young student might chance to hear the following, by no\nmeans respectful, remarks about Aristotle, which I copy from one of the\ngreatest English scholars and philosophers: \u201cThere is nothing so absurd\nthat the old philosophers, as Cicero saith, who was one of them, have not\nsome of them maintained; and I believe that scarce anything can be more\nabsurdly said in natural philosophy than that which now is called\nAristotle\u2019s Metaphysics; or more repugnant to government than much of that\nhe hath said in his Politics; nor more ignorantly than a great part of his\nEthics.\u201d I am far from approving this judgment, but I think that the shock\nwhich a young scholar receives on seeing his idols so mercilessly broken\nis salutary. It throws him back on his own resources; it makes him honest\nto himself. If he thinks the criticism thus passed on Aristotle unfair, he\nwill begin to read his works with new eyes. He will not only construe his\nwords, but try to reconstruct in his own mind the thoughts so carefully\nelaborated by that ancient philosopher. He will judge of their truth\nwithout being swayed by the authority of a great name, and probably in the\nend value what is valuable in Aristotle, or Plato, or any other great\nphilosopher far more highly and honestly than if he had never seen them\ntrodden under foot.\n\nDo not suppose that I look upon the Universities as purely iconoclastic,\nas chiefly intended to teach us how to break the idols of the schools. Far\nfrom it! But I do look upon them as meant to supply a fresher atmosphere\nthan we breathed at school, and to shake our mind to its very roots, as a\nstorm shakes the young oaks, not to throw them down, but to make them\ngrasp all the more firmly the hard soil of fact and truth! \u201c_Stand upright\non thy feet_\u201d ought to be written over the gate of every college, if the\nepidemic of uniformity and sequacity which Mill saw approaching from\nChina, and which since his time has made such rapid progress Westward, is\never to be stayed.\n\nAcademic freedom is not without its dangers; but there are dangers which\nit is safer to face than to avoid. In Germany\u2014so far as my own experience\ngoes\u2014students are often left too much to themselves, and it is only the\ncleverest among them, or those who are personally recommended, who receive\nfrom the professors that individual guidance and encouragement which\nshould and could be easily extended to all.\n\nThere is too much time spent in the German Universities in mere lecturing,\nand often in simply retailing to a class what each student might read in\nbooks in a far more perfect form. Lectures are useful if they teach us how\nto teach ourselves; if they stimulate; if they excite sympathy and\ncuriosity; if they give advice that springs from personal experience; if\nthey warn against wrong roads; if, in fact, they have less the character\nof a show-window than of a workshop. Half an hour\u2019s conversation with a\ntutor or a professor often does more than a whole course of lectures in\ngiving the right direction and the right spirit to a young man\u2019s studies.\nHere I may quote the words of Professor Helmholtz, in full agreement with\nhim. \u201cWhen I recall the memory of my own University life,\u201d he writes, \u201cand\nthe impression which a man like Johannes M\u00fcller, the professor of\nphysiology, made on us, I must set the highest value on the personal\nintercourse with teachers from whom one learns how thought works in\nindependent heads. Whoever has come in contact but once with one or\nseveral first-class men will find his intellectual standard changed for\nlife.\u201d\n\nIn English Universities, on the contrary, there is too little of academic\nfreedom. There is not only guidance, but far too much of constant personal\ncontrol. It is often thought that English undergraduates could not be\ntrusted with that amount of academic freedom which is granted to German\nstudents, and that most of them, if left to choose their own work, their\nown time, their own books, and their own teachers, would simply do\nnothing. This seems to me unfair and untrue. Most horses, if you take them\nto the water, will drink; and the best way to make them drink is to leave\nthem alone. I have lived long enough in English and in German Universities\nto know that the intellectual fibre is as strong and sound in the English\nas in the German youth. But if you supply a man, who wishes to learn\nswimming, with bladders\u2014nay, if you insist on his using them\u2014he will use\nthem, but he will probably never learn to swim. Take them away, on the\ncontrary, and depend on it, after a few aimless strokes and a few painful\ngulps, he will use his arms and his legs, and he will swim. If young men\ndo not learn to use their arms, their legs, their muscles, their senses,\ntheir brain, and their heart too, during the bright years of their\nUniversity life, when are they to learn it? True, there are thousands who\nnever learn it, and who float happily on through life buoyed up on mere\nbladders. The worst that can happen to them is that some day the bladders\nmay burst, and they may be left stranded or drowned. But these are not the\nmen whom England wants to fight her battles. It has often been pointed out\nof late that many of those who during this century have borne the brunt of\nthe battle in the intellectual warfare in England, have not been trained\nat our Universities, while others who have been at Oxford and Cambridge,\nand have distinguished themselves in after life, have openly declared that\nthey attended hardly any lectures in college, or that they derived no\nbenefit from them. What can be the ground of that? Not that there is less\nwork done at Oxford than at Leipzig, but that the work is done in a\ndifferent spirit. It is free in Germany; it has now become almost\ncompulsory in England. Though an old professor myself, I like to attend,\nwhen I can, some of the professorial lectures in Germany; for it is a real\npleasure to see hundreds of young faces listening to a teacher on the\nhistory of art, on modern history, on the science of language, or on\nphilosophy, without any view to examinations, simply from love of the\nsubject or of the teacher. No one who knows what the real joy of learning\nis, how it lightens all drudgery and draws away the mind from mean\npursuits, can see without indignation that what ought to be the freest and\nhappiest years in a man\u2019s life should often be spent between cramming and\nexaminations.\n\nAnd here I have at last mentioned the word, which to many friends of\nacademic freedom, to many who dread the baneful increase of uniformity,\nmay seem the cause of all mischief, the most powerful engine for\nintellectual levelling\u2014_Examination_.\n\nThere is a strong feeling springing up everywhere against the tyranny of\nexaminations, against the cramping and withering influence which they are\nsupposed to exercise on the youth of England. I cannot join in that\noutcry. I well remember that the first letters which I ventured to address\nto the _Times_, in very imperfect English, were in favor of examinations.\nThey were signed _La Carri\u00e8re ouverte_, and were written before the days\nof the Civil Service Commission! I well remember, too, that the first time\nI ventured to speak, or rather to stammer, in public, was in favor of\nexaminations. That was in 1857, at Exeter, when the first experiment was\nmade, under the auspices of Sir T. Acland, in the direction of what has\nsince developed into the Oxford and Cambridge Local Examinations. I have\nbeen an examiner myself for many years, I have watched the growth of that\nsystem in England from year to year, and, in spite of all that has been\nsaid and written of late against it, I confess I do not see how it would\nbe possible to abolish it, and return to the old system of appointment by\npatronage.\n\nBut though I have not lost my faith in examinations, I cannot conceal the\nfact that I am frightened by the manner in which they are conducted, and\nby the results which they produce. As you are interested yourselves at\nthis Midland Institute in the successful working of examinations, you will\nperhaps allow me in conclusion to add a few remarks on the safeguards\nnecessary for the efficient working of examinations.\n\nAll examinations are a means to ascertain how pupils have been taught;\nthey ought never to be allowed to become the end for which pupils are\ntaught. Teaching with a view to them lowers the teacher in the eyes of his\npupils; learning with a view to them is apt to produce shallowness and\ndishonesty.\n\nWhatever attractions learning possesses in itself, and whatever efforts\nwere formerly made by boys at school from a sense of duty, all this is\nlost if they once imagine that the highest object of all learning is to\ngain marks in a competition.\n\nIn order to maintain the proper relation between teacher and pupil, all\npupils should be made to look to their teachers as their natural examiners\nand fairest judges, and therefore in every examination the report of the\nteacher ought to carry the greatest weight. This is the principle followed\nabroad in examining candidates at public schools; and even in their\nexamination on leaving school, which gives them the right to enter the\nUniversity, they know that their success depends far more on the work\nwhich they have done during the years at school, than on the work done on\nthe few days of their examination. There are outside examiners appointed\nby Government to check the work done at schools and during the\nexaminations; but the cases in which they have to modify or reverse the\naward of the master are extremely rare, and they are felt to reflect\nseriously on the competency or impartiality of the school authorities.\n\nTo leave examinations entirely to strangers reduces them to the level of\nlotteries, and fosters a cleverness in teachers and taught often akin to\ndishonesty. An examiner may find out what a candidate knows _not_, he can\nhardly ever find out all he knows; and even if he succeeds in finding out\n_how much_ a candidate knows, he can seldom find out _how_ he knows it. On\nthese points the opinion of the masters who have watched their pupils for\nyears is indispensable for the sake of the examiner, for the sake of the\npupils, and for the sake of their teachers.\n\nI know I shall be told that it would be impossible to trust the masters,\nand to be guided by their opinion, because they are interested parties.\nNow, first of all, there are far more honest men in the world than\ndishonest, and it does not answer to legislate as if all school-masters\nwere rogues. It is enough that they should know that their reports would\nbe scrutinized, to keep even the most reprobate of teachers from bearing\nfalse witness in favor of their pupils.\n\nSecondly, I believe that unnecessary temptation is now being placed before\nall parties concerned in examinations. The proper reward for a good\nexamination should be honor, not pounds, shillings, and pence. The\nmischief done by pecuniary rewards offered in the shape of scholarships\nand exhibitions at school and University, begins to be recognized very\nwidely. To train a boy of twelve for a race against all England is\ngenerally to overstrain his faculties, and often to impair his usefulness\nin later life; but to make him feel that by his failure he will entail on\nhis father the loss of a hundred a year, and on his teacher the loss of\npupils, is simply cruel at that early age.\n\nIt is said that these scholarships and exhibitions enable the sons of poor\nparents to enjoy the privilege of the best education in England, from\nwhich they would otherwise be debarred by the excessive costliness of our\npublic schools. But even this argument, strong as it seems, can hardly\nstand, for I believe it could be shown that the majority of those who are\nsuccessful in obtaining scholarships and exhibitions at school or at the\nUniversity are boys whose parents have been able to pay the highest price\nfor their children\u2019s previous education. If all these prizes were\nabolished, and the funds thus set free used to lessen the price of\neducation at school and in college, I believe that the sons of poor\nparents would be far more benefited than by the present system. It might\nalso be desirable to lower the school fees in the case of the sons of poor\nparents, who were doing well at school from year to year; and, in order to\nguard against favoritism, an examination, particularly _viv\u00e2 voce_, before\nall the masters of a school, possibly even with some outside examiner,\nmight be useful. But the present system bids fair to degenerate into mere\nhorse-racing, and I shall not wonder if, sooner or later, the two-year\nolds entered for the race have to be watched by their trainer that they\nmay not be overfed or drugged against the day of the race. It has come to\nthis, that schools are bidding for clever boys in order to run them in the\nraces, and in France, I read, that parents actually extort money from\nschools by threatening to take away the young racers that are likely to\nwin the Derby.(17)\n\nIf we turn from the schools to the Universities we find here, too, the\nsame complaints against over-examination. Now it seems to me that every\nUniversity, in order to maintain its position, has a perfect right to\ndemand two examinations, but no more: one for admission, the other for a\ndegree. Various attempts have been made in Germany, in Russia, in France,\nand in England to change and improve the old academic tradition, but in\nthe end the original, and, as it would seem, the natural system, has\ngenerally proved its wisdom and reasserted its right.\n\nIf a University surrenders the right of examining those who wish to be\nadmitted, the tutors will often have to do the work of school-masters, and\nthe professors can never know how high or how low they should aim in their\npublic lectures; and the result will be a lowering of the standard at the\nUniversities, and consequently at the public schools. Some Universities,\non the contrary, like over-anxious mothers, have multiplied examinations\nso as to make quite sure, at the end of each term or each year, that the\npupils confided to them have done at least some work. This kind of forced\nlabor may do some good to the incorrigibly idle, but it does the greatest\nharm to all the rest. If there is an examination at the end of each year,\nthere can be no freedom left for any independent work. Both teachers and\ntaught will be guided by the same pole-star\u2014examinations; no deviation\nfrom the beaten track will be considered safe, and all the pleasure\nderived from work done for its own sake, and all the just pride and joy,\nwhich those only know who have ever ventured out by themselves on the open\nsea of knowledge, must be lost.\n\nWe must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the brilliant show of\nexamination papers.\n\nIt is certainly marvellous what an amount of knowledge candidates will\nproduce before their examiners; but those who have been both examined and\nexaminers know best how fleeting that knowledge often is, and how\ndifferent from that other knowledge which has been acquired slowly and\nquietly, for its own sake, for our own sake, without a thought as to\nwhether it would ever pay at examinations or not. A candidate, after\ngiving most glibly the dates and the titles of the principal works of\nCobbett, Gibbon, Burke, Adam Smith, and David Hume, was asked whether he\nhad ever seen any of their writings, and he had to answer, No. Another who\nwas asked which of the works of Pheidias he had seen, replied that he had\nonly read the first two books. This is the kind of dishonest knowledge\nwhich is fostered by too frequent examinations. There are two kinds of\nknowledge, the one that enters into our very blood, the other which we\ncarry about in our pockets. Those who read for examinations have generally\ntheir pockets cram full; those who work on quietly and have their whole\nheart in their work are often discouraged at the small amount of their\nknowledge, at the little life-blood they have made. But what they have\nlearnt has really become their own, has invigorated their whole frame, and\nin the end they have often proved the strongest and happiest men in the\nbattle of life.\n\nOmniscience is at present the bane of all our knowledge. From the day he\nleaves school and enters the University a man ought to make up his mind\nthat in many things he must either remain altogether ignorant, or be\nsatisfied with knowledge at second-hand. Thus only can he clear the decks\nfor action. And the sooner he finds out what his own work is to be, the\nmore useful and delightful will be his life at the University and later.\nThere are few men who have a passion for all knowledge; there is hardly\none who has not a hobby of his own. Those so-called hobbies ought to be\nutilized, and not, as they are now, discouraged, if we wish our\nUniversities to produce more men like Faraday, Carlyle, Grote, or Darwin.\nI do not say that in an examination for a University degree a minimum of\nwhat is now called general culture should not be insisted on; but in\naddition to that, far more freedom ought to be given to the examiner to\nlet each candidate produce his own individual work. This is done to a far\ngreater extent in Continental than in English Universities, and the\nexaminations are therefore mostly confided to the members of the _Senatus\nAcademicus_, consisting of the most experienced teachers, and the most\neminent representatives of the different branches of knowledge in the\nUniversity. Their object is not to find out how many marks each candidate\nmay gain by answering a larger or smaller number of questions, and then to\nplace them in order before the world like so many organ pipes. They want\nto find out whether a man, by the work he has done during his three or\nfour University years, has acquired that vigor of thought, that maturity\nof judgment, and that special knowledge, which fairly entitle him to an\nacademic degree, with or without special honors. Such a degree confers no\nmaterial advantages;(18) it does not entitle its holder to any employment\nin Church or State; it does not vouch even for his being a fit person to\nbe made an Archbishop or Prime Minister. All this is left to the later\nstruggle for life; and in that struggle it seems as if those who, after\nhaving surveyed the vast field of human knowledge, have settled on a few\nacres of their own and cultivated them as they were never cultivated\nbefore, who have worked hard and have tasted the true joy and happiness of\nhard work, who have gladly listened to others, but always depended on\nthemselves, were, after all, the men whom great nations delighted to\nfollow as their royal leaders in the onward march towards greater\nenlightenment, greater happiness, and greater freedom.\n\nTo sum up, no one can read Mill\u2019s Essay \u201cOn Liberty\u201d at the present moment\nwithout feeling that even during the short period of the last twenty years\nthe cause which he advocated so strongly and passionately, the cause of\nindividual freedom, has made rapid progress\u2014aye, has carried the day. In\nno country _may_ a man be so entirely himself, so true to himself, and yet\nloyal to society, as in England.\n\nBut, although the enemy whose encroachments Mill feared most and resented\nmost has been driven back and forced to keep within his own bounds\u2014though\nsuch names as Dissenter and Nonconformist, which were formerly used in\nsociety as fatal darts, seem to have lost all the poison which they once\ncontained\u2014Mill\u2019s principal fears have nevertheless not been belied, and\nthe blight of uniformity which he saw approaching with its attendant evils\nof feebleness, indifference, and sequacity, has been spreading more widely\nthan ever.\n\nIt has ever been maintained that the very freedom which every individual\nnow enjoys has been detrimental to the growth of individuality; that you\nmust have an Inquisition if you want to see martyrs, that you must have\ndespotism and tyranny to call forth heroes. The very measures which the\nfriends of individual development advocated so warmly, compulsory\neducation and competitive examinations, are pointed out as having chiefly\ncontributed to produce that large array of pass-men, that dead level of\nuninteresting excellence, which is the _beau id\u00e9al_ of a Chinese Mandarin,\nwhile it frightened and disheartened such men as Humboldt, Tocqueville,\nand John Stuart Mill himself.\n\nThere may be some truth in all this, but it is certainly not the whole\ntruth. Education, as it has to be carried on, whether in elementary or in\npublic schools, is no doubt a heavy weight which might well press down the\nmost independent spirit; it is, in fact, neither more nor less than\nplacing, in a systematized form, on the shoulders of every generation the\never-increasing mass of knowledge, experience, custom, and tradition that\nhas been accumulated by former generations. We need not wonder, therefore,\nif in some schools all spring, all vigor, all joyousness of work is\ncrushed out under that load of names and dates, of anomalous verbs and\nsyntactic rules, of mathematical formulas and geometrical theories which\nboys are expected to bring up for competitive examinations.\n\nBut a remedy has been provided, and we are ourselves to blame if we do not\navail ourselves of it to the fullest extent. Europe erected its\nUniversities, and called them the homes of the Liberal Arts, and\ndetermined that between the mental slavery of the school and the physical\nslavery of busy life every man should have at least three years of\nfreedom. What Sokrates and his great pupil Plato had done for the youth of\nGreece,(19) these new academies were to do for the youth of Italy, France,\nEngland, Spain, and Germany; and, though with varying success, they have\ndone it. The medi\u00e6val and modern Universities have been from century to\ncentury the homes of free thought. Here the most eminent men have spent\ntheir lives, not in retailing traditional knowledge, as at school, but in\nextending the frontiers of science in all directions. Here, in close\nintercourse with their teachers, or under their immediate guidance,\ngeneration after generation of boys fresh from school have grown up into\nmen during the three years of their academic life. Here, for the first\ntime, each man has been encouraged to dare to be himself, to follow his\nown tastes, to depend on his own judgment, to try the wings of his mind,\nand, lo, like young eagles thrown out of their nest, they could fly. Here\nthe old knowledge accumulated at school was tested, and new knowledge\nacquired straight from the fountain-head. Here knowledge ceased to be a\nmere burden, and became a power invigorating the whole mind, like snow\nwhich during winter lies cold and heavy on the meadows, but when it is\ntouched by the sun of spring melts away, and fertilizes the ground for a\nrich harvest.\n\nThat was the original purpose of the Universities; and the more they\ncontinue to fulfil that purpose, the more will they secure to us that real\nfreedom from tradition, from custom, from mere opinion and superstition,\nwhich can be gained by independent study only; the more will they foster\nthat \u201chuman development in its richest diversity\u201d which Mill, like\nHumboldt, considered as the highest object of all society.\n\nSuch academic teaching need not be confined to the old Universities. There\nis many a great University that sprang from smaller beginnings than your\nMidland Institute. Nor is it necessary, in order to secure the real\nbenefits of academic teaching, to have all the paraphernalia of a\nUniversity, its colleges and fellowships, its caps and gowns. What is\nreally wanted is the presence of men who, having done good work in their\nlife, are willing to teach others how to work for themselves, how to think\nfor themselves, how to judge for themselves. That is the true academic\nstage in every man\u2019s life, when he learns to work, not to please others,\nbe they schoolmasters or examiners, but to please himself, when he works\nfrom sheer love of work, and for the highest of all purposes, the quest of\ntruth. Those only who have passed through that stage know the real\nblessings of work. To the world at large they may seem mere drudges\u2014but\nthe world does not know the triumphant joy with which the true\nmountaineer, high above clouds and mountain walls that once seemed\nunsurpassable, drinks in the fresh air of the High Alps, and away from the\nfumes, the dust, and the noises of the city, revels alone, in freedom of\nthought, in freedom of feeling, and in the freedom of the highest faith.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   II.\n\n\nON THE PHILOSOPHY OF MYTHOLOGY.\n\n\n          A Lecture Delivered At The Royal Institution In 1871.\n\nWhat can be in our days the interest of mythology? What is it to us that\nKronos was the son of Uranos and Gaia, and that he swallowed his children,\nHestia, Demeter, Hera, Pluton, and Poseidon, as soon as they were born?\nWhat have we to do with the stories of Rhea, the wife of Kronos, who, in\norder to save her youngest son from being swallowed by his father, gave\nher husband a stone to swallow instead? And why should we be asked to\nadmire the exploits of this youngest son, who, when he had grown up, made\nhis father drink a draught, and thus helped to deliver the stone and his\nfive brothers and sisters from their paternal prison? What shall we think\nif we read in the most admired of classic poets that these escaped\nprisoners became afterwards the great gods of Greece, gods believed in by\nHomer, worshipped by Sokrates, immortalized by Pheidias? Why should we\nlisten to such horrors as that Tantalos killed his own son, boiled him,\nand placed him before the gods to eat? or that the gods collected his\nlimbs, threw them into a cauldron, and thus restored Pelops to life,\n_minus_, however, his shoulder, which Demeter had eaten in a fit of\nabsence, and which had therefore to be replaced by a shoulder made of\nivory?\n\nCan we imagine anything more silly, more savage, more senseless, anything\nmore unworthy to engage our thoughts, even for a single moment? We may\npity our children that, in order to know how to construe and understand\nthe master-works of Homer and Virgil, they have to fill their memory with\nsuch idle tales; but we might justly suppose that men who have serious\nwork to do in this world would banish such subjects forever from their\nthoughts.\n\nAnd yet, how strange, from the very childhood of philosophy, from the\nfirst faintly-whispered Why? to our own time of matured thought and\nfearless inquiry, mythology has been the ever-recurrent subject of anxious\nwonder and careful study. The ancient philosophers, who could pass by the\npetrified shells on mountain-tops and the fossil trees buried in their\nquarries without ever asking the question how they came to be there, or\nwhat they signified, were ever ready with doubts and surmises when they\ncame to listen to ancient stories of their gods and heroes. And, more\ncurious still, even modern philosophers cannot resist the attraction of\nthese ancient problems. That stream of philosophic thought which,\nspringing from Descartes (1596-1650), rolled on through the seventeenth\nand eighteenth centuries in two beds\u2014the _idealistic_, marked by the names\nof Malebranche (1638-1715), Spinoza (1632-1677), and Leibniz (1646-1716);\nand the _sensualistic_, marked by the names of Locke (1632-1704), David\nHume (1711-1776), and Condillac (1715-1780), till the two arms united\nagain in Kant (1724-1804), and the full stream was carried on by Schelling\n(1775-1854), and Hegel (1770-1831),\u2014this stream of modern philosophic\nthought has ended where ancient philosophy began\u2014in a Philosophy of\nMythology, which, as you know, forms the most important part of\nSchelling\u2019s final system, of what he called himself his _Positive\nPhilosophy_, given to the world after the death of that great thinker and\npoet, in the year 1854.\n\nI do not mean to say that Schelling and Aristotle looked upon mythology in\nthe same light, or that they found in it exactly the same problems; yet\nthere is this common feature in all who have thought or written on\nmythology, that they look upon it as something which, whatever it may\nmean, does certainly not mean what it seems to mean; as something that\nrequires an explanation, whether it be a system of religion, or a phase in\nthe development of the human mind, or an inevitable catastrophe in the\nlife of language.\n\nAccording to some, mythology is history changed into fable; according to\nothers, fable changed into history. Some discover in it the precepts of\nmoral philosophy enunciated in the poetical language of antiquity; others\nsee in it a picture of the great forms and forces of nature, particularly\nthe sun, the moon, and the stars, the changes of day and night, the\nsuccession of the seasons, the return of the years\u2014all this reflected by\nthe vivid imagination of ancient poets and sages.\n\nEpicharmos, for instance, the pupil of Pythagoras, declared that the gods\nof Greece were not what, from the poems of Homer, we might suppose them to\nbe\u2014personal beings, endowed with superhuman powers, but liable to many of\nthe passions and frailties of human nature. He maintained that these gods\nwere really the Wind, the Water, the Earth, the Sun, the Fire, and the\nStars. Not long after his time, another philosopher, Empedokles, holding\nthat the whole of nature consisted in the mixture and separation of the\nfour elements, declared that Zeus was the element of Fire, Here the\nelement of Air, Aidoneus or Pluton the element of Earth, and Nestis the\nelement of Water. In fact, whatever the free thinkers of Greece discovered\nsuccessively as the first principles of Being and Thought, whether the air\nof Anaximenes, or the fire of Herakleitos, or the Nous or Mind of\nAnaxagoras, was readily identified with Zeus and the other divine persons\nof Olympian mythology. Metrodoros, the contemporary of Anaxagoras, went\neven farther. While Anaxagoras would have been satisfied with looking upon\nZeus as but another name of his Nous, the highest intellect, the mover,\nthe disposer, the governor of all things, Metrodoros resolved not only the\npersons of Zeus, Here, and Athene, but likewise those of human kings and\nheroes\u2014such as Agamemnon, Achilles, and Hektor\u2014into various combinations\nand physical agencies, and treated the adventures ascribed to them as\nnatural facts hidden under a thin veil of allegory.\n\nSokrates, it is well known, looked upon such attempts at explaining all\nfables allegorically as too arduous and unprofitable: yet he, too, as well\nas Plato, pointed frequently to what they called the _hyp\u00f3noia_, the\nunder-current, or, if I may say so, the under-meaning of ancient\nmythology.\n\nAristotle speaks more explicitly:\u2014\n\n\u201cIt has been handed down,\u201d he says, \u201cby early and very ancient people, and\nleft to those who came after, in the form of myths, that these (the first\nprinciples of the world) are the gods, and that the divine embraces the\nwhole of nature. The rest has been added mythically, in order to persuade\nthe many, and in order to be used in support of laws and other interests.\nThus they say that the gods have a human form, and that they are like to\nsome of the other living beings, and other things consequent on this, and\nsimilar to what has been said. If one separated out of these fables, and\ntook only that first point, namely, that they believed the first essences\nto be gods, one would think that it had been divinely said, and that while\nevery art and every philosophy was probably invented ever so many times\nand lost again, these opinions had, like fragments of them, been preserved\nuntil now. So far only is the opinion of our fathers, and that received\nfrom our first ancestors, clear to us.\u201d\n\nI have quoted the opinions of these Greek philosophers, to which many more\nmight have been added, partly in order to show how many of the most\ndistinguished minds of ancient Greece agreed in demanding an\ninterpretation, whether physical or metaphysical, of Greek mythology,\npartly in order to satisfy those classical scholars, who, forgetful of\ntheir own classics, forgetful of their own Plato and Aristotle, seem to\nimagine that the idea of seeing in the gods and heroes of Greece anything\nbeyond what they appear to be in the songs of Homer, was a mere fancy and\ninvention of the students of Comparative Mythology.\n\nThere were, no doubt, Greeks, and eminent Greeks too, who took the legends\nof their gods and heroes in their literal sense. But what do these say of\nHomer and Hesiod? Xenophanes, the contemporary of Pythagoras, holds Homer\nand Hesiod responsible for the popular superstitions of Greece. In this he\nagrees with Herodotus, when he declares that these two poets made the\ntheogony for the Greeks, and gave to the gods their names, and assigned to\nthem their honors and their arts, and described their appearances. But he\nthen continues in a very different strain from the pious historian.(20)\n\u201cHomer,\u201d he says,(21) \u201cand Hesiod ascribed to the gods whatever is\ndisgraceful and scandalous among men, yea, they declared that the gods had\ncommitted nearly all unlawful acts, such as theft, adultery, and fraud.\u201d\n\u201cMen seem to have created their gods, and to have given to them their own\nmind, voice, and figure. The Ethiopians made their gods black and\nflat-nosed; the Thracians red-haired and blue-eyed.\u201d This was spoken about\n500 B. C. Herakleitos, about 460 B. C., one of the boldest thinkers of\nancient Greece, declared that Homer deserved to be ejected from public\nassemblies and flogged; and a story is told that Pythagoras (about 540 B.\nC.) saw the soul of Homer in Hades, hanging on a tree and surrounded by\nserpents, as a punishment for what he had said of the gods. And what can\nbe stronger than the condemnation passed on Homer by Plato? I shall read\nan extract from the \u201cRepublic,\u201d from the excellent translation lately\npublished by Professor Jowett:\u2014\n\n\u201cBut what fault do you find with Homer and Hesiod, and the other great\nstory-tellers of mankind?\u201d\n\n\u201cA fault which is most serious,\u201d I said: \u201cthe fault of telling a lie, and\na bad lie.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut when is this fault committed?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhenever an erroneous representation is made of the nature of gods and\nheroes\u2014like the drawing of a limner which has not the shadow of a likeness\nto the truth.\u201d\n\n\u201c \u2018Yes,\u2019 he said, \u2018that sort of thing is certainly very blamable; but what\nare the stories which you mean?\u2019 \u201d\n\n\u201c \u2018First of all,\u2019 I said, \u2018there was that greatest of all lies in high\nplaces, which the poet told about Uranos, and which was an immoral lie\ntoo\u2014I mean what Hesiod says that Uranos did, and what Kronos did to him.\nThe fact is that the doings of Kronos, and the sufferings which his son\ninflicted upon him, even if they were true, ought not to be lightly told\nto young and simple persons; if possible, they had better be buried in\nsilence. But if there is an absolute necessity for their mention, a very\nfew might hear them in a mystery, and then let them sacrifice not a common\n(Eleusinian) pig, but some huge and unprocurable victim; this would have\nthe effect of very greatly reducing the number of the hearers.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\u201c \u2018Why, yes,\u2019 said he, \u2018these stories are certainly objectionable.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\u201c \u2018Yes, Adeimantos, they are stories not to be narrated in our state; the\nyoung man should not be told that in committing the worst of crimes he is\nfar from doing anything outrageous, and that he may chastise his father\nwhen he does wrong in any manner that he likes, and in this will only be\nfollowing the example of the first and greatest of the gods.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\u201c \u2018I quite agree with you,\u2019 he said; \u2018in my opinion those stories are _not\nfit to be repeated_.\u2019 \u2018Neither, if we mean our future guardians to regard\nthe habit of quarrelling as dishonorable, should anything be said of the\nwars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one\nanother, which are quite untrue. Far be it from us to tell them of the\nbattles of the giants, and embroider them on garments; or of all the\ninnumerable other quarrels of gods and heroes with their friends and\nrelations. If they would only believe us, we would tell them that\nquarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any\nquarrel between citizens; this is what old men and old women should begin\nby telling children, and the same when they grow up. And these are the\nsort of fictions which the poets should be required to compose. But the\nnarrative of Hephaestos binding Here his mother, or how, on another\noccasion, Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being\nbeaten\u2014such tales must not be admitted in our state, whether they are\nsupposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For the young man cannot\njudge what is allegorical and what is literal, and anything that he\nreceives into his mind at that age is apt to become indelible and\nunalterable; and therefore the tales which they first hear should be\nmodels of virtuous thoughts.\u2019 \u201d\n\nTo those who look upon mythology as an ancient form of religion, such\nfreedom of language as is here used by Xenophanes and Plato, must seem\nstartling. If the Iliad were really the Bible of the Greeks, as it has not\ninfrequently been called, such violent invectives would have been\nimpossible. For let us bear in mind that Xenophanes, though he boldly\ndenied the existence of all the mythological deities, and declared his\nbelief in One God, \u201cneither in form nor in thought like unto mortals,\u201d(22)\nwas not therefore considered a heretic. He never suffered for uttering his\nhonest convictions: on the contrary, as far as we know, he was honored by\nthe people among whom he lived and taught. Nor was Plato ever punished on\naccount of his unbelief, and though he, as well as his master, Sokrates,\nbecame obnoxious to the dominant party at Athens, this was due to\npolitical far more than to theological motives. At all events, Plato, the\npupil, the friend, the apologist of Sokrates, was allowed to teach at\nAthens to the end of his life, and few men commanded greater respect in\nthe best ranks of Greek society.\n\nBut, although mythology was not religion in our sense of the word, and\nalthough the Iliad certainly never enjoyed among Greeks the authority\neither of the Bible, or even of the Veda among the Brahmans, or the Zend\nAvesta among the Parsis, yet I would not deny altogether that in a certain\nsense the mythology of the Greeks belonged to their religion. We must only\nbe on our guard, here as everywhere else, against the misleading influence\nof words. The word Religion has, like most words, had its history; it has\ngrown and changed with each century, and it cannot, therefore, have meant\nwith the Greeks and Brahmans what it means with us. Religions have\nsometimes been divided into _national_ or _traditional_, as distinguished\nfrom _individual_ or _statutable_ religion. The former are, like\nlanguages, home-grown, autochthonic, without an historical beginning,\ngenerally without any recognized founder, or even an authorized code; the\nlatter have been founded by historical persons, generally in antagonism to\ntraditional systems, and they always rest on the authority of a written\ncode. I do not consider this division as very useful(23) for a scientific\nstudy of religion, because in many cases it is extremely difficult, and\nsometimes impossible, to draw a sharp line of demarcation, and to\ndetermine whether a given religion should be considered as the work of one\nman, or as the combined work of those who came before him, who lived with\nhim, nay, even of those who came after him. For our present purpose,\nhowever, for showing at once the salient difference between what the\nGreeks and what we ourselves should mean by Religion, this division is\nvery serviceable. The Greek religion was clearly a national and\ntraditional religion, and, as such, it shared both the advantages and\ndisadvantages of this form of religious belief; the Christian religion is\nan historical and, to a great extent, an individual religion, and it\npossesses the advantage of an authorized code and of a settled system of\nfaith. Let it not be supposed, however, that between traditional and\nindividual religions the advantages are all on one, the disadvantages on\nthe other side. As long as the immemorial religions of the different\nbranches of the human race remained in their natural state, and were not\npressed into the service of political parties or an ambitious priesthood,\nthey allowed great freedom of thought and a healthy growth of real piety,\nand they were seldom disgraced by an intolerant or persecuting spirit.\nThey were generally either honestly believed, or, as we have just seen,\nhonestly attacked, and a high tone of intellectual morality was preserved,\nuntainted by hypocrisy, equivocation, or unreasoning dogmatism. The\nmarvellous development of philosophy in Greece, particularly in ancient\nGreece, was chiefly due, I believe, to the absence of an established\nreligion and an influential priesthood; and it is impossible to overrate\nthe blessing which the fresh, pure, invigorating, and elevating air of\nthat ancient Greek philosophy has conferred on all ages, not excepting our\nown. I shudder at the thought of what the world would have been without\nPlato and Aristotle, and I tremble at the idea that the youth of the\nfuture should ever be deprived of the teaching and the example of these\ntrue prophets of the absolute freedom of thought. Unfortunately, we know\nbut little of the earliest fathers of Greek philosophy; we have but\nfragments, and those not always trustworthy, nor easily intelligible, of\nwhat they taught on the highest questions that can stir the heart of man.\nWe have been accustomed to call the oracular sayings of men like Thales,\nPythagoros, Xenophanes, or Herakleitos, philosophy, but there was in them\nas much of religion as in the songs of Homer and Hesiod. Homer and Hesiod\nwere great powers, but their poems were not the only feeders of the\nreligious life of Greece. The stream of ancient wisdom and philosophy\nflowed parallel with the stream of legend and poetry; and both were meant\nto support the religious cravings of the soul. We have only to attend\nwithout prejudice to the utterances of these ancient prophets, such as\nXenophanes and Herakleitos, in order to convince ourselves that these men\nspoke with authority to the people,(24) that they considered themselves\nthe equals of Homer and Hesiod, nay, their betters, and in no way fettered\nby the popular legends about gods and goddesses. While modern religions\nassume in general a hostile attitude towards philosophy, ancient religions\nhave either included philosophy as an integral part, or they have at least\ntolerated its growth in the very precincts of their temples.\n\nAfter we have thus seen what limitations we must place on the meaning of\nthe word Religion, if we call mythology the religion of the ancient world,\nwe may now advance another step.\n\nWe have glanced at the principal interpretations which have been proposed\nby the ancients themselves of the original purpose and meaning of\nmythology. But there is one question which none, either of the ancient or\nof the modern interpreters of mythology, has answered, or even asked, and\non which, nevertheless, the whole problem of mythology seems to turn. If\nmythology is history changed into fable, why was it so changed? If it is\nfable represented as history, why were such fables invented? If it\ncontains precepts of moral philosophy, whence their immoral disguise? If\nit is a picture of the great forms and forces of nature, the same question\nstill returns, why were these forms and forces represented as heroes and\nheroines, as nymphs and shepherds, as gods and goddesses? It is easy\nenough to call the sun a god, or the dawn a goddess, after these\npredicates have once been framed. But how were these predicates framed?\nHow did people come to know of gods and goddesses, heroes and nymphs, and\nwhat meaning did they originally connect with these terms? In fact, the\nreal question which a philosophy of mythology has to answer is this\u2014Is the\nwhole of mythology an invention, the fanciful poetry of a Homer or Hesiod,\nor is it a growth? Or, to speak more definitely, Was mythology a mere\naccident, or was it inevitable? Was it only a false step, or was it a step\nthat could not have been left out in the historical progress of the human\nmind?\n\nThe study of the history of language, which is only a part of the study of\nthe history of thought, has enabled us to give a decisive answer to this\nquestion. Mythology is inevitable, it is natural, it is an inherent\nnecessity of language, if we recognize in language the outward form and\nmanifestation of thought: it is, in fact, the dark shadow which language\nthrows on thought, and which can never disappear till language becomes\naltogether commensurate with thought, which it never will. Mythology, no\ndoubt, breaks out more fiercely during the early periods of the history of\nhuman thought, but it never disappears altogether. Depend upon it, there\nis mythology now as there was in the time of Homer, only we do not\nperceive it, because we ourselves live in the very shadow of it, and\nbecause we all shrink from the full meridian light of truth. We are ready\nenough to see that if the ancients called their kings and heroes\n\u0394\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, sprung of Zeus, that expression, intended originally to convey\nthe highest praise which man can bestow on man, was apt to lapse into\nmythology. We easily perceive how such a conception, compatible in its\norigin with the highest reverence for the gods, led almost inevitably to\nthe growth of fables, which transferred to divine beings the incidents of\nhuman paternity and sonship. But we are not so ready to see that it is our\nfate, too, to move in allegories which illustrate things intellectual by\nvisions exhibited to the fancy. In our religion, too, the conceptions of\npaternity and sonship have not always been free from all that is human,\nnor are we always aware that nearly every note that belongs to human\npaternity and sonship must be taken out of these terms, before they can be\npronounced safe against mythological infection. Papal decisions on\nimmaculate conception are of no avail against that mythology. The mind\nmust become immaculate and rise superior to itself; or it must close its\neyes and shut its lips in the presence of the Divine.\n\nIf then we want to understand mythology, in the ordinary and restricted\nsense of the word, we must discover the larger circle of mental phenomena\nto which it belongs. Greek mythology, is but a small segment of mythology;\nthe religious mythologies of all the races of mankind are again but a\nsmall segment of mythology. Mythology, in the highest sense, is the power\nexercised by language on thought in every possible sphere of mental\nactivity; and I do not hesitate to call the whole history of philosophy,\nfrom Thales down to Hegel, an uninterrupted battle against mythology, a\nconstant protest of thought against language. This will require some\nexplanation.\n\nEver since the time of Wilhelm von Humboldt, all who have seriously\ngrappled with the highest problems of the Science of Language have come to\nthe conviction that thought and language are inseparable, that language is\nas impossible without thought as thought is without language; that they\nstand to each other somewhat like soul and body, like power and function,\nlike substance and form. The objections which have been raised against\nthis view arise generally from a mere misunderstanding. If we speak of\nlanguage as the outward realization of thought, we do not mean language as\ndeposited in a dictionary, or sketched in a grammar; we mean language as\nan act, language as being spoken, language as living and dying with every\nword that is uttered. We might perhaps call this speech, as distinguished\nfrom language.\n\nSecondly, though if we speak of language, we mean chiefly phonetic\narticulate language, we do not exclude the less perfect symbols of\nthought, such as gestures, signs, or pictures. They, too, are language in\na certain sense, and they must be included in language before we are\njustified in saying that discursive thought can be realized in language\nonly. One instance will make this clear. We hold that we cannot think\nwithout language. But can we not count without language? We certainly can.\nWe can form the conception of _three_ without any spoken word, by simply\nholding up three fingers. In the same manner, the hand might stand for\nfive, both hands for ten, hands and feet for twenty.(25) This is how\npeople who possessed no organs of speech would speak; this is how the deaf\nand dumb _do_ speak. Three fingers are as good as three strokes, three\nstrokes are as good as three clicks of the tongue, three clicks of the\ntongue are as good as the sound _three_, or _trois_, or _drei_, or\n_shalosh_ in Hebrew, or _san_ in Chinese. All these are signs, more or\nless perfect, but being signs, they fall under the category of language;\nand all we maintain is, that without some kind of sign, discursive thought\nis impossible, and that in that sense, language, or \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, is the only\npossible realization of human thought.\n\nAnother very common misunderstanding is this: people imagine that, if it\nbe impossible to think, except in language, language and thought must be\none and the same thing. But a true philosophy of language leads to the\nvery opposite result. Every philosopher would say that matter cannot exist\nwithout form, nor form without matter, but no philosopher would say that\ntherefore it is impossible to distinguish between form and matter. In the\nsame way, though we maintain that thought cannot exist without language\nnor language without thought, we do distinguish between thought and\nlanguage, between the inward and the outward \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, between the substance\nand the form. Nay, we go a step beyond. We admit that language necessarily\nreacts on thought, and we see in this reaction, in this refraction of the\nrays of language, the real solution of the old riddle of mythology.\n\nYou will now see why these somewhat abstruse disquisitions were necessary\nfor our immediate purpose, and I can promise those who have hitherto\nfollowed me on this rather barren and rugged track, that they will now be\nable to rest, and command, from the point of view which we have reached,\nthe whole panorama of the mythology of the human mind.\n\nWe saw just now that the names of numbers may most easily be replaced by\nsigns. Numbers are simple analytical conceptions, and for that very reason\nthey are not liable to mythology: name and conception being here\ncommensurate, no misunderstanding is possible. But as soon as we leave\nthis department of thought, mythology begins. I shall try by at least one\nexample to show how mythology not only pervades the sphere of religion or\nreligious tradition, but infects more or less the whole realm of thought.\n\nWhen man wished for the first time to grasp and express a distinction\nbetween the body and something else within him distinct from the body, an\neasy name that suggested itself was _breath_. The breath seemed something\nimmaterial and almost invisible, and it was connected with the life that\npervaded the body, for as soon as the breath ceased, the life of the body\nbecame extinct. Hence the Greek name \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae,(26) which originally meant\nbreath, was chosen to express at first the principle of life, as\ndistinguished from the decaying body, afterwards the incorporeal, the\nimmaterial, the undecaying, the immortal part of man\u2014his soul, his mind,\nhis Self. All this was very natural. When a person dies, we too say that\nhe has given up the ghost, and ghost, too, meant originally spirit, and\nspirit meant breath.\n\nA very instructive analogous case is quoted by Mr. E. B. Tylor from a\ncompendium of the theology of the Indians of Nicaragua, the record of\nquestion and answer in an inquest held by Father Francisco de Bobadilla in\nthe early days of the Spanish conquest. Asked, among other things,\nconcerning death, the Indians said: \u201cThose who die in their houses go\nunderground, but those who are killed in war go to serve the gods\n(_teotes_). When men die, there comes forth from their mouth something\nwhich resembles a person, and is called _julio_ (Aztec _yuli_, \u2018to live\u2019).\nThis being is like a person, but does not die, and the corpse remains\nhere.\u201d The Spanish ecclesiastics inquired whether those who go on high\nkeep the same body, features, and limbs as here below; to which the\nIndians answered, \u201cNo, there is only the heart.\u201d \u201cBut,\u201d said the\nSpaniards, \u201cas the hearts are torn out\u201d (they meant in the case of\nwarriors who fell into the hands of the enemy), \u201cwhat happens then?\u201d\nHereupon the Indians replied: \u201cIt is not precisely the heart, but that\nwhich is in them, and makes them live, and which quits the body when they\ndie;\u201d and again they said, \u201cIt is not their heart which goes up on high,\nbut that which makes them live, that is, the breath coming out from their\nmouth, which is called _julio_.\u201d \u201cThen,\u201d asked the Spaniards, \u201cdoes this\nheart, _julio_, or soul, die with the body?\u201d \u201cWhen the deceased has lived\nwell,\u201d replied the Indians, \u201cthe _julio_ goes up on high with our gods;\nbut when he has lived ill, the _julio_ perishes with the body, and there\nis an end of it.\u201d\n\nThe Greeks expressed the same idea by saying that the \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae had left the\nbody,(27) had fled through the mouth, or even through a bleeding\nwound,(28) and had gone into Hades, which meant literally no more than the\nplace of the Invisible (\u1f09\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2). That the breath had become invisible was\nmatter of fact; that it had gone to the house of Hades, was mythology\nspringing spontaneously from the fertile soil of language.\n\nThe primitive mythology was by no means necessarily religious. In the very\ncase which we have chosen, philosophical mythology sprang up by the side\nof religious mythology. The religious mythology consisted in speaking of\nthe spirits of the departed as ghosts, as mere breath and air, as\nfluttering about the gates of Hades, or ferried across the Styx in the\nboat of Charon.(29)\n\nThe philosophical mythology, however, that sprang from this name was much\nmore important. We saw that _Psyche_, meaning originally the breathing of\nthe body, was gradually used in the sense of vital breath, and as\nsomething independent of the body; and that at last, when it had assumed\nthe meaning of the immortal part of man, it retained that character of\nsomething independent of the body, thus giving rise to the conception of a\nsoul, not only as a being without a body, but in its very nature opposed\nto body. As soon as that opposition had been established in language and\nthought, philosophy began its work in order to explain how two such\nheterogeneous powers could act on each other\u2014how the soul could influence\nthe body, and how the body could determine the soul. Spiritualistic and\nmaterialistic systems of philosophy arose, and all this in order to remove\na self-created difficulty, in order to join together again what language\nhad severed, the living body and the living soul. The question whether\nthere is a soul or spirit, whether there is in man something different\nfrom the mere body, is not at all affected by this mythological\nphraseology. We certainly can distinguish between body and soul, but as\nlong as we keep within the limits of human knowledge, we have no right to\nspeak of the living soul as a breath, or of spirits and ghosts as\nfluttering about like birds or fairies. The poet of the nineteenth century\nsays:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cThe spirit does but mean the breath,\n    I know no more.\u201d\n\n\nAnd the same thought was expressed by Cicero two thousand years ago:\n\u201cWhether the soul is air or fire, I do not know.\u201d As men, we only know of\nembodied spirits, however ethereal their bodies may be conceived to be,\nbut of spirits, separate from body, without form or frame, we know as\nlittle as we know of thought without language, or of the Dawn as a\ngoddess, or of the Night as the mother of the Day.\n\nThough breath, or spirit, or ghost are the most common names that were\nassigned through the metaphorical nature of language to the vital, and\nafterwards to the intellectual, principle in man, they were by no means\nthe only possible names. We speak, for instance, of the _shades_ of the\ndeparted, which meant originally their shadows. Those who first introduced\nthis expression\u2014and we find it in the most distant parts of the\nworld(30)\u2014evidently took the shadow as the nearest approach to what they\nwished to express; something that should be incorporeal, yet closely\nconnected with the body. The Greek \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, too, is not much more than the\nshadow, while the Latin _manes_ meant probably in the beginning no more\nthan the Little Ones, the Small Folk.(31) But the curious part, as showing\nagain the influence of language on thought, an influence more powerful\neven than the evidence of the senses, is this, that people who speak of\nthe life or soul as the shadow of the body, have brought themselves to\nbelieve that a dead body casts no shadow, because the shadow has departed\nfrom it; that it becomes, in fact, a kind of Peter Schlemihl.(32)\n\nLet us now return to mythology in the narrower sense of the word. One of\nthe earliest objects that would strike and stir the mind of man, and for\nwhich a sign or a name would soon be wanted, is surely the Sun. It is very\nhard for us to realize the feelings with which the first dwellers on the\nearth looked upon the sun, or to understand fully what they meant by a\nmorning prayer, or a morning sacrifice. Perhaps there are few people here\npresent who have watched a sunrise more than once or twice in their lives;\nfew people who have ever known the true meaning of a morning prayer, or a\nmorning sacrifice. But think of man at the very dawn of time: forget for a\nmoment, if you can, after having read the fascinating pages of Mr. Darwin,\nforget what man is supposed to have been before he was man; forget it,\nbecause it does not concern us here whether his bodily form and frame were\ndeveloped once for all in the mind of a Creator, or gradually in the\ncreation itself, which from the first monad or protoplasm to the last of\nthe primates, or man, is not, I suppose, to be looked on as altogether\ncauseless, meaningless, purposeless; think of him only as man (and man\nmeans the thinker), with his mind yet lying fallow, though full of\ngerms\u2014germs of which I hold as strongly as ever no trace has ever, no\ntrace will ever, be discovered anywhere but in man; think of the Sun\nawakening the eyes of man from sleep, and his mind from slumber! Was not\nthe Sunrise to him the first wonder, the first beginning of all\nreflection, all thought, all philosophy? was it not to him the first\nrevelation, the first beginning of all trust, of all religion? To us that\nwonder of wonders has ceased to exist, and few men now would even venture\nto speak of the sun as Sir John Herschel has spoken, calling him \u201cthe\nAlmoner of the Almighty, the delegated dispenser to us of light and\nwarmth, as well as the centre of attraction, and as such, the immediate\nsource of all our comforts, and, indeed, of the very possibility of our\nexistence on earth.\u201d(33)\n\nMan is a creature of habit, and wherever we can watch him, we find that\nbefore a few generations have passed he has lost the power of admiring\nwhat is regular, and that he can see signs and wonders only in what is\nirregular. Few nations only have preserved in their ancient poetry some\nremnants of the natural awe with which the earliest dwellers on the earth\nsaw that brilliant being slowly rising from out the darkness of the night,\nraising itself by its own might higher and higher, till it stood\ntriumphant on the arch of heaven, and then descended and sank down in its\nfiery glory into the dark abyss of the heaving and hissing sea. In the\nhymns of the Veda the poet still wonders whether the sun will rise again;\nhe asks how he can climb the vault of heaven? why he does not fall back?\nwhy there is no dust on his path? And when the rays of the morning rouse\nhim from sleep and call him back to new life; when he sees the sun, as he\nsays, stretching out his golden arms to bless the world and rescue it from\nthe terrors of darkness, he exclaims, \u201cArise, our life, our spirit has\ncome back! the darkness is gone, the light approaches!\u201d\n\nFor so prominent an object in the primeval picture-gallery of the human\nmind, a sign or a name must have been wanted at a very early period. But\nhow was this to be achieved? As a mere sign, a circle would have been\nsufficient, such as we find in the hieroglyphics of Egypt, in the graphic\nsystem of China, or even in our own astronomical tables. If such a sign\nwas fixed upon, we have a beginning of language in the widest sense of the\nword, for we have brought the Sun under the general concept of roundness,\nand we have found a sign for this concept which is made up of a large\nnumber of single sensuous impressions. With such definite signs mythology\nhas little chance; yet the mere fact that the sun was represented as a\ncircle would favor the idea that the sun was round; or, as ancient people,\nwho had no adjective as yet for round or _rotundus_,(34) would say, that\nthe sun was a wheel, a _rota_. If, on the contrary, the round sign\nreminded the people of an eye, then the sign of the sun would soon become\nthe eye of heaven, and germs of mythology would spring up even from the\nbarren soil of such hieroglyphic language.\n\nBut now, suppose that a real name was wanted for the sun, how could that\nbe achieved?\n\nWe know that all words are derived from roots, that these roots express\ngeneral concepts, and that, with few exceptions, every name is founded on\na general concept under which the object that has to be named can be\nranged. How these roots came to be, is a question into which we need not\nenter at present. Their origin and growth form a problem of psychology\nrather than of philology, and each science must keep within its proper\nbounds. If a name was wanted for snow, the early framers of language\nsingled out one of the general predicates of snow, its whiteness, its\ncoldness, or its liquidity, and called the snow the white, the cold, or\nthe liquid, by means of roots conveying the general idea of whiteness,\ncoldness, or liquidity. Not only Nix, nivis, but Niobe(35) too, was a name\nof the snow, and meant the melting; the death of her beautiful children by\nthe arrows of Apollon and Artemis represents the destruction of winter by\nthe rays of the sun. If the sun itself was to be named, it might be called\nthe brilliant, the awakener, the runner, the ruler, the father, the giver\nof warmth, of fertility, of life, the scorcher, the destroyer, the\nmessenger of death, and many other names; but there was no possibility of\nnaming it, except by laying hold of one of its characteristic features,\nand expressing that feature by means of one of the conceptual or\npredicative roots.\n\nLet us trace the history of at least one of these names. Before the Aryan\nnations separated, before there was a Latin, a Greek, or a Sanskrit\nlanguage, there existed a root _svar_ or _sval_, which meant to beam, to\nglitter, to warm. It exists in Greek, \u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, splendor; \u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, moon; in\nAnglo-Saxon, as _sw\u00e9lan_, to burn, to sweal; in modern German, _schw\u00fcl_,\noppressively hot. From it we have in Sanskrit the noun _svar_, meaning\nsometimes the sky, sometimes the sun; and exactly the same word has been\npreserved in Latin, as _sol_; in Gothic as _sauil_; in Anglo-Saxon, as\n_sol_. A secondary form of _svar_ is the Sanskrit _s\u00fbrya_ for _sv\u00e2rya_,\nthe sun, which is the same word as the Greek \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nAll these names were originally mere predicates; they meant bright,\nbrilliant, warm. But as soon as the name _svar_ or _s\u00fbrya_ was formed, it\nbecame, through the irresistible influence of language, the name, not only\nof a living, but of a male being. Every noun in Sanskrit must be either a\nmasculine or a feminine (for the neuter gender was originally confined to\nthe nominative case), and as _s\u00fbrya_ had been formed as a masculine,\nlanguage stamped it once for all as the sign of a male being, as much as\nif it had been the name of a warrior or a king. In other languages where\nthe name for sun is a feminine, and the sun is accordingly conceived as a\nwoman, as a queen, as the bride of the moon, the whole mythology of the\nlove-making of the heavenly bodies is changed.\n\nYou may say that all this shows, not so much the influence of language on\nthought, as of thought on language; and that the sexual character of all\nwords reflects only the peculiarities of a child\u2019s mind, which can\nconceive of nothing except as living, as male or female. If a child hurts\nitself against a chair, it beats and scolds the chair. The chair is looked\nupon not as _it_, but as _he_; it is the naughty chair, quite as much as a\nboy is a naughty boy. There is some truth in this, but it only serves to\nconfirm the right view of the influence of language on thought; for this\ntendency, though in its origin intentional, and therefore the result of\nthought, became soon a mere rule of tradition in language, and it then\nreacted on the mind with irresistible power. As soon, in fact, as _s\u00fbryas_\nor \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 appears as a masculine, we are in the very thick of mythology. We\nhave not yet arrived at Helios as a god\u2014that is a much later stage of\nthought, which we might describe almost in the words of Plato at the\nbeginning of the seventh book of the \u201cRepublic,\u201d \u201cAnd after this, he will\nreason that the sun is he who gives the seasons and the years, and is the\nguardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the\ncause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to\nbehold.\u201d We have not yet advanced so far, but we have reached at least the\nfirst germs of a myth. In the Homeric hymn to Helios, Helios is not yet\ncalled an immortal, but only \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9, like unto immortals,\nyet he is called the child of Euryphaessa, the son of Hyperion, the\ngrandson of Uranos and G\u00e6a.(36)\n\nAll this is mythology; it is ancient language going beyond its first\nintention.\n\nNor is there much difficulty in interpreting this myth. Helios, the sun,\nis called the son of Hyper\u012bon, sometimes Hyper\u012bon himself. This name\nHyper\u012bon is derived from the preposition \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1, the Latin _super_, which\nmeans above. It is derived by means of the suffix -\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, which originally\nwas not a patronymic, but simply expressed belonging to. So if Helios was\ncalled Hyperion, this simply meant he who dwells on high, and corresponds\nto Latin _Summanus_ or _Superior_, or _Excelsior_. If, on the contrary,\nHelios is called Hyperionides, this, too, which meant originally no more\nthan he who comes from, or belongs to those who dwell on high,(37) led to\nthe myth that he was the descendant of Hyperion; so that in this case, as\nin the case of Zeus Kron\u012bon, the son really led to the conception of his\nfather. Zeus Kron\u012bon meant originally no more than Zeus the eternal, the\ngod of ages, the ancient of days; but -\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd becoming usual as a patronymic\nsuffix, Kronion was supposed to mean the son of Kronos. Kronos, the\nfather, was created in order to account for the existence of the name\nKronion. If Hyper\u012bon is called the son of Euryphaessa, the wide-shining,\nthis requires no commentary; for even at present a poet might say that the\nsun is born of the wide-shining dawn. You see the spontaneous generation\nof mythology with every new name that is formed. As not only the sun, but\nalso the moon and the dawn could be called dwellers on high, they, too,\ntook the name of Hyperionis or Hyperionides; and hence Homer called\nSelene, the Moon, and Eos, the Dawn, sisters of Helios, and daughters of\nHyperion and Euryphaessa, the Dawn doing service twice, both as mother,\nEuryphaessa, and as daughter, Eos. Nay, according to Homer, Euryphaessa,\nthe Dawn, is not only the wife, but also the sister of Helios. All this is\nperfectly intelligible, if we watch the growth of language and mythology;\nbut it leads, of course, to the most tragic catastrophes as soon as it is\nall taken in a literal sense.\n\nHelios is called \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, the never-tiring; \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2, the all-seeing;\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03ad\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, the shining; and also \u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, the brilliant. This last epithet\n\u03c6\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 has grown into an independent deity Ph\u0153bus, and it is particularly\nknown as a name of Apollon, Phoibos Apollon; thus showing what is also\nknown from other sources, that in Apollo, too, we have one of the many\nmythic disguises of the sun.\n\nSo far all is clear, because all the names which we have to deal with are\nintelligible, or, at all events, yield to the softest etymological\npressure. But now if we hear the story of Phoibos Apollon falling in love\nwith Daphne, and Daphne praying to her mother, the Earth, to save her from\nPhoibos; and if we read how either the earth received her in her lap, and\nthen a laurel tree sprang up where she had disappeared, or how she herself\nwas changed into a laurel tree, what shall we think of this? It is a mere\nstory, it might be said, and why should there be any meaning in it? My\nanswer is, because people do not tell such stories of their gods and\nheroes, unless there is some sense in them. Besides, if Phoibos means the\nsun, why should not Daphne have a meaning too? Before, therefore, we can\ndecide whether the story of Phoibos and Daphne is a mere invention, we\nmust try to find out what can have been the meaning of the word Daphne.\n\nIn Greek it means a laurel,(38) and this would explain the purely Greek\nlegend that Daphne was changed into a laurel tree. But who was Daphne? In\norder to answer this question, we must have recourse to etymology, or, in\nother words, we must examine the history of the word. Etymology, as you\nknow, is no longer what it used to be; and though there may still be a\nclassical scholar here and there who crosses himself at the idea of a\nGreek word being explained by a reference to Sanskrit, we naturally look\nto Sanskrit as the master-key to many a lock which no Greek key will open.\nNow Daphne, as I have shown, can be traced back to Sanskrit Ahan\u00e2, and\nAhan\u00e2 in Sanskrit means the dawn. As soon as we know this, everything\nbecomes clear. The story of Phoibos and Daphne is no more than a\ndescription of what every one may see every day; first, the appearance of\nthe Dawn in the eastern sky, then the rising of the Sun as if hurrying\nafter his bride, then the gradual fading away of the bright Dawn at the\ntouch of the fiery rays of the sun, and at last her death or disappearance\nin the lap of her mother, the Earth. All this seems to me as clear as\ndaylight, and the only objection that could be raised against this reading\nof the ancient myth would be, if it could be proved, that Ahan\u00e2 does not\nmean Dawn, and that Daphne cannot be traced back to Ahan\u00e2, or that\n_Helios_ does not mean the Sun.\n\nI know there is another objection, but it seems to me so groundless as\nhardly to deserve an answer. Why, it is asked, should the ancient nations\nhave told these endless stories about the Sun and the Dawn, and why should\nthey have preserved them in their mythology? We might as well ask why the\nancient nations should have invented so many irregular verbs, and why they\nshould have preserved them in their grammar. A fact does not cease to be a\nfact, because we cannot at once explain it. As far as our knowledge goes\nat present, we are justified in stating that the Aryan nations preserved\nnot only their grammatical structure, and a large portion of their\ndictionary, from the time which preceded their separation, but that they\nlikewise retained the names of some of their deities, some legends about\ntheir gods, some popular sayings and proverbs, and in these, it may be,\nthe seeds of parables, as part of their common Aryan heirloom. Their\nmythological lore fills, in fact, a period in the history of Aryan\nthought, half-way between the period of language and the period of\nliterature, and it is this discovery which gives to mythology its\nimportance in the eyes of the student of the most ancient history and\npsychology of mankind.\n\nAnd do not suppose that the Greeks, or the Hindus, or the Aryan nations in\ngeneral, were the only people who possessed such tales. Wherever we look,\nin every part of the world, among uncivilized as well as a civilized\npeople, we find the same kind of stories, the same traditions, the same\nmyths.\n\nI shall give one story from the extreme North, another from the extreme\nSouth.\n\nAmong the Esquimaux of Repulse Bay, on the west side of Hudson\u2019s Bay, on\nthe Arctic Circle, Mr. John Rae picked up the following story:\u2014\n\n\u201cMany years ago, a great Esquimaux Conqueror gained so much power that he\nwas able to rise unto the heavens, taking with him on one occasion a\nsister, a very beautiful girl, and some fire. He added much fuel to the\nfire, and thus formed the Sun. For some time he and his sister lived in\ngreat harmony, but after a time he became very cruel, and ill-treated his\nsister in many ways. She bore it at first with great patience, until at\nlast he threw fire at her, and scorched one side of her face. This\nspoiling of her beauty was beyond endurance; she therefore ran away from\nhim, and formed the Moon. Her brother then began, and still continues to\nchase her; but although he sometimes got near, he has not yet overtaken\nher, nor ever will.\n\n\u201cWhen it is New Moon, the burnt side of the face is towards us; at Full\nMoon it is the reverse.\u201d\n\nThere are dialectic varieties in the Mythology of the Esquimaux as of the\nGreeks and Hindus, and, with a change of gender between Sun and Moon, the\nsame story occurs among other tribes in the following form:\u2014\n\n\u201cThere was a girl at a party, and some one told his love for her by\nshaking her shoulders, after the manner of the country. She could not see\nwho it was in the dark hut, so she smeared her hands with soot, and when\nhe came back she blackened his cheek with her hand. When a light was\nbrought she saw that it was her brother and fled. He ran after her,\nfollowed her, and as she came to the end of the earth, he sprang out into\nthe sky. Then she became the sun, and he the moon, and this is why the\nmoon is always chasing the sun through the heavens, and why the moon is\nsometimes dark as he turns his blackened cheek towards the earth.\u201d(39)\n\nWe now turn to the South, and here, among the lowest of the low, among the\nHottentots, who are despised even by their black neighbors, the Zulus, we\nfind the following gem of a fable, beaming with mingled rays of religion\nand philosophy:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe Moon, it is said, sent once an insect to men, saying, \u2018Go thou to\nmen, and tell them, As I die, and dying live, so ye shall also die, and\ndying live.\u2019 The insect started with the message, but whilst on his way\nwas overtaken by the hare, who asked: \u2018On what errand art thou bound?\u2019 The\ninsect answered, \u2018I am sent by the Moon to men, to tell them that as she\ndies and dying lives, they also shall die and dying live.\u2019 The hare said,\n\u2018As thou art an awkward runner, let me go\u2019 (to take the message). With\nthese words he ran off, and when he reached men, he said, \u2018I am sent by\nthe Moon to tell you, As I die, and dying perish, in the same manner ye\nalso shall die and come wholly to an end.\u2019 Then the hare returned to the\nMoon, and told her what he had said to men. The Moon reproached him\nangrily, saying, \u2018Darest thou tell the people a thing which I have not\nsaid?\u2019 With these words she took up a piece of wood, and struck him on the\nnose. Since that day the hare\u2019s nose is slit.\u201d\n\nOf this story, too, there are various versions and in one of them the end\nis as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe hare, having returned to the Moon, was questioned as to the message\ndelivered, and the Moon, having heard the true state of the case, became\nso enraged with him that she took up a hatchet to split his head; falling\nshort, however, of that, the hatchet fell upon the upper lip of the hare,\nand cut it severely. Hence it is that we see the \u2018hare-lip.\u2019 The hare,\nbeing duly incensed at having received such treatment, raised his claws,\nand scratched the Moon\u2019s face; and the dark parts which we now see on the\nsurface of the Moon are the scars which she received on that\noccasion.\u201d(40)\n\nThe Finns, Lapps, and Esthonians do not seem a very poetical race, yet\nthere is poetry even in their smoky huts, poetry surrounded with all the\nsplendor of an arctic night, and fragrant with the perfume of moss and\nwild flowers. Here is one of their legends:\u2014\n\n\u201cWanna Issi had two servants, Koit and \u00c4mmarik, and he gave them a torch\nwhich Koit should light every morning, and \u00c4mmarik should extinguish in\nthe evening. In order to reward their faithful services, Wanna Issi told\nthem they might be man and wife, but they asked Wanna Issi that he would\nallow them to remain forever bride and bridegroom. Wanna Issi assented,\nand henceforth Koit handed the torch every evening to \u00c4mmarik, and \u00c4mmarik\ntook it and extinguished it. Only during four weeks in summer they remain\ntogether at midnight; Koit hands the dying torch to \u00c4mmarik, but \u00c4mmarik\ndoes not let it die, but lights it again with her breath. Then their hands\nare stretched out, and their lips meet, and the blush of the face of\n\u00c4mmarik colors the midnight sky.\u201d\n\nThis myth requires hardly any commentary; yet as long as it is impossible\nto explain the names, Wanna Issi, Koit, and \u00c4mmarik, it might be said that\nthe story was but a love story, invented by an idle Lapp, or Finn, or\nEsthonian. But what if Wanna Issi in Esthonian means the Old Father, and\nif Koit means the Dawn? Can we then doubt any longer that \u00c4mmarik(41) must\nbe the Gloaming and that their meeting in the summer reflects those summer\nevenings when, particularly in the North, the torch of the sun seems never\nto die, and when the Gloaming is seen kissing the Dawn?\n\nI wish I could tell you some more of these stories which have been\ngathered from all parts of the world, and which, though they may be\npronounced childish and tedious by some critics, seem to me to glitter\nwith the brightest dew of nature\u2019s own poetry, and to contain those very\ntouches that make us feel akin, not only with Homer or Shakespeare, but\neven with Lapps, and Finns, and Kaffirs.\n\nI cannot resist, however, the temptation of inserting here a poetical\nrendering of the story of Koit and \u00c4mmarik, sent to me from the New World,\nremarking only that instead of Lapland, Esthonia is really the country\nthat may claim the original story.\n\n\n    A LEGEND OF LAPLAND.\n\n    \u201cTwo servants were in Wanna Issi\u2019s pay;\n      A blazing torch their care;\n    Each morning Koit must light it till its ray\n      Flamed through the air;\n\n    \u201cAnd every evening \u00c4mmarik\u2019s fair hand\n      Must quench the waning light;\n    Then over all the weary, waiting land\n      Fell the still night.\n\n    \u201cSo passed the time; then Wanna Issi said,\n      \u201cFor faithful service done,\n    Lo, here reward! To-morrow shall ye wed,\n      And so be one.\u201d\n\n    \u201c \u2018Not so,\u2019 said Koit; \u2018for sweeter far to me\n      The joy that neareth still;\n    Then grant us ever fast betrothed to be.\u201d\n      They had their will.\n\n    \u201cAnd now the blazing lustre to transfer\n      Himself, is all his claim;\n    Warm from her lover\u2019s hand it comes to her,\n      To quench the flame.\n\n    \u201cOnly for four times seven lengthening days,\n      At midnight, do they stand\n    Together, while Koit gives the dying blaze\n      To \u00c4mmarik\u2019s hand.\n\n    \u201cO wonder then! She lets it not expire,\n      But lights it with her breath\u2014\n    The breath of love, that, warm with quickening fire,\n      Wakes life from death.\n\n    \u201cThen hands stretch out, and touch, and clasp on high,\n      Then lip to lip is pressed,\n    And \u00c4mmarik\u2019s blushes tinge the midnight sky\n      From east to west.\u201d\n\n    ANNA C. BRACKETT.\n\n\nIf people cannot bring themselves to believe in solar and celestial myths\namong the Hindus and Greeks, let them study the folk-lore of the Semitic\nand Turanian races. I know there is, on the part of some of our most\ndistinguished scholars, the same objection against comparing Aryan to\nnon-Aryan myths, as there is against any attempt to explain the features\nof Sanskrit or Greek by a reference to Finnish or Bask. In one sense that\nobjection is well founded, for nothing would create greater confusion than\nto ignore the genealogical principle as the only safe one in a scientific\nclassification of languages, of myths, and even of customs. We must first\nclassify our myths and legends, as we classify our languages and dialects.\nWe must first of all endeavor to explain what wants explanation in one\nmember of a family by a reference to other members of the same family,\nbefore we allow ourselves to glance beyond. But there is in a comparative\nstudy of languages and myths not only a philological, but also a\nphilosophical, and, more particularly, a psychological interest, and\nthough even in this more general study of mankind the frontiers of\nlanguage and race ought never to disappear, yet they can no longer be\nallowed to narrow or intercept our view. How much the student of Aryan\nmythology and ethnology may gain for his own progress by allowing himself\na wider survey over the traditions and customs of the whole human race, is\nbest known to those who have studied the works of Klemm, Waitz, Bastian,\nSir John Lubbock, Mr. Tylor, and Dr. Callaway. What is prehistoric in\nlanguage among the Aryan nations, is frequently found as still historic\namong Turanian races. The same applies with regard to religions, myths,\nlegends, and customs. Among Finns and Lapps, among Zulus and Maoris, among\nKhonds and Karens, we sometimes find the most startling analogies to Aryan\ntraditions, and we certainly learn, again and again, this one important\nlesson, that as in language, so in mythology, there is nothing which had\nnot originally a meaning, that every name of the gods and heroes had a\nbeginning, a purpose, and a history.\n\nJupiter was no more called Jupiter by accident, than the Polynesian\n_Maui_, the Samoyede _Num_, or the Chinese _Tien_.(42) If we can discover\nthe original meaning of these names, we have reached the first ground of\ntheir later growth. I do not say that, if we can explain the first purpose\nof the mythological names, we have solved the whole riddle of mythology,\nbut I maintain that we have gained firm ground. I maintain that every true\netymology gives us an historical fact, because the first giving of a name\nwas an historical fact, and an historical fact of the greatest importance\nfor the later development of ancient ideas. Think only of this one fact,\nwhich no one would now venture to doubt, that the supreme deity of the\nGreeks, the Romans, the Germans, is called by the same name as the supreme\ndeity of the earliest Aryan settlers in India. Does not this one fact draw\naway the curtain from the dark ages of antiquity, and open before our eyes\nan horizon which we can hardly measure by years? The Greek _Zeus_ is the\nsame word as the Latin _Ju_ in _Jupiter_, as the German _Tiu_; and all\nthese were merely dialectic varieties of the Vedic _Dyaus_.(43) Now\n_dyaus_ in Sanskrit is the name of the sky, if used as a feminine; if used\nas a masculine, as it is still in the Veda, it is the sky as a man or as a\ngod\u2014it is Zeus, the father of gods and men. You know, of course, that the\nwhole language of ancient India is but a sister dialect of Greek, Latin,\nof German, Keltic, and Slavonic, and that if the Greek says _es-ti_, he\nis, if the Roman says _est_, the German _ist_, the Slave _yest\u00e9_, the\nHindu, three thousand years ago, said _as-ti_, he is. This _as-ti_ is a\ncompound of a root _as_, to be, and the pronoun _ti_. The root meant\noriginally _to breathe_, and dwindled down after a time to the meaning of\n_to be_. All this must have happened before a single Greek or German\nreached the shores of Europe, and before a single Brahman descended into\nthe plains of India. At that distant time we must place the gradual growth\nof language and ideas, of a language which we are still speaking, of ideas\nwhich we are still thinking; and at the same time only can we explain the\nframing of those names which were the first attempts at grasping\nsupernatural powers, which became in time the names of the deities of the\nancient world, the heroes of mythology, the chief actors in many a legend,\nnay, some of which have survived in the nursery tales of our own time.(44)\n\nMy time, I see, is nearly over, but before I finish, I feel that I have a\nduty to perform from which I ought not to shrink. Some of those who have\nhonored me with their presence to-night may recollect that about a year\nago a lecture was delivered in this very room by Professor Blackie, in\nwhich he tried to throw discredit on the scientific method of the\ninterpretation of popular myths, or on what I call Comparative Mythology.\nHad he confined his remarks to the subject itself, I should have felt most\ngrateful for his criticisms, little minding the manner in which they were\nconveyed\u2014for a student of language knows what words are made of. Nor, had\nhis personal reflections concerned myself alone, should I have felt called\nupon to reply to them thus publicly, for it has always seemed to me that\nunless we protest against unmerited praise, we have no right to protest\nagainst unmerited abuse. I believe I can appeal to all here present, that\nduring the many years I have had the honor to lecture in this Institution,\nI have _not once_ allowed myself to indulge in any personal remarks, or\nattacked those who, being absent, cannot defend themselves. Even when I\nhad to answer objections, or to refute false theories, I have always most\ncarefully avoided mentioning the names of living writers. But as Professor\nBlackie has directed his random blows, not against myself, but against a\nfriend of mine, Mr. Cox, the author of a work on Aryan Mythology, I feel\nthat I must for once try to get angry, and return blow for blow. Professor\nBlackie speaks of Mr. Cox as if he had done nothing beyond repeating what\nI had said before. Nothing can be more unfair. My own work in Comparative\nMythology has consisted chiefly in laying down some of the general\nprinciples of that science, and in the etymological interpretation of some\nof the ancient names of gods, goddesses, and heroes. In fact, I have made\nit a rule never to interpret or to compare the legends of India, Greece,\nItaly, or Germany, except in cases where it was possible, first of all, to\nshow an identity or similarity in the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, or German\nnames of the principal actors. Mr. Cox having convinced himself that the\nmethod which I have followed in mythology rests on sound and truly\nscientific principles, has adopted most, though by no means all, of my\netymological interpretations. Professor Blackie, on the contrary, without\nattempting any explanation of the identity of mythological names in Greek\nand Sanskrit which must be either disproved or explained, thunders forth\nthe following sentence of condemnation: \u201cEven under the scientific\nguidance of a Bopp, a Bott, a Grimm, and a M\u00fcller, a sober man may\nsometimes, even in the full blaze of the new sun of comparative philology,\nallow himself to drink deep draughts, if not of _maundering madness_, at\nleast of _manifest hallucination_.\u201d\n\nIf such words are thrown at my head, I pick them up chiefly as\netymological curiosities, and as striking illustrations of what Mr. Tylor\ncalls \u201csurvivals in culture,\u201d showing how the most primitive implements of\nwarfare, rude stones and unpolished flints, which an ethnologist would\nsuppose to be confined to prehistoric races, to the red Indians of America\nor the wild Picts of Caledonia, turn up again most unexpectedly at the\npresent day in the very centre of civilized life. All I can say is, that\nif, as a student of Comparative Mythology, I have been drinking deep\ndraughts of maundering madness, I have been drinking in good company. In\nthis respect Mr. Cox has certainly given me far more credit than I\ndeserve. I am but one out of many laborers in this rich field of\nscientific research, and he ought to have given far greater prominence to\nthe labors of Grimm, Burnouf, Bopp, and, before all, of my learned friend,\nProfessor Kuhn.\n\nBut while, with regard to etymology, Mr. Cox contents himself with\nreporting the results of other scholars, he stands quite independent in\nhis own treatment of Comparative Mythology. Of this Professor Blackie\nseems to have no suspicion whatever. The plan which Mr. Cox follows is to\ncollect the coincidences in the legends themselves, and to show how in\ndifferent myths the same story with slight variations is told again and\nagain of different gods and heroes. In this respect his work is entirely\noriginal and very useful; for although these coincidences may be explained\nin different ways, and do not afford a proof of a common historical origin\nof the mythologies of India, Greece, Italy, and Germany, they are all the\nmore interesting from a purely psychological point of view, and supply\nimportant material for further researches. Mr. Tylor has lately worked\nwith great success in the same rich mine; extending the limits of\nmythological research far beyond the precincts of the Aryan world, and\nshowing that there are solar myths wherever the sun shines. I differ from\nMr. Cox on many points, as he differs from me. I shall certainly keep to\nmy own method of never attempting an interpretation or a comparison,\nexcept where the ground has first been cleared of all uncertainty by\netymological research, and where the names of different gods and heroes\nhave been traced back to a common source. I call this the _nominalistic_\nas opposed to the _realistic_ method of Comparative Mythology, and it is\nthe former only that concerns the student of the Science of Language. I\ngratefully acknowledge, however, the help which I have received from Mr.\nCox\u2019s work, particularly as suggesting new clusters of myths that might be\ndisentangled by etymological analysis.\n\nBut not only has Professor Blackie failed to perceive the real character\nof Mr. Cox\u2019s researches, but he has actually charged him with holding\nopinions which both Mr. Cox and myself have repeatedly disavowed, and most\nstrenuously opposed. Again and again have we warned the students of\nComparative Mythology that they must not expect to be able to explain\neverything. Again and again have we pointed out that there are irrational\nelements in mythology, and that we must be prepared to find grains of\nlocal history on which, as I said,(45) the sharpest tools of Comparative\nMythology must bend or break. Again and again have we shown that\nhistorical persons(46)\u2014not only Cyrus and Charlemagne, but Frederick\nBarbarossa and even Frederick the Great\u2014have been drawn into the vortex of\npopular mythology. Yet these are the words of Professor Blackie: \u201cThe cool\nway in which Max M\u00fcller and his English disciple, Mr. Cox, assume that\nthere are no human figures and historical characters in the whole gallery\nof heroes and demi-gods in the Greek Mythology, is something very\nremarkable.\u201d\n\nI readily admit that some of the etymologies which I have proposed of\nmythological names are open to criticism; and if, like other scholars,\nProfessor Blackie had pointed out to me any cases where I might seem to\nhim to have offended against Grimm\u2019s law or other phonetic rules, I should\nhave felt most grateful; but if he tells me that the Greek Erinys should\nnot be derived from the Sanskrit Sara_n_y\u00fb, but from the Greek verb\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to be angry, he might as well derive _critic_ from _to\ncriticise_;(47) and if he maintains that a name may have two or three\nlegitimate etymologies, I can only answer that we might as well say that a\nchild could have two or three legitimate mothers.\n\nI have most reluctantly entered upon these somewhat personal explanations,\nand I should not have done so if I alone had been concerned in Professor\nBlackie\u2019s onslaught. I hope, however, that I have avoided anything that\ncould give just offence to Professor Blackie, even if he should be present\nhere tonight. Though he abuses me as a German, and laughs at the\ninstinctive aversion to external facts and the extravagant passion for\nself-evolved ideas as national failings of all Germans (I only wonder that\nthe story of the camel and the inner consciousness did not come in), yet I\nknow that for many years German poetry and German scholarship have had few\nmore ardent admirers, and German scholars few more trusty friends, than\nProfessor Blackie. Nationality, it seems to me, has as little to do with\nscholarship as with logic. On the contrary, in every nation he that will\nwork hard and reason honestly may be sure to discover some grains of\ntruth. National jealousies and animosities have no place in the republic\nof letters, which is, and I trust always will be, the true international\nrepublic of all friends of work, of order, and of truth.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   III.\n\n\nON FALSE ANALOGIES IN COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY.\n\n\nVery different from the real similarities that can be discovered in nearly\nall the religions of the world, and which, owing to their deeply human\ncharacter, in no way necessitate the admission that one religion borrowed\nfrom the other, are those minute coincidences between the Jewish and the\nPagan religions which have so often been discussed by learned theologians,\nand which were intended by them as proof positive, either that the Pagans\nborrowed their religious ideas direct from the Old Testament, or that some\nfragments of a primeval revelation, granted to the ancestors of the whole\nrace of mankind, had been preserved in the temples of Greece and Italy.\n\nBochart, in his \u201cGeographia Sacra,\u201d considered the identity of Noah and\nSaturn so firmly established as hardly to admit of the possibility of a\ndoubt. The three sons of Saturn\u2014Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto\u2014he represented\nas having been originally the three sons of Noah: Jupiter being Ham;\nNeptune, Japhet; and Shem, Pluto. Even in the third generation the two\nfamilies were proved to have been one, for Phut, the son of Ham, or of\nJupiter Hammon, could be no other than Apollo Pythius; Canaan no other\nthan Mercury; and Nimrod no other than Bacchus, whose original name was\nsupposed to have been Bar-chus, the son of Cush. G. J. Vossius, in his\nlearned work, \u201cDe Origine et Progressu Idolatri\u00e6\u201d (1688), identified\nSaturn with Adam, Janus with Noah, Pluto with Ham, Neptune with Japhet,\nMinerva with Naamah, Vulcan with Tubal Cain, Typhon with Og. Huet, the\nfriend of Bochart, and the colleague of Bossuet, went still farther; and\nin his classical work, the \u201cDemonstratio Evangelica,\u201d he attempted to\nprove that the whole theology of the heathen nations was borrowed from\nMoses, whom he identified not only with ancient law-givers, like Zoroaster\nand Orpheus, but with gods and demi-gods, such as Apollo, Vulcan, Faunus,\nand Priapus.\n\nAll this happened not more than two hundred years ago; and even a hundred\nyears ago, nay, even after the discovery of Sanskrit and the rise of\nComparative Philology, the troublesome ghost of Huet was by no means laid\nat once. On the contrary, as soon as the ancient language and religion of\nIndia became known in Europe, they were received by many people in the\nsame spirit. Sanskrit, like all other languages, was to be derived from\nHebrew, the ancient religion of the Brahmans from the Old Testament.\n\nThere was at that time an enthusiasm among Oriental scholars, particularly\nat Calcutta, and an interest for Oriental antiquities in the public at\nlarge, of which we in these days of apathy for Eastern literature can\nhardly form an adequate idea. Everybody wished to be first in the field,\nand to bring to light some of the treasures which were supposed to be\nhidden in the sacred literature of the Brahmans. Sir William Jones, the\nfounder of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta, published in the first volume\nof the \u201cAsiatic Researches\u201d his famous essay, \u201cOn the Gods of Greece,\nItaly, and India;\u201d and he took particular care to state that his essay,\nthough published only in 1788, had been written in 1784. In that essay he\nendeavored to show that there existed an intimate connection, not only\nbetween the mythology of India and that of Greece and Italy, but likewise\nbetween the legendary stories of the Brahmans and the accounts of certain\nhistorical events as recorded in the Old Testament. No doubt, the\ntemptation was great. No one could look down for a moment into the rich\nmine of religious and mythological lore that was suddenly opened before\nthe eyes of scholars and theologians, without being struck by a host of\nsimilarities, not only in the languages, but also in the ancient\ntraditions of the Hindus, the Greeks, and the Romans; and if at that time\nthe Greeks and Romans were still supposed to have borrowed their language\nand their religion from Jewish quarters, the same conclusion could hardly\nbe avoided with regard to the language and the religion of the Brahmans of\nIndia.\n\nThe first impulse to look in the ancient religion of India for\nreminiscences of revealed truth seems to have come from missionaries\nrather than from scholars. It arose from a motive, in itself most\nexcellent, of finding some common ground for those who wished to convert\nand those who were to be converted. Only, instead of looking for that\ncommon ground where it really was to be found\u2014namely, in the broad\nfoundations on which all religions are built up: the belief in a divine\npower, the acknowledgment of sin, the habit of prayer, the desire to offer\nsacrifice, and the hope of a future life\u2014the students of Pagan religion as\nwell as Christian missionaries were bent on discovering more striking and\nmore startling coincidences, in order to use them in confirmation of their\nfavorite theory that some rays of a primeval revelation, or some\nreflection of the Jewish religion, had reached the uttermost ends of the\nworld. This was a dangerous proceeding\u2014dangerous because superficial,\ndangerous because undertaken with a foregone conclusion; and very soon the\nsame arguments that had been used on one side in order to prove that all\nreligious truth had been derived from the Old Testament were turned\nagainst Christian scholars and Christian missionaries, in order to show\nthat it was not Brahmanism and Buddhism which had borrowed from the Old\nand New Testament, but that the Old and the New Testament had borrowed\nfrom the more ancient religions of the Brahmans and Buddhists.\n\nThis argument was carried out, for instance, in Holwell\u2019s \u201cOriginal\nPrinciples of the Ancient Brahmans,\u201d published in London as early as 1779,\nin which the author maintains that \u201cthe Brahmanic religion is the first\nand purest product of supernatural revelation,\u201d and \u201cthat the Hindu\nscriptures contain to a moral certainty the original doctrines and terms\nof restoration delivered from God himself, by the mouth of his first\ncreated Birmah, to mankind, at his first creation in the form of man.\u201d\n\nSir William Jones(48) tells us that one or two missionaries in India had\nbeen absurd enough, in their zeal for the conversion of the Gentiles, to\nurge \u201cthat the Hindus were even now almost Christians, because their\nBrahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa were no other than the Christian Trinity;\u201d a\nsentence in which, he adds, we can only doubt whether folly, ignorance, or\nimpiety predominates.\n\nSir William Jones himself was not likely to fall into that error. He\nspeaks against it most emphatically. \u201cEither,\u201d he says, \u201cthe first eleven\nchapters of Genesis\u2014all due allowance being made for a figurative Eastern\nstyle\u2014are true, or the whole fabric of our national religion is false; a\nconclusion which none of us, I trust, would wish to be drawn. But it is\nnot the truth of our national religion as such that I have at heart; it is\ntruth itself; and if any cool, unbiassed reasoner will clearly convince me\nthat Moses drew his narrative through Egyptian conduits from the primeval\nfountains of Indian literature, I shall esteem him as a friend for having\nweeded my mind from a capital error, and promise to stand amongst the\nforemost in assisting to circulate the truth which he has ascertained.\u201d\n\nBut though he speaks so strongly against the uncritical proceedings of\nthose who would derive anything that is found in the Old Testament from\nIndian sources, Sir William Jones himself was really guilty of the same\nwant of critical caution in his own attempts to identify the gods and\nheroes of Greece and Rome with the gods and heroes of India. He begins his\nessay,(49) \u201cOn the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India,\u201d with the following\nremarks:\u2014\n\n\u201cWe cannot justly conclude, by arguments preceding the proof of facts,\nthat one idolatrous people must have borrowed their deities, rites, and\ntenets from another, since gods of all shapes and dimensions may be framed\nby the boundless powers of imagination, or by the frauds and follies of\nmen, in countries never connected; but when features of resemblance, too\nstrong to have been accidental, are observable in different systems of\npolytheism, without fancy or prejudice to color them and improve the\nlikeness, we can scarce help believing that some connection has\nimmemorially subsisted between the several nations who have adopted them.\nIt is my design in this essay to point out such a resemblance between the\npopular worship of the old Greeks and Italians and that of the Hindus; nor\ncan there be any room to doubt of a great similarity between their strange\nreligions and that of Egypt, China, Persia, Phrygia, Ph\u0153nice, and Syria;\nto which, perhaps, we may safely add some of the southern kingdoms, and\neven islands of America; while the Gothic system which prevailed in the\nnorthern regions of Europe was not merely similar to those of Greece and\nItaly, but almost the same in another dress, with an embroidery of images\napparently Asiatic. From all this, if it be satisfactorily proved, we may\ninfer a general union or affinity between the most distinguished\ninhabitants of the primitive world at the time when they deviated, as they\ndid too early deviate, from the rational adoration of the only true God.\u201d\n\nHere, then, in an essay written nearly a hundred years ago by Sir W.\nJones, one of the most celebrated Oriental scholars in England, it might\nseem as if we should find the first outlines of that science which is\nlooked upon as but of to-day or yesterday\u2014the outlines of Comparative\nMythology. But in such an expectation we are disappointed. What we find is\nmerely a superficial comparison of the mythology of India and that of\nother nations, both Aryan and Semitic, without any scientific value,\nbecause carried out without any of those critical tests which alone keep\nComparative Mythology from running riot. This is not intended as casting a\nslur on Sir W. Jones. At his time the principles which have now been\nestablished by the students of the science of language were not yet known,\nand as with words, so with the names of deities, similarity of sound, the\nmost treacherous of all sirens, was the only guide in such researches.\n\nIt is not pleasant to have to find fault with a man possessed of such\ngenius, taste, and learning as Sir W. Jones, but no one who is acquainted\nwith the history of these researches will be surprised at my words. It is\nthe fate of all pioneers, not only to be left behind in the assault which\nthey had planned, but to find that many of their approaches were made in a\nfalse direction, and had to be abandoned. But as the authority of their\nnames continues to sway the public at large, and is apt to mislead even\npainstaking students and to entail upon them repeated disappointments, it\nis necessary that those who know should speak out, even at the risk of\nbeing considered harsh or presumptuous.\n\nA few instances will suffice to show how utterly baseless the comparisons\nare which Sir W. Jones instituted between the gods of India, Greece, and\nItaly. He compares the Latin Janus with the Sanskrit deity Ganesa. It is\nwell known that Janus is connected with the same root that has yielded the\nnames of Jupiter, Zeus, and Dyaus, while Ganesa is a compound, meaning\nlord of hosts, lord of the companies of gods.\n\nSaturnus is supposed to have been the same as Noah, and is then identified\nby Sir W. Jones with the Indian Manu Satyavrata, who escaped from the\nflood. Ceres is compared with the goddess Sri, Jupiter or Diespiter with\nIndra or Divaspati; and though etymology is called a weak basis for\nhistorical inquiries, the three syllables Jov in Jovis, Zeu in Zeus, and\nSiv in Siva are placed side by side, as possibly containing the same root,\nonly differently pronounced. Now the s of Siva is a palatal s, and no\nscholar who has once looked into a book on Comparative Philology need be\ntold that such an s could never correspond to a Greek Zeta or a Latin J.\n\nIn K_ri_sh_n_a, the lovely shepherd-god, Sir W. Jones recognizes the\nfeatures of Apollo Nomius, who fed the herds of Admetus, and slew the\ndragon Python; and he leaves it to etymologists to determine whether\nGop\u00e2la\u2014_i. e._, the cow-herd\u2014may not be the same word as Apollo. We are\nalso assured, on the authority of Colonel Vallancey, that K_ri_sh_n_a in\nIrish means the sun, and that the goddess K\u00e2l\u00ee, to whom human sacrifices\nwere offered, as enjoined in the Vedas (?) was the same as Hekate. In\nconclusion, Sir W. Jones remarks, \u201cI strongly incline to believe that\nEgyptian priests have actually come from the Nile to the Gang\u00e2 and Yamun\u00e2,\nand that they visited the Sarmans of India, as the sages of Greece visited\nthem, rather to acquire than to impart knowledge.\u201d\n\nThe interest that had been excited by Sir William Jones\u2019s researches did\nnot subside, though he himself did not return to the subject, but devoted\nhis great powers to more useful labors. Scholars, both in India and in\nEurope, wanted to know more of the ancient religion of India. If Jupiter,\nApollo, and Janus had once been found in the ancient pantheon of the\nBrahmans; if the account of Noah and the deluge could be traced back to\nthe story of Manu Satyavrata, who escaped from the flood, more discoveries\nmight be expected in this newly-opened mine, and people rushed to it with\nall the eagerness of gold-diggers. The idea that everything in India was\nof extreme antiquity had at that time taken a firm hold on the minds of\nall students of Sanskrit; and, as there was no one to check their\nenthusiasm, everything that came to light in Sanskrit literature was\nreadily accepted as more ancient than Homer, or even than the Old\nTestament.\n\nIt was under these influences that Lieutenant Wilford, a contemporary of\nSir William Jones at Calcutta, took up the thread which Sir William Jones\nhad dropped, and determined at all hazards to solve the question which at\nthat time had excited a worldwide interest. Convinced that the Brahmans\npossessed in their ancient literature the originals, not only of Greek and\nRoman mythology, but likewise of the Old Testament history, he tried every\npossible means to overcome their reserve and reticence. He related to\nthem, as well as he could, the principal stories of classical mythology,\nand the leading events in the history of the Old Testament; he assured\nthem that they would find the same things in their ancient books, if they\nwould but look for them; he held out the hopes of ample rewards for any\nextracts from their sacred literature containing the histories of Adam and\nEve, of Deukalion and Prometheus; and at last he succeeded. The coyness of\nthe Pandits yielded; the incessant demand created a supply; and for\nseveral years essay after essay appeared in the \u201cAsiatic Researches,\u201d with\nextracts from Sanskrit MSS., containing not only the names of Deukalion,\nPrometheus, and other heroes and deities of Greece, but likewise the names\nof Adam and Eve, of Abraham and Sarah, and all the rest.\n\nGreat was the surprise, still greater the joy, not only in Calcutta, but\nin London, at Paris, and all the universities of Germany. The Sanskrit\nMSS. from which Lieutenant Wilford quoted, and on which his theories were\nbased, had been submitted to Sir W. Jones and other scholars; and though\nmany persons were surprised, and for a time even incredulous, yet the fact\ncould not be denied that all was found in these Sanskrit MSS. as stated by\nLieutenant Wilford. Sir W. Jones, then President of the Asiatic Society,\nprinted the following declaration at the end of the third volume of the\n\u201cAsiatic Researches\u201d:\u2014\n\n\u201cSince I am persuaded that the learned essay on Egypt and the Nile has\nafforded you equal delight with that which I have myself received from it,\nI cannot refrain from endeavoring to increase your satisfaction by\nconfessing openly that I have at length abandoned the greatest part of the\nnatural distrust, and incredulity which had taken possession of my mind\nbefore I had examined the sources from which our excellent associate,\nLieutenant Wilford, has drawn so great a variety of new and interesting\nopinions. Having lately read again and again, both alone and with a\nPandit, the numerous original passages in the Pur\u00e2nas, and other Sanskrit\nbooks, which the writer of the dissertation adduces in support of his\nassertions, I am happy in bearing testimony to his perfect good faith and\ngeneral accuracy, both in his extracts and in the translation of them.\u201d\n\nSir W. Jones then proceeds himself to give a translation of some of these\npassages. \u201cThe following translation,\u201d he writes, \u201cof an extract from the\nPadma-pur\u00e2na is minutely exact\u201d:\u2014\n\n\u201c1. To _Satyavarman_, the sovereign of the whole earth, were born three\nsons; the eldest, _Sherma_; then _Charma_; and thirdly, _Jyapeti_.\n\n\u201c2. They were all men of good morals, excellent in virtue and virtuous\ndeeds, skilled in the use of weapons to strike with, or to be thrown,\nbrave men, eager for victory in battle.\n\n\u201c3. But _Satyavarman_, being continually delighted with devout meditation,\nand seeing his sons fit for dominion, laid upon them the burden of\ngovernment,\n\n\u201c4. Whilst he remained honoring and satisfying the gods, and priests, and\nkine. One day, by the act of destiny, the king, having drunk mead,\n\n\u201c5. Became senseless, and lay asleep naked; then was he seen by _Charma_,\nand by him were his two brothers called.\n\n\u201c6. To whom he said: What now has befallen? In what state is this our\nsire? By those two was he hidden with clothes, and called to his senses\nagain and again.\n\n\u201c7. Having recovered his intellect, and perfectly knowing what had passed,\nhe cursed _Charma_, saying, Thou shalt be the servant of servants:\n\n\u201c8. And since thou wast a laugher in their presence, from laughter shalt\nthou acquire a name. Then he gave to _Sherma_ the wide domain on the south\nof the snowy mountains.\n\n\u201c9. And to _Jyapeti_ he gave all on the north of the snowy mountains; but\nhe, by the power of religious contemplation, obtained supreme bliss.\u201d\n\nAfter this testimony from Sir W. Jones\u2014wrung from him, as it would seem,\nagainst his own wish and will\u2014Lieutenant Wilford\u2019s essays became more\nnumerous and more startling every year.\n\nAt last, however, the coincidences became too great. The MSS. were again\ncarefully examined; and then it was found that a clever forgery had been\ncommitted, that leaves had been inserted in ancient MSS., and that on\nthese leaves the Pandits, urged by Lieutenant Wilford to disclose their\nancient mysteries and traditions, had rendered in correct Sanskrit verse\nall that they had heard about Adam and Abraham from their inquisitive\nmaster. Lieutenant (then Colonel) Wilford did not hesitate for one moment\nto confess publicly that he had been imposed upon; but in the meantime the\nmischief had been done, his essays had been read all over Europe, they\nretained their place in the volumes of the \u201cAsiatic Researches,\u201d and to\nthe present day some of his statements and theories continue to be quoted\nauthoritatively by writers on ancient religion.\n\nSuch accidents, and, one might almost say, such misfortunes, will happen,\nand it would be extremely unfair were we to use unnecessarily harsh\nlanguage with regard to those to whom they have happened. It is perfectly\ntrue that at present, after the progress that has been made in an accurate\nand critical study of Sanskrit, it would be unpardonable if any Sanskrit\nscholar accepted such passages as those translated by Sir W. Jones as\ngenuine. Yet it is by no means certain that a further study of Sanskrit\nwill not lead to similar disenchantments, and deprive many a book in\nSanskrit literature which now is considered as very ancient of its claims\nto any high antiquity. Certain portions of the Veda even, which, as far as\nour knowledge goes at present, we are perfectly justified in referring to\nthe tenth or twelfth century before our era, may some day or other dwindle\ndown from their high estate, and those who have believed in their extreme\nantiquity will then be held up to blame or ridicule, like Sir W. Jones or\nColonel Wilford. This cannot be avoided, for science is progressive, and\ndoes not acknowledge, even in the most distinguished scholars, any claims\nto infallibility. One lesson only may we learn from the disappointment\nthat befell Colonel Wilford, and that is to be on our guard against\nanything which in ordinary language would be called \u201ctoo good to be true.\u201d\n\nComparative Philology has taught us again and again that when we find a\nword exactly the same in Greek and Sanskrit, we may be certain that it\ncannot be the same word; and the same applies to Comparative Mythology.\nThe same god or the same hero cannot have exactly the same name in\nSanskrit and Greek, for the simple reason that Sanskrit and Greek have\ndeviated from each other, have both followed their own way, have both\nsuffered their own phonetic corruptions; and hence, if they do possess the\nsame word, they can only possess it either in its Greek or its Sanskrit\ndisguise. And if that caution applies to Sanskrit and Greek, members of\nthe same family of language, how much more strongly must it apply to\nSanskrit and Hebrew! If the first man were called in Sanskrit \u00c2dima, and\nin Hebrew Adam, and if the two were really the same word, then Hebrew and\nSanskrit could not be members of two different families of speech, or we\nshould be driven to admit that Adam was borrowed by the Jews from the\nHindus for it is in Sanskrit only that \u00e2dima means the first, whereas in\nHebrew it has no such meaning.\n\nThe same remark applies to a curious coincidence pointed out many years\nago by Mr. Ellis in his \u201cPolynesian Researches\u201d (London, 1829, vol. ii. p.\n38). We there read:\u2014\n\n\u201cA very generally received Tahitian tradition is that the first human pair\nwere made by Taaroa, the principal deity formerly acknowledged by the\nnation. On more than one occasion I have listened to the details of the\npeople respecting his work of creation. They say that, after Taaroa had\nformed the world, he created man out of araea, red earth, which was also\nthe food of man until bread first was made. In connection with this some\nrelate that Taaroa one day called for the man by name. When he came, he\ncaused him to fall asleep, and, while he slept, he took out one of his\n_ivi_, or bones, and with it made a woman, whom he gave to the man as his\nwife, and they became the progenitors of mankind. This,\u201d Mr. Ellis\ncontinues, \u201calways appeared to me a mere recital of the Mosaic account of\ncreation, which they had heard from some European, and I never placed any\nreliance on it, although they have repeatedly told me it was a tradition\namong them before any foreigners arrived. Some have also stated that the\nwoman\u2019s name was _Ivi_, which would be by them pronounced as if written\n_Eve_. _Ivi_ is an aboriginal word, and not only signifies a bone, but\nalso a widow, and a victim slain in war. Notwithstanding the assertion of\nthe natives, I am disposed to think that _Ivi_, or _Eve_, is the only\naboriginal part of the story, as far as it respects the mother of the\nhuman race. Should more careful and minute inquiry confirm the truth of\nthis declaration, and prove that their account was in existence among them\nprior to their intercourse with Europeans, it will be the most remarkable\nand valuable oral tradition of the origin of the human race yet known.\u201d\n\nIn this case, I believe the probability is that the story of the creation\nof the first woman from the bone of a man(50) existed among the Tahitians\nbefore their intercourse with Christians, but I need hardly add that the\nsimilarity between the Polynesian name for bone, _ivi_, even when it was\nused as the name of the first woman, and the English corruption of the\nHebrew \u05d4\u05d5\u05d4, Ch\u0101vah, Eve, could be the result of accident only. Whatever\nCh\u0101vah meant in Hebrew, whether life or living or anything else, it never\nmeant bone, while the Tahitian _ivi_, the Maori _wheva_,(51) meant bone,\nand bone only.\n\nThese principles and these cautions were hardly thought of in the days of\nSir William Jones and Colonel Wilford, but they ought to be thought of at\npresent. Thus, before Bopp had laid down his code of phonetic laws, and\nbefore Burnouf had written his works on Buddhism, one cannot be very much\nsurprised that Buddha should have been identified with Minos and Lamech;\nnay, that even the Babylonian deity Belus, and the Teutonic deity Wodan or\nOdin, should have been supposed to be connected with the founder of\nBuddhism in India. As Burnouf said in his \u201cIntroduction a l\u2019Histoire du\nBuddhisme,\u201d p. 70: \u201cOn avait m\u00eame fait du Buddha une plan\u00e8te; et je ne\nsais pas si quelques savants ne se plaisent pas encore aujourd\u2019hui \u00e0\nretrouver ce sage paisible sous les traits du belliqueux Odin.\u201d But we did\nnot expect that we should have to read again, in a book published in 1869,\nsuch statements as these:(52)\u2014\n\n\u201cThere is certainly a much greater similarity between the Buddhism of the\nTopes and the Scandinavian mythology than between it and the Buddhism of\nthe books; but still the gulf between the two is immense; and if any\ntraces of the doctrines of the gentle ascetic (Buddha) ever existed in the\nbosom of Odin or his followers, while dwelling near the roots of the\nCaucasus, all that can be said is, that they suffered fearful shipwreck\namong the rocks of the savage superstitions of the North, and sank, never\nagain to appear on the surface of Scandinavian mythology. If the two\nreligions come anywhere in contact, it is at their base, for underlying\nboth there existed a strange substratum of Tree and Serpent Worship; on\nthis the two structures seem to have been raised, though they afterwards\ndiverged into forms so strangely dissimilar\u201d (p. 34).\n\nOr again (p. 32):\u2014\n\n\u201cWe shall probably not err far if we regard these traces of serpent\nworship as indicating the presence in the Northeast of Scotland of the\nhead of that column of migration, or of propagandism, which, under the\nmyth of Wodenism, we endeavored in a previous chapter to trace from the\nCaucasus to Scandinavia.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe arbors under which two of the couples are seated are curious\ninstances of that sort of summer-house which may be found adorning\ntea-gardens in the neighborhood of London to the present day. It is scenes\nlike these that make us hesitate before asserting that there could not\npossibly be any connection between Buddhism and Wodenism\u201d (p. 140).\n\n\u201cOne of the most tempting nominal similarities connected with this subject\nis suggested by the name of M\u00e2y\u00e2. The mother of Buddha was called M\u00e2y\u00e2.\nThe mother of Mercury was also Maia, the daughter of Atlas. The Romans\nalways called Wodin, Mercury, and _dies Mercurii_ and _Wodensday_ alike\ndesignated the fourth day of the week.... These and other similarities\nhave been frequently pointed out and insisted upon, and they are too\nnumerous and too distinct not to have some foundation in reality\u201d (p. 186,\nnote).\n\nStatements like these cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed or\nuncontradicted, particularly if supported by the authority of a great\nname; and after having spoken so freely of the unscientific character of\nthe mythological comparisons instituted by scholars like Sir William Jones\nand Lieutenant Wilford, who can no longer defend themselves, it would be\nmere cowardice to shrink from performing the same unpleasant duty in the\ncase of a living writer, who has shown that he knows how to wield the\nweapons both of defence and attack.\n\nIt is perfectly true that the mother of Buddha was called M\u00e2y\u00e2, but it is\nequally true that the Sanskrit M\u00e2y\u00e2 cannot be the Greek Mai\u0101. It is quite\ntrue, also, that the fourth day of the week is called _dies Mercurii_ in\nLatin, and Wednesday in English; nay, that in Sanskrit the same day is\ncalled _Budha-dina_ or _Budha-v\u00e2ra_. But the origin of all these names\nfalls within perfectly historical times, and can throw no light whatever\non the early growth of mythology and religion.\n\nFirst of all, we have to distinguish between _Budha_ and _Buddha_. The two\nnames, though so like each other, and therefore constantly mistaken one\nfor the other, have nothing in common but their root. _Buddha_ with two\nd\u2019s, is the participle of _budh_, and means awakened, enlightened.(53) It\nis the name given to those who have reached the highest stage of human\nwisdom, and it is known most generally as the title of Gotama,\n_S_\u00e2kya-muni, the founder of Buddhism, whose traditional era dates from\n543 B. C. _Budha_, on the contrary, with one d, means simply knowing, and\nit became in later times, when the Hindus received from the Greeks a\nknowledge of the planets, the name of the planet Mercury.\n\nIt is well known that the names of the seven days of the week are derived\nfrom the names of the planets,(54) and it is equally well known that in\nEurope the system of weeks and week-days is comparatively of very modern\norigin. It was not a Greek, nor a Roman, nor a Hindu, but a Jewish or\nBabylonian invention. The Sabbath (Sabbata) was known and kept at Rome in\nthe first century B. C. with many superstitious practices. It is mentioned\nby Horace, Ovid, Tibullus (_dies Saturni_), Persius, Juvenal. Ovid calls\nit a day \u201c_rebus minus apta gerendis_.\u201d Augustus (Suet. \u201cAug.\u201d c. 76)\nevidently imagined that the Jews fasted on their Sabbath, for he said,\n\u201cNot even a Jew keeps the fast of the Sabbath so strictly as I have kept\nthis day.\u201d In fact, Josephus (\u201cContra Apion.\u201d ii. 39) was able to say that\nthere was no town, Greek or not Greek, where the custom observing the\nseventh day had not spread.(55) It is curious that we find the seventh\nday, the Sabbath, even under its new Pagan name, as _dies Saturni_ or\n_Kronike_, mentioned by Roman and Greek writers, before the names of the\nother days of the week made their appearance. Tibullus speaks of the day\nof Saturn, _dies Saturni_; Julius Frontinus (under Nerva, 96-98) says that\nVespasian attacked the Jews on the day of Saturn, _dies Saturni_; and\nJustin Martyr (died 165) states that Christ was crucified the day before\nthe day of Kronos, and appeared to his disciples the day after the day of\nKronos. He does not use the names of Friday and Sunday. Sunday, as _dies\nSolis_, is mentioned by Justin Martyr (\u201cApolog.\u201d i. 67), and by Tertullian\n(died 220), the usual name of that day amongst Christians being the\nLord\u2019s-day, \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ae, _dominica_ or _dominicus_. Clemens of Alexandria\n(died 220) seems to have been the first who used the names of Wednesday\nand Friday, \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1.\n\nIt is generally stated, on the authority of Cassius Dio, that the system\nof counting by weeks and weekdays was first introduced in Egypt, and that\nat his time, early in the third century, the Romans had adopted it, though\nbut recently. Be this as it may, it would seem that, if Tibullus could use\nthe name of _dies Saturni_ for Saturday, the whole system of weekdays must\nhave been settled and known at Rome in his time. Cassius Dio tells us that\nthe names were assigned to each day \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, by fours; or by giving\nthe first hour of the week to Saturn, then giving one hour to each planet\nin succession, till the twenty-fifth hour became again the first of the\nnext day. Both systems lead to the same result, as will be seen from the\nfollowing table:\u2014\n\n_Planets._    _Latin._        _French._      _Sanskrit._\n1 Saturn 1    Dies Saturni    Samedi (dies   Saui-v\u0101ra\n                              sabbati)\n2 Jupiter 6   Dies Solis      Dimanche       Ravi-v\u0101ra\n                              (dominicus)\n3 Mars 4      Dies Lun\u00e6       Lundi          Soma-v\u0101ra\n4 Sun 2       Dies Martis     Mardi          Bhauma-v\u0101ra\n5 Venus 7     Dies Mercurii   Mercredi       Brihaspati-v\u0101ra\n7 Moon 3      Dies Veneris    Vendredi       Sukra-v\u0101ra\n\n_Planets._    _Old Norse._    _Anglo-Saxon._   _English._\n1 Saturn 1    laugardagr      s\u00e4tres d\u00e4g       Saturday\n              (washing day)\n2 Jupiter 6   sunnadagr       sunnan d\u00e4g       Sunday\n3 Mars 4      m\u00e2nadagr        monan d\u00e4g        Monday\n4 Sun 2       tysdagr         tives d\u00e4g        Tuesday\n5 Venus 7     odhinsdagr      v\u00f4denes d\u00e4g      Wednesday\n6 Mercury 5   th\u00f4rsdagr       thunores d\u00e4g     Thursday\n7 Moon 3      friadagr        frige d\u00e4g        Friday\n\n_Planets._    _Old-High           _Middle-High      _German._\n              German._            German._\n1 Saturn 1    sambaztag (sunn\u00fbn   samztac (sunnen   Samstag\n              \u00e2band)              \u00e2bent)            (Sonnabend)\n2 Jupiter 6   sunn\u00fbn dag          sunnen tac        Sonntag\n3 Mars 3      m\u00e2nin tac (?)       m\u00e2n tac           Montag\n4 Sun 2       ziuwes tac (cies    zies tac (zies    Dienstag\n              dac)                tac)\n5 Venus 7     wuotanes tac (?)    mittwoch          Mittwoch\n              (mittawecha)\n6 Mercury 5   donares tac         donres tac        Donnerstag\n7 Moon 3      fria dag            fr\u00eetac            Freitag\n\nAfter the names of the week-days had once been settled, we have no\ndifficulty in tracing their migration towards the East and towards the\nWest. The Hindus had their own peculiar system of reckoning days and\nmonths, but they adopted at a later time the foreign system of counting by\nweeks of seven days, and assigning a presiding planetary deity to each of\nthe seven days, according to the system described above. As the Indian\nname of the planet Mercury was Budha, the _dies Mercurii_ was naturally\ncalled _Budha-v\u00e2ra_ but never _Buddha-v\u00e2ra_; and the fact that the mother\nof Mercury was called Maia, and the mother of Buddha M\u00e2y\u00e2, could,\ntherefore, have had no bearing whatever on the name assigned to the Indian\nWednesday.(56) The very Buddhists, in Ceylon, distinguish between buddha,\nthe enlightened, and budha, wise, and call Wednesday the day of Budha, not\nof Buddha.(57) Whether the names of the planets were formed in India\nindependently, or after Greek models, is difficult to settle. The name of\nBudha, the knowing or the clever, given to the planet Mercury, seems,\nhowever, inexplicable except on the latter hypothesis.\n\nHaving traced the origin of the Sanskrit name of the _dies Mercurii_,\nBudha-v\u00e2ra, let us now see why the Teutonic nations, though perfectly\nignorant of Buddhism, called the same day the day of Wodan.\n\nThat the Teutonic nations received the names of the week-days from their\nGreek and Roman neighbors admits of no doubt. For commercial and military\narrangements between Romans and Germans some kind of _lingua franca_ must\nsoon have sprung up, and in it the names of the week-days must have found\ntheir place. There would have been little difficulty in explaining the\nmeaning of Sun-day and Mon-day to the Germans, but in order to make them\nunderstand the meaning of the other names, some explanations must have\nbeen given on the nature of the different deities, in order to enable the\nGermans to find corresponding names in their own language. A Roman would\ntell his German friend that _dies Veneris_ meant the day of a goddess who\nrepresented beauty and love, and on hearing this the German would at once\nhave thought of his own goddess of love, _Freyja_, and have called the\n_dies Veneris_ the day of _Freyja_ or Friday.(58)\n\nIf _Jupiter_ was described as the god who wields the thunderbolt, his\nnatural representative in German would be _Donar_,(59) the Anglo-Saxon\n_Thunar_, the Old Norse _Thor_; and hence the _dies Jovis_ would be called\nthe day of _Thor_, or Thursday. If the fact that Jupiter was the king of\nthe gods had been mentioned, his proper representative in German would, no\ndoubt, have been _Wuotan_ or _Odin_.(60) As it was, _Wuotan_ or _Odin_ was\nchosen as the nearest approach to _Mercury_, the character which they\nshare in common, and which led to their identification, being most likely\ntheir love of travelling through the air,(61) also their granting wealth\nand fulfilling the wishes of their worshippers, in which capacity Wuotan\nis known by the name of _Wunsch_(62) or _Wish_. We can thus understand how\nit happened that father and son changed places, for while _Mercurius_ is\nthe son of _Jupiter_, _Wuotan_ is the father of _Donar_. _Mars_, the god\nof war, was identified with the German _Tiu_ or _Ziu_, a name which,\nthough originally the same as _Zeus_ in Greek or _Dyaus_ in Sanskrit, took\na peculiarly national character among the Germans, and became their god of\nwar.(63)\n\nThere remained thus only the _dies Saturni_, the day of Saturn, and\nwhether this was called so in imitation of the Latin name, or after an old\nGerman deity of a similar name and character, is a point which for the\npresent we must leave unsettled.\n\nWhat, however, is not unsettled is this, that if the Germans, in\ninterpreting these names of Roman deities as well as they could, called\nthe _dies Mercurii_, the same day which the Hindus had called the day of\n_Budha_ (with one _d_), their day of _Wuotan_, this was not because \u201cthe\ndoctrines of the gentle ascetic existed in the bosom of Odin or his\nfollowers, while dwelling near the roots of the Caucasus,\u201d but for very\ndifferent and much more tangible reasons.\n\nBut, apart from all this, by what possible process could Buddha and Odin\nhave ever been brought together in the flesh? In the history of ancient\nreligions, Odin belongs to the same stratum of mythological thought as\n_Dyaus_ in India, _Zeus_ in Greece, _Jupiter_ in Italy. He was worshipped\nas the supreme deity during a period long anterior to the age of the Veda\nand of Homer. His travels in Greece, and even in Tyrkland,(64) and his\nhalf-historical character as a mere hero and a leader of his people, are\nthe result of the latest Euhemerism. Buddha, on the contrary, is not a\nmythological, but a personal and historical character, and to think of a\nmeeting of Buddha and Odin, or even of their respective descendants, at\nthe roots of Mount Caucasus, would be like imagining an interview between\nCyrus and Odin, between Mohammed and Aphrodite.\n\nA comparative study of ancient religions and mythologies, as will be seen\nfrom these instances, is not a subject to be taken up lightly. It requires\nnot only an accurate acquaintance with the minutest details of comparative\nphilology, but a knowledge of the history of religions which can hardly be\ngained without a study of original documents. As long, however, as\nresearches of this kind are carried on for their own sake, and from a mere\ndesire of discovering truth, without any ulterior objects, they deserve no\nblame, though, for a time, they may lead to erroneous results. But when\ncoincidences between different religions and mythologies are searched out\nsimply in support of preconceived theories, whether by the friends or\nenemies of religion, the sense of truth, the very life of all science, is\nsacrificed, and serious mischief will follow without fail. Here we have a\nright, not only to protest, but to blame. There is on this account a great\ndifference between the books we have hitherto examined, and a work lately\npublished in Paris by M. Jacolliot, under the sensational title of \u201cLa\nBible dans l\u2019Inde, Vie de Jeseus Christna.\u201d If this book had been written\nwith the pure enthusiasm of Lieutenant Wilford, it might have been passed\nby as a mere anachronism. But when one sees how its author shuts his eyes\nagainst all evidence that would tell against him, and brings together,\nwithout any critical scruples, whatever seems to support his theory that\nChristianity is a mere copy of the ancient religion of India, mere silence\nwould not be a sufficient answer. Besides, the book has lately been\ntranslated into English, and will be read, no doubt, by many people who\ncannot test the evidence on which it professes to be founded. We learn\nthat M. Jacolliot was some years ago appointed President of the Court of\nJustice at Chandernagore, and that he devoted the leisure left him from\nthe duties of his position to studying Sanskrit and the holy books of the\nHindus. He is said to have put himself in communication with the Brahmans,\nwho had obtained access to a great number of MSS. carefully stored up in\nthe depths of the pagodas. \u201cThe purport of his book is\u201d (I quote from a\nfriendly critic), \u201cthat our civilization, our religion, our legends, our\ngods, have come to us from India, after passing in succession through\nEgypt, Persia, Judea, Greece, and Italy.\u201d This statement, we are told, is\nnot confined to M. Jacolliot, but has been admitted by almost all Oriental\nscholars. The Old and New Testaments are found again in the Vedas, and the\ntexts quoted by M. Jacolliot in support of his theory are said to leave it\nwithout doubt. Brahma created Adima (in Sanskrit, the first man) and gave\nhim for companion Heva (in Sanskrit, that which completes life). He\nappointed the island of Ceylon for their residence. What follows\nafterwards is so beautifully described that I may be pardoned for quoting\nit. Only I must warn my readers, lest the extract should leave too deep an\nimpression on their memory, that what M. Jacolliot calls a simple\ntranslation from Sanskrit is, as far as I can judge, a simple invention of\nsome slightly mischievous Brahman, who, like the Pandits of Lieutenant\nWilford, took advantage of the zeal and credulity of a French judge:\u2014\n\n\u201cHaving created the Man and the Woman (_simultaneously_, not one after the\nother), and animated them with the divine afflatus\u2014the Lord said unto\nthem: \u2018Behold, your mission is to people this beautiful Island [Ceylon],\nwhere I have gathered together everything pleasant and needful for your\nsubsistence\u2014the rest of the Earth is as yet uninhabitable, but should your\nprogeny so increase as to render the bounds of paradise too narrow a\nhabitation, let them inquire of me by sacrifice and I will make known my\nwill.\u2019\n\n\u201cAnd thus saying, the Lord disappeared....\n\n\u201cThen Adam and Eve dwelt together for a time in perfect happiness; but ere\nlong a vague disquietude began to creep upon them.... The Spirit of Evil,\njealous of their felicity and of the work of Brahma, inspired them with\ndisturbing thoughts;\u2014\u2018Let us wander through the Island,\u2019 said Adam to his\ncompanion, \u2018and see if we may not find some part even more beautiful than\nthis.\u2019 ...\n\n\u201cAnd Eve followed her husband ... wandering for days and for months; ...\nbut as they advanced the woman was seized with strange and inexplicable\nterrors: \u2018Adam,\u2019 said she, \u2018let us go no farther: it seems to me that we\nare disobeying the Lord; have we not already quitted the place which he\nassigned us for a dwelling and forbade us to leave?\u2019\n\n\u201c \u2018Fear not,\u2019 replied Adam; \u2018this is not that fearful wilderness of which\nhe spake to us.\u2019 ....\n\n\u201cAnd they wandered on....\n\n\u201cArriving at last at the extremity of the Island, they beheld a smooth and\nnarrow arm of the sea, and beyond it a vast and apparently boundless\ncountry, connected with their Island only by a narrow and rocky pathway\narising from the bosom of the waters.\n\n\u201cThe wanderers stood amazed: the country before them was covered with\nstately trees, birds of a thousand colors flitting amidst their foliage.\n\n\u201c... \u2018Behold, what beautiful things!\u2019 cried Adam, \u2018and what good fruit\nsuch trees must produce; ... let us go and taste them, and if that country\nis better than this, we will dwell there.\u2019\n\n\u201cEve, trembling, besought Adam to do nothing that might irritate the Lord\nagainst them. \u2018Are we not well here? Have we not pure water and delicious\nfruits? Wherefore seek other things?\u2019\n\n\u201c \u2018True,\u2019 replied Adam, \u2018but we will return; what harm can it be to visit\nthis unknown country that presents itself to our view?\u2019 .... And as he\napproached the rocks, Eve, trembling, followed.\n\n\u201cPlacing his wife upon his shoulders, he proceeded to cross the space that\nseparated him from the object of his desires, but no sooner did he touch\nthe shore than trees, flowers, fruits, birds, all that they had perceived\nfrom the opposite side, in an instant vanished amidst terrific clamor; ...\nthe rocks by which they had crossed sunk beneath the waters, a few sharp\npeaks alone remaining above the surface, to indicate the place of the\nbridge which had been destroyed by Divine displeasure.\n\n\u201cThe vegetation which they had seen from the opposite shore was but a\ndelusive mirage raised by the Spirit of Evil to tempt them to\ndisobedience.\n\n\u201cAdam fell, weeping, upon the naked sands, ... but Eve throwing herself\ninto his arms, besought him not to despair; ... \u2018let us rather pray to the\nAuthor of all things to pardon us.\u2019 ....\n\n\u201cAnd as she spake there came a voice from the clouds, saying,\n\n\u201c \u2018Woman! _thou_ hast only sinned from love to thy husband, whom I\ncommanded thee to love, and thou hast hoped in me.\n\n\u201c \u2018I therefore pardon thee\u2014and I pardon him also for _thy_ sake: ... but\nye may no more return to paradise, which I had created for your happiness;\n... through your disobedience to my commands the Spirit of Evil has\nobtained possession of the Earth.... Your children reduced to labor and to\nsuffer by your fault will become corrupt and forget me....\n\n\u201c \u2018But I will send Vish_n_u, who will be born of a woman, and who will\nbring to all the hope of a reward in another life, and the means by prayer\nof softening their sufferings.\u2019 \u201d\n\nThe translator from whom I have quoted exclaims at the end, as well he\nmight:\u2014\n\n\u201cWhat grandeur and what simplicity is this Hindu legend! and at the same\ntime how simply logical!... Behold here the veritable Eve\u2014the true woman.\u201d\n\nBut much more extraordinary things are quoted by M. Jacolliot, from the\nVedas and the commentaries.\n\nOn p. 63 we read that Manu, Minos, and Manes, had the same name as Moses;\non p. 73, the Brahmans who invaded India are represented as the successors\nof a great reformer called Christna. The name of Zoroaster is derived from\nthe Sanskrit S\u00fbryastara (p. 110), meaning \u201che who spreads the worship of\nthe Sun.\u201d After it has been laid down (p. 116) that Hebrew was derived\nfrom Sanskrit, we are assured that there is little difficulty in deriving\nJehovah from Zeus.(65) Zeus, Jezeus, Jesus, and Isis are all declared to\nbe the same name, and later on (p. 130) we learn that \u201cat present the\nBrahmans who officiate in the pagodas and temples give this title of\nJeseus\u2014_i. e._ the pure essence, the divine emanation\u2014to Christna only,\nwho alone is recognized as the Word, the truly incarnated, by the\nworshippers of Vish_n_u and the freethinkers among the Brahmans.\u201d\n\nWe are assured that the Apostles, the poor fishermen of Galilee, were able\nto read the Veda (p. 356); and it was their greatest merit that they did\nnot reject the miraculous accounts of the Vedic period, because the world\nwas not yet ripe for freedom of thought. Kristna, or Christna, we read on\np. 360, signified in Sanskrit, sent by God, promised by God, holy; and as\nthe name of Christ or _Christos_ is not Hebrew, whence could it have been\ntaken except from Krishna, the son of Devak\u00ee, or, as M. Jacolliot writes,\nDevanaguy?\n\nIt is difficult, nay, almost impossible, to criticise or refute such\nstatements, and yet it is necessary to do so; for such is the interest, or\nI should rather say the feverish curiosity, excited by anything that bears\non ancient religion, that M. Jacolliot\u2019s book has produced a very wide and\nvery deep impression. It has been remarked with some surprise that Vedic\nscholars in Europe had failed to discover these important passages in the\nVeda which he has pointed out, or, still worse, that they had never\nbrought them to the knowledge of the public. In fact, if anything was\nwanting to show that a general knowledge of the history of ancient\nreligion ought to form part of our education, it was the panic created by\nM. Jacolliot\u2019s book. It is simply the story of Lieutenant Wilford over\nagain, only far less excusable now than a hundred years ago. Many of the\nwords which M. Jacolliot quotes as Sanskrit are not Sanskrit at all;\nothers never have the meaning which he assigns to them; and as to the\npassages from the Vedas (including our old friend the Bhagaveda-g\u00eeta),\nthey are not from the Veda, they are not from any old Sanskrit writer\u2014they\nsimply belong to the second half of the nineteenth century. What happened\nto Lieutenant Wilford has happened again to M. Jacolliot. He tells us the\nsecret himself:\u2014\n\n\u201cOne day,\u201d he says (p. 280), \u201cwhen we were reading the translation of\nManu, by Sir W. Jones, a note led us to consult the Indian commentator,\nKull\u00fbka Bha_tt_a, when we found an allusion to the sacrifice of a son by\nhis father prevented by God himself after he had commanded it. We then had\nonly one _id\u00e9e fixe_\u2014namely, to find again in the dark mass of the\nreligious books of the Hindu, the original account of that event. We\nshould never have succeeded but for \u2018the complaisance\u2019 of a Brahman with\nwhom we were reading Sanskrit, and who, yielding to our request, brought\nus from the library of his pagoda the works of the theologian Ramatsariar,\nwhich have yielded us such precious assistance in this volume.\u201d\n\nAs to the story of the son offered as a sacrifice by his father, and\nreleased at the command of the gods, M. Jacolliot might have found the\noriginal account of it from the Veda, both text and translation, in my\n\u201cHistory of Ancient Sanskrit Literature.\u201d He would soon have seen that the\nstory of _S_una_hs_epa being sold by his father in order to be sacrificed\nin the place of an Indian prince, has very little in common with the\nintended sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. M. Jacolliot has, no doubt, found\nout by this time that he has been imposed upon; and if so, he ought to\nfollow the example of Colonel Wilford, and publicly state what has\nhappened. Even then, I doubt not that his statements will continue to be\nquoted for a long time, and that _Adima_ and _Heva_, thus brought to life\nagain, will make their appearance in many a book and many a lecture-room.\n\nLest it be supposed that such accidents happen to Sanskrit scholars only,\nor that this fever is bred only in the jungles of Indian mythology, I\nshall mention at least one other case which will show that this disease is\nof a more general character, and that want of caution will produce it in\nevery climate.\n\nBefore the discovery of Sanskrit, China had stood for a long time in the\nplace which was afterwards occupied by India. When the ancient literature\nand civilization of China became first known to the scholars of Europe,\nthe Celestial Empire had its admirers and prophets as full of enthusiasm\nas Sir W. Jones and Lieutenant Wilford, and there was nothing, whether\nGreek philosophy or Christian morality, that was not supposed to have had\nits first origin among the sages of China. The proceedings of the Jesuit\nmissionaries in China were most extraordinary. They had themselves\nadmitted the antiquity of the writings of Confucius and Lao-tse, both of\nwhom lived in the sixth century B. C.(66) But in their zeal to show that\nthe sacred books of the Chinese contained numerous passages borrowed from\nthe Bible, nay, even some of the dogmas of the later Church, they hardly\nperceived that, taking into account the respective dates of these books,\nthey were really proving that a kind of anticipated Christianity had been\naccorded to the ancient sages of the Celestial Empire. The most learned\nadvocate of this school was Father Pr\u00e9mare. Another supporter of the same\nview, Montucci,(67) speaking of Lao-tse\u2019s Tao-te-king, says:\u2014\n\n\u201cWe find in it so many sayings clearly referring to the triune God, that\nno one who has read this book can doubt that the mystery of the most holy\nTrinity was revealed to the Chinese more than five centuries before the\nadvent of Christ. Everybody, therefore, who knows the strong feeling of\nthe Chinese for their own teachers, will admit that nothing more efficient\ncould be found in order to fix the dogmas of the Christian religion in the\nmind of the Chinese than the demonstration that these dogmas agree with\ntheir own books. The study, therefore, and the translation of this\nsingular book (the Tao-te-king) would prove most useful to the\nmissionaries, in order to bring to a happy issue the desired gathering in\nof the Apostolic harvest.\u201d\n\nWhat followed is so extraordinary that, though it has often been related,\nit deserves to be related again, more particularly as the whole problem\nwhich was supposed to have been solved once for all by M. Stanislas\nJulien, has of late been opened again by Dr. von Strauss, in the \u201cJournal\nof the German Oriental Society,\u201d 1869.\n\nThere is a passage at the beginning of the fourteenth chapter of the\nTao-te-king in which Father Amyot felt certain that the three Persons of\nthe Trinity could be recognized. He translated it:\u2014\n\n\u201cHe who is as it were visible but cannot be seen is called _Khi_.\n\n\u201cHe whom we cannot hear, and who does not speak to our ear, is called\n_Hi_.\n\n\u201cHe who is as it were tangible, but cannot be touched, is called _Wei_.\u201d\n\nFew readers, I believe, would have been much startled by this passage, or\nwould have seen in it what Father Amyot saw. But more startling\nrevelations were in store. The most celebrated Chinese scholar of his\ntime, Abel R\u00e9musat, took up the subject; and after showing that the first\nof the three names had to be pronounced, not Khi, but I, he maintained\nthat the three syllables I Hi Wei, were meant for _Je-ho-vah_. According\nto him, the three characters employed in this name have no meaning in\nChinese; they are only signs of sounds foreign to the Chinese language;\nand they were intended to render the Greek \u1f38\u03b1\u1ff6, the name which, according\nto Diodorus Siculus, the Jews gave to their God. R\u00e9musat goes on to remark\nthat Lao-tse had really rendered this Hebrew name more accurately than the\nGreeks, because he had preserved the aspiration of the second syllable,\nwhich was lost in Greek. In fact, he entertained no doubt that this word,\noccurring in the work of Lao-tse, proves an intellectual communication\nbetween the West and China, in the sixth century B. C.\n\nFortunately, the panic created by this discovery did not last long. M.\nStanislas Julien published in 1842 a complete translation of this\ndifficult book; and here all traces of the name of Jehovah have\ndisappeared.\n\n\u201cThe three syllables, he writes, \u201cwhich Abel R\u00e9musat considered as purely\nphonetic and foreign to the Chinese language, have a very clear and\nintelligible meaning, and have been fully explained by Chinese\ncommentators. The first syllable, I, means without color; the second, Hi,\nwithout sound or voice; the third, Wei, without body. The proper\ntranslation therefore is:\u2014\u201d\n\n\u201cYou look (for the Tao, the law) and you see it not: it is colorless.\n\n\u201cYou listen and you hear it not: it is voiceless.\n\n\u201cYou wish to touch it and you reach it not: it is without body.\u201d\n\nUntil, therefore, some other traces can be discovered in Chinese\nliterature proving an intercourse between China and Jud\u00e6a in the sixth\ncentury B. C., we can hardly be called upon to believe that the Jews\nshould have communicated this one name, which they hardly trusted\nthemselves to pronounce at home, to a Chinese philosopher; and we must\ntreat the apparent similarity between I-Hi-Wei and Jehovah as an accident,\nwhich ought to serve as a useful warning, though it need in no way\ndiscourage a careful and honest study of Comparative Theology.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   IV.\n\n\nON SPELLING.\n\n\nThe remarks which I venture to offer in these pages on the corrupt state\nof the present spelling of English, and on the advantages and\ndisadvantages connected with a reform of English orthography, were written\nin fulfillment of a promise of very long standing. Ever since the\npublication of the Second Volume of my \u201cLectures on the Science of\nLanguage,\u201d in 1863, where I had expressed my sincere admiration for the\ncourage and perseverance with which Mr. Isaac Pitman and some of his\nfriends (particularly Mr. A. J. Ellis, for six years his most active\nassociate) had fought the battle of a reform in English spelling, Mr.\nPitman had been requesting me to state more explicitly than I had done in\nmy \u201cLectures\u201d my general approval of his life-long endeavors. He wished\nmore particularly that I should explain why I, though by profession an\netymologist, was not frightened by the specter of phonetic spelling, while\nsuch high authorities as Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford had declared\nthat phonetic spelling would necessarily destroy the historical and\netymological character of the English language.\n\nIf I ask myself why I put off the fulfillment of my promise from year to\nyear, the principal reason I find is, that really I had nothing more to\nsay than what, though in few words, I had said before. Every thing that\ncan be said on this subject has been said, and well said, not only by Mr.\nPitman, but by a host of writers and lecturers, among whom I might mention\nMr. Alexander J. Ellis, Dr. Latham, Professors Haldeman, Whitney, and\nHadley, Mr. Withers, Mr. E. Jones, Dr. J. H. Gladstone, and many others.\nThe whole matter is no longer a matter for argument; and the older I grow,\nthe more I feel convinced that nothing vexes people so much, and hardens\nthem in their unbelief and in their dogged resistance to reforms, as\nundeniable facts and unanswerable arguments. Reforms are carried by Time,\nand what generally prevails in the end, are not logical deductions, but\nsome haphazard and frequently irrational motives. I do not say, therefore,\nwith Dean Swift, that \u201cthere is a degree of corruption wherein some\nnations, as bad as the world is, will proceed to an amendment; till which\ntime particular men should be quiet.\u201d On the contrary, I feel convinced\nthat practical reformers, like Mr. Pitman, should never slumber nor sleep.\nThey should keep their grievances before the public in season and out of\nseason. They should have their lamps burning, to be ready whenever the\nright time comes. They should repeat the same thing over and over again,\nundismayed by indifference, ridicule, contempt, and all the other weapons\nwhich the lazy world knows so well how to employ against those who venture\nto disturb its peace.\n\nI myself, however, am not a practical reformer; least of all in a matter\nwhich concerns Englishmen only\u2014namely, the spelling of the English\nlanguage. I should much rather, therefore, have left the fight to others,\ncontent with being merely a looker-on. But when I was on the point of\nleaving England my conscience smote me. Though I had not actually given a\npledge, I remembered how, again and again, I had said to Mr. Pitman that I\nwould much rather keep than make a promise; and though overwhelmed with\nother work at the time, I felt that before my departure I ought, if\npossible, to satisfy Mr. Pitman\u2019s demands. The article was written; and\nthough my own plans have since been changed, and I remain at Oxford, it\nmay as well be published in discharge of a debt which has been for some\ntime heavy on my conscience.\n\nWhat I wish most strongly to impress on my readers is that I do not write\nas an advocate. I am not an agitator for phonetic reform in England. My\ninterest in the matter is, and always has been, purely theoretical and\nscientific. Spelling and the reform of spelling are problems which concern\nevery student of the science of language. It does not matter whether the\nlanguage be English, German, or Dutch. In every written language the\nproblem of reforming its antiquated spelling must sooner or later arise;\nand we must form some clear notion whether any thing can be done to remove\nor alleviate a complaint inherent in the very life of language. If my\nfriends tell me that the idea of a reform of spelling is entirely\nQuixotic, that it is a mere waste of time to try to influence a whole\nnation to surrender its historical orthography and to write phonetically,\nI bow to their superior wisdom as men of the world. But as I am not a man\nof the world, but rather an observer of the world, my interest in the\nsubject, my convictions as to what is right and wrong, remain just the\nsame. It is the duty of scholars and philosophers not to shrink from\nholding and expressing what men of the world call Quixotic opinions; for,\nif I read the history of the world rightly, the victory of reason over\nunreason, and the whole progress of our race, have generally been achieved\nby such fools as ourselves \u201crushing in where angels fear to tread,\u201d till,\nafter a time, the track becomes beaten, and even angels are no longer\nafraid. I hold, and have confessed, much more Quixotic theories on\nlanguage than this belief\u2014that what has been done before by Spaniards and\nDutchmen\u2014what is at this very moment being done by Germans, namely, to\nreform their corrupt spelling\u2014may be achieved even by Englishmen and\nAmericans.\n\nI have expressed my belief that the time will come when not only the\nvarious alphabets and systems of spelling, but many of the languages\nthemselves which are now spoken in Europe, to say nothing of the rest of\nthe world, will have to be improved away from the face of the earth and\nabolished. Knowing that nothing rouses the ire of a Welshman or a Gael so\nmuch as to assert the expediency, nay, necessity, of suppressing the\nteaching of their languages at school, it seems madness to hint that it\nwould be a blessing to every child born in Holland, in Portugal, or in\nDenmark\u2014nay, in Sweden and even in Russia\u2014if, instead of learning a\nlanguage which is for life a barrier between them and the rest of mankind,\nthey were at once to learn one of the great historical languages which\nconfer intellectual and social fellowship with the whole world. If, as a\nfirst step in the right direction, four languages only, namely, English,\nFrench, German, Italian (or possibly Spanish) were taught at school, the\nsaving of time\u2014and what is more precious than time?\u2014would be infinitely\ngreater than what has been effected by railways and telegraphs. But I know\nthat no name in any of the doomed languages would be too strong to\nstigmatize such folly. We should be told that a Japanese only could\nconceive such an idea; that for a people deliberately to give up its\nlanguage was a thing never heard of before; that a nation would cease to\nbe a nation if it changed its language; that it would, in fact, commit\n\u201cthe happy despatch,\u201d _\u00e0 la Japonaise_. All this may be true, but I hold\nthat language is meant to be an instrument of communication, and that in\nthe struggle for life, the most efficient instrument of communication must\ncertainly carry the day, as long as natural selection, or, as we formerly\ncalled it, reason, rules the world.\n\nThe following figures may be of use in forming an opinion as to the fates\nof the great languages of Europe:(68)\u2014\n\nPortuguese is spoken in\n  Portugal, by 3,980,000\n  Brazil, by 10,000,000\n  Total: 13,980,000\nItalian, by 27,524,238\nFrench, in France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc., by 40,188,000\nSpanish, in\n  Spain, by 16,301,000\n  South America, by 27,408,082\n  Total: 43,709,082\nRussian, by 51,370,000\nGerman, by 55,789,000\nEnglish, in\n  Europe, by 31,000,000\n  America, by 45,000,000\n  Australia, etc., by 2,000,000\n  the Colonies, by 1,050,000\n  Total: 79,050,000\n\nAccording to De Candolle, the population doubles in\n\nEngland, in                           56 years\nAmerica, among the German races, in   25 years\nItaly, in                             135 years\nRussia, in                            100 years\nSpain, in                             112 years\nSouth America, in                     27-\u00bd years\nGermany, in                           100 years\nFrance, in                            140 years\n\nTherefore, in 200 years (barring accidents)\n\nItalian will be spoken by                       53,370,000\nFrench will be spoken by                        72,571,000\nGerman will be spoken by                        157,480,000\nSpanish will be spoken in\n  Europe, by                                    36,938,338\n  South America, by                             468,347,904\n  Total:                                        505,286,242\nEnglish will be spoken in\n  Europe, by                                    178,846,153\n  United States, and British Dependencies, by   1,658,440,000\n  Total:                                        1,837,286,153\n\nBut I shall say no more on this, for as it is, I know I shall never hear\nthe end of it, and shall go down to posterity, if for nothing else, at\nleast for this the most suicidal folly in a student of languages; a folly\ncomparable only to that of Leibniz, who actually conceived the possibility\nof one universal language.\n\nTo return, however, to the problem to the solution of which Mr. Pitman has\ndevoted the whole of his active life, let me say again that my interest in\nit is purely philological; or, if you like, historical. The problem which\nhas to be solved in England and the United States of America is not a new\none, nor an isolated one. It occurs again and again in the history of\nlanguage; in fact, it must occur. When languages are reduced to writing,\nthey are at first written phonetically, though always in a very\nrough-and-ready manner. One dialect, that of the dominant, the literary,\nor priestly character, is generally selected; and the spelling, once\nadopted, becomes in a very short time traditional and authoritative. What\ntook place thousands of years ago, we can see taking place, if we like, at\nthe present moment. A missionary from the island of Mangaia, the Rev. W.\nGill, first introduced the art of writing among his converts. He learned\ntheir language, at least one dialect of it, he translated part of the\nBible into it, and adopted, of necessity, a phonetic spelling. That\ndialect is gradually becoming the recognized literary language of the\nwhole island, and his spelling is taught at school. Other dialects,\nhowever, continue to be spoken, and they may in time influence the\nliterary dialect. For the present, however, the missionary dialect, as it\nis called by the natives themselves, and the missionary spelling, rule\nsupreme, and it will be some time before a spelling reform is wanted out\nthere.\n\nAmong the more ancient nations of Europe, not only does the pronunciation\nof language maintain its inherent dialectic variety, and fluctuate through\nthe prevalence of provincial speakers, but the whole body of a language\nchanges, while yet the spelling, once adopted in public documents, and\ntaught to children, remains for a long time the same. In early times, when\nliterature was in its infancy, when copies of books could easily be\ncounted, and when the _norma scribendi_ was in the hands of a few persons,\nthe difficulty of adapting the writing to the ever-varying pronunciation\nof a language was comparatively small. We see it when we compare the Latin\nof early Roman inscriptions with the Latin of Cicero. We know from Cicero\nhimself that when he settled among the patricians of Rome, he had on some\nsmall points to change both his pronunciation and his spelling of Latin.\nThe reform of spelling was a favorite subject with Roman scholars, and\neven emperors were not too proud to dabble in inventing new letters and\ndiacritical signs. The difficulty, however, never assumes serious\nproportions. The small minority of people who were able to read and write,\npleased themselves as best they could; and, by timely concessions,\nprevented a complete estrangement between the written and the spoken\nlanguage.\n\nThen came the time when Latin ceased to be Latin, and the vulgar dialects,\nsuch as Italian, French, and Spanish took its place. At that time the\nspelling was again phonetic, though here and there tinged by reminiscences\nof Latin spelling. There was much variety, but considering how limited the\nliterary intercourse must have been between different parts of France,\nSpain, or Italy, it is surprising that on the whole there should have been\nso much uniformity in the spelling of these modern dialects. A certain\nlocal and individual freedom of spelling, however, was retained; and we\ncan easily detect in medi\u00e6val MSS. the spelling of literate and illiterate\nwriters, the hand of the learned cleric, the professional clerk, and the\nlayman.\n\n[A style of spelling will now be introduced which has received the name of\nSemiphonotypy. It requires no new letter: \u201c[D] [p]\u201d for the vowel in\n_but_, _son_, are made from \u201cD p\u201d by a pen-knife. The short vowels,\ndiphthongs, and consonants are all written phonetically, except an\noccasional \u201cn\u201d = \u201c[n]\u201d before _k_ and _g_, and \u201cth\u201d = both \u201c[t]\u201d and\n\u201c[dh]\u201d leaving only the long vowels in the old spelling. Six syllables out\nof seven are thus written as in full phonotypy. The italic and script\nforms of \u201c[P [italic form] ]\u201d are \u201c[p [italic form] ]\u201d (a turned italic\n\u201c_a_\u201d) and [P p [script form] ].]\n\nThe great event hwich formz a deseisiv epok in the histori ov speling iz\nthe introd[p]kshon ov printing. With printed buks, and partikiularli with\nprinted Beibelz, skaterd over the k[p]ntri, the speling of w[p]rdz bekame\nrijid, and universali beinding. S[p]m langwejez, s[p]ch az Italian, wer\nmore fortiunate than [p]therz in having a more rashonal sistem ov speling\ntu start with. S[p]m, agen, leik Jerman, wer abel tu make teimli\nkonseshonz, hweil [p]therz, s[p]ch az Spanish, D[p]ch, and French, had\nAkademiz tu help them at kritikal periodz ov their histori. The most\n[p]nfortiunate in all theze respekts woz Inglish. It started with a Latin\nalfabet, the pron[p]nsiashon ov hwich woz [p]nseteld, and hwich had tu be\napleid tu a Tiutonik langwej. After this ferst fonetik kompromeiz it had\ntu pas through a konfi\u00fazd sistem ov speling, half Sakson, half Norman;\nhalf fonetik, half tradishonal. The histori ov the speling, and even ov\nthe pron[p]nsiashon, ov Inglish, in its pasej from Anglo-Sakson tu midel\nand modern Inglish, haz lateli been st[p]did with great s[p]kses bei Mr.\nEllis and Mr. Sweet. Ei m[p]st refer tu their buks \u201cOn Erli Inglish\nPron[p]nsiashon,\u201d and \u201cOn the Histori ov Inglish Soundz,\u201d hwich kontain a\nwelth ov il[p]strashon, almost bewildering. And even after Inglish reachez\nthe period ov printing, the konfiuzhon iz bei no meanz terminated; on the\nkontrari, for a teim it iz greater than ever. Hou this kame tu pas haz\nbeen wel il[p]strated bei Mr. Marsh in hiz ekselent \u201cLektiurz on the\nInglish Langwej,\u201d p. 687, _seq_.(69) Hwot we nou kall the establisht\nsistem ov Inglish orthografi may, in the main, be trast bak tu Jonson\u2019z\nDikshonari, and tu the stil more kaprishus sway ekserseizd bei larj\nprinting ofisez and p[p]blisherz. It iz true that the evil ov printing\nkarid tu a serten ekstent its own remedi. If the speling bekame\n[p]nchanjabel, the langwej itself, too, woz, bei meanz ov a printed\nliteratiur, chekt konsiderabli in its natiural growth and its dealektik\nvareieti. Nevertheles Inglish haz chanjed sins the invenshon ov printing;\nInglish iz chanjing, though bei imperseptibel degreez, even nou; and if we\nkompare Inglish az spoken with Inglish az riten, they seem almost leik two\ndiferent langwejez; az diferent az Latin iz from Italian.\n\nThis, no dout, iz a nashonal misfortiun, but it iz inevitabel. Litel az we\nperseive it, langwej iz, and alwayz m[p]st be, in a state ov fermentashon;\nand hwether within hundredz or thouzandz ov yearz, all living langwejez\nm[p]st be prepared tu enkounter the difik[p]lti hwich in Ingland starez us\nin the fase at prezent. \u201cHwot shal we do?\u201d ask our frendz. \u201cTher iz our\nhole nashonal literatiur,\u201d they say, \u201cour leibrariz aktiuali b[p]rsting\nwith buks and nuizpaperz. Ar all theze tu be thrown away? Ar all valiuabel\nbuks tu be reprinted? Ar we ourselvz tu [p]nlern hwot we hav lernd with so\nmuch tr[p]bel, and hwot we hav taught tu our children with greater\ntr[p]bel stil? Ar we tu sakrifeiz all that iz historikal in our langwej,\nand sink doun tu the low level ov the _Fonetik Nuz_?\u201d Ei kud go on\nm[p]ltipleiing theze kwestionz til even thoze men ov the w[p]rld who nou\nhav onli a shrug ov the shoulder for the reformerz ov speling shud say,\n\u201cWe had no eidea hou strong our pozishon reali iz.\u201d\n\nBut with all that, the problem remainz [p]nsolvd. Hwot ar peopel tu do\nhwen langwej and pron[p]nsiashon chanje, hweil their speling iz deklared\ntu be [p]nchanjabel? It iz, ei believ, hardli nesesari that ei shud prove\nhou kor[p]pt, efete, and [p]terli irrashonal the prezent sistem ov speling\niz, for now[p]n seemz inkleind tu denei all th\u00e1t. Ei shal onli kwote,\ntherefor, the j[p]jment ov w[p]n man, the late Bishop Thirlwall, a man who\nnever uzed ekzajerated langwej. \u201cEi luk,\u201d he sez \u201c[p]pon the establisht\nsistem, if an aksidental k[p]stom may be so kalld, az a mas ov anomaliz,\nthe growth ov ignorans and chans, ekwali rep[p]gnant tu gud taste and tu\nkomon sens. B[p]t ei am aware that the p[p]blik kling tu theze anomaliz\nwith a tenasiti proporshond tu their abs[p]rditi, and ar jel[p]s ov all\nenkroachment on ground konsekrated tu the free play ov bleind kaprise.\u201d\n\nIt may be useful, houever, tu kwote the testimonialz ov a fiu praktikal\nmen in order tu show that this sistem ov speling haz reali bek[p]m w[p]n\nov the greatest nashonal misfortiunz, swolowing [p]p milionz ov m[p]ni\neveri year and bleiting all atempts at nashonal ediukashon. Mr. Edward\nJones, a skoolmaster ov great eksperiens, having then siuperintendens ov\nthe Heibernian Skoolz, Liverpool, rote, in the year 1868:\n\n\u201cThe G[p]vernment haz for the last twenti yearz taken ediukashon [p]nder\nits kare. They diveided the subjekts ov instr[p]kshon intu siks gradez.\nThe heiest point that woz atempted in the G[p]vernment Skoolz woz that a\npiupil shud be abel tu read with tolerabel eaze and ekspreshon a pasej\nfrom a niuzpaper, and tu spel the same with a tolerabel amount ov\nakiurasi.\u201d\n\nLet [p]s luk at the rez[p]lts az they apear in the report ov the Kom\u00edti ov\nKounsil on Ediukashon for 1870-71:\n\nSkoolz or Departments [p]nder separate hed teacherz in Ingland and Walez\ninspekted diuring the year 31st August, 1870, 15,287\nSertifikated asistant, and piupil  teacherz emploid in theze skoolz,\n28,033\nSkolarz in daili averej atendans throughout the year, 1,168,981\nSkolarz prezent on the day ov inspekshon, 1,473,883\nSkolarz prezented for ekzaminashon:\n  [P]nder ten yearz ov aje, 473,444\n  Over ten yearz ov aje, 292,144\n  Total: 765,588\nSkolarz prezented for Standard VI.:\n  [P]nder ten yearz ov aje, 227\n  Over ten yearz ov aje, 32,953\n  Total: 33,180\nSkolarz who past in Standard VI.:\n  1. Reading a short paragraf from a niuzpaper, 30,985\n  2. Reiting the same from diktashon, 27,989\n  3. Arithmetik, 22,839\n\nTherfor, les than w[p]n skolar for each teacher, and les than two skolarz\nfor each skool inspekted, reacht Standard VI.\n\nIn 1873 the state ov thingz, akording tu the ofishal ret[p]rnz ov the\nEdiukashon Department, woz m[p]ch the same. Ferst ov all, ther ought tu\nhav been at skool 4,600,000 children between the ajez ov three and\ntherteen. The number ov children on the rejister ov inspekted skoolz woz\n2,218,598. Out ov th\u00e1t number, about 200,000 leav skool aniuali, their\nediukashon be\u00efng supozed tu be finisht. Out ov theze 200,000, neinti per\nsent. leav without reaching the 6th Standard, eighti per sent. without\nreaching the 5th, and siksti per sent. without reaching the 4th Standard.\n\nThe report for 1874-75 showz an inkreas ov children on the buks, b[p]t the\nproporshon ov children pasing in the vari[p]s standardz iz s[p]bstanshali\nthe same. (See \u201cPopiular Ediukashon,\u201d bei E. Jones, B.A., an\neks-skoolmaster, 1875.) It iz kalkiulated that for such rezults az theze\nthe k[p]ntri, hwether bei taksashon or bei voluntari kontribiushonz, payz\nnearli \u00a33,500,000 aniuali.\n\nAkording tu the same authoriti, Mr. E. Jones, it nou takes from siks tu\nseven yearz tu lern the arts ov reading and speling with a fair degree ov\nintelijens\u2014th\u00e1t iz, about 2,000 ourz; and tu meni meindz the difik[p]ltiz\nov orthografi ar ins[p]rmountabel. The bulk ov the children pas through\nthe G[p]vernment skoolz without having akweird the abiliti tu read with\neaze and intelijens.\n\n\u201cAn averej cheild,\u201d sez anuthcr skoolmaster, \u201cbegining skool at seven,\nought tu be abel tu read the Niu Testament fluentli at eleven or twelv\nyearz ov aje, and at therteen or fourteen ought tu be abel tu read a gud\nleading artikel with eaze and ekspreshon.\u201d That iz, with seven ourz a week\nfor forti weeks for feiv yearz, a cheild rekweirz 1,400 ourz\u2019 w[p]rk, tu\nbe abel tu read the Niu Testament.\n\nAfter a kareful ekzaminashon ov y[p]ng men and wimen from therteen tu\ntwenti yearz ov aje in the faktoriz ov Birmingham, it woz proved that onli\n4-\u00bd per sent. wer abel tu read a simpel sentens from an ordinari skool-buk\nwith intelijens and akiurasi.\n\nThis apleiz tu the lower klasez. B[p]t with regard tu the heier klasez the\nkase seemz almost w[p]rs; for Dr. Morell, in hiz \u201cManiual ov Speling,\u201d\naserts that out ov 1,972 failiurz in the Sivil Servis Ekzaminashonz 1,866\nkandidates wer pl[p]kt for speling.\n\nSo much for the piupilz. Am[p]ng the teacherz themselvz it woz found in\nAmerika that out ov w[p]n h[p]ndred komon w[p]rdz the best speler am[p]ng\nthe eighti or neinti teacherz ekzamind faild in w[p]n, s[p]m preiz-takerz\nfaild in four or feiv, and s[p]m [p]therz mist over forti. The Depiuti\nState Siuperintendent deklared that on an averej the teacherz ov the State\nwud fail in speling tu the ekstent ov 25 per sent.\n\nHwot, houever, iz even more seri[p]s than all this iz not the great waste\nov teim in lerning tu read, and the almost komplete failiur in nashonal\nediukashon, but the aktiual mischef d[p]n bei s[p]bjekting y[p]ng meindz\ntu the illojikal and tedi[p]s dr[p]jeri ov lerning tu read Inglish az\nspeld at prezent. Everithing they hav tu lern in reading (or\npron[p]nsiashon) and speling iz irrashonal; w[p]n rule kontradikts the\n[p]ther, and each statement haz tu be aksepted simpli on authoriti, and\nwith a komplete disregard ov all thoze rashonal instinkts which lei\ndormant in the cheild, and ought tu be awakend bei everi keind ov helthi\nekserseiz.\n\nEi n\u00f3 ther ar personz who kan defend enithing, and who hold that it iz diu\ntu this veri disiplin that the Inglish karakter iz hwot it iz; that it\nretainz respekt for authoriti; that it d[p]z not rekweir a reazon for\neverithing; and that it duz not admit that hwot iz inkonseivabel iz\ntherefor imposibel. Even Inglish orthodoksi haz been trast bak tu th\u00e1t\nhiden sourse, bekauz a cheild akustomd tu believe that t-h-o-u-g-h iz\n_tho_, and that t-h-r-o-u-g-h iz _throo_, w[p]d afterwardz believe\nenithing. It may be so; stil ei dout hwether even such objekts wud\njustifei s[p]ch meanz. Lord Lytton sez, \u201cA more leiing, round-about,\np[p]zel-heded deluzhon than th\u00e1t bei hwich we konfi\u00faz the klear instinkts\nov truth in our ak[p]rsed sistem ov speling woz never konkokted bei the\nfather ov fol\u00b7shud.... Hou kan a sistem ov ediukashon fl[p]rish that\nbeginz bei so monstr[p]s a fols\u00b7hud, hwich the sens ov hearing s[p]feisez\ntu kontradikt?\u201d\n\nThough it may seem a w[p]rk ov siupererogashon tu bring forward stil more\nfakts in s[p]port ov the jeneral kondemnashon past on Inglish speling, a\nfiu ekstrakts from a pamflet bei Mr. Meiklejohn, late Asistant-Komishoner\nov the Endoud Skoolz Komishon for Skotland, may here feind a plase.\n\n\u201cTher ar therteen diferent wayz ov reprezenting the sound ov long\n_o_:\u2014_note_, _boat_, _toe_, _yeoman_, _soul_, _row_, _sew_, _hautboy_,\n_beau_, _owe_, _floor_, _oh!_, _O!_\u201d\n\nAnd agen (p. 16),\n\n\u201cDouble-you-aitch-eye-see-aitch is _which_\nTea-are-you-tea-aitch is _truth_\nBee-o-you-gee-aitch is _bough_\nSee-are-eh-bee is _crab_\nBee-ee-eh-see-aitch is _beach_\nOh-you-gee-aitch-tee is _ought_\nOh-enn-see-ee is _once_\n\n\u201cOr, tu sum up the hole indeitment agenst the kulprit: 1. Out ov the\ntwenti-siks leterz, onli eight ar true, fikst, and permanent kwolitiz\u2014th\u00e1t\niz, are true both tu e\u00ed and ear. 2. Ther ar therti-eight distinkt soundz\nin our spoken langwej; and ther ar about 400 distinkt simbolz (simpel and\nkompound) tu reprezent theze therti-eight soundz. In [p]ther wurdz, ther\nar 400 servants tu do the w[p]rk ov therti-eight. 3. Ov the twenti-siks\nleterz, fifteen hav akweird a habit ov heiding themselvz. They ar riten\nand printed; b[p]t the ear haz no akount ov them; such ar _w_ in _wrong_,\nand _gh_ in _right_. 4. The vouel soundz ar printed in diferent wayz; a\nlong o, for ekzampel, haz therteen printed simbolz tu reprezent it. 5.\nFourteen vouel soundz hav 190 printed simbolz at\u00e1cht tu their servis. 6.\nThe singel vouel e haz feiv diferent funkshonz; it ought onli tu hav\nw[p]n. 7. Ther ar at least 1,300 w[p]rdz in hwich the simbol and the sound\nar at varians\u2014in hwich the w[p]rd iz not sounded az it iz printed. 8. Ov\ntheze 1,300, 800 ar monosilabelz\u2014the komonest w[p]rdz, and s[p]pozed tu be\neazier for children. 9. The hole langwej ov k[p]ntri children leiz within\ntheze w[p]rdz; and meni agrikultiural laborerz go from the kradel tu the\ngrave with a stok ov no more than 500 w[p]rdz.\u201d\n\nThe kwestion, then, that wil hav tu be anserd sooner or later iz this:\u2014Kan\nthis unsistematik sistem ov speling Inglish be aloud tu go on for ever? Iz\neveri Inglish cheild, az kompared with [p]ther children, tu be m[p]lkted\nin two or three yearz ov hiz leif in order tu lern it? Ar the lower klasez\ntu go through skool without lerning tu read and reit their own langwej\nintelijentli? And iz the kuntri tu pay milionz everi year for this [p]ter\nfailiur ov nashonal ediukashon? Ei do not believ that s[p]ch a state ov\nthingz wil be aloud tu kontiniu for ever, partikiularli az a remedi iz at\nhand\u2014a remidi that haz nou been tested for twenti or therti yearz, and\nthat haz anserd ekstremli wel. Ei mean Mr. Pitman\u2019z sistem ov fonetik\nreiting, az apleid tu Inglish. Ei shal not enter here intu eni mini\u00fat\ndisk[p]shon ov fonetiks, or re-open the kontroversi hwich haz arizen\nbetween the advokets ov diferent sistemz ov fonetik reiting. Ov kourse,\nther ar diferent degreez ov ekselens in diferent sistemz ov fonetik\nspeling; but even the w[p]rst ov theze sistemz iz infinitli siuperior tu\nthe tradishonal speling.\n\nEi giv Mr. Pitman\u2019z alfabet, hwich komprehendz the therti-siks broad\ntipikal soundz ov the Inglish langwej, and aseinz tu each a definit sein.\nWith theze therti-siks seinz, Inglish kan be riten rashonali and red\neazili; and, hwot iz most important, it haz been proved bei an eksperiens\nov meni yearz, bei niumer[p]s p[p]blikashonz, and bei praktikal\neksperiments in teaching both children and ad[p]lts, that such a sistem az\nMr. Pitman\u2019z iz perfektli praktikal.\n\nTHE PHONETIC ALPHABET.\n\nThe phonetic letters in the first column are pronounced like the italic\nletters in the words that follow. The last column contains the _names_ of\nthe letters.\n\nCONSONANTS.\n\n_Mutes._\n\nP p         ro_p_e     p[i]\nB b         ro_b_e     b[i]\nT t         fa_t_e     t[i]\nD d         fa_d_e     d[i]\n[Ch] [ch]   e_tch_     [ch][e]\nJ j         e_dg_e     j[e]\nK k         lee_k_     k[e]\nG g         le_ag_ue   g[e]\n\n_Continuants._\n\nF f         sa_f_e      ef\nV v         sa_v_e      v[i]\n[T] [t]     wrea_th_    i[t]\n[Dh] [dh]   wrea_th_e   [dh][i]\nS s         hi_ss_      es\nZ z         hi_s_       z[i]\n[Sh] [sh]   vi_ci_ous   i[sh]\n[Z] [Z]     vi_si_on    [z][i]\n\n_Nasals._\n\nM m       see_m_   em\nN n       see_n_   en\n[N] [n]   si_ng_   i[n]\n\n_Liquids._\n\nL l   fa_ll_     el\nR r   _r_a_r_e   ar\n\n_Coalescents._\n\nW w   _w_et   w[e]\nY y   _y_et   y[e]\n\n_Aspirate._\n\nH h   _h_ay   [e][ch]\n\nVOWELS.\n\n_Guttural._\n\nA a       _a_m     at\n[A] [a]   _al_ms   [a]\nE e       _e_ll    et\n[E] [e]   _a_le    [e]\nI i       _i_ll    it\n[I] [i]   _ee_l    [i]\n\n_Labial._\n\nO o         _o_n     ot\n[W] [w]     _a_ll    [w]\n[U] [u]     _u_p     [u]t\n[O] [o]     _o_pe    [o]\nU u         f_u_ll   ut\n[Ue] [ue]   f_oo_d   [ue]\n\nDIPHTHONGS: Ei ei, IU iu, OU ou, AI ai, OI oi, as heard in b_y_, ne_w_,\nno_w_, K_ai_ser, b_oy_.\n\n[In the next fourteen pages, five of the new letters will be employed,\nviz., [a], [u], [t], [z], [n], for the sounds represented by the italic\nletters in f_a_ther, _s_on, b_u_t, _th_in, vi_si_on, si_ng_.]\n\nNou ei ask eni intelijent reader who d[u]z not [t]i[n]k that everi[t]i[n]\nniu and stranje iz, _ipso facto_, ridikiul[u]s and abs[u]rd, hwether after\na fiu dayz\u2019 praktis, he or she wud not read and reit I[n]glish, akordi[n]\ntu Mr. Pitman\u2019z sistem, with perfekt eaze? Ov kourse it takes more than\nfeiv minits tu master it, and more than feiv minits tu form an opinion ov\nits merits. B[u]t admiti[n] even that peopel ov a serten aje shud feind\nthis niu alfabet tr[u]bels[u]m, we m[u]st not forget that no reform kan be\nkarid out without a jenerashon or two ov marterz; and hwot true reformerz\nhav tu [t]i[n]k ov iz not themselvz, b[u]t thoze who k[u]m after\nthem\u2014thoze, in fakt, who ar nou growi[n] [u]p tu inherit hereafter,\nhwether they leik it or not, all the gud and all the evil hwich we chooz\ntu leav tu them.\n\nIt meit be sed, houever, that Mr. Pitman\u2019z sistem, bei[n] enteirli\nfonetik, iz too radikal a reform, and that meni and the w[u]rst\nirregiularitiz in I[n]glish speli[n] kud be removed without go\u00ef[n] kweit\nso far. The prinsipel that haf a loaf iz beter than no bred iz not without\ns[u]m tru[t], and in meni kasez we n\u00f3 that a polisi ov kompromeiz haz been\nprod[u]ktiv ov veri gud rez[u]lts. B[u]t, on the [u]ther hand, this\nhaf-harted polisi haz often retarded a real and komplete reform ov\nekzisti[n] abi\u00fasez; and in the kase ov a reform ov speli[n], ei almost\ndout hwether the difik[u]ltiz inherent in haf-me[z]urz ar not az great az\nthe difik[u]ltiz ov karii[n] a komplete reform. If the w[u]rld iz not redi\nfor reform, let [u]s wait. It seemz far beter, and at all events far more\nonest, tu wait til it iz redi than tu kari the rel[u]ktant wurld with you\na litel way, and then tu feind that all the impulsiv forse iz spent, and\nthe greater part ov the abi\u00fasez establisht on fermer ground than ever.\n\nMr. Jones,(70) who reprezents the konsiliatori reformerz ov speli[n], wud\nbe satisfeid with a moderet skeme ov speli[n] reform, in hwich, bei\nobzervi[n] analoji and folowi[n] presedent in olteri[n] a komparativli\nsmall n[u]mber ov w[u]rdz, it wud be posibel tu simplifei ortografi tu a\nkonsiderabel ekstent without apleii[n] eni niu prinsipel, or introdi\u00fasi[n]\nniu leterz, and yet tu redi\u00fas the teim and labor in teachi[n] readi[n] and\nspeli[n] bei at least w[u]n-haf. It meit at all events be posibel tu setel\nthe speli[n] ov thoze two or three touzand w[u]rdz hwich at prezent ar\nspeld diferentli bei diferent au[t]oritiz. This skeme, advokated bei Mr.\nJones, iz sertenli veri klever; and if it had a chans ov s[u]kses, ei\nmeiself shud konsider it a great step in adv\u00e1ns. Mei onli dout iz hwether,\nin a kase leik this, a small me[z]ur ov reform wud be karid more eazili\nthan a komplete reform. It iz diferent in Jerman, hwere the diseaz haz not\nspred so far. Here the Kom\u00edti apointed bei G[u]vernment tu konsider the\nkwestion ov a reform ov speli[n] haz deklared in favor ov s[u]m s[u]ch\nmoderet prinsipelz az Mr. Jones advokates for I[n]glish. In I[n]glish,\nhouever, the difik[u]ti leiz in chanji[n] eni[t]i[n]; and if the prinsipel\nov eni chanje iz w[u]ns admited, it wud reali be eazier, ei believ, tu\nbegin _de novo_ than tu chanje s[u]m[t]i[n], and leav the rest\n[u]nchanjed.\n\nLet [u]s nou see hou Mr. Pitman\u2019z or eni similar sistem ov fonetik\nreiti[n] haz w[u]rkt hwere it haz been put tu the test.\n\nMr. William White reits: \u201cEi speak from eksperiens. Ei hav taught poor\nchildren in Glasgow tu read the Sermon on the Mount after a kourse ov\nekserseizez ekstendi[n] over no more than siks ourz.\u201d\n\nThe folowi[n] iz an ekstrakt from a leter riten s[u]m teim ago bei the\nlate Mr. William Colbourne, manajer ov the Dorset Ba[n]k at St[u]rminster,\ntu a frend ov hiz a skoolmaster. He sez:\u2014\n\n\u201cMei litel Sidney, who iz nou a fiu m[u]n[t]s more than four yearz old,\nwil read eni fonetik buk without the sleitest hezitashon; the hardest\nnamez or the lo[n]gest w[u]rdz in the Old or Niu Testament form no\nobstakel tu him. And hou lo[n] do you [t]ink it tuk me (for ei am hiz\nteacher) tu impart tu him this pouer? Hwei s[u]m[t]i[n] les than eight\nourz! You may believ it or not, az you leik, b[u]t ei am konfident that\nnot more than that amount ov teim woz spent on him, and that woz in\nsnachez ov feiv minits at a teim, hweil tea woz geti[n] redi. Ei no you\nwil be inkleind tu say, \u2018All that iz veri wel, b[u]t hwot iz the use ov\nreadi[n] fonetik buks? he iz stil az far of, and may be farther, from\nreadi[n] romanik buks.\u2019 B[u]t in this you ar mistaken. Take an[u]ther\nekzampel. Hiz nekst elder br[u]ther, a boi ov siks yearz, haz had a\nfonetik ediukashon so far. Hwot iz the konsekwens? Hwei, readin in the\nferst staje woz so deleitful and eazi a [t]i[n] tu him that he taught\nhimself tu read romanikali, and it wud be a difik[u]lt mater tu feind\nw[u]n boi in twenti, ov a korespondi[n] aje, that kud read haf so wel az\nhe kan in eni buk. Agen, mei oldest boi haz riten more fonetik shorthand\nand lo[n]hand, perhaps, than eni boi ov hiz aje (eleven yearz) in the\nki[n]dom; and now[u]n ei daresay haz had les tu do with that abs[u]rditi\nov abs[u]rditiz, the speli[n]-buk! He iz nou at a ferst-rate skool in\nWiltshire, and in the haf-year presedi[n] Kristmas, he karid of the preiz\nfor or[t]ografi in a kontest with boiz s[u]m ov them hiz seniorz bei\nyearz!\u201d\n\nBei the adopshon ov the fonetik alfabet, the difik[u]ltiz that lei in the\nway ov forenerz lerni[n] I[n]glish, also wud be d[u]n away with. The Rev.\nNewman Hall reits, \u201cEi met with a Danish jentelman the [u]ther day who\nheili preizd the I[n]glish fonotipik Niu Testament. It had been ov great\nuse tu him, and _enabeld him tu read [buks in the komon speli[n]] without\nan instr[u]kter_, removi[n] the greatest obstakel in akweiri[n] I[n]glish,\nthe monstr[u]s anomali[z] ov pron[u]nsiashon.\u201d Ekzampelz leik theze go a\nlo[n] way.\n\nMr. A. J. Ellis, than whom now[u]n haz labord more devotidli for a reform\nov speli[n], az a ferst step in a reform ov nashonal ediukashon, and who\nhaz himself elaborated several most injeni[u]s sistemz ov fonetik\nreiti[n], givz [u]s the folowi[n] az the rez[u]ltz ov hiz praktikal\neksperiens:\n\n\u201cWith the fonetik sistem ov speli[n], the Primer iz masterd within tree\nm[u]n[t]s at most. The children then proseed tu praktis this fonetik\nreadi[n] for s[u]m teim, til they kan read with fluensi from the jeneral\nluk ov the w[u]rd, and not from konsideri[n] the pouerz ov its leterz.\n[T]ree m[u]n[t]s more, at most, ar rekweird for this staje.\n\n\u201cHwen this pouer ov fluent readi[n] in fonetik print iz akweird, buks in\nthe ordinari print, suited tu their kapasitiz, ar tu be put intu the\nchildren\u2019z handz and they ar told tu read them. Each w[u]rd hwich they\nfail tu ges iz told them immedietli; but it iz found that children ar\nmostli abel tu read the ordinari print without eni f[u]rther\ninstr[u]kshon. The teim nesesari for kompleti[n] this step may be taken,\nat the lo[n]gest, az two m[u]n[t]s, so that the hole teim ov lerni[n] tu\nread in the ordinari print, on the Readi[n] Reform sistem, may be rekond\naz feiv ourz a week for eight m[u]n[t]s. The hole task haz, in meni kasez,\nbeen akomplisht in les teim, even in [t]ree m[u]n[t]s. On the [u]ther\nhand, in w[u]n skool hwere it iz uzed, eleven m[u]nts ar okupeid, az the\nmaster feindz it advantaj[u]s in [u]ther respekts tu keep the piupil\nlo[n]ger at fonetik readi[n] B[u]t onli w[u]n our a day iz rekweired.\u201d Mr.\nEllis s[u]mz [u]p az folowz:\n\n\u201cKareful eksperiments in teachi[n] children ov vari[u]s ajez and ra[n]ks,\nand even pauperz and kriminal ad[u]lts, hav establisht\u2014\n\n\u201c1. That piupilz may be taught tu read buks in fonetik print, slowli b[u]t\nshureli, in from ten tu forti ourz, and will atain konsiderabel fluensi\nafter a fiu weeks\u2019 praktis.\n\n\u201c2. That hwen the piupilz hav ataind fluensi in readi[n] from fonetik\nprint, a veri fiu ourz wil s[u]feis tu giv them the same fluensi in\nreadi[n] ordinari print.\n\n\u201c3. That the hole teim nesesari for imparti[n] a nolej ov bo[t] fonetik\nand ordinari readi[n] d[u]z not ekseed eight m[u]nts for children ov\naveraj intelijens, between four and feiv yearz ov aje, taught in klas, at\nskool, not more than haf-an-our tu an our each day; and that in this teim\nan abiliti tu read iz akweird siuperior tu that u[z]uali ataind in two or\n[t]ree teimz the period on the old plan; hweil the pron[u]nsiashion ov the\npiupil iz m[u]ch improved, hiz interest in hiz st[u]diz iz kept aleiv, and\na lojikal traini[n] ov endiuri[n] valiu iz given tu hiz meind bei the\nhabitual analisis and sin[t]ensis ov spoken soundz.\n\n\u201c4. That thoze taught tu read in this maner akweir the art ov ordinari\nspeli[n] more redili than thoze instr[u]kted on the old me[t]od.\u201d\n\nTu all who no Mr. A. J. Ellis, this evidens wil be be s[u]fishent az tu\nthe praktikal usefulnes ov the Fonetik Sistem ov speli[n]. Tu thoze who\nwish for more evidens ei rekomend a pamflet bei Mr. G. Withers, \u201cThe\nI[n]glish La[n]gwej Speld az Pronounst,\u201d 1874; and w[u]n bei Dr. J. W.\nMartin, \u201cThe Gordian Not K[u]t,\u201d 1875, hwere they wil feind the\nkonk[u]rent testimoni ov praktikal teacherz in I[n]gland, Skotland,\nEirland, and Amerika, all agreei[n] that, bo[t] az a praktikal and a\nlojikal traini[n], the Fonetik Sistem haz proved the greatest s[u]kses.\n\nTher remainz, therefor, this w[u]n objekshon onli, that hwotever the\npraktikal, and hwotever the [t]eoretikal advantejez ov the fonetik sistem\nmay be, it wud [u]terli destroi the historikal or etimolojikal karakter ov\nthe I[n]glish la[n]gwej.\n\nS[u]poze it did; hwot then? The Reformashon iz s[u]pozed tu hav destroid\nthe historikal karakter ov the I[n]glish Ch[u]rch, and that sentimental\ngrievans iz stil felt bei s[u]m stiudents ov ekleziastikal antikwitiz.\nB[u]t did I[n]gland, did all the reali progresiv nashonz ov Europe, alou\nthis sentimental grievans tu outweigh the praktikal and [t]eoretikal\nadvantejez ov Protestant Reform? La[n]gwej iz not made for skolarz and\netimolojists; and if the hole rase ov I[n]glish etimolojists wer reali tu\nbe swept away bei the introd[u]kshon ov a Speli[n] Reform, ei hope they\nwud be the ferst tu rejois in sakrifeizi[n] themselvz in so gud a kauz.\n\nB[u]t iz it reali the kase that the historikal kontini\u00faiti ov the\nI[n]glish la[n]gwej wud bei broken bei the adopshon ov fonetik speli[n],\nand that the profeshon ov the etimolojist wud be gon for ever? Ei say No,\nmost emfatikali, tu bo[t] propozishonz. If the seiens ov la[n]gwej haz\nproved eni[t]i[n], it haz proved that all la[n]gwejez chanje akordi[n] tu\nlaw, and with konsiderabel uniformiti. If, therefor, the reiti[n] folowd\n_pari passu_, on the chanjez in pron[u]nsiashon, hwot iz kalld the\netimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speakerz and the readerz\u2014ei speak, ov\nkourse, ov ediukated peopel onli\u2014wud not s[u]fer in the least. If we\nretain the feeli[n] ov an etimolojikal konekshon between _gentlemanly_ and\n_gentlemanlike_, we shud shureli retain it hwether we reit _gentlemanly_\nor _gentelmanli_. If we feel that _think_ and _thought_, _bring_ and\n_brought_, buy and _bought_, _freight_ and _fraught_, belo[n] tugether,\nshud we feel it les if we rote _t[w]t_, _br[w]t_, _b[w]t_, _fr[w]t_? If,\nin speaki[n], thoze who no Latin retain the feeli[n] that w[u]rdz endin in\n-_ation_ korespond tu Latin w[u]rdz in -_atio_, wud they looz the feeli[n]\nif they saw the same w[u]rdz speld with _[e][sh]on_, or even \u201c-e[sh][u]n?\u201d\nDo they not rekogneiz Latin -_itia_, in -_ice_; or -_ilis_ in -_le_, az in\n-_able_ (Latin _abilis_)? If the skolar noz, at w[u]ns, that s[u]ch\nw[u]rdz az _barbarous_, _anxious_, _circus_, _genius_, ar ov Latin\noriji[n], wud he hezitate if the last silabel in all ov them wer uniformli\nriten \u201c[u]s?\u201d Nay, iz not the prezent speli[n] ov _barbarous_ and\n_anxious_ enteirli misleadi[n], bei konfoundi[n] w[u]rdz endi[n] in\n_-osus_, s[u]ch az _famous_ (_famosus_) with w[u]rdz endi[n] in _-us_,\nleik _barbarous_, _anxious_, ets.? Bekauz the Italianz reit _filosofo_, ar\nthey les aware than the I[n]glish, who reit _philosopher_, and the French,\nwho reit _philosophe_, that they hav before them the Latin _philosophus_,\nthe Greek \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2? If we reit _f_ in _fansi_, hwei not in _phantom_? If\nin _frenzy_ and _frantic_, hwei not in _phrenology_? A la[n]gwej hwich\ntolerates _vial_ for _phial_, need not shiver at _filosofer_. Everi\neidiukated speaker n\u00f3z that s[u]ch w[u]rdz az _honour_, _ardour_,\n_colour_, _odour_, _labour_, _vigour_, _error_, _emperor_, hav past from\nLatin tu French, and from French tu I[n]glish. Wud he n\u00f3 it les if all wer\nspeld aleik, s[u]ch az _onor_ (_onorable_), _ardor_, _vigor_ (_vigorous_),\n_labor_ (_laborious_), or even \u201con[u]r, ard[u]r, vig[u]r?\u201d The old\nspeli[n] ov _emperor_, _doctor_, _governor_, and _error_, woz _emperour_,\n_doctour_, _governour_, and _errour_. If theze kud be chanjed, hwei not\nthe rest? Spenser haz _neibor_ for _neighbor_, and it iz difik[u]lt tu say\nhwot woz gaind bei chanji[n] _-bor_ intu _-bour_ in s[u]ch piurli Sakson\nw[u]rdz az _neighbor_, _harbor_. No dout if we see _laugh_ riten with _gh_\nat the end, thoze who n\u00f3 Jerman ar at w[u]ns remeinded ov its etimolojikal\nkonekshon with the Jerman _lachen_; b[u]t we shud soon n\u00f3 the same bei\nanaloji, if we found not onli \u201claf,\u201d b[u]t \u201ckof\u201d for _cough_ (Jerman,\n_keuchen_), en[u]f for _enough_ (Jerman, _genug_), ets. In \u201cdraft,\u201d\nfonetik speli[n] haz nearli s[u]planted the so-kalld historikal speli[n]\n_draught_; in \u201cdwarf\u201d (_dwergh_, _thweorh_) and in \u201cruff\u201d (_rough_),\naltugether.\n\nHwot peopel kall the etimolojikal konsh[u]snes ov the speaker iz striktli\na mater ov oratorikal sentiment onli, and it wud remain nearli az stro[n]\naz it iz nou, hwotever speli[n] be adopted. B[u]t even if it shud s[u]fer\nhere and there, we ought tu bear in meind that, eksept for oratorikal\np[u]rposez, that konsh[u]snes, konfeind az it iz tu a veri fiu ediukated\npeopel, iz ov veri small importans, [u]nles it haz ferst been korekted bei\na strikt etimolojikal disiplin. Without that, it often dejenerates intu\nhwot iz kalld \u201cpopiular etimoloji,\u201d and aktiuali tendz, in s[u]m kasez, tu\nvishiate the korekt speli[n] ov w[u]rdz.\n\nEi hav frekwentli dwelt on this before, in order tu show hou, hwot iz nou\nkalld the etimolojikal or historikal speli[n] ov w[u]rdz iz, in meni\nkasez, [u]terli [u]netimolojikal and [u]nhistorikal. We spel to _delight_,\nand th[u]s indi\u00fas meni peopel tu believ that this w[u]rd iz s[u]mhou\nkonekted with _light_ [lux], or _light_ [levis]; hwereaz the old speli[n]\nwoz _to delyt_ or to _delite_ (Tyndale), reprezenti[n] the old French\n_deleiter_. On the [u]ther hand, we feind for _quite_ and _smite_, the old\nspeli[n] _quight_, _smight_, hwich may be old and historikal, b[u]t iz\ndeseidedli [u]netimolojikal.\n\n_Sovereign_ and _foreign_ ar speld az if they wer konekted with _reign_,\n_regnum_; the true etimoloji ov the former be\u00ef[n] _superanus_, Old French,\n_sovrain_, Old I[n]glish, _soveraine_; hweil _foreign_ iz the late Latin\n_foraneus_; Old French _forain_; Old I[n]glish _forein_. And hwei du we\nreit _to feign_? Archbishop Trench (\u201cI[n]glish Past and Prezent,\u201d p. 238)\n[t]i[n]ks the _g_ in _feign_ iz elokwent tu the e\u00ed; b[u]t its elokwens iz\nmisleadi[n]. _Feign_ iz not taken from Latin _fingo_, az litel az _honour_\niz taken from Latin _honor_. _Feign_ k[u]mz from the Old French _faindre_;\nit woz in Old I[n]glish _faynen_ and _feynen_, and it woz therefor a mere\netimolojikal feint tu insert the _g_ ov the Latin _fingo_, and the French\n_feignant_. The Old I[n]glish _shammfasst_ (Orm.), formd leik _stedefasst_\n(stedfast), iz nou speld _shamefaced_, az if it had s[u]m[t]i[n] tu do\nwith a bl[u]shi[n] fase. _Aghast_, insted ov Old I[n]glish _agast_, iz\ns[u]pozed tu luk more freitful bekauz it remeindz [u]s ov _ghost_. The\nFrench _lanterne_ woz riten _lant-horn_, az if it had been so kalld from\nthe transparent sheets ov horn that enklozed the leit. The _s_ in _island_\nowez its orijin tu a mistaken belief that the w[u]rd iz konekted with\n_isle_ (_insula_), hwereaz it iz the A[n]glo-Sakson _e\u00e1land_ (Jerman\n_eiland_), that iz, water-land. The speli[n] _iland_ woz stil k[u]rent in\nShakspere\u2019z teim. In _aisle_, too, the _s_ iz [u]netimolojikal, though it\niz historikal, az havi[n] been taken over from the Old French _aisle_.\n\nThis tendensi tu olter the speli[n] in order tu impart tu a w[u]rd, at all\nhazardz, an etimolojikal karakter, beginz even in Latin, hwere _postumus_,\na siuperlativ ov _post_, woz s[u]mteimz riten _posthumus_, az if, hwen\napleid tu a late-born s[u]n, it woz dereivd from _humus_. In I[n]glish,\nthis fols speli[n] iz retaind in _posthumous_. _Cena_ woz speld bei peopel\nwho wonted tu show their nolej ov Greek _c\u0153na_, az if konekted with \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae,\nhwich it iz not.\n\nB[u]t nou let [u]s luk more karefuli intu the far more important\nstatement, that the I[n]glish la[n]gwej, if riten fonetikali, wud reali\nlooz its historikal and etimolojikal karakter. The ferst kwestion iz, in\nhwot sens kan the prezent speli[n] ov I[n]glish be kalld historikal? We\nhav onli tu go bak a veri short way in order tu see the modern [u]pstart\nkarakter ov hwot iz kalld historikal speli[n]. We nou reit _pleasure_,\n_measure_, and _feather_, b[u]t not veri lo[n] ago, in Spenser\u2019z teim,\ntheze w[u]rdz wer speld _plesure_, _mesure_, _fether_. Tyndale rote\n_frute_; the _i_ in _fruit_ iz a mere restorashon ov the French speli[n].\nFor _debt_, on the kontrari, we feind, b[u]t [t]ree or four h[u]ndred\nyearz ago, _dett_. This iz more historikal therefor than _debt_, bekauz in\nFrench, from hwich the w[u]rd woz borowd, the _b_ had disapeard, and it\nwoz a piurli etimolojikal fansi tu restore it. The _b_ woz leikweiz\nre-introdi\u00fast in _doubt_, b[u]t the _p_ woz not restored in _tu kount_\n(French _compter_, Latin _computare_), hwere _p_ had at least the same\nreit az _b_ in _doute_. Th[u]s _receipt_ rezi\u00famz the Latin _p_, b[u]t\n_deceit_ d[u]z without it. Tu _deign_ keeps the _g_, tu _disdain_ d[u]z\nwithout it. Ther iz an[u]ther _b_ hwich haz a serten historikal air in\ns[u]m I[n]glish w[u]rdz, b[u]t hwich woz orijinali piurli fonetik, and iz\nnou simpli siup\u00e9rflu[u]s. The old w[u]rd for _member_ woz _lim_. In s[u]ch\nkompoundz az _lim-lama_, lim(b)-lame; _lim-leas_, lim(b)-less; it woz\nimposibel tu avoid the interkalashon ov a _b_ in pron[u]nsiashon. In this\nmaner the _b_ krept in, and we hav nou tu teach that in _limb_, _crumb_\n(crume), _thumb_ (thuma), the _b_ m[u]st be riten, b[u]t not prono\u00fanst.\nAgen, _tung_ (Jerman _zunge_), _yung_ (Jerman _jung_), az speld bei\nSpenser, hav a far more historikal aspekt than _tongue_ and _young_.\n\nIf we wisht tu reit historikali, we ought tu reit _salm_ insted ov\n_psalm_, for the inishal _p_, be\u00ef[n] lost in pron[u]nsiashon, woz dropt in\nreiti[n] at a veri erli teim (A[n]glo-Sakson _sealm_), and woz\nre-introdi\u00fast simpli tu pleaz s[u]m ekleziastikal etimolojists; also\n_nevew_ (French _neveu_) insted ov _nephew_, hwich iz both\n[u]netimolojikal and [u]nfonetik.\n\nIn hwot sens kan it be kalld historikal speli[n] if the old pluralz ov\n_mouse_ and _louse_, hwich wer _mys_ and _lys_, ar nou speld _mice_ and\n_lice_? The plural ov _goose_ iz not speld _geece_ b[u]t _geese_, yet\neveribodi n\u00f3z hou tu prono\u00fans it. The same mistaken atempt at an okazhonal\nfonetik speli[n] haz separated _dice_ from _die_, and _pence_ from _pens_,\nth\u00e1t iz, _penyes_; hweil in _nurse_, hwere the speli[n] _nurce_ wud hav\nbeen useful az remeindi[n] [u]s ov its true etimon _nourrice_, the _c_ haz\nbeen replast bei _s_.\n\nTher ar, in fakt, meni speli[n]z hwich wud be at the same teim more\nhistorikal and more fonetik. Hwei reit _little_, hwen now[u]n prono\u00fansez\n_little_, and hwen the old speli[n] woz _lytel_? Hwei _girdle_, hwen the\nold speli[n] woz _girdel_? The same rule apleiz tu nearli all w[u]rdz\nendi[n] in _le_, s[u]ch az _sickle_, _ladle_, _apple_, ets., hwere the\netimoloji iz kompleteli obski\u00fard bei the prezent or[t]ografi. Hwei\n_scent_, b[u]t _dissent_, hwen even Milton stil rote _sent_? Hwei _ache_,\ninsted ov the Shaksperian _ake_? Hwei _cat_, b[u]t _kitten_; hwei cow,\nb[u]t _kine_? Hwei _accede_, _precede_, _secede_, b[u]t _exceed_,\n_proceed_, _succeed_? Hwei, indeed, eksept tu waste the presh[u]s teim ov\nchildren?\n\nAnd if it iz difik[u]lt tu say hwot konstitiuts historikal speli[n], it iz\nekwali perpleksi[n] tu defein the real meani[n] ov etimolojikal speli[n].\nFor hwere ar we tu stop? It wud be konsiderd veri [u]netimolojikal wer we\ntu reit _nee_ insted ov _knee_, _now_ insted ov _know_, _night_ insted ov\n_knight_; yet now[u]n komplainz about the los ov the inishal _h_, the\nreprezentativ ov an orijinal _k_, in _loaf_, A. S. hl\u00e2f (cf. \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), in\n_ring_ (A. S. _hring_); in _lade_, _ladder_, _neck_, ets.\n\nIf we ar tu reit etimolojikali, then hwei not ret[u]rn tu _loverd_, or\n_hlaford_, insted ov _lord_? tu _nosethrill_, or _nosethirle_ insted ov\n_nostril_; tu _swister_ insted ov _sister_; hwich wud not be more\ntr[u]bels[u]m than _sword_. _Wifmann_ shureli wud be beter than _woman_;\n_meadwife_ beter than _midwife_; _godspel_ beter than _gospel_, _ortyard_\nbeter than _orchard_, _puisne_ beter than _puny_. Frekwentli the prezent\nrekogneizd speli[n] luks etimolojikal, b[u]t iz [u]terli [u]netimolojikal.\n_Righteous_ luks leik an ajektiv in _-eous_, s[u]ch az _plenteous_, b[u]t\nit iz reali a Sakson w[u]rd, _rightwis_, th\u00e1t iz _rightwise_, formd leik\n_otherwise_, ets.\n\n_Could_ iz riten with an _l_ in analoji tu _would_, b[u]t hweil the _l_ iz\nj[u]stifeid in _would_ from _will_, and _should_ from _shall_ we feind the\nOld I[n]glish imperfekt ov _can_ riten _cuthe_, then _couthe_, _coude_.\nThe _l_, therefor, iz neither fonetik nor etimolojikal. N[u][t]i[n], agen,\nkan be more misleadi[n] tu an etimolojist than the prezent speli[n] ov\n_whole_ and _hale_. Both k[u]m from the same sourse, the Go[t]ik _hail-s_,\nSanskrit _kalya-s_, meani[n] orijinali, _fit_, _redi_; then _sound_,\n_complete_, _whole_. In A[n]glo-Sakson we hav _h\u00e6l_, hole; and _hal_,\nhel[t]i, without eni trase ov a _w_, either before or after. The Old\nI[n]glish _halsum_, holes[u]m, iz the Jerman _hailsam_. _Whole_, therefor,\niz a mere mis-speli[n] the _w_ havi[n] probabli been aded in analoji tu\n_who_, _which_, ets. From a piurli etimolojikal point ov viu, the _w_ iz\nro[n]li left out before _h_ in _hou_; for az A[n]glo-Sakson _hwy_ bekame\n_why_, A[n]glo-Sakson _hwa_ shud hav bek[u]m _whow_.\n\nIf we reali atempted tu reit etimolojikali, we shud hav tu reit\n_bridegroom_ without the _r_, bekauz _groom_ iz a mere kor[u]pshon ov\n_guma_, man, A[n]glo-Sakson _bryd-guma_. We shud hav tu reit _burse_\ninsted ov _purse_, az in _disburse_. In fakt, it iz difik[u]lt tu say\nhwere we shud stop. Hwei do we not reit _metal_ insted ov _mettle_,\n_worthship_ insted ov _worship_, _chirurgeon_ insted ov _surgeon_,\n_furhlong_ (th\u00e1t iz, f[u]row lo[n]) insted ov _furlong_, _feordhing_ (th\u00e1t\niz four[t] part) insted of _farthing_? If we reit piuni _puisne_, we meit\naz wel reit _post-natus_. We meit spel koi, _quietus_; pert, _apertus_;\npriest, _presbyter_; master, _magister_; sekston, _sacristan_; alms,\n_eleemosyne_, ets. If enibodi wil tel me at hwot date etimolojikal\nspeli[n] iz tu begin, hwether at 1,500 A. D. or at 1,000 A. D., or 500 A.\nD., ei am wili[n] tu disk[\u00fa]s the kwestion. Til then, ei beg leav tu say\nthat etimolojikal speli[n] wud play greater havok in I[n]glish than\nfonetik speli[n], even if we wer tu draw a lein not more than feiv\nh[u]ndred yearz ago.\n\nThe two stro[n]gest argiuments, therefor, agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli,\nthat it wud destroi the historikal and etimolojikal karakter ov the\nI[n]glish la[n]gwej, ar, after all, b[u]t veri parshali true. Here and\nthere, no dout, the etimoloji and histori ov an I[n]glish w[u]rd meit be\nobski\u00fard bei fonetik speli[n]; az if, for instans, we rote \u201cY[ue][o]p\u201d\ninsted ov _Europe_. B[u]t even then analoji wud help [u]s, and teach thoze\nwho n\u00f3 Greek, ov whom ther ar not meni, that \u201cY[ue]r\u201d in s[u]ch w[u]rdz az\n_Europe_, _Eurydice_, reprezented the Greek \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03cd\u03c2. The real anser,\nhouever, iz, that now[u]n kud onestli kall the prezent sistem ov speli[n]\neither historikal or etimolojikal; and, ei believ, that, taken az a hole,\nthe los oka[z]ond bei konsistent fonetik speli[n] wud not be greater than\nthe gain.\n\nAn[u]ther objekshon [u]rjd agenst fonetik speli[n], nameli, that with it\nit wud be imposibel tu disti[n]gwish homonimz, m[u]st be met in the same\nway. No dout it iz a serten advantej if in reiti[n] we kan disti[n]gwish\n_right_, _rite_, _write_, and _wright_. B[u]t if, in the h[u]ri ov\nkonversashon, ther iz hardli ever a dout hwich w[u]rd iz ment, shureli\nther wud be m[u]ch les danjer in the slow proses ov readi[n] a\nkontiniu[u]s sentens. If vari[u]s speli[n]z ov the same w[u]rd ar nesesari\ntu point out diferent meani[n]z, we shud rekweir eight speli[n]z for\n_box_, tu signifei a chest, a Kristmas gift, a h[u]nti[n] seat, a tree, a\nslap, tu sail round, seats in a [t]eater, and the fr[u]nt seat on a koach;\nand this prinsipel wud hav tu be apleid tu ab[u]v 400 w[u]rdz. Who wud\n[u]ndertake tu proveid all theze variashonz ov the prezent uniform\nspeli[n] ov theze w[u]rdz? And we m[u]st not forget that, after all, in\nreadi[n] a paje we ar seldom in dout hwether _sole_ meanz a fish, or the\n_sole_ ov a fut, or iz uzed az an ajektiv. If ther iz at eni teim eni real\ndifik[u]lti, la[n]gwej proveidz its own remedi. It either drops s[u]ch\nw[u]rdz az _rite_ and _sole_, replasi[n] them bei _seremony_ and _only_,\nor it uzez a perifrastik ekspreshon, s[u]ch az the sole ov the fut, or the\nsole and onli ground, ets.\n\n[Five other new letters, representing the long vowels, will now be\nintroduced, namely\n\n[e], [i], [w], [o], [ue],\n\nfor the sounds heard in\n\nth_ey_, f_ie_ld, s_aw_, n_o_, d_o_, m_a_te, s_ee_, c_a_ll, c_o_re, tr_ue_,\nm_a_re, pol_i_ce, _ou_ght, c_oa_l, p_oo_r.]\n\nTh[u]s far ei hav treid tu anser the r[i]ali important argiuments hwich\nhav b[i]n br[w]t forward agenst f[o]netik speli[n]. Ei hav d[u]n s[o] with\nspeshal referens tu the pouerful remonstransez ov Archbishop Trench, and\nhiz m[o]st [e]bel pl[i]di[n] in f[e]vor ov the establisht sistem ov\nor[t]ografi. Az a m[i]r skolar, ei fuli sh[e]r hiz f[i]li[n]z, and ei\nsins[i]rli admeir hiz elokwent advokasi. Ei difer from him bek[w]z ei\nd[ue] not tink, az h[i] d[u]z, that the los ent[e]ld bei fonetik speli[n]\nwud b[i] s[o] gr[e]t az w[i] imajin; or that it wud b[i] [w]l on w[u]n\nseid. Beseidz, [u]nles h[i] kan sh[o] hou a reform ov speli[n] iz not\n[o]nli for the prezent tu b[i] avoided, b[u]t [w]ltugether tu b[i] renderd\n[u]nnesesari, ei konsider that the s[ue]ner it iz t[e]ken in hand the\nbeter. It s[i]mz tu m[i] that the Archbishop luks on the introd[u]kshon ov\nf[o]netik speli[n] az a m[i]r krochet ov a fiu skolarz, or az an atempt on\nthe part ov s[u]m haf-ediuk[e]ted personz, wishi[n] tu avoid the tr[u]bel\nov lerni[n] hou tu spel korektli. If that wer s[o], ei kweit agr[i] with\nhim that p[u]blik opinion wud never asi\u00fam s[u]fishent fors for karii[n]\nth[e]r sk[i]m. B[u]t ther iz a m[o]tiv pouer beheind th[i]z fenetik\nreformerz hwich the Archbishop haz hardli t[e]ken intu akount. Ei m[i]n\nthe mizeri endi\u00fard bei milionz ov children at ski[ue]l, h[ue] meit lern in\nw[u]n y[i]r, and with r[i]al advantej tu themselvz, hwot th[e] nou rekweir\nf[o]r or feiv y[i]rz tu lern, and seldom s[u]ks[i]d in lerni[n] after\n[w]l. If the evidens ov s[u]ch men az Mr. Ellis iz tu b[i] depended on,\nand ei bel[i]v h[i] iz wili[n] tu s[u]bmit tu eni test, then sh[ue]rli the\nlos ov s[u]n historikal and etimolojikal _souvenirs_ wud be litel agenst\nthe hapines ov milionz ov children, and the stil heier hapines ov milionz\nov I[n]glishmen and I[n]glisewimen, gr[o]i[n] [u]p az the [e]rz tu [w]l\nthe wel[t] and stre[n][t] ov I[n]glish literatiur, or [u]n[e]bel tu r[i]d\n[i]ven th[e]r Beibel. H[i]r it iz hwer ei ventiur tu difer from the\nArchbishop, not az b[i]i[n] sa[n]gwin az tu eni imm[i]diet s[u]kses, b[u]t\nsimpli az f[i]li[n] it a diuti tu help in a k[w]z hwich at prezent iz\nm[o]st [u]npopiular. The [i]vil d[e] m[e] b[i] put of for a lo[n] teim,\npartikiularli if the w[e]t ov s[u]ch men az Archbishop Trench iz [t]ren\nintu the [u]ther sk[e]l. B[u]t [u]nles la[n]gwe[i] s[i]sez tu b[i]\nla[n]gwe[i], and reiti[n] s[i]sez tu b[i] reiti[n], the d[e] wil sh[ue]rli\nk[u]m hwen p[i]s wil hav tu b[i] m[e]d betw[i]n the t[\u00fae]. Jermani haz\napointed a G[u]vernment Komishon tu konsider hwot iz tu b[i] d[u]n with\nJerman speli[n] In Amerika, t[ue], s[u]m l[i]di[n] st[e]tsmen s[i]m\ninkleind tu t[e]k [u]p the reform ov speli[n] on nashonal groundz. Iz ther\nn[o] st[e]tsman in I[n]gland s[u]fishentli pr[ue]f agenst ridikiul tu\nk[w]l the atenshon ov Parliment tu hwot iz a gr[o]i[n] misfortiun?\n\nM[u]ch, houever, az ei difer from the Archbishop on th[i]z groundz, ei\nkanot b[u]t deprek[e]t the t[o]n in hwich hiz pouerful opozishon h\u00e1z b[i]n\nmet bei meni ov the [u]ph[o]lderz ov f[o]netik speli[n]. N[e], ei m[u]st\ng[o] stil f[u]rther, and fra[n]kli konf\u00e9s that tu w[u]n ov hiz argiuments\nei feind it difik[u]lt, at prezent, tu giv a satisfaktori anser.\n\n\u201cIt iz a m[i]r as[u]mpshon,\u201d the Archbishop remarks, \u201cthat [w]l men\nprono\u00fans [w]l w[u]rdz aleik; or that hwenever th[e] k[u]m tu spel a w[u]rd\nth[e] wil ekzaktli agr[i] az tu hwot the outlein ov its sound iz. Nou w[i]\nar sh[ue]r men wil not d[ue] this, from the fakt that, bef[o]r ther woz\neni fikst and seteld or[t]ografi in our la[n]gwej, hwen, th[e]rfor,\neveribodi woz m[o]r or les a a f[o]nografer, s[i]ki[n] tu reit doun the\nw[u]rd az it sounded tu _him_,\u2014for h[i] had n[o] [u]ther l[w] tu geid\nhim,\u2014the v[e]ri[e]shonz ov speli[n] ar infinit. T[e]k, for instans, the\nw[u]rd _sudden_, hwich d[u]z not s[i]m tu promis eni gr[e]t sk[o]p for\nvareieti. Ei hav meiself met with this w[u]rd speld in n[o] les than\nf[\u00f3]rt[i]n w[e]z am[u][n] our erli reiterz. Agen, in hou meni w[e]z woz\nRaleigh\u2019z n[e]m speld, or Shakspere\u2019z? The s[e]m iz evident from the\nspeli[n] ov [u]nediukated personz in our [o]n d[.[e]]. Th[E] hav n[o]\n[u]ther r[ue]l b[u]t the sound tu geid them. Hou iz it that th[e] d[ue]\nnot [w]l spel aleik?\u201d _I[n]glish, Past and Prezent_, p. 203.\n\nLeik m[o]st men h[ue] pl[i]d with th[e]r hart az wel az with th[e]r hed,\nthe Archbishop haz h[i]r [o]verlukt w[u]n obvi[u]s anser tu hiz kwestion.\nTh[e] d[ue] not spel aleik bek[w]z th[e] hav b[i]n br[w]t [u]p with a\nsistem ov speli[n] in hwich the s[e]m sound kan b[i] reprezented in ten\ndiferent w[e]z, and in hwich hardli eni w[u]n leter iz restrikted tu w[u]n\nfonetik pouer onli. If children wer br[w]t [u]p with an alfabet in hwich\n[i]ch leter had b[u]t w[u]n sound, and in hwich the s[e]m sound woz\n[w]lw[e]z reprezented bei the s[e]m sein\u2014and this iz the veri esens ov\nf[o]netik reiti[n]\u2014then it wud b[i] simpli imposibel that th[e] shud\ndr[i]m ov reiti[n] _sudden_ in f[o]rt[i]n, or _Woburn_ in 140, diferent\nw[e]z.\n\nB[u]t for [w]l th\u00e1t ther iz s[u]m tr[ue][t] in the Archbishop\u2019s remark;\nand if w[i] komp[e]r the diferent w[e]z in hwich the advokets ov f[o]netik\nspeli[n]\u2014men leik Pitman, Bell, Ellis, Withers, Jones\u2014reit the s[e]m\nw[u]rdz, [i]ven hwen y[ue]zi[n] the s[e]m fonetik alfabet, w[i] shal s[i]\nthat the difik[u]lti pointed out bei the Archbishop iz a r[i]al w[u]n.\nEveriw[u]n n[o]z hou diferentli the s[e]m w[u]rdz [w]lwez hav b[i]n and\nstil ar prono\u00fanst in diferent parts ov I[n]gland. And it iz not onli in\ntounz and kountiz that th[i]z pekiuliaritiz prev[e]l; ther ar serten\nw[u]rdz hwich w[u]n famili prono\u00fansez diferentli from an[u]ther; and ther\nar beseidz the st[u]did and [u]nst[u]did pekiuliaritiz ov individiual\nsp[i]kerz. Tu konv\u00edns p[i]pel that w[u]n pron[u]nsi[e]shon iz reit and the\n[u]ther ro[n], s[i]mz [u]terli hoples. Ei hav herd a heili k[u]ltiveted\nman defendi[n] hiz dropi[n] the _h_ at the begini[n] ov serten w[u]rdz,\nbei the [u]nanserabel argiument that in the pl[e]s hwer h[i] woz br[w]t\n[u]p, n[o]w[u]n prono\u00fanst th[i]z inishal _hz_. Hwot Skochman wud admit\nthat hiz pron[u]nsi[e]shon woz f[w]lti? Hwot Eirishman wud s[u]bmit tu\nl[w]z ov speli[n] past in L[u]ndon? And hwot renderz argiument on eni\nneisetiz ov pron[u]nsieshon stil m[o]r difik[u]lt iz, that b[o][t] the\n[i]r and the t[u][n] ar m[o]st trecher[u]s witnesez. Ei hav herd Amerikanz\nm[e]nt[e]n in gud ernest that ther woz m[u]ch les of n[e]zal twa[n] in\nAmerika than in I[n]gland. P[i]pel ar not awer hou th[e] prono\u00fans, and hou\ndiferentli th[e] prono\u00fans w[u]n and the s[e]m w[u]rd. Az a forener ei hav\nhad ampel oportiunitiz for obzerv[e]shon on this point. S[u]m frendz wud\ntel m[i], for instans, that _world_ woz prono\u00fanst leik _whirl\u2019d_, _father_\nleik _farther_, _nor_ (bef[o]r konsonants) leik _gnaw_, _bud_ leik _bird_,\n_burst_ leik _bust_, _for_ leik _fur_, _birth_ leik _berth_; that the\nvouelz had the s[e]m sound in _where_ and _were_, in _not_ and _war_, in\n_God_ and _gaudy_; hweil [u]therz ash[ue]rd m[i] that n[o]w[u]n b[u]t a\nforener kud [t]i[n]k s[o]. And the w[u]rst iz that [i]ven the s[e]m person\nd[u]z not [w]lwez prono\u00fans the s[e]m w[u]rd in ekzaktli the s[e]m maner.\nKonstantli, hwen ei askt a frend tu rep[i]t a w[u]rd hwich h[i] had j[u]st\nprono\u00fanst, h[i] wud prono\u00fans it agen, b[u]t with a sleit diferens. The\nm[i]r fakt ov hiz treii[n] tu prono\u00fans wel wud give tu hiz\npron[u]nsi[e]shon a konsh[u]s and emfatik karakter. The prepozishon _of_\niz prono\u00fanst bei m[o]st p[i]pel _or_, b[u]t if kros-ekzamind, meni wil\ns[e] that th[e] prono\u00fans _ov_, b[u]t the _o_ not ekzaktli leik _off_.\n\nThe konfiu[z]on bek[u]mz gr[e]test hwen it iz atempted tu eidentifei the\npron[u]nsi[e]shon, s[e] ov a vouel in Jerman with a vouel in I[n]glish.\nN[o] t[\u00fae] I[n]glishmen and n[o] t[\u00fae] Jermanz s[i]md tu b[i] [e]bel tu\nagr[i] on hwot th[e] herd with th[e]r [i]rz, or hwot th[e] sed with th[e]r\nt[u][n]z; and the rez[u]lt in the end iz that n[o] vouel in Jernran woz\nr[i]ali the s[e]m az eni [u]ther vouel in I[n]glish. Tu t[e]k w[u]n or\nt[\u00fa] instansez, from Mr. Ellis\u2019z k[i] tu Palioteip (Pal\u0153type), ei kan\nh[i]r n[o] diferens betw[i]n the _a_ in Italian _mano_, I[n]glish\n_father_, and Jerman _mahnen_, [u]nles ei restrikt mei obzerv[e]shonz tu\nthe [u]terans ov serten individiualz; hw[e]raz ei d[ue] h[i]r a veri\ndeseided, and jenerali adopted, diferens betw[i]n the vouelz in Jerman\n_b\u00f6cke_ and French _jeune_. Mr. Ellis, t[u]chi[n] on the s[e]m\ndifik[u]lti, remarks, \u201cMr. Bell\u2019s pron[u]nsi[e]shon, in meni instansez,\ndiferz from th\u00e1t hwich ei am ak[u]stomd tu giv, espeshali in foren\nw[u]rdz. B[o][t] ov [u]s m[e] b[i] ro[n].\u201d Mr. Sweet remarks, p. 10, \u201cMr.\nEllis insists stro[n]li on the monof[t]o[n]gal karakter ov hiz [o]n _eez_\nand _ooz_. Ei h[i]r hiz _ee_ and _oo_ az disti[n]kt dif[t]o[n]z, not\n[o]nli in hiz I[n]glish pron[u]nsi[e]shon, b[u]t [w]ls[o] in hiz\npron[u]nsi[e]shon ov French, Jerman, and Latin.\u201d If f[o]netik reiti[n]\nment this mini\u00fat f[o]tografi ov sp[o]ken soundz, in hwich Mes. Bell and\nEllis eks\u00e9l; if eni atempt had ever b[i]n m[e]d tu emploi this\nh[e]r-spliti[n] mash[i]neri for a praktikal reform ov I[n]glish speli[n],\nthe objekshonz r[e]zd bei Archbishop Trench wud b[i] kweit [u]nanserabel.\nTher wud b[i] fifti diferent w[e]z ov speli[n] I[n]glish, and the\nkonfiu[z]on wud b[i] gr[e]ter than it iz nou. Not [i]ven Mr. Bell\u2019z\n[t]erti-siks kategoriz ov vouel sound wud b[i] s[u]fishent tu render everi\npekiuliariti ov vouel kwoliti, pich and kwontiti, with perfekt akiurasi.\n(S[i] H. Sweet, \u201cHistori ov I[n]glish Soundz,\u201d pp. 58, 68.) B[u]t this woz\nnever intended, and hweil kons[i]di[n] m[u]ch tu the Archbishop\u2019s\nargiuments, ei m[u]st not kons[i]d t[ue] m[u]ch.\n\nHwot ei leik in Mr. Pitman\u2019z sistem ov speli[n] iz ekzaktli hwot ei n\u00f3 haz\nb[i]n found f[w]lt with bei [u]therz n[e]mli that h[i] d[u]z not atempt tu\nrefein t[ue] m[u]ch, and tu ekspres in reiti[n] th[o]z endles sh[e]dz ov\npron[u]nsi[e]shon, hwich m[e] b[i] ov the gr[e]test interest tu the\nstiudent ov akoustiks, or ov f[o]netiks, az apleid tu the st[u]di ov\nlivi[n] deialekts, b[u]t hwich, for praktikal az well az for seientifik\nfilolojikal p[u]rposez, m[u]st b[i] enteirli ign[o]rd. Reiti[n] woz never\nintended tu f[o]tograf sp[o]ken la[n]gwejez: it woz ment tu indik[e]t, not\ntu p[e]nt soundz. If Voltaire sez, \u201cL\u2019\u00e9criture c\u2019est la peinture de la\nvoix,\u201d h[i] iz reit; b[u]t hwen h[i] g[o]z on tu s[e], \u201cplus elle est\nressemblante, meilleur elle est,\u201d ei am not serten that, az in a piktiur\nov a landsk[e]p, s[o] in a piktiur ov the vois, pr[i]-R[e]if[e]leit\nmini\u00fatnes m[e] not destroi the veri objekt ov the piktiur. La[n]gwej\nd[i]lz in br[w]d k[u]lorz, and reiti[n] [w]t tu fol[o] the ekzampel ov\nla[n]gwej, hwich th[o] it alouz an endles vareiti ov pron[u]nsi[e]shon,\nrestrikts itself for its [o]n p[u]rpos, for the p[u]rpos ov ekspresi[n]\n[t][w]t in [w]l its modifik[e]shonz, tu a veri limited n[u]mber ov tipikal\nvouelz and konsonants. Out ov the larj n[u]mber ov soundz, for instans,\nhwich hav b[i]n katalogd from the v[e]ri[u]s I[n]glish deialekts, thoz\nonli kan b[i] rekogneizd az konstitiuent elements ov the la[n]gwej hwich\nin, and bei, th[e]r diferens from [i]ch [u]ther, konv[e] a diferens ov\nm[i]ni[n]. Ov s[u]ch pregnant and [t][w]t-konv[e]i[n] vouelz, I[n]glish\npoz\u00e9sez n[o] m[o]r than twelv. Hwotever the meinor sh[e]dz ov vouel soundz\nin I[n]glish deialekts m[e] b[i], th[e] d[ue] not enrich the la[n]gwej, az\ns[u]ch, th\u00e1t iz, th[e] d[ue] not en[e]bel the sp[i]ker tu konv[e] m[o]r\nmini\u00fat sh[e]dz ov [t][w]t than the twelv tipikal si[n]gel vouelz. Beseidz,\nther jenerali iz hwot the French meit k[w]l a f[o]netik solidariti in\n[i]ch deialekt. If w[u]n vouel ch[e]njez, the [u]therz ar apt tu fol[o],\nand the m[e]n objekt ov la[n]gwej rem[e]nz the s[e]m [t]r[ue]out, n[e]mli,\ntu prevent w[u]n w[u]rd from r[u]ni[n] intu an[u]ther, and yet tu abst[e]n\nfrom t[ue], mini\u00fat fonetik disti[n]kshonz, hwich an ordinari [i]r meit\nfeind it difik[u]lt tu grasp. This prinsipel ov f[o]netik solidariti iz ov\ngr[e]t importans, not onli in ekspl[e]ni[n] the gradiual ch[e]njez ov\nvouelz, b[u]t [w]ls[o] s[u]ch jeneral ch[e]njez ov konsonants az w[i]\ns[i], for instans, in the Jerman _Lautverschiebung_. Az s[ue]m az w[u]n\npl[e]s iz left v[e]kant, ther iz preshur tu fil it, or s[o] m[u]ch ov it\naz iz left v[e]kant, b[u]t n[o] m[o]r.\n\nTher ar, in fakt, t[\u00fae] branchez, or at [w]l events, t[\u00fae] kweit\ndisti[n]kt praktikal aplik[e]shonz ov the seiens ov F[o]netiks, hwich for\nwont ov beter n[e]mz, ei design[e]t az _filolojikal_ and _deialektikal_.\nTher iz hwot m[e] b[i] k[w]ld a filolojikal st[u]di ov F[o]netiks, hwich\niz an esenshal part ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej, and haz for its objekt tu\ngiv a kl[i]r eid[i]a ov the alfabet, not az riten, b[u]t az sp[o]ken. It\ntr[i]ts ov the mat[i]rialz out ov hwich, the instruments with hwich, and\nthe proses bei hwich, vouelz and konsonants ar formd; and after\nekspl[e]ni[n] hou serten leterz agr[i], and difer, in th[e]r mat[i]rial,\nin the instruments with hwich, and the proses bei hwich th[e] ar prodi\u00fast,\nit en[e]belz [u]s tu [u]nderstand the k[w]zez and rez[u]lts ov hwot iz\nk[w]ld F[o]netik Ch[e]nj. In meni respekts the most instr[u]ktiv\ntr[i]tment ov the jeneral [t][i]ori ov F[o]netiks iz tu b[i] found in the\nPr\u00e2ti_s_\u00e2khyas; partikiularli in the [o]ldest (400 B.K.), th\u00e1t atacht tu\nthe Rig V[e]da.(71) Th[o] the n[u]mber ov posibel soundz m[e] s[i]m\ninfinit the n[u]mber ov r[i]al soundz y[ue]zd in Sanskrit or eni [u]ther\ngiven la[n]gwej for the p[u]rpos ov ekspresi[n] diferent sh[e]dz ov\nm[i]ni[n], iz veri limited. It iz with th[i]z br[w]d kategoriz ov sound\nal[o]n that the Pr\u00e2ti_s_\u00e2khyas d[i]l; and it iz for a proper\n[u]nderstandi[n] ov th[i]z the Seiens ov La[n]jgwej haz tu inkl[ue]d\nwithin its sf[i]r a k[e]rful st[u]di ov F[o]netiks.\n\nThe deialektikal st[u]di ov F[o]netiks haz larjer objekts. It wishez tu\nekz[w]st [w]l posibel soundz hwich kan b[i] prodi\u00fast bei the v[o]kal\norganz, litel konsernd az tu hwether th[i]z soundz ok[u]r in eni r[i]al\nla[n]gwej or not. It iz partikiularli y[ue]sful for the p[u]rpos ov\np[e]nti[n], with the [u]tm[o]st akiurasi, the aktiual pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov\nindividiualz, and ov fiksi[n] the f[e]ntest sh[e]dz ov deialektik\nvareieti. The m[o]st marvel[u]s ach[i]vment in this branch ov apleid\nf[o]netiks m[e] b[i] s[i]n in Mr. Bell\u2019z \u201cVizibel Sp[i]ch.\u201d\n\nTh[i]z t[\u00fae] branchez ov f[o]netik seiens, houever, shud b[i] kept\nk[e]rfuli disti[n]kt. Az the found[e]shon ov a praktikal alfabet, leikweiz\naz the onli s[e]f found[e]shon for the Seiens ov La[n]gwej, w[i] wont\nfilolojikal or [t][i][o]retik F[o]netiks. W[i] wont an [u]nderstandi[n] ov\nthez jeneral prinsipelz and thez br[w]d kategoriz ov sound hwich ar\ntr[i]ted in the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas; w[i] d[ue] not wont eni ov the mini\u00fat\ndeialektikal disti[n]kshonz hwich hav no gramatikal p[u]rpos and ar\nth[e]rfor outseid the p[e]l ov gramatikal seiens. T[ue], mini\u00fat\ndisti[n]kshon prodi[ue]sez konfiu[z]on, and hw[e]r it kan b[i] avoided,\nwithout a sakrifeiz ov akiurasi, it [w]t tu b[i] avoided. Hw[e]r v[e]gnes\nekzists in r[i]aliti, and hwer n[e]tiur alouz a br[w]d marjin on either\nseid, it wud b[i] ro[n] tu ignor th\u00e1t latitiud. Akiurasi itself wud h[i]r\nbek[u]m inakiurasi.\n\nB[u]t hwen w[i] wont tu ekz[w]st [w]l posibel sh[e]dz ov sound, hwen w[i]\nwont tu fotograf the pekiuliaritiz ov serten deialekts, or me[z]ur the\nd[i]vi[e]shonz in the pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov individiualz bei the m[o]st\nmini\u00fat degr[i]z, w[i] then m[u]st av[e]l ourselvz ov th\u00e1t ekskwizit\nartistik mash[i]neri konstr[u]kted bei Mr. Bell, and handeld with s[o]\nm[u]ch skil bei Mr. A. J. Ellis, the fiu onli wil b[i] [e]bel tu y[ue]z it\nwith r[i]al s[u]kses.\n\nS[u]m p[i]pel s[i]m tu imajin that the pouer ov disti[n]gwishi[n] mini\u00fat\ndiferensez ov soundz iz a natiural gift, and kanot b[i] akweird. It m[e]\nb[i] so in kweit eksepshonal k[e]sez, b[u]t ei no az a fakt that a cheild\nthat had, az p[i]pel s[e], no [i]r for miuzik, and kud not si[n] \u201cGod\ns[e]v the Kw[i]n,\u201d gradiuali akweird the pouer ov disti[n]gwishi[n] the\nordinari nots, and ov si[n]i[n] a tiun. Sp[i]ki[n] from mei on\neksp[i]riens ei shud s[e] that a gud [i]r k[u]mz bei inheritans, for, az\nlo[n] az ei kan remember, a fols not, or, az w[i] y[ue]st tu k[w]l it, an\nimpiur (_unrein_) n[o]t, woz tu m[i] fizikali p[e]nful.\n\nB[u]t this apleiz tu miuzik [o]nli, and it iz bei n[o] m[i]nz jenerali\ntr[ue], that p[i]pel h[ue] hav a gud miuzikal [i]r, hav [w]ls[o] a gud\n[i]r for la[n]gwej. Ei hav non p[i]pel kweit [u]nmiuzikal, poz\u00e9st ov a\nveri gud [i]r for la[n]gwej, and _vice vers\u00e2_. The t[\u00b4[ue]] natiural\ngifts, th[e]rfor, if natiural gifts th[e] ar, ov disti[n]gwishi[n] mini\u00fat\ndegr[i]z ov pich and kwoliti ov sound d[u] not s[i]m tu b[i] the s[e]m.\nThe r[i]al difik[u]lti, houever, hwich m[e]ks itself felt in disk[\u00fa]si[n]\nmini\u00fat sh[e]dz ov sound, areizez from the ins[u]fishensi ov our\nnomenklatiur, from the [w]lm[o]st irrezistibel influens ov imajin[e]shon,\nand in the end, from the wont ov a f[o]nometer. A gud miuzishan kan\ndisti[n]gwish betw[i]n _C sharp_ and _D flat_, a gud f[o]netishan betw[i]n\na \u201cl[o]-bak-nar[o]\u201d and a \u201cl[o]-mikst-nar[o]\u201d vouel. B[u]t th[e] kanot\n[w]lw[e]z transl[e]t th[e]r sentiments intu definit la[n]gwej, and if\nth[e] trei bei aktiual eksperiment tu imit[e]t th[i]z t[\u00fa] soundz or\nvouelz, the imperfekshonz ov the [i]r and t[u][n], b[o][t] in the sp[i]ker\nand the lisener, fr[i]kwentli render [w]l atempts at a miutiual\n[u]nderstandi[n] imposibel. W[i] shal never areiv at seientifik presi[z]on\ntil w[i] hav a f[o]nometer for kwoliti ov sound, nor d[ue] ei s[i] hwei\ns[u]ch an instrument shud b[i] imposibel. Ei wel remember Wheatstone\nteli[n] m[i], that h[i] wud [u]ndert[e]k tu r[i]prodi\u00fas bei m[i]nz ov an\ninstrument everi sh[e]d ov vouel in eni la[n]gw[e]j ov the w[u]rld, and ei\nshud [t]i[n]k that Willis\u2019z and Helmholtz\u2019z eksperiments wud s[u]plei the\nelements from hwich s[u]ch a f[o]nometer meit b[i] konstitiuted. Az s[ur]n\naz w[i] kan me[z]ur, defein, and r[i]prodi\u00fas, at ple[z]ur, hwot at prezent\nw[i] kan [o]nli deskreib in aproksim[r]t termz, the seiens ov f[o]netiks\nwil bek[u]m m[o]st fr[ue]tful, and asi\u00fam its lejitimet pl[e]s az a _sine\nqu\u00e2 non_ tu the stiudent ov la[n]gwej.\n\nEi hav s[u]mteimz b[i]n bl[e]md for havi[n] insisted on F[o]netiks\nb[i]i[n] rekogneizd az the found[e]shon ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej. Prof.\nBenfey and [u]ther skolarz protested agenst the chapter ei hav dev[o]ted\ntu F[o]netiks in the Sekond S[i]r[i]z ov mei \u201cLektiurz,\u201d az an\n[u]nnesesari inov[e]shon, and thoz protests hav bek[u]m stil stro[n]ger ov\nl[e]t. B[u]t h[i]r, t[ue], w[i] m[u]st disti[n]gwish betw[i]n t[\u00b4[ue]]\n[t]i[n]z. Filolojikal or jeneral F[o]netiks, ar, ei h[o]ld, az stro[n]li\naz ever, an integral part ov the Seiens ov La[n]gwej; deialektik\nF[o]netiks m[e] b[i] y[ue]sful h[i]r and th[e]r, b[u]t th[e] shud b[i]\nkept within th[e]r proper sf[i]r; [u]therweiz, ei admit az redili az\neniw[u]n els, th[e] obski\u00far rather than rev[i]l the br[w]d and masiv\nk[u]lorz ov sound hwich la[n]gwej y[ue]zez for its ordinari w[u]rk.\n\nIf w[i] reflekt a litel, w[i] shal s[i] that the filolojikal konsepshon ov\na vouel iz s[u]m[t]i[n] t[o]tali diferent from its piurli akoustik or\ndeialektik konsepshon. The former iz ch[i]fli konsernd with the sf[i]r ov\nposibel v[e]ri[e]shon, and the later with the piurli fenomenal\nindividiualiti ov [i]ch vouel. Tu the filolojist, the [t]rj[i] vouelz in\n_septimus_, for instans, hwotever th[e]r ekzakt pron[u]nsi[e]shonz m[e]\nhav b[i]n at diferent teimz, and in diferent provinsez ov the R[o]man\nEmpeir, ar p[o]tenshali w[u]n and the s[e]m. W[i] luk on _septimus_ and\n\u1f15\u03b2\u03cd\u03bf\u03ce\u03bf\u03c2 az on Sanskrit _saptamas_, and [o]nli bei n[o]i[n] that _e_, _i_,\nand _u_ in _septimus_ ar [w]l reprezentativz ov a short _a_, or that\n_optimus_ standz for the m[o]r [e]nshent _optumus_ and _optomos_, d[ue]\nw[i] t[e]k in at w[u]n glans the h[o]l histori and posibel v[e]ri[e]shon\nov th[i]z vouelz in diferent la[n]gwejez and deialekts. [I]ven hw[e]r a\nvouel disap[i]rz kompl[i]tli, az in _gigno_ for _gigeno_, in \u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9 for\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c9 the mentl ei ov the filolojist dis\u00e9rnz and w[e]z hwot n[o] [i]r kan\nh[i]r. And hweil in th[i]z k[e]sez the etimolojist, disregardi[n] the\nkl[i]rest vareieti ov pron[u]nsi[e]shon, tr[i]ts s[u]ch vouelz az _a_,\n_e_, _i_, _o_, _u_ az w[u]n and the s[e]m, in [u]therz hw[e]r t[\u00fae] vouelz\ns[i]m tu hav ekzaktli the s[e]m sound tu the deialektishan, the filolojist\non hiz part pers[i]vz diferensez ov the gr[e]test importans. The _i_ in\n_fides_ and _cliens_ m[e] hav the s[e]m sound az the _i_ in _gigno_ or\n_septimus_, the _u_ ov _luo_ m[e] not difer from the _u_ in _optumus_ or\n_lubens_, b[u]t th[e]r intrinsik valiu, th[e]r k[e]pabilitiz ov gr[o][t]\nand dek[\u00e9], ar to t[o]tali diferent in [i]ch. W[i] shal never b[i] [e]bel\ntu sp[i]k with eni[t]i[n] leik r[i]al seientifik akiurasi ov the\npron[u]nsi[e]shon ov [e]nshent la[n]gwejez, b[u]t [i]ven if w[i] luk tu\nth[e]r riten ap[i]rans [o]nli, w[i] s[i] ag\u00e9n and ag\u00e9n hou vouelz, riten\naleik, ar historikali t[o]tali disti[n]kt. Grimm introdi\u00fast the\ndisti[n]kshon betw[i]n _\u00e1i_ and _a\u00ed_, betw[i]n _\u00e1u_ and _a\u00fa_, not bek[w]z\nit iz bei eni m[i]nz serten that the pron[u]nsi[e]shon ov th[i]z\ndif[t]o[n]z v[e]rid, b[u]t bek[w]z h[i] wisht tu indik[e]t that the\nantes[i]dents ov _\u00e1i_ and _\u00e1u_ wer diferent from th[o]z ov _a\u00ed_ and _a\u00fa_.\nIn Go[t]ik _fa\u00edhu_, (Sk. pa_s_u, pecu), _a\u00ed_ iz _a_ shortend tu _i_, and\nbr[o]ken bef[o]r _h_ tu _\u00e1i_; in Go[t]ik _v\u00e1it_ (Sk. veda, \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1), _ai_, iz\nradikal _i_ stre[n][t]end tu _\u00e1i_. In Go[t]ik _da\u00fahtar_ (Sk. duhitar\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1), _a\u00fa_ iz radikal _u_ br[o]ken tu _a\u00fa_; in _a\u00fahna_ [u]ven (Sk.\na_s_na, \u1f30\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf=\u1f30\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf=\u1f00\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf), the _au_ iz _a_, darkend tu _u_, and br[o]ken tu\n_\u00e1u_; hweil in Go[t]ik _b\u00e1ug_ (\u03c0\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1), _\u00e1u_ iz orijinal _u_\nstre[n][t]end tu _\u00e1u_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _\u00ea_ and _\u00f4_ in Go[t]ik w[i] s[i]\n_\u00e2_, j[u]st az w[i] s[i] Dorik _\u0101_ beheind Eionik \u03b7. Hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_\nin _canis_, w[i] s[i] Sanskrit _s_; hwen w[i] h[i]r _c_ in _cruor_, w[i]\ns[i] Sanskrit _k_. Hwen w[i] h[i]r \u03b3 in \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, w[i] s[i] [A]rian _g_; hwen\nw[i] h[i]r \u03b3 in \u03c6\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9 w[i] s[i] [A]rian _z_.\n\nTh[i]z fiu il[u]str[e]shonz wil ekspl[e]n, ei h[o]p the esenshal diferens\nin the aplik[e]shon ov f[o]netiks tu filoloji and deialektoloji, and wil\nsh[o] that in the former our br[u]sh m[u]st ov nesesiti be br[w]d, hweil\nin the later it m[u]st b[i] fein. It iz bei miksi[n] [u]p t[\u00fae] separ[e]t\nleinz ov reserch, [i]ch heili important in itself, that s[o] m[u]ch\nkonfiu[z]on haz ov l[e]t b[i]n ok[e][z]ond. The valiu ov piurli f[o]netik\nobzerv[e]shonz shud on no akount b[i] [u]nderr[e]ted; b[u]t it iz\nnesesari, for th\u00e1t veri r[i]zon, that deialektikal az wel az filolojikal\nf[o]netiks shud b[i] konfeind tu th[e]r proper sf[i]r. The filolojist haz\nm[u]ch tu lern from the f[o]netishan, b[u]t h[i] shud never forget that\nh[i]r, az elshw[e]r, hwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz az important and az\nseientifikali akiuret az hwot iz mini\u00fat and speshal.\n\nHwot iz br[w]d and tipikal iz often m[o]r akiuret [i]ven than hwot iz\nmini\u00fat and speshal. It meit b[i] posibel, for instans, bei a f[o]tografik\nproses, tu reprezent the ekzakt pozishon ov the t[u][n] and the inseid\nw[w]lz ov the mou[t] hweil w[i] prono\u00fans the Italian vouel _i_. B[u]t it\nwud b[i] the gr[e]test mist[e]k tu s[u]p[o]z that this imej givz [u]s the\n[o]nli w[e] in hwich th\u00e1t vouel iz, and kan b[i], prono\u00fanst. Th[o] [i]ch\nindividiual m[e] hav hiz [o]n w[e] ov plesi[n] the t[u][n] in prono\u00fansi[n]\n_i_, w[i] hav [o]nli tu trei the experiment in order tu konvins ourselvz\nthat, with s[u]m efort, w[i] m[e] v[e]ri that pozishon in meni w[e]z and\nyet prodi\u00fas the sound ov. _i_. Hwen, th[e]rfor, in mei \u201cLektiurz on the\nSeiens ov La[n]gwej,\u201d ei g[e]v piktiurz ov the pozishonz ov the vokal\norganz rekweird for pronounsi[n] the tipikal leterz ov the alfabet, ei tuk\ngr[e]t k[e]r tu m[e]k them tipikal, th\u00e1t iz, tu l[i]v them r[u]f skechez\nrather than mini\u00fat f[o]tografs. Ei kanot beter ekspres hwot ei f[i]l on\nthis point than bei kw[o]ti[n] the w[u]rdz ov H\u00e6ckel:\u2014\n\n\u201cFor didaktik p[u]rposez, simpel sk[i]matik figiurz ar far m[o]r y[ue]sful\nthan piktiurz prezervi[n] the gr[e]test f[e][t]fulnes tu n[e]tiur and\nkarid out with the gr[e]test akiurasi.\u201d (\u201cZiele und Wege,\u201d p. 37.)\n\n[The following three letters, now introduced, will complete the Phonetic\nAlphabet\u2014\n\n[dh] [ch] [sh]\n\nfor the sounds heard in\u2014_the_n, _ch_eap, _sh_e.]\n\nTu ret[u]rn, after [dh]is digre[sh]en, tu Mr. Pitman\u2019z alfabet, ei rep[i]t\n[dh]at it rekomendz itself tu mei meind bei hwot [u][dh]erz k[w]l its\ninakiurasi. It [sh]ez its r[i]al and praktikal wizdom bei not atempti[n]\ntu fiks eni disti[n]k[sh]onz hwi[ch] ar not absol[ue]tli nesesari. If, for\ninstans, w[i] t[e]k [dh]e g[u]t[u]ral teniuis, w[i] feind that I[n]gli[sh]\nrekogneizez w[u]n _k_ [o]nli, [w]l[dh]e its pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on v[e]riz\nkonsiderabli. It iz s[u]mteimz prono\u00fanst s[o] az tu prodi\u00fas [w]lmost a\n[sh]arp krak; s[u]mteimz it haz a d[i]p, hol[o] sound; and s[u]mteimz a\nsoft, l[e]zi, _mouill\u00e9_ karakter. It v[e]riz konsiderabli akordi[n] tu\n[dh]e vouelz hwi[ch] fol[o] it, az enibodi m[e] h[i]r, n[e] f[i]l, if h[i]\nprono\u00fansez in s[u]kse[sh]on, _kot_, _k[ue]l_, _kar_, _kat_, _kit_. B[u]t\naz I[n]gli[sh] d[u]z not y[ue]z [dh][i]z diferent _kz_ for the p[u]rpos ov\ndisti[n]gwi[sh]i[n] w[u]rdz or gramatikal formz, w[u]n br[w]d kategori\n[o]nli ov voisles g[u]t[u]ral [ch]eks haz tu b[i] admited in reiti[n]\nI[n]gli[sh]. In [dh]e Semitik la[n]gwejez [dh]e k[e]s iz diferent; not\n[o]nli ar _kaf_ and _kof_ diferent in sound, b[u]t [dh]is diforens iz\ny[ue]zd tu disti[n]gwi[sh] diferent m[i]ni[n]z.\n\nOr if w[i] t[e]k [dh]e vouel _a_ in its orijinal, piur\npron[u]nsi[e][sh]on, leik Italian _a_, w[i] kan [i]zili pers[i]v [dh]at it\nhaz diferent k[u]lorz in diferent kountiz ov I[n]gland. Yet in reiti[n] it\nm[e] b[i] tr[i]ted az w[u]n, bek[w]z it haz b[u]t w[u]n and [dh]e s[e]m\ngramatikal inten[sh]on, and d[u]z not konv[\u00e9] a niu m[i]ni[n] til it\neks[i]dz its weidest limits. Gud sp[i]kerz in I[n]gland prono\u00fans [dh]e _a_\nin _last_ leik [dh]e piur Italian _a_; wi[dh] [u][dh]erz it bek[u]mz\nbr[w]d, wi[dh] [u][dh]erz [t]in. B[u]t [dh]e it m[e] [dh][u]s osil[e]t\nkonsiderabli, it m[u]st not enkr[o][ch]; on [dh]e provins ov _e_, hwi[ch]\nwud [ch][e]nj its m[i]ni[n] tu _lest_; nor on [dh]e provins ov _o_,\nhwk[ch] wud [ch]enj it tu _lost_; nor on [dh]e provins ov _u_, hwi[ch] wud\n[ch]enj it tu _lust_.\n\n[Dh]e difik[u]lti, [dh]erfor, hwi[ch] Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench haz pointed\nout iz r[i]ali restrikted tu [dh][o]z k[e]sez hwer [dh]e\npron[u]nsi[e][sh]on ov vouelz\u2014for it iz wi[dh] vouelz [ch][i]fli [dh]at\nw[i] ar tr[u]beld\u2014v[e]riz s[o] m[u][ch] az tu [o]verstep [dh]e br[w]dest\nlimits ov w[u]n ov [dh]e rekogneizd kategoriz ov sound, and tu enkr[o][ch]\non an[u][dh]er. If w[i] t[e]k [dh]e w[u]rd _fast_, hwi[ch] iz prono\u00fanst\nveri diferentli [i]ven bei ediuk[e]ted p[i]pel, [dh]er wud b[i] no\nnesesiti for indiketi[n] in reiti[n] [dh]e diferent [sh][e]dz ov\npron[u]nsi[e][sh]on hwi[ch] lei betw[i]n [dh]e sound ov [dh]e [sh]ort\nItalian _a_ and [dh]e lo[n] _a_ herd in _father_. B[u]t hwen [dh]e _a_ in\n_fast_ iz prono\u00fanst leik [dh]e _a_ in _fat_, [dh]en [dh]e nesesiti ov a\nniu grafik eksp[o]nent wud areiz, and Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench wud b[i] reit\nin twiti[n] f[o]netik reformerz wi[dh] sa[n]k[sh]oni[n] t[\u00fae] speli[n]z\nfor [dh]e s[e]m w[u]rd.\n\nEi kud men[sh]on [dh]e n[e]mz ov [t]r[i] bi[sh]ops, w[u]n ov h[ue]m\nprono\u00fanst [dh]e vouel in _God_ leik _G[w]d_, an[u][dh]er leik _rod_, a\n[t]erd leik _gad_. [Dh]e last pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on wud probabli b[i]\nkondemd bei everibodi, b[u]t [dh]e [u][dh]er t[\u00fa] wud rem[e]n\nsa[n]k[sh]ond bei [dh]e heiest [w][t]oriti, and [dh]erfor ret[e]nd in\nfonetik reiti[n].\n\nS[o] far, [dh]en, ei admit [dh]at Ar[ch]bi[sh]op Trench haz pointed out a\nr[i]al difik[u]lti inh[i]rent in f[o]netik reiti[n]; b[u]t hwot iz [dh]at\nw[u]n difik[u]lti komp[e]rd wi[dh] [dh]e difik[u]ltiz ov [dh]e prezent\nsistem ov I[n]gli[sh] speli[n]? It wud not b[i] onest tu trei tu ev[e]d\nhiz [ch]arj, bei s[e]i[n] [dh]at [dh]er iz b[u]t w[u]n pron[u]nsi[e][sh]on\nrekogneizd bei [dh]e y[ue]zej ov ediuk[e]ted p[i]pel. [Dh]\u00e1t iz not so,\nand [dh][o]z h[ue] n[o] best [dh]e beioloji ov la[n]gwej, no [dh]at it\nkan[o]t b[i] s[o]. [Dh]e veri leif ov la[n]gwej konsists in a konstant\nfri[sh]on betw[i]n [dh]e sentripetal f[o]rs ov k[u]stom and [dh]e\nsentrifiugal fors ov individiual fr[i]dom. Agenst [dh]at difik[u]lti\n[dh][e]rfor, [dh]er iz n[o] remedi. [O]nli h[i]r agen [dh]e Ar[ch]bi[sh]op\ns[i]mz tu hav overlukt [dh]e fakt [dh]at [dh]e difik[u]lti belo[n]z tu\n[dh]e prezent sistem ov speli[n] n[i]rli az m[u][ch] az tu [dh]e fonetik\nsistem. [Dh]er iz b[u]t w[u]n rekogneizd w[e] ov speli[n], b[u]t everibodi\nprono\u00fansez akordi[n] tu hiz [o]n idiosinkrasiz. It wud b[i] [dh]e s[e]m\nwi[dh] f[o]netik speli[n]. W[u]n pron[u]nsie[sh]on, [dh]e best rekogneizd,\nwud hav tu b[i] adopted az a standard in fonetik reiti[n], l[i]vi[n] tu\neveri Ingli[sh]man hiz fr[i]dom tu prono\u00fans az s[i]me[t] gud tu him. W[i]\n[sh]ud l[ue]z n[u][t]i[n] ov hwot w[i] nou poz\u00e9s, and [w]l [dh]e\nadvantejez ov f[o]netik reiti[n] wud rem[e]n [u]nimp[e]rd. [Dh]e r[i]al\nst[e]t ov [dh]e k[e]s iz, [dh][e]rfor, [dh]is\u2014N[o]w[u]n defendz [dh]e\nprezent sistem ov speli[n]; everiw[u]n admits [dh]e s[i]ri[u]s injuri\nhwi[ch] it inflikts on na[sh]onal ediuk[e][sh]on. Everibodi admits [dh]e\npraktikal advantejez ov fonetik speli[n], b[u]t after [dh]\u00e1t, [w]l eksklem\n[dh]at a reform ov speli[n], hw[o]der par[sh]al or kompl[i]t, iz\nimposibel. Hwe[dh]er it iz imposibel or not, ei gladli l[i]v tu men ov de\nw[u]rld tu deseid. Az a skolar, az a stiudent ov [dh]e histori ov\nla[n]gwej, ei simpli m[e]nten [dh]at in everi riten la[n]gwej a reform ov\nspeli[n] iz, s[ue]nler or l[e]ter, inevitabel. N[o] dout [dh]e [i]vil d[e]\nm[e] b[i] put of. Ei hav litel dout [dh]at it wil b[i] put of for meni\njener[e][sh]onz, and [dh]at a r[i]al reform wil probabli not b[i] karid\neksept konk[u]rentli wi[dh] a veiolent so[sh]al konv[u]l[sh]on. Onli let\n[dh]e kwestion b[i] argiud f[e]rli. Let fakts hav s[u]m w[e]t, and let it\nnot b[i] s[u]p[o]zd bei men ov [dh]e w[u]rld [dh]at [dh]oz h[ue] defend\n[dh]e prinsipelz ov [dh]e _Fonetik Niuz_ ar [o]nli t[i]totalerz and\nvejet[e]rianz, h[ue] hav never lernd hou tu spel.\n\nIf ei hav sp[o]ken stro[n]li in s[u]port ov Mr. Pitman\u2019z sistem, it iz not\nbek[w]z on [w]l points ei konsider it siup[i]rior tu [dh]e sistemz\nprep[e]rd bei [u][dh]er reformerz, h[ue] ar d[e]li inkr[i]si[n] in\nn[u]mber, b[u]t [ch][i]fli bek[w]z it haz b[i]n tested so larjli, and haz\nstud [dh]e test wel. Mr. Pitman\u2019z _F[o]netik J[u]rnal_ haz nou [1880]\nb[i]n p[u]bli[sh]t [t]erti-[e]t y[i]rz, and if it iz non [dh]at it iz\np[u]bli[sh]t w[i]kli in 12,000 kopiz, [i][ch] kopi reprezenti[n] at l[i]st\nfor or feiv r[i]derz, it m[e] not s[i]m so veri f[ue]li[sh], after [w]l,\nif w[i] imajin [dh]at [dh]er iz s[u]m veital pouer in [dh]\u00e1t insiguifikant\njerm.]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    V.\n\n\nON SANSKRIT TEXTS DISCOVERED IN JAPAN.\n\n\n   Read At The Meeting Of The Royal Asiatic Society, February 16, 1880.\n\nIt is probably in the recollection of some of the senior members of this\nSociety how wide and deep an interest was excited in the year 1853 by the\npublication of Stanislas Julien\u2019s translation of the \u201cLife and Travels of\nHiouen-thsang.\u201d The account given by an eye-witness of the religious,\nsocial, political, and literary state of India at the beginning of the\nseventh century of our era was like a rocket, carrying a rope to a whole\ncrew of struggling scholars, on the point of being drowned in the sea of\nIndian chronology; and the rope was eagerly grasped by all, whether their\nspecial object was the history of Indian religion, or the history of\nIndian literature, architecture, or politics. While many books on Indian\nliterature, published five-and-twenty years ago, are now put aside and\nforgotten, Julien\u2019s three volumes of Hiouen-thsang still maintain a fresh\ninterest, and supply new subjects for discussion, as may be seen even in\nthe last number of the Journal of your Society.\n\nI had the honor and pleasure of working with Stanislas Julien, when he was\ncompiling those large lists of Sanskrit and Chinese words which formed the\nfoundation of his translation of Hiouen-thsang, and enabled him in his\nclassical work, the \u201cM\u00e9thode pour d\u00e9chiffrer et transcrire les noms\nSanskrits\u201d (1861), to solve a riddle which had puzzled Oriental scholars\nfor a long time\u2014viz., how it happened that the original Sanskrit names had\nbeen so completely disguised and rendered almost unrecognizable in the\nChinese translations of Sanskrit texts, and how they could be restored to\ntheir original form.\n\nI had likewise the honor and pleasure of working with your late President,\nProfessor H. H. Wilson, when, after reading Julien\u2019s works, he conceived\nthe idea that some of the original Sanskrit texts of which the Chinese\ntranslations had been recovered might still be found in the monasteries of\nChina. His influential position as President of your Society, and his\npersonal relations with Sir John Bowring, then English Resident in China,\nenabled him to set in motion a powerful machinery for attaining his\nobject; and if you look back some five-and-twenty years, you will find in\nyour Journal a full account of the correspondence that passed between\nProfessor Wilson, Sir J. Bowring, and Dr. Edkins, on the search after\nSanskrit MSS. in the temples or monasteries of China.\n\nOn February 15, 1854, Professor Wilson writes from Oxford to Sir John\nBowring:\u2014\n\n\u201cI send you herewith a list of the Sanskrit works carried to China by Hwen\nTsang in the middle of the seventh century, and in great part translated\nby him, or under his supervision, into Chinese. If any of them,\n_especially the originals_, should be still in existence, you would do\ngood service to Sanskrit literature and to the history of Buddhism by\nprocuring copies.\u201d\n\n_Chinese Translators of Sanskrit Texts._\n\nIt is a well-known fact that, even long before the time of\nHiouen-thsang\u2014that is, long before the seventh century of our era\u2014large\nnumbers of Sanskrit MSS. had been exported to China. These literary\nexportations began as early as the first century A. D. When we read for\nthe first time of commissioners being sent to India by Ming-ti, the\nEmperor of China, the second sovereign of the Eastern Han dynasty, about\n62 or 65 A. D., we are told that they returned to China with a white\nhorse, carrying books and images.(72) And the account proceeds to state\nthat \u201cthese books still remain, and are reverenced and worshipped.\u201d\n\nFrom that time, when Buddhism was first officially recognized in\nChina,(73) there is an almost unbroken succession of importers and\ntranslators of Buddhist, in some cases of Brahmanic texts also, till we\ncome to the two famous expeditions, the one undertaken by Fa-hian in\n400-415, the other by Hiouen-thsang, 629-645 A. D. Fa-hian\u2019s Travels were\ntranslated into French by Abel R\u00e9musat (1836), into English by Mr. Beal\n(1869). Hiouen-thsang\u2019s Travels are well known through Stanislas Julien\u2019s\nadmirable translation. Of Hiouen-thsang we are told that he brought back\nfrom India no less than 520 fasciculi, or 657 separate works, which had to\nbe carried by twenty-two horses.(74) He translated, or had translated, 740\nworks, forming 1,335 fasciculi.\n\nI say nothing of earlier traces of Buddhism which are supposed to occur in\nChinese books. Whatever they may amount to, we look in vain in them for\nevidence of any Chinese translations of Buddhist books before the time of\nthe Emperor Ming-ti; and what concerns us at present is, not the existence\nor the spreading of Buddhism towards the north and east long before the\nbeginning of the Christian era, but the existence of Buddhist books, so\nfar as it can be proved at that time by the existence of Chinese\ntranslations the date of which can be fixed with sufficient certainty.\n\nIn the following remarks on the history of these translations I have had\nthe great advantage of being able to use the Annals of the Sui Dynasty\n(589-618), kindly translated for me by Professor Legge. In China the\nhistory of each dynasty was written under the succeeding dynasty from\ndocuments which may be supposed to be contemporaneous with the events they\nrelate. The account given in the Sui Chronicles of the introduction of\nBuddhism and Buddhist works into China is said to be the best general\naccount to be found in early Chinese literature, and the facts here stated\nmay be looked upon as far more trustworthy than the notices hitherto\nrelied upon, and collected from Chinese writers of different dates and\ndifferent localities. I have also had the assistance of Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio,\nwho compared the names of the translators mentioned in the Sui Annals with\nthe names as given in the K\u2019ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu (Catalogue of the\nBuddhist books compiled in the period K\u2019ai-yuen [A. D. 713-741]); and\nthough there still remain some doubtful points, we may rest assured that\nthe dates assigned to the principal Chinese translators and their works\ncan be depended on as historically trustworthy.\n\nWith regard to the period anterior to Ming-ti, the Sui Chronicles tell us\nthat after an investigation of the records, it was known that Buddhism had\nnot been brought to China previously to the Han dynasty (began 206 B. C.),\nthough some say that it had long been spread abroad, but had disappeared\nagain in the time of the _Kh_in(75) (221-206 B. C.). Afterwards, however,\nwhen _K_ang-_kh_ien was sent on a mission to the regions of the West\n(about 130 B. C.), he is supposed to have become acquainted with the\nreligion of Buddha. He was made prisoner by the Hiungnu (Huns),(76) and,\nbeing kept by them for ten years, he may well have acquired during his\ncaptivity some knowledge of Buddhism, which at a very early time had\nspread from Cabul(77) towards the north and the east.\n\nIn the time of the Emperor \u00c2i (B. C. 6-2) we read that _Kh_in-_k_ing\ncaused I-tsun to teach the Buddhist S\u00fbtras orally, but that the people\ngave no credence to them. All this seems to rest on semi-historical\nevidence only.\n\nThe first official recognition of Buddhism in China dates from the reign\nof the Emperor Ming-ti, and the following account, though not altogether\nfree from a legendary coloring, is generally accepted as authentic by\nChinese scholars: \u201cThe Emperor Ming-ti, of the After Han dynasty (58-75 A.\nD.), dreamt that a man of metal (or golden color) was flying and walking\nin a courtyard of the palace. When he told his dream in the Court, Fu-\u00ee\nsaid that the figure was that of Buddha. On this the Emperor sent the\ngentleman-usher Ts\u00e2i-yin and _Kh_in-_k_ing (who must then have been\ngrowing old) both to the country of the great Yueh-_k_i(78) and to India,\nin order to seek for such an image.\u201d\n\nAn earlier account of the same event is to be found in the Annals of the\nAfter (or Eastern) Han dynasty (25-120 A. D.). These annals were compiled\nby Fan-yeh, who was afterwards condemned to death as a rebel (445 A. D.).\nHere we read(79) (vol. 88, fol. 8 a _seq._): \u201cThere is a tradition that\nthe Emperor Ming-ti (58-75 A. D.) dreamt that there was a giant-like man\nof golden color,(80) whose head was refulgent. The Emperor wanted his\nretainers to interpret it. Then some said, \u2018There is a god (or spirit) in\nthe West who is called Fo, whose height is sixteen feet, and of golden\ncolor.\u2019 Having heard this, the Emperor at once sent messengers to\nTien-_k_u (_i. e._ India), to inquire after the doctrine of Buddha.\nSubsequently, copies of the image of Buddha were drawn in the middle\ncountry (_i. e._ China).\u201d\n\nThe emissaries whom the Emperor Ming-ti had sent to India obtained a\nBuddhist S\u00fbtra in forty-two sections, and an image of Buddha, with which\nand the Sh\u00e2mans K\u00e2_s_yapa M\u00e2ta\u1e45ga and _K_\u00fb-fa-lan, they returned to the\nEast. When Ts\u00e2i-yin approached (the capital), he caused the book to be\nborne on a white horse, and on this account the monastery of the White\nHorse was built on the west of the Yung gate of the city of Lo to lodge\nit. The classic was tied up and placed in the stone house of the Lan\ntower, and, moreover, pictures of the image were drawn and kept in the\n_Kh_ing-y\u00fcan tower, and at the top of the Hsien-_k_ieh hill.\n\nHere we seem to be on _terra firma_, for some of the literary works by\nK\u00e2syapa M\u00e2ta\u1e45ga and _K_\u00fb-fa-lan are still in existence. K\u00e2syapa M\u00e2ta\u1e45ga\n(or, it may be, K\u00e2sya M\u00e2ta\u1e45ga(81)) is clearly a Sanskrit name. M\u00e2ta\u1e45ga,\nthough the name of a _K_and\u00e2la or low-caste man, might well be borne by a\nBuddhist priest.(82) The name of _K_\u00fb-fa-lan, however, is more difficult.\nChinese scholars declare that it can only be a Chinese name,(83) yet if\n_K_\u00fb-fa-lan came from India with _K_\u00e2syapa, we should expect that he too\nbore a Sanskrit name. In that case, _K_\u00fb might be taken as the last\ncharacter of Tien-_k_\u00fb, India, which character is prefixed to the names of\nother Indian priests living in China. His name would be F\u00e2-lan, _i. e._\nDharma + x, whatever lan may signify, perhaps padma, lotus.(84)\n\nM. Feer,(85) calls him Gobhara_n_a, without, however, giving his authority\nfor such a name. The Sutra of the forty-two sections exists in Chinese,\nbut neither in Sanskrit nor in P\u00e2li, and many difficulties would be\nremoved if we admitted, with M. Feer, that this so-called S\u00fbtra of the\nforty-two sections was really the work of K\u00e2_s_yapa and _K_\u00fb-fa-lan, who\nconsidered such an epitome of Buddhist doctrines, based chiefly on\noriginal texts, useful for their new converts in China.\n\nIt is curious that the Sui Annals speak here of no other literary work due\nto K\u00e2_s_yapa and _K_\u00fb-fa-lan, though they afterwards mention the Shih-_k_u\n_S_\u00fbtra by _K_\u00fb-fa-lan as a work almost unintelligible. In the\nFan-i-ming-i-tsi (vol. iii. fol. 4 b), mention is made of five S\u00fbtras,\ntranslated by _K_\u00fb-fa-lan alone, after K\u00e2_s_yapa\u2019s death. In the\nK\u2019ai-yuen-shih-kiao-mu-lu catalogue of the Buddhist books, compiled in the\nperiod K\u2019ai-yuen (713-741 A. D.), vol. i. fol. 6, four S\u00fbtras only are\nascribed to _K_\u00fb-fa-lan:\u2014\n\n1. The Da_s_abh\u00fbmi, called the S\u00fbtra on the destruction of the causes of\nperplexity in the ten stations; 70 A. D. This is the Shi-_k_\u00fb S\u00fbtra.\n\n2. The S\u00fbtra of the treasure of the sea of the law\n(Dharma-samudra-kosha?).\n\n3. The S\u00fbtra of the original conduct of Buddha (Fo-pen-hing-king); 68 A.\nD. (taken by Julien for a translation of the Lalita-vistara).\n\n4. The S\u00fbtra of the original birth of Buddha (_G_\u00e2taka).\n\nThe compiler of the catalogue adds that these translations have long been\nlost.\n\nThe next patron of Buddhism was Ying, the King of _Kh_\u00fb, at the time of\nthe Emperor _K_ang, his father (76-88). Many Sh\u00e2mans, it is said, came to\nChina then from the Western regions, bringing Buddhist S\u00fbtras. Some of\nthese translations, however, proved unintelligible.\n\nDuring the reign of the Emperor Hwan (147-167), An-shi-kao (usually called\nAn-shing), a Sh\u00e2man of An-hsi,(86) brought classical books to Lo, and\ntranslated them. This is evidently the same translator of whom Mr. Beal\n(\u201cJ. R. A. S.\u201d 1856, pp. 327, 332) speaks as a native of Eastern Persia or\nParthia, and whose name Mr. Wylie wished to identify with Arsak. As\nAn-shi-kao is reported to have been a royal prince, who made himself a\nmendicant and travelled as far as China, Mr. Wylie supposes that he was\nthe son of one of the Arsacid\u00e6, Kings of Persia. Mr. Beal on the contrary,\ntakes the name to be a corruption of A_s_vaka or Assaka\u2014_i. e._\n\u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9.(87)\n\nUnder the Emperor Ling, 168-189 A. D., _K_i-_kh_an (or _K_i-tsin), a\nSh\u00e2man from the Yueh-_k_i (called _K_i-lau-kia-_k_uai by Beal),\n_K_\u00fb-fo-soh (Ta-fo-sa), an Indian Sh\u00e2man, and others, worked together to\nproduce a translation of the Nirv\u00e2_n_a-s\u00fbtra, in two sections. The\nK\u2019ai-yuen-lu ascribes twenty-three works to _K_i-_kh_an, and two S\u00fbtras to\n_K_\u00fb-fo-soh.\n\nTowards the end of the Han dynasty, _K_u-yung, the grand guardian, was a\nfollower of Buddha.\n\nIn the time of the Three Kingdoms (220-264) Khang-sang-hui, a Sh\u00e2man of\nthe Western regions, came to W\u00fb(88) with S\u00fbtras and translated them.\nSun-_kh_\u00fcan, the sovereign, believed in Buddhism. About the same time\nKhang-sang-khai translated the longer text of the Sukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha.\n\nIn Wei,(89) during the period Hwang-_kh_u (220-226) the Chinese first\nobserved the Buddhist precepts, shaved their heads, and became Sang\u2014_i.\ne._ monks.\n\nEven before this, a Sh\u00e2man of the Western regions had come here and\ntranslated the Hsi\u00e2o-pin S\u00fbtra\u2014_i. e._ the S\u00fbtra of Smaller Matters\n(Khudda-kanik\u00e2ya?)\u2014but the head and tail of it were contradictory, so that\nit could not be understood.\n\nIn the period Kan-l\u00fb (256-259), _K_\u00fb-shi-hsing (Chu-shuh-lan, in Beal\u2019s\n\u201cCatalogue\u201d) went to the West as far as Khoten, and obtained a S\u00fbtra in\nninety sections, with which he came back to Y\u00e9h, in the Tsin period of\nY\u00fcen-khang (291-299), and translated it (with Dharmaraksha) under the\ntitle of \u201cLight-emitting Pra_gn_\u00e2-p\u00e2ramit\u00e2 S\u00fbtra.\u201d(90)\n\nIn the period Thai-shi (265-274), under the Western Tsin (265-316),\nK\u00fb-f\u00e2-hu(91) (Dharmaraksha), a Sh\u00e2man of the Y\u00fceh-_k_i, travelled through\nthe various kingdoms of the West, and brought a large collection of books\nhome to Lo, where he translated them. It is stated in the Catalogue of the\nGreat _K_au, an interlude in the dynasty of Thang (690-705 A. D.), that in\nthe seventh year of the period Thai-khang (286) he translated\n_K_ing-fa-hwa\u2014_i. e._ the Saddharma-pu_nd_ar\u00eeka (Beal, \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p.\n14).(92)\n\nAbout 300 A. D. _K_i-kung-ming translated the Wei-ma (Vimala-k\u00eertti) and\nFa-hwa (Saddharma-pu_nd_ar\u00eeka).(93)\n\nIn 335 the prince of the _Kh_au kingdom (during the Tsin dynasty)\npermitted his subjects to become Sh\u00e2mans, influenced chiefly by\nBuddhasi_m_ha.(94)\n\nIn the time of the rebel Shih-leh, 330-333, during the Tsin dynasty, a\nSh\u00e2man Wei-tao-an, or Tao-an, of _Kh_ang-shan, studied Buddhist literature\nunder Buddhasi_m_ha. He produced a more correct translation of the\nVimala-k\u00eertti-s\u00fbtra (and Saddharma-pu_nd_ar\u00eeka), and taught it widely; but\nas he was not an original translator, his name is not mentioned in the\nK\u2019ai-yuen-lu. On account of political troubles, T\u00e2o-an led his disciples\nsouthward, to Hsin-ye, and dispatched them to different quarters\u2014F\u00e2-shang\nto Yang-_k_\u00e2u, F\u00e2-hwa to Sh\u00fb\u2014while he himself, with Wei-y\u00fcan, went to\nHsiang-yang and _Kh_ang-an. Here Fu-_kh_ien, the sovereign of the F\u00fbs, who\nabout 350 had got possession of _Kh_ang-an, resisting the authority of the\nTsin, and establishing the dynasty of the Former _Kh_in, received him with\ndistinction. It was at the wish of T\u00e2o-an that Fu-_kh_ien invited\nKum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva to _Kh_ang-an; but when, after a long delay, Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva\narrived there, in the second year of the period Hung-shi (400 A. D.),\nunder Y\u00e2o-hsing, who, in 394, had succeeded Y\u00e2o-_kh_ang,(95) the founder\nof the After _Kh_in dynasty, T\u00e2o-an had been dead already twenty years.\nHis corrected translations, however, were approved by Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva.\n\nThis Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva marks a new period of great activity in the translation\nof Buddhist texts. He is said to have come from Ku-tsi, in Tibet, where\nthe Emperor Y\u00e2o-hsing (397-415) sent for him. Among his translations are\nmentioned the Wei-ma or Vima-la-k\u00eertti-s\u00fbtra (Beal\u2019s \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 17);\nthe Saddharma-pu_nd_ar\u00eeka (Beal\u2019s \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 15); the\nSatyasiddha-vy\u00e2kara_n_a _s_\u00e2stra (Beal\u2019s \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 80). He was a\ncontemporary of the great traveller, Fa-hian, who went from _Kh_ang-an to\nIndia, travelled through more than thirty states, and came back to Nanking\nin 414, to find the Emperor Y\u00e2o-hsing overturned by the Eastern Tsin\ndynasty. He was accompanied by the Indian contemplationist,\nBuddha-bhadra.(96) Buddhabhadra translated the Fa-yan-king, the\nBuddh\u00e2vata_m_saka-vaipulya-s\u00fbtra (Beal\u2019s \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 9), and he and\nFa-hian together, the Mo-ho-sang-_k_i-liu\u2014_i. e._ the Vinaya of the\nMah\u00e2sa\u1e45ghika school (Beal, \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 68).\n\nAnother Sh\u00e2man who travelled to India about the same time was _K_i-mang,\nof Hsin-fang, a district city of K\u00e2o-_kh_ang. In 419, in the period\nY\u00fcan-hsi, he went as far as P\u00e2_t_ali-putra, where he obtained the\nNirva_n_a-s\u00fbtra, and the Sa\u1e45ghika, a book of discipline.(97) After his\nreturn to K\u00e2o-_kh_ang he translated the Nirv\u00e2_n_a-s\u00fbtra in twenty\nsections.\n\nAfterwards the Indian Sh\u00e2man Dharmaraksha II.(98) brought other copies of\nthe foreign MSS. to the West of the Ho. And Ts\u00fc-_kh_\u00fc Mung-sun, the king\nof North Liang, sent messengers to K\u00e2o-_kh_ang for the copy which\n_K_i-mang had brought, wishing to compare the two.(99)\n\nWhen _K_i-mang\u2019s copy arrived,(100) a translation was made of it in thirty\nsections. Dharmaraksha II. translated the Suvar_n_a-prabh\u00e2sa and the\nNirv\u00e2_n_a-Sutr\u00e2, 416-423 A. D. The K\u2019ai-yuen-lu ascribes nineteen works to\nDharmalatsin in 131 fascicles.\n\nBuddhism from that time spread very rapidly in China, and the translations\nbecame too numerous to be all mentioned.\n\nThe Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na school was represented at that time chiefly by the following\ntranslations:\u2014\n\n\n    Translated by Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva:\n    The Vimalak\u00eertti-s\u00fbtra (Beal, \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 17.\n    The Saddharmapun_nd_arika-s\u00fbtra (Beal, \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 15)\n    The Satyasiddhavy\u00e2kara_n_a-_s_\u00e2stra (Beal, \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 80)\n\n    Translated by Dharmalatsin, or Dharmaraksha II.:\n    The Suvar_n_aprabh\u00e2sa-s\u00fbtra (Beal, \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 15)\n    The Nirv\u00e2_n_a-s\u00fbtra (Beal, \u201cCatalogue.\u201d p. 12)\n\n\nThe H\u00eenay\u00e2na school was represented by\u2014\n\n\n    The Sarv\u00e2stiv\u00e2da-vinaya by Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva (Beal, \u201cCatalogue,\u201d pp.\n    67, 68).\n\n    The D\u00eergh\u00e2gama-s\u00fbtra, by Buddhaya_s_as, 410 A. D. (Beal,\n    \u201cCatalogue,\u201d p. 36).\n\n    The Vinaya of the four Parts, by Buddhaya_s_as.(101)\n\n    The Ekottar\u00e2gama-s\u00fbtra (A\u1e45guttara), translated by Dharmanandin, of\n    Tukh\u00e2ra (Fa-hsi).\n\n    The Abhidharma disquisitions, by Dharmayasas,(102) of Kophene.\n\n\nDuring the period of Lung-an (397-401) the Ekottar\u00e2gama (Anguttara) and\nMadhyam\u00e2gama-s\u00fbtras(103) were translated by Sa\u1e45ghadeva of Kophene. This is\nprobably the Ma_gg_hima Nik\u00e2ya, translated by Gotama Sa\u1e45ghadeva, under the\nEastern Tsin dynasty, 317-419.\n\nIn the period \u00ce-hsi (405-418) the Sh\u00e2man _K_i-f\u00e2-ling brought from Khoten\nto Nanking, the southern capital, the Hw\u00e2-yen S\u00fbtra in 36,000 g\u00e2th\u00e2s, and\ntranslated it. This may be the Buddh\u00e2vata_m_saka-s\u00fbtra, called the\nTa-fang-kwang-fo-fa-yan-king (Beal\u2019s \u201cCatalogue,\u201d pp. 9, 10). This\ntranslator is not mentioned in the K\u2019ai-yuen-lu.\n\nIn 420 the Tsin dynasty came to an end.\n\nThe Emperor Thai-wu (424-452), of the N. Wei dynasty, persecuted the\nBuddhists, 446; but from the year 452 they were tolerated. This dynasty\nlasted from 386 to 535, when it was divided into two.\n\nIn 458 there was a conspiracy under Buddhist influences, and more\nstringent laws were enforced against them.\n\nIn 460 five Buddhists arrived in China from Ceylon, _vi\u00e2_ Tibet. Two of\nthem, Yashaita, and Vudanandi, brought images.(104) In 502 a Hindu\ntranslated Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na books, called Fixed Positions and Ten Positions.(105)\n\nDuring the dynasties of _Kh_\u00ee (479-502), Liang (502-557), and _Kh_in\n(557-589), many famous Sh\u00e2mans came to China, and translated books.\n\nThe Emperor W\u00fb of Liang (502-549) paid great honor to Buddhism. He made a\nlarge collection of the Buddhist canonical books, amounting to 5,400\nvolumes, in the Hw\u00e2-lin garden. The Sh\u00e2man Pao-_kh_ang compiled the\ncatalogue in fifty-four fascicles.\n\nIn the period Yung-ping, 508-511, there was an Indian Sh\u00e2man Bodhiru_k_i,\nwho translated many books, as Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva had done. Among them were the\nEarth-holding _s_\u00e2stra (bh\u00fbm\u00eedhara _s_\u00e2stra?) and the Shi-ti-king-lun, the\nDa_s_abh\u00fbmika _s_\u00e2stra, greatly valued by the followers of the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na.(106)\n\nIn 516, during the period Hs\u00ee-phing, the Chinese Sh\u00e2man Wei-shang was sent\nto the West to collect S\u00fbtras and Vinayas, and brought back a collection\nof 170 books. He is not, however, mentioned as a translator in the\nK\u2019ai-yuen-lu.\n\nIn 518 Sung-yun, sent by the queen of the Wei country from Lo-yang to\nIndia, returned after three years, with 175 volumes. He lived to see\nBodhidharma in his coffin. This Bodhidharma, the twenty-eighth patriarch,\nhad arrived in Canton by sea in 528, in the time of Wu-ti, the first\nEmperor of the Liang dynasty. Some Sanskrit MSS. that had belonged to him,\nand other relics, are still preserved in Japan.(107)\n\nIn the time of the Emperor W\u00fb, of the Northern _K_\u00e2u dynasty (561-577), a\nSh\u00e2man, Wei-y\u00fcan-sung, accused the Buddhist priests, and the Emperor\npersecuted them. But in the first year of Kao-tsu, the founder of the Sui\ndynasty, in 589, toleration was again proclaimed. He ordered the people to\npay a certain sum of money, according to the number of the members of each\nfamily, for the purpose of preparing S\u00fbtras (the Buddhist canon) and\nimages. And the Government caused copies of the whole Buddhist canon to be\nmade, and placed them in certain temples or monasteries in the capital,\nand in several other large cities, in such provinces as Ping-_k_\u00e2u,\nHsiang-_k_\u00e2u, Lo-_k_\u00e2u, etc. And the Government caused also another copy\nto be made and to be deposited in the Imperial Library. The Buddhist\nsacred books among the people were found to be several hundred times more\nnumerous than those on the six Kings of Confucius. There were 1,950\ndistinct Buddhist books translated.\n\nIn the period T\u00e2-yeh (605-616) the Emperor ordered the Sh\u00e2man _K_i-kwo to\ncompose a catalogue of the Buddhist books at the Imperial Buddhist chapel\nwithin the gate of the palace. He then made some divisions and\nclassifications, which were as follows:\u2014\n\nThe S\u00fbtras which contained what Buddha had spoken were arranged under\nthree divisions:\u2014\n\n1. The Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na.\n2. The H\u00eenay\u00e2na.\n3. The Mixed S\u00fbtras.\n\nOther books, that seemed to be the productions of later men, who falsely\nascribed their works to greater names, were classed as Doubtful Books.\n\nThere were other works in which Bodhisattvas and others went deeply into\nthe explanation of the meaning, and illustrated the principles of Buddha.\nThese were called Disquisitions, or _S_\u00e2stras. Then there were Vinaya, or\ncompilations of precepts, under each division as before, Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na,\nH\u00eenay\u00e2na, Mixed. There were also Records, or accounts of the doings in\ntheir times of those who had been students of the system. Altogether there\nwere eleven classes under which the books were arranged:\u2014\n\n1. S\u00fbtra.      Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na             617 in 2,076 chapters.\n               Mixed                487 in 852 chapters.\n               Mixed and doubtful   172 in 336 chapters.\n2. Vinaya.     Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na             52 in 91 chapters.\n               H\u00eenay\u00e2na             80 in 472 chapters.\n               Mixed                27 in 46 chapters.\n3. _S_\u00e2stra.   Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na             35 in 141 chapters.\n               H\u00eenay\u00e2na             41 in 567 chapters.\n               Mixed                51 in 437 chapters.\nTotal                               1962 in 6,198 chapters.\n\n_Search for Sanskrit MSS. in China._\n\nIt was the publication of Hiouen-thsang\u2019s Travels which roused the hopes\nof Professor Wilson that some of the old Sanskrit MSS. which had been\ncarried away from India might still be discovered in China.(108)\n\nBut though no pains were spared by Sir John Bowring to carry out Professor\nWilson\u2019s wishes, though he had catalogues sent to him from Buddhist\nlibraries, and from cities where Buddhist compositions might be expected\nto exist, the results were disappointing, at least so far as Sanskrit\ntexts were concerned. A number of interesting Chinese books, translated\nfrom Sanskrit by Hiouen-thsang and others, works also by native Chinese\nBuddhists, were sent to the library of the East India House; but what\nProfessor Wilson and all Sanskrit scholars with him most desired, Sanskrit\nMSS., or copies of Sanskrit MSS., were not forthcoming. Professor Wilson\nshowed me, indeed, one copy of a Sanskrit MS. that was sent to him from\nChina, and, so far as I remember, it was the K\u00e2la-_K_akra,(109) which we\nknow as one of the books translated from Sanskrit into Chinese. That MS.,\nhowever, is no longer to be found in the India Office Library, though it\ncertainly existed in the old East India House.\n\nThe disappointment at the failure of Professor Wilson\u2019s and Sir J.\nBowring\u2019s united efforts was felt all the more keenly because neither\nSanskrit nor Chinese scholars could surrender the conviction that, until a\nvery short time ago, Indian MSS. had existed in China. They had been seen\nby Europeans, such as Dr. Gutzlaff, the hard-working missionary in China,\nwho in a paper, written shortly before his death, and addressed to Colonel\nSykes (\u201cJournal R. A. S.\u201d 1856, p. 73), stated that he himself had seen\nP\u00e2li MSS. preserved by Buddhist priests in China. Whether these MSS. were\nin P\u00e2li or Sanskrit would matter little, supposing even that Dr. Gutzlaff\ncould not distinguish between the two. He speaks with great contempt of\nthe whole Buddhist literature. There was not a single priest, he says,\ncapable of explaining the meaning of the P\u00e2li texts, though some were\ninterlined with Chinese. \u201cA few works,\u201d he writes, \u201care found in a\ncharacter originally used for writing the P\u00e2li, and may be considered as\nfaithful transcripts of the earliest writings of Buddhism. They are looked\nupon as very sacred, full of mysteries and deep significations, and\ntherefore as the most precious relics of the founder of their creed. With\nthe letters of this alphabet the priests perform incantations(110) to\nexpel demons, rescue souls from hell, bring down rain on the earth, remove\ncalamities, etc. They turn and twist them in every shape, and maintain\nthat the very demons tremble at the recitation of them.\u201d\n\nAnother clear proof of the existence of Sanskrit MSS. in China is found in\nthe account of a \u201cTrip to Ning-po and T\u2019h\u00eben-t\u2019hae,\u201d by Dr. Edkins. After\nhe had arrived at Fang-kwang, he ascended the Hwa-ling hill, and at the\ntop of the hill he describes a small temple with a priest residing in it.\n\u201cScattered over the hill,\u201d he adds, \u201cthere are various little temples\nwhere priests reside, but the one at the top is the most celebrated, as\nbeing the place where Che-k\u2019hae spent a portion of his time, worshipping a\nSanskrit manuscript of a Buddhist classic.\u201d On his return he arrived at\nthe pagoda erected to the memory of Che-k\u2019hae, the founder of the\nTh\u00eben-t\u2019hae system of Buddhism, in the Chin dynasty (about 580 A. D.). And\na little farther on, situated in a deep dell on the left, was the\nmonastery of Kaon-ming-sze. This is particularly celebrated for its\npossession of a Sanskrit MS., written on the palm leaf, once read and\nexplained by Che-k\u2019hae, but now unintelligible to any of the followers of\nBuddhism in these parts. The priests seemed to pay uncommon reverence to\nthis MS., which is the only one of the kind to be found in the East of\nChina, and thus of great importance in a literary point of view. It is\nmore than 1,300 years old, but is in a state of perfect preservation, in\nconsequence of the palm leaves, which are written on both sides, having\nbeen carefully let into slips of wood, which are fitted on the same\ncentral pin, and the whole, amounting to fifty leaves, inclosed in a\nrosewood box.\n\nThis may account for the unwillingness of the priests to part with their\nold MSS., whether Sanskrit or P\u00e2li, but it proves at the same time that\nthey still exist, and naturally keeps up the hope that some day or other\nwe may still get a sight of them.\n\n_Materials on which Sanskrit MSS. were written._\n\nOf course, it might be said that if MSS. did not last very long in India,\nneither would they do so in China. But even then, we might expect at least\nthat as in India the old MSS. were copied whenever they showed signs of\ndecay, so they would have been in China. Besides, the climate of China is\nnot so destructive as the heat and moisture of the climate of India. In\nIndia, MSS. seldom last over a thousand years. Long before that time paper\nmade of vegetable substances decays, palm-leaves and birch-bark become\nbrittle, and white ants often destroy what might have escaped the ravages\nof the climate. It was the duty, therefore, of Indian Rajahs to keep a\nstaff of librarians, who had to copy the old MSS. whenever they began to\nseem unsafe, a fact which accounts both for the modern date of most of our\nSanskrit MSS. and for the large number of copies of the same text often\nmet with in the same library.\n\nThe MSS. carried off to China were in all likelihood not written on paper,\nor whatever we like to call the material which Nearchus describes \u201cas\ncotton well beaten together,\u201d(111) but on the bark of the birch tree or on\npalm leaves. The bark of trees is mentioned as a writing material used in\nIndia by Curtius;(112) and in Buddhist S\u00fbtras, such as the Kara_nd_a-vy\u00fbha\n(p. 69), we actually read of bh\u00fbr_g_a, birch, m\u00e2si, ink, and karama\n(kalam), as the common requisites for writing. MSS. written on that\nmaterial have long been known in Europe, chiefly as curiosities (I had to\nwrite many years ago about one of them, preserved in the Library at All\nSouls\u2019 College). Of late,(113) however, they have attracted more serious\nattention, particularly since Dr. B\u00fchler discovered in Kashmir old MSS.\ncontaining independent rescensions of Vedic texts, written on birch bark.\nOne of these, containing the whole text of the Rig-Veda Sa_m_hit\u00e2(114)\nwith accents, was sent to me, and though it had suffered a good deal,\nparticularly on the margins, it shows that there was no difficulty in\nproducing from the bark of the birch tree thousands and thousands of pages\nof the largest quarto or even folio size, perfectly smooth and pure,\nexcept for the small dark lines peculiar to the bark of that tree.(115)\n\nAt the time of Hiouen-thsang, in the seventh century, palm leaves seem to\nhave been the chief material for writing. He mentions a forest of\npalm-trees (_Borassus flabelliformis_) near Konka_n_apura (the Western\ncoast of the Dekhan),(116) which was much prized on account of its\nsupplying material for writing (vol. i. p. 202, and vol. iii. p. 148). At\na later time, too, in 965, we read of Buddhist priests returning to China\nwith Sanskrit copies of Buddhist books written on palm leaves\n(peito).(117) If we could believe Hiouen-thsang, the palm leaf would have\nbeen used even so early as the first Buddhist Council,(118) for he says\nthat K\u00e2syapa then wrote the Pi_t_akas on palm leaves (t\u00e2la), and spread\nthem over the whole of India. In the P\u00e2li _G_\u00e2takas, pa_nn_a is used in\nthe sense of letter, but originally par_n_a meant a wing, then a leaf of a\ntree, then a leaf for writing. Pa_tt_a, also, which is used in the sense\nof a sheet, was originally pattra, a wing, a leaf of a tree.\nSuva_nn_a-pa_tt_a, a golden leaf to write on, still shows that the\noriginal writing material had been the leaves of trees, most likely of\npalm-trees.(119) Potthaka, _i. e._ pustaka, book, likewise occurs in the\nP\u00e2li _G_\u00e2takas.(120)\n\nSuch MSS., written on palm leaves, if preserved carefully and almost\nworshipped, as they seem to have been in China, might well have survived\nto the present day, and they would certainly prove of immense value to the\nstudents of Buddhism, if they could still be recovered, whether in the\noriginal or even in later copies.\n\nIt is true, no doubt, that, like all other religions, Buddhism too had its\nperiods of trial and persecution in China. We know that during such\nperiods\u2014as, for instance, in 845, under the Emperor Wu-tsung\u2014monasteries\nwere destroyed, images broken, and books burnt. But these persecutions\nseem never to have lasted long, and when they were over, monasteries,\ntemples, and pagodas soon sprang up again, images were restored, and books\ncollected in greater abundance than ever. Dr. Edkins tells us that \u201cin an\naccount of the Ko-t\u2019sing monastery in the History of T\u2019ian-t\u2019ai-shan it is\nsaid that a single work was saved from a fire there several centuries ago,\nwhich was written on the Pei-to (Pe-ta) or palm leaf of India.\u201d He also\nstates that great pagodas were built on purpose as safe repositories of\nSanskrit MSS., one being erected by the Emperor for the preservation of\nthe newly arrived Sanskrit books at the request of Hiouen-thsang, lest\nthey should be injured for want of care. It was 180 feet high, had five\nstories with grains of She-li (relics) in the centre of each, and\ncontained monuments inscribed with the prefaces written by the Emperor or\nPrince Royal to Hiouen-thsang\u2019s translations.\n\n_Search for Sanskrit MSS. in Japan._\n\nBeing myself convinced of the existence of old Indian MSS. in China, I\nlost no opportunity, during the last five-and-twenty years, of asking any\nfriends of mine who went to China to look out for these treasures,\nbut\u2014with no result!\n\nSome years ago, however, Dr. Edkins, who had taken an active part in the\nsearch instituted by Professor Wilson and Sir J. Bowring, showed me a book\nwhich he had brought from Japan, and which contained a Chinese vocabulary\nwith Sanskrit equivalents and a transliteration in Japanese. The Sanskrit\nis written in that peculiar alphabet which we find in the old MSS. of\nNep\u00e2l, and which in China has been further modified, so as to give it an\nalmost Chinese appearance.\n\nThat MS. revived my hopes. If such a book was published in Japan, I\nconcluded that there must have been a time when such a book was useful\nthere\u2014that is to say, when the Buddhists in Japan studied Sanskrit. Dr.\nEdkins kindly left the book with me, and though the Sanskrit portion was\nfull of blunders, yet it enabled me to become accustomed to that peculiar\nalphabet in which the Sanskrit words are written.\n\nWhile I was looking forward to more information from Japan, good luck\nwould have it that a young Buddhist priest, Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, came to me\nfrom Japan, in order to learn Sanskrit and P\u00e2li, and thus to be able in\ntime to read the sacred writings of the Buddhists in their original\nlanguage, and to compare them with the Chinese and Japanese translations\nnow current in his country. After a time, another Buddhist priest, Mr.\nKasawara, came to me for the same purpose, and both are now working very\nhard at learning Sanskrit. Japan is supposed to contain 34,388,504\ninhabitants, all of whom, with the exception of about 1 or 200,000\nfollowers of the Shint\u00f4 religion,(121) are Buddhists, divided into ten\nprincipal sects, the sect to which Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio belongs being that of\nthe Shinshiu. One of the first questions which I asked Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio,\nwhen he came to read Sanskrit with me, was about Sanskrit MSS. in Japan. I\nshowed him the Chinese-Sanskrit-Japanese Vocabulary which Dr. Edkins had\nleft with me, and he soon admitted that Sanskrit texts in the same\nalphabet might be found in Japan, or at all events in China. He wrote home\nto his friends, and after waiting for some time, he brought me in December\nlast a book which a Japanese scholar, Shuntai Ishikawa, had sent to me,\nand which he wished me to correct, and then to send back to him to Japan.\nI did not see at once the importance of the book. But when I came to read\nthe introductory formula, Evam may\u00e2 srutam, \u201cThus by me it has been\nheard,\u201d the typical beginning of the Buddhist S\u00fbtras, my eyes were opened.\nHere, then, was what I had so long been looking forward to\u2014a Sanskrit\ntext, carried from India to China, from China to Japan, written in the\npeculiar Nepalese alphabet, with a Chinese translation, and a\ntransliteration in Japanese. Of course, it is a copy only, not an original\nMS.; but copies presuppose originals at some time or other, and, such as\nit is, it is a first instalment, which tells us that we ought not to\ndespair, for where one of the long-sought-for literary treasures that were\ntaken from India to China, and afterwards from China to Japan, has been\ndiscovered, others are sure to come to light.\n\nWe do not possess yet very authentic information on the ancient history of\nJapan, and on the introduction of Buddhism into that island. M. L\u00e9on de\nRosny(122) and the Marquis D\u2019Hervey de Saint-Denys(123) have given us some\ninformation on the subject, and I hope that Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio will soon\ngive us a trustworthy account of the ancient history of his country, drawn\nfrom native authorities. What is told us about the conversion of Japan to\nBuddhism has a somewhat legendary aspect, and I shall only select a few of\nthe more important facts, as they have been communicated to me by my\nSanskrit pupil. Buddhism first reached Japan, not directly from China, but\nfrom Corea, which had been converted to Buddhism in the fourth century A.\nD. In the year 200 A. D. Corea had been conquered by the Japanese Empress\nZingu, and the intercourse thus established between the two countries led\nto the importation of Buddhist doctrines from Corea to Japan. In the year\n552 A. D. one of the Corean kings sent a bronze statue of Buddha and many\nsacred books to the Court of Japan, and after various vicissitudes,\nBuddhism became the established religion of the island about 600 A. D.\nJapanese students were sent to China to study Buddhism, and they brought\nback with them large numbers of Buddhist books, chiefly translations from\nSanskrit. In the year 640 A. D. we hear of a translation of the\nSukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbhama-h\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra being read in Japan. This is the title of\nthe Sanskrit text now sent to me from Japan. The translation had been made\nby K\u00f4-s\u00f4-gai (in Chinese, Khang-sang-khai), a native of Tibet, though\nliving in India, 252 A. D., and we are told that there had been eleven\nother translations of the same text.(124)\n\nAmong the teachers of these Japanese students we find our old friend\nHiouen-thsang, whom the Japanese call Genzi\u00f4. In the year 653 a Japanese\npriest, Dosho by name, studied under Genzi\u00f4, adopted the views of the sect\nfounded by him,\u2014the Hoss\u00f4 sect,\u2014and brought back with him to Japan a\ncompilation of commentaries on the thirty verses of Vasubandhu, written by\nDharmap\u00e2la, and translated by Genzi\u00f4. Two other priests, Chits\u00fb and\nChitatsu, likewise became his pupils, and introduced the famous\nAbhidharma-kosha-s\u00e2stra into Japan, which had been composed by Vasubandhu,\nand translated by Genzi\u00f4. They seem to have favored the H\u00eenay\u00e2na, or the\nviews of the Small Vehicle (Kushashiu).\n\nIn the year 736 we hear of a translation of the\nBuddh\u00e2vata_m_saka-vaipulya-s\u00fbtra, by Buddhabhadra and others(125) (317-419\nA. D.), being received in Japan, likewise of a translation of the\nSaddharma-pu_nd_ar\u00eeka by Kumara_g_\u00eeva.(126)\n\nAnd, what is more important still, in the ninth century we are told that\nKukai (died 835), the founder of the Shingon sect in Japan, was not only a\ngood Chinese, but a good Sanskrit scholar also. Nay, one of his disciples,\nShinnyo, in order to perfect his knowledge of Buddhist literature,\nundertook a journey, not only to China, but to India, but died before he\nreached that country.\n\nThese short notices, which I owe chiefly to Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, make it\nquite clear that we have every right to expect Sanskrit MSS., or, at all\nevents, Sanskrit texts, in Japan, and the specimen which I have received\nencourages me to hope that some of these Sanskrit texts may be older than\nany which exist at present in any part of India.\n\n_The Sukhavat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha._\n\nThe text which was sent to me bears the title of\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha-mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra.(127) This is a title well known to all\nstudents of Buddhist literature. Burnouf, in his \u201cIntroduction \u00e0\nl\u2019Histoire du Buddhisme\u201d (pp. 99-102),(128) gave a short account of this\nS\u00fbtra, which enables us to see that the scene of the dialogue was laid at\nR\u00e2_g_ag_ri_ha, and that the two speakers were Bhagavat and \u00c2nanda.\n\nWe saw before, in the historical account of Buddhism in Japan, that no\nless than twelve Chinese translations of a work bearing the same title\nwere mentioned. The Chinese tell us at least of five translations which\nare still in existence.(129)\n\nThose of the Han and Wu dynasties (25-280 A. D.), we are told, were too\ndiffuse, and those of the later periods, the T\u2019ang and Sung dynasties, too\nliteral. The best is said to be that by K\u00f4-s\u00f4-gai, a priest of Tibetan\ndescent, which was made during the early Wei dynasty, about 252 A. D. This\nmay be the same which was read in Japan in 640 A. D.\n\nThe same S\u00fbtra exists also in a Tibetan translation, for there can be\nlittle doubt that the S\u00fbtra quoted by Csoma K\u00f6r\u00f6si (\u201cAs. Res.\u201d vol. xx. p.\n408) under the name of Amit\u00e2bha-vy\u00fbha is the same work. It occupies, as M.\nL\u00e9on Feer informs me, fifty-four leaves, places the scene of the dialogue\nat R\u00e2_g_ag_ri_ha, on the mountain Gr_i_dhra-k\u00fb_t_a, and introduces\nBhagavat and \u00c2nanda as the principal speakers.\n\nThere are Sanskrit MSS. of the Sukhavat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha in your own Library, in\nParis, at Cambridge, and at Oxford.\n\nThe following is a list of the MSS. of the Sukhavat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha, hitherto\nknown:\u2014\n\n1. MS. of the Royal Asiatic Society, London (Hodgson Collection), No. 20.\nSukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha-mah\u00e2y\u00e2nas\u00fbtra, sixty-five leaves. Dated Samvat 934 = A. D.\n1814. It begins: Namo\nda_s_adiganant\u00e2paryantalokadh\u00e2tupratish_t_itebhya_h_, etc. Eva_m_ may\u00e2\n_s_rutam ekasmi_m_ samaye Bhagav\u00e2n R\u00e2_g_ag_ri_he viharati sma. It ends:\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha-mah\u00e2y\u00e2nas\u00fbtra_m_ sam\u00e2pta_m_. Sa_m_vat 934, k\u00e2rttika_s_udi\n4, sa_m_p\u00fbr_n_am abh\u00fbt. _S_r\u00eesuvar_n_apa_n_\u00e2rimab\u00e2nagare\nMaitr\u00eep\u00fbrimah\u00e2vih\u00e2re _S_r\u00eev\u00e2kva_g_rad\u00e2sa va_g_r\u00e2_k_\u00e2ryasya _G_ay\u00e2nandasya\n_k_a sarv\u00e2rthasiddhe_h_. (Nepalese alphabet.)\n\n2. MS. of the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale, Paris (Collection Burnouf), No. 85;\nsixty-four leaves. It begins, after a preamble of five lines, Eva_m_ may\u00e2\n_s_ruta_m_mekasmi samaya Bhagav\u00e2n R\u00e2_g_ag_ri_he viharati sma\nG_ri_dhraku_t_e parvvate mahat\u00e2 Bhikshusanghena s\u00e2rddham. Dv\u00e2tri_ms_rat\u00e2\nBhikshusahasrai_h_. It ends: Bhagavato mit\u00e2bhasya gu_n_aparik\u00eerttana_m_\nBodhisattv\u00e2mavaivartyabh\u00fbmiprave_s_a_h_. Amit\u00e2bhavyuhaparivartta_h_.\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha_h_ sampur_n_a_h_. Iti _S_r\u00ee Amit\u00e2bhasya Sukh\u00e2vat\u00eevyuha n\u00e2ma\nmah\u00e2y\u00e2nast\u00fbra_m_ sam\u00e2pta_m_.(130) (Devan\u00e2gar\u00ee alphabet.)\n\n3. MS. of the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Asiatique at Paris (Collection Hodgson), No. 17;\neighty-two leaves. (Nepalese alphabet.)(131)\n\n4. MS. of the University Library at Cambridge, No. 1368; thirty-five\nleaves. It begins with some lines of prose and verse in praise of Amit\u00e2bha\nand Sukhavat\u00ee, and then proceeds: Eva_m_ may\u00e2 _s_rutam ekasmi_m_ samaye\nBhagav\u00e2n R\u00e2_g_ag_ri_he nagare viharati sma, G_ri_dhrak\u00fb_t_aparvate mahat\u00e2\nBhikshusanghena s\u00e2rddha, etc. It ends: iti sr\u00eemad amit\u00e2bhasya tath\u00e2gatasya\nSukh\u00e2vat\u00eevy\u00fbha-mah\u00e2y\u00e2nas\u00fbtra_m_ sam\u00e2ptam. (Nepalese alphabet, modern.)\n\n5. MS. given by Mr. Hodgson to the Bodleian Library Oxford (Hodgson 3). It\nbegins with: Om namo ratnatray\u00e2ya. Om nama_h_\nsarvabuddhabodhisattvebhya_h_, etc. Then Eva_m_ may\u00e2 _s_rutam, etc. It\nends with sukhav\u00e2t\u00eevy\u00fbhamah\u00e2y\u00e2nas\u00fbtra_m_ sam\u00e2pta_m_. (Nepalese alphabet,\nmodern.)\n\nBut when I came to compare these Sanskrit MSS. with the text sent to me\nfrom Japan, though the title was the same, I soon perceived that their\ncontents were different. While the text, as given in the ordinary\nDevan\u00e2gari or Nepalese MSS., fills about fifty to sixty leaves, the text\nof the S\u00fbtra that reached me from Japan would hardly occupy more than\neight or ten leaves.\n\nI soon convinced myself that this MS. was not a text abbreviated in Japan,\nfor this shorter text, sent to me from Japan, correspond in every respect\nwith the Chinese S\u00fbtra translated by Mr. Beal in his \u201cCatena,\u201d pp.\n378-383, and published in your Journal, 1866, p. 136. No doubt the Chinese\ntranslation, on which Mr. Beal\u2019s translation is based, is not only free,\nbut displays the misapprehensions peculiar to many Chinese renderings of\nSanskrit texts, due to a deficient knowledge either of Sanskrit or of\nChinese on the part of the translators, perhaps also to the different\ngenius of those two languages.\n\nYet, such as it is, there can be no doubt that it was meant to be a\ntranslation of the text now in my possession. Mr. Beal tells us that the\ntranslation he followed is that by Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva, the contemporary of\nFa-hian (400 A. D.), and that this translator omitted repetitions and\nsuperfluities in the text.(132) Mr. Edkins knows a translation, _s. t._\nWou-liang-sheu-king, made under the Han dynasty.(133) What is important is\nthat in the Chinese translation of the shorter text the scene is laid, as\nin the Japanese Sanskrit text, at _S_r\u00e2vast\u00ee, and the principal speakers\nare Bhagavat and _S_\u00e2riputra.\n\nThere is also a Tibetan translation of the short text, described by Csoma\nK\u00f6r\u00f6si (\u201cAs. Res.\u201d vol. xx. p. 439). Here, though the name of the scene is\nnot mentioned, the speakers are Bhagavat and _S_\u00e2riputra. The whole work\noccupies seven leaves only, and the names of the sixteen principal\ndisciples agree with the Japanese text. The translators were\nPra_g_n\u00e2varman, S\u00fbrendra, and the Tibetan Lotsava Ya-shes-sde.\n\nM. Feer informs me that there is at the National Library a Chinese text\ncalled O-mi-to-king, _i. e._ Amit\u00e2bha-s\u00fbtra.(134) The scene is at\n_S_r\u00e2vast\u00ee; the speakers are Bhagavat _S_\u00e2riputra.\n\nAnother text at the National Library is called Ta-o-mi-to-king, _i. e._\nMah\u00e2 Amit\u00e2bha-s\u00fbtra, and here the scene is at R\u00e2_g_ag_ri_ha.\n\nThere is, besides, a third work, called Kwan-wou-liang-sheu-king by\nKiang-ling-ye-she, _i. e._ K\u00e2laya_s_as, a foreigner of the West, who lived\nin China about 424 A. D.\n\nWe have, therefore, historical evidence of the existence of three S\u00fbtras,\ndescribing Sukhavat\u00ee, or the Paradise of Amit\u00e2bha. We know two of them in\nSanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan\u2014one long, the other short. The third is\nknown as yet in Chinese only.\n\nOf the two Sanskrit texts, the one from Nepal, the other from Japan, the\nlatter seems certainly the earlier. But even the fuller text must have\nexisted at a very early time, because it was translated by\n_K_i-lau-kia-_kh_ai, under the Eastern Han dynasty (25-220 A. D.)\u2014_i. e._\nat all events before 220 A. D.\n\nThe shorter text is first authenticated through the translation of\nKum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva, about 400 A. D.; but if the views generally entertained as\nto the relative position of the longer and shorter S\u00fbtras be correct, we\nmay safely claim for our short S\u00fbtra a date within the second century of\nour era.\n\nWhat Japan has sent us is, therefore, a Sanskrit text, of which we had no\ntrace before, which must have left India at least before 400 A. D., but\nprobably before 200 A. D., and which gives us the original of that\ndescription of Amit\u00e2bha\u2019s Paradise, which formerly we knew in a Chinese\ntranslation only, which was neither complete nor correct.\n\nThe book sent to me was first published in Japan in 1773, by Zi\u00f4mi\u00f4, a\nBuddhist priest. The Sanskrit text is intelligible, but full of\ninaccuracies, showing clearly that the editor did not understand Sanskrit,\nbut simply copied what he saw before him. The same words occurring in the\nsame line are written differently, and the Japanese transliteration simply\nrepeats the blunders of the Sanskrit transcript.\n\nThere are two other editions of the same text, published in 1794 A. D. by\nanother Japanese priest, named H\u00f4g\u014f. These are in the possession of Mr.\nBunyiu Nanjio, and offered some help in correcting the text. One of them\ncontains the text and three Chinese translations, one being merely a\nliteral rendering, while the other two have more of a literary character\nand are ascribed to Kum\u00e2ra_g_\u00eeva (400 A. D.), and Hiouen-thsang (648 A.\nD.).\n\nLastly, there is another book by the same H\u00f4g\u014f, in four volumes, in which\nan attempt is made to give a grammatical analysis of the text. This,\nhowever, as Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio informs me, is very imperfect.\n\nI have to-day brought with me the Japanese Sanskrit text, critically\nrestored, and a literal translation into English, to which I have added a\nfew notes.\n\nTRANSLATION.\n\n_Adoration to the Omniscient._\n\nThis is what I have heard. At one time the Blessed (Bhagavat, _i. e._\nBuddha) dwelt at _S_r\u00e2vast\u00ee,(135) in the _G_eta-grove, in the garden of\nAn\u00e2thapi_nd_aka, together with(136) a large company of Bhikshus (mendicant\nfriars), viz. with thirteen hundred Bhikshus, all of them acquainted with\nthe five kinds of knowledge,(137) elders, great disciples,(138) and\nArhats,(139) such as _S_\u00e2riputra, the elder, Mah\u00e2maudgaly\u00e2yana,\nMah\u00e2k\u00e2_s_yapa, Mah\u00e2kapphi_n_a, Mah\u00e2k\u00e2ty\u00e2yana, Mah\u00e2kaush_th_ila, Revata,\n_S_uddhipanthaka, Nanda, \u00c2nanda, R\u00e2hula, Gav\u00e2mpati, Bharadv\u00e2_g_a,\nK\u00e2lodayin, Vakkula, and Aniruddha. He dwelt together with these and many\nother great disciples, and together with many noble-minded Bodhisattvas,\nsuch as Ma_\u00f1g_usr\u00ee, the prince, the Bodhisattva A_g_ita, the Bodhisattva\nGandhahastin, the Bodhisattva Nityodyukta, the Bodhisattva\nAnikshiptadhura. He dwelt together with them and many other noble-minded\nBodhisattvas, and with _S_akra, the Indra or King(140) of the Devas, and\nwith Brahman Sah\u00e2mpati. With these and many other hundred thousands of\nNayutas(141) of sons of the gods, Bhagavat dwelt at _S_r\u00e2vast\u00ee.\n\nThen Bhagavat addressed the honored _S_\u00e2riputra and said: O _S_\u00e2riputra,\nafter you have passed from here over a hundred thousand Ko_t_is of\nBuddha-countries there is in the Western part of a Buddha-country, a world\ncalled Sukhavat\u00ee (the happy country). And there a Tath\u00e2gata, called\nAmit\u00e2yus, an Arhat, fully enlightened, dwells now, and remains, and\nsupports himself, and teaches the Law.(142)\n\nNow what do you think, _S_riputra, for what reason is that world called\nSukhavat\u00ee (the happy)? In that world Sukhavat\u00ee, O _S_riputra, there is\nneither bodily nor mental pain for living beings. The sources of happiness\nare innumerable there. For that reason is that world called Sukhavat\u00ee (the\nhappy).\n\nAnd again, O _S_\u00e2riputra, that world Sukhavat\u00ee is adorned with seven\nterraces, with seven rows of palm-trees, and with strings of bells.(143)\nIt is inclosed on every side,(144) beautiful, brilliant with the four\ngems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, and crystal. With such arrays of\nexcellences peculiar to a Buddha-country is that Buddha-country adorned.\n\nAnd again, O _S_\u00e2riputra, in that world Sukhavat\u00ee there are lotus lakes,\nadorned with the seven gems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, crystal, red\npearls, diamonds, and corals as the seventh. They are full of water which\npossesses the eight good qualities,(145) their waters rise as high as the\nfords and bathing-places, so that even crows(146) may drink there; they\nare full of golden sand, and of vast extent. And in these lotus lakes\nthere are all around on the four sides four stairs, beautiful and\nbrilliant with the four gems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, crystal. And on\nevery side of these lotus lakes gem trees are growing, beautiful and\nbrilliant with the seven gems, viz. gold, silver, beryl, crystal, red\npearls, diamonds, and corals as the seventh. And in those lotus lakes\nlotus flowers are growing, blue, blue-colored, of blue splendor, blue to\nbehold; yellow, yellow-colored, of yellow splendor, yellow to behold; red,\nred-colored, of red splendor, red to behold; white, white-colored, of\nwhite splendor, white to behold; beautiful, beautifully-colored, of\nbeautiful splendor, beautiful to behold, and in circumference as large as\nthe wheel of a chariot.\n\nAnd again, O _S_\u00e2riputra, in that Buddha-country there are heavenly\nmusical instruments always played on and the earth is lovely and of golden\ncolor. And in that Buddha-country a flower-rain of heavenly M\u00e2nd\u00e2rava\nblossoms pours down three times every day, and three times every night.\nAnd the beings who are born there worship before their morning meal(147) a\nhundred thousand Ko_t_is of Buddhas by going to other worlds; and having\nshowered a hundred thousand of Ko_t_is of flowers upon each Tath\u00e2gata,\nthey return to their own world in time for the afternoon rest.(148) With\nsuch arrays of excellences peculiar to a Buddha-country is that\nBuddha-country adorned.\n\nAnd again, O _S_\u00e2riputra, there are in that Buddha-country swans,\ncurlews,(149) and peacocks. Three times every night, and three times every\nday, they come together and perform a concert, each uttering his own note.\nAnd from them thus uttering proceeds a sound proclaiming the five virtues,\nthe five powers, and the seven steps leading towards the highest\nknowledge.(150) When the men there hear that sound, remembrance of Buddha,\nremembrance of the Law, remembrance of the Assembly, rises in their mind.\n\nNow, do you think, O _S_\u00e2riputra, that these are beings who have entered\ninto the nature of animals (birds, etc.)? This is not to be thought of.\nThe very name of hells is unknown in that Buddha-country, and likewise\nthat of (descent into) animal natures and of the realm of Yama (the four\nap\u00e2yas).(151) No, these tribes of birds have been made on purpose by the\nTath\u00e2gata Amit\u00e2yus, and they utter the sound of the Law. With such arrays\nof excellences, etc.\n\nAnd again, O _S_\u00e2riputra, when those rows of palm-trees and strings of\nbells in that Buddha-country are moved by the wind, a sweet and\nenrapturing sound proceeds from them. Yes, O _S_\u00e2riputra, as from a\nheavenly musical instrument consisting of a hundred thousand Ko_t_is of\nsounds, when played by \u00c2ryas, a sweet and enrapturing sound proceeds, a\nsweet and enrapturing sound proceeds from those rows of palm-trees and\nstrings of bells moved by the wind. And when the men hear that sound,\nreflection on Buddha arises in their body, reflection on the Law,\nreflection on the Assembly. With such arrays of excellences, etc.\n\nNow what do you think, O _S_\u00e2riputra, for what reason is that Tath\u00e2gata\ncalled Amit\u00e2yus? The length of life (\u00e2yus), O _S_\u00e2riputra, of that\nTath\u00e2gata and of those men there is immeasurable (amita). Therefore is\nthat Tath\u00e2gata called Amit\u00e2yus. And ten Kalpas have passed, O _S_\u00e2riputra,\nsince that Tath\u00e2gata awoke to perfect knowledge.\n\nAnd what do you think, O _S_\u00e2riputra, for what reason is that Tath\u00e2gata\ncalled Amit\u00e2bh\u00e2s? The splendor (\u00e2bh\u00e2s), O _S_\u00e2riputra, of that Tath\u00e2gata\nis unimpeded over all Buddha-countries. Therefore is that Tath\u00e2gata called\nAmit\u00e2bh\u00e2s.\n\nAnd there is, O _S_\u00e2riputra, an innumerable assembly of disciples with\nthat Tath\u00e2gata, purified and venerable persons, whose number it is not\neasy to count. With such arrays of excellences, etc.\n\nAnd again, O _S_\u00e2riputra, of those beings also who are born in the\nBuddha-country of the Tath\u00e2gata Amit\u00e2yus as purified Bodhisattvas, never\nto return again and bound by one birth only, of those Bodhisattvas also, O\n_S_\u00e2riputra, the number is not easy to count, except they are reckoned as\ninfinite in number.(152)\n\nThen again all beings, O _S_\u00e2riputra, ought to make fervent prayer for\nthat Buddha-country. And why? Because they come together there with such\nexcellent men. Beings are not born in that Buddha-country of the Tath\u00e2gata\nAmit\u00e2yus as a reward and result of good works performed in this present\nlife.(153) No, whatever son or daughter of a family shall hear the name of\nthe blessed Amit\u00e2yus, the Tath\u00e2gata, and having heard it, shall keep it in\nmind, and with thoughts undisturbed shall keep it in mind for one, two,\nthree, four, five, six, or seven nights, that son or daughter of a family,\nwhen he or she comes to die, then that Amit\u00e2yus, the Tath\u00e2gata, surrounded\nby an assembly of disciples and followed by a host of Bodhisattvas, will\nstand before them at their hour of death, and they will depart this life\nwith tranquil minds. After their death they will be born in the world\nSukhavat\u00ee, in the Buddha-country of the same Amit\u00e2yus, the Tath\u00e2gata.\nTherefore, then, O _S_\u00e2riputra, having perceived this cause and\neffect,(154) I with reverence say thus, Every son and every daughter of a\nfamily ought to make with their whole mind fervent prayer for that\nBuddha-country.\n\nAnd now, O _S_\u00e2riputra, as I here at present glorify that world, thus in\nthe East, O _S_\u00e2riputra, other blessed Buddhas, led by the Tath\u00e2gata\nAkshobhya, the Tath\u00e2gata Merudhva_g_a, the Tath\u00e2gata Mah\u00e2meru, the\nTath\u00e2gata Meruprabh\u00e2sa, and the Tath\u00e2gata Ma_\u00f1g_udhva_g_a, equal in number\nto the sand of the river Gang\u00e2, comprehend their own Buddha-countries in\ntheir speech, and then reveal them.(155) Accept this repetition of the\nLaw, called the \u201cFavor of all Buddhas,\u201d which magnifies their\ninconceivable excellences.\n\nThus also in the South, do other blessed Buddhas, led by the Tath\u00e2gata\n_K_andras\u00fbryaprad\u00eepa, the Tath\u00e2gata Yasa_h_prabha, the Tath\u00e2gata\nMah\u00e2r_k_iskandha, the Tath\u00e2gata Meruprad\u00eepa, the Tath\u00e2gata Anantav\u00eerya,\nequal in number to the sand of the river Gang\u00e2, comprehend their own\nBuddha-countries in their speech, and then reveal them. Accept, etc.\n\nThus also in the West do other blessed Buddhas, led by the Tath\u00e2gata\nAmit\u00e2yus, the Tath\u00e2gata Amitaskandha, the Tath\u00e2gata Amitadhva_g_a, the\nTath\u00e2gata Mah\u00e2prabha, the Tath\u00e2gata Mah\u00e2ratnaketu, the Tathagata\n_S_uddhara_s_miprabha, equal in number to the sand of the river Gang\u00e2,\ncomprehend, etc.\n\nThus also in the North do other blessed Buddhas, led by the Tath\u00e2gata\nMah\u00e2r_k_iskandha, the Tath\u00e2gata Vai_s_v\u00e2naranirghosha, the Tath\u00e2gata\nDundubhisvaranirghosha, the Tath\u00e2gata Dushpradharsha, the Tath\u00e2gata\n\u00c2dityasambhava, the Tath\u00e2gata _G_aleniprabha (_G_valanaprabha?), the\nTath\u00e2gata Prabh\u00e2kara, equal in number to the sand, etc.\n\nThus also in the Nadir do other blessed Buddhas, led by the Tath\u00e2gata\nSi_m_ha, the Tath\u00e2gata Ya_s_as, the Tath\u00e2gata Ya_s_a_h_prabh\u00e2va, the\nTath\u00e2gata Dharma, the Tath\u00e2gata Dharmadhara, the Tath\u00e2gata Dharmadhva_g_a,\nequal in number to the sand, etc.\n\nThus also in the Zenith do other blessed Buddhas, led by the Tath\u00e2gata\nBrahmaghosha, the Tath\u00e2gata Nakshatrar\u00e2_g_a, the Tath\u00e2gata\nIndraketudhva_g_ar\u00e2_g_a, the Tath\u00e2gata Gandhottama, the Tath\u00e2gata\nGandhaprabh\u00e2sa, the Tath\u00e2gata Mah\u00e2r_k_iskandha, the Tath\u00e2gata\nRatnakusumasampushpitag\u00e2tra, the Tath\u00e2gata S\u00e2lendrar\u00e2_g_a, the Tath\u00e2gata\nRatnotpalasri, the Tath\u00e2gata Sarv\u00e2darsa, the Tath\u00e2gata Sumerukalpa, equal\nin number to the sand, etc.(156)\n\nNow what do you think, O _S_\u00e2riputra, for what reason is that repetition\nof the Law called the Favor of all Buddhas? Every son or daughter of a\nfamily who shall hear the name of that repetition of the Law and retain in\ntheir memory the names of those blessed Buddhas, will all be favored by\nthe Buddhas, and will never return again, being once in possession of the\ntranscendent true knowledge. Therefore, then, O _S_\u00e2riputra, believe,(157)\naccept, and long for me and those blessed Buddhas!\n\nWhatever sons or daughters of a family shall make mental prayer for the\nBuddha-country of that blessed Amit\u00e2yus, the Tath\u00e2gata, or are making it\nnow or have made it formerly, all these will never return again, being\nonce in possession of the transcendent true knowledge. They will be born\nin that Buddha-country, have been born, or are being born now. Therefore,\nthen, O _S_\u00e2riputra, mental prayer is to be made for that Buddha-country\nby faithful sons and daughters of a family.\n\nAnd as I at present magnify here the inconceivable excellences of those\nblessed Buddhas, thus, O _S_\u00e2riputra, do those blessed Buddhas magnify my\nown inconceivable excellences.\n\nA very difficult work has been done by _S_\u00e2kyamuni, the sovereign of the\n_S_\u00e2kyas. Having obtained the transcendent true knowledge in this world\nSaha, he taught the Law which all the world is reluctant to accept, during\nthis corruption of the present Kalpa, during this corruption of mankind,\nduring this corruption of belief, during this corruption of life, during\nthis corruption of passions.\n\nThis is even for me, O _S_\u00e2riputra, an extremely difficult work that,\nhaving obtained the transcendent true knowledge in this world Saha, I\ntaught the Law which all the world is reluctant to accept, during this\ncorruption of mankind, of belief, of passion, of life, and of this present\nKalpa.\n\nThus spoke Bhagavat joyful in his mind. And the honorable _S_\u00e2riputra, and\nthe Bhikshus and Bodhisattvas, and the whole world with the gods, men,\nevil spirits, and genii, applauded the speech of Bhagavat.(158)\n\nThis is the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2nas\u00fbtra called Sukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha.\n\nThis S\u00fbtra sounds to us, no doubt, very different from the original\nteaching of Buddha. And so it is. Nevertheless it is the most popular and\nmost widely read S\u00fbtra in Japan, and the whole religion of the great mass\nof the people may be said to be founded on it. \u201cRepeat the name of\nAmit\u00e2bha as often as you can, repeat it particularly in the hour of death,\nand you will go straight to Sukhavat\u00ee and be happy forever;\u201d this is what\nJapanese Buddhists are asked to believe: this is what they are told was\nthe teaching of Buddha. There is one passage in our S\u00fbtra which seems even\nto be pointedly directed against the original teaching of Buddha. Buddha\ntaught that as a man soweth so shall he reap, and that by a stock of good\nworks accumulated on earth the way is opened to higher knowledge and\nhigher bliss. Our S\u00fbtra says No; not by good works done on earth, but by a\nmere repetition of the name of Amit\u00e2bha is an entrance gained into the\nland of bliss. This is no better than what later Brahmanism teaches, viz.\n\u201cRepeat the name of Hari or of K_ri_sh_n_a, and you will be saved.\u201d It is\nno better than what even some Christian teachers are reported to teach. It\nmay be that in a lower stage of civilization even such teaching has\nproduced some kind of good.(159) But Japan is surely ripe for better\nthings. What the worship of Amit\u00e2bha may lead to we can learn from a\ndescription given by Dr. Edkins in his \u201cTrip to Ning-po and T\u2019h\u00eben-t\u2019hae.\u201d\n\u201cThe next thing,\u201d he writes, \u201cshown to us was the prison, in which about a\ndozen priests had allowed themselves to be shut up for a number of months\nor years, during which they were to occupy themselves in repeating the\nname of Amida Buddha,(160) day and night, without intermission. During the\nday the whole number were to be thus engaged; and during the night they\ntook it by turns, and divided themselves into watches, so as to insure the\nkeeping up of the work till morning. We asked when they were to be let\nout. To which it was replied, that they might be liberated at their own\nrequest, but not before they had spent several months in seclusion. We\ninquired what could be the use of such an endless repetition of the name\nof Buddha. To which it was answered, that the constant repetition of the\nsacred name had a tendency to purify the heart, to deaden the affections\ntowards the present world, and to prepare them for the state of Nirv\u00e2_n_a.\nIt was further asked whether Buddha was likely to be pleased with such an\nendless repetition of his name. To which it was answered, that in the\nWestern world it was considered a mark of respect to repeat the name of\nany one whom we delighted to honor. The recluses seemed most of them young\nmen; some of whom came out to the bars of their cage to look at the\nstrangers, but kept on repeating the name of Buddha as they stood there.\nIt appeared to us that nothing was more calculated to produce idiocy than\nsuch a perpetual repetition of a single name, and the stupid appearance of\nmany of the priests whom we have seen seems to have been induced by some\nsuch process.\u201d\n\nIs it not high time that the millions who live in Japan, and profess a\nfaith in Buddha, should be told that this doctrine of Amit\u00e2bha and all the\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na doctrine is a secondary form of Buddhism, a corruption of the\npure doctrine of the Royal Prince, and that if they really mean to be\nBuddhists, they should return to the words of Buddha, as they are\npreserved to us in the old S\u00fbtras? Instead of depending, as they now do,\non Chinese translations, not always accurate, of degraded and degrading\nMah\u00e2y\u00e2na tracts, why should they not have Japanese translations of the\nbest portions of Buddha\u2019s real doctrine, which would elevate their\ncharacter, and give them a religion of which they need not be ashamed?\nThere are Chinese translations of some of the better portions of the\nSacred Writings of Buddhism. They exist in Japan too, as may be seen in\nthat magnificent collection of the Buddhist Tripi_t_aka which was sent\nfrom Japan as a present to the English Government, and of which Mr. Beal\nhas given us a very useful Catalogue. But they are evidently far less\nconsidered in Japan than the silly and the mischievous stories of Amit\u00e2bha\nand his Paradise, and those which I know from translations are far from\ncorrect.\n\nI hope that Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio and Mr. Kasawara, if they diligently\ncontinue their study of Sanskrit and P\u00e2li, will be able to do a really\ngreat and good work, after their return to Japan. And if more young\nBuddhist priests are coming over, I shall always, so far as my other\noccupations allow it, be glad to teach them, and to help them in their\nunselfish work. There is a great future in store, I believe, for those\nEastern Islands, which have been called prophetically \u201cthe England of the\nEast,\u201d and to purify and reform their religion\u2014that is, to bring it back\nto its original form\u2014is a work that must be done before anything else can\nbe attempted.\n\nIn return, I hope that they and their friends in Japan, and in Corea and\nChina too, will do all they can to discover, if possible, some more of the\nancient Sanskrit texts, and send them over to us. A beginning, at all\nevents, has been made, and if the members of this Society who have friends\nin China or in Japan will help, if H. E. the Japanese Minister, Mori\nArinori, who has honored us by his presence today, will lend us his\npowerful assistance, I have little doubt that the dream which passed\nbefore the mind of your late President may still become a reality, and\nthat some of the MSS. which, beginning with the beginning of our era, were\ncarried from India to China, Corea, and Japan, may return to us, whether\nin the original or in copies, like the one sent to me by Mr. Shuntai\nIshikawa.\n\nWith the help of such MSS. we shall be able all the better to show to\nthose devoted students who from the extreme East have come to the extreme\nWest in order to learn to read their sacred writings in the original\nSanskrit or P\u00e2li, what difference there is between the simple teaching of\nBuddha and the later developments and corruptions of Buddhism. Buddha\nhimself, I feel convinced, never knew even the names of Amit\u00e2bha,\nAvalokite_s_vara, or Sukhavat\u00ee. Then, how can a nation call itself\nBuddhist whose religion consists chiefly in a belief in a divine Amit\u00e2bha\nand his son Avalokite_s_vara, and in a hope of eternal life in the\nparadise of Sukhavat\u00ee?\n\nPOSTSCRIPT: _Oxford, March 10, 1880._\n\nThe hope which I expressed in my paper on \u201cSanskrit Texts discovered in\nJapan,\u201d viz. that other Sanskrit texts might still come to light in Japan\nor China, has been fulfilled sooner than I expected. Mr. A Wylie wrote to\nme on March 3 that he had brought a number of Sanskrit-Chinese books from\nJapan, and he afterwards kindly sent them to me to examine. They were of\nthe same appearance and character as the dictionary which Dr. Edkins had\nlent me, and the Sukhavat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha which I had received from Japan. But with\nthe exception of a collection of invocations, called the Va_g_ra-s\u00fbtra,\nand the short Pra_g\u00f1_\u00e2-h_ri_daya-s\u00fbtra, they contained no continuous\ntexts. The books were intended to teach the Sanskrit alphabet, and every\npossible and impossible combination of the Devan\u00e2gar\u00ee letters, and that\nwas all. Still, so large a number of books written to teach the Sanskrit\nalphabet augurs well for the existence of Sanskrit texts. There was among\nMr. Wylie\u2019s books a second Chinese-Sanskrit-Japanese vocabulary, of which\nMr. Kasawara has given me the following account: \u201cThis vocabulary is\ncalled \u2018A Thousand Sanskrit and Chinese Words\u2019 and it is said to have been\narranged by I-tsing, who left China for India in 671, about twenty-seven\nyears after Hiouen-thsang\u2019s return to China, and who is best known as the\nauthor of a book called Nanhae-ki-kwei-_k_ou\u2019en, on the manners and\ncustoms of the Indian Buddhists at that time.\n\n\u201cThis vocabulary was brought from China to Japan by Zikaku, a Japanese\npriest, who went to China in 838 and returned in 847. It is stated at the\nend of the book, that in the year 884 a Japanese priest of the name of\nRioyiu copied that vocabulary from a text belonging to another priest,\nY\u00fb\u012dkai. The edition brought from Japan by Mr. Wylie was published there in\nthe year 1727 by a priest called Jakumio.\u201d\n\nThe following curious passage occurs in the preface of Jakumio\u2019s edition:\n\u201cThis vocabulary is generally called \u2018One Thousand Sanskrit and Chinese\nWords.\u2019 It is stated in Annen\u2019s work, that this was first brought (from\nChina) by Zikaku. I have corrected several mistakes in this vocabulary,\ncomparing many copies; yet the present edition is not free from blunders;\nI hope the readers will correct them, if they have better copies.\n\n\u201cIn the temple H\u00f4riuji, in Yamato, there are treasured\nPra_g\u00f1_\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2h_ri_dayas\u00fbtram, and Son-shio-dh\u00e2ra_n_i, written on two\npalm leaves, handed down from Central India; and, at the end of these,\nfourteen letters of the \u2018siddha\u2019 are written. In the present edition of\nthe vocabulary the alphabet is in imitation of that of the palm leaves,\nexcept such forms of letters as cannot be distinguished from those\nprevalent among the scriveners at the present day.\n\n\u201cH\u00f4riuji is one of eleven temples founded by the prince Umayado (who died\nA. D. 621). This temple is at a town named Tatsuta, in the province\nYamato, near Kioto, the western capital.\u201d\n\nHere, then, we have clear evidence that in the year 1727 palm leaves\ncontaining the text of Sanskrit S\u00fbtras were still preserved in the temple\nof H\u00f4riuji. If that temple is still in existence, might not some Buddhist\npriest of Kioto, the western capital of Japan, be induced to go there to\nsee whether the palm leaves are still there, and, if they are, to make a\ncopy and send it to Oxford?\n\nF. M. M.\n\nSECOND POSTSCRIPT: _Oxford, August 2, 1880._\n\nAt the end of my paper on \u201cSanskrit Texts in Japan\u201d I mentioned in a\npostscript (March 10) that I had received from Mr. Wylie a copy of a\nvocabulary called \u201cA Thousand Sanskrit and Chinese Words,\u201d compiled by\nI-tsing, about 700 A. D., and brought to Japan by Zikaku, a Japanese\npriest, in 847 A. D. The edition of this vocabulary which Mr. Wylie bought\nin Japan was published by Jakumio in 1727, and in the preface the editor\nsays: \u201cIn the temple H\u00f4riuji, in Yamato, there are treasured\nPra_g\u00f1_\u00e2p\u00e2ramit\u00e2h_ri_daya-s\u00fbtram and Sonshio-dh\u00e2ra_n_\u00ee, written on two\npalm leaves, handed down, from Central India.\u201d\n\nH\u00f4riuji is one of eleven temples founded by Prince Umayado, who died in A.\nD. 621. This temple is in a town named Tatsuta, in the province Yamato,\nnear Kioto, the western capital. I ended my article with the following\nsentence: \u201cHere, then, we have clear evidence that in the year 1727 palm\nleaves containing the text of Sanskrit S\u00fbtras were still preserved in the\ntemple of H\u00f4riuji. If that temple is still in existence, might not some\nBuddhist priest of Kioto, the western capital of Japan, be induced to go\nthere to see whether the palm leaves are still there, and, if they are, to\nmake a copy and send it to Oxford?\u201d\n\nSooner than expected this wish of mine has been fulfilled. On April 28 Mr.\nShigefuyu Kurihara, of Kioto, a friend of one of my Sanskrit pupils, Mr.\nBunyiu Nanjio, who for some years had himself taken an interest in\nSanskrit, went to the temple or monastery of H\u00f4riuji to inquire whether\nany old Sanskrit MSS. were still preserved there. He was told that the\npriests of the monastery had recently surrendered their valuables to the\nImperial Government, and that the ancient palm leaves had been presented\nto the emperor.\n\nIn a chronicle kept at the monastery of H\u00f4riuji it is stated that these\npalm leaves and other valuables were brought by Ono Imoko, a retainer of\nthe Mikado (the Empress Suiko), from China (during the Sui dynasty,\n589-618) to Japan, in the thirty-seventh year of the age of Prince\nUmayado\u2014_i. e._, A. D. 609. The other valuable articles were:\n\n\n    1. Ni\u00f4, _i. e._, a cymbal used in Buddhist temples;\n\n    2. Midzu-game, a water vessel;\n\n    3. Shaku-jio, a staff, the top of which is armed with metal rings,\n    as carried by Buddhist priests;\n\n    4. Kesa (Kash\u00e2ya), a scarf, worn by Buddhist priests across the\n    shoulder, which belonged to the famous Bodhidharma;\n\n    5. Ha_k_i, a bowl, given by the same Bodhidharma.\n\n\nThese things and the Sanskrit MSS. are said to have belonged to some\nChinese priests, named Hwui-sz\u2019 (Yeshi) and Nien-shan (Nenzen), and to\nfour others successively, who lived in a monastery on the mountain called\nNan-yo (Nangak), in the province of H\u0103ng (K\u00f4) in China. These palm-leaf\nMSS. may, therefore, be supposed to date from at least the sixth century\nA. D., and be, in fact, _the oldest Sanskrit MSS. now in existence_.(161)\n\nMay we not hope that His Excellency Mori Arinori, who expressed so warm an\ninterest in this matter when he was present at the meeting of the Royal\nAsiatic Society, will now lend us his powerful aid, and request the\nMinister of the Department of the Imperial Household to allow these MSS.\nto be carefully copied or photographed?\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\nAcademic freedom not without dangers, 39.\n\n_Adams_, H. C., quoted, 25.\n\nAlphabet, phonetic, table of, 150;\n  reading according to, 151 sq.\n\n_Amyot_, quoted, 131.\n\nAnalogies, false, in comparative theology, 98 sq.\n\n_Anaxagoras_, quoted, 56.\n\nAnglo-Saxon names for the days of the week, 118.\n\nApostles, The, read the Veda, 127.\n\nArchbishops have no official position in English universities, 8.\n\n_Aristotle_, disrespectful remarks about, 38;\n  quoted, 56.\n\nBabylonian system of dividing gold and silver still found in the English\n            sovereign, 19;\n  of reckoning time found on the dial-plates of our clocks, 19.\n\n_Beveridge_, Bishop, quoted, 30.\n\n_Bochart_, quoted, 98.\n\n_Brackett_, A. C., quoted, 88.\n\nBudha, day of, 121.\n\n-- and Buddha, distinction between, 115, 119.\n\nBuddha, a personal and historical character, 122;\n  repetition of his name meritorious, 235.\n\nBuddhism, when recognized in China, 191 sq.;\n  Japan converted to, 213;\n  and Scandinavian mythology, connection between, 113 sq., 122.\n\n_Buhler_, Dr., quoted, 208.\n\n_Burnouf_, quoted, 112.\n\n_Cassius, Dio_, quoted, 118.\n\nChinese translators of Sanskrit texts, 189.\n\nChristian religion, historical and individual, 62.\n\n_Cicero_, quoted, 72.\n\n_Clement of Alexandria_, quoted, 58, 61.\n\n_Clodd_, E., quoted, 84.\n\nCoincidences between Jewish and Pagan religious, 98 sq.\n\n_Colbourne_, Wm., quoted, 153.\n\nCounting possible without language, 67.\n\nDaphne, meaning of, 82.\n\n_Davids Rhys_, quoted, 16.\n\nDictionaries, value of, 17.\n\nDogmatic teaching, evil of, 31.\n\nDonar, 120.\n\n_Du Bois-Reymond_, quoted, 9.\n\nDuhitar, a Sanskrit word for daughter, 17.\n\nDyaus, 121.\n\n_Edkins_, Dr., quoted, 205.\n\nEducation, academic, 28;\n  elementary, 23;\n  scholastic, 24;\n  in the beginning purely dogmatic, 22;\n  compulsory, mark of a new era, 21;\n  dangers of compulsory, 22.\n\n_Ellis_, quoted, 111 sq.\n\n_Ellis_, A. J., quoted, 155 sq.\n\n_Empedokles_, quoted, 56, 65.\n\nEnglish, society, intolerance of, 7.\n\n-- universities described, 10;\n  too little of academic freedom in, 40.\n\n-- names for the days of the week, 118.\n\n-- written in hieroglyphics, 17 sq.\n\n-- spelling, a national misfortune, 22.\n\n-- present number of speaking, 138;\n  future number of speaking, 138.\n\n_Epicharmos_, quoted, 55.\n\nEsquimaux, tale among the, quoted, 83 sq.\n\nEsthonian tale, quoted, 86 sq.\n\nExaminations, good, to be rewarded by honor, 44;\n  a means to ascertain how pupils have been taught, 43;\n  strong feeling against, 42 sq.\n\n_Fergusson_, Jas., quoted, 113 sq.\n\nFigures, our, received from the Arabs, 20.\n\nForgeries in Sanskrit MSS., 109.\n\nFreedom, address on, 1 sq.;\n  of thought, meaning of, 3.\n\nFreethinkers, a title of honor, 6.\n\nFrench, names for the days of the week, 118;\n  present number of speaking, 137;\n  future number of speaking, 138.\n\nFreyja, day of, 120.\n\nFriday, 120.\n\nGenus and Species, meaning of, 32 sq.\n\nGerman names for the days of the week, 119.\n\n-- Middle-High, names for the days of the week, 119.\n\n-- Old-High, names for the days of the week, 119.\n\n-- present number of speaking, 138;\n  future number of speaking, 138.\n\n-- Universities, how much time spent in lecturing in, 39.\n\nGrammars, Latin and Greek, deficiencies of, 26.\n\nGreek and Roman classics not read enough, 25.\n\nGreek philosophy, its development chiefly due to the absence of an\n            established religion and influential priesthood, 63;\n  religion, national and traditional, 62.\n\n_Gutzlaff_, quoted, 205.\n\n_Haekel_, quoted, 182.\n\n_Hall_, Newman, quoted, 154.\n\nHelios, meaning of, 80.\n\n_Helmholtz_, quoted, 7, 40.\n\n_Herakleitos_, quoted, 58.\n\nHeredity, meaning of, 14 sq.\n\n_Herodotus_, quoted, 58.\n\n_Herschel_, Sir John, quoted, 74 sq.\n\n_Herzen_, quoted, 4.\n\n_Hillebrand_, quoted, 9.\n\n_Hipparchus_, a Greek astronomer, 19.\n\n_Hobbes_, referred to, 3, 32.\n\n_Holwell_, quoted, 102.\n\n_Homer_, quoted, 71, 79;\n  condemned by Plato, 59;\n  his soul hanging in Hades on a tree, 58.\n\nHottentot fables quoted, 85 sq.\n\n_Huet_, quoted, 99.\n\nIndians of Nicaragua, quotation from a compendium of the theology of, 70.\n\nIndividualism, what? 4.\n\nIndividuality, principle of, suffering more now than before, 11.\n\nItalian, present number of speaking, 137;\n  future number of speaking, 138.\n\n_Jacolliott_, quoted and criticised, 123 sq.\n\nJapan converted to Buddhism, legend about, 213.\n\nJehovah, name of, found in Chinese literature, 131, 132.\n\n_Jones_, Sir. W., quoted, 100, 101 sq., 107 sq.\n\n-- Eduard, quoted, 144 sq.\n\n_Josephus_, quoted, 116 sq.\n\nJovis dies, 120.\n\n_Julien_, St., quoted, 132.\n\nJupiter, the name, no mere accident, 90 sq.;\n  the thunderer, 120.\n\nJustin Martyr, quoted, 117.\n\nKarman, meaning of, 15 sq.\n\nKnowledge, dead, dangerous, 28.\n\nK\u00fb-fa-lan, works ascribed to him, 194.\n\nKukai, founder of a sect in Japan, 214.\n\nLanguage and thought inseparable, 67;\n  its influence on thought, 79.\n\nLapland, legend of, quoted, 88.\n\nLatin names for the days of the week, 118.\n\nMars, the god of war, 121.\n\n_Meiklejohn_, quoted, 147.\n\nMercurii dies, 119, 121.\n\n_Metrodorus_, quoted, 56.\n\n_Mill_, J. S., quoted, 1, 12, 21;\n  his plea for liberty decried, 4, without reason, 5;\n  his election to Parliament a triumph, 6.\n\n_Milligan_, quoted, 76.\n\n_Montucci_, quoted, 130.\n\nMosaic account of creation found among the Tahitians, 111.\n\nM\u00fcller\u2019s, M., rejoinder to Prof. Blackie, 91 sq.\n\nMythology, meaning of, 55, 64 sq., 66;\n  interest of, in our days, 53;\n  religion of the Greeks, 61;\n  now as there was in time of Homer, 65;\n  pervades the sphere of religion and of thought, 69;\n  philosophy of, lecture on, 53 sq.\n\nNames to be submitted to very careful snuffing, 37.\n\nNihilism, defined, 4; dangers of, 5.\n\nNirvana, definition of, 16.\n\nNominalism, higher, or Science of Language, 37.\n\nOdin, 120, 121, 122.\n\nOld-Norse names for the days of the week, 118.\n\nOmniscience to be avoided, 47.\n\nOriental tongue, now spoken in Europe, 16 sq.\n\nOver-examinations, complaints against, 46.\n\nParadise. See Sukhavati.\n\nPhoibos, meaning of, 81;\n  and Daphne, story of, 81 sq.\n\nPhonetic alphabet, table of, 150;\n  reading according to, 151 sq.\n\nPioneer (an Indian paper), quoted, 113.\n\nPlanets, their names, 118;\n  used for the names of the days of the week, 116.\n\n_Plato_, quoted, 59 sq., 79.\n\nPopulation, table of supposed number of years required for doubling the,\n            in different countries, 138.\n\nPortuguese, number of speaking, 137.\n\nPower and Responsibility of English Universities, 10.\n\nPsyche, meaning of, 69, 72.\n\nPublic opinion, 11, 12.\n\nReligions, division of, 62.\n\n_Remusat_ quoted, 131.\n\nRussian, number of speaking, 138;\n  society described, 4.\n\nSabbath mentioned by Roman and Greek writers, 117 sq.\n\nSanskrit names for the days of the week, 118.\n\n-- MSS., materials on which they were written, 206 sq.;\n     searched for in China, 203 sq.;\n     in Japan, 210;\n     texts discovered in Japan, 181 sq.;\n     translated by Chinese, 189 sq.\n\nSaturni dies, 116 sq., 121.\n\nScandinavian mythology and Buddhism, connection between, 113 sq., 122.\n\nSchools in England and on the Continent, shortcomings of, 25 sq.\n\nSelf-government, dangers of, 10.\n\nSemiphonotopy, name for a style of spelling, 141;\n  reading according to, 191 sq.\n\n_Sextus Empiricus_, quoted, 58.\n\nSnow, name for, 77.\n\nSociety, human, secret of, 13.\n\n_Sokrates_, quoted, 56.\n\nSokratic method, 24.\n\nSpanish, present number of speaking, 137;\n  future number of speaking, 138.\n\n_Species_ and _Genus_, meaning of, 32 sq.\n\nSpelling, reform of, 133 sq., 135 sq.;\n  favorite subject with Roman scholars, 140.\n\n_Stahl_, quoted, 69.\n\n_Sueton_, quoted, 116.\n\nSukhavati-vy\u00fbha, a title of a Buddhist Sutra, 214;\n  list of MSS. of, now extant, 216 sq.;\n  translation of, 220 sq.\n\nSukhavati, or Paradise, described, 223 sq.\n\nSun, sign or name for, 75 sq., 78.\n\nSunrise, feelings at the, 74.\n\n_Swift_, Dean, quoted, 134.\n\nTable of the names of the days of the week in\u2014\n  Anglo-Saxon, 118.\n  English, 118.\n  French, 118.\n  German, 119.\n  -- Middle-High, 119.\n  -- Old-High, 119.\n  Latin, 118.\n  Old Norse, 118.\n  Sanskrit, 118.\n\nTable of the names of the Planets, 118, 119.\n\n_Tacitus_, quoted, 121.\n\nTeachers to be natural examiners, 43.\n\nTestament, the Old, accounts of, found in the literature of the Brahmans,\n            100, 106.\n\n-- Old and New, found in the Vedas., 123;\n     borrowed from Brahmans and Buddhists, 101 sq.\n\nTheology, on false analogies in comparative, 98 sq.\n\n_Thirlwall_, Bishop, quoted, 143.\n\nThought and language inseparable, 67.\n\nThor, 120.\n\nThunar, 120.\n\nThursday, 120.\n\nTiu, 120.\n\n_Tocqueville, De_, referred to, 12.\n\n_Trench_, quoted, 169 sq.\n\n_Tylor_, E. B., quoted, 70.\n\nUniformity, dangers of, 12 sq.\n\nUniversities, English and German, compared, 7 sq.;\n  differences between, 9 sq.;\n  guardians of freedom of thought, 28;\n  medi\u00e6val and modern, home of free thought, 51.\n\nVaksh, Sanskrit word for to grow, like the English to wax, 17.\n\nVeneris dies, 120.\n\nVid, Sanskrit word for to know, like the English to wit, 17.\n\n_Virgil_ quoted, 71.\n\n_Vosisus_, S. J., quoted, 99.\n\nWeek, names of the seven days of the, received from the names of the\n            planets, 116.\n\nWeeks and week-days, system of counting, first introduced in Egypt, 118.\n\n_Wilford_, quoted, 106.\n\n_Wilson_, quoted, 188.\n\nWodan, day of, 120, 121.\n\nWunsch or Wish, name of Wuotan, 121.\n\nWuotan, 120.\n\n_Xenophanes_, on Homer and Hesiod, 57 sq.\n\nZeus Kron\u012bon, meaning of, 80, 121.\n\nZiu, 121.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 Mill tells us that his Essay _On Liberty_ was planned and written\n      down in 1854. It was in mounting the steps of the Capitol in\n      January, 1855, that the thought first arose of converting it into a\n      volume, and it was not published till 1859. The author, who in his\n      Autobiography speaks with exquisite modesty of all his literary\n      performances, allows himself one single exception when speaking of\n      his Essay _On Liberty_. \u201cNone of my writings,\u201d he says, \u201chave been\n      either so carefully composed or so sedulously corrected as this.\u201d\n      Its final revision was to have been the work of the winter of 1858\n      to 1859, which he and his wife had arranged to pass in the South of\n      Europe, a hope which was frustrated by his wife\u2019s death. \u201cThe\n      _Liberty_,\u201d he writes, \u201cis likely to survive longer than anything\n      else that I have written (with the possible exception of the\n      _Logic_), because the conjunction of her mind with mine has rendered\n      it a kind of philosophic text-book of a single truth, which the\n      changes progressively taking place in modern society tend to bring\n      out into strong relief: the importance to man and society, of a\n      large variety of character, and of giving full freedom to human\n      nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions.\u201d\n\n    2 Herzen defined Nihilism as \u201cthe most perfect freedom from all\n      settled concepts, from all inherited restraints and impediments\n      which hamper the progress of the Occidental intellect with the\n      historical drag tied to its foot.\u201d\n\n_    3 Ueber die Akademische Freiheit der Deutschen Universit\u00e4ten_, Rede\n      beim Antritt des Rectorats an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universit\u00e4t in\n      Berlin, am October 15, 1877, gehalten von Dr. H. Helmholtz.\n\n_    4 Ueber eine Akademie der Deutschen Sprache_, p. 34. Another keen\n      observer of English life, Dr. K. Hillebrand, in an article in the\n      October number of the _Nineteenth Century_, remarks: \u201cNowhere is\n      there greater individual liberty than in England, and nowhere do\n      people renounce it more readily of their own accord.\u201d\n\n    5 Spencer Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 391.\n\n    6 Spencer Hardy, _Manual of Buddhism_, p. 39.\n\n    7 \u201cAs one generation dies and gives way to another, the heir of the\n      consequences of all its virtues and all its vices, the exact result\n      of pre\u00ebxistent causes, so each individual, in the long chain of\n      life, inherits all, of good or evil, which all its predecessors have\n      done or been, and takes up the struggle towards enlightenment\n      precisely where they left it.\u201d Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p. 104.\n\n    8 Bunsen, _Egypt_, ii. pp. 77, 150.\n\n_    9 M\u00e9moire sur l\u2019Origine Egyptienne de l\u2019Alphabet Ph\u00e9nicien_, par E.\n      de Roug\u00e9, Paris, 1874.\n\n   10 See Brandis, _Das M\u00fcnzwesen_.\n\n   11 \u201cIs it not almost a self-evident axiom, that the State should\n      require and compel the education, up to a certain standard, of every\n      human being who is born its citizen? Yet who is there that is not\n      afraid to recognize and assert this truth?\u201d _On Liberty_, p. 188.\n\n_   12 Times_, January 25, 1879.\n\n_   13 Sacred Books of the East_, edited by M. M., vols. i. to ix.;\n      Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1879 and 1880.\n\n_   14 Computation or Logic_, t. iii., viii., p. 36.\n\n   15 Lectures on Mr. Darwin\u2019s \u201cPhilosophy of Language,\u201d _Fraser\u2019s\n      Magazine_, June, 1873, p. 26.\n\n   16 Prantl, _Geschichte der Logik_, vol. i. p. 121.\n\n   17 L. Noir\u00e9, _P\u00e4dagogisches Skizzenbuch_, p. 157; \u201cTodtes Wissen.\u201d\n\n   18 Mill _On Liberty,_ p. 193.\n\n   19 Zeller, _Ueber den wissenschaftlichen Unterricht bei den Griechen_,\n      1878, p. 9.\n\n   20 Her. ii. 53, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b7\u03bd \u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n   21 \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd \u1f48\u03bc\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b8\u1fbd \u1f28\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\n      \u1f45\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bd.\n      \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1,\n      \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n      Sext. Emp. _adv. Math._ 1289; ix. 193.\n\n      \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n      \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5.\u2014\n      \u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fbd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f20\u1f72 \u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n      \u1f25 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2,\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03ba\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f37\u03cc\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd,\n      \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03b8\u1fbd \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9, \u03b2\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03b1.\n      Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. p. 601, c.\n\n      \u1f6d\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c0\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5, \u0398\u03c1\u1fb7\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1fe5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2. Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. p. 711, _B. Historia\n      Philosophies_, ed. Ritter et Preller, cap. iii.\n\n   22 \u0395\u1f36\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f54 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\n      \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1. Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. p. 601, c.\n\n   23 See _Introduction to the Science of Religion_, p. 139.\n\n   24 Empedokles, _Carmina_, v. 411 (_Fragm. Philos. Gr\u00e6c._ vol. i. p.\n      12):\u2014\u1f66 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9;\n      \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f72 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03c3\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae.\n\n_   25 Daily Life and Origin of the Tasmanians_, by J. Bonwick, 1870, p.\n      143.\n\n   26 The word \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae is clearly connected in Greek with \u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9, which meant\n      originally blowing, and was used either in the sense of cooling by\n      blowing, or breathing by blowing. In the former acceptation it\n      produced \u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, coldness; \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, cold; \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ac\u03c9, I cool; in the latter\n      \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, breath, then life, then soul. So far the purely Greek growth\n      of words derived from \u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9 is clear. But \u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9 itself is difficult.\n      It seems to point to a root _spu_, meaning to blow out, to spit;\n      Lat. _spuo_, and _spuma_, foam; Goth, _speivan_; Gr. \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03c9, supposed\n      to stand for \u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03cd\u03c9. Hesychius mentions \u03c8\u03cd\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 = \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c4\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd =\n      \u03c0\u03c4\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. (Pott, _Etym. Forsch._ No. 355.) Curtius connects this root\n      with Gr. \u03c6\u03c5, in \u03c6\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1, blowing, bellows, \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03c9, to blow, \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c9, to\n      snort, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9-\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9, to blow, and with Lat. _spirare_ (_i.e._\n      spoisare). See E. B. Tylor, \u201cThe Religion of Savages,\u201d _Fortnightly\n      Review_, 1866, p. 73.\n\n      Stahl, who rejected the division of life and mind adopted by Bacon,\n      and returned to the Aristotelian doctrine, falls back on Plato\u2019s\n      etymology of \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae as \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03b7, from \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd or \u1f40\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, Crat. 400 B.\n      In a passage of his _Theoria Medica Vera_ (Hal\u00e6, 1708), pointed out\n      to me by Dr. Rolleston, Stahl says: \u201cInvenio in lexico gr\u00e6co\n      antiquiore post alios, et Bud\u00e6um imprimis, iterum iterumque reviso,\n      nomenclaturam nimis quam fugitive allegatam; \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03b7, poetice, pro\n      \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae. Incidit animo suspicari, an non verum primum nomen anim\u00e6\n      antiquissimis Gr\u00e6cis fuerit hoc \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03c7\u03b7, quasi \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, e cuius\n      vocis pronunciatione deflectente, uti vere familiariter solet\n      vocalium, inprimis sub accentibus, fugitiva enunciatione, sensim\n      natum sit \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3-\u03c7\u03ae \u03c6\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, denique ad faciliorem pronunciationem in\n      locum \u03c6\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae. Quam suspicionem fovere mihi videtur illud, quod\n      vocabuli \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, pro anima, nulla idonea analogia in lingua gr\u00e6ca\n      occurrat; nam qu\u00e6 a \u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9 ducitur, cum verus huius et directus\n      significatus notorie sit refrigero, indirectus autem magis, spiro,\n      nihil certe h\u00e6c ad animam puto.\u201d (P. 44.)\n\n   27 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u1f72 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74,\n      \u03bf\u1f54\u03b8\u1fbd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03c8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f40\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n      _Il._ ix. 408.\n\n   28 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1fc3\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2;\n      \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f60\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c3\u03c5\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03c5\u03b7.\n      _Il._ xiv. 517.\n\n   29 \u201cTer frustra compressa manu effugit imago,\n      Par levibus ventis volucrique simillima somno.\u201d\n      Virg. _\u00c6n._ ii. 792.\n\n   30 See E. B. Tylor, _Fortnightly Review_, 1866, p. 74.\n\n_   31 Im-manis_, originally \u201cnot small,\u201d came to mean enormous or\n      monstrous. See Preller, _R\u00f6mische Mythologie_, p. 72 _seq._\n\n_   32 Unkulunkulu; or the Tradition of Creation as existing among the\n      Amazulu and other Tribes of South Africa_, by the Rev. J. Callaway,\n      M. D. Natal, 1868. Part I. p. 91.\n\n   33 See J. Samuelson, _Views of the Deity, Traditional and Scientific_,\n      p. 144. Williams & Norgate, 1871.\n\n   34 \u201cIt has already been implied that the Aborigines of Tasmania had\n      acquired very limited powers of abstraction or generalization. They\n      possessed no words representing abstract ideas; for each variety of\n      gum-tree and wattle-tree, etc., etc., they had a name, but they had\n      no equivalent for the expression, \u2018a tree;\u2019 neither could they\n      express abstract qualities, such as hard, soft, warm, cold, long,\n      short, round, etc.; for \u2018hard\u2019 they would say \u2018like a stone;\u2019 for\n      \u2018tall\u2019 they would say \u2018long legs,\u2019 etc.; for \u2018round\u2019 they said \u2018like\n      a ball,\u2019 \u2018like the moon,\u2019 and so on, usually suiting the action to\n      the word, and confirming by some sign the meaning to be understood.\u201d\n      Milligan, _Vocabulary of the Dialects of some of the Aboriginal\n      Tribes of Tasmania_, p. 34. Hobart Town, 1866.\n\n   35 If Signer Ascoli blames me for deriving _Niobe_ with other names for\n      snow from the root _snu_, instead of from the root _snigh_, this can\n      only be due to an oversight. I am responsible for the derivation of\n      Niobe, and for the admission of a secondary root _snyu_ or _nyu_,\n      and so far I may be either right or wrong. But Signer Ascoli ought\n      to have known that the derivation of Gothic _sn\u00e1iv-s_, Old\n      High-German _sn\u00e9o_, or _sn\u00ea_, gen. _sn\u00eaw\u00ea-s_, Lithuanian _sn\u00e8ga-s_,\n      Slav, _snjeg_, Hib. _sneachd_, from the root _snu_, rests on the\n      authority of Bopp (_Glossarium_, 1847, s. v. snu; see also Grimm,\n      _Deutsche Grammatik_, ii. p. 700). He ought likewise to have known\n      that in 1852 Professor Schweizer-Siedler, in his review of\n      B\u00f6tticher\u2019s _Arica_ (Kuhn\u2019s _Zeitschrift_, i. p. 479), had pointed\n      out that _snigh_ may be considered as a secondary root by the side\n      of _snu_ and _sn\u00e2_ (cf. \u03c3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c9, \u03c3\u03bc\u03ae\u03c7\u03c9; \u03c8\u03ac\u03c9, \u03c8\u03ae\u03c7\u03c9; \u03bd\u03ac\u03c9, \u03bd\u03ae\u03c7\u03c9). The real\n      relation of _snu_ to _snigh_ had been explained as early as 1842 by\n      Benfey, _Wurzellexicon_, ii. p. 54; and Signor Ascoli was no doubt\n      aware of what Professor Curtius had written on the relation of\n      _snigh_ to _snu_ (_Grundz\u00fcge der Greichischen Etymologie_, p. 297).\n      Signor Ascoli has certainly shown with greater minuteness than his\n      predecessors that not only Zend _snizh_ and Lithuanian _sn\u00eaga-s_,\n      but likewise Gothic _snaiv-s_, Greek \u03bd\u03af\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9, Latin nix, n\u012dv-is, and\n      ninguis, may be derived from _snigh_; but if from _snigh_, a\n      secondary development of the root _snu_, we can arrive at \u03bd\u03af\u03c6-\u03b1 and\n      at \u03bd\u03af\u03b2\u03b1, the other steps that lead on to Niobe will remain just the\n      same.\n\n   36 At the end of the hymn the poet says:\u2014\n\n      \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u1fbd \u1f44\u03c0\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5;\n      \u1f10\u03ba \u03c3\u03ad\u03bf \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f00\u03c1\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc4\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f66\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n      This would seem to imply that the poet looked upon Helios as a\n      half-god, almost as a hero, who had once lived on earth.\n\n   37 Corssen, _Ueber Steigerungsendungen_, Kuhn\u2019s _Zeitschrift_, iii. p.\n      299.\n\n   38 See _Selected Essays_, vol. i. p. 399.\n\n_   39 The Childhood of the World_, by E. Clodd, p. 62.\n\n_   40 Reynard the Fox in South Africa, or Hottentot Fables and Tales_, by\n      W. H. I. Bleek, 1864, p. 69. Dr. Theophilus Hahn, _Die Sprache der\n      Nama_, 1870, p. 59. As a curious coincidence, it may be mentioned\n      that in Sanskrit, too, the Moon is called _sas\u0101anka_, _i. e._\n      \u201chaving the marks of a hare,\u201d the black marks in the moon being\n      taken for the likeness of the hare. Another coincidence is that the\n      Namaqua Hottentots will not touch hare\u2019s flesh (see Sir James E.\n      Alexander\u2019s _Expedition of Discovery into the Interior of Africa_,\n      vol. i. p. 269), because the hare deceived men, while the Jews\n      abstain from it, because the hare is supposed to chew the cud (Lev.\n      xi. 6).\n\n      A similar tradition on the meaning of death occurs among the Zulus,\n      but as they do not know of the Moon as a deity, the message that men\n      are not to die, or that they are to die, is sent there by\n      Unkulunkulu, the ancestor of the human race, and thus the whole\n      story loses its point. See Dr. Callaway, _Unkulunkulu_, p. 4; and\n      Gray, _Polynesian Mythology_, pp. 16-58.\n\n   41 According to a letter just received from an Esthonian lady,\n      _\u00e4mmarik_ does mean the gloaming in the language of the common\n      people of Esthonia. Bertram (_Ilmatar_, Dorpat, 1870, p. 265)\n      remarks that _Koit_ is the dawn, _Koido t\u00e4ht,_ the morning-star,\n      also called _eha t\u00e4ht_. _\u00c4marik_, the ordinary name for the dawn, is\n      used as the name for the evening twilight, or the gloaming in the\n      well-known story, published by F\u00e4hlmann (_Verhandlungen der\n      gelehrten Estnischen Gesellschaft zu Dorpat_, vol. i.) In Finnish\n      _h\u00e4m\u00e4ra_ is twilight in general.\n\n   42 See _Lectures on the Science of Religion_, pp. 194, 200.\n\n   43 See my _Lectures on the Science of Language_ (10th ed.), vol. ii. p\n      468.\n\n   44 See a most interesting essay, _Le Petit Poucet_ (Tom Thumb), by\n      Gaston Paris.\n\n_   45 Selected Essays_, vol. i. p. 478: \u201cHere then we see that mythology\n      does not always create its own heroes, but that it lays hold of real\n      history, and coils itself round it so closely that it is difficult,\n      nay, almost impossible, to separate the ivy from the oak, the lichen\n      from the granite to which it clings. And here is a lesson which\n      comparative mythologists ought not to neglect. They are naturally\n      bent on explaining everything that can be explained; but they should\n      bear in mind that there may be elements in every mythological riddle\n      which resist etymological analysis, for the simple reason that their\n      origin was not etymological, but historical.\u201d\n\n_   46 Lectures on the Science of Language_, vol. ii. p. 581.\n\n   47 Professor Blackie quotes Pausanias in support of this etymology. He\n      says: \u201cThe account of Pausanias (viii. 25, 26), according to which\n      the terrible impersonation of conscience, or the violated moral law,\n      is derived from \u1f10\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, an old Greek verb originally signifying to\n      be angry, has sufficient probability, not to mention the obvious\n      analogy of \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03af, another name sometimes given to the awful maids\n      (\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03af), from \u1f00\u03c1\u03ac, an imprecation.\u201d If Professor Blackie will refer\n      to Pausanias himself, he will find that the Arcadians assigned a\n      very different cause to the anger of Demeter, which is supposed to\n      have led to the formation of her new name Erinys.\n\n_   48 Asiatic Researches, i._ p. 272; _Life of Sir W. Jones_, vol. ii. p.\n      240 _seq._\n\n_   49 Asiatic Researches_, i. p. 221.\n\n   50 See _Introduction to the Science of Religion_, p. 48.\n\n   51 The Rev. W. W. Gill tells me that the Maori word for bone is _iwi_,\n      but he suspects a foreign origin for the fable founded on it.\n\n_   52 Tree and Serpent Worship_, by James Fergusson. London, 1868. Very\n      similar opinions had been advocated by Rajendralal Mitra, in a paper\n      published in 1858 in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_,\n      \u201cBuddhism and Odinism, illustrated by extracts from Professor\n      Holmboe\u2019s Memoir on the _Traces du Buddhisme en Norv\u00e8ge_.\u201d How much\n      mischief is done by opinions of this kind when they once find their\n      way into the general public, and are supported by names which carry\n      weight, may be seen by the following extracts from the _Pioneer_\n      (July 30, 1878), a native paper published in India. Here we read\n      that the views of Holmboe, Rajendralal Mitra, and Fergusson, as to a\n      possible connection between Buddha and Wodan, between Buddhism and\n      Wodenism, have been adopted and preached by an English bishop, in\n      order to convince his hearers, who were chiefly Buddhists, that the\n      religion of the gentle ascetic came originally, if not from the\n      Northeast of Scotland, at all events from the Saxons. \u201cGotama\n      Buddha,\u201d he maintained, \u201cwas a Saxon,\u201d coming from \u201ca Saxon family\n      which had penetrated into India.\u201d And again: \u201cThe most convincing\n      proof to us Anglo-Indians lies in the fact that the Pur\u00e2nas named\n      Varada and Matsy distinctly assert that the White Island in the\n      West\u2014meaning England\u2014was known in India as Sacana, having been\n      conquered at a very early period by the Sacas or Saks.\u201d After this\n      the bishop takes courage, and says: \u201cLet me call your attention to\n      the P\u00e2li word _Nibban_, called in Sanskirt Nirv_\u00e2na_. In the\n      Anglo-Saxon you have the identical word\u2014Nabban, meaning \u2018not to\n      have,\u2019 or \u2018to be without a thing.\u2019 \u201d\n\n   53 See _Buddhaghosha\u2019s Parables_, translated by Captain Rogers, with an\n      Introduction containing Buddha\u2019s Dhammapada, translated from P\u00e2li,\n      by M. M., 1870, p. 110, note.\n\n   54 Hare, \u201cOn the Names of the Days of the Week\u201d (_Philol. Museum_, Nov.\n      1831); Ideler, _Handbuch der Chronologie_, p. 177; Grimm, _Deutsche\n      Mythologie_, p. 111.\n\n   55 A writer in the _Index_ objects to my representation of what\n      Josephus said with regard to the observance of the seventh day in\n      Greek and barbarian towns. He writes:\u2014\n\n      WASHINGTON, _Nov. 9, 1872._\n\n      \u201cThe article by Max M\u00fcller in the _Index_ of this week contains, I\n      think, one error, caused doubtless by his taking a false translation\n      of a passage from Josephus instead of the original. \u2018In fact,\u2019 says\n      Professor M\u00fcller, \u2018Josephus (_Contra Apion._ ii. 39) was able to say\n      that there was no town, Greek or not Greek, where the custom of\n      observing the seventh day had not spread.\u2019 Mr. Wm. B. Taylor, in a\n      discussion of the Sabbath question with the Rev. Dr. Brown, of\n      Philadelphia, in 1853 (_Obligation of the Sabbath_, p. 120), gives\n      this rendering of the passage: \u2018Nor is there anywhere any city of\n      the Greeks, nor a single barbarian nation, whither the institution\n      of the Hebdomade (_which we mark by resting_) has not travelled;\u2019\n      then in a note Mr. Taylor gives the original Greek of part of the\n      passage, and adds: \u2018Josephus does not say that the Greek and\n      barbarian rested, but that _we_ [the Jews] observe it by rest.\u2019\n\n      \u201cThe corrected translation only adds strength to Max M\u00fcller\u2019s\n      position in regard to the very limited extent of Sabbath observance\n      in ancient times; and Mr. Taylor brings very strong historical proof\n      to maintain the assertion (p. 24) that \u2018throughout all history we\n      discover no trace of a Sabbath among the nations of antiquity.\u2019 \u201d\n\n      It seems to me that if we read the whole of Josephus\u2019s work, _On the\n      Antiquity of the Jews_, we cannot fail to perceive that what\n      Josephus wished to show towards the end of the second book was that\n      other nations had copied or were trying to copy the Jewish customs.\n      He says: \u1f59\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b5\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. He then says\n      that the early Greek philosophers, though apparently original in\n      their theoretic speculations, followed the Jewish laws with regard\n      to practical and moral precepts. Then follows this sentence: \u039f\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b6\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2\n      \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u1fbd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n      \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u1f15\u03bd \u1f14\u03b8\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f25\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f14\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n      \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b2\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. \u039c\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72\n      \u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Standing where\n      it stands, the sentence about the \u1f11\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c2 can only mean that \u201cthere\n      is no town of Greeks nor of barbarians, nor one single people, where\n      the custom of the seventh day, on which we rest, has not spread, and\n      where fastings, and lighting of lamps, and much of what is forbidden\n      to us with regard to food are not observed. They try to imitate our\n      mutual concord also, etc.\u201d Hebdomas, which originally meant the\n      week, is here clearly used in the sense of the seventh day, and\n      though Josephus may exaggerate, what he says is certainty \u201cthat\n      there was no town, Greek or not Greek, where the custom of observing\n      the seventh day had not spread.\u201d\n\n   56 Grimm, _Deutsche Mythologie_, p. 118, note.\n\n   57 In Singalese Wednesday is Bad\u00e2, in Tamil Budau. See Kennet, in\n      _Indian Antiquary_, 1874, p. 90; D\u2019Alwis, _Journal of Ceylon Branch\n      of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1870, p. 17.\n\n   58 Grimm, _Deutsche Mythologie_, p. 276.\n\n_   59 Ibid._ p. 151.\n\n_   60 Ibid._ p. 120.\n\n   61 Grimm, _Deutsche Mythologie_, pp. 137-148.\n\n_   62 Ibid._ p. 126. Oski in Icelandic, the god Wish, one of the names of\n      the highest god.\n\n   63 Tacit. _Hist._ iv. 64: \u201cCommunibus Diis et pr\u00e6cipuo Deorum Marti\n      grates agimus.\u201d\n\n   64 Grimm, _l. c._ p. 148.\n\n   65 P. 125. \u201cPour quiconque s\u2019est occup\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9tudes philologiques, J\u00e9hova\n      d\u00e9riv\u00e9 de Zeus est facile \u00e0 admettre.\u201d\n\n   66 Stanislas Julien, _Le Livre de la Voie et de la Vertu_. Paris, 1842,\n      p. iv.\n\n   67 Montucci, _De studiis sinicis_. Berolini, 1808.\n\n   68 See W. E. A. Axon\u2019s \u201cThe Future of the English Language,\u201d the\n      \u201cAlmanach de Gotha,\u201d and De Candolle\u2019s \u201cHistoire des Sciences,\u201d\n      1873.\n\n   69 The pronoun _it_ woz speld in eight diferent wayz bei Tyndale\n      th[p]s, _hyt_, _hytt_, _hit_, _hitt_, _it_, _itt_, _yt_, _ytt_.\n      Another author speld _tongue_ in the folowing wayz: _tung, tong,\n      tunge, tonge, tounge_. The w[p]rd _head_ woz vario[p]sli speld\n      _hed_, _heede_, _hede_, _hefode_. The spelingz _obay_, _survay_,\n      _pray_, _vail_, _vain_, ar often uzed for _obey_, _survey_, _prey_,\n      _veil_, _vein_.\n\n   70 Popular Education\u2014A Revision of English Spelling a National\n      Necessity. By E. Jones, B.A. London, 1875.\n\n   71 \u201cRig-Veda-Pr\u00e2ti_s_\u00e2khya, Das \u00e4lteste Lehrbuch der Vedischen\n      Phonetik, Sanskrit Text, mit \u00dcbersetzung und Anmerkungen,\n      herausgegeben,\u201d von F. Max M\u00fcller, Leipzig, 1869.\n\n   72 Beal, _Travels of Buddhist Pilgrims_, Introd. p. xxi.; _Chinese\n      Repository_, vol. x. No. 3, March, 1841.\n\n   73 See an account of the Introduction of Buddhism into China, in\n      _Journal Asiatique_, 1856, August, p. 105. _Recherches sur l\u2019origine\n      des ordres religieux dans l\u2019empire chinois_, par Bazin.\n\n   74 Stan. Julien, _P\u00e8lerins Bouddhistes_, vol. i. p. 296.\n\n   75 Dr. Edkins in his Notices of Buddhism in China (which unfortunately\n      are not paged) says that Indians arrived at the capital of China in\n      Shensi in 217 B. C. to propagate their religion.\n\n   76 Dr. Edkins, _l. c._, states that _K_ang-_kh_ien, on his return from\n      the country of the Get\u00e6, informed the Emperor Wu-ti that he had seen\n      articles of traffic from Shindo. The commentator adds that the name\n      is pronounced Kando and Tindo, and that it is the country of the\n      barbarians called Buddha (_sic_).\n\n   77 Kabul or Ko-fu is, in the Eastern Han annals, called a state of the\n      Y\u00fceh-_k_i.\n\n   78 Generally identified with the Get\u00e6, but without sufficient proof.\n\n   79 Translated by Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio.\n\n   80 The golden color or suvarnavar_n_at\u00e2 is one of the thirty-two marks\n      of a Buddha, recognized both in the Southern and Northern schools\n      (Burnouf, _Lotus_, 579).\n\n   81 This name is written in various ways, Ka-shio-ma-t\u00f4-giya,\n      Ka-shio-ma-t\u00f4, Shio-ma-t\u00f4, Ka-t\u00f4, Ma-t\u00f4. In the Fan-i-ming-i-tsi\n      (vol. iii. fol. 4 a), it is said \u201cthat K. was a native of Central\n      India, and a Br\u00e2hman by caste. Having been invited by the Chinese\n      envoy, Ts\u00e2i-yin, he came to China, saw the Emperor, and died in\n      Lo-yang, the capital.\u201d Of _K_\u00fb-fa-lan it is said (_l. c._ vol. iii.\n      fol. 4) that he was a native of Central India, well versed in\n      Vinaya. When invited to go to China, the King would not let him\n      depart. He left secretly, and arrived in China after K\u00e2syapa. They\n      translated the S\u00fbtra in forty-two sections together. After K\u00e2syapa\n      died, _K_\u00fb-fa-lan translated five S\u00fbtras.\n\n   82 See Vasala-sutta (in Nip\u00e2ta-sutta), _v._ 22.\n\n   83 Fa is the Buddhist equivalent for friar.\n\n   84 Mr. B. Nanjio informs me that both in China and Japan Buddhist\n      priests adopt either _K_\u00fb, the last character of Tien-_k_\u00fb, India,\n      or Shih, the first character of Shih-kia\u2014_i. e._ S\u00e2kya\u2014as their\n      surname.\n\n   85 L. Feer, _Sutra en 42 articles_, p. xxvii. _Le Dhammapada par F. H\u00fb,\n      suivi du Sutra en 42 articles_, par L\u00e9on Feer, 1878, p. xxiv.\n\n   86 In Beal\u2019s _Catalogue_ this name is spelt An-shi-ko, An-shi-kao, and\n      Ngan-shai-ko.\n\n   87 His translations occur in Beal\u2019s _Catalogue_, pp. 31, 35, 37, 38, 40\n      (_bis_), 41 (_bis_), 42 (_bis_), 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51 (_ter_),\n      52 (_bis_), 54, 70, 88, 95 (_bis_). In the K\u2019ai-yuen-lu it is stated\n      that he translated 99 works in 115 fascicles.\n\n   88 W\u00fb, comprising _K_eh-kiang and other parts, with its capital in what\n      is now S\u00fb-_k_au, was the southern one of the Three Kingdoms.\n      Sun-_kh_\u00fcan was its first sovereign.\n\n   89 The northern of the Three Kingdoms, with its capital latterly in\n      Lo-yang.\n\n   90 See Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 5.\n\n   91 This name, _K_\u00fb-f\u00e2-hu, is generally re-translated as Dharmaraksha.\n      _K_\u00fb is the second character in Tien-_k_\u00fb, the name of India, and\n      this character was used as their surname by many Indian priests\n      while living in China. In that case their Sanskrit names were mostly\n      translated into two Chinese characters: as F\u00e2, (law = dharma), hu\n      (protection = raksha).\u2014B. N.\n\n   92 According to Mr. Beal (Fahian, p. xxiii.), this _K_\u00fb-f\u00e2-hu, with the\n      help of other Sh\u00e2mans, translated no less than 165 texts, and among\n      them the Lalita-vistara (Pou-yao-king), the Nirv\u00e2_n_a S\u00fbtra, and the\n      Suvar_n_a-prabh\u00e2sa-S\u00fbtra (265-308). The K\u2019ai-yuen-lu assigns to him\n      275 works, in 354 fascicles.\n\n   93 Edkins, _l. c._ Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 17; 14.\n\n   94 Edkins, _l. c._\n\n   95 The Y\u00e2os subdued the F\u00fbs, and ruled as the dynasty of the After\n      _Kh_in.\n\n   96 See p. 208. He is sometimes called Balasan, or, according to Edkins,\n      Palat\u2019sanga, Baddala, or Dabadara. In the Fan-i-ming-i-tsi (vol.\n      iii. fol. 6) the following account of Buddhabhadra is given:\n      \u201cBuddhabhadra met Kum\u00e2ra_g_iva in China, and whenever the latter\n      found any doubts, the former was always asked for an explanation. In\n      the fourteenth year of \u00ce-hsi (418 A. D.) Buddhabhadra translated the\n      Fa-yan-king in sixty volumes.\u201d This S\u00fbtra is the\n      Ta-fang-kwang-fo-fa-yan-king, Buddh\u00e2vata_m_saka-vai-pulya-s\u00fbtra\n      (Beal\u2019s _Catalogue_, p. 9). This translation was brought to Japan in\n      736.\n\n   97 The Sang-_k_i-liu, rules of priesthood; _i. e._ the Vinaya of the\n      Mah\u00e2sa\u1e45ghika school.\n\n   98 I call him Dharmaraksha II., in order to prevent a confusion which\n      has been produced by identifying two Sh\u00e2mans who lived at a distance\n      of nearly 200 years\u2014the one 250 A. D., the other 420 A. D. The first\n      is called _K_\u00fb-f\u00e2-hu, which can be rendered Dharmaraksha; the second\n      is called F\u00e2-f\u0103ng (law-prosperity), but, if transliterated, he is\n      best known by the names T\u2018on-mo-la-tsin, T\u2018an-mo-tsin, or\n      Dharmalatsin. He was a native of Central India, and arrived in China\n      in the first year of the period Hiouen-shi of the Ts\u00fc-_kh_u family\n      of the Northern Liang, 414 A. D. He was the contemporary of\n      _K_i-mang, whom Mr. Beal places about 250 A. D., in order to make\n      him a contemporary of Dharmaraksha I.\n\n   99 Mung-sun died 432, and was succeeded by his heir, who lost his\n      kingdom in 439. Y\u00e2o-_kh_ang\u2019s kingdom, however, was destroyed by the\n      Eastern Tsin, at the time of his second successor, 417, not by\n      Mung-sun.\n\n  100 It is said in the tenth year of the period Hung-shi of Y\u00e2o-_kh_ang\n      (better hsing), the copy arrived at _Kh_ang-an. But this cannot be,\n      if _K_i-mang went to India in 419. There must be something wrong in\n      these dates.\n\n  101 The four Nik\u00e2yas or \u00c2gamas; _cf._ Vinayapi_t_aka, vol. i. p. xl.\n\n_  102 S_\u00e2riputr\u00e2bhidharma-_s_\u00e2stra; _cf._ Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 80.\n\n  103 Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 36.\n\n  104 Edkins, _l. c._\n\n_  105 Ibid._\n\n  106 Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 77; on p. 20 a translation of the Lank\u00e2vat\u00e2ra\n      is mentioned.\n\n  107 See _Athen\u00e6um_, August 7, 1880; and _infra_, p. 370.\n\n  108 A long list of Sanskrit texts translated into Chinese may be found\n      in the _Journal Asiatique_, 1849, p. 353 _seq._, _s. t._\n      \u201cConcordance Sinico-Samskrite d\u2019un nombre consid\u00e9rable de titres\n      d\u2019ouvrages Bouddhiques, recueillie dans un Catalogue Chinois de l\u2019an\n      1306, par M. Stanislas Julien.\u201d\n\n  109 Csoma K\u00f6r\u00f6si, _As. Res._ vol. xx. p. 418. _Journal Asiatique_, 1849,\n      p. 356.\n\n_  110 Cf._ Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 66.\n\n  111 The modern paper in Nepal is said to date from 500 years ago\n      (Hodgson, _Essays_).\n\n  112 M. M., _History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature_, p. 516.\n\n  113 Burnell, _South Indian Pal\u00e6ography_, 2d ed. p. 84 _seq._\n\n  114 See _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. i., Upanishads, Introduction,\n      p. lxxviii.\n\n  115 Dr. B\u00fchler (_Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay,_ 1877, p.\n      29) has the following interesting remarks: \u201cThe Bh\u00fbrga MSS. are\n      written on specially-prepared thin sheets of the inner bark of the\n      Himalayan birch (_B\u0153tula Bhojpatr._ Wallich), and invariably in\n      S\u00e2rad\u00e2 characters. The lines run always parallel to the narrow side\n      of the leaf, and the MSS. present, therefore, the appearance of\n      European books, not of Indian MSS., which owe their form to an\n      imitation of the T\u00e2lapatras. The Him\u00e2laya seems to contain an\n      inexhaustible supply of birch bark, which in Kasm\u00eer and other hill\n      countries is used both instead of paper by the shopkeepers in the\n      bazaars, and for lining the roofs of houses in order to make them\n      water-tight. It is also exported to India, where in many places it\n      is likewise used for wrapping up parcels, and plays an important\n      part in the manufacture of the flexible pipe-stems used by huk\u00e2\n      smokers. To give an idea of the quantities which are brought into\n      Sr\u00eenagar, I may mention that on one single day I counted fourteen\n      large barges with birch bark on the river.... The use of birch bark\n      for literary purposes is attested by the earliest classical Sanskrit\n      writers. K\u00e2lid\u00e2sa mentions it in his dramas and epics; Sustuta,\n      Var\u00e2hamihira (_circa_ 500-550 A. D.) know it likewise. As is the\n      case with nearly all old customs, the use of birch bark for writing\n      still survives in India, though the fact is little known. Mantras,\n      which are worn as amulets, are written on pieces of Bh\u00fbrga with\n      ash_t_au gandb\u00e2_h_, a mixture of eight odoriferous substances\u2014_e.\n      g._ camphor, sandal, tumeric\u2014which vary according to the deity to\n      which the writing is dedicated. The custom prevails in Bengal as\n      well as in Gujar\u00e2t. Birch-bark MSS. occur in Orissa. The Petersburg\n      Dictionary refers to a passage in the K\u00e2_th_aka, the redaction of\n      the Yajurveda formerly current in Kasm\u00eer, where the word Bh\u00fbr_g_a\n      occurs, though it is not clear if it is mentioned there too as\n      material for writing on. The Kasmirian Pandits assert, and\n      apparently with good reason, that in Kasm\u00eer all books were written\n      on bh\u00fbrgapattras from the earliest times until after the conquest of\n      the Valley by Akbar, about 200-250 years ago. Akbar introduced the\n      manufacture of paper, and thus created an industry for which Kasm\u00eer\n      is now famous in India.\u201d\n\n  116 Dr. Burnell, _Indian Antiquary_, 1880, p. 234, shows that\n      Ko\u1e45ka_n_apura is Ko\u1e45ka_n_ah_ll_i in the Mysore territory.\n\n  117 Beal\u2019s _Travels of Buddhist Pilgrims_, Introd. p. xlvi.\n\n_  118 P\u00e8terins Buuddhistes_, vol. i. p. 158.\n\n  119 Fausb\u00f6ll, _Dasaratha-j\u0101_taka, p. 25.\n\n  120 See, also, Albiruni, as quoted by Reinaud, _Memoir sur l\u2019Inde_, p.\n      305.\n\n  121 See Letter to the _Times_, \u201cOn the Religions of Japan,\u201d Oct. 20,\n      1880.\n\n  122 \u201cLe Bouddhisme dans l\u2019extr\u00e8me Orient,\u201d _Revue Scientifique_,\n      D\u00e9cembre, 1879.\n\n_  123 Journal Asiatique_, 1871, p. 386 _seq._\n\n  124 Five of these translations were introduced into Japan; the others\n      seem to have been lost in China. The translations are spoken of as\n      \u201cthe five in existence and the seven missing.\u201d\n\n  125 See p. 192.\n\n  126 See p. 192.\n\n  127 The MSS. vary between Sukhavat\u00ee and Sukh\u00e2vat\u00ee.\n\n  128 See, also, _Lotus de la bonne Loi_, p. 267.\n\n_  129 Journal of the R. A. S._ 1856, p. 319.\n\n  130 I owe this information to the kindness of M. L\u00e9on Feer at Paris.\n\n  131 See _Journal Asiatique_, 3d series, vol. iii. p. 316; vol. iv. p.\n      296-298.\n\n_  132 J. R. A. S._ 1866, p. 136.\n\n_  133 J. R. A. S._ 1866, p. 136.\n\n  134 Beal, _Catalogue_, p. 23. _J. R. A. S._ 1856, p. 319. Beal,\n      _Catalogue_, p. 77, mentions also an\n      Amit\u00e2bha-s\u00fbtra-upade_s_a-_s_\u00e2stra, by Vasubandhu, translated by\n      Bodhiru_k_i (Wou-liang-sheu-king-yeou-po-ti-she). There is an\n      Amit\u00e2bha-s\u00fbtra, translated by Chi-hien of the Wu period\u2014_i. e._\n      222-280 A. D.\u2014mentioned in Mr. Beal\u2019s _Catalogue of the Buddhist\n      Tripitaka_, p. 6. The next S\u00fbtra, which he calls the S\u00fbtra of\n      measureless years, is no doubt the Amit\u00e2yus-s\u00fbtra, Amit\u00e2yus being\n      another name for Amit\u00e2bha (Fu-shwo-wou-liang-sheu-king, p. 6). See,\n      also, _Catalogue_, pp. 99, 102. Dr. Edkins also, in his _Notices of\n      Buddhism in China_, speaks of a translation of \u201cthe S\u00fbtra of\n      boundless age,\u201d by Fa-t\u2019ian-pun, a native of Magadha, who was\n      assisted in his translation by a native of China familiar with\n      Sanskrit, about 1000 A. D.\n\n_  135 S_r\u00e2vast\u00ee, capital of the Northern Ko_s_alas, residence of King\n      Prasena_g_it. It was in ruins when visited by Fa-hian (init. V.\n      S\u00e6c.); not far from the modern Fizabad. _Cf._ Burnouf,\n      _Introduction_, p. 22.\n\n  136 S\u00e2rdha, with, the P\u00e2li saddhim. Did not the frequent mention of\n      1,200 and a half (_i. e._ 1,250), 1,300 and a half (_i. e._ 1,350),\n      persons accompanying Buddha arise from a misunderstanding of s\u00e2rdha,\n      meaning originally \u201cwith a half\u201d?\n\n  137 Abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2n\u00e2bhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2tai_h_. The Japanese text reads\n      abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2t\u00e2bh\u00e2_g\u00f1_\u00e2tai_h_\u2014_i. e._ abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2t\u00e2bhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2tai_h_. If this\n      were known to be the correct reading, we should translate it by\n      \u201cknown by known people,\u201d _notus a viris notis_\u2014_i. e._ well-known,\n      famous. Abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2ta in the sense of known, famous, occurs in\n      Lalita-Vistara, p. 25, and the Chinese translators adopted that\n      meaning here. Again, if we preferred the reading\n      abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2n\u00e2bhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2tai_h_, this, too, would admit of an intelligible\n      rendering\u2014viz. known or distinguished by the marks or\n      characteristics, the good qualities, that ought to belong to a\n      Bhikshu. But the technical meaning is \u201cpossessed of a knowledge of\n      the five abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2s.\u201d It would be better in that case to write\n      abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2t\u00e2bhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2nai_h_, but no MSS. seem to support that reading.\n      The five abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2s or abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2nas which an Arhat ought to possess\n      are the divine sight, the divine hearing, the knowledge of the\n      thoughts of others, the remembrance of former existences, and magic\n      power. See Burnouf, _Lotus_, Appendice, No. xiv. The larger text of\n      the Sukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha has abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2n\u00e2bhi_g\u00f1_aih, and afterwards\n      abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2t\u00e2bhi_g\u00f1_ai_h_. The position of the participle as the\n      uttara-pada in such compounds as abhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2n\u00e2bhi_g\u00f1_\u00e2tai_h_ is common\n      in Buddhist Sanskrit. Mr. Bendall has called my attention to the\n      P\u00e2li abhi_\u00f1\u00f1_\u00e2ta-abhi_\u00f1\u00f1_\u00e2ta (Vinaya-pi_t_aka, ed. Oldenberg, vol.\n      i. p. 43), which favors the Chinese acceptation of the term.\n\n  138 Mah\u00e2sr\u00e2vaka, the great disciples; sometimes the eighty principal\n      disciples.\n\n  139 Arhadbhi_h_. I have left the correct Sanskrit form, because the\n      Japanese text gives the termination adbhi_h_. H\u00f4g\u014f\u2019s text has the\n      more usual form arhantai_h_. The change of the old classical arhat\n      into the P\u00e2li arahan, and then back into Sanskrit arhanta, arahanta,\n      and at last arihanta, with the meaning of \u201cdestroyer of the\n      enemies\u201d\u2014_i. e._ the passions\u2014shows very clearly the different\n      stages through which Sanskrit words passed in the different phases\n      of Buddhist literature. In Tibet, in Mongolia, and in China, Arhat\n      is translated by \u201cdestroyer of the enemy.\u201d See Burnouf, _Lotus_, p.\n      287; _Introduction_, p. 295. Arhat is the title of the Bhikshu on\n      reaching the fourth degree of perfection. _Cf._ S\u00fbtra of the 42\n      Sections, cap. 2. Clemens of Alexandria (d. 220) speaks of the\n      \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 who worshipped a pyramid erected over the relics of a god. Is\n      this a translation of Arhat, as Lassen (\u201cDe nom. Ind. philosoph.\u201d in\n      _Rhein. Museum_, vol. i. p. 187) and Burnouf (_Introduction_, p.\n      295) supposed, or a transliteration of Samana? Clemens also speaks\n      of \u03a3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03af (_Stromat._ p. 539, Potter).\n\n  140 Indra, the old Vedic god, has come to mean simply lord, and in the\n      _K_anda Paritta (_Journal Asiatique_, 1871, p. 220) we actually find\n      Asurinda, the Indra or Lord of the Asuras.\n\n  141 The numbers in Buddhist literature, if they once exceed a Ko_t_i or\n      Ko_t_\u00ee\u2014_i. e._ ten millions\u2014become very vague, nor is their value\n      always the same. Ayuta, _i. e._ a hundred Ko_t_is; Niyuta, _i. e._ a\n      hundred Ayutas; and Nayuta, _i. e._ 1 with 22 zeros, are often\n      confounded; nor does it matter much so far as any definite idea is\n      concerned which such numerals convey to our mind.\n\n  142 Tish_th_ati dh_riy_ate y\u00e2payati dharma_m_ _k_a desayati. This is\n      evidently an idiomatic phrase, for it occurs again and again in the\n      Nepalese text of the Sukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha (MS. 26 _b_, l. 1. 2; 55 _a_, l.\n      2, etc.). It seems to mean, he stands there, holds himself, supports\n      himself, and teaches the law. Burnouf translates the same phrase by,\n      \u201cils se trouvent, vivent existent\u201d (_Lotus_, p. 354). On y\u00e2peti in\n      P\u00e2li, see Fausb\u00f6ll, Dasaratha-j\u00e2taka, pp. 26, 28; and y\u00e2pana in\n      Sanskrit.\n\n  143 Ki\u1e45ki_n_\u00ee_g_\u00e2la. The texts read ka\u1e45ka_n_\u00ee_g_alais _k_a and\n      ka\u1e45ka_n_\u00eegalais _k_a, and again later ka\u1e45ka_n_\u00eegalun\u00e2m (also l\u00fb) and\n      ka\u1e45ka_n_\u00ee_g_al\u00e2n\u00e2m. Mr. Beal translates from Chinese \u201cseven rows of\n      exquisite curtains,\u201d and again \u201cgemmous curtains.\u201d First of all, it\n      seems clear that we must read _g_\u00e2la, net, web, instead of _g_ala.\n      Secondly, ka\u1e45ka_n_a, bracelet, gives no sense, for what could be the\n      meaning of nets or string of bracelets? I prefer to read\n      ki\u1e45ki_n_\u00ee_g_\u00e2la, nets or strings or rows of bells. Such rows of\n      bells served for ornamenting a garden, and it may be said of them\n      that, if moved by the wind, they give forth certain sounds. In the\n      commentary on Dhammapada 30, p. 191, we meet with ki\u1e45kinika_g_\u00e2la,\n      from which likewise the music proceeds; see Childers, _s. v. g_\u00e2la.\n      In the MSS. of the Nepalese Sukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha (_R. A. S._), p. 39 _a_,\n      l. 4, I likewise find svarnaratnaki\u1e45ki_n_\u00ee_g_\u00e2l\u00e2ni, which settles\n      the matter, and shows how little confidence we can place in the\n      Japanese texts.\n\n  144 Anuparikshipta, inclosed; see parikkhepo in Childers\u2019 Dict.\n\n  145 The eight good qualities of water are limpidity and purity,\n      refreshing coolness, sweetness, softness, fertilizing qualities,\n      calmness, power of preventing famine, productiveness. See Beal,\n      _Catena_, p. 379.\n\n  146 K\u00e2k\u00e2peya. One text reads K\u00e2kapeya, the other K\u00e2k\u00e2peya. It is\n      difficult to choose. The more usual word is k\u00e2kapeya, which is\n      explained by P\u00e2_n_ini, ii. 1, 33. It is uncertain, however, whether\n      k\u00e2kapeya is meant as a laudatory or as a depreciatory term.\n      Boehtlingk takes it in the latter sense, and translates nad\u00ee\n      k\u00e2kapey\u00e2, by a shallow river that could be drunk up by a crow.\n      T\u00e2r\u00e2n\u00e2tha takes it in the former sense, and translates nad\u00ee\n      k\u00e2kapey\u00e2, as a river so full of water that a crow can drink it\n      without bending its neck (k\u00e2kair anatakandharai_h_ p\u00eeyate;\n      p\u00fbr_n_odakatvena pra_s_asye k\u00e2kai_h_ peye nady\u00e2dau). In our passage\n      k\u00e2kapeya must be a term of praise, and we therefore could only\n      render it by \u201cponds so full of water that crows could drink from\n      them.\u201d But why should so well known a word as k\u00e2kapeya have been\n      spelt k\u00e2k\u00e2peya, unless it was done intentionally? And if\n      intentionally, what was it intended for? We must remember that\n      P\u00e2_n_ini, ii. 1, 42 schol., teaches us how to form the word\n      t\u00eerthak\u00e2ka, a crow at a t\u00eertha, which means a person in a wrong\n      place. It would seem, therefore, that crows were considered out of\n      place at a t\u00eertha or bathing-place, either because they were birds\n      of ill omen, or because they defiled the water. From that point of\n      view, k\u00e2k\u00e2peya would mean a pond not visited by crows, free from\n      crows. Professor Pischel has called my attention to Mah\u00e2parinibb\u00e2na\n      Sutta (_J. R. A. S._ 1875, p. 67, p. 21), where k\u00e2kapey\u00e2 clearly\n      refers to a full river. Samati\u1e6d\u1e6d\u1e25ika, if this is the right reading,\n      occurs in the same place as an epithet of a river, by the side of\n      k\u00e2kapeya, and I think it most likely that it means rising to a level\n      with the t\u00eerthas, the fords or bathing-places. Mr. Rhys Davids\n      informs me that the commentary explains the two words by samatittik\u00e2\n      ti samaharit\u00e2, k\u00e2kapeyy\u00e2 ti yatthatattha_k_i t\u00eere _th_itena k\u00e2kena\n      sakk\u00e2 patum ti.\n\n  147 Purobhaktena. The text is difficult to read, but it can hardly be\n      doubtful that purobhaktena corresponds to P\u00e2li purebhatta_m_ (_i.\n      e._ before the morning meal), opposed to pa_kkh_\u00e2bhatta_m_, after\n      the noonday meal (_i. e._ in the afternoon). See Childers, _s. v._\n      P\u00fbrvabhaktik\u00e2 would be the first repast, as Professor Cowell informs\n      me.\n\n  148 Div\u00e2 vih\u00e2r\u00e2ya, for the noonday rest, the _siesta_. See Childers, _s.\n      v._ vih\u00e2ra.\n\n  149 Krau_\u00f1k_\u00e2_h_. Snipe, curlew. Is it meant for Kurav\u00eeka, or Karav\u00eeka,\n      a fine-voiced bird (according to Kern, the Sk. kar\u00e2yik\u00e2), or for\n      Kalavi\u1e45ka-P\u00e2li Kalav\u00eeka? See Childers, _s. v._ opap\u00e2tiko; Burnouf,\n      _Lotus_, p. 566. I see, however, the same birds mentioned together\n      elsewhere, as ha_m_sakrau_\u00f1k_amay\u00fbra_s_uka_s_\u00e2likakokila, etc. On\n      may\u00fbra see Mah\u00e2v. Introd. p. xxxix.; Rv. I. 191, 14.\n\n  150 Indriyabalabodhya\u1e45gasabda. These are technical terms, but their\n      meaning is not quite clear. Spence Hardy, in his _Manual_, p. 498,\n      enumerates the five indrayas, viz. (1) sardh\u00e2wa, purity (probably\n      _s_raddh\u00e2, faith), (2) wiraya, persevering exertion (v\u00eerya), (3)\n      sati or smirti, the ascertainment of truth (sm_ri_ti), (4) sam\u00e2dhi,\n      tranquillity, (5) pragn\u00e2wa, wisdom (pra_g\u00f1_\u00e2).\n\n      The five balayas (bala), he adds, are the same as the five indrayas.\n\n      The seven bowdy\u00e2nga (bodhya\u1e45ga) are, according to him: (1) sihi or\n      smirti, the ascertainment of the truth by mental application, (2)\n      dharmmawicha, the investigation of causes. (3) w\u00eeraya, persevering\n      exertion, (4) pr\u00eeti, joy, (5) passadhi, or prasrabdhi, tranquillity,\n      (6) sam\u00e2dhi, tranquillity in a higher degree, including freedom from\n      all that disturbs either body or mind, (7) upeksh\u00e2, equanimity.\n\n      It will be seen from this that some of these qualities or\n      excellences occur both as indriyas and bodhya\u1e45gas, while balas are\n      throughout identical with indriyas.\n\n      Burnouf, however, in his _Lotus_, gives a list of five balas (from\n      the _Vocabulaire Pentaglotte_) which correspond with the five\n      indriyas of Spence Hardy: viz. _s_raddh\u00e2-bala, power of faith,\n      v\u00eerya-bala, power of vigor, sm_ri_ti-bala, power of memory,\n      sam\u00e2dhi-bala, power of meditation, pra_g\u00f1_\u00e2-bala, power of\n      knowledge. They precede the seven bodhya\u1e45gas both in the _Lotus_,\n      the _Vocabulaire Pentaglotte_, and the Lalita-Vistara.\n\n      To these seven bodhya\u1e45gas Burnouf has assigned a special treatise\n      (Appendix xii. p. 796). They occur both in Sanskrit and P\u00e2li.\n\n  151 Niraya, the hells, also called Naraka. Yamaloka, the realm of Yama,\n      the judge of the dead, is explained as the four Ap\u00e2yas\u2014_i. e._\n      Naraka, hell, Tiryagyoni, birth as animals, Pretaloka, realm of the\n      dead, Asuraloka, realm of evil spirits. The three terms which are\n      here used together occur likewise in a passage translated by\n      Burnouf, _Introduction_, p. 544.\n\n  152 Iti sankhy\u00e2_m_ ga_kkh_anti, they are called; _cf._ Childers, _s. v._\n      sankhy\u00e2. Asankhyeya, even more than aprameya, is the recognized term\n      for infinity. Burnouf, _Lotus_, p. 852.\n\n  153 Avaram\u00e2traka. This is the P\u00e2li oramattako, \u201cbelonging merely to the\n      present life,\u201d and the intention of the writer seems to be to\n      inculcate the doctrine of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, that salvation can be\n      obtained by mere repetitions of the name of Amit\u00e2bha, in direct\n      opposition to the original doctrine of Buddha, that as a man soweth,\n      so he reapeth. Buddha would have taught that the ku_s_alam\u00fbla, the\n      root or the stock of good works performed in this world\n      (avaram\u00e2traka), will bear fruit in the next, while here \u201cvain\n      repetitions\u201d seems all that is enjoined. The Chinese translators\n      take a different view of this passage, and I am not myself quite\n      certain that I have understood it rightly. But from the end of this\n      section, where we read kulaputre_n_a v\u00e2 kuladuhitr\u00e2 v\u00e2 tatra\n      buddhakshetre _k_ittapr\u00e2_n_idh\u00e2na_m_ kartavyam, it seems clear that\n      the locative (buddhakshetre) forms the object of the pra_n_idh\u00e2na,\n      the fervent prayer or longing. The Satpurushas already in the\n      Buddhakshetra would be the innumerable men (manushy\u00e2s) and\n      Boddhisattvas mentioned before.\n\n  154 Arthavasa, lit. the power of the thing; _cf._ Dhammapada, p. 388,\n      _v._ 289.\n\n  155 I am not quite certain as to the meaning of this passage, but if we\n      enter into the bold metaphor of the text, viz., that the Buddhas\n      cover the Buddha-countries with the organ of their tongue and then\n      unroll it, what is intended can hardly be anything but that they\n      first try to find words for the excellences of those countries, and\n      then reveal or proclaim them. Burnouf, however (_Lotus_, p. 417),\n      takes the expression in a literal sense, though he is shocked by its\n      grotesqueness. On these Buddhas and their countries, see Burnouf,\n      _Lotus_, p. 113.\n\n  156 It should be remarked that the Tath\u00e2gatas here assigned to the ten\n      quarters differ entirely from those assigned to them in the\n      Lalita-vistara, book xx. Not even Amit\u00e2bha is mentioned there.\n\n  157 Prat\u00eeyatha. The texts give again and again patt\u00eeyatha, evidently the\n      P\u00e2li form, instead of prat\u00eeyata. I have left tha, the P\u00e2li\n      termination of the 2 p. pl. in the imperative, instead of ta,\n      because that form was clearly intended, while pa for pra may be an\n      accident. Yet I have little doubt that pat\u00eeyatha was in the original\n      text. That it is meant for the imperative, we see from\n      _s_raddadh\u00e2dhvam, etc., farther on. Other traces of the influence of\n      P\u00e2li or Prakrit on the Sanskrit of our S\u00fbtra appear in arhantai_h_,\n      the various reading for arhadbhi_h_, which I preferred; sambahula\n      for bahula; dh_ri_yate y\u00e2payati; purobhaktena; anyatra; sa\u1e45khy\u00e2m\n      ga_kkh_anti; avaram\u00e2traka; ve_th_ana instead of vesh_t_ana, in\n      nirve_th_ana; dharmapary\u00e2ya (_Corp. Inscript._ plate XV.), etc.\n\n  158 The Sukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha, even in its shortest text, is called a\n      Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra, nor is there any reason why a Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra should\n      not be short. The meaning of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na-s\u00fbtra is simply a S\u00fbtra\n      belonging to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na school, the school of the Great Boat. It\n      was Burnouf who, in his _Introduction to the History of Buddhism_,\n      tried very hard to establish a distinction between the Vaipulya or\n      developed S\u00fbtras, and what he calls the simple S\u00fbtras. Now, the\n      Vaipulya S\u00fbtras may all belong to the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na school, but that\n      would not prove that all the S\u00fbtras of the Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na school are\n      Vaipulya or developed S\u00fbtras. The name of simple S\u00fbtra, in\n      opposition to the Vaipulya or developed S\u00fbtras, is not recognized by\n      the Buddhists themselves; it is really an invention of Burnouf\u2019s. No\n      doubt there is a great difference between a Vaipulya S\u00fbtra, such as\n      the Lotus of the Good Law, translated by Burnouf, and the S\u00fbtras\n      which Burnouf translated from the Divy\u00e2vad\u00e2na. But what Burnouf\n      considers as the distinguishing mark of a Vaipulya S\u00fbtra, viz. the\n      occurrence of Bodhisattvas, as followers of the Buddha _S_\u00e2kyamuni,\n      would no longer seem to be tenable (\u201cLes pr\u00e9sence des Bodhisatt\u00fbvas\n      ou leur absence int\u00e9resse done le fonds m\u00eame des livres o\u00f9 on la\n      remarque, et il est bien \u00e9vident que ce seul point trace une ligno\n      de d\u00e9marcation profonde entre les S\u00fbtras ordinaires et les S\u00fbtras\n      d\u00e9velopp\u00e9s.\u201d Burnouf. _Introduction_, p. 112.), unless we classed\n      our short Sukhavat\u00ee-vy\u00fbha as a Vaipulya or developed S\u00fbtra. For this\n      there is no authority. Our S\u00fbtra is called a Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Sutra, never a\n      Vaipulya S\u00fbtra, and yet among the followers of Buddha, the\n      Bodhisattvas constitute a very considerable portion. But more than\n      that, Amit\u00e2bha, the Buddha of Sukhavat\u00ee, another personage whom\n      Burnouf looks upon as peculiar to the Vaipulya S\u00fbtras, who is, in\n      fact, one of the Dhy\u00e2ni-buddhas, though not called by that name in\n      our S\u00fbtra, forms the chief object of its teaching, and is\n      represented as coeval with Buddha _S_\u00e2kyamuni. (\u201cL\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019un ou de\n      plusieurs Buddhas surhumains, celle de Bodhisattvas cr\u00e9\u00e9s par eux,\n      sont des conceptions aussi \u00e9trang\u00e8res \u00e1 ces livres (les S\u00fbtras\n      simples) que celle d\u2019un Adibuddha ou d\u2019un Dieu.\u201d\u2014Burnouf,\n      _Introduction_, p. 120.) The larger text of the Sukhavat\u00eevy\u00fbha would\n      certainly, according to Burnouf\u2019s definition, seem to fall into the\n      category of the Vaipulya S\u00fbtras. But it is not so called in the MSS.\n      which I have seen, and Burnouf himself gives an analysis of that\n      S\u00fbtra (_Introduction_, p. 99) as a specimen of a Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na, but not\n      of a Vaipulya S\u00fbtra.\n\n  159 See H. Yule, _Marco Polo_, 2d ed. vol. i. pp. 441-443.\n\n  160 In China, as Dr. Edkins states, the doctrine of Amit\u00e2bha is\n      represented by the so-called Lotus school (Lian-tsung) or Pure Land\n      (Tsing-tu). The founder of this school in China was Hwei-yuan of the\n      Tsin dynasty (fourth century). The second patriarch (tsu) of this\n      school was Kwang-ming (seventh century).\n\n  161 See page 191.","title":"Chips from a German Workshop, Volume 5: Miscellaneous Later Essays","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":71503}