{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30192/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30192","id":"gutenberg_30192","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30192","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Language & Communication","Comparative linguistics","Folklore","Literature -- History and criticism","Mythology","Religions"],"text":"[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis e-text uses characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding,\nincluding accented Greek and a number of letters used in Sanskrit\ntransliteration:\n\n \u0153 [oe ligature]\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 [Greek]\n\n \u015b \u015a [s with \u201cacute\u201d accent]\n \u1e6d \u1e0d \u1e47 \u1e5b \u1e37 \u1e43 \u1e25 \u1e5a [letters with under-dot]\n \u1ea5 \u00ee\u0301 \u00fb\u0301 \u1e5b\u0301 [letters with multiple diacritics, especially vowels with\n both acute and circumflex]\n\n \u0101 \u0113 \u012b \u014d \u016b [vowel with macron or \u201clong\u201d mark]\n \u0103 \u0115 \u012d \u016d \u012c [vowel with breve or \u201cshort\u201d mark]\n [The book generally used circumflex accents to represent long\n vowels. Anomalies are individually noted.]\n\n \u016f [u with small o, used in one Middle High German passage]\n \u0229 [e with cedilla, used in this e-text to represent an unavailable\n Old Norse letter]\n \u2020 [dagger, used only in a few Index entries]\n\nIf any of these characters do not display properly--in particular, if\nthe diacritic does not appear directly above the letter--or if the\napostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage,\nmake sure your text reader\u2019s \u201ccharacter set\u201d or \u201cfile encoding\u201d is set\nto Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font.\nDepending on available fonts, some tables may not line up vertically.\nAs a last resort, use the Latin-1 version of the file instead.\n\nIn the combined forms \u1ea5 \u1ebf \u00fb\u0301 \u1e5b\u0301 the acute accent may display after (to the\nright of) the main letter; this by itself is not a problem. The text\nalso contains the single Hebrew word \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd [gerim], and one brief passage\nuses Devanagari letters:\n\n \u0915 (k)\n \u091a (c, the voiceless palatal)\n \u091c (j, the voiced palatal)\n \u0936 (\u015b)\n\nThese may be ignored if everything else displays as intended.\n\nThe Sanskrit transliteration system is explained at the end of the\ne-text, before the Errata.\n\nItalic text is shown with _lines_. Bold (only in the Colebrooke\nAppendix) and \u201cgesperrt\u201d (spaced-out) are shown with +marks+.\n\nNote that Chapters VI-IX in the table of contents are labeled VII-X\nin the body text. Typographical errors are listed at the end of the\ne-text.]\n\n[Latin-1: revert to {t} {n} {d} {l} {ri} {s}]\n\n\n\n\nCHIPS FROM A GERMAN WORKSHOP.\n\nVOL. IV.\n\n\n\n\n CHIPS\n from\n A GERMAN WORKSHOP.\n\n by\n F. MAX M\u00dcLLER, M.A.,\n Foreign Member of the French Institute, etc.\n\n\n VOLUME IV.\n ESSAYS CHIEFLY ON THE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE\n With Index to Vols III. and IV.\n\n\n NEW YORK:\n CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS,\n 1881.\n [_Published by arrangement with the Author._]\n\n\n\n\n Riverside, Cambridge:\n +Stereotyped and Printed by+\n H. O. Houghton and Company.\n\n\n\n\n To\n\n ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D.,\n Dean of Westminster,\n as a Token of\n Gratitude and Friendship\n\n from\n\n One Who Has for Many Years Admired\n His Loyalty to Truth,\n His Singleness of Purpose,\n His Chivalrous Courage,\n and\n His Unchanging Devotion to His Friends.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS OF FOURTH VOLUME.\n\n PAGE\n\n I. Inaugural Lecture, On the Value of Comparative Philology\n as a branch of Academic Study, delivered before the\n University of Oxford, 1868 1\n Note A. On the Final Dental of the Pronominal Stem _tad_ 43\n Note B. Did Feminine Bases in _\u00e2_ take _s_ in the\n Nominative Singular? 45\n Note C. Grammatical Forms in Sanskrit corresponding to\n so-called Infinitives in Greek and Latin 47\n\n II. Rede Lecture, Part I. On the Stratification of Language,\n delivered before the University of Cambridge, 1868 63\n Rede Lecture, Part II. On Curtius\u2019 Chronology of the\n Indo-Germanic Languages, 1875 111\n\n III. Lecture on the Migration of Fables, delivered at the\n Royal Institution, June 3, 1870 (Contemporary Review,\n July, 1870) 139\n Appendix. On Professor Benfey\u2019s Discovery of a Syriac\n Translation of the Indian Fables 181\n Notes 188\n\n IV. Lecture on the Results of the Science of Language,\n Delivered before the University of Strassburg, May 23,\n 1872 (Contemporary Review, June, 1872) 199\n Note A. \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and Deus 227\n Note B. The Vocative of Dya\u00fas and \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 230\n Note C. Aryan Words occurring in Zend but not in\n Sanskrit 235\n\n V. Lecture on Missions, delivered in Westminster Abbey,\n December 3, 1873 238\n Note A. Passages shewing the Missionary Spirit of\n Buddhism 267\n Note B. The Schism in the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j 269\n Note C. Extracts from Keshub Chunder Sen\u2019s Lectures 272\n Dr. Stanley\u2019s Introductory Sermon on Christian Missions 276\n On the Vitality of Brahmanism, Postscript to the Lecture\n on Missions (Fortnightly Review, July, 1874) 296\n\n VI. Address on the Importance of Oriental Studies, delivered\n at the International Congress of Orientalists in\n London, 1874 317\n Notes 355\n\n VII. Life of Colebrooke, with Extracts from his Manuscript\n Notes on Comparative Philology (Edinburgh Review,\n October, 1872) 359\n\n VIII. Reply to Mr. Darwin (Contemporary Review, January, 1875) 417\n\n IX. In Self-defense 456\n\n Index to Vols. III. and IV. 533\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nINAUGURAL LECTURE,\n\nON THE VALUE OF COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY AS A BRANCH OF ACADEMIC STUDY.\n\nDelivered Before the University of Oxford the 27th of October, 1868.\n\n\nThe foundation of a professorial chair in the University of Oxford marks\nan important epoch in the history of every new science.[1] There are\nother universities far more ready to confer this academical recognition\non new branches of scientific research, and it would be easy to mention\nseveral subjects, and no doubt important subjects, which have long had\ntheir accredited representatives in the universities of France and\nGermany, but which at Oxford have not yet received this well-merited\nrecognition.\n\nIf we take into account the study of ancient languages only, we see that\nas soon as Champollion\u2019s discoveries had given to the study of\nhieroglyphics and Egyptian antiquities a truly scientific character, the\nFrench government thought it its duty to found a chair for this\npromising branch of Oriental scholarship. Italy soon followed this\ngenerous example: nor was the Prussian government long behind hand in\ndoing honor to the newborn science, as soon as in Professor Lepsius it\nhad found a scholar worthy to occupy a chair of Egyptology at Berlin.\n\nIf France had possessed the brilliant genius to whom so much is due in\nthe deciphering of the cuneiform inscriptions, I\u00a0have little doubt that\nlong ago a chair would have been founded at the _Coll\u00e8ge de France_\nexpressly for Sir Henry Rawlinson.\n\nEngland possesses some of the best, if not the best, of Persian scholars\n(alas! he who was here in my mind, Lord Strangford, is no longer\namong\u00a0us), yet there is no chair for Persian at Oxford or Cambridge, in\nspite of the charms of its modern literature, and the vast importance of\nthe ancient language of Persia and Bactria, the Zend, a\u00a0language full of\ninterest, not only to the comparative philologist, but also to the\nstudent of Comparative Theology.\n\nThere are few of the great universities of Europe without a chair for\nthat language which, from the very beginning of history, as far as it is\nknown to us, seems always to have been spoken by the largest number of\nhuman beings,--I mean Chinese. In Paris we find not one, but two chairs\nfor Chinese, one for the ancient, another for the modern language of\nthat wonderful empire; and if we consider the light which a study of\nthat curious form of human speech is intended to throw on the nature and\ngrowth of language, if we measure the importance of its enormous\nliterature by the materials which it supplies to the student of ancient\nreligions, and likewise to the historian who wishes to observe the\nearliest rise of the principal sciences and arts in countries beyond the\ninfluence of Aryan and Semitic civilization,--if, lastly, we take into\naccount the important evidence which the Chinese language, reflecting,\nlike a never-fading photograph, the earliest workings of the human mind,\nis able to supply to the student of psychology, and to the careful\nanalyzer of the elements and laws of thought, we should feel less\ninclined to ignore or ridicule the claims of such a language to a chair\nin our ancient university.[2]\n\nI could go on and mention several other subjects, well worthy of the\nsame distinction. If the study of Celtic languages and Celtic\nantiquities deserves to be encouraged anywhere, it is surely in\nEngland,--not, as has been suggested, in order to keep English\nliterature from falling into the abyss of German platitudes, nor to put\nAneurin and Taliesin in the place of Shakespeare and Burns, and to\ncounteract by their \u201csuavity and brilliancy\u201d the Philistine tendencies\nof the Saxon and the Northman, but in order to supply sound materials\nand guiding principles to the critical student of the ancient history\nand the ancient language of Britain, to excite an interest in what still\nremains of Celtic antiquities, whether in manuscripts or in genuine\nstone monuments, and thus to preserve such national heir-looms from\nneglect or utter destruction. If we consider that Oxford possesses a\nWelsh college, and that England possesses the best of Celtic scholars,\nit is surely a pity that he should have to publish the results of his\nstudies in the short intervals of official work at Calcutta, and not in\nthe more congenial atmosphere of Rytichin.\n\nFor those who know the history of the ancient universities of England,\nit is not difficult to find out why they should have been less inclined\nthan their continental sisters to make timely provision for the\nencouragement of these and other important branches of linguistic\nresearch. Oxford and Cambridge, as independent corporations, withdrawn\nalike from the support and from the control of the state, have always\nlooked upon the instruction of the youth of England as their proper\nwork; and nowhere has the tradition of classical learning been handed\ndown more faithfully from one generation to another than in England;\nnowhere has its generous spirit more thoroughly pervaded the minds of\nstatesmen, poet, artists, and moulded the character of that large and\nimportant class of independent and cultivated men, without which this\ncountry would cease to be what it has been for the last two centuries,\na\u00a0_res publica_, a commonwealth, in the best sense of the word. Oxford\nand Cambridge have supplied what England expected or demanded, and as\nEnglish parents did not send their sons to learn Chinese or to study\nCornish, there was naturally no supply where there was no demand. The\nprofessorial element in the university, the true representative of\nhigher learning and independent research, withered away; the tutorial\nassumed the vastest proportions during this and the last centuries.\n\nBut looking back to the earlier history of the English universities,\nI\u00a0believe it is a mistake to suppose that Oxford, one of the most\ncelebrated universities during the Middle Ages and in the modern history\nof Europe, could ever have ignored the duty, so fully recognized by\nother European universities, of not only handing down intact, and laid\nup, as it were, in a napkin, the traditional stock of human knowledge,\nbut of constantly adding to it, and increasing it fivefold and tenfold.\nNay, unless I am much mistaken, there was really no university in which\nmore ample provision had been made by founders and benefactors than at\nOxford, for the support and encouragement of a class of students who\nshould follow up new lines of study, devote their energies to work\nwhich, from its very nature, could not be lucrative or even\nself-supporting, and maintain the fame of English learning, English\nindustry, and English genius in that great and time-honoured republic of\nlearning which claims the allegiance of the whole of Europe, nay, of the\nwhole civilized world. That work at Oxford and Cambridge was meant to be\ndone by the Fellows of Colleges. In times, no doubt, when every kind of\nlearning was in the hands of the clergy, these fellowships might seem to\nhave been intended exclusively for the support of theological students.\nBut when other studies, once mere germs and shoots on the tree of\nknowledge, separated from the old stem and assumed an independent\ngrowth, whether under the name of natural science, or history, or\nscholarship, or jurisprudence, a\u00a0fair division ought to have been made\nat once of the funds which, in accordance with the letter, it may be,\nbut certainly not with the spirit of the ancient statutes, have remained\nfor so many years appropriated to the exclusive support of theological\nlearning, if learning it could be called. Fortunately, that mistake has\nnow been remedied, and the funds originally intended, without\ndistinction, for the support of \u201ctrue religion and useful learning,\u201d are\nnow again more equally apportioned among those who, in the age in which\nwe live, have divided and subdivided the vast intellectual inheritance\nof the Middle Ages, in order to cultivate the more thoroughly every nook\nand every corner in the boundless field of human knowledge.\n\nSomething, however, remains still to be done in order to restore these\nfellowships more fully and more efficiently to their original purpose,\nand thus to secure to the university not only a staff of zealous\nteachers, which it certainly possesses, but likewise a class of\nindependent workers, of men who, by original research, by critical\neditions of the classics, by an acquisition of a scholarlike knowledge\nof other languages besides Greek and Latin, by an honest devotion to one\nor the other among the numerous branches of physical science, by\nfearless researches into the ancient history of mankind, by a careful\ncollection or revision of the materials for the history of politics,\njurisprudence, medicine, literature, and arts, by a life-long occupation\nwith the problems of philosophy, and last, not least, by a real study of\ntheology, or the science of religion, should perform again those duties\nwhich in the stillness of the Middle Ages were performed by learned\nfriars within the walls of our colleges. Those duties have remained in\nabeyance for several generations, and they must now be performed with\nincreased vigor, in order to retain for Oxford that high position which\nit once held, not simply as a place of education, but as a seat of\nlearning, amid the most celebrated universities of Europe.\n\n\u201c_Noblesse oblige_\u201d is an old saying that is sometimes addressed to\nthose who have inherited an illustrious name, and who are proud of their\nancestors. But what are the ancestors of the oldest and proudest of\nfamilies compared with the ancestors of this university! \u201c_Noblesse\noblige_\u201d applies to Oxford at the present moment more than ever, when\nknowledge for its own sake, and a chivalrous devotion to studies which\ncommand no price in the fair of the world, and lead to no places of\nemolument in church or state, are looked down upon and ridiculed by\nalmost everybody.\n\nThere is no career in England at the present moment for scholars and\nstudents. No father could honestly advise his son, whatever talent he\nmight display, to devote himself exclusively to classical, historical,\nor physical studies. The few men who still keep up the fair name of\nEngland by independent research and new discoveries in the fields of\npolitical and natural history, do not always come from our universities;\nand unless they possess independent means, they cannot devote more than\nthe leisure hours, left by their official duties in church or state, to\nthe prosecution of their favorite studies. This ought not to be, nor\nneed it be so. If only twenty men in Oxford and Cambridge had the will,\neverything is ready for a reform, that is, for a restoration of the\nancient glory of Oxford. The funds which are now frittered away in\nso-called prize-fellowships, would enable the universities to-morrow to\ninvite the best talent of England back to its legitimate home. And what\nshould we lose if we had no longer that long retinue of non-resident\nfellows? It is true, no doubt, that a fellowship has been a help in the\nearly career of many a poor and hard-working man, and how could it be\notherwise? But in many cases I know that it has proved a drag rather\nthan a spur for further efforts. Students at English universities\nbelong, as a rule, to the wealthier classes, and England is the\nwealthiest country in Europe. Yet in no country in the world would a\nyoung man, after his education is finished, expect assistance from\npublic sources. Other countries tax themselves to the utmost in order to\nenable the largest possible number of young men to enjoy the best\npossible education in schools and universities. But when that is done\nthe community feels that it has fulfilled its duty, and it says to the\nyoung generation, Now swim or drown. A\u00a0manly struggle against poverty,\nit may be even against actual hunger, will form a stronger and sounder\nmetal than a lotus-eating club-life in London or Paris. Whatever\nfellowships were intended to be, they were never intended to be mere\nsinecures, as most of them are at present. It is a national blessing\nthat the two ancient universities of England should have saved such\nlarge funds from the shipwreck that swallowed up the corporate funds of\nthe continental universities. But, in order to secure their safety for\nthe future, it is absolutely necessary that these funds should be\nutilized again for the advancement of learning. Why should not a\nfellowship be made into a career for life, beginning with little, but\nrising like the incomes of other professions? Why should the grotesque\ncondition of celibacy be imposed on a fellowship, instead of the really\nsalutary condition of--No work, no pay? Why should not some special\nliterary or scientific work be assigned to each fellow, whether resident\nin Oxford or sent abroad on scientific missions? Why, instead of having\nfifty young men scattered about in England, should we not have ten of\nthe best workers in every branch of human knowledge resident at Oxford,\nwhether as teachers, or as guides, or as examples? The very presence of\nsuch men would have a stimulating and elevating effect: it would show to\nthe young men higher objects of human ambition than the baton of a\nfield-marshal, the mitre of a bishop, the ermine of a judge, or the\nmoney bags of a merchant; it would create for the future a supply of new\nworkers as soon as there was for them, if not an avenue to wealth and\npower, at least a fair opening for hard work and proper pay. All this\nmight be done to-morrow, without any injury to anybody, and with every\nchance of producing results of the greatest value to the universities,\nto the country, and to the world at large. Let the university continue\nto do the excellent work which it does at present as a teacher, but let\nit not forget the equally important duty of a university, that of a\nworker. Our century has inherited the intellectual wealth of former\ncenturies, and with it the duty, not only to preserve it or to dole it\nout in schools and universities, but to increase it far beyond the\nlimits which it has reached at present. Where there is no advance, there\nis retrogression: rest is impossible for the human mind.\n\nMuch of the work, therefore, which in other universities falls to the\nlot of the professors, ought, in Oxford, to be performed by a staff of\nstudent-fellows, whose labors should be properly organized as they are\nin the Institute of France or in the Academy of Berlin. With or without\nteaching, they could perform the work which no university can safely\nneglect, the work of constantly testing the soundness of our\nintellectual food, and of steadily expanding the realms of knowledge. We\nwant pioneers, explorers, conquerors, and we could have them in\nabundance if we cared to have them. What other universities do by\nfounding new chairs for new sciences, the colleges of Oxford could do\nto-morrow by applying the funds which are not required for teaching\npurposes, and which are now spent on sinecure fellowships, for making\neither temporary or permanent provision for the endowment of original\nresearch.\n\nIt is true that new chairs have, from time to time, been founded in\nOxford also; but if we inquire into the circumstances under which\nprovision was made for the teaching of new subjects, we shall find that\nit generally took place, not so much for the encouragement of any new\nbranch of scientific research, however interesting to the philosopher\nand the historian, as in order to satisfy some practical wants that\ncould no longer be ignored, whether in church or state, or in the\nuniversity itself.\n\nConfining ourselves to the chairs of languages, or, as they used to be\ncalled, \u201cthe readerships of tongues,\u201d we find that as early as 1311,\nwhile the Crusades were still fresh in the memory of the people of\nEurope, an appeal was made by Pope Clement\u00a0V. at the Council of Vienne,\ncalling upon the principal universities in Christendom to appoint\nlecturers for the study of Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldaic. It was\nconsidered at the time a great honor for Oxford to be mentioned by name,\ntogether with Paris, Bologna, and Salamanca, as one of the four great\nseats of learning in which the Pope and the Council of Vienne desired\nthat provision should be made for the teaching of these languages. It is\nquite clear, however, from the wording of the resolution of the\nCouncil,[3] that the chief object in the foundation of these readerships\nwas to supply men capable of defending the interests of the church, of\ntaking an active part in the controversies with Jews and Mohammedans,\nwho were then considered dangerous, and of propagating the faith among\nunbelievers.\n\nNor does it seem that this papal exhortation produced much effect, for\nwe find that Henry VIII. in 1540 had to make new provision in order to\nsecure efficient teachers of Hebrew and Greek in the University of\nOxford. At that time these two languages, but more particularly Greek,\nhad assumed not only a theological, but a political importance, and it\nwas but natural that the king should do all in his power to foster and\nspread a knowledge of a language which had been one of the most powerful\nweapons in the hands of the reformers. At Oxford itself this new chair\nwas by no means popular: on the contrary those who studied Greek were\nfor a long time looked upon with great suspicion and dislike.[4]\n\nHenry VIII. did nothing for the support of Arabic; but a century later\n(1636) we find Archbishop Laud, whose attention had been attracted by\nEastern questions, full of anxiety to resuscitate the study of Arabic at\nOxford, partly by collecting Arabic MSS. in the East and depositing them\nin the Bodleian Library, partly by founding a new chair of Arabic,\ninaugurated by Pococke, and rendered illustrious by such names as\nGreaves, Thomas Hyde, John Wallis, and Thomas Hunt.\n\nThe foundation of a chair of Anglo-Saxon, too, was due, not so much to a\npatriotic interest excited by the ancient national literature of the\nSaxons, still less to the importance of that ancient language for\nphilological studies, but it received its first impulse from the divines\nof the sixteenth century, who wished to strengthen the position of the\nEnglish Church in its controversy with the Church of Rome. Under the\nauspices of Archbishop Parker, Anglo-Saxon MSS. were first collected,\nand the Anglo-Saxon translations of the Bible, as well as Anglo-Saxon\nhomilies, and treatises on theological and ecclesiastical subjects were\nstudied by Fox, the martyrologist, and others,[5] to be quoted as\nwitnesses to the purity and simplicity of the primitive church founded\nin this realm, free in its origin from the later faults and fancies of\nthe Church of Rome. Without this practical object, Anglo-Saxon would\nhardly have excited so much interest in the sixteenth century, and\nOxford would probably have remained much longer without its professorial\nchair of the ancient national language of England, which was founded by\nRawlinson, but was not inaugurated before the end of the last century\n(1795).\n\nOf the two remaining chairs of languages, of Sanskrit and of Latin, the\nformer owes its origin, not to an admiration of the classical literature\nof India, nor to a recognition of the importance of Sanskrit for the\npurposes of Comparative Philology, but to an express desire on the part\nof its founder to provide efficient missionaries for India; while the\ncreation of a chair of Latin, though long delayed, was at last rendered\nimperative by the urgent wants of the university.\n\nNor does the chair of Comparative Philology, just founded by the\nuniversity, form altogether an exception to this general rule. It is\ncurious to remark that while Comparative Philology has for more than\nhalf a century excited the deepest interest, not only among continental,\nbut likewise among English scholars, and while chairs of this new\nscience have been founded long ago in almost every university of France,\nGermany, and Italy, the foundation of a new chair of Comparative\nPhilology at Oxford should coincide very closely with a decided change\nthat has taken place in the treatment of that science, and which has\ngiven to its results a more practical importance for the study of Greek\nand Latin, such as could hardly be claimed for it during the first fifty\nyears of its growth.\n\nWe may date the origin of Comparative Philology, as distinct from the\nScience of Language, from the foundation of the Asiatic Society of\nCalcutta, in 1784. From that time dates the study of Sanskrit, and it\nwas the study of Sanskrit which formed the foundation of Comparative\nPhilology.\n\nIt is perfectly true that Sanskrit had been studied before by Italian,\nGerman, and French missionaries; it is likewise perfectly true that\nseveral of these missionaries were fully aware of the close relationship\nbetween Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin. A\u00a0man must be blind who, after\nlooking at a Sanskrit grammar, does not see at once the striking\ncoincidences between the declensions and conjugations of the classical\nlanguage of India and those of Greece and Italy.[6]\n\nFilippo Sassetti, who spent some time at Goa, between 1581 and 1588, had\nonly acquired a very slight knowledge of Sanskrit before he wrote home\nto his friends \u201cthat it has many words in common with Italian,\nparticularly in the numerals, in the names for God, serpent, and many\nothers.\u201d This was in the sixteenth century.\n\nSome of the Jesuit missionaries, however, went far beyond this. A\u00a0few\namong them had acquired a real and comprehensive knowledge of the\nancient language and literature of India, and we see them anticipate in\ntheir letters several of the most brilliant discoveries of Sir W. Jones\nand Professor Bopp. The p\u00e8re C\u0153urdoux,[7] a\u00a0French Jesuit, writes in\n1767 from Pondichery to the French Academy, asking that learned society\nfor a solution of the question, \u201c_How is it that Sanskrit has so many\nwords in common with Greek and Latin?_\u201d He presents not only long lists\nof words, but he calls attention to the still more curious fact, that\nthe grammatical forms in Sanskrit show the most startling similarity\nwith Greek and Latin. After him almost everybody who had looked at\nSanskrit, and who knew Greek and Latin, made the same remark and asked\nthe same question.\n\nBut the fire only smouldered on; it would not burn up, it would not\nlight, it would not warm. At last, owing to the exertions of the\nfounders of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta, the necessary materials for\na real study of Sanskrit became accessible to the students of Europe.\nThe voice of Frederick Schlegel roused the attention of the world at\nlarge to the startling problem that had been thrown into the arena of\nthe intellectual chivalry of the world, and at last the glove was taken\nup, and men like Bopp, and Burnouf, and Pott, and Grimm, did not rest\ntill some answer could be returned, and some account rendered of\nSanskrit, that strange intruder, and great disturber of the peace of\nclassical scholarship.\n\nThe work which then began, was incessant. It was not enough that some\nwords in Greek and Latin should be traced in Sanskrit. A\u00a0kind of silent\nconviction began to spread that there must be in Sanskrit a remedy for\nall evils; people could not rest till every word in Greek and Latin had,\nin some disguise or other, been discovered in Sanskrit. Nor were Greek,\nLatin, and Sanskrit enough to satisfy the thirst of the new discoverers.\nThe Teutonic languages were soon annexed, the Celtic languages yielded\nto some gentle pressure, the Slavonic languages clamored for\nincorporation, the sacred idiom of ancient Persia, the Zend, demanded\nits place by the side of Sanskrit, the Armenian followed in its wake;\nand when even the Ossetic from the valleys of Mount Caucasus, and the\nAlbanian from the ancient hills of Epirus, had proved their birthright,\nthe whole family, the Aryan family of language, seemed complete, and an\nhistorical fact, the original unity of all these languages, was\nestablished on a basis which even the most skeptical could not touch or\nshake. Scholars rushed in as diggers rush into a new gold field, picking\nup whatever is within reach, and trying to carry off more than they\ncould carry, so that they might be foremost in the race, and claim as\ntheir own all that they had been the first to look at or to touch. There\nwas a rush, and now and then an ugly rush, and when the armfuls of\nnuggets that were thrown down before the world in articles, pamphlets,\nessays, and ponderous volumes, came to be more carefully examined, it\nwas but natural that not everything that glittered should turn out to be\ngold. Even in the works of more critical scholars, such as Bopp,\nBurnouf, Pott, and Benfey, at least in those which were published in the\nfirst enthusiasm of discovery, many things may now be pointed out, which\nno assayer would venture to pass. It was the great merit of Bopp that he\ncalled the attention away from this tempting field to the more laborious\nwork of grammatical analysis, though even in his Comparative Grammar, in\nthat comprehensive survey of the grammatical outlines of the Aryan\nlanguages, the spirit of conquest and centralization still predominates.\nAll languages are, if possible, to submit to the same laws; what is\ncommon to all of them is welcome, what is peculiar to each is treated as\nanomalous, or explained as the result of later corruption.\n\nThis period in the history of Comparative Philology has sometimes been\ncharacterized as _syncretistic_, and to a certain extent that name and\nthe censure implied in it are justified. But to a very small extent\nonly. It was in the nature of things that a comparative study of\nlanguages should at first be directed to what is common to all; nay,\nwithout having first become thoroughly acquainted with the general\nfeatures of the whole family, it would have been impossible to discover\nand fully to appreciate what is peculiar to each of the members.\n\nNor was it long before a reaction set in. One scholar from the very\nfirst, and almost contemporaneously with Bopp\u2019s first essays on\nComparative Grammar, devoted himself to the study of one branch of\nlanguages only, availing himself, as far as he was able, of the new\nlight which a knowledge of Sanskrit had thrown on the secret history of\nthe whole Aryan family of speech, but concentrating his energies on the\nTeutonic; I\u00a0mean, of course, Jacob Grimm, the author of the great\nhistorical grammar of the German language; a\u00a0work which will live and\nlast long after other works of that early period shall have been\nforgotten, or replaced, at least, by better books.\n\nAfter a time Grimm\u2019s example was followed by others. Zeuss, in his\n\u201cGrammatica Celtica,\u201d established the study of the Celtic languages on\nthe broad foundations of Comparative Grammar. Miklosich and Schleicher\nachieved similar results by adopting the same method for the study of\nthe Slavonic dialects. Curtius, by devoting himself to an elucidation of\nGreek, opened the eyes of classical scholars to the immense advantages\nof this new treatment of grammar and etymology; while Corssen, in his\nmore recent works on Latin, has struck a mine which may well tempt the\ncuriosity of every student of the ancient dialects of Italy. At the\npresent moment the reaction is complete; and there is certainly some\ndanger, lest what was called a _syncretistic_ spirit should now be\nreplaced by an _isolating_ spirit in the science of language.\n\nIt cannot be denied, however, that this isolating, or rather\ndiscriminating, tendency has produced already the most valuable results,\nand I believe that it is chiefly due to the works of Curtius and\nCorssen, if Greek and Latin scholars have been roused at last from their\napathy and been made aware of the absolute necessity of Comparative\nPhilology, as a subject to be taught, not only in every university but\nin every school. I\u00a0believe it is due to their works that a conviction\nhas gradually been gaining ground among the best scholars at Oxford,\nalso, that Comparative Philology could no longer be ignored as an\nimportant ingredient in the teaching of Greek and Latin; and while a\ncomparative analysis of Sanskrit, Zend, Armenian, Greek, Latin, Gothic,\nHigh-German, Lithuanian, Slavonic, and Celtic, such as we find it in\nBopp\u2019s \u201cComparative Grammar,\u201d would hardly be considered as a subject of\npractical utility, even in a school of philology, it was recognized at\nlast that, not only for sound principles of etymology, not only for a\nrational treatment of Greek and Latin grammar, not only for a right\nunderstanding of classical mythology, but even for a critical\nrestoration of the very texts of Homer and Plautus, a\u00a0knowledge of\nComparative Philology, as applied to Greek and Latin, had become\nindispensable.\n\nMy chief object, therefore, as Professor of Comparative Philology at\nOxford, will be to treat the classical languages under that new aspect\nwhich they have assumed, as viewed by the microscope of Curtius and\nCorssen, rather than by the telescope of Bopp, Pott, and Benfey. I\u00a0shall\ntry not only to give results, but to explain what is far more important,\nthe method by which these results were obtained, so far as this is\npossible without, for the present at least, presupposing among my\nhearers a knowledge of Sanskrit. Sanskrit certainly forms the only sound\nfoundation of Comparative Philology, and it will always remain the only\nsafe guide through all its intricacies. A\u00a0comparative philologist\nwithout a knowledge of Sanskrit is like an astronomer without a\nknowledge of mathematics. He may admire, he may observe, he may\ndiscover, but he will never feel satisfied, he will never feel certain,\nhe will never feel quite at home.\n\nI hope, therefore, that, besides those who attend my public lectures,\nthere will be at least a few to form a private class for the study of\nthe elements of Sanskrit. Sanskrit, no doubt, is a very difficult\nlanguage, and it requires the study of a whole life to master its\nenormous literature. Its grammar, too, has been elaborated with such\nincredible minuteness by native grammarians, that I am not surprised if\nmany scholars who begin the study of Sanskrit turn back from it in\ndismay. But it is quite possible to learn the rules of Sanskrit\ndeclension and conjugation, and to gain an insight into the grammatical\norganization of that language, without burdening one\u2019s memory with all\nthe phonetic rules which generally form the first chapter of every\nSanskrit grammar, or without devoting years of study to the unraveling\nof the intricacies of the greatest of Indian, if not of all\ngrammarians,--P\u00e2\u1e47ini. There are but few among our very best comparative\nphilologists who are able to understand P\u00e2\u1e47ini. Professor Benfey, whose\npowers of work are truly astounding, stands almost alone in his minute\nknowledge of that greatest of all grammarians. Neither Bopp, nor Pott,\nnor Curtius, nor Corssen, ever attempted to master P\u00e2\u1e47ini\u2019s wonderful\nsystem. But a study of Sanskrit, as taught by European grammarians,\ncannot be recommended too strongly to all students of language. A\u00a0good\nsailor may, for a time, steer without a compass, but even he feels safer\nwhen he knows that he may consult it, if necessary; and whenever he\ncomes near the rocks,--and there are many in the Aryan sea,--he will\nhardly escape shipwreck without this magnetic needle.[8]\n\nIt will be asked, no doubt, by Greek and Latin scholars who have never\nas yet devoted themselves seriously to a study of Comparative Philology,\nwhat is to be gained after all the trouble of learning Sanskrit, and\nafter mastering the works of Bopp, and Benfey, and Curtius? Would a man\nbe a better Greek and Latin scholar for knowing Sanskrit? Would he write\nbetter Latin and Greek verse? Would he be better able to read and\ncompare Greek and Latin MSS., and to prepare a critical edition of\nclassical authors? To all these questions I reply both _No_ and _Yes_.\n\nIf there is one branch of classical philology where the advantages\nderived from Comparative Philology have been most readily admitted, it\nis etymology. More than fifty years ago, Otfried M\u00fcller told classical\nscholars that that province at least must be surrendered. And yet it is\nstrange to see how long it takes before old erroneous derivations are\nexploded and finally expelled from our dictionaries; and how, in spite\nof all warnings, similarity of sound and similarity of meaning are still\nconsidered the chief criteria of Greek and Latin etymologies. I\u00a0do not\naddress this reproach to classical scholars only; it applies equally to\nmany comparative philologists who, for the sake of some striking\nsimilarity of sound and meaning, will now and then break the phonetic\nlaws which they themselves have helped to establish.\n\nIf we go back to earlier days, we find that Sanskrit scholars who had\ndiscovered that one of the names of the god of love in Bengali was\n_Dipuc_, _i.e._ the inflamer, derived from it by inversion the name of\nthe god of love in Latin, _Cupid_. Sir William Jones identified _Janus_\nwith the Sanskrit +Ga\u1e47e\u015ba+, _i.e._, lord of hosts,[9] and even later\nscholars allowed themselves to be tempted to see the Indian prototype of\n_Ganymedes_ in the +Ka\u1e47va-medh\u00e2tithi+ or +Ka\u1e47va-mesha+ of the Veda.[10]\n\nAfter the phonetic laws of each language had been more carefully\nelaborated, it was but too frequently forgotten that words have a\nhistory as well as a growth, and that the history of a word must be\nexplored first, before an attempt is made to unravel its growth. Thus it\nwas extremely tempting to derive _paradise_ from the Sanskrit\n+parade\u015ba+. The compound +para-de\u015ba+ was supposed to mean the highest or\na distant country, and all the rest seemed so evident as to require no\nfurther elucidation. +Parade\u015ba+, however, does not mean the highest or a\ndistant country in Sanskrit, but is always used in the sense of a\nforeign country, an enemy\u2019s country. Further, as early as the Song of\nSolomon (iv.\u00a013), the word occurs in Hebrew as _pard\u00e9s_, and how it\ncould have got there straight from Sanskrit requires, at all events,\nsome historical explanation. In Hebrew the word might have been borrowed\nfrom Persian, but the Sanskrit word +parade\u015ba+, if it existed at all in\nPersian, would have been _paradaesa_, the _s_ being a guttural, not a\ndental sibilant. Such a compound, however, does not exist in Persian,\nand therefore the Sanskrit word +parade\u015ba+ could not have reached Hebrew\n_vi\u00e2_ Persia.\n\nIt is true, nevertheless, that the ancient Hebrew word _pard\u00e9s_ is\nborrowed from Persian, viz.: from the Zend _pairida\u00eaza_, which means\n_circumvallatio_, a piece of ground inclosed by high walls, afterwards a\npark, a\u00a0garden.[11] The root in Sanskrit is DIH or DHIH (for Sanskrit\n_h_ is Zend _z_), and means originally to knead, to squeeze together, to\nshape. From it we have the Sanskrit +deh\u00ee+, a wall, while in Greek the\nsame root, according to the strictest phonetic rules, yielded \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2,\nwall. In Latin our root is regularly changed into _fig_, and gives us\n_figulus_, a potter, _figura_, form or shape, and _fingere_. In Gothic\nit could only appear as _deig-an_, to knead, to form anything out of\nsoft substances; hence _daig-s_, the English _dough_, German _Deich_.\n\nBut the Greek \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 did not come from Hebrew, because here again\nthere is no historical bridge between the two languages. In Greek we\ntrace the word to Xenophon, who brought it back from his repeated\njourneys in Persia, and who uses it in the sense of pleasure-ground, or\ndeer park.[12]\n\nLastly, we find the same word used in the LXX., as the name given to the\ngarden of Eden, the word having been borrowed either a third time from\nPersia, or taken from the Greek, and indirectly from the works of\nXenophon.\n\nThis is the real history of the word. It is an Aryan word, but it does\nnot exist in Sanskrit. It was first formed in Zend, transferred from\nthence as a foreign word into Hebrew and again into Greek. Its modern\nPersian form is _firdaus_.\n\nAll this is matter of history rather than philology. Yet we read in one\nof the best classical dictionaries: \u201cThe root of \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 appears to\nbe Semitic, Arab. _firdaus_, Hebr. _pard\u00eas_: borrowed, also, in Sanskrit\n+parad\u00ea\u015ba+.\u201d[13] Nearly every word is wrong.\n\nFrom the same root DIH springs the Sanskrit word +deha+, body; body,\nlike figure, being conceived as that which is formed or shaped. Bopp\nidentified this +deha+ with Gothic _leik_, body, particularly dead body,\nthe modern German _Leiche_ and _Leichnam_, the English _lich_ in\n_lich-gate_. In this case the master of Comparative Philology\ndisregarded the phonetic laws which he had himself helped to establish.\nThe transition of _d_ into _l_ is no doubt common enough as between\nSanskrit, Latin, and Greek, but it has never been established as yet on\ngood evidence as taking place between Sanskrit and Gothic. Besides, the\nSanskrit _h_ ought in Gothic to appear as _g_, as we have it in\n_deig-s_, dough, and not by a tenuis.\n\nAnother Sanskrit word for body is +kalevara+, and this proved again a\nstumbling-block to Bopp, who compares it with the Latin _cadaver_. Here\none might plead that _l_ and _d_ are frequently interchanged in Sanskrit\nand Latin words, but, as far as our evidence goes at present, we have no\ndoubt many cases where an original Sanskrit _d_ is represented in Latin\nby _l_, but no really trustworthy instance in which an original Sanskrit\n_l_ appears in Latin as _d_. Besides, the Sanskrit diphthong _e_ cannot,\nas a rule, in Latin be represented by long _\u00e2_.\n\nIf such things could happen to Bopp, we must not be too severe on\nsimilar breaches of the peace committed by classical scholars. What\nclassical scholars seem to find most difficult to learn is that there\nare various degrees of certainty in etymologies even in those proposed\nby our best comparative scholars, and that not everything that is\nmentioned by Bopp, or Pott, or Benfey as possible, as plausible, as\nprobable, and even as more than probable, ought, therefore, to be set\ndown, for instance, in a grammar or dictionary, as simply a matter of\nfact. With certain qualifications, an etymology may have a scientific\nvalue; without those qualifications, it may become not only unscientific\nbut mischievous. Again, nothing seems a more difficult lesson for an\netymologist to learn than to say, I\u00a0do not know. Yet to my mind, nothing\nshows, for instance, the truly scholarlike mind of Professor Curtius\nbetter than the very fact for which he has been so often blamed, viz.:\nhis passing over in silence the words about which he has nothing certain\nto say.\n\nLet us take an instance. If we open our best Greek dictionaries, we find\nthat the Greek \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae, light, splendor, is compared with the German word\nfor eye, _Auge_. No doubt every letter in the two words is the same, and\nthe meaning of the Greek word could easily be supposed to have been\nspecialized or localized in German. Sophocles (\u201cAj.\u201d\u00a070) speaks of\n\u1f40\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03b1\u03af, the lights of the eyes, and Euripides (\u201cAndr.\u201d 1180) uses\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03b1\u03af by itself for eyes, like the Latin _lumina_. The verb \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9, too,\nis used in Greek in the sense of seeing or viewing. Why, then, it was\nasked, should \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae not be referred to the same source as the German\n_Auge_, and why should not both be traced back to the same root that\nyielded the Latin _oc-ulus_? As long as we trust to our ears, or to what\nis complacently called common sense, it would seem mere fastidiousness\nto reject so evident an etymology. But as soon as we know the real\nchemistry of vowels and consonants, we shrink instinctly from such\ncombinations. If a German word has the same sound as a Greek word, the\ntwo words cannot be the same, unless we ignore that independent process\nof phonetic growth which made Greek Greek, and German German. Whenever\nwe find in Greek a media, a\u00a0_g_, we expect in Gothic the corresponding\ntenuis. Thus the root _gan_, which we have in Greek \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03c9, is in\nGothic _kann_. The Greek \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5, Lat. _genu_, is in Gothic _kniu_. If,\ntherefore, \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae existed in Gothic it would be _auko_, and not _augo_.\nSecondly, the diphthong _au_ in _augo_ would be different from the Greek\ndiphthong. Grimm supposed that the Gothic _augo_ came from the same\netymon which yields the Latin _oc-ulus_, the Sanskrit +ak-sh-i+, eye,\nthe Greek \u1f44\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 for \u1f44\u03ba\u03b9-\u03b5, and likewise the Greek stem \u1f40\u03c0 in \u1f44\u03c0-\u03c9\u03c0-\u03b1,\n\u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, and \u1f40\u03c6-\u03b8-\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2. It is true that the short radical vowel _a_ in\nSanskrit, _o_ in Greek, _u_ in Latin, sinks down to _u_ in Gothic, and\nit is equally true, as Grimm has shown, that, according to a phonetic\nlaw peculiar to Gothic, _u_ before _h_ and _r_ is changed to _a\u00fa_.\nGrimm, therefore, takes the Gothic _a\u00fag\u00f4_ for *_a\u00fah\u00f4_, and this for\n*_uh\u00f4_, which, as he shows, would be a proper representative in Gothic\nof the Sanskrit +ak-an+, or +aksh-an+.\n\nBut here Grimm seems wrong. If the _au_ of _aug\u00f4_ were this peculiar\nGothic _a\u00fa_, which represents an original short _a_, changed to _u_, and\nthen raised to a diphthong by the insertion of a short _a_, then that\ndiphthong would be restricted to Gothic; and the other Teutonic dialects\nwould have their own representatives for an original short _a_. But in\nAnglo-Saxon we find _e\u00e1ge_, in Old High German _aug\u00e2_, both pointing to\na labial diphthong, _i.e._ to a radical _u_ raised to _au_.[14]\n\nProfessor Ebel,[15] in order to avoid this difficulty, proposed a\ndifferent explanation. He supposed that the _k_ of the root _ak_ was\nsoftened to _kv_, and that _aug\u00f4_ represents an original _agv\u00e2_ or\n_ahv\u00e2_, the _v_ of _hv\u00e2_ being inserted before the _h_ and changed to\n_u_. As an analogous case he quoted the Sanskrit enclitic particle _ca_,\nLatin _que_, Gothic *_hva_, which *_hva_ appears always under the form\nof _uh_. Leo Meyer takes the same view, and quotes, as an analogon,\n_haubida_ as possibly identical with _caput_, originally *_kapvat_.\n\nThese cases, however, are not quite analogous. The enclitic particle\n+ca+, in Gothic *_hva_, had to lose its final vowel. It thus became\nunpronounceable, and the short vowel _u_ was added simply to facilitate\nits pronunciation.[16] There was no such difficulty in pronouncing *_ah_\nor *_uh_ in Gothic, still less the derivative form *_ahv\u00f4_, if such a\nform had ever existed.\n\nAnother explanation was therefore attempted by the late Dr. Lottner.[17]\nHe supposed that the root _ak_ existed also with a nasal as _ank_, and\nthat _ank\u00f4_ could be changed to _auk\u00f4_, and _auk\u00f4_ to _aug\u00f4_. In reply\nto this we must remark that in the Teutonic dialects the root _ak_ never\nappears as _ank_, and that the transition of _an_ into _au_, though\npossible under certain conditions, is not a phonetic process of frequent\noccurrence.\n\nBesides, in all these derivations there is a difficulty, though not a\nserious one, viz.: that an original tenuis, the _k_, is supposed\nirregularly to have been changed into _g_, instead of what it ought to\nbe, an _h_. Although this is not altogether anomalous,[18] yet it has to\nbe taken into account. Professor Curtius, therefore, though he admits a\npossible connection between Gothic _aug\u00f4_ and the root _ak_, speaks\ncautiously on the subject. On page 99 he refers to _aug\u00f4_ as more\ndistantly connected with that root, and on p.\u00a0457 he simply refers to\nthe attempts of Ebel, Grassmann, and Lottner to explain the diphthong\n_au_, without himself expressing any decided opinion. Nor does he commit\nhimself to any opinion as to the origin of \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae, though, of course, he\nnever thinks of connecting the two words, Gothic _aug\u00f4_ and Greek \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae,\nas coming from the same root.\n\nThe etymology of the Greek \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae, in the sense of light or splendor, is\nnot known unless we connect it with the Sanskrit +ojas+, which, however,\nmeans vigor rather than splendor. The etymology of _oculus_, on the\ncontrary, is clear; it comes from a root _ak_, to be sharp, to point, to\nfix, and it is closely connected with the Sanskrit word for eye,\n+akshi+, and with the Greek \u1f44\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5. The etymology of the German word\n_Auge_ is, as yet, unknown. All we may safely assert is, that, in spite\nof the most favorable appearances, it cannot, for the present, be traced\nback to the same source as either the Greek \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae or the Latin _oculus_.\n\nIf we simply transliterated the Gothic _aug\u00f4_ into Sanskrit, we should\nexpect some word like +ohan+, nom. +oh\u00e2+. The question is, may we take\nthe liberty, which many of the most eminent comparative philologists\nallow themselves, of deriving Gothic, Greek, and Latin words from roots\nwhich occur in Sanskrit, only, but which have left no trace of their\nformer presence in any other language? If so, then there would be little\ndifficulty in finding an etymology for the Gothic _aug\u00f4_. There is in\nSanskrit a root +\u00fbh+, which means to watch, to spy, to look. It occurs\nfrequently in the Veda, and from it we have likewise a substantive,\n+oha-s+, look or appearance. If, in Sanskrit itself this root had\nyielded a name for eye, such as +ohan+, the instrument of looking,\nI\u00a0should not hesitate for a moment to identify this Sanskrit word +ohan+\nwith the Gothic _aug\u00f4_. No objection could be raised on phonetic\ngrounds. Phonetically the two words would be one and the same. But as in\nSanskrit such a derivation has not been found, and as in Gothic the root\n+\u00fbh+ never occurs, such an etymology would not be satisfactory. The\nnumber of words of unknown origin is very considerable as yet in\nSanskrit, in Greek, in Latin, and in every one of the Aryan languages;\nand it is far better to acknowledge this fact, than to sanction the\nsmallest violation of any of those phonetic laws, which some have called\nthe straight jacket, but which are in reality, the leading strings of\nall true etymology.\n\nIf we now turn to grammar, properly so called, and ask what Comparative\nPhilology has done for it, we must distinguish between two kinds of\ngrammatical knowledge. Grammar may be looked upon as a mere art, and, as\ntaught at present in most schools, it is nothing but an art. We learn to\nplay on a foreign language as we learn to play on a musical instrument,\nand we may arrive at the highest perfection in performing on any\ninstrument, without having a notion of thorough bass or the laws of\nharmony. For practical purposes this purely empirical knowledge is all\nthat is required. But though it would be a mistake to attempt in our\nelementary schools to replace an empirical by a scientific knowledge of\ngrammar, that empirical knowledge of grammar ought in time to be raised\nto a real, rational, and satisfying knowledge, a\u00a0knowledge not only of\nfacts, but of reasons; a\u00a0knowledge that teaches us not only what grammar\nis, but how it came to be what it is. To know grammar is very well, but\nto speak all one\u2019s life of gerunds and supines and infinitives, without\nhaving an idea what these formations really are, is a kind of knowledge\nnot quite worthy of a scholar.\n\nWe laugh at people who still believe in ghosts and witches, but a belief\nin infinitives and supines is not only tolerated, but inculcated in our\nbest schools and universities. Now, what do we really mean if we speak\nof an infinitive? It is a time-honored name, no doubt, handed down to us\nfrom the Middle Ages; it has its distant roots in Rome, Alexandria, and\nAthens;--but has it any real kernel? Has it any more body or substance\nthan such names as Satyrs and Lamias?\n\nLet us look at the history of the name before we look at the mischief\nwhich it, like many other names, has caused by making people believe\nthat whenever there is a name there must be something behind it. The\nname was invented by Greek philosophers who, in their first attempts at\nclassifying and giving names to the various forms of language, did not\nknow whether to class such forms as \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, as nouns or as verbs. They had established for their own\nsatisfaction the broad distinction between nouns (\u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1) and verbs\n(\u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1); they had assigned to each a definition, but, after having done\nso, they found that forms like \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd would not fit their definition\neither of noun or verb.[19] What could they do? Some (the Stoics)\nrepresented the forms in \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, etc., as a subdivision of the verb, and\nintroduced for them the name \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd or \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. Others\nrecognized them as a separate part of speech, raising their number from\neight to nine or ten. Others, again, classed them under the adverb\n(\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1), as one of the eight recognized parts of speech. The Stoics,\ntaking their stand on Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, could not but\nregard the infinitive as \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, because it implied time, past, present,\nor future, which was with them recognized as the specific characteristic\nof the verb (_Zeitwort_). But they went further, and called forms such\nas \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, etc., \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, in the highest or most general sense,\ndistinguishing other verbal forms, such as \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9, etc., by the names of\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 or \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1. Afterwards, in the progress of grammatical\nscience, the definition of \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 became more explicit and complete. It\nwas pointed out that a verb, besides its predicative meaning (\u1f14\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2),\nis able to[20] express several additional meanings (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), viz.: not only time, as already pointed out by Aristotle,\nbut also person and number. The two latter meanings, however, being\nabsent in \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, this was now called \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (without\nby-meanings), or \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, and, for practical purposes, this \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd soon became the prototype of conjugation.\n\nSo far there was only confusion, arising from a want of precision in\nclassifying the different forms of the verb. But when the Greek\nterminology was transplanted to Rome, real mischief began. Instead of\n\u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, we now find the erroneous, or, at all events,\ninaccurate, translation, _modus infinitus_, and _infinitivus_ by itself.\nWhat was originally meant as an adjective belonging to \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1, became a\nsubstantive, the infinitive, and though the question arose again and\nagain what this infinitive really was, whether a noun, or a verb, or an\nadverb; whether a mood or not a mood; the real existence of such a thing\nas an infinitive could no longer be doubted. One can hardly trust one\u2019s\neyes in reading the extraordinary discussions on the nature of the\ninfinitive in grammatical works of successive centuries up to the\nnineteenth. Suffice it to say that Gottfried Hermann, the great reformer\nof classical grammars, treated the infinitive again as an adverb, and,\ntherefore, as a part of speech belonging to the particles. We ourselves\nwere brought up to believe in infinitives; and to doubt the existence of\nthis grammatical entity would have been considered in our younger days a\nmost dangerous heresy.\n\nAnd yet, how much confused thought, and how much controversy might have\nbeen avoided, if this grammatical term of infinitive had never been\ninvented.[21] The fact is that what we call infinitives are nothing more\nor less than cases of verbal nouns, and not till they are treated as\nwhat they are shall we ever gain an insight into the nature and the\nhistorical development of these grammatical monsters.\n\nTake the old Homeric infinitive in \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and you find its explanation\nin the Sanskrit termination +mane+, _i.e._ +manai+, the native of the\nsuffix +man+ (not, as others suppose, the locative of a suffix _mana_),\nby which a large number of nouns are formed in Sanskrit. From _gn\u00e2_, to\nknow, we have +(g)n\u00e2man+, Latin _(g)nom\u00e9n_, that by which a thing is\nknown, its name; from +gan+, to be born, +g\u00e1n-man+, birth. In Greek this\nsuffix man is chiefly used for forming masculine nouns, such as \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce-\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce-\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, literally a knower; \u03c4\u03bb\u03ae-\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, a\u00a0sufferer; or as \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd in\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9-\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, a\u00a0shepherd, literally a feeder. In Latin, on the contrary,\n_men_ occurs frequently at the end of abstract nouns in the neuter\ngender, such as _teg-men_, the covering, or _tegu-men_ or _tegi-men_;\n_solamen_, consolation; _voca-men_, an appellation; _certa-men_, a\ncontest; and many more, particularly in ancient Latin; while in\nclassical Latin the fuller suffix _mentum_ predominates. If then we read\nin Homer, \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03be\u03b5 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, we may call \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 an\ninfinitive, if we like, and translate \u201che made dogs to protect the\nhouse;\u201d but the form which we have before us, is simply a dative of an\nold abstract noun in \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, and the original meaning was \u201cfor the\nprotection of the house,\u201d or \u201cfor protecting the house;\u201d as if we said\nin Latin, _tutamini domum_.\n\nThe infinitives in \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd may be corruptions of those in \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, unless we\ntake \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd as an archaic accusative, which, though without analogy in\nGreek, would correspond to Latin accusatives like _tegmen_, and express\nthe general object of certain acts or movements. In Sanskrit, at least\nin the Veda, infinitives in +mane+ occur, such as +d\u1ea5-mane+, to give,\nGreek \u03b4\u03cc-\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; +vid-m\u00e1ne+, to know, Greek \u03dd\u03af\u03b4-\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.[22]\n\nThe question next arises, if this is a satisfactory explanation of the\ninfinitives in \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, how are we to explain the infinitives in \u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9?\nWe find in Homer, not only \u1f34\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, to go, but also \u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9; not only\n\u1f14\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, to be, but also \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, _i.e._, \u1f14\u03c3-\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Bopp simply says\nthat the _m_ is lost, but he brings no evidence that in Greek an _m_ can\nthus be lost without any provocation. The real explanation, here, as\nelsewhere, is supplied by the _Beieinander_ (the collateral growth), not\nby the _Nacheinander_ (the successive growth) of language. Besides the\nsuffix _man_, the Aryan languages possessed two other suffixes, _van_\nand _an_, which were added to verbal bases just like _man_. By the side\nof +d\u00e2man+, the act of giving, we find in the Veda +d\u00e2-van+, the act of\ngiving, and a dative +d\u00e2-v\u00e1ne+, with the accent on the suffix, meaning\nfor the giving, _i.e._ to give. Now in Greek this _v_ would necessarily\ndisappear, though its former presence might be indicated by the _digamma\n\u00e6olicum_. Thus, instead of Sanskrit +d\u00e2v\u00e1ne+, we should have in Greek\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03dd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03bf\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and contracted \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, the regular form of the\ninfinitive of the aorist, a\u00a0form in which the diphthong \u03bf\u03c5 would remain\ninexplicable, except for the former presence of the lost syllable \u03dd\u03b5. In\nthe same manner \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 stands for \u1f10\u03c3-\u03dd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03c3-\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f10\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. Hence\n\u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, stands for \u1f30\u03dd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and even the accent remains on the suffix\n_van_, just as it did in Sanskrit.\n\nAs the infinitives in \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 were traced back to the suffix _man_, and\nthose in \u03dd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 to a suffix _van_, the regular infinitives in \u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 after\nconsonants, and \u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 after vowels, must be referred to the suffix _an_,\ndat. _ane_. Here, too, we find analogous forms in the Veda. From\n+dh\u00fbrv+, to hurt, we have +dh\u00fb\u0301rv-a\u1e47e+, for the purpose of hurting, in\norder to hurt; in Rv. IX. 61, 30, we find +vibhv-\u00e1ne+, Rv. VI. 61, 13,\nin order to conquer, and by the same suffix the Greeks formed their\ninfinitives of the perfect, \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0-\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and the infinitives of the\nverbs in \u03bc\u03b9, \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad-\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf-\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1-\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, etc.\n\nIn order to explain, after these antecedents, the origin of the\ninfinitive in \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, as \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, we must admit either the shortening of\n\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 to \u03bd\u03b9, which is difficult; or the existence of a locative in \u03b9 by\nthe side of a dative in \u03b1\u03b9. That the locative can take the place of the\ndative we see clearly in the Sanskrit forms of the aorist, +parsh\u00e1\u1e47i+,\nto cross, +nesh\u00e1\u1e47i+, to lead, which, as far as their form, not their\norigin, is concerned, would well match Greek forms like \u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd in the\nfuture. In either case, \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5-\u03bd\u03b9 in Greek would have become \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd,\njust as \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5-\u03c3\u03b9 became \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2. In the Doric dialect this throwing back\nof the final \u03b9 is omitted in the second person singular, where the\nDorians may say \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 for \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2; and in the same Doric dialect the\ninfinitive, too, occurs in \u03b5\u03bd instead of \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd; _e.g._, \u1f00\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd instead of\n\u1f00\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. (Buttman, \u201cGreek Gr.,\u201d \u00a7\u00a0103, 10,\u00a011.)\n\nIn this manner the growth of grammatical forms can be made as clear as\nthe sequence of any historical events in the history of the world, nay,\nI\u00a0should say far clearer, far more intelligible; and I should think that\neven the first learning of these grammatical forms might be somewhat\nseasoned and rendered more really instructive by allowing the pupil,\nfrom time to time, a\u00a0glimpse into the past history of the Greek and\nLatin languages. In English what we call the infinitive is clearly a\ndative; _to speak_ shows by its very preposition what it was intended\nfor. How easy, then, to explain to a beginner that if he translates,\n\u201cable to speak,\u201d by \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, the Greek infinitive is really the\nsame as the English, and that \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd stands for \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9 and this for\n\u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, which, to a certain extent, answers the same purpose as the\nGreek \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9, the dative of \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, and therefore originally \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9.\n\nAnd remark, these very datives and locatives of nouns formed by the\nsuffix \u03bf\u03c2 in Greek, as in Sanskrit, _es_ in Latin, though they yield\nno infinitives in Greek, yield the most common form of the infinitive in\nLatin, and may be traced also in Sanskrit. As from _genus_ we form a\ndative _generi_, and a locative _genere_, which stands for _genese_, so\nfrom _gigno_ an abstract noun would be formed, _gignus_, and from it a\ndative, _gigneri_, and a locative, _gignere_. I do not say that the\nintermediate form _gignus_ existed in the spoken Latin, I\u00a0only maintain\nthat such a form would be analogous to _gen-us_, _op-us_, _f\u0153d-us_, and\nthat in Sanskrit the process is exactly the same. We form in Sanskrit a\nsubstantive +c\u00e0kshas+, sight, +c\u00e0kshus+, eye; and we find the dative of\n+c\u00e0kshas+, _i.e._ +c\u00e0kshase+, used as what we should call an infinitive,\nin order to see. But we also find another so-called infinitive,\n+j\u00eev\u00e0se+, in order to live, although there is no noun, +j\u00eevas+, life;\nwe find +\u00e1yase+, to go, although there is no noun +\u00e1yas+, going. This\nSanskrit +\u00e1yase+ explains the Latin _i-re_, as *+i-vane+ explained\nthe Greek \u1f30\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. The intention of the old framers of language is\nthroughout the same. They differ only in the means which they use, one\nmight almost say, at random; and the differences between Sanskrit,\nGreek, and Latin are often due to the simple fact that out of many\npossible forms that might be used and had been used before the Aryan\nlanguages became traditional, settled, and national, one family or clan\nor nation fancied one, another another. While this one became fixed and\nclassical, all others became useless, remained perhaps here and there in\nproverbial sayings or in sacred songs, but were given up at last\ncompletely, as strange, obsolete, and unintelligible.\n\nAnd even then, after a grammatical form has become obsolete and\nunintelligible, it by no means loses its power of further development.\nThough the Greeks did not themselves, we still imagine that we feel the\ninfinitive as the case of an abstract noun in many constructions. Thus\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, difficult to find, was originally, difficult in the\nfinding, or difficult for the act of finding; \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, meant\nliterally, powerful in speaking; \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, I\u00a0begin to speak,\n_i.e._, I direct myself to the act of speaking; \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\nyou bid me to speak, _i.e._, you order me towards the act of speaking;\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5, I\u00a0am afraid of refuting you, _i.e._, I fear in\nthe act, or, I\u00a0shrink when brought towards the act, of refuting you; \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, your business is in or towards speaking, you have to\nspeak; \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd, there is something difficult in pleasing\neverybody, or, in our endeavor after pleasing everybody. In all these\ncases the so-called infinitive can, with an effort, still be felt as a\nnoun in an oblique case. But in course of time expressions such as\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u1f01\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, it is difficult to please, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, it is good to\nspeak, left in the mind of the speaker the impression that \u1f01\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd and\n\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd were subjects in the nominative, the pleasing is difficult, the\nspeaking is good; and by adding the article, these oblique cases of\nverbal nouns actually became nominatives, \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f01\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, the act of pleasing,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, the act of speaking, capable of being used in every case,\n_e.g._, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, _desiderium bibendi_. This regeneration,\nthis process of creating new words out of decaying and decayed materials\nmay seem at first sight incredible, yet it is as certain as the change\nwith which we began our discussion of the infinitive. I\u00a0mean the change\nof the conception of a \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, a\u00a0_verbum generalissimum_, into\na _generalissimus_ or _infinitivus_. Nor is the process without analogy\nin modern languages. The French _l\u2019avenir_, the future (_Zukunft_), is\nhardly the Latin _advenire_. That would mean the arriving, the coming,\nbut not what is to come. I\u00a0believe _l\u2019avenir_ was (_quod est_) _ad\nvenire_, what is to come, contracted to _l\u2019avenir_. In Low-German _to\ncome_ assumes even the character of an adjective, and we can speak not\nonly of a year to come, but of a to-come year, _de tokum Jahr_.[23]\n\nThis process of grammatical vivisection may be painful in the eyes of\nclassical scholars, yet even they must see how great a difference there\nis in the quality of knowledge imparted by our Greek and Latin grammars,\nand by comparative grammar. I\u00a0do not deny that at first children must\nlearn Greek and Latin mechanically, but it is not right that they should\nremain satisfied with mere paradigms and technical terms, without\nknowing the real nature and origin of so-called infinitives, gerunds,\nand supines. Every child will learn the construction of the accusative\nwith the infinitive, but I well remember my utter amazement when I first\nwas taught to say _Miror te ad me nihil scribere_, \u201cI am surprised that\nyou write nothing to me.\u201d How easy would it have been to explain that\n_scribere_ was originally a locative of a verbal noun, and that there\nwas nothing strange or irrational in saying, \u201cI\u00a0wonder at thee in the\nact of not writing to me.\u201d This first step once taken, everything else\nfollowed by slow degrees, but even in phrases like _Spero te mihi\nignoscere_, we can still see the first steps which led from \u201cI\u00a0hope or I\ndesire thee, toward the act of forgiving me,\u201d to \u201cI\u00a0trust thee to\nforgive me.\u201d It is the object of the comparative philologist to gather\nup the scattered fragments, to arrange them and fit them, and thus to\nshow that language is something rational, human, intelligible, the very\nembodiment of the mind of man in its growth from the lowest to the\nhighest stage, and with capabilities for further growth far beyond what\nwe can at present conceive or imagine.\n\nAs to writing Greek and Latin verse, I do not maintain that a knowledge\nof Comparative Philology will help us much. It is simply an art that\nmust be acquired by practice, if in these our busy days it is still\nworth acquiring. A\u00a0good memory will no doubt enable us to say at a\nmoment\u2019s notice whether certain syllables are long or short. But is it\nnot far more interesting to know why certain vowels are long and others\nshort, than to be able to string longs and shorts together in imitation\nof Greek and Latin hexameters? Now in many cases the reason why certain\nvowels are long or short, can be supplied by Comparative Philology\nalone. We may learn from Latin grammar that the _i_ in _f\u00eedus_, trusty,\nand in _f\u00eedo_, I trust, is long, and that it is short in _fides_, trust,\nand _perfidus_, faithless; but as all these words are derived from the\nsame root, why should some have a long, others a short vowel?\nA\u00a0comparison of Sanskrit at once supplies an answer. Certain\nderivatives, not only in Latin but in Sanskrit and Greek too, require\nwhat is called +Gu\u1e47a+ of the radical vowel. In _f\u00eedus_ and _f\u00eedo_, the\n_i_ is really a diphthong, and represents a more ancient _ei_ or _oi_,\nthe former appearing in Greek \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03c9, the latter in Latin _foedus_,\na truce.\n\nWe learn from our Greek grammars that the second syllable in \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u1fe1\u03bc\u03b9\nis long, but in the plural, \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u1fe0\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, it is short. This cannot be by\naccident, and we may observe the same change in \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9 and \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd,\nand similar words. Nothing, however, but a study of Sanskrit would have\nenabled us to discover the reason of this change, which is really the\naccent in its most primitive working, such as we can watch it in the\nVedic Sanskrit, where it produces exactly the same change, only with far\ngreater regularity and perspicuity.\n\nWhy, again, do we say in Greek, \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1, I know, but \u1f34\u03c3-\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, we know? Why\n\u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1, but \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd? Why \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1, but \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd? There is no recollection\nin the minds of the Greeks of the motive power that was once at work,\nand left its traces in these grammatical convulsions; but in Sanskrit we\nstill see, as it were, a\u00a0lower stratum of grammatical growth, and we can\nthere watch the regular working of laws which required these changes,\nand which have left their impress not only on Greek, but on Sanskrit,\nand even on German. The same necessity which made Homer say \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 and\n\u1f34\u03b4\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, and the Vedic poet +v\u00e9da+ and +vidm\u00e1s+, still holds good, and\nmakes us say in German, _Ich weiss_, I know, but _wir wissen_, we know.\n\nAll this becomes clear and intelligible by the light of Comparative\nGrammar; anomalies vanish, exceptions prove the rule, and we perceive\nmore plainly every day how in language, as elsewhere, the conflict\nbetween the freedom claimed by each individual and the resistance\noffered by the community at large, establishes in the end a reign of law\nmost wonderful, yet perfectly rational and intelligible.\n\nThese are but a few small specimens to show you what Comparative\nPhilology can do for Greek and Latin; and how it has given a new life to\nthe study of languages by discovering, so to say, and laying bare, the\ntraces of that old life, that prehistoric growth, which made language\nwhat we find it in the oldest literary monuments, and which still\nsupplies the vigor of the language of our own time. A knowledge of the\nmere facts of language is interesting enough; nay, if you ask yourself\nwhat grammars really are--those very Greek and Latin grammars which we\nhated so much in our schoolboy days--you will find that they are\nstore-houses, richer than the richest museums of plants or minerals,\nmore carefully classified and labeled than the productions of any of the\ngreat kingdoms of nature. Every form of declension and conjugation,\nevery genitive and every so-called infinitive and gerund, is the result\nof a long succession of efforts, and of intelligent efforts. There is\nnothing accidental, nothing irregular, nothing without a purpose and\nmeaning in any part of Greek or Latin grammar. No one who has once\ndiscovered this hidden life of language, no one who has once found out\nthat what seemed to be merely anomalous and whimsical in language is\nbut, as it were, a\u00a0petrification of thought, of deep, curious, poetical,\nphilosophical thought, will ever rest again till he has descended as far\nas he can descend into the ancient shafts of human speech, exploring\nlevel after level, and testing every successive foundation which\nsupports the surface of each spoken language.\n\nOne of the great charms of this new science is that there is still so\nmuch to explore, so much to sift, so much to arrange. I\u00a0shall not,\ntherefore, be satisfied with merely lecturing on Comparative Philology,\nbut I hope I shall be able to form a small philological society of more\nadvanced students, who will come and work with me, and bring the results\nof their special studies as materials for the advancement of our\nscience. If there are scholars here who have devoted their attention to\nthe study of Homer, Comparative Philology will place in their hands a\nlight with which to explore the dark crypt on which the temple of the\nHomeric language was erected. If there are scholars who know their\nPlautus or Lucretius, Comparative Philology will give them a key to\ngrammatical forms in ancient Latin, which, even if supported by an\nAmbrosian palimpsest, might still seem hazardous and problematical. As\nthere is no field and no garden that has not its geological antecedents,\nthere is no language and no dialect which does not receive light from a\nstudy of Comparative Philology, and reflect light in return on more\ngeneral problems. As in geology again, so in Comparative Philology, no\nprogress is possible without a division of labor, and without the most\ngeneral co\u00f6peration. The most experienced geologist may learn something\nfrom a miner or from a ploughboy; the most experienced comparative\nphilologist may learn something from a schoolboy or from a child.\n\nI have thus explained to you what, if you will but assist me, I\u00a0should\nlike to do as the first occupant of this new chair of Comparative\nPhilology. In my public lectures I must be satisfied with teaching. In\nmy private lectures, I\u00a0hope I shall not only teach, but also learn, and\nreceive back as much as I have to give.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nNOTE A.\n\nON THE FINAL DENTAL OF THE PRONOMINAL STEM _tad_.\n\nOne or two instances may here suffice to show how compassless even the\nbest comparative philologists find themselves if, without a knowledge of\nSanskrit, they venture into the deep waters of grammatical research.\nWhat can be clearer at first sight than that the demonstrative pronoun\n_that_ has the same base in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and German? Bopp\nplaces together (\u00a7\u00a0349) the following forms of the neuter:--\n\n Sanskrit Zend Greek Latin Gothic\n +tat+ _ta\u1e0d._ \u03c4\u03cc _is-tud_ _thata_\n\nand he draws from them the following conclusions:--\n\nIn the Sanskrit +ta-t+ we have the same pronominal element repeated\ntwice, and this repeated pronominal element became afterwards the\ngeneral sign of the neuter after other pronominal stems, such as +ya-t+,\n+ka-t+.\n\nSuch a conclusion seems extremely probable, particularly when we compare\nthe masculine form +sa-s+, the old nom. sing., instead of the ordinary\n+sa+. But the first question that has to be answered is, whether this is\nphonetically possible, and how.\n\nIf +tat+ in Sanskrit is +ta+ + +ta+, then we expect in Gothic _tha_ +\n_tha_, instead of which we find _tha_ + _ta_. We expect in Latin\n_istut_, not _istud_, _illut_, not _illud_, _it_, not _id_, for Latin\nrepresents final _t_ in Sanskrit by _t_, not by _d_. The old Latin\nablative in _d_ is not a case in point, as we shall see afterwards.\n\nBoth Gothic _tha-ta_, therefore, and Latin _istud_, postulate a Sanskrit\n+tad+, while Zend and Greek at all events do not conflict with an\noriginal final media. Everything therefore depends on what was the\noriginal form in Sanskrit; and here no Sanskrit scholar would hesitate\nfor one moment between +tat+ and +tad+. Whatever the origin of +tat+ may\nhave been, it is quite certain that Sanskrit knows only of +tad+, never\nof +tat+. There are various ways of testing the original surd or sonant\nnature of final consonants in Sanskrit. One of the safest seems to me to\nsee how those consonants behave before +taddhita+ or secondary suffixes,\nwhich require no change in the final consonant of the base. Thus before\nthe suffix +\u00eeya+ (called +cha+ by P\u00e2\u1e47ini) the final consonant is never\nchanged, yet we find +tad-\u00eeya+, like +mad-\u00eeya+, +tvad-\u00eeya+, +asmad-\u00eeya+,\n+yushmad-\u00eeya+, etc. Again, before the possessive suffix +vat+ final\nconsonants of nominal bases suffer no change. This is distinctly stated\nby P\u00e2\u1e47ini, I.\u00a04, 19. Hence we have +vidyut-v\u00e2n+, from +vidyut+,\nlightning, from the root +dyut+; we have +uda\u015bvit-v\u00e2n+, from\n+uda-\u015bvi-t+. In both cases the original final tenuis remains unchanged.\nHence, if we find +tad-v\u00e2n+, +kad-v\u00e2n+, our test shows us again that the\nfinal consonant in +tad+ and +kad+ is a media, and that the _d_ of these\nwords is not a modification of _t_.\n\nTaking our stand therefore on the undoubted facts of Sanskrit grammar,\nwe cannot recognize _t_ as the termination of the neuter of pronominal\nstems, but only _d_;[24] nor can we accept Bopp\u2019s explanation of +tad+\nas a compound of +ta+ + t, unless the transition of an original _t_ into\na Sanskrit and Latin _d_ can be established by sufficient evidence. Even\nthen that transition would have to be referred to a time before Sanskrit\nand Gothic became distinct languages, for the Gothic _tha-ta_ is the\ncounterpart of the Sanskrit +tad+, and not of +tat+.\n\nBopp endeavors to defend the transition of an original _t_ into Latin\n_d_ by the termination of the old ablatives, such as _gnaivod_, etc. But\nhere again it is certain that the original termination was _d_, and not\n_t_. It is so in Latin, it may be so in Zend, where, as Justi points\nout, the _d_ of the ablative is probably a media.[25] In Sanskrit it is\ncertainly a media in such forms as +mad+, +tvad+, +asmad+, which Bopp\nconsiders as old ablatives, and which in +mad\u00eeya+, etc., show the\noriginal media. In other cases it is impossible in Sanskrit to test the\nnature of the final dental in the ablative, because _d_ is always\ndetermined by its position in a sentence. But under no circumstances\ncould we appeal to Latin _gnaivod_ in order to prove a transition of an\noriginal _t_ into _d_; while on the contrary all the evidence at present\nis in favor of a media, as the final letter both of the ablative and of\nthe neuter bases of pronouns, such as +tad+ and +yad+.\n\nThese may seem _minuti\u00e6_, but the whole of Comparative Grammar is made\nup of _minuti\u00e6_, which, nevertheless, if carefully joined together and\ncemented, lead to conclusions of unexpected magnitude.\n\n\nNOTE B.\n\nDID FEMININE BASES IN _\u00e2_ TAKE _s_ IN THE NOMINATIVE SINGULAR?\n\nI add one other instance to show how a more accurate knowledge of\nSanskrit would have guarded comparative philologists against rash\nconclusions. With regard to the nominative singular of feminine bases\nending in derivative _\u00e2_, the question arose, whether words like _bona_\nin Latin, \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03ac in Greek, +siv\u00e2+ in Sanskrit, had originally an _s_\nas the sign of the nom. sing., which was afterwards lost, or whether\nthey never took that termination. Bopp (\u00a7\u00a0136), Schleicher (\u00a7\u00a0246), and\nothers seem to believe in the loss of the _s_, chiefly, it would seem,\nbecause the _s_ is added to feminine bases ending in _\u00ee_ and _\u00fb_.\nBenfey[26] takes the opposite view, viz. that feminines in _\u00e2_ never\ntook the _s_ of the nom. sing. But he adds one exception, the Vedic\n+gn\u00e2-s+. This remark has caused much mischief. Without verifying\nBenfey\u2019s statements, Schleicher (l.c.) quotes the same exception, though\ncautiously referring to the Sanskrit dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth\nas his authority. Later writers, for instance Merguet,[27] leave out all\nrestrictions, simply appealing to this Vedic form +gn\u00e2-s+ in support of\nthe theory that feminine bases in _\u00e2_ too took originally _s_ as sign of\nthe nom. sing. and afterwards dropped it. Even so careful a scholar as\nB\u00fcchler[28] speaks of the _s_ as lost.\n\nThere is, first of all, no reason whatever why the _s_ should have been\nadded[29]; secondly, there is none why it should have been lost. But,\nwhatever opinion we may hold in this respect, the appeal to the Vedic\n+gn\u00e2-s+ cannot certainly be sustained, and the word should at all events\nbe obelized till there is better evidence for it than we possess at\npresent.[30]\n\nThe passage which is always quoted from the Rv. IV. 9, 4, as showing\n+gn\u00e2-s+ to be a nom. sing. in _s_, is extremely difficult, and as it\nstands at present, most likely corrupt:--\n\nUt\u00e1 gn\u1ea5\u1e25 agn\u00ed\u1e25 adhvar\u00e9 ut\u00f3 g\u1e5bh\u00e1-pati\u1e25 d\u00e1me, ut\u00e1 brahm\u1ea5 n\u00ed s\u00eddati.\n\nThis could only be translated:--\n\n\u201cAgni sits down at the sacrifice as a woman, as lord in the house, and\nas priest.\u201d\n\nThis, however, is impossible, for Agni, the god of fire, is never\nrepresented in the Veda as a woman. If we took +gn\u00e2\u1e25+ as a genitive, we\nmight translate, \u201cAgni sits down in the sacrifice of the lady of the\nhouse,\u201d but this again would be utterly incongruous in Vedic poetry.\n\nI believe the verse is corrupt, and I should propose to read:--\n\nUt\u00e1 agn\u1ea5v agn\u00ed\u1e25 adhvar\u00e9.\n\n\u201cAgni sits down at the sacrifice in the fire, as lord in the house, and\nas a priest.\u201d\n\nThe ideas that Agni, the god of fire, sits down in the fire, or that\nAgni is lighted by Agni, or that Agni is both the sacrificial fire and\nthe priest, are familiar to every reader of the Veda. Thus we read,\nI.\u00a012, 6, agn\u00edn\u00e2 agn\u00ed\u1e25 s\u00e1m idhyate, \u201cAgni is lighted by Agni;\u201d X. 88, 1,\nwe find Agni invoked as \u1ea5-hutam agn\u00e1u, etc.\n\nBut whether this emendation be right or wrong, it must be quite clear\nhow unsafe it would be to support the theory that feminine bases in _\u00e2_\nended originally in _s_ by this solitary passage from the Veda.\n\n\nNOTE C.\n\nGRAMMATICAL FORMS IN SANSKRIT CORRESPONDING TO SO-CALLED INFINITIVES IN\nGREEK AND LATIN.\n\nThere is no trace of such a term as infinitive in Sanskrit, and yet\nexactly the same forms, or, at all events, forms strictly analogous to\nthose which we call infinitives in Greek and Latin, exist in Sanskrit.\nHere, however, they are treated in the simplest way.\n\nSanskrit grammarians when giving the rules according to which nouns and\nadjectives are derived from verbal roots by means of primary suffixes\n(K\u1e5bt), mention among the rest the suffixes +tum+ (P\u00e2\u1e47., III. 3,\u00a010),\n+se+, +ase+, +adhyai+, +tavai+, +tave+, +shyai+, e, +am+, +tos+, +as+\n(IV.\u00a04, 9-17), defining their meaning in general by that of +tum+ (III.\n3,\u00a010). This +tum+ is said to express immediate futurity in a verb, if\ngoverned by another word conveying an intention. An example will make\nthis clearer. In order to say he goes to cook, where \u201che goes\u201d expresses\nan intention, and \u201cto cook\u201d is the object of that intention which is to\nfollow immediately, we place the suffix +tum+ at the end of the verb\n+pak+, to cook, and say in Sanskrit, vrajati pak-tum. We might also say\np\u00e2cako vrajati, he goes as one who means to cook, or vrajati p\u00e2k\u00e2ya, he\ngoes to the act of cooking, placing the abstract noun in the dative; and\nall these constructions are mentioned together by Sanskrit grammarians.\nThe same takes place after verbs which express a wish (III. 3, 158);\n_e.g._, icchati paktum, he wishes to cook, and after such words as\n+k\u00e2la+, time, +samaya+, opportunity, +vel\u00e2+, right moment (III. 3, 167);\n_e.g._, k\u00e2la\u1e25 paktum, it is time to cook, etc. Other verbs which govern\nforms in +tum+ are (III. 4,\u00a065) +\u015bak+, to be able; +dh\u1e5bsh+, to dare;\n+j\u00f1\u00e2+, to know; +glai+, to be weary; +gha\u1e6d+, to endeavor; +\u00e2rabh+, to\nbegin; +labh+, to get; +prakram+, to begin; +utsah+, to endure; +arh+,\nto deserve; and words like +asti+, there is; _e.g._, asti bhoktum, it is\n(possible) to eat; not, it is (necessary) to eat. The forms in +tum+ are\nalso enjoined (III. 4,\u00a066) after words like +alam+, expressing fitness,\n_e.g._, pary\u00e2pto bhoktum, alam bhoktum, ku\u015balo bhoktum, fit or able to\neat.\n\nHere we have everything that is given by Sanskrit grammarians in place\nof what we should call the Chapter on the Infinitive in Greek and Latin.\nThe only thing that has to be added is the provision, understood in\nP\u00e2\u1e47ini\u2019s grammar, that such suffixes as +tum+, etc., are indeclinable.\n\nAnd why are they indeclinable? For the simple reason that they are\nthemselves case terminations. Whether P\u00e2\u1e47ini was aware of this, we\ncannot tell with certainty. From some of his remarks it would seem to be\nso. When treating of the cases, P\u00e2\u1e47ini (I.\u00a04,\u00a032) explains what we\nshould call the dative by +Samprad\u00e2na+. +Samprad\u00e2na+ means giving\n(\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae), but P\u00e2\u1e47ini uses it here as a technical term, and assigns to\nit the definite meaning of \u201che whom one looks to by any act\u201d (not only\nthe act of giving, as the commentators imply). It is therefore what we\nshould call \u201cthe remote object.\u201d Ex. Br\u00e2hma\u1e47\u00e2ya dhanam dad\u00e2ti, he gives\nwealth to the Br\u00e2hman. This is afterwards extended by several rules\nexplaining that the +Samprad\u00e2na+ comes in after verbs expressive of\npleasure caused to somebody (I.\u00a04,\u00a033); after +\u015bl\u00e2gh+, to applaud,\n+hnu+, to dissemble, to conceal, +sth\u00e2+,[31] to reveal, +\u015bap+, to curse\n(I.\u00a04,\u00a034); after +dh\u00e2ray+, to owe (I.\u00a04,\u00a035); +sp\u1e5bh+, to long for\n(I.\u00a04,\u00a036); after verbs expressive of anger, ill-will, envy, detraction\n(I.\u00a04,\u00a037); after +r\u00e2dh+ and +\u00eeksh+, if they mean to consider concerning\na person (I.\u00a04,\u00a039); after +prati\u015bru+ and +\u00e2\u015bru+, in the sense of\naccording (I.\u00a04,\u00a040); +anug\u1e5b+ and +pratig\u1e5b+, in the sense of acting in\naccordance with (I.\u00a04,\u00a041); after +parikr\u00ee+, to buy, to hire (I.\u00a04,\u00a044).\nOther cases of +Samprad\u00e2na+ are mentioned after such words as +nama\u1e25+,\nsalutation to, +svasti+, hail, +sv\u00e2h\u00e2+, salutation to the gods,\n+svadh\u00e2+, salutation to the manes, +alam+, sufficient for, +vasha\u1e6d+,\noffered to, a\u00a0sacrificial invocation, etc. (II.\u00a03,\u00a016); and in such\nexpressions as na tvam tri\u1e47\u00e2ya manye, I\u00a0do not value thee a straw\n(II.\u00a03,\u00a017); gr\u00e2m\u00e2ya gacchati, he goes to the village (II.\u00a02,\u00a012):\nwhere, however, the accusative, too, is equally admissible. Some other\ncases of Samprad\u00e2na are mentioned in the V\u00e2rttikas; _e.g._, I.\u00a04, 44,\nmuktaye harim bhajati, for the sake of liberation he worships Hari;\nv\u00e2t\u00e2ya kapil\u00e2 vidyut, a\u00a0dark red lightning indicates wind. Very\ninteresting, too, is the construction with the prohibitive +m\u00e2+;\n_e.g._ m\u00e2 c\u00e2pal\u00e2ya, lit. not for unsteadiness, _i.e._, do not act\nunsteadily.[32]\n\nIn all these cases we easily recognize the identity of +Samprad\u00e2na+ with\nthe dative in Greek and Latin. If therefore we see that P\u00e2\u1e47ini in some\nof his rules states that +Samprad\u00e2na+ takes the place of +tum+, the so\ncalled infinitive, we can hardly doubt that he had perceived the\nsimilarity in the functions of what we call dative and infinitive. Thus\nhe says that instead of phal\u00e2ny \u00e2hartum y\u00e2ti, he goes to take the\nfruits, we may use the dative and say phalebhyo y\u00e2ti, he goes for the\nfruits; instead of yash\u1e6dum y\u00e2ti, he goes to sacrifice, y\u00e2g\u00e2ya y\u00e2ti, he\ngoes to the act of sacrificing (II.\u00a03, 14-15).\n\nBut whether P\u00e2\u1e47ini recognized this fact or not, certain it is that we\nhave only to look at the forms which in the Veda take the place of\n+tum+, in order to convince ourselves that most of them are datives of\nverbal nouns. As far as Sanskrit grammar is concerned, we may safely\ncancel the name of infinitive altogether, and speak instead boldly of\ndatives and other cases of verbal nouns. Whether these verbal nouns\nadmit of the dative case only, and whether some of those datival\nterminations have become obsolete, are questions which do not concern\nthe grammarian, and nothing would be more unphilosophical than to make\nsuch points the specific characteristic of a new grammatical category,\nthe infinitive. The very idea that every noun must possess a complete\nset of cases, is contrary to all the lessons of the history of language;\nand though the fact that some of these forms belong to an antiquated\nphase of language has undoubtedly contributed towards their being used\nmore readily for certain syntactical purposes, the fact remains that in\ntheir origin and their original intention they were datives and nothing\nelse. Neither could the fact that these datives of verbal nouns may\ngovern the same case which is governed by the verb, be used as a\nspecific mark, because it is well known that, in Sanskrit more\nparticularly, many nouns retain the power of governing the accusative.\nWe shall now examine some of these so-called infinitives in Sanskrit.\n\nDATIVES IN _E_.\n\nThe simplest dative is that in _e_, after verbal bases ending in\nconsonants or _\u00e2_, e.g., +d\u1e5b\u015b\u00e9+, for the sake of seeing, to see;\n+vid-\u00e9+, to know, +paribhve\u00ea+,[33] to overcome; +\u015braddh\u00e9 k\u00e1m+, to\nbelieve.\n\nDATIVES IN _AI_.\n\nAfter some verbs ending in _\u00e2_, the dative is irregularly (Grammar,\n\u00a7\u00a7\u00a0239, 240) formed in _ai_; Rv. VII. 19, 7, +par\u00e2d\u00e1i+, to surrender.\nIII. 60, 4, +pratim\u00e1i+, to compare, and the important form +vayodh\u00e1i+,\nof which more by and by.\n\nACCUSATIVES IN _AM_. GENITIVES AND ABLATIVES IN _AS_. LOCATIVES IN _I_.\n\nBy the side of these datives we have analogous accusatives in _am_,\ngenitives and ablatives in _as_, locatives in _i_.\n\nAccusative: I. 73, 10, \u015bak\u00e9ma y\u00e1mam, May we be able to get. I.\u00a094, 3,\n\u015bak\u00e9ma tv\u00e2 sam\u00eddhan, May we be able to light thee. This may be the Oscan\nand Umbrian infinitive in _um_, _om_ (_u_, _o_), if we take +yama+ as a\nbase in _a_, and _m_ as the sign of the accusative. In Sanskrit it is\nimpossible to determine this question, for that bases in _a_ also are\nused for similar purposes is clearly seen in datives like +d\u00e1bh\u00e2ya+;\n_e.g._, Rv. V. 44, 2, n\u00e1 d\u00e1bh\u00e2ya, not to conquer; VIII. 96, 1, n\u1e5b\u0301bhy\u00e2\u1e25\nt\u00e1r\u00e2ya s\u00edndhava\u1e25 su-p\u00e2r\u1ea5\u1e25, the rivers easy to cross for men. Whether\nthe Vedic imperatives in +\u00e2ya+ (+\u015b\u00e2yac+) admit of a similar explanation\nis doubtful on account of the accent.\n\nGenitive: +vilikha\u1e25+, in \u00ee\u015bvaro vilikha\u1e25, cognizant of drawing; and\npossibly X. 108, 2, atisk\u00e1da\u1e25 bhiy\u00e1s\u00e2, from fear of crossing.\n\nAblative: Rv. VIII. 1, 12, pur\u00e2 \u00e2t\u1e5b\u0301da\u1e25, before striking.\n\nLocative: Rv. V. 52, 12, d\u1e5b\u015b\u00ed tvish\u00e9, to shine in glancing(?)\n\nDATIVES IN _S-E_.\n\nThe same termination of the dative is added to verbal bases which have\ntaken the increment of the aorist, the\u00a0s. Thus from +ji+, to conquer, we\nhave +ji-sh+, and +je-sh+, and from both datival forms with infinitival\nfunction. I.\u00a0111, 4, t\u00e9 na\u1e25 hinvantu s\u00e2t\u00e1ye dhiy\u00e9 jish\u00e9, May they bring\nus to wealth, wisdom, victory!\n\nI. 100, 11, ap\u1ea5m tok\u00e1sya t\u00e1nayasya jesh\u00e9, May Indra help us for getting\nwater, children, and descendants. Cf. VI. 44, 18.\n\nOr, after bases ending in consonants, +upapraksh\u00e9+; V. 47, 6,\nupa-praksh\u00e9 v\u1e5b\u0301sha\u1e47a\u1e25 -\u00a0-\u00a0- vadhv\u1ea5\u1e25 yanti \u00e1ccha, the men go towards\ntheir wives to embrace.\n\nThese forms correspond to Greek infinitives like \u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 and \u03c4\u03cd\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9,\npossibly to Latin infinitives like _ferre_, for _fer-se_, _velle_ for\n_vel-se_, and _voluis-se_; for _se_, following immediately on a\nconsonant, can never represent the Sanskrit +ase+. With regard to\ninfinitives like _fac-se_, _dic-se_, I do not venture to decide whether\nthey are primitive forms, or contracted, though _fac-se_ could hardly be\ncalled a contraction of _fecisse_. The 2d pers. sing. of the imperative\nof the 1st aorist middle, \u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, is identical with the infinitive in\nform, and the transition of meaning from the infinitive to the\nimperative is well known in Greek and other languages. (\u03a0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76\n\u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Deliver up my dear child and\naccept the ransom). Several of these aoristic forms are sometimes very\nperplexing in Sanskrit. If we find, for instance, +stush\u00e9+, we cannot\nalways tell whether it is the infinitive (\u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9); or the 1st pers. sing.\nof the aor. \u00c2tmanep. in the subjunctive (for +stushai+), Let me praise\n(\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9); or lastly, the 2d pers. sing. \u00c2tmanep. in the indicative\n(\u03bb\u03cd\u1fc3). If +stushe+ has no accent, we know, of course, that it cannot be\nthe infinitive, as in X. 93, 9; but when it has the accent on the last,\nit may, in certain constructions, be either infinitive, or 1st pers.\nsing. aor. \u00c2tm. subj. Here we want far more careful grammatical studies\non the language of the Veda, before we can venture to translate with\ncertainty. In places, for instance, where as in I.\u00a0122, 7\u00a0we have a\nnominative with +stush\u00e9+, it is clear that it must be taken as an\ninfinitive, stush\u00e9 s\u00e2 v\u00e2m -\u00a0-\u00a0- r\u00e2t\u00ed\u1e25, your gift, Varu\u1e47a and Mitra, is\nto be praised; but in other places, such as VIII. 5, 4, the choice is\ndifficult. In VIII. 65, 5, \u00edndra gri\u1e47\u00eesh\u00e9 u stush\u00e9, I\u00a0should propose to\ntranslate, Indra, thou longest for praising, thou desirest to be\npraised, cf. VIII. 71, 15; while in II. 20, 4, t\u00e1m u stushe \u00edndram t\u00e1m\ng\u1e5b\u1e47\u00eeshe, I\u00a0translate, Let me praise Indra, let me laud him, admitting\nhere, the irregular retention of Vikara\u1e47a in the aorist, which can be\ndefended by analogous forms such as g\u1e5b\u0301-\u1e47\u00ee-sh-\u00e1\u1e47i, st\u1e5b\u0301-\u1e47\u00ee-sh-\u00e1\u1e47i, of\nwhich more hereafter. However, all these translations, as every real\nscholar knows, are, and can be tentative only. Nothing but a complete\nVedic grammar, such as we may soon expect from Professor Benfey, will\ngive us safe ground to stand on.\n\nDATIVES IN _\u00c2YAI_.\n\nFeminine bases in _\u00e2_ form their dative in +\u00e2yai+, and thus we find\n+car\u00e2yai+ used in the Veda, VII. 77, 1, as what we should call an\ninfinitive, in the sense of to go. No other cases of +car\u00e2+ have as yet\nbeen met with. A\u00a0similar form is +j\u00e2r\u00e2yai+, to praise, I.\u00a038, 13.\n\nDATIVES IN _AYE_.\n\nWe have next to consider bases in _i_, forming their dative in +\u00e1ye+.\nHere, whenever we are acquainted with the word in other cases, we\nnaturally take _aye_ as a simple dative of a noun. Thus in I.\u00a031, 8, we\nshould translate +san\u00e1ye dh\u00e1n\u00e2n\u00e2m+, for the acquisition of treasures,\nbecause we are accustomed to other cases, such as I.\u00a0100, 13, +san\u00e1yas+,\nacquisitions, V. 27, 3, +san\u00edm+, wealth. But if we find, V. 80, 5,\n+d\u1e5b\u015b\u00e1ye na\u1e25 asth\u00e2t+, she stood to be seen by us, lit., for our seeing,\nthen we prefer, though wrongly, to look upon such datives as\ninfinitives, simply because we have not met with other cases of\n+d\u1e5b\u015bi-s+.\n\nDATIVES IN _TAYE_.\n\nWhat applies to datives of nouns in _i_, applies with still greater\nforce to datives of nouns in _ti_. There is no reason why in IX. 96,\n4\u00a0we should call +\u00e1hataye+, to be without hurt, an infinitive, simply\nbecause no other case of +\u00e1hati-s+ occurs in the Rig-Veda; while\n+\u00e1j\u00eetaye+, not to fail, in the same line, is called a dative of\n+\u00e1j\u00eeti-s+, because it occurs again in the accusative +\u00e1j\u00eeti-m+.\n\nDATIVES IN _TYAI_.\n\nIn +ity\u00e1i+, to go, I. 113, 6; 124, 1, we have a dative of +iti-s+, the\nact of going, of which the instrumental +ity\u00e2+ occurs likewise, I.\u00a0167,\n5. This +ty\u00e2+, shortened to +tya+, became afterwards the regular\ntermination of the gerund of compound verbs in +tya+ (Grammar \u00a7\u00a0446),\nwhile +ya+ (\u00a7\u00a0445) points to an original +ya+ or +yai+.\n\nDATIVES IN _AS-E_.\n\nNext follow datives from bases in +as+, partly with accent on the first\nsyllable, like neuter nouns in +as+, partly with the accent on +as+;\npartly with Gu\u1e47a, partly without. With regard to them it becomes still\nclearer how impossible it would be to distinguish between datives of\nabstract nouns, and other grammatical forms, to be called infinitives.\nThus Rv. I.\u00a07, 3\u00a0we read +d\u00eergh\u00e2ya c\u00e1kshase+, Indra made the sun rise\nfor long glancing, _i.e._, that it might glance far and wide. It is\nquite true that no other cases of +c\u00e1kshas+, seeing, occur, on which\nground modern grammarians would probably class it as an infinitive; but\nthe qualifying dative +d\u00eergh\u00e2ya+, clearly shows that the poet felt\n+c\u00e1kshase+ as the dative of a noun, and did not trouble himself, whether\nthat noun was defective in other cases or not.\n\nThese datives of verbal nouns in +as+, correspond exactly to Latin\ninfinitives in _\u0115re_, like _vivere_ (+j\u00eev\u00e1se+), and explain likewise\ninfinitives in _\u00e2re_, _\u00eare_, and _\u00eere_, forms which cannot be separated.\nIt has been thought that the nearest approach to an infinitive is to be\nfound in such forms as +j\u00eev\u00e1se+, +bhiy\u00e1se+, to fear (V.\u00a029,\u00a04), because\nin such cases the ordinary nominal form would be +bh\u00e1yas-e+. There is,\nhowever, the instrumental +bhiy\u00e1sa+, X. 108, 2.\n\nDATIVES IN _MANE_.\n\nNext follow datives from nouns in +man+, +van+, and +an+. The suffix\n+man+ is very common in Sanskrit, for forming verbal nouns, such as\n+kar-man+, doing, deed, from +kar+. +Van+ is almost restricted to\nforming _nomina agentis_, such as +druh-van+, hating; but we find also\nsubstantives like +pat-van+, still used in the sense of flying. +An+\nalso is generally used like +van+, but we can see traces of its\nemployment to form _nomina actionis_ in Greek \u1f00\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd, Lat. _turbo_, etc.\n\nDatives of nouns in +man+, used with infinitival functions, are very\ncommon in the Veda; _e.g._ I.\u00a0164, 6, p\u1e5bcc\u00e2mi vidmane, I\u00a0ask to know;\nVIII. 93, 8, d\u00e2mane k\u1e5bt\u00e1\u1e25, made to give. We find also the instrumental\ncase +vidm\u00e1n\u00e2+, _e.g._, VI. 14, 5, vidm\u00e1n\u00e2 urushy\u00e1ti, he protects by his\nknowledge. These correspond to Homeric infinitives, like \u1f34\u03b4\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, etc., old datives and not locatives, as Schleicher and Curtius\nsupposed; while forms like \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd are to be explained either as\nabbreviated, or as obsolete accusatives.\n\nDATIVES IN _VANE_.\n\nOf datives in +v\u00e1ne+ I only know +d\u0101v\u00e2ne+, a\u00a0most valuable grammatical\nrelic, by which Professor Benfey was enabled to explain the Greek\n\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, i.e., \u03b4\u03bf\u03dd\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9.[34]\n\nDATIVES IN _ANE_.\n\nOf datives in +\u00e1ne+ I pointed out (l.c.) +dh\u00fbrv-ane+ and +vibhv-\u00e1ne+,\nVI. 61, 13, taking the latter as synonymous with +vibhv\u1ebf+, and\ntranslating, +Sarasvat\u00ee+, the great, made to conquer, like a chariot.\nProfessor Roth, _s.v._ +vibhv\u00e1n+, takes the dative for an instrumental,\nand translates \u201cmade by an artificer.\u201d It is, however, not the chariot\nthat is spoken of, but +Sarasvat\u00ee+, and of her it could hardly be said\nthat she was made either by or for an artificer.\n\nLOCATIVES IN _SANI_.\n\nAs we saw before that aoristic bases in _s_ take the datival _e_, so\nthat we had +pr\u00e1k-sh-e+ by the side of +p\u1e5b\u0301c-e+, we shall have to\nconsider here aoristic bases in _s_, taking the suffix +an+, not however\nwith the termination of the dative, but with that of the locative _i_.\nThus we read X. 126, 3, n\u00e1yish\u1e6dh\u00e2\u1e25 u na\u1e25 nesh\u00e1\u1e47i p\u00e1rshish\u1e6dh\u00e2\u1e25 u na\u1e25\nparsh\u00e1\u1e47i \u00e1ti dv\u00edsha\u1e25, they who are the best leaders to lead us, the best\nhelpers to help us to overcome our enemies, lit. in leading us, in\nhelping us. In VIII. 12, 19, +g\u1e5b\u1e47\u00eesh\u00e1ni+, i.e. +g\u1e5b-\u1e47\u00ee-sh\u00e1\u1e47-i+ stands\nparallel with +turv-\u00e1n-e+, thus showing how both cases can answer nearly\nthe same purpose. If these forms existed in Greek, they would, after\nconsonantal bases, be identical with the infinitives of the future.\n\nCASES OF VERBAL NOUNS IN _TU_.\n\nWe next come to a large number of datives, ablatives, or genitives, and\naccusatives of verbal nouns in +tu+. This +tu+ occurs in Sanskrit in\nabstract nouns such as +g\u00e2t\u00fa+, going, way, etc., in Latin in\n_adven-tus_, etc. As these forms have been often treated, and as some of\nthem occur frequently in later Sanskrit also, it will suffice to give\none example of each:--\n\nDative in +tave+: +g\u00e1ntave+, to go, I. 46, 7.\n\nOld form in +ai+: +g\u00e1ntav\u00e1i+, X. 95, 14.\n\nGenitive in +to\u1e25+: +d\u00e2to\u1e25+, governed by +\u00ee\u015be+, VII. 4, 6.\n\nAblative in +to\u1e25+: +g\u00e1nto\u1e25+, I. 89, 9.\n\nAccusative in +tum+: +g\u00e1ntum+. This is the supine in _tum_ in Latin.\n\nCASES OF VERBAL NOUNS IN _TVA_.\n\nNext follow cases of verbal nouns in +tv\u00e1+, the accent being on the\nsuffix.\n\nDatives in +tv\u1ea5ya+: +hatv\u1ea5ya+, X. 84, 2.\n\nInstrumental in +tv\u1ea5+: +hatv\u1ea5+, I. 100, 18.\n\nOlder form in +tv\u00ee\u0301+: +hatv\u00ee\u0301+, II. 17, 6; +gatv\u00ee\u0301+, IV. 41, 5.\n\nDATIVES IN _DHAI_ AND _DHYAI_.\n\nI have left to the end datives in +dhai+ and +dhyai+, which properly\nbelong to the datives in +ai+, treated before, but differ from them as\nbeing datives of compound nouns. As from +m\u00e1ya\u1e25+, delight, we have\n+mayaskar\u00e1+, delight-making, +mayobh\u00fa+, delight-causing, and\nconstructions like +m\u00e1yo d\u00e1dhe+, so from +v\u00e1yas+, life, vigor, we have\n+v\u00e1yask\u1e5b\u0301t+, life-giving, and constructions like +v\u00e1yo dh\u00e2t+. From +dh\u00e2+\nwe can frame two substantival frame, +dh\u00e2+ and +dhi-s+, _e.g._\n+puro-dh\u00e2+, and +puro-dhis+, like +vi-dhi-s+. As an ordinary\nsubstantive, +purodh\u00e2+ takes the feminine termination _\u00e2_, and is\ndeclined like +\u015biv\u00e2+. But if the verbal base remains at the end of a\ncompound without the feminine suffix, a\u00a0compound like vayodh\u00e2 would form\nits dative vayodhe (Grammar, \u00a7\u00a0239); and as in analogous cases we found\nold datives in ai, instead of _e_, e.g. +par\u00e2dai+, nothing can be said\nagainst +vayodhai+, as a Vedic dative of +vayodh\u00e2+. The dative of\n+purodhi+ would be +purodhaye+, but here again, as, besides forms like\nd\u1e5b\u015baye, we met with datives, such as +ityai+, +rohishyai+, there is no\ndifficulty in admitting an analogous dative of +purodhi+, viz.,\n+purodhyai+.\n\nThe old dative +dhai+ has been preserved to us in one form only, which\nfor that reason is all the more valuable and important, offering the key\nto the mysterious Greek infinitives in \u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, I\u00a0mean +vayodh\u00e1i+, which\noccurs twice in the Rig-Veda, X. 55, 1, and X. 67, 11. The importance of\nthis relic would have been perceived long ago, if there had not been\nsome uncertainty as to whether such a form really existed in the Veda.\nBy some accident or other, Professor Aufrecht had printed in both\npassages +vayodhai\u1e25+, instead of +vayodhai+. But for this, no one,\nI\u00a0believe, would have doubted that in this form +vayodhai+ we have not\nonly the most valuable prototype of the Greek infinitives in (\u03c3)\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\nbut at the same time their full explanation. +Vayodhai+ stands for\n+vayas-dhai+, in which composition the first part +vayas+ is a neuter\nbase in +as+, the second a dative of the auxiliary verb +dh\u00e2+, used as a\nsubstantive. If, therefore, we find corresponding to +vayodhai+ a Greek\ninfinitive \u03b2\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, we must divide it into \u03b2\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, as we divide\n\u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 into \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, and translate it literally by \u201cto do lying.\u201d\n\nIt has been common to identify Greek infinitives in \u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 with\ncorresponding Sanskrit forms ending in +dhyai+. No doubt these forms in\n+dhyai+ are much more frequent than forms in +dhai+, but as we can only\ntake them as old datives of substantives in +dhi+, it would be difficult\nto identify the two. The Sanskrit +dhy+ appears, no doubt, in Greek, as\n\u03c3\u03c3, +dh+ being represented by the surd \u03b8, and then assibilated by _y_;\nbut we could hardly attempt to explain \u03c3\u03b8 = \u03b8y, because \u03c3\u03b4 = \u03b6 = \u03b4y.\nTherefore, unless we are prepared to see with Bopp in the \u03c3 before \u03b8, in\nthis and similar forms, a\u00a0remnant of the reflexive pronoun, nothing\nremains but to accept the explanation offered by the Vedic +vayodhai+,\nand to separate \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 into \u03c8\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 lying to do. That this\ngrammatical compound, if once found successful, should have been\nrepeated in other tenses, giving us not only \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, but \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, and even \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, is no more than what we may see\nagain and again in the grammatical development of ancient and modern\nlanguages. Some scholars have objected on the same ground to Bopp\u2019s\nexplanation of _ama-mini_, as the nom. plur. of a participle, because\nthey think it impossible to look upon _amemini_, _amab\u00e2mini_, amaremini,\n_amabimini_ as participial formations. But if a mould is once made in\nlanguage, it is used again and again, and little account is taken of its\noriginal intention. If we object to \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, why not to\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5-\u03c3\u03ad-\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03bd\u03ac-\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 or \u03bc\u03b9\u03c7\u03b8\u03ae-\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9? In Sanskrit, too, we\nshould hesitate to form a compound of a modified verbal base, such as\n+p\u1e5b\u1e47a+, with +dhi+, doing; yet as the Sanskrit ear was accustomed to\n+yajadhyai+ from +yaja+, +gamadhyai+ from +gama+, it did not protest\nagainst +p\u1e5b\u1e47adhyai+, +v\u00e2v\u1e5bdhadhyai+, etc.\n\nHISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OF THESE GRAMMATICAL FORMS.\n\nAnd while these ancient grammatical forms which supply the foundation of\nwhat in Greek, Latin, and other languages we are accustomed to call\ninfinitives are of the highest interest to the grammarian and the\nlogician, their importance is hardly less in the eyes of the historian.\nEvery honest student of antiquity, whether his special field be India,\nPersia, Assyria, or Egypt, knows how often he is filled with fear and\ntrembling when he meets with thoughts and expressions which, as he is\napt to say, cannot be ancient. I\u00a0have frequently confessed to that\nfeeling with regard to some of the hymns of the Rig-Veda, and I well\nremember the time when I felt inclined to throw up the whole work as\nmodern and unworthy of the time and labor bestowed upon it. At that time\nI was always comforted by these so-called infinitives and other relics\nof ancient language. They could not have been fabricated in India. They\nare unknown in ordinary Sanskrit, they are unintelligible as far as\ntheir origin is concerned in Greek and Latin, and yet in the Vedic\nlanguage we find these forms, not only identical with Greek and Latin\nforms, but furnishing the key to their formation in Greece and Italy.\nThe Vedic +vayas-dh\u00e1i+ compared with Greek \u03b2\u03b5\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, the Vedic +stushe+\ncompared with \u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 are to my mind evidence in support of the antiquity\nand genuineness of the Veda that cannot be shaken by any arguments.\n\nTHE INFINITIVE IN ENGLISH.\n\nI add a few words on the infinitive in English, though it has been well\ntreated by Dr. March in his \u201cGrammar of the Anglo-Saxon Language,\u201d by\nDr. Morris, and others. We find in Anglo-Saxon two forms, one generally\ncalled the infinitive, _nim-an_, to take, the other the gerund, _to\nnim-anne_, to take. Dr. March explains the first as identical with\nGreek \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc-\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd and \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc-\u03b5\u03bd-\u03b1\u03b9, _i.e._, as an oblique case, probably the\ndative, of a verbal noun in _an_. He himself quotes only the dative of\nnominal bases in _a_, e.g. +naman\u00e2ya+, because he was probably\nunacquainted with the nearer forms in _an-e_ supplied by the Veda. This\ninfinitive exists in Gothic as _nim-an_, in Old Saxon as _nim-an_, in\nOld Norse as _nem-a_, in Old High German as _nem-an_. The so-called\ngerund, to _nimanne_, is rightly traced back by Dr. March to Old Saxon\n_nim-annia_, but he can hardly be right in identifying these old datival\nforms with the Sanskrit base +nam-an\u00eeya+. In the Second Period of\nEnglish (1100-1250)[35] the termination of the infinitive became _en_,\nand frequently dropped the final _n_, as _smelle_ = _smellen_; while the\ntermination of the gerund at the same time became _enne_, (_ende_),\n_ene_, _en_, or _e_, so that outwardly the two forms appear to be\nidentical, as early as the 12th century.[36] Still later, towards the\nend of the 14th century, the terminations were entirely lost, though\nSpenser and Shakespeare have occasionally to _killen_, _passen_,\n_delven_, when they wished to impart an archaic character to their\nlanguage. In modern English the infinitive with _to_ is used as a verbal\nsubstantive. When we say, \u201cI\u00a0wish you to do this,\u201d \u201cyou are able to do\nthis,\u201d we can still perceive the datival function of the infinitive.\nLikewise in such phrases, \u201cit is time,\u201d \u201cit is proper,\u201d \u201cit is wrong to\ndo that,\u201d _to do_ may still be felt as an oblique case. But we have only\nto invert these sentences, and say, \u201cto do this is wrong,\u201d and we have a\nnew substantive in the nom. sing., just as in the Greek \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\nExpressions like _for to do_, show that the simple _to_ was not always\nfelt to be sufficiently expressive to convey the meaning of an original\ndative.\n\nWORKS ON THE INFINITIVE.\n\nThe infinitive has formed the subject of many learned treatises.\nI\u00a0divide them into two classes, those which appeared before and after\nWilhelm\u2019s excellent essay, written in Latin, \u201cDe Infinitivi Vi et\nNatura,\u201d 1868; and in a new and improved edition, \u201cDe Infinitivo\nLinguarum Sanscrit\u00e6, Bactric\u00e6, Persic\u00e6, Gr\u00e6c\u00e6, Osc\u00e6, Umbric\u00e6, Latin\u00e6,\nGotic\u00e6, forma et usu,\u201d Isenaci, 1873. In this essay the evidence\nsupplied by the Veda was for the first time fully collected, and the\nwhole question of the nature of the infinitive placed in its true\nhistorical light. Before Wilhelm the more important works were Hofer\u2019s\nbook, \u201cVom Infinitiv, besonders im Sanskrit,\u201d Berlin, 1840; Bopp\u2019s\nparagraphs in his \u201cComparative Grammar;\u201d Humboldt\u2019s paper, in Schlegel\u2019s\n\u201cIndische Bibliothek\u201d (II.\u00a074), 1824; and his posthumous paper in Kuhn\u2019s\n\u201cZeitschrift\u201d (II.\u00a0245), 1853; some dissertations by L.\u00a0Meyer, Merguet,\nand Golenski. Benfey\u2019s \u201cSanskrit Grammar\u201d (1852), too, ought to be\nmentioned, as having laid the first solid foundations for this and all\nother branches of grammatical research, as far as Sanskrit is concerned.\nAfter Wilhelm the same subject has been treated with great independence\nby Ludwig, \u201cDer Infinitif im Veda,\u201d 1871, and again \u201cAgglutination oder\nAdaptation,\u201d 1873; and also by Jolly, \u201cGeschichte des Infinitivs,\u201d 1873.\n\nI had myself discussed some questions connected with the nature of the\ninfinitive in my \u201cLectures on the Science of Language,\u201d vol. ii. p.\u00a015\nseq., and I had pointed out in Kuhn\u2019s \u201cZeitschrift,\u201d XV. 215 (1866) the\ngreat importance of the Vedic +vayodhai+ for unraveling the formation of\nGreek infinitives in \u03c3-\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nTHE INFINITIVE IN BENGALI.\n\nAt a still earlier time, in 1847, in my \u201cEssay on Bengali,\u201d I\u00a0said: \u201cAs\nthe infinitives of the Indo-Germanic languages must be regarded as the\nabsolute cases of a verbal noun, it is probable that in Bengali the\ninfinitive in _ite_ was also originally a locative, which expressed not\nonly local situation, but also movement towards some object, as an end,\nwhether real or imaginary. Thus the Bengali infinitive corresponds\nexactly with the English, where the relation of case is expressed by the\npreposition _to_. Ex. t\u00e2h\u00e2ke m\u00e2rite \u00e2mi \u00e2siy\u00e2chi, means, I\u00a0came to the\nstate of beating him, or, I\u00a0came to beat him; \u00e2m\u00e2ke m\u00e2rite deo, give me\n(permission), let me (go) to the action of beating, _i.e._, allow me to\nbeat. Now as the form of the participle is the same as that of the\ninfinitive, it may be doubted if there is really a distinction between\nthese two forms as to their origin. For instance, the phrase \u00e2pan\nputrake m\u00e2rite \u00e2mi t\u00e2h\u00e2ka dekhil\u00e2m, can be translated, I\u00a0saw him beating\nhis own son; but it can be explained also as, what they nonsensically\ncall in Latin grammar _accusativus cum infinitivo_, that is to say, the\ninfinitive can be taken for a locative of the verbal noun, and the whole\nphrase be translated, I\u00a0saw him in the action of beating his own son,\n(_vidi patrem c\u00e6dere ipsius filium_). As in every Bengali phrase the\nparticiple in _ite_ can be understood in this manner, I\u00a0think it\nadmissible to ascribe this origin to it, and instead of taking it for a\nnominative of a verbal adjective, to consider it as a locative of a\nverbal noun.\u201d\n\nTHE INFINITIVE IN THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.\n\nI also tried to show that the infinitive in the Dravidian languages is a\nverbal noun with or without a case suffix. This view has been confirmed\nby Dr. Caldwell, but, in deference to him, I\u00a0gladly withdraw the\nexplanation which I proposed in reference to the infinitive in Tamil.\nI\u00a0quote from Dr. Caldwell\u2019s \u201cComparative Grammar of the Dravidian\nLanguages,\u201d 2d ed. p.\u00a0423: \u201cProfessor Max M\u00fcller, noticing that the\nmajority of Tamil infinitives terminate in _ka_, supposed this _ka_ to\nbe identical in origin with _k\u00f4_, the dative-accusative case-sign of the\nHindi, and concluded that the Dravidian infinitive was the accusative of\na verbal noun. It is true that the Sanskrit infinitive and Latin supine\nin _tum_ is correctly regarded as an accusative, and that our English\ninfinitive _to do_, is the dative of a verbal noun; it is also true that\nthe Dravidian infinitive is a verbal noun in origin, and never\naltogether loses that character; nevertheless, the supposition that the\nfinal _ka_ of most Tamil infinitives is in any manner connected with\n_ku_, the sign of the Dravidian dative, or of _k\u00f4_, the Hindi\ndative-accusative, is inadmissible. A\u00a0comparison of various classes of\nverbs and of the various dialects shows that the _k\u00e2_ in question\nproceeds from a totally different source.\u201d\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nIn the following section the Devanagari letters were printed without\nvirama, but they should be read as the consonant alone.]\n\nON LABIALIZED AND UNLABIALIZED GUTTURALS.\n\nAs in my article on _Vayodhai_, published in Kuhn\u2019s \u201cZeitschrift,\u201d 1866,\np.\u00a0215, I\u00a0had entered a _caveat_ against identifying Greek \u03b2 with\nSanskrit \u091c, I\u00a0take this opportunity of frankly withdrawing it.\nPhonetically, no doubt, these two letters represent totally distinct\npowers, and to say that Sanskrit \u091c ever became Greek \u03b2 is as irrational\nto-day as it was ten years ago. But historically I was entirely wrong,\nas will be seen from the last edition of Curtius\u2019 \u201cGrundz\u00fcge.\u201d The\nguttural sonant check was palatalized in the Southeastern Branch, and\nthere became j and _z_, while in the Northwestern Branch the same g was\nfrequently labialized and became gv, v, and\u00a0b. Hence, where we have \u091c in\nSanskrit, we may and do find \u03b2 in Greek.\n\nBut after withdrawing my former _caveat_, I make bold to propose\nanother, namely, that the original palatal sonant flatus, which in\nSanskrit is graphically represented by j, can never be represented\nin Greek by \u03b2. Whether j in Sanskrit represents an original palatal\nsonant check or an original palatal sonant flatus can generally be\ndetermined by a reference to Zend, which represents the former by j, the\nlatter by _z_. We may therefore formulate this phonetic law:--\n\n +\u201cWhen Sanskrit j is represented by Zend _z_, it cannot be\n represented by Greek \u03b2.\u201d+\n\nIn this manner it is possible, I believe, to utilize Ascoli\u2019s and Fick\u2019s\nbrilliant discovery as to a twofold, or even threefold, distinction of\nthe Aryan k, as applied to the Aryan\u00a0g. They have proved that all Aryan\nlanguages show traces of an original distinction between a guttural surd\ncheck, k, frequently palatalized in the Southeastern Branch (Sk.\u00a0c,\nZend\u00a0c) and liable to labialization, in Latin, Greek, Cymric, and\nGothic; and another k, never liable to labialization, but changed into a\nflatus, palatal or otherwise, in Sanskrit, Lithuanian, and Old Slavonic.\nThey showed, in fact,--\n\n [Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n The following list has been rotated 90\u00b0 for space.]\n\n Sanskrit. \u0915 (\u091a) \u0936\n Lith. k sz\n Slav. k, \u010d, c s\n Gadh. c c\n & Cym. p\n Lat. c, qu, v c\n Greek. \u03ba, \u03ba\u03dd, \u03ba\u03ba, \u03ba\n \u03c0, \u03c0\u03c0,\n \u03c4, \u03c4\u03c4,\n Gothic. hv, h h\n\nIn the same manner we ought in future to distinguish between a guttural\nsonant check, g, frequently palatalized in the Southeastern Branch\n(Sk.\u00a0j, Zend\u00a0j), and liable to labialization, like k; and another g,\nnever liable to labialization, but changed into a flatus, palatal or\notherwise, in Zend, Lithuanian, and Old Slavonic. As we never have\n\u03c0 = \u0936 we never have \u03b2 = \u091c, if \u091c in Zend is _z_.\n\nThe evidence will be found under Sk. +jan+, +jabh+, +jar+ (to decay, and\nto praise), +jush+, +j\u00f1\u00e2+, +j\u00f1u+, +j\u00e2m\u00e2tar+; +aj+, +bhr\u00e2j+, +marj+,\n+yaj+, +raj(atam)+.\n\nGothic _quin\u00f4_, Gadh. _ben_, B\u0153ot. \u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1 depend on Zend +jeni+; Gadh.\n_baith-is_ on Zend +jaf-ra+. It is wrong to connect \u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3 with +jas+, on\naccount of Zend +zas+, and +gy\u00e2-ni+ with \u03b2\u03af\u03b1, on account of Zend\n+zy\u00e2-ni+.\n\n\n [Footnote 1: The following statute was approved by the University\n of Oxford in 1868 (_Statuta Universitatis Oxoniensis_, iv., i.,\n 37. \u00a7\u00a7\u00a01-3):--\n\n \u201c1. Professor philologi\u00e6 comparativ\u00e6 a Vice-Cancellario, et\n professoribus linguarum Hebraic\u00e6, Sanskritic\u00e6, Gr\u00e6c\u00e6, Latin\u00e6, et\n Anglo-Saxonic\u00e6 eligatur. In \u00e6qualitate suffragantium rem decidat\n Vice-Cancellarius.\n\n \u201cProviso tamen ut si vir cl. M. M\u00fcller, M.A., hodie linguarum\n modernarum Europ\u00e6 professor Taylorianus, eam professionem intra\n mensem post hoc statutum sancitum resignaverit, seque professoris\n philologi\u00e6 comparativ\u00e6 munus suscipere paratum esse scripto\n Vice-Cancellarium certiorem fecerit, is primus admittatur\n professor.\n\n \u201c2. Professor quotannis per sex menses in Universitate incolat et\n commoretur inter decimum diem Octobris et primum diem Julii\n sequentis.\n\n \u201c3. Professor duas lectionum series in duobus discretis terminis\n legat, terminis Paschatis et S.\u00a0Trinitatis pro uno reputatis;\n scilicet per sex septimanas in utroque termino, et bis ad minimum\n in unaquaque septimana: atque insuper per sex septimanas unius\n alicujus termini bis ad minimum in unaquaque septimana per unius\n hor\u00e6 spatium vacet instruendis auditoribus in iis qu\u00e6 melius sine\n solennitate tradi possunt. Unam porro ad minimum lectionem\n quotannis publice habeat ab academicis quibuscunque sine mercede\n audiendam. De die hora et loco quibus h\u00e6c lectio solennis habenda\n sit academiam modo consueto certiorem faciat.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 2: An offer to found a professorship of Chinese, to be\n held by an Englishman whom even Stanislas Julien recognized as the\n best Chinese scholar of the day, has lately been received very\n coldly by the Hebdomadal Council of the University.]\n\n [Footnote 3: _Liber Sextus Decretalium_ (Lugduni, 1572), p.\u00a01027:\n \u201cUt igitur peritia linguarum hujusmodi possit habiliter per\n instructionem efficaciam obtinere, hoc sacro approbante concilio\n scholas in subscriptarum linguarum generibus ubicunque Romanam\n curiam residere contigerit, necnon in Parisiensi, et Oxoniensi,\n Bononiensi, et Salmantino studiis providimus erigendas; statuentes\n ut in quolibet locorum ipsorum teneantur viri catholici,\n sufficienter habentes Hebraic\u00e6, Arabic\u00e6, et Chald\u00e6\u00e6 linguarum\n notitiam.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 4: Greaves, _Oratio Oxonii habita_, 1637, p. 19: \u201cPaucos\n ultra centum annos numeramus ex quo Gr\u00e6c\u00e6 primum liter\u00e6 oras hasce\n appulerunt, antea ignot\u00e6 prorsus, nonnullis exos\u00e6 etiam et invis\u00e6,\n indoctissimis scilicet fraterculis, quibus religio erat graece\n scire, et levissimus Attic\u00e6 eruditionis gustus h\u00e6resin sapiebat.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 5: See _Biographia Britannica Literaria_, vol.\u00a0i.\n p.\u00a0110.]\n\n [Footnote 6: M. M.\u2019s _Lectures on the Science of Language_,\n vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a0171.]\n\n [Footnote 7: Ibid., p. 176.]\n\n [Footnote 8: See Notes A and B, pp. 43, 45.]\n\n [Footnote 9: See M. M., _Science of Religion_, 1873, p. 293.]\n\n [Footnote 10: See Weber, _Indische Studien_, vol. i. p. 38.]\n\n [Footnote 11: See Haug, in Ewald\u2019s _Biblische Jahrb\u00fccher_, vol.\n vi. p.\u00a0162.]\n\n [Footnote 12: _Anab._, i. 2, 7: \u1f18\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u1ff3 \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u1f26\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, \u1f05\u00a0\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b8\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f41\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. \u0394\u03b9\u1f70\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6 \u1f41 \u039c\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. _Hell._,\n iv. 1, 15: \u1f18\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.]\n\n [Footnote 13: See _Indian Antiquary_, 1874, p. 332.]\n\n [Footnote 14: Grassmann, Kuhn\u2019s _Zeitschrift_, vol. ix. p.\u00a023.]\n\n [Footnote 15: Ebel, Kuhn\u2019s _Zeitschrift_, vol. viii. p. 242.]\n\n [Footnote 16: Schleicher, _Compendium_, \u00a7 112.]\n\n [Footnote 17: Lottner, Kuhn\u2019s _Zeitschrift_, vol. ix. p. 319.]\n\n [Footnote 18: Leo Meyer, _Die Gothische Sprache_, \u00a7 31.]\n\n [Footnote 19: Choeroboscus, _B. A._, p. 1274, 29: \u03a4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f22 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\u03af. Schoemann, _Rede-theile_,\n p.\u00a049.]\n\n [Footnote 20: Apollonius, _De Constr._, i. c. 8, p. 32: \u0394\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd . . . .\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. Schoemann, l.c. p.\u00a019.]\n\n [Footnote 21: Note C, p. 47.]\n\n [Footnote 22: Benfey, _Orient und Occident_, vol. i. p. 606; vol.\n ii. pp. 97, 132.]\n\n [Footnote 23: _Chips_, vol. iii. p. 134.]\n\n [Footnote 24: Dr. Kielhorn in his grammar gives correctly +tad+ as\n base, +tat+ as nom. and acc. sing., because in the latter case\n phonetic rules either require or allow the change of _d_ into _t_.\n Boehtlingk, Roth, and Benfey also give the right forms. Curtius,\n like Bopp, gives +yat+, Schleicher +tat+, which he supposes to\n have been changed at an early time into +tad+ (\u00a7\u00a0203).]\n\n [Footnote 25: Weich ist es (_\u1e6d_ oder _\u1e0d_) wohl im abl. sing.,\n +gafn\u00e2\u1e6d+ (+gafn\u00e2dha+). Justi, _Handbuch der Zendsprache_, p.\u00a0362.]\n\n [Footnote 26: _Orient und Occident_, vol. i. p. 298.]\n\n [Footnote 27: _Entwickelung der Lateinischen Formenlehre_, 1870,\n p.\u00a020.]\n\n [Footnote 28: _Grundriss der Lateinischen Declination_, 1866,\n p.\u00a09.]\n\n [Footnote 29: See Benfey, l.c. p. 298.]\n\n [Footnote 30: In the dictionary of Boehtlingk and Roth we read\n _s.v._ +gn\u00e2+, \u201cscarce in the singular; nom. sing. seems to be\n +gn\u00e2s+, according to the passage Rv. IV. 9, 4, and Naigh. I.\u00a011,\n in one text, while the other text gives the form +gn\u00e2+.\u201d Against\n this, it should be remarked, that it would make no difference\n whether the MSS. of the Naigha\u1e47\u1e6duka give +gn\u00e2+ or +gn\u00e2s+. +Gn\u00e2+\n would be the nom. sing., +gn\u00e2s+ would be the form in which the\n word occurs most frequently in the Veda. It is easy to see that\n the collector of the Naigha\u1e47\u1e6duka allowed himself to quote words\n according to either principle.\n\n Devar\u00e2ja, in his commentary on +gn\u00e2+, explains it: \u201cGamer dh\u00e2tor\n dh\u00e2p\u1e5b\u0301vasyajyatibhyo na\u1e25 (U.\u00a0S. III.\u00a06) iti bahulak\u00e2n napratyayo\n bhavati \u1e6dilopa\u015b ca; \u1e6dap. Gatyarth\u00e2 buddhyarth\u00e2\u1e25 j\u00e2nanti karmeti\n gn\u00e2\u1e25. Yadv\u00e2 gacchati yaj\u00f1eshu; abh\u00ed yaj\u00f1\u00e1m g\u1e5b\u1e47\u00eehi no gn\u00e2va\u1e25\n (patn\u00eeva\u1e25) Rv. I.\u00a015, 3. Chand\u00e2\u1e43si vai gn\u00e2 iti br\u00e2hma\u1e47am iti\n M\u00e2dhava\u1e25. Asm\u1ea5 \u00eed u gn\u1ea5\u015b cid (Rv.\u00a0I.\u00a061,\u00a08) ity api; g\u00e2yatry\u00e2dy\u00e2\n devapatnya iti sa eva. Tasm\u00e2c chandas\u00e2m g\u00e2yatry\u00e2d\u00een\u00e2m v\u00e2gr\u00fbpatv\u00e2d\n gn\u00e2vyapade\u015ba\u1e25.\u201d\n\n In his remarks on Nigh. III. 29, it is quite clear that Devar\u00e2ja\n takes +gn\u00e2\u1e25+ as a nom. plur., not as a nom. sing. He says: Men\u00e2\n gn\u00e2 iti str\u00ed\u1e47\u00e2m; ubh\u00e2v api \u015babdau vy\u00e2khy\u00e2tau v\u00e2nn\u00e2masu. M\u00e2nayanti\n hi t\u00e2\u1e25 pati\u015bva\u015buram\u00e1tul\u00e2daya\u1e25, p\u00fbjy\u00e2 bh\u00fbshayitavy\u00e2\u015b ceti smara\u1e47\u00e2t.\n Gacchanty en\u00e2\u1e25 patayo paty\u00e2rthina\u1e25. The passage quoted in the\n Nirukta III. 29, gn\u00e2s tv\u00e2k\u1e5bntann apaso \u2019tanvata vayitryo \u2019vayan,\n is taken from the T\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0dyabr\u00e2hma\u1e47a I.\u00a08, 9. \u201cO\u00a0dress! the women cut\n thee out, the workers stretched thee out, the weavers wove thee.\u201d\n\n Thus every support which the Nigha\u1e47\u1e6du or the Nirukta was supposed\n to give to the form +gn\u00e2\u1e25+ as a nom. sing. vanishes. And if it is\n said _s.v._ +gn\u00e2spati+, that in this compound +gn\u00e2\u1e25+ might be\n taken as a nom. sing., and that the Pada-text separates\n +gn\u00e2\u1e25-pati\u1e25+, it has been overlooked that the separation in Rv.\n II. 38, 10, is a mere misprint. See Pr\u00e2ti\u015b\u00e2khya, 738. The compound\n +gn\u00e2spati\u1e25+ has been correctly explained as standing for\n +gn\u00e2y\u00e2spati\u1e25+, and the same old genitive is also found in\n +j\u00e2spati\u1e25+ and +j\u00e2spatyam+. See also V\u00e2jasan. Pr\u00e2ti\u015b\u00e2khya, IV. 39.\n It is important to observe that the metre requires us to pronounce\n +gn\u00e2spati+ either as +gn\u0103\u0101sp\u0103t\u012d\u1e25+ or as +g\u0103n\u0101sp\u0103t\u012d\u1e25+.\n\n There is, as far as I know, no passage where +gn\u00e2\u1e25+ in the Veda\n can be taken as a nom. sing., and it should be observed that\n +gn\u00e2\u1e25+ as nom. plur. is almost always disyllabic in the Rig-veda,\n excepting the tenth Ma\u1e47\u1e0dala; that the acc. sing. (V.\u00a043,\u00a06) is,\n however, disyllabic, but the acc. plur. monosyllabic (I.\u00a022,\u00a010).\n In V. 43, 13, we must either read +gn\u0306\u0101\u1e25+ or +\u014dsh\u0103dh\u012b\u0306\u1e25.+]\n\n [Footnote 31: Sth\u00e2, sv\u00e2bhipr\u00e2yabodhan\u00e2nuk\u00fblasthiti, to reveal by\n gestures, a\u00a0meaning not found in our dictionaries. Wilson renders\n it wrongly by to stay with, which would govern the instrumental.\n +\u015aap+, cursing, means to use curses in order to convey some\n meaning or intention to another person.]\n\n [Footnote 32: Wilson\u2019s _Sanskrit Grammar_, p. 390.]\n\n [Footnote 33: In verbs compounded with prepositions the accent is\n on the penultimate: _e.g._, +sam\u00eddhe+, +atikr\u00e1me+, etc.]\n\n [Footnote 34: See M. M.\u2019s _Translation of the Rig-Veda_, I.\n p.\u00a034.]\n\n [Footnote 35: Morris, _Historic Outlines of English Accidence_,\n p.\u00a052.]\n\n [Footnote 36: Morris, l.c. p. 177.]\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nREDE LECTURE,\n\nDELIVERED IN THE SENATE HOUSE BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, ON\nFRIDAY, MAY 29, 1868.[1]\n\n\nPart I.\n\nON THE STRATIFICATION OF LANGUAGE.\n\nThere are few sensations more pleasant than that of wondering. We have\nall experienced it in childhood, in youth, and in our manhood, and we\nmay hope that even in our old age this affection of the mind will not\nentirely pass away. If we analyze this feeling of wonder carefully, we\nshall find that it consists of two elements. What we mean by wondering\nis not only that we are startled or stunned,--that I should call the\nmerely passive element of wonder. When we say \u201cI\u00a0wonder,\u201d we confess\nthat we are taken aback, but there is a secret satisfaction mixed up\nwith our feeling of surprise, a\u00a0kind of hope, nay, almost of certainty,\nthat sooner or later the wonder will cease, that our senses or our mind\nwill recover, will grapple with these novel impressions or experiences,\ngrasp them, it may be, throw them, and finally triumph over them. In\nfact we wonder at the riddles of nature, whether animate or inanimate,\nwith a firm conviction that there is a solution to them all, even though\nwe ourselves may not be able to find it.\n\nWonder, no doubt, arises from ignorance, but from a peculiar kind of\nignorance; from what might be called a fertile ignorance: an ignorance\nwhich, if we look back at the history of most of our sciences, will be\nfound to have been the mother of all human knowledge. For thousands of\nyears men have looked at the earth with its stratifications, in some\nplaces so clearly mapped out; for thousands of years they must have seen\nin their quarries and mines, as well as we ourselves, the imbedded\npetrifications of organic creatures: yet they looked and passed on\nwithout thinking more about it--they did not wonder. Not even an\nAristotle had eyes to see; and the conception of a science of the earth,\nof Geology, was reserved for the eighteenth century.\n\nStill more extraordinary is the listlessness with which during all the\ncenturies that have elapsed since the first names were given to all\ncattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field, men\nhave passed by what was much nearer to them than even the gravel on\nwhich they trod, namely, the words of their own language. Here, too, the\nclearly marked lines of different strata seemed almost to challenge\nattention, and the pulses of former life were still throbbing in the\npetrified forms imbedded in grammars and dictionaries. Yet not even a\nPlato had eyes to see, or ears to hear, and the conception of a science\nof language, of Glottology, was reserved for the nineteenth century.\n\nI am far from saying that Plato and Aristotle knew nothing of the\nnature, the origin, and the purpose of language, or that we have nothing\nto learn from their works. They, and their successors, and their\npredecessors too, beginning with Herakleitos and Demokritos, were\nstartled and almost fascinated by the mysteries of human speech as much\nas by the mysteries of human thought; and what we call grammar and the\nlaws of language, nay, all the technical terms which are still current\nin our schools, such as _noun_ and _verb_, _case_ and _number_,\n_infinitive_ and _participle_, all this was first discovered and named\nby the philosophers and grammarians of Greece, to whom, in spite of all\nour new discoveries, I\u00a0believe we are still beholden, whether\nconsciously or unconsciously, for more than half of our intellectual\nlife.\n\nBut the interest which those ancient Greek philosophers took in language\nwas purely philosophical. It was the form, far more than the matter of\nspeech which seemed to them a subject worthy of philosophical\nspeculation. The idea that there was, even in their days, an immense\nmass of accumulated speech to be sifted, to be analyzed, and to be\naccounted for somehow, before any theories on the nature of language\ncould be safely started, hardly ever entered their minds; or when it\ndid, as we see here and there in Plato\u2019s \u201cKratylos,\u201d it soon vanished,\nwithout leaving any permanent impression. Each people and each\ngeneration has its own problems to solve. The problem that occupied\nPlato in his \u201cKratylos\u201d was, if I understand him rightly, the\npossibility of a perfect language, a\u00a0correct, true, or ideal language,\na\u00a0language founded on his own philosophy, his own system of types or\nideas. He was too wise a man to attempt, like Bishop Wilkins, the actual\nconstruction of a philosophical language. But, like Leibniz, he just\nlets us see that a perfect language is conceivable, and that the chief\nreason of the imperfections of real language must be found in the fact\nthat its original framers were ignorant of the true nature of things,\nignorant of dialectic philosophy, and therefore incapable of naming\nrightly what they had failed to apprehend correctly. Plato\u2019s view of\nactual language, as far as it can be made out from the critical and\nnegative rather than didactic and positive dialogue of \u201cKratylos,\u201d seems\nto have been very much the same as his view of actual government. Both\nfall short of the ideal, and both are to be tolerated only in so far as\nthey participate in the perfections of an ideal state and an ideal\nlanguage.[2] Plato\u2019s \u201cKratylos\u201d is full of suggestive wisdom. It is one\nof those books which, as we read them again from time to time, seem\nevery time like new books: so little do we perceive at first all that is\npre-supposed in them,--the accumulated mould of thought, if I may say\nso, in which alone a philosophy like that of Plato could strike its\nroots and draw its support.\n\nBut while Plato shows a deeper insight into the mysteries of language\nthan almost any philosopher that has come after him, he has no eyes for\nthat marvelous harvest of words garnered up in our dictionaries, and in\nthe dictionaries of all the races of the earth. With him language is\nalmost synonymous with Greek, and though in one passage of the\n\u201cKratylos\u201d he suggests that certain Greek words might have been borrowed\nfrom the Barbarians, and, more particularly from the Phrygians, yet that\nremark, as coming from Plato, seems to be purely ironical, and though it\ncontains, as we know, a\u00a0germ of truth that has proved most fruitful in\nour modern science of language, it struck no roots in the minds of Greek\nphilosophers. How much our new science of language differs from the\nlinguistic studies of the Greeks; how entirely the interest which Plato\ntook in language is now supplanted by new interests, is strikingly\nbrought home to us when we see how the _Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Linguistique_, lately\nfounded at Paris, and including the names of the most distinguished\nscholars of France, declares in one of its first statutes that \u201cit will\nreceive no communication concerning the origin of language or the\nformation of a universal language,\u201d the very subjects which, in the time\nof Herakleitos and Plato, rendered linguistic studies worthy of the\nconsideration of a philosopher.\n\nIt may be that the world was too young in the days of Plato, and that\nthe means of communication were wanting to enable the ancient\nphilosopher to see very far beyond the narrow horizon of Greece. With us\nit is different. The world has grown older, and has left to us in the\nannals of its various literatures the monuments of growing and decaying\nspeech. The world has grown larger, and we have before us, not only the\nrelics of ancient civilization in Asia, Africa, and America, but living\nlanguages in such number and variety that we draw back almost aghast at\nthe mere list of their names. The world has grown wiser too, and where\nPlato could only see imperfections, the failures of the founders of\nhuman speech, we see, as everywhere else in human life, a\u00a0natural\nprogress from the imperfect towards the perfect, unceasing attempts at\nrealizing the ideal, and the frequent triumphs of the human mind over\nthe inevitable difficulties of this earthly condition,--difficulties,\nnot of man\u2019s own making, but, as I firmly believe, prepared for him, and\nnot without a purpose, as toils and tasks, by a higher Power and by the\nhighest Wisdom.\n\nLet us look then abroad and behold the materials which the student of\nlanguage has now to face. Beginning with the language of the Western\nIsles, we have at the present day, at least 100,000 words, arranged as\non the shelves of a Museum, in the pages of Johnson and Webster. But\nthese 100,000 words represent only the best grains that have remained in\nthe sieve, while clouds of chaff have been winnowed off, and while many\na valuable grain too has been lost by mere carelessness. If we counted\nthe wealth of English dialects, and if we added the treasures of the\nancient language from Alfred to Wycliffe, we should easily double the\nherbarium of the linguistic flora of England. And what are these Western\nIsles as compared to Europe; and what is Europe, a\u00a0mere promontory, as\ncompared to the vast continent of Asia; and what again is Asia, as\ncompared to the whole inhabitable world? But there is no corner of that\nworld that is not full of language: the very desert and the isles of the\nsea teem with dialects, and the more we recede from the centres of\ncivilization, the larger the number of independent languages, springing\nup in every valley, and overshadowing the smallest island.\n\n \u1f3c\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f51\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd\n \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03be\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9.\n\nWe are bewildered by the variety of plants, of birds, and fishes, and\ninsects, scattered with lavish prodigality over land and sea;--but what\nis the living wealth of that Fauna as compared to the winged words which\nfill the air with unceasing music! What are the scanty relics of fossil\nplants and animals, compared to the storehouse of what we call the dead\nlanguages! How then can we explain it that for centuries and centuries,\nwhile collecting beasts, and birds, and fishes, and insects, while\nstudying their forms, from the largest down to the smallest and almost\ninvisible creatures, man has passed by this forest of speech, without\nseeing the forest, as we say in German, for the very number of its trees\n(_Man sah den Wald vor lauter B\u00e4umen nicht_), without once asking how\nthis vast currency could have been coined, what inexhaustible mines\ncould have supplied the metal, what cunning hands could have devised the\nimage and superscription,--without once wondering at the countless\ntreasure inherited by him from the fathers of the human race?\n\nLet us now turn our attention in a different direction. After it had\nbeen discovered that there was this great mass of material to be\ncollected, to be classified, to be explained, what has the Science of\nLanguage, as yet, really accomplished? It has achieved much, considering\nthat real work only began about fifty years ago; it has achieved little,\nif we look at what still remains to be done.\n\nThe first discovery was that languages admit of classification. Now this\nwas a very great discovery, and it at once changed and raised the whole\ncharacter of linguistic studies. Languages might have been, for all we\nknow, the result of individual fancy or poetry; words might have been\ncreated here and there at random, or been fixed by a convention, more or\nless arbitrary. In that case a scientific classification would have been\nas impossible as it is if applied to the changing fashions of the day.\nNothing can be classified, nothing can be scientifically ruled and\nordered, except what has grown up in natural order and according to\nrational rule.\n\nOut of the great mass of speech that is now accessible to the student of\nlanguage, a\u00a0number of so-called families have been separated, such as\nthe _Aryan_, the _Semitic_, the _Ural-Altaic_, the _Indo-Chinese_, the\n_Dravidian_, the _Malayo-Polynesian_, the _Kafir_ or _B\u00e2-ntu_ in Africa,\nand the _Polysynthetic_ dialects of America. The only classes, however,\nwhich have been carefully examined, and which alone have hitherto\nsupplied the materials for what we might call the Philosophy of\nLanguage, are the Aryan and the Semitic, the former comprising the\nlanguages of India, Persia, Armenia, Greece and Italy, and of the\nCeltic, Teutonic, and Slavonic races; the latter consisting of the\nlanguages of the Babylonians, the Syrians, the Jews, the Ethiopians, the\nArabs.\n\nThese two classes include, no doubt, the most important languages of the\nworld, if we measure the importance of languages by the amount of\ninfluence exercised on the political and literary history of the world\nby those who speak them. But considered by themselves, and placed in\ntheir proper place in the vast realm of human speech, they describe but\na very small segment of the entire circle. The completeness of the\nevidence which they place before us in the long series of their literary\ntreasures, points them out in an eminent degree as the most useful\nsubjects on which to study the anatomy of speech, and nearly all the\ndiscoveries that have been made as to the laws of language, the process\nof composition, derivation, and inflexion, have been gained by Aryan and\nSemitic scholars.\n\nFar be it from me, therefore, to underrate the value of Aryan and\nSemitic scholarship for a successful prosecution of the Science of\nLanguage. But while doing full justice to the method adopted by Semitic\nand Aryan scholars in the discovery of the laws that regulate the growth\nand decay of language, we must not shut our eyes to the fact that our\nfield of observation has been thus far extremely limited, and that we\nshould act in defiance of the simplest rules of sound induction, were we\nto generalize on such scanty evidence. Let us but clearly see what place\nthese two so-called families, the Aryan and Semitic, occupy in the great\nkingdom of speech. They are in reality but two centres, two small\nsettlements of speech, and all we know of them is their period of decay,\nnot their period of growth, their descending, not their ascending\ncareer, their Being, as we say in German, not their Becoming (_Ihr\nGewordensein, nicht ihr Werden_). Even in the earliest literary\ndocuments both the Aryan and Semitic speech appear before us as fixed\nand petrified. They had left forever that stage during which language\ngrows and expands, before it is arrested in its exuberant fertility by\nmeans of religious or political concentration, by means of oral\ntradition, or finally by means of a written literature. In the natural\nhistory of speech, writing, or, what in early times takes the place of\nwriting, oral tradition, is something merely accidental. It represents a\nforeign influence which, in natural history, can only be compared to the\ninfluence exercised by domestication on plants and animals. Language\nwould be language still, nay, would be more truly language, if the idea\nof a literature, whether oral or written, had never entered men\u2019s minds;\nand however important the effects produced by this artificial\ndomestication of language may be, it is clear that our ideas of what\nlanguage is in a natural state, and therefore what Sanskrit and Hebrew,\ntoo, must have been before they were tamed and fixed by literary\ncultivation, ought not to be formed from an exclusive study of Aryan and\nSemitic speech. I\u00a0maintain that all that we call Aryan and Semitic\nspeech, wonderful as its literary representatives may be, consists of\nneither more or less than so many varieties which all owe their origin\nto only two historical concentrations of wild unbounded speech; nay,\nhowever perfect, however powerful, however glorious in the history of\nthe world,--in the eyes of the student of language, Sanskrit, Greek, and\nLatin, Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, are what a student of natural history\nwould not hesitate to call \u201c_monstra_,\u201d unnatural, exceptional\nformations which can never disclose to us the real character of language\nleft to itself to follow out its own laws without let or hindrance.\n\nFor that purpose a study of Chinese and the Turanian dialects, a\u00a0study\neven of the jargons of the savages of Africa, Polynesia, and Melanesia\nis far more instructive than the most minute analysis of Sanskrit and\nHebrew. The impression which a study of Greek and Latin and Sanskrit\nleaves on our minds is, that language is a work of art, most\ncomplicated, most wonderful, most perfect. We have given so many names\nto its outward features, its genders and cases, its tenses and moods,\nits participles, gerunds, and supines, that at last we are frightened at\nour own devices. Who can read through all the so-called irregular verbs,\nor look at the thousands and thousands of words in a Greek Dictionary\nwithout feeling that he moves about in a perfect labyrinth? How then, we\nask, was this labyrinth erected? How did all this come to be? We\nourselves, speaking the language which we speak, move about, as it were,\nin the innermost chambers, in the darkest recesses of that primeval\npalace, but we cannot tell by what steps and through what passages we\narrived there, and we look in vain for the thread of Ariadne which in\nleading us out of the enchanted castle of our language, would disclose\nto us the way by which we ourselves, or our fathers and forefathers\nbefore us, entered into it.\n\nThe question how language came to be what it is has been asked again and\nagain. Even a school-boy, if he possesses but a grain of the gift of\nwondering must ask himself why _mensa_ means one table, and _mens\u00e6_ many\ntables; why I love should be _amo_, I am loved _amor_, I shall love\n_amabo_, I have loved _amavi_, I should have loved _amavissem_. Until\nvery lately two answers only could have been given to such questions.\nBoth sound to us almost absurd, yet in their time they were supported by\nthe highest authorities. Either, it was said, language, and particularly\nthe grammatical framework of language was made by _convention_, by\nagreeing to call one table _mensa_, and many tables _mens\u00e6_; or, and\nthis was Schlegel\u2019s view, language was declared to possess an organic\nlife, and its terminations, prefixes, and suffixes were supposed to have\nsprouted forth from the radicals and stems and branches of language,\nlike so many buds and flowers. To us it seems almost incredible that\nsuch theories should have been seriously maintained, and maintained by\nmen of learning and genius. But what better answer could they have\ngiven? What better answer has been given even now? We have learnt\nsomething, chiefly from a study of the modern dialects, which often\nrepeat the processes of ancient speech, and thus betray the secrets of\nthe family. We have learnt that in some of the dialects of modern\nSanskrit, in Bengali for instance,[4] the plural is formed, as it is in\nChinese, Mongolian, Turkish, Finnish, Burmese, and Siamese, also in the\nDravidian and Malayo-Polynesian dialects, by adding a word expressive of\nplurality, and then appending again the terminations of the singular. We\nhave learnt from French how a future, _je parlerai_, can be formed by an\nauxiliary verb: \u201cI\u00a0to speak have\u201d coming to mean, I\u00a0shall speak. We have\nlearnt from our own language, whether English or German, that suffixes,\nsuch as _head_ in _godhead_, _ship_ in _ladyship_, _dom_ in _kingdom_\nwere originally substantives, having the meaning of quality, shape, and\nstate. But I doubt whether even thus we should have arrived at a\nthorough understanding of the real antecedents of language, unless, what\nhappened in the study of the stratification of the earth, had happened\nin the study of language. If the formation of the crust of the earth had\nbeen throughout regular and uniform, and if none of the lower strata had\nbeen tilted up, so that even those who run might read, no shaft from the\nsurface could have been sunk deep enough to bring the geologist from the\ntertiary strata down to the Silurian rocks. The same in language. Unless\nsome languages had been arrested in their growth during their earlier\nstages, and had remained on the surface in this primitive state exposed\nonly to the decomposing influence of atmospheric action, and to the\nill-treatment of literary cultivation, I\u00a0doubt whether any scholar would\nhave had the courage to say that at one time Sanskrit was like unto\nChinese, and Hebrew no better than Malay. In the successive strata of\nlanguage thus exposed to our view, we have in fact, as in Geology, the\nvery thread of Ariadne, which, if we will but trust to it, will lead us\nout of the dark labyrinth of language in which we live, by the same road\nby which we and those who came before us, first entered into it. The\nmore we retrace our steps, the more we advance from stratum to stratum,\nfrom story to story, the more shall we feel almost dazzled by the\ndaylight that breaks in upon us; the more shall we be struck, no longer\nby the intricacy of Greek or Sanskrit grammar, but by the marvelous\nsimplicity of the original warp of human speech, as preserved, for\ninstance, in Chinese; by the child-like contrivances, that are at the\nbottom of Paulo-post Futures and Conditional Moods.\n\nLet no one be frightened at the idea of studying a Chinese grammar.\nThose who can take an interest in the secret springs of the mind, in the\nelements of pure reason, in the laws of thought, will find a Chinese\ngrammar most instructive, most fascinating. It is the faithful\nphotograph of man in his leading-strings, trying the muscles of his\nmind, groping his way, and so delighted with his first successful grasps\nthat he repeats them again and again. It is child\u2019s play, if you like,\nbut it displays, like all child\u2019s play, that wisdom and strength which\nare perfect in the mouth of babes and sucklings. Every shade of thought\nthat finds expression in the highly finished and nicely balanced system\nof Greek tenses, moods, and particles can be expressed, and has been\nexpressed, in that infant language by words that have neither prefix nor\nsuffix, no terminations to indicate number, case, tense, mood, or\nperson. Every word in Chinese is monosyllabic, and the same word,\nwithout any change of form, may be used as a noun, a\u00a0verb, an adjective,\nan adverb, or a particle. Thus _ta_, according to its position in a\nsentence, may mean great, greatness, to grow, very much, very.[5]\n\nAnd here a very important observation has been made by Chinese\ngrammarians, an observation which, after a very slight modification and\nexpansion, contains indeed the secret of the whole growth of language\nfrom Chinese to English. If a word in Chinese is used with the _bon\u00e2\nfide_ signification of a noun or a verb, it is called a _full word_\n(_shi-ts\u00e9_); if it is used as a particle or with a merely determinative\nor formal character, it is called an _empty word_ (_hiu-ts\u00e9_[6]). There\nis as yet no outward difference between full and empty words in Chinese,\nand this renders it all the more creditable to the grammarians of China\nthat they should have perceived the inward distinction, even in the\nabsence of any outward signs.\n\nLet us learn then from Chinese grammarians this great lesson, that words\nmay become empty, and without restricting the meaning of empty words as\nthey do, let us use that term in the most general sense, as expressive\nof the fact that words may lose something of their full original\nmeaning.\n\nLet us add to this another observation, which the Chinese could not well\nhave made, but which we shall see confirmed again and again in the\nhistory of language, viz.: that empty words, or, as we may also call\nthem, dead words, are most exposed to phonetic decay.\n\nIt is clear then that, with these two preliminary observations, we can\nimagine three conditions of language:--\n\n1. There may be languages in which all words, both empty and full,\nretain their independent form. Even words which are used when we should\nuse mere suffixes or terminations, retain their outward integrity in\nChinese. Thus, in Chinese, _jin_ means man, _tu_ means crowd, _jin-tu_,\nman-crowd. In this compound both _jin_ and _tu_ continue to be felt as\nindependent words, more so than in our own compound _man-kind_; but\nnevertheless _tu_ has become empty, it only serves to determine the\npreceding word _jin_, man, and tells us the quantity or number in which\n_jin_ shall be taken. The compound answers in intention to our plural,\nbut in form it is wide apart from _men_, the plural of _man_.\n\n2. Empty words may lose their independence, may suffer phonetic decay,\nand dwindle down to mere suffixes and terminations. Thus in Burmese the\nplural is formed by _to_, in Finnish, Mordvinian, and Ostiakian by _t_.\nAs soon as _to_ ceases to be used as an independent word in the sense of\nnumber, it becomes an empty, or if you like, an obsolete word, that has\nno meaning except as the exponent of plurality; nay, at last, it may\ndwindle down to a mere letter, which is then called by grammarians the\ntermination of the plural. In this second stage phonetic decay may\nwell-nigh destroy the whole body of an empty word, but--and this is\nimportant--no full words, no radicals are as yet attacked by that\ndisintegrating process.\n\n3. Phonetic decay may advance, and does advance still further. Full\nwords also may lose their independence, and be attacked by the same\ndisease that had destroyed the original features of suffixes and\nprefixes. In this state it is frequently impossible to distinguish any\nlonger between the radical and formative elements of words.\n\nIf we wished to represent these three stages of language algebraically,\nwe might represent the first by RR, using R as the symbol of a root\nwhich has suffered no phonetic decay; the second, by R + \u03c1 or \u03c1 + R, or\n\u03c1 + R + \u03c1, representing by \u03c1 an empty word that has suffered phonetic\nchange; the third, by r\u03c1, or \u03c1r, or \u03c1r\u03c1, when both full and empty words\nhave been changed, and have become welded together into one\nindistinguishable mass through the intense heat of thought, and by the\nconstant hammering of the tongue.\n\nThose who are acquainted with the works of Humboldt will easily\nrecognize, in these three stages or strata, a\u00a0classification of language\nfirst suggested by that eminent philosopher. According to him languages\ncan be classified as _isolating_, _agglutinative_,[7] and\n_inflectional_, and his definition of these three classes agrees in the\nmain with the description just given of the three strata or stages of\nlanguage.\n\nBut what is curious is that this threefold classification, and the\nconsequences to which it leads, should not at once have been fully\nreasoned out, nay, that a system most palpably erroneous should have\nbeen founded upon it. We find it repeated again and again in most works\non Comparative Philology, that Chinese belongs to the _isolating_ class,\nthe Turanian languages to the _combinatory_, the Aryan and Semitic to\nthe _inflectional_; nay, Professor Pott[8] and his school seem convinced\nthat no evolution can ever take place from _isolating_ to _combinatory_\nand from _combinatory_ to _inflectional_ speech. We should thus be\nforced to believe that by some inexplicable grammatical instinct, or by\nsome kind of inherent necessity, languages were from the beginning\ncreated as _isolating_ or _combinatory_, or _inflectional_, and must\nremain so to the end.\n\nIt is strange that those scholars who hold that no transition is\npossible from one form of language to another, should not have seen that\nthere is really no language that can be strictly called either\nisolating, or combinatory, or inflectional, and that the transition from\none stage to another is in fact constantly taking place under our very\nnoses. Even Chinese is not free from combinatory forms, and the more\nhighly developed among the combinatory languages show the clearest\ntraces of incipient inflection. The difficulty is not to show the\ntransition of one stratum of speech into another, but rather to draw a\nsharp line between the different strata. The same difficulty was felt in\nGeology, and led Sir Charles Lyell to invent such pliant names as\n_Eocene_, _Meiocene_, and _Pleiocene_, names which indicate a mere dawn,\na\u00a0minority, or a majority of new formations, but do not draw a fast and\nhard line, cutting off one stratum from the other. Natural growth, and\neven merely mechanical accumulation and accretion, here as elsewhere,\nare so minute and almost imperceptible that they defy all strict\nscientific terminology, and force upon us the lesson that we must be\nsatisfied with an approximate accuracy. For practical purposes\nHumboldt\u2019s classification of languages may be quite sufficient, and we\nhave no difficulty in classing any given language, according to the\nprevailing character of its formation, as either isolating, or\ncombinatory, or inflectional. But when we analyze each language more\ncarefully we find there is not one exclusively isolating, or exclusively\ncombinatory, or exclusively inflectional. The power of composition,\nwhich is retained unimpaired through every stratum, can at any moment\nplace an inflectional on a level with an isolating and a combinatory\nlanguage. A\u00a0compound such as the Sanskrit +go-duh+, cow-milking, differs\nlittle, if at all, from the Chinese _nieou-jou_, _vacc\u00e6 lac_, or in the\npatois of Canton, _ngau \u00fc_, cow-milk, before it takes the terminations\nof the nominative, which is, of course, impossible in Chinese.\n\nSo again in English _New-town_, in Greek _Nea-polis_, would be simply\ncombinatory compounds. Even _Newton_ would still belong to the\ncombinatory stratum; but _Naples_ would have to be classed as belonging\nto the inflectional stage.\n\nFinnish, Hungarian, Turkish, and the Dravidian languages belong in the\nmain to the combinatory stratum; but having received a considerable\namount of literary cultivation, they all alike exhibit forms which in\nevery sense of the word are inflectional. If in Finnish, for instance,\nwe find _k\u00e4si_, in the singular, hand, and _k\u00e4det_, in the plural,\nhands, we see that phonetic corruption has clearly reached the very core\nof the noun, and given rise to a plural more decidedly inflectional than\nthe Greek \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1-\u03b5\u03c2, or the English _hand-s_. In Tamil, where the suffix\nof the plural is +ga\u1e37+, we have indeed a regular combinatory form in\n+kei-ga\u1e37+, hands; but if the same plural suffix +ga\u1e37+ is added to +kal+,\nstone, the euphonic rules of Tamil require not only a change in the\nsuffix, which becomes +ka\u1e37+, but likewise a modification in the body of\nthe word, +kal+ being changed to +kar+. We thus get the plural +karka\u1e37+\nwhich in every sense of the word is an inflectional form. In this plural\nsuffix +ga\u1e37+, Dr. Caldwell has recognized the Dravidian +ta\u1e37a+ or\n+da\u1e37a+, a host, a\u00a0crowd; and though, as he admits himself in the second\nedition (p.\u00a0143), the evidence in support of this etymology may not be\nentirely satisfactory, the steps by which the learned author of the\nGrammar of the Dravidian languages has traced the plural termination\n+lu+ in Telugu back to the same original suffix +ka\u1e37+ admit of little\ndoubt.\n\nEvidence of a similar kind may easily be found in any grammar, whether\nof an isolating, combinatory, or inflectional language, wherever there\nis evidence as to the ascending or descending progress of any particular\nform of speech. Everywhere amalgamation points back to combination, and\ncombination back to juxtaposition, everywhere isolating speech tends\ntowards terminational forms, and terminational forms become\ninflectional.\n\nI may best be able to explain the view commonly held with regard to the\nstrata of language by a reference to the strata of the earth. Here, too,\nwhere different strata have been tilted up, it might seem at first sight\nas if they were arranged perpendicularly and side by side, none\nunderlying the other, none presupposing the other. But as the geologist,\non the strength of more general evidence, has to reverse this\nperpendicular position, and to re-arrange his strata in their natural\norder, and as they followed each other horizontally, the student of\nlanguage too is irresistibly driven to the same conclusion. No language\ncan by any possibility be inflectional without having passed through the\ncombinatory and isolating stratum; no language can by any possibility be\ncombinatory without clinging with its roots to the underlying stratum of\nisolation. Unless Sanskrit and Greek and Hebrew had passed through the\ncombinatory stratum, nay, unless, at some time or other, they had been\nno better than Chinese, their present form would be as great a miracle\nas the existence of chalk (and the strata associated with\u00a0it) without an\nunderlying stratum of oolite (and the strata associated with\u00a0it;) or a\nstratum of oolite unsupported by the trias or system of new red\nsandstone. Bunsen\u2019s dictum, that \u201cthe question whether a language can\nbegin with inflections, implies an absurdity,\u201d may have seemed too\nstrongly worded: but if he took inflections in the commonly received\nmeaning, in the sense of something that may be added or removed from a\nbase in order to define or to modify its meaning, then surely the simple\nargument _ex nihilo nihil fit_ is sufficient to prove that the\ninflections must have been something by themselves, before they became\ninflections relatively to the base, and that the base too must have\nexisted by itself, before it could be defined and modified by the\naddition of such inflections.\n\nBut we need not depend on purely logical arguments, when we have\nhistorical evidence to appeal to. As far as we know the history of\nlanguage, we see it everywhere confined within those three great strata\nor zones which we have just described. There are inflectional changes,\nno doubt, which cannot as yet be explained, such as the _m_ in the\naccusative singular of masculine, feminine, and in the nominative and\naccusative of neuter nouns; or the change of vowels between the Hebrew\n_Piel_ and _Pual_, _Hiphil_ and _Hophal_, where we might feel tempted to\nadmit formative agencies different from juxtaposition and combination.\nBut if we consider how in Sanskrit the Vedic instrumental plural,\n+a\u015bvebhis+ (Lat. _equobus_), becomes before our very eyes +a\u015bvais+ (Lat.\n_equis_), and how such changes as _Bruder_, brother, and _Br\u00fcder_,\nbrethren, _Ich weiss_, I know, A.S. _w\u00e2t_, and _Wir wissen_, we know,\nA.S. _wit-on_, have been explained as the results of purely mechanical,\n_i.e._, combinatory proceedings, we need not despair of further progress\nin the same direction. One thing is certain, that, wherever inflection\nhas yielded to a rational analysis, it has invariably been recognized as\nthe result of a previous combination, and wherever combination has been\ntraced back to an earlier stage, that earlier stage has been simple\njuxtaposition. The primitive blocks of Chinese and the most perplexing\nagglomerates of Greek can be explained as the result of one continuous\nformative process, whatever the material elements may be on which it was\nexercised; nor is it possible even to imagine in the formation of\nlanguage more than these three strata through which hitherto all human\nspeech has passed.\n\nAll we can do is to subdivide each stratum, and thus, for instance,\ndistinguish in the second stratum the suffixing (R\u00a0+ \u03c1) from the\nprefixing (\u03c1 +\u00a0R), and from the affixing (\u03c1 + R + \u03c1) languages.\n\nA fourth class, the infixing or incapsulating languages, are but a\nvariety of the affixing class, for what in Bask or in the polysynthetic\ndialects of America has the appearance of actual insertion of formative\nelements into the body of a base can be explained more rationally by the\nformer existence of simpler bases to which modifying suffixes or\nprefixes have once been added, but not so firmly as to exclude the\naddition of new suffixes at the end of the base, instead of, as with us,\nat the end of the compound. If we could say in Greek \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba-\u03bc\u03b9-\u03bd\u03c5, instead\nof \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba-\u03bd\u03c5-\u03bc\u03b9, or in Sanskrit +yu-mi-na-j+, instead of +yu-na-j-mi+, we\nshould have a real beginning of so-called incapsulating formations.[9]\n\nA few instances will place the normal progress of language from stratum\nto stratum more clearly before our eyes. We have seen that in Chinese\nevery word is monosyllabic, every word tells, and there are, as yet, no\nsuffixes by which one word is derived from another, no case-terminations\nby which the relation of one word to another could be indicated. How,\nthen, does Chinese distinguish between the son of the father, and the\nfather of the son? Simply by position. _F\u00fa_ is father, _tz\u00e9_, son;\ntherefore _f\u00fa tz\u00e9_ is son of the father, _tz\u00e9 f\u00fa_, father of the son.\nThis rule admits of no exception but one. If a Chinese wants to say _a\nwine-glass_, he puts _wine_ first and _glass_ last, as in English. If he\nwants to say _a glass of wine_, he puts _glass_ first and _wine_ last.\nThus _i-pei thsieou_, a cup of wine; _thsieou pei_, a wine-cup. If,\nhowever, it seems desirable to mark the word which is in the genitive\nmore distinctly, the word _tchi_ may be placed after it, and we may say,\n_f\u00fa tchi tz\u00e9_, the son of the father. In the Mandarin dialect this\n_tchi_ has become _ti_, and is added so constantly to the governed word,\nthat, to all intents and purposes, it may be treated as what we call the\ntermination of the genitive. Originally this _tchi_ was a relative, or\nrather a demonstrative, pronoun, and it continues to be used as such in\nthe ancient Chinese.[10]\n\nIt is perfectly true that Chinese possesses no derivative suffixes; that\nit cannot derive, for instance, _kingly_ from a noun, such as _king_, or\nadjectives like _visible_ and _invisible_ from a verb _videre_, to see.\nYet the same idea which we express by invisible, is expressed without\ndifficulty in Chinese, only in a different way. They say _khan-pu-kien_,\n\u201cI-behold-and-do-not-see,\u201d and this to them conveys the same idea as the\nEnglish _invisible_, though more exactly _invisible_ might be rendered\nby _kien_, to see, _pou-te_, one cannot, _t\u00ed_, which.\n\nWe cannot in Chinese derive from _ferrum_, iron, a new substantive\n_ferrarius_, a man who works in iron, a\u00a0blacksmith; _ferraria_, an iron\nmine, and again _ferrariarius_, a man who works in an iron mine. All\nthis is possible in an inflectional language only. But it is not to be\nsupposed that in Chinese there is an independent expression for every\nsingle conception, even for those which are clearly secondary and\nderivative. If an arrow in Chinese is _shi_, then a maker of arrows\n(in\u00a0old French _fl\u00e9chier_, in English _fletcher_) is called an\narrow-man, _shi-jin_. _Shui_ means water, _fu_, man; hence _shui-fu_, a\nwater man, a\u00a0water carrier. The same word _shui_, water, if followed by\n_sheu_, hand, stands for steersman, literally, water-hand. _Kin_ means\ngold, _tsiang_, maker; hence _kin-tsiang_, a\u00a0goldsmith. _Shou_ means\nwriting, _sheu_, hand; hence _shou-sheu_, a writer, a\u00a0copyist,\nliterally, a\u00a0writing-hand.\n\nA transition from such compounds to really combinatory speech is\nextremely easy. Let _sheu_, in the sense of hand, become obsolete, and\nbe replaced in the ordinary language by another word for hand; and let\nsuch names as _shu-sheu_, author, _shui-sheu_, boatsman, be retained,\nand the people who speak this language will soon accustom themselves to\nlook upon _sheu_ as a mere derivative, and use it by a kind of false\nanalogy, even where the original meaning of _sheu_, hand, would not have\nbeen applicable.[11]\n\nWe can watch the same process even in comparatively modern languages. In\nAnglo-Saxon, for instance, _h\u00e2d_ means state, order. It is used as an\nindependent word, and continued to be so used as late as Spenser, who\nwrote:--\n\n \u201cCuddie, I wote thou kenst little good,\n So vainly t\u2019 advaunce thy headlesse hood.\u201d\n\nAfter a time, however, _h\u00e2d_, as an independent word, was lost, and its\nplace taken by more classical expressions, such as _habit_, _nature_, or\n_disposition_. But there remained such compounds as _man-h\u00e2d_, the state\nof man, _God-h\u00e2d_, the nature of God; and in these words the last\nelement, being an empty word and no longer understood, was soon looked\nupon as a mere suffix. Having lost its vitality, it was all the more\nexposed to phonetic decay, and became both _hood_ and _head_.\n\nOr, let us take another instance, The name given to the fox in ancient\nGerman poetry was _Regin-hart_. _Regin_ in Old High German means thought\nor cunning, _hart_, the Gothic _hardu_, means strong. This _hart_[12]\ncorresponds to the Greek \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which, in its adjectival form of\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, forms as many proper names in Greek as _hart_ in German. In\nSanskrit the same word exists as _kratu_, meaning intellectual rather\nthan bodily strength, a\u00a0shade of meaning which is still perceivable even\nin the German _hart_, and in the English _hard_ and _hardy_.\n_Reginhart_, therefore, was originally a compound, meaning\n\u201cthought-strong,\u201d strong in cunning. Other words formed in the same or a\nvery similar manner are: _Peranhart_ and _Bernhart_, literally,\nbear-minded, or bold like a bear; _Eburhart_, boar-minded; _Engil-hart_,\nangel-minded; _Gothart_, god-minded; _Egin-hart_, fierce-minded;\n_Hugihart_, wise-minded or strong in thought, the English _Hogarth_. In\nLow German the second element, _hart_, lost its _h_ and became _ard_.\nThis _ard_ ceased to convey any definite meaning, and though in some\nwords which are formed by _ard_ we may still discover its original\npower, it soon became a mere derivative, and was added promiscuously to\nform new words. In the Low German name for the fox, _Reinaert_, neither\nthe first nor the second word tells us any longer anything, and the two\nwords together have become a mere proper name. In other words the first\nportion retains its meaning, but the second, _ard_, is nothing but a\nsuffix. Thus we find the Low German _dronk-ard_, a drunkard; _dick-ard_,\na thick fellow; _rik-ard_, a rich fellow; _g\u00earard_, a miser. In English\n_sweet-ard_, originally a very sweet person, has been changed and\nresuscitated as _sweet-heart_,[13] by the same process which changed\n_shamefast_ into _shamefaced_. But, still more curious, this suffix\n_ard_, which had lost all life and meaning in Low German, was taken over\nas a convenient derivative by the Romance languages. After having\nborrowed a number of words such as _renard_, fox, and proper names like\n_Bernard_, _Richard_, _Gerard_, the framers of the new Romance dialects\nused the same termination even at the end of Latin words. Thus they\nformed not only many proper names, like _Abeillard_, _Bayard_,\n_Brossard_, but appellatives like _leccardo_, a gourmand, _linguardo_,\na talker, _criard_, a crier, _codardo_, Prov. _coart_, Fr. _couard_, a\ncoward.[14] That a German word _hart_, meaning strong, and originally\nstrength, should become a Roman suffix may seem strange; yet we no\nlonger hesitate to use even Hindustani words as English suffixes. In\nHindustani +v\u00e1l\u00e1+ is used to form many substantives. If +Dilli+ is\nDelhi, then +Dill-v\u00e1ll\u00e1+ is a man of Delhi. +Go+ is cow, +go-v\u00e1l\u00e1+ a\ncow-herd, contracted into +gv\u00e1l\u00e1+. Innumerable words can thus be formed,\nand as the derivative seemed handy and useful, it was at last added even\nto English words, for instance in \u201cCompetition wallah.\u201d\n\nThese may seem isolated cases, but the principles on which they rest\npervade the whole structure of language. It is surprising to see how\nmuch may be achieved by an application of those principles, how large\nresults may be obtained by the smallest and simplest means. By means of\nthe single radical \u00ee or +y\u00e2+ (originally +ya+), which in the Aryan\nlanguages means to go or to send, the almost unconscious framers of\nAryan grammar formed not only their neuter, denominative, and causative\nverbs, but their passives, their optatives, their futures, and a\nconsiderable number of substantives and adjectives. Every one of these\nformations, in Sanskrit as well as in Greek, can be explained, and has\nbeen explained, as the result of a combination between any given verbal\nroot and the radical _\u00ee_ or +y\u00e2+.\n\nThere is, for instance, a root +nak+, expressive of perishing or\ndestruction. We have it in +nak+, night; Latin _nox_, Greek \u03bd\u03cd\u03be, meaning\noriginally the waning, the disappearing, the death of day. We have the\nsame root in composition, as, for instance, +j\u00eeva-nak+, life-destroying;\nand by means of suffixes Greek has formed from it \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba-\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, a\u00a0dead body,\n\u03bd\u03ad\u03ba-\u03c5\u03c2, dead, and \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba-\u03c5-\u03b5\u03c2 in the plural, the departed. In Sanskrit this\nroot is turned into a simple verb, +na\u015b-a-ti+, he perishes. But in order\nto give to it a more distinctly neuter meaning, a\u00a0new verbal base is\nformed by composition with +ya+, +na\u015b-ya-ti+, he goes to destruction, he\nperishes.\n\nBy the same or a very similar process denominative verbs are formed in\nSanskrit to a very large extent. From +r\u00e2jan+, king, we form\n+r\u00e2j\u00e2-ya-te+, he behaves like a king, literally, he goes the king, he\nacts the king, _il a l\u2019allure d\u2019un roi_. From +kum\u00e2r\u00ee+, girl,\n+k\u00fbm\u00e2r\u00e2-ya-te+, he behaves like a girl, etc.[15]\n\nAfter raising +na\u015b+ to +n\u00e2\u015ba+, and adding the same radical +ya+,\nSanskrit produces a causative verb, +n\u00e2\u015ba-ya-ti+, he sends to\ndestruction, the Latin _n\u00eacare_.\n\nIn close analogy to the neuter verb +na\u015byati+, the regular passive is\nformed in Sanskrit by composition with +ya+, but by adding, at the same\ntime, a\u00a0different set of personal terminations. Thus +n\u00e1\u015b-y\u00e1-ti+ means\nhe perishes, while +na\u015b-y\u00e1-te+ means he is destroyed.\n\nThe usual terminations of the Optative in Sanskrit are:--\n\n y\u00e2m, y\u00e2s, y\u00e2t, y\u00e2ma, y\u00e2ta, yus,\n\nor, after bases ending in vowels:--\n\n iyam, is, it, ima, ita, iyus.\n\nIn Greek:--\n\n \u03b9\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b9\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b9\u03b7, \u03b9\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b9\u03b5\u03bd,\n\nor, after bases ending in o:--\n\n \u03b9\u03bc\u03b9, \u03b9\u03c2, \u03b9, \u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b9\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b9\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nIn Latin:--\n\n i\u00eam i\u00eas iet ---- ---- ient,\n \u00eem, \u00ees, it, \u00eemus, \u00eetis, int.\n\nIf we add these terminations to the root +AS+, to be, we get the\nSanskrit +s-y\u00e2m+ for +as-y\u00e2m+:--\n\n sy\u00e2m, sy\u00e2s, sy\u00e2t, sy\u00e2ma, sy\u00e2ta, syus.\n\nGreek \u1f10\u03c3-\u03af\u03b7\u03bd, contracted to \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u03bd:--\n\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b5\u1f36\u03b5\u03bd\n\nLatin _es-iem_, changed to _si\u00eam_, _s\u00eem_, and _er\u00eem_:--\n\n si\u00eam, si\u00eas, siet,[16] ---- ---- sient.\n sim, s\u00ees, sit,[17] s\u00eemus, sitis, sint.\n er\u00eem, er\u00ees, erit, er\u00eemus, er\u00eetis, erint.\n\nIf we add the other termination to a verbal base ending in certain\nvowels, we get the Sanskrit +bhara-iyam+, contracted to +bh\u00e1reyam+:--\n\n bhar\u00eayam, bhar\u00eas, bhar\u00eat, bhar\u00eama, bhar\u00eata, bhar\u00eayus.\n\nin Greek \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf-\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9:--\n\n \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf-\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf-\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf-\u03b9, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf-\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf-\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf-\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd\n\nin Latin _fere-im_, changed to _ferem_, used in the sense of a future,\nbut replaced[18] in the first person by _feram_, the subjunctive of the\npresent:--\n\n feram, fer\u00eas, feret, fer\u00eamus, fer\u00eatis, ferent.\n\nPerfect Subjunctive:--\n\n tul-er\u00eem, tul-er\u00ees, tul-erit, tul-erimus, tul-eritis,[19] tul-erint.\n\nHere we have clearly the same auxiliary verb, i or +ya+, again, and we\nare driven to admit that what we now call an optative or potential mood,\nwas originally a kind of future, formed by +ya+, to go, very much like\nthe French _je vais dire_, I am going to say, I\u00a0shall say, or like the\nZulu\n 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4\n +ngi-ya-ku-tanda+, I go to love, I\u00a0shall love.[20]\nThe future would afterwards assume the character of a civil command, as\n\u201cthou wilt go\u201d may be used even by us in the sense of \u201cgo;\u201d and the\nimperative would dwindle away into a potential, as we may say: \u201cGo and\nyou will see,\u201d in the same sense as, If you go, you will see.\n\nThe terminations of the future are:--\n\nSanskrit:--\n\n sy\u00e2mi, syasi, syati, sy\u00e2mas, sy\u00e2tha, syanti.\n\nGreek:--\n\n \u03c3\u03c9, \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9.\n\nLatin:--\n\n ero, er\u012ds, er\u012dt, er\u012dmus, er\u012dtis, erunt.\n\nIn these terminations we have really two auxiliary verbs, the verb +as+,\nto be, and +ya+, to go, and by adding them to any given root, as, for\ninstance, +DA+, to give, we have the Sanskrit (+d\u00e2-as-y\u00e2-mi+):--\n\n d\u00e2-s-y\u00e2-mi, d\u00e2-s-ya-si, d\u00e2-s-ya-ti,\n d\u00e2-s-y\u00e2-mas, d\u00e2-s-ya-tha, d\u00e2-s-ya-nti,\n\nGreek (\u03b4\u03c9-\u03b5\u03c3-\u03b9\u03c9):--\n\n \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3-\u03c9,[21] \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3-\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3-\u03b5\u03b9,\n \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3-\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3-\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3-\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\n\nLatin:--\n\n pot-ero, pot-er\u012ds, pot-erit, pot-er\u012dmus, pot-er\u012dtis, pot-erunt.\n\nA verbal form of very frequent occurrence in Sanskrit is the so-called\ngerundive participle which signifies that a thing is necessary or proper\nto be done. Thus from +budh+, to know, is formed +bodh-ya-s+, one who is\nto be known, _cognoscendus_; from +guh+, to hide, +g\u00fah-ya-s+, or\n+goh-ya-s+, one who is to be hidden, literally, one who goes to a state\nof hiding or being hidden; from +yaj+, to sacrifice, +y\u00e2j-ya-s+, one who\nis or ought to be worshipped. Here, again, what is going to be becomes\ngradually what will be, and lastly, what shall be. In Greek we find but\nfew analogous forms, such as \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, holy, \u03c3\u03c4\u03cd\u03b3-\u03b9-\u03bf\u03c2, to be hated; in\nLatin _ex-im-i-us_, to be taken out; in Gothic _anda-n\u00eam-ja_, to be\ntaken on, to be accepted, agreeable, German _angenehm_.[22]\n\nWhile the gerundive participles in +ya+ are formed on the same principle\nas the verbal bases in +ya+ of the passive, a\u00a0number of substantives in\n+ya+ seem to have been formed in close analogy to the bases of\ndenominative verbs, or the bases of neuter verbs, in all of which the\nderivative +ya+ expresses originally the act of going, behaving, and at\nlast of simple being. Thus from +vid+, to know, we find in Sanskrit\n+vid-y\u00e2+, knowing, knowledge; from +\u015bi+, to lie down, +\u015bayy\u00e2+; resting.\nAnalogous forms in Latin are _gaud-i-um_, _stud-i-um_, or with feminine\nterminations, _in-ed-i-a_, _in-vid-i-a_, _per-nic-i-es_, _scab-i-es_; in\nGreek, \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd-\u03af-\u03b1, \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4-\u03af-\u03b1, or \u1f01\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4-\u03b9-\u03bf\u03bd; in German, numerous abstract\nnouns in _i_ and _e_.[23]\n\nThis shows how much can be achieved, and has been achieved, in language\nwith the simplest materials. Neuter, denominative, causative, passive\nverbs, optatives and futures, gerundives, adjectives, and substantives,\nall are formed by one and the same process, by means of one and the same\nroot. It is no inconsiderable portion of grammar which has thus been\nexplained by this one root +ya+, to go, and we learn again and again how\nsimple and yet how wonderful are the ways of language, if we follow them\nup from stratum to stratum to their original starting-point.\n\nNow what has happened in these cases, has happened over and over again\nin the history of language. Everything that is now formal, not only\nderivative suffixes, but everything that constitutes the grammatical\nframework and articulation of language, was originally material. What we\nnow call the terminations of cases were mostly local adverbs; what we\ncall the personal endings of verbs were personal pronouns. Suffixes and\naffixes were mostly independent words, nominal, verbal, or pronominal;\nthere is, in fact, nothing in language that is now empty, or dead, or\nformal, that was not originally full, and alive, and material. It is the\nobject of Comparative Grammar to trace every formal or dead element back\nto its life-like form; and though this resuscitating process is by no\nmeans complete, nay, though in several cases it seems hopeless to try to\ndiscover the living type from which proceeded the petrified fragments\nwhich we call terminations or suffixes, enough evidence has been brought\ntogether to establish on the firmest basis this general maxim, that\n_Nothing is dead in any language that was not originally alive_; that\nnothing exists in a tertiary stratum that does not find its antecedents\nand its explanation in the secondary or primary stratum of human speech.\n\nAfter having explained, as far as it was possible in so short a time,\nwhat I consider to be the right view of the stratification of human\nspeech, I\u00a0should have wished to be able to show to you how the aspect of\nsome of the most difficult and most interesting problems of our science\nis changed, if we look at them again with the new light which we have\ngained regarding the necessary antecedents of all language. Let me only\ncall your attention to one of the most contested points in the Science\nof Language. The question whether we may assign a common origin to the\nAryan and Semitic languages has been discussed over and over again. No\none thinks now of deriving Sanskrit from Hebrew, or Hebrew from\nSanskrit; the only question is whether at some time or other the two\nlanguages could ever have formed part of one and the same body of\nspeech. There are scholars, and very eminent scholars, who deny all\nsimilarity between the two, while others have collected materials that\nwould seem to make it difficult to assign such numerous coincidences to\nmere chance. Nowhere, in fact, has Bacon\u2019s observation on this radical\ndistinction between different men\u2019s dispositions for philosophy and the\nsciences been more fully verified than among the students of the Science\nof Language:--_Maximum et velut radicale discrimen ingeniorum, quoad\nphilosophiam et scientias, illud est, quod alia ingenia sint fortiora et\naptiora ad notandas rerum differentias; alia ad notandas rerum\nsimilitudines. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Utrumque autem ingenium facile labitur in\nexcessum, prensando aut gradus rerum, aut umbras._[24] Before, however,\nwe enter upon an examination of the evidence brought forward by\ndifferent scholars in support of their conflicting theories, it is our\nfirst duty to ask a preliminary question, viz.: What kind of evidence\nhave we any right to expect, considering that both Sanskrit and Hebrew\nbelong, in the state in which we know them, to the inflectional stratum\nof speech?\n\nNow it is quite true that Sanskrit and Hebrew had a separate existence\nlong before they reached the tertiary stratum, before they became\nthoroughly inflectional; and that consequently they can share nothing in\ncommon that is peculiar to the inflectional stratum in each, nothing\nthat is the result of phonetic decay, which sets in after combinatory\nformations have become unintelligible and traditional. I\u00a0mean, supposing\nthat the pronoun of the first person had been originally the same in the\nSemitic and Aryan languages, supposing that in the Hebrew _an-oki_\n(Assyrian _an-aku_, Phen. _anak_) the last portion, _oki_, was\noriginally identical with the Sanskrit +ah+ in +aham+, the Greek \u1f10\u03b3 in\n\u1f10\u03b3-\u03ce, it would still be useless to attempt to derive the termination\nof the first person singular, whether in _k\u00e2tal-ti_ or in _ekt\u00f4l_, from\nthe same type which in Sanskrit appears as +mi+ or +am+ or +a+, in\n+tud\u00e2-mi+, +atud-am+, +tutod-a+. There cannot be between Hebrew and\nSanskrit the same relationship as between Sanskrit and Greek, if indeed\nthe term of relationship is applicable even to Sanskrit and Greek, which\nare really mere dialectic varieties of one and the same type of speech.\n\nThe question then arises, Could the Semitic and Aryan languages have\nbeen identical during the second or _combinatory_ period? Here, as\nbefore, the answer must be, I\u00a0believe, decidedly negative, for not only\nare the empty words which are used for derivative purposes different in\neach, but, what is far more characteristic, the manner in which they are\nadded to the stems is different too. In the Aryan languages formative\nelements are attached to the ends of words only; in the Semitic\nlanguages they are found both at the end and at the beginning. In the\nAryan languages grammatical compounds are all according to the formula\nr\u03c1; in the Semitic we have formations after the formulas r\u03c1, \u03c1r, and\n\u03c1r\u03c1.\n\nThere remains, therefore, the first or isolating stage only in which\nSemitic and Aryan speech might have been identical. But even here we\nmust make a distinction. All Aryan roots are monosyllabic, all Semitic\nroots have been raised to triliteral form. Therefore it is only previous\nto the time when the Semitic roots assumed this secondary triliteral\nform that any community could possibly be admitted between these two\nstreams of language. Supposing we knew as an historical fact that at\nthis early period--a period which transcends the limits of everything we\nare accustomed to call historical--Semitic and Aryan speech had been\nidentical, what evidence of this union could we expect to find in the\nactual Semitic and Aryan languages such as we know them in their\ninflectional period? Let us recollect that the 100,000 words of English,\nnay, the many hundred thousand words in all the dictionaries of the\nother Aryan languages, have been reduced to about 500 roots, and that\nthis small number of roots admits of still further reduction. Let us,\nthen, bear in mind that the same holds good with regard to the Semitic\nlanguages, particularly if we accept the reduction of all triliteral to\nbiliteral roots. What, then, could we expect in our comparison of Hebrew\nand Sanskrit but a small number of radical coincidences, a\u00a0similarity in\nthe form and meaning of about 500 radical syllables, everything else in\nHebrew and Sanskrit being an after-growth, which could not begin before\nthe two branches of speech were severed once and forever.\n\nBut more, if we look at these roots we shall find that their predicative\npower is throughout very general, and therefore liable to an infinite\namount of specification. A\u00a0root that means to fall (Sk.\u00a0+pat+,\n\u03c0\u03af-\u03c0\u03c4-\u03c9) comes to mean to fly (Sk.\u00a0+ut-pat+, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9). The root\n+d\u00e2+, which means to give, assumes, after the preposition \u00e2, the sense\nof taking. The root +yu+, which means to join, means to separate if\npreceded by the preposition +vi+. The root +ghar+, which expresses\nbrightness, may supply, and does supply in different Aryan languages,\nderivations expressive of brightness (gleam), warmth (Sk.\u00a0+gharma+,\nheat), joy (\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), love (\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2), of the colors of green (Sk.\n+hari+), yellow (_gilvus_, _flavus_), and red (Sk.\u00a0+harit+, _fulvus_),\nand of the conception of growing (_ger-men_). In the Semitic languages\nthis vagueness of meaning in the radical elements forms one of the\nprincipal difficulties of the student, for according as a root is used\nin its different conjugations, it may convey the most startling variety\nof conception. It is also to be taken into account that out of the very\nlimited number of roots which at that early time were used in common by\nthe ancestors of the Aryan and Semitic races, a\u00a0certain portion may have\nbeen lost by each, so that the fact that there are roots in Hebrew of\nwhich no trace exists in Sanskrit, and _vice vers\u00e2_, would again be\nperfectly natural and intelligible.\n\nIt is right and most essential that we should see all this clearly, that\nwe should understand how little evidence we are justified in expecting\nin support of a common origin of the Semitic and Aryan languages, before\nwe commit ourselves to any opinion on this important subject. I\u00a0have by\nno means exhausted all the influences that would naturally, nay\nnecessarily, have contributed towards producing the differences between\nthe radical elements of Aryan and Semitic speech, always supposing that\nthe two sprang originally from the same source. Even if we excluded the\nravages of phonetic decay from that early period of speech, we should\nhave to make ample allowances for the influence of dialectic variety. We\nknow in the Aryan languages the constant play between gutturals,\ndentals, and labials (_quinque_, Sk. +panca+, \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5, \u00c6ol. \u03c0\u03ad\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5, Goth.\n_fimf_). We know the dialectic interchange of Aspirate, Media, and\nTenuis, which, from the very beginning, has imparted to the principal\nchannels of Aryan speech their individual character (\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, Goth.\n_threis_, High German _drei_).[25] If this and much more could happen\nwithin the dialectic limits of one more or less settled body of speech,\nwhat must have been the chances beyond those limits? Considering how\nfatal to the identity of a word the change of a single consonant would\nbe in monosyllabic languages, we might expect that monosyllabic roots,\nif their meaning was so general, vague, and changeable, would all the\nmore carefully have preserved their consonantal outline. But this is by\nno means the case. Monosyllabic languages have their dialects no less\nthan polysyllabic ones; and from the rapid and decisive divergence of\nsuch dialects, we may learn how rapid and decisive the divergence of\nlanguage must have been during the isolating period. Mr. Edkins, who has\npaid particular attention to the dialects of Chinese, states that in the\nnorthern provinces the greatest changes have taken place, eight initial\nand one final consonant having been exchanged for others, and three\nfinals lost. Along the southern bank of the Yang-ts\u00ef-kiang, and a little\nto the north of it, the old initials are all preserved, as also through\nChekiang to Fuh-kien. But among the finals, _m_ is exchanged for _n_;\n_t_ and _p_ are lost, and also _k_, except in some country districts.\nSome words have two forms, one used colloquially, and one appropriated\nto reading. The former is the older pronunciation, and the latter more\nnear to Mandarin. The cities of Su-cheu, Hang-cheu, Ningpo, and\nWhen-cheu, with the surrounding country, may be considered as having one\ndialect, spoken probably by thirty millions of people, _i.e._, by more\nthan the whole population of Great Britain and Ireland. The city of\nHwei-cheu has a dialect of its own, in which the soft initial consonants\nare exchanged for hard and aspirated ones, a\u00a0process analogous to what\nwe call _Lautverschiebung_ in the Aryan languages. At Fu-cheu-fu, in the\neastern part of the province of Kiang-si, the soft initials have\nlikewise been replaced by aspirates. In many parts of the province of\nHunan the soft initials still linger on; but in the city of Chang-sha\nthe spoken dialect has the five tones of Mandarin, and the aspirated and\nother initials distributed in the same manner. In the island of Hai-nan\nthere is a distinct approach to the form which Chinese words assume in\nthe language of Annam. Many of the hard consonants are softened, instead\nof the reverse taking place as in many other parts of China. Thus _ti_,\n_di_, both _ti_ in Mandarin, are both pronounced _di_ in Hai-nan. _B_\nand _p_ are both used for many words whose initials are _w_ and _f_ in\nMandarin. In the dialects of the province of Fuhkien the following\nchanges take place in initial consonants: _k_ is used for _h_; _p_ for\n_f_; _m_, _b_, for _w_; _j_ for _y_; _t_ for _ch_; _ch_ for _s_; _ng_\nfor _i_, _y_, _w_; _n_ for _j_.[26] When we have clearly realized to\nourselves what such changes mean in words consisting of one consonant\nand one vowel, we shall be more competent to act as judges, and to\ndetermine what right we have to call for more ample and more definite\nevidence in support of the common origin of languages which became\nseparated during their monosyllabic or isolating stages, and which are\nnot known to us before they are well advanced in the inflectional stage.\n\nIt might be said,--Why, if we make allowance for all this, the evidence\nreally comes to nothing, and is hardly deserving of the attention of the\nscholar. I\u00a0do not deny that this is, and always has been my own opinion.\nAll I wish to put clearly before other scholars is, that this is not our\nfault. We see why there can be no evidence, and we find there is no\nevidence, or very little support of a common origin of Semitic and Aryan\nspeech. But that is very different from dogmatic assertions, so often\nand so confidently repeated, that there can be no kind of relationship\nbetween Sanskrit and Hebrew, that they must have had different\nbeginnings, that they represent, in fact, two independent species of\nhuman speech. All this is pure dogmatism, and no true scholar will be\nsatisfied with it, or turn away contemptuously from the tentative\nresearches of scholars like Ewald, Raumer, and Ascoli. These scholars,\nparticularly Raumer and Ascoli, have given us, as far as I can judge,\nfar more evidence in support of a radical relationship between Hebrew\nand Sanskrit than, from my point of view, we are entitled to expect.\nI\u00a0mean this as a caution in both directions. If, on one side, we ought\nnot to demand more than we have a right to demand, we ought, on the\nother, not to look for, nor attempt to bring forward, more evidence than\nthe nature of the case admits of. We know that words which have\nidentically the same sound and meaning in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and\nGerman, cannot be the same words, because they would contravene those\nphonetic laws that made these languages to differ from each other. _To\ndoom_ cannot have any connection with the Latin _damnare_; _to call_\ncannot be the Greek \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, the Latin _calare_; nor Greek \u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2\nthe German _faul_; the English _care_ cannot be identified with Latin\n_cura_, nor the German _Auge_ with the Greek \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae. The same applies,\nonly with a hundred-fold greater force, to words in Hebrew and Sanskrit.\nIf any triliteral root in Hebrew were to agree with a triliteral word in\nSanskrit, we should feel certain, at once, that they are not the same,\nor that their similarity is purely accidental. Pronouns, numerals, and a\nfew imitative rather than predicative names for father and mother, etc.,\nmay have been preserved from the earliest stage by the Aryan and Semitic\nspeakers; but if scholars go beyond, and compare such words as Hebrew\n_barak_, to bless, and Latin _precari_; Hebrew _lab_, heart, and the\nEnglish _liver_; Hebrew _melech_, king, and the Latin _mulcere_, to\nsmoothe, to quiet, to subdue, they are in great danger, I\u00a0believe, of\nproving too much.\n\nAttempts have lately been made to point out a number of roots which\nChinese shares in common with Sanskrit. Far be it from me to stigmatize\neven such researches as unscientific, though it requires an effort for\none brought up in the very straitest school of Bopp, to approach such\ninquiries without prejudice. Yet, if conducted with care and sobriety,\nand particularly with a clear perception of the limits within which such\ninquiries must be confined, they are perfectly legitimate; far more so\nthan the learned dogmatism with which some of our most eminent scholars\nhave declared a common origin of Sanskrit and Chinese as out of the\nquestion. I\u00a0cannot bring myself to say that the method which Mr.\nChalmers adopts in his interesting work on the \u201cOrigin of Chinese\u201d is\nlikely to carry conviction to the mind of the _bon\u00e0 fide_ skeptic.\nI\u00a0believe, before we compare the words of Chinese with those of any\nother language, every effort should be made to trace Chinese words back\nto their most primitive form. Here Mr. Edkins has pointed out the road\nthat ought to be followed, and has clearly shown the great advantage to\nbe derived from an accurate study of Chinese dialects. The same scholar\nhas done still more by pointing out how Chinese should at first be\ncompared with its nearest relatives, the Mongolian of the\nNorth-Turanian, and the Tibetan of the South-Turanian class, before any\ncomparisons are attempted with more distant colonies that started during\nthe monosyllabic period of speech. \u201cI\u00a0am now seeking to compare,\u201d he\nwrites, \u201cthe Mongolian and Tibetan with the Chinese, and have already\nobtained some interesting results:--\n\n\u201c1. A large proportion of Mongol words are Chinese. Perhaps a fifth are\nso. The identity is in the first syllable of the Mongol words, that\nbeing the root. The correspondence is most striking in the adjectives,\nof which perhaps one half of the most common are the same radically as\nin Chinese; e.g., _sain_, good; _begen_, low; _ic\u2018hi_, right; _sologai_,\nleft; _c\u2018hihe_, straight; _gadan_, outside; _c\u2019hohon_, few; _logon_,\ngreen; _hung-gun_, light (not heavy). But the identity is also extensive\nin other parts of speech, and this identity of common roots seems to\nextend into the Turkish, Tatar, etc.; e.g., _su_, water; _tenri_,\nheaven.\n\n\u201c2. To compare Mongol with Chinese it is necessary to go back at least\nsix centuries in the development of the Chinese language. For we find in\ncommon roots final letters peculiar to the old Chinese, _e.g._, final\n_m_. The initial letters also need to be considered from another\nstandpoint than the Mandarin pronunciation. If a large number of words\nare common to Chinese, Mongol, and Tatar, we must go back at least\ntwelve centuries to obtain a convenient epoch of comparison.\n\n\u201c3. While the Mongol has no traces of tones, they are very distinctly\ndeveloped in Tibetan. Csoma de K\u00f6r\u00f6s and Schmidt do not mention the\nexistence of tones, but they plainly occur in the pronunciation of\nnative Tibetans resident in Peking.\n\n\u201c4. As in the case of the comparison with Mongol, it is necessary in\nexamining the connection of Tibetan with Chinese to adopt the old form\nof the Chinese with its more numerous final consonants, and its full\nsystem of soft, hard, and aspirated initials. The Tibetan numerals\nexemplify this with sufficient clearness.\n\n\u201c5. While the Mongol is near the Chinese in the extensive prevalence of\nwords common to the two languages, the Tibetan is near in phonal\nstructure, as being tonic and monosyllabic. This being so, it is less\nremarkable that there are many words common to Chinese and Tibetan, for\nit might have been expected; but that there should be perhaps as many in\nthe Mongol with its long untoned polysyllables, is a curious\ncircumstance.\u201d[27]\n\nThis is no doubt the right spirit in which researches into the early\nhistory of language should be conducted, and I hope that Mr. Edkins, Mr.\nChalmers, and others, will not allow themselves to be discouraged by the\nordinary objections that are brought against all tentative studies. Even\nif their researches should only lead to negative results, they would be\nof the highest importance. The criterion by which we test the\nrelationship of inflectional languages, such as Sanskrit and Greek,\nHebrew and Arabic, cannot, from the nature of the case, be applied to\nlanguages which are still in the combinatory or isolating stratum, nor\nwould they answer any purpose, if we tried by them to determine whether\ncertain languages, separated during their inflectional growth, had been\nunited during their combinatory stage, or whether languages, separated\nduring their combinatory progress, had started from a common centre in\ntheir monosyllabic age. Bopp\u2019s attempt to work with his Aryan tools on\nthe Malayo-Polynesian languages, and to discover in them traces of Aryan\nforms, ought to serve as a warning example.\n\nHowever, there are dangers also, and even greater dangers, on the\nopposite shore, and if Mr. Chalmers in his interesting work on \u201cthe\nOrigin of Chinese,\u201d compares, for instance, the Chinese _tz\u00e9_, child,\nwith the Bohemian _tsi_, daughter, I\u00a0know that the indignation of the\nAryan scholars will be roused to a very high pitch, considering how they\nhave proved most minutely that _tsi_ or _dci_ in Bohemian is the regular\nmodification of _dugte_, and that _dugte_ is the Sanskrit +duhitar+, the\nGreek \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, daughter, originally a pet-name, meaning a milk-maid,\nand given by the Aryan shepherds, and by them only, to the daughters of\ntheir house. Such accidents[28] will happen in so comprehensive a\nsubject as the Science of Language. They have happened to scholars like\nBopp, Grimm, and Burnouf, and they will happen again. I\u00a0do not defend\nhaste or inaccuracy, I\u00a0only say, we must venture on, and not imagine\nthat all is done, and that nothing remains to conquer in our science.\nOur watchword, here as elsewhere, should be Festina lente! but, by all\nmeans, Festina! Festina! Festina!\n\n\nPart II.\n\nON CURTIUS\u2019 CHRONOLOGY OF THE INDO-GERMANIC LANGUAGES.\n\nIn a former Lecture on the \u201cStratification of Language\u201d I ventured to\nassert that wherever _inflection_ has yielded to a rational analysis, it\nhas invariably been recognized as the result of a previous\n_combination_, and wherever _combination_ has been traced back to an\nearlier stage, that earlier stage has been simply _juxtaposition_.\n\nProfessor Pott in his \u201cEtymologische Forschungen\u201d (1871, p. 16), a\u00a0work\nwhich worthily holds its place by the side of Bopp\u2019s \u201cComparative\nGrammar,\u201d questions the correctness of that statement; but in doing so\nhe seems to me to have overlooked the restrictions which I myself had\nintroduced, in order to avoid the danger of committing myself to what\nmight seem too general a statement. I\u00a0did not say that every form of\ninflection had been proved to spring from a previous combination, but I\nspoke of those cases only where we have succeeded in a rational analysis\nof inflectional forms, and it was in these that I maintained that\ninflection had always been found to be the result of previous\ncombination. What is the object of the analysis of grammatical\ninflections, or of Comparative Grammar in general, if not to find out\nwhat terminations originally were, before they had assumed a purely\nformal character? If we take the French adverb _sinc\u00e8rement_, sincerely,\nand trace it back to the Latin _sincer\u00e2 mente_, we have for a second\ntime the three stages of juxtaposition, combination, and, to a certain\nextent, inflection, repeated before our eyes. I\u00a0say, inflection, for\n_ment_, though originally an independent word, soon becomes a mere\nadverbial suffix, the speakers so little thinking of its original\npurport, that we may say of a stone that it falls _lourdement_, heavily,\nwithout wishing to imply that it falls _lurid\u00e2 mente_, with a heavy,\nlit., with a lurid mind.\n\nIf we take the nom. sing. of a noun in Sanskrit, Greek, or Latin, we\nfind that masculine nouns end frequently in _s_. We have for instance,\nSk. +ve\u015ba-s+, Gr. \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf-\u03c2, Lat. _v\u00eecu-s_. These three words are\nidentical in their termination, in their base, and in their root. The\nroot is the Sk. +vi\u015b+, to settle down, to enter upon or into a thing.\nThis root, without undergoing any further change, may answer the purpose\nboth of a verbal and a nominal base. In the precative, for instance, we\nhave +vi\u015b-y\u00e2-t+, he may enter, which yields to a rational analysis into\n+vi\u015b+, the root +y\u00e2+, to go, and the old pronominal stem of the third\nperson, _t_, he. We reduplicate the root, and we get the perfect\n+vi-vi\u015b-us+, they have entered. Here I can understand that objections\nmight be raised against accepting us as a mere phonetic corruption of\n+ant+ and +anti+; but if, as in Greek, we find as the termination of the\nthird pers. plur. of the perfect \u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9, we know that this is a merely\nphonetic change of the original +anti+,[29] and this +anti+ has been\ntraced back by Pott himself (whether rightly or wrongly, we need not\nhere inquire) to the pronominal stems +ana+, that, and +ti+, he. These\ntwo stems, when joined together, become +anti+,[30] meaning _those_ and\n_he_, and are gradually reduced to \u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9, and in Sanskrit to +us+ for\n+ant+. What we call reduplication has likewise been traced back by Pott\nhimself to an original repetition of the whole root, so that +vi-vi\u015b+\nstands for an original or intentional +vi\u015b-vi\u015b+; thus showing again the\nsuccession of the three stages, juxtaposition, +vi\u015b-vi\u015b+, combination\n+vi-vi\u015b+, inflection, the same, +vi-vi\u015b+, though liable to further\nphonetic modification.\n\nUsed as a nominal base the same root +vi\u015b+ appears, without any change,\nin the nom. plur. +vi\u015b-as+, the settlers, the clans, the people. Now\nhere again Professor Pott himself has endeavored to explain the\ninflection +as+ by tracing it back to the pronominal base +as+, in\n+asau+, _ille_. He therefore takes the plural +vi\u015b-as+ as a compound,\nmeaning \u201cman and that;\u201d that is to say, he traces the inflection back to\na combinatory origin.\n\nBy raising the simple base +vi\u015b+ to +vi\u015ba+, we arrive at new verbal\nforms, such as +vi\u015b-\u00e2-mi+, I enter, +vi\u015b-a-si+, thou enterest,\n+vi\u015b-a-ti+, he enters. In all these inflectional forms, the antecedent\ncombinatory stage is still more or less visible, for +mi+, +si+, +ti+,\nwhatever their exact history may have been, are clearly varieties of the\npronominal bases of the first, second, and third persons, +ma+, +tva+,\n+ta+.\n\nLastly, by raising +vi\u015b+ to +ve\u015ba+, we arrive at a new nominal base, and\nby adding to it the stem of a demonstrative pronoun _s_, we form the\nso-called nom. sing. +ve\u015ba-s+, \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf-\u03c2, _vicu-s_, from which we started,\nmeaning originally house-here, this house, the house.\n\nIn all this Professor Pott would fully agree, but where he would differ,\nwould be when we proceed to generalize, and to lay it down as an axiom,\nthat all inflectional forms _must_ have had the same combinatory origin.\nHe may be right in thus guarding against too hasty generalization, to\nwhich we are but too prone in all inductive sciences. I\u00a0am well aware\nthat there are many inflections which have not yielded, as yet, to any\nrational analysis, but, with that reservation, I\u00a0thought, and I still\nthink, it right to say that, until some other process of forming those\ninflections has been pointed out, inflection may be considered as the\ninvariable result of combination.\n\nIt is impossible in writing, always to repeat such qualifications and\nreservations. They must be taken as understood. Take for instance the\naugment in Greek and Sanskrit. Some scholars have explained it as a\nnegative particle, others as a demonstrative pronoun; others, again,\ntook it as a mere symbol of differentiation. If the last explanation\ncould be established by more general analogies, then, no doubt, we\nshould have here an inflection, that cannot be referred to combination.\nAgain, it would be difficult to say, what independent element was added\nto the pronoun +sa+, he, in order to make it s\u00e2, she. This, too, may,\nfor all we know, be a case of phonetic symbolism, and, if so, it should\nbe treated on its own merits. The lengthening of the vowel in the\nsubjunctive mood was formerly represented by Professor Curtius as a\nsymbolic expression of hesitation, but he has lately recalled that\nexplanation as untenable. I\u00a0pointed out that when in Hebrew we meet with\nsuch forms as _Piel_ and _Pual_, _Hiphil_ and _Hophal_, we feel tempted\nto admit formative agencies, different from mere juxtaposition and\ncombination. But before we admit this purely phonetic symbolism, we\nshould bear in mind that the changes of _bruder_, brother, into\n_br\u00fcder_, brethren, of _Ich weiss_, I know, into _wir wissen_, we know,\nwhich seem at first sight purely phonetic, have after all been proved to\nbe the indirect result of juxtaposition and combination, so that we\nought to be extremely careful and first exhaust every possible rational\nexplanation, before we have recourse to phonetic symbolism as an element\nin the production of inflection forms.\n\nThe chief object, however, of my lecture on the \u201cStratification of\nLanguage\u201d was not so much to show that inflection everywhere presupposes\ncombination, and combination juxtaposition, but rather to call attention\nto a fact that had not been noticed before, viz.: that there is hardly\nany language, which is not at the same time _isolating_, _combinatory_,\nand _inflectional_.\n\nIt had been the custom in classifying languages morphologically to\nrepresent some languages, for instance Chinese, as _isolating_; others,\nsuch as Turkish or Finnish, as _combinatory_; others, such as Sanskrit\nor Hebrew, as _inflectional_. Without contesting the value of this\nclassification for certain purposes, I\u00a0pointed out that even Chinese,\nthe very type of the isolating class, is not free from combinatory\nforms, and that the more highly developed among the combinatory\nlanguages, such as Hungarian, Finnish, Tamil, etc., show the clearest\ntraces of incipient inflection. \u201cThe difficulty is not,\u201d as I said, \u201cto\nshow the transition of one stratum of speech into another, but rather to\ndraw a sharp line between the different strata. The same, difficulty was\nfelt in Geology, and led Sir Charles Lyell to invent such pliant names\nas _Eocene_, _Meiocene_, and _Pleiocene_, names which indicate a mere\ndawn, a\u00a0minority, or a majority of new formations, but do not draw a\nfast and hard line, cutting off one stratum from the other. Natural\ngrowth and even merely mechanical accumulation and accretion, here as\nelsewhere, are so minute and almost imperceptible that they defy all\nstrict scientific terminology, and force upon us the lesson that we must\nbe satisfied with an approximate accuracy.\u201d\n\nHolding these opinions, and having established them by an amount of\nevidence which, though it might easily be increased, seemed to me\nsufficient, I\u00a0did not think it safe to assign to the three stages in the\nhistory of the Aryan languages, the _juxtapositional_, the\n_combinatory_, and the _inflectional_, a strictly successive character,\nstill less to admit in the growth of the Aryan languages a number of\ndefinite stages, which should be sharply separated from each other, and\nassume an almost chronological character. I\u00a0fully admit that wherever\n_inflectional_ forms in the Aryan languages have yielded to a rational\nanalysis, we see that they are preceded chronologically by _combinatory_\nformations; nor should I deny for one moment that _combinatory_ forms\npresuppose an antecedent, and therefore chronologically more ancient\nstage of mere juxtaposition. What I doubt is whether, as soon as\ncombination sets in, juxtaposition ceases, and whether the first\nappearance of inflection puts an end to the continued working of\ncombination.\n\nIt seems to me, even if we argue only on _\u00e0 priori_ grounds, that there\nmust have been at least a period of transition during which both\nprinciples were at work together, and I hardly can understand what\ncertain scholars mean if they represent the principle of inflection as a\nsudden psychological change which, as soon as it has taken place, makes\na return to combination altogether impossible. If, instead of arguing _\u00e0\npriori_, we look the facts of language in the face, we cannot help\nseeing that, even after that period during which it is supposed that the\nUnited Aryan language had attained its full development, I\u00a0mean at a\ntime when Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin had become completely separated, as\nso many national dialects, each with its own fully developed\ninflectional grammar, the power of combination was by no means extinct.\nThe free power of composition, which is so manifest in Sanskrit and\nGreek, testifies to the continued working of combination in strictly\nhistorical times. I\u00a0see no real distinction between the transition of\n_N\u00e9a p\u00f3lis_, i.e., new town, into _Ne\u00e1polis_, and into _Naples_, and the\nmost primitive combination in Chinese, and I maintain that as long as a\nlanguage retains that unbounded faculty of composition, which we see in\nSanskrit, in Greek, and in German, the growth of new inflectional forms\nfrom combinatory germs must be admitted as possible. Forms such as the\npassive aorist in Greek, \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd, or the weak preterite in Gothic\n_nas-i-da_, _nas-i-d\u00e9djau_, need not have been formed before the Aryan\nfamily broke up into national languages; and forms such as Italian\n_meco_, _fratelmo_, or the future _avro_, I shall have, though not\nexactly of the same workmanship, show at all events that analogous\npowers are at work even in the latest periods of linguistic growth.\n\nHolding these opinions, which, as far as I know, have never been\ncontroverted, I\u00a0ought perhaps, when I came to publish the preceding\nLecture, to have defended my position against the powerful arguments\nadvanced in the meantime by my old friend, Professor G.\u00a0Curtius, in\nsupport of a diametrically opposite opinion in his classical essay, \u201cOn\nthe Chronology of the Indo-Germanic Languages,\u201d published in 1867, new\nedition, 1873. While I had endeavored to show that juxtaposition,\ncombination, and inflection, though following each other in succession,\ndo not represent chronological periods, but represent phases, strongly\ndeveloped, it is true, in certain languages, but extending their\ninfluence far beyond the limits commonly assigned to them, Professor\nCurtius tried to establish the chronological character not only of these\nthree, but of four other phases or periods in the history of Aryan\nspeech. Confining himself to what he considers the undivided Aryan\nlanguage to have been, before it was broken up into national dialects,\nsuch as Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, he proceeds to subdivide the\nantecedent period of its growth into _seven_ definite stages, each\nmarked by a definite character, and each representing a sum of years in\nthe chronology of the Aryan language. As I had found it difficult to\ntreat Chinese as entirely _juxtapositional_, or Turkish as entirely\n_combinatory_, or Sanskrit as entirely _inflectional_, it was perhaps\nnot to be wondered at that not even the persuasive pleading of my\nlearned friend could convince me of the truth of the more minute\nchronological division proposed by him in his learned essay. But it\nwould hardly have been fair if, on the present occasion, I\u00a0had reprinted\nmy \u201cRede Lecture\u201d without explaining why I had altered nothing in my\ntheory of linguistic growth, why I retained these three phases and no\nmore, and why I treated even these, not as chronological periods, in the\nstrict sense of the word, but as preponderating tendencies, giving an\nindividual character to certain classes of language, without being\ntotally absent in others. Professor Curtius is one of the few scholars\nwith whom it is pleasant to differ. He has shown again and again that\nwhat he cares for is truth, not victory, and when he has defended his\nposition against attacks not always courteous, he has invariably done\nso, not with hard words, but with hard arguments. I\u00a0therefore feel no\nhesitation in stating plainly to him where his theories seem to me\neither not fully supported, or even contradicted by the facts of\nlanguage, and I trust that this free exchange of ideas, though in\npublic, will be as pleasant as our conversations in private used to be,\nnow more than thirty years ago.\n\nLet us begin with the _First Period_, which Professor Curtius calls the\n_Root-Period_. There must have been, as I tried to explain before,\na\u00a0period for the Aryan languages, during which they stood on a level\nwith Chinese, using nothing but roots, or radical words, without having\nreduced any of them to a purely formal character, without having gone\nthrough the process of changing what Chinese grammarians call _full_\nwords into _empty_ words. I\u00a0have always held, that to speak of roots as\nmere abstractions, as the result of grammatical theory, is\nself-contradictory. Roots which never had any real or historical\nexistence may have been invented both in modern and ancient collections\nor +Dh\u00e2tup\u00e2\u1e6dhas+; but that is simply the fault of our etymological\nanalysis, and in no way affects the fact, that the Aryan, like all other\nlanguages we know, began with roots. We may doubt the legitimacy of\ncertain chemical elements, but not the reality of chemical elements in\ngeneral. Language, in the sense in which we use the word, begins with\nroots, which are not only the ultimate facts for the Science of\nLanguage, but real facts in the history of human speech. To deny their\nhistorical reality would be tantamount to denying cause and effect.\n\nLogically, no doubt, it is possible to distinguish between a root as a\nmere postulate, and a root used as an actual word. That distinction has\nbeen carefully elaborated by Indian grammarians and philosophers, but it\ndoes in no way concern us in purely historical researches. What I mean\nby a root used in real language is this: when we analyze a cluster of\nSanskrit words, such as +yodha-s+, a fighter, +yodhaka-s+, a fighter,\n+yoddh\u00e2+, a fighter, +yodhana-m+, fighting, +yuddhi-s+, a fight,\n+yuyutsu-s+, wishing to fight, +\u00e2-yudha-m+, a weapon, we easily see that\nthey presuppose an element +yudh+, to fight, and that they are all\nderived from that element by well-known grammatical suffixes. Now is\nthis +yudh+, which we call the root of all these words, a\u00a0mere\nabstraction? Far from it. We find it as +yudh+ used in the Veda either\nas a nominal or as a verbal base, according to suffixes by which it is\nfollowed. Thus +yudh+ by itself would be a fighter, only that +dh+ when\nfinal, has to be changed into\u00a0t. We have +goshu-y\u00fadh-am+, an accusative,\nthe fighter among cows. In the plural we have +y\u00fadh-as+, fighters; in\nthe locative +yudh-i+, in the fight; in the instrumental, +yudh-\u00e2+, with\nthe weapon. That is to say, we find that as a nominal base, +yudh+,\nwithout any determinative suffixes, may express fighting, the place of\nfighting, the instrument of fighting, and a fighter. If our grammatical\nanalysis is right, we should have +yudh+ as a nominal base in\n+y\u00fadh-ya-ti+, lit. he goes to fighting, +yudh-y\u00e1-te+, pass.;\n+(a)-yut-smahi+, aor., either we were to fight, or we were fighters;\n+y\u00fa-yut-sa-ti+, he is to fight-fight; +yudh-ya-s+, to be fought (p.\u00a094),\netc. As a verbal base we find +yudh+, for instance, or +yu-yudh-e+, I\nhave fought; in +a-yud-dha+, for +a-yudh-ta+, he fought. In the other\nAryan languages this root has left hardly any traces; yet the Greek\n\u1f51\u03c3\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd, and \u1f51\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 would be impossible without the root +yudh+.\n\nThe only difference between Chinese and these Sanskrit forms which we\nhave just examined, is that while in Chinese such a form as +yudh-i+, in\nthe battle, would have for its last element a word clearly meaning\nmiddle, and having an independent accent, Sanskrit has lost the\nconsciousness of the original material meaning of the _i_ of the\nlocative, and uses it traditionally as an empty word, as a formal\nelement, as a mere termination.\n\nI also agree with Curtius that during the earliest stage, not of\nSanskrit, but of Aryan speech in general, we have to admit two classes\nof roots, the _predicative_ and _demonstrative_, and that what we now\ncall the plural of +yudh+, +yudh-as+, fighters, was, or may have been,\noriginally a compound consisting of the predicative root +yudh+, and the\ndemonstrative root, +as+ or +sa+, possibly repeated twice, meaning\n\u201cfight-he-he,\u201d or \u201cfight-there-there,\u201d _i.e._, fighters.\n\nThere is another point with regard to the character of this earliest\nradical stage of the Aryan language, on which formally I should have\nagreed with Curtius, but where now I begin to feel more doubtful,--I\nmean the necessarily monosyllabic form of all original roots. There is,\nno doubt, much to be said for this view. We always like to begin with\nwhat is simple. We imagine, as it has been said, that \u201cthe simple idea\nmust break forth, like lightning, in a simple body of sound, to be\nperceived in one single moment.\u201d But, on the other hand, the simple, so\nfar as it is the general, is frequently, to us at least, the last result\nof repeated complex conceptions, and therefore there is at all events no\n_\u00e0 priori_ argument against treating the simplest roots as the latest,\nrather than the earliest products of language. Languages in a low state\nof development are rich in words expressive of the most minute\ndifferences, they are poor in general expressions, a\u00a0fact which ought to\nbe taken into account as an important qualification of a remark made by\nCurtius that language supplies necessaries first, luxuries afterwards\n(p.\u00a032). I\u00a0quote the following excellent remarks from Mr. Sayce\u2019s\n\u201cPrinciples of comparative Philology\u201d (p.\u00a0208): \u201cAmong modern savages\nthe individual objects of sense have names enough, while general terms\nare very rare. The Mohicans have words for cutting various objects, but\nnone to signify cutting simple.\u201d[31] In taking this view we certainly\nare better able to explain the actual forms of the Aryan roots, viz., by\n_elimination_, rather than by _composition_. If we look for instance, as\nI did myself formerly, on such roots as +yudh+, +yuj+, and +yau\u1e6d+, as\ndeveloped from the simpler root +yu+, or on +mardh+, +marg+, +mark+,\n+marp+, +mard+, +smar+, as developed from +mar+, then we are bound to\naccount for the modificatory elements, such as _dh_, _g_, _k_, _p_, _d_,\n_s_, _n_, _t_, _r_, as remnants of other roots, whether predicative or\ndemonstrative. Thus Curtius compares +tar+ or +tra+, with +tras+,\n+tram+, +trak+, +trap+; +tri+ and +tru+ with +trup+, +trib+, taking the\nfinal consonants as modificatory letters. But what are these\nmodificatory letters? Every attempt to account for them has failed. If\nit could be proved that these modificatory elements, which Curtius calls\n_Determinatives_, produced always the _same_ modification of meaning,\nthey might then be classed with the verbal suffixes which change simple\nverbs into causative, desiderative, or intensive verbs. But this is not\nthe case. On the other hand, it would be perfectly intelligible that\nsuch roots as +mark+, +marg+, +mard+, +mardh+, expressing different\nkinds of crushing, became fixed side by side, that by a process of\nelimination, their distinguishing features were gradually removed, and\nthe root +mar+ left as the simplest form, expressive of the most general\nmeaning. Without entering here on that process of mutual friction by\nwhich I believe that the development of roots can best be explained, we\nmay say at least so much, that whatever process will account for the\nroot +yu+, will likewise account for the root +yuj+, nay, that roots\nlike +mark+ or +mard+ are more graphic, expressive, and more easily\nintelligible than the root mar.\n\nHowever, if this view of the origin of roots has to be adopted, it need\nnot altogether exclude the other view. In the process of simplification,\ncertain final letters may have become typical, may have seemed invested\nwith a certain function or determinative power, and may therefore have\nbeen added independently to other roots, by that powerful imitative\ntendency which asserts itself again and again through the whole working\nof language. But however that may be, the sharp line of distinction\nwhich Curtius draws between the First Period, represented by simple, and\nthe Second Period represented by derivative roots, seems certainly no\nlonger tenable, least of all as dividing _chronologically_ two distinct\nperiods in the growth of language.\n\nWhen we approach the Third Period, it might seem that here, at least,\nthere could be no difference of opinion between Professor Curtius and\nmyself. That Third Period represents simply what I called the first\nsetting in of _combination_, following after the _isolating_ stage.\nCurtius calls it the _primary verbal period_, and ascribes to it the\norigin of such combinatory forms as +d\u1ea5-ma+, give-I, +d\u00e2-tva+,\ngive-thou, +d\u1ea5-ta+, give-he; +d\u00e2-ma-tvi+, give-we, +d\u00e2-tva-tvi+,\ngive-you, +d\u00e2-(a)nti+, give-they. These verbal forms he considers as\nmuch earlier than any attempts at declension in nouns. No one who has\nread Curtius\u2019 arguments in support of this chronological arrangement\nwould deny their extreme plausibility; but there are grave difficulties\nwhich made me hesitate in adopting this hypothetical framework of\nlinguistic chronology. I\u00a0shall only mention one, which seemed to me\ninsurmountable. We know that during what we called the First Radical\nPeriod the sway of phonetic laws was already so firmly established,\nthat, from that period onward to the present day, we can say, with\nperfect certainty, which phonetic changes are possible, and which are\nnot. It is through these phonetic laws that the most distant past in the\nhistory of the Aryan language is connected with the present. It is on\nthem that the whole science of etymology is founded. Only because a\ncertain root has a tenuis, a\u00a0media, an aspirate, or a sibilant, is it\npossible to keep it distinct from other roots. If t and s could be\ninterchanged, then the root +tar+, to cross, would not be distinct from\nthe root +sar+, to go. If d and +dh+ could vary, then +dar+, to tear,\nwould run together with +dhar+, to hold. These phonetic distinctions\nwere firmly established in the radical period, and continue to be\nmaintained, both in the undivided Aryan speech, and in the divided\nnational dialects, such as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Gothic. How then\ncan we allow an intervening period, during which +ma-tvi+, could become\n+masi+, +tva-tvi+, +thas+, and the same +tva-tvi+ appear also as +sai+?\nSuch changes, always most startling, may have been possible in earlier\nperiods; but when phonetic order had once been established, as it was in\nwhat Curtius calls his first and second periods, to admit them as\npossible, would be, as far as I can judge, to admit a complete\nanachronism. Of two things one; either we must altogether surrender\nthose chaotic changes which are required for identifying Sanskrit e with\nGreek \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, and Greek \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 with +m\u00e2-ma+, etc., or we must throw them back\nto a period anterior to the final settlement of the Aryan roots.\n\nI now proceed to point out a second difficulty. If Curtius uses these\nsame personal terminations, +masi+, +tvasi+, and +anti+, as proof\npositive that they must have been compounded out of +ma+ + +tva+, and\n+tva-tva+, before there were any case terminations, I\u00a0do not think his\nargument is quite stringent. Curtius says: \u201cIf plural suffixes had\nexisted before the coining of these terminations, we should expect them\nhere, as well as in the noun\u201d (p.\u00a033). But the plural of the pronoun _I_\ncould never have been formed by a plural suffix, like the plural of\n_horse_. _I_ admits of no plural, as little as _thou_, and hence the\nplural of these very pronouns in the Aryan language is not formed by the\nmere addition of a plural termination, but by a new base. We say _I_,\nbut _we_; _thou_ but _you_, and so through all the Aryan languages.\nAccording to Curtius himself, +masi+, the termination of the plural, is\nnot formed by repeating +ma+, by saying I and I, but by +ma+ and +tva+,\nI and thou, the most primitive way, he thinks, of expressing _we_. The\ntermination of the second person plural might be expressed by repeating\n_thou_. \u201cYou did it,\u201d might have been rendered by \u201cthou and thou did\nit;\u201d but hardly by treating _thou_ like a noun, and adding to it a\nplural termination. The absence of plural terminations, therefore at the\nend of the personal suffixes of the verbs, does not prove, as far as I\ncan see, that plurals of nouns were unknown when the first, second, and\nthird persons plural of the Aryan verbs were called into existence.\n\nAgain, if Curtius says, that \u201cwhat language has once learnt, it does not\nforget again, and that therefore if the plural had once found expression\nin nouns, the verb would have claimed the same distinction,\u201d is true, no\ndoubt, in many cases, but not so generally true as to supply a safe\nfooting for a deductive argument. In so late a formation as the\nperiphrastic future in Sanskrit, we say +d\u00e2t\u00e2-sma\u1e25+, as it were _dator\nsumus_, not +d\u00e2t\u00e2ra\u1e25 sma\u1e25+; and in the second person plural of the\npassive in Latin _amamini_, though the plural is marked, the gender is\nalways disregarded.\n\nFurther, even if we admit with Bopp and Curtius that the terminations of\nthe medium are composed of two pronouns, that the _ta_ of the third\nperson singular stands for _ta-ti_, to-him-he, that \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in fact\nmeant originally hide-himself-he, it does not follow that in such a\ncompound one pronominal element should have taken the termination of the\naccusative, any more than the other takes the termination of the\nnominative. The first element in every composition takes necessarily its\nPada or thematic form; the second or final element has suffered so much,\naccording to Bopp\u2019s own explanation, that nothing would be easier to\nexplain than the disappearance of a final consonant, if it had existed.\nThe absence of case-terminations in such compounds cannot therefore be\nused as proof of the non-existence of case-terminations at a time when\nthe medial and other personal endings took their origin. On the\ncontrary, these terminations seem to me to indicate, though I do not say\nto prove, that the conception of a subjective, as distinct from an\nobjective case, had been fully realized by those who framed them. I\u00a0do\nnot myself venture to speak very positively of such minute processes of\nanalysis as that which discovers in the Sk. first pers. sing. ind. pres.\nof the middle, tude, I\u00a0strike, an original +tuda+ + a + i, +tuda+ + +ma+\n+ i, +tuda+ + +ma+ + +mi+, tuda + +m\u00e2+ + +ma+, but admitting that the\nmiddle was formed in that way, and that it meant originally\n_strike-to-me-I_, then surely we have in the first +m\u00e2+ an oblique case,\nand in the compound itself the clearest indication that the distinction\nbetween a nominative and an oblique case, whether dative or accusative,\nwas no longer a mystery. Anyhow, and this is the real point at issue,\nthe presence of such compounds as +m\u00e2-ma+, to-me-I, is in no way a proof\nthat at the time of their formation people could not distinguish between\n+yudh (s)+, nom., a\u00a0fighter, and +yudh (am)+, acc., a\u00a0fighter; and we\nmust wait for more irrefragable evidence before admitting, what would\nunder all circumstances be a most startling conclusion, namely, that the\nAryan language was spoken for a long time without case-terminations, but\nwith a complete set of personal terminations, both in the singular and\nthe plural. For though it is quite true that the want of cases could\nonly be felt in a sentence, the same seems to me to apply to personal\nterminations of the verb. The one, in most languages we know, implies\nthe other, and the very question whether conjugation or declension came\nfirst is one of those dangerous questions which take something for\ngranted which has never been proved.\n\nDuring all this time, according to Curtius, our Aryan language would\nhave consisted of nothing but roots, used for nominal and verbal\npurposes, but without any purely derivative suffixes, whether verbal or\nnominal, and without declension. The only advance, in fact, made beyond\nthe purely Chinese standard, would have consisted in a few combinations\nof personal pronouns with verbal stems, which combinations assumed\nrapidly a typical character, and led to the formation of a skeleton of\nconjugation, containing a _present_, _an aorist_ with an augment, and a\n_reduplicated perfect_. Why, during the same period, nominal bases\nshould not have assumed at least some case-terminations, does not\nappear; and it certainly seems strange that people who could say\n+vak-ti+, speak-he, +vak-anti+, speak-this-he, should not have been able\nto say +v\u00e2k-s+, whether in the sense of speak-there, _i.e._, speech or\nspeak-there, _i.e._, speaker.\n\nThe next step which, according to Curtius, the Aryan language had to\nmake, in order to emerge from its purely radical phase, was the creation\nof bases, both verbal and nominal, by the addition of verbal and nominal\nsuffixes to roots, both primary and secondary. Curtius calls this fourth\nthe Period of the _Formation of Themes_. The suffixes are very numerous,\nand it is by them that the Aryan languages have been able to make their\nlimited number of roots supply the vast materials of their dictionary.\nFrom +bhar+, to carry, they formed +bhar-a+, a carrier, but sometimes\nalso a burden. In addition to +bhar-ti+, carry-he, they formed\n+bhara-ti+, meaning possibly carrying-he. The growth of these early\nthemes may have been very luxuriant, and, as Professor Curtius expresses\nit, chiefly _paraschematic_. It may have been left to a later age to\nassign to that large number of possible synonyms more definite meanings.\nThus from \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9, I\u00a0carry, we have \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, the act of carrying, used also in\nthe sense of _impetus_ (being carried away), and of _provectus_, i.e.,\nwhat is brought in. \u03a6\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 means carrying, but also violent, and\nlucrative; \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, an instrument of carrying, means a bier; \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1,\na\u00a0quiver, for carrying arrows. \u03a6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 comes to mean a basket; \u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\na\u00a0burden; \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, tribute.\n\nAll this is perfectly intelligible, both with regard to nominal and\nverbal themes. Curtius admits four kinds of verbal themes as the outcome\nof his Fourth Period. He had assigned to his Third Period the simple\nverbal themes \u1f10\u03c3-\u03c4\u03af, and the reduplicated themes such as \u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9-\u03c3\u03b9. To\nthese were added, in the Fourth Period, the following four secondary\nthemes:--\n\n (1) \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba-\u03b5-(\u03c4)-\u03b9 Sanskrit +lipa-ti+\n (2) \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c6-\u03b5-(\u03c4)-\u03b9 \u201e +laipa-ti+\n (3) \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba-\u03bd\u03c5-\u03c3\u03b9 \u201e +lip-nau-ti+\n (4) \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc-\u03bd\u03b7-\u03c3\u03b9 \u201e +lip-n\u00e2-ti+.\n\nHe also explains the formation of the subjunctive in analogy with bases\nsuch as +lipa-ti+, as derived from +lip-ti+.\n\nSome scholars would probably feel inclined to add one or two of the more\nprimitive verbal themes, such as\n\n limpa-ti _rumpo_\n limpana-ti \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5(\u03c4)\u03b9\n\nbut all would probably agree with Curtius in placing the formation of\nthese themes, both verbal and nominal, between the radical and the\nlatest inflectional period. A\u00a0point, however, on which there would\nprobably be considerable difference of opinion is this, whether it is\ncredible, that at a time when so many nominal themes were formed,--for\nCurtius ascribes to this Fourth Period the formation of such nominal\nbases as\n\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3-\u03bf, intellect, = +lipa-ti+\n \u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c0-\u03bf, left, = +laipa-ti+\n \u03bb\u03b9\u03b3-\u03bd\u03cd, smoke, = +lip-nau-ti+\n \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6-\u03bd\u03b7, laurel, = +lip-n\u00e2-ti+--\n\nthe simplest nominal compounds, which we now call nominative and\naccusative, singular and plural, were still unknown; that people could\nsay +dh\u1e5bsh-nu-m\u00e1s+, we dare, but not +dh\u1e5bsh-\u1e47\u00fa-s+, daring-he; that they\nhad an imperative, +dh\u1e5bsh\u1e47uh\u00ed+, dare, but not a vocative, +dh\u1e5bsh\u1e47o+?\nCurtius strongly holds to that opinion, but with regard to this period\ntoo, he does not seem to me to establish it by a regular and complete\nargument. Some arguments which he refers to occasionally have been\nanswered before. Another, which he brings in incidentally, when\ndiscussing the abbreviation of certain suffixes, can hardly be said to\ncarry conviction. After tracing the suffixes +ant+ and +tar+ back to\nwhat he supposes to have been their more primitive forms, +an-ta+ and\n+ta-ra+, he remarks that the dropping of the final vowel would hardly be\nconceivable at a time when there existed case-terminations. Still this\ndropping of the vowel is very common, in late historical times, in\nLatin, for instance, and other Italian dialects, where it causes\nfrequent confusion and heteroclitism.[32] Thus the Augustan _innocua_\nwas shortened in common pronunciation to _innoca_, and this dwindles\ndown in Christian inscriptions to _innox_. In Greek, too, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is\nolder than \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1; \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 older than \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03be.\n\nNor can it be admitted that the nominal suffixes have suffered less from\nphonetic corruption than the terminations of the verb, and that\ntherefore they must belong to a more modern period (pp.\u00a039,\u00a040). In\nspite of all the changes which the personal terminations are supposed to\nhave undergone, their connection with the personal pronouns has always\nbeen apparent, while the tracing back of the nominal suffixes, and,\nstill more, of the case-terminations to their typical elements, forms\nstill one of the greatest difficulties of comparative grammarians.[33]\n\nProfessor Curtius is so much impressed with the later origin of\ndeclension that he establishes one more period, the fifth, to which he\nassigns the growth of all compound verbal forms, compound stems,\ncompound tenses, and compound moods, before he allows the first\nbeginnings of declension, and the formation even of such simple forms as\nthe nominative and accusative. It is difficult, no doubt, to disprove\nsuch an opinion by facts or dates, because there are none to be found on\neither side: but we have a right to expect very strong arguments indeed,\nbefore we can admit that at a time when an aorist, like \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba-\u03c3\u03b1,\nSanskrit +a-dik-sha-t+ was possible, that is to say, at a time when the\nverb +as+, which meant originally to breathe, had by constant use been\nreduced to the meaning of being; at a time when that verb, as a mere\nauxiliary, was joined to a verbal base in order to impart to it a\ngeneral historical power; when the persons of the verb were\ndistinguished by pronominal elements, and when the augment, no longer\npurely demonstrative, had become the symbol of time past, that at such a\ntime people were still unable to distinguish, except by a kind of\nChinese law of position, between \u201cthe father struck the child,\u201d and \u201cthe\nchild struck the father.\u201d Before we can admit this, we want much\nstronger proofs than any adduced by Curtius. He says, for instance, that\ncompound verbal bases formed with +y\u00e2+, to go, and afterwards fixed as\ncausatives, would be inconceivable during a period in which accusatives\nexisted. From +na\u015b+, to perish, we form in Sanskrit +n\u00e2\u015ba-y\u00e2mi+, I make\nperish. This, according to Curtius, would have meant originally, I\u00a0send\nto perishing. Therefore +n\u00e2\u015ba+ would have been, in the accusative,\n+n\u00e2\u015bam+, and the causative would have been +n\u00e2\u015bamy\u00e2mi+, if the\naccusative had then been known. But we have in Latin[34] _pessum dare_,\n_venum ire_, and no one would say that compounds like _calefacio_,\n_liquefacio_, _putrefacio_, were impossible after the first Aryan\nseparation, or after that still earlier period to which Curtius assigns\nthe formation of the Aryan case-terminations. Does Professor Curtius\nhold that compound forms like Gothic _nasi-da_ were formed not only\nbefore the Aryan separation, but before the introduction of\ncase-terminations? I\u00a0hold, on the contrary, that such really old\ncompositions never required, nay never admitted, the accusative. We say\nin Sanskrit, +dyu-gat+, going to the sky, +dyu-ksha+, dwelling in the\nsky, without any case-terminations at the end of the first part of the\ncompound. We say in Greek, \u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3-\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, not \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3-\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, not \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f40\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3-\u03ba\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2, mountain-bred, and\nalso \u1f40\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03af-\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, mountain-fed. We say in Latin, _agri-cola_, not\n_agrum-cola_, _fratri-c\u012bda_, not _fratrem-c\u012bda_, _r\u0113g\u012dfugium_, not\n_regis-fugium_. Are we to suppose that all these words were formed\nbefore there was an outward mark of distinction between nominative and\naccusative in the primitive Aryan language? Such compounds, we know, can\nbe formed at pleasure, and they continued to be formed long after the\nfull development of the Aryan declension, and the same would apply to\nthe compound stems of causal verbs. To say, as Curtius does, that\ncomposition was possible only before the development of declension,\nbecause when cases had once sprung up, the people would no longer have\nknown the bases of nouns, is far too strong an assertion. In\nSanskrit[35] the really difficult bases are generally sufficiently\nvisible in the so-called Pada, cases, _i.e._, before certain\nterminations beginning with consonants, and there is besides a strong\nfeeling of analogy in language, which would generally, though not always\n(for compounds are frequently framed by false analogy), guide the\nframers of new compounds rightly in the selection of the proper nominal\nbase. It seems to me that even with us there is still a kind of\ninstinctive feeling against using nouns, articulated with\ncase-terminations, for purposes of composition, although there are\nexceptions to that rule in ancient, and many more in modern languages.\nWe can hardly realize to ourselves a Latin _pontemfex_, or _pontisfex_,\nstill less _ponsfex_ instead of _pontifex_, and when the Romans drove\naway their kings, they did not speak of a _regisfugium_ or a\n_regumfugium_, but they took, by habit or by instinct, the base _regi_,\nthough none of them, if they had been asked, knew what a base was.\nComposition, we ought not to forget, is after all only another name for\ncombination, and the very essence of combination consists in joining\ntogether words which are not yet articulated grammatically. Whenever we\nform compounds, such as _railway_, we are still moving in the\ncombinatory stage, and we have the strongest proof that the life of\nlanguage is not capable of chronological division. There was a period in\nthe growth of the Aryan language when the principle of combination\npreponderated, when inflection was as yet unknown. But inflection itself\nwas the result of combination, and unless combination had continued long\nafter inflection set in, the very life of language would have become\nextinct.\n\nI have thus tried to explain why I cannot accept the fundamental fact on\nwhich the seven-fold division of the history of the Aryan language is\nfounded, viz., that the combinatory process which led to the Aryan\nsystem of conjugation would have been impossible, if at the time nominal\nbases had already been articulated with terminations of case and number.\nI\u00a0see no reason why the earliest case-formations, I\u00a0mean particularly\nthe nominative and accusative in the singular, plural, and dual, should\nnot date from the same time as the earliest formations of conjugation.\nThe same process that leads to the formation of +vak-ti+, speak-he,\nwould account for the formation of +vak-s+, speak-there, _i.e._,\nspeaker. Necessity, which after all is the mother of all inventions,\nwould much sooner have required the clear distinction of singular and\nplural, of nominative and accusative, than of the three persons, of the\nverbs. It is far more important to be able to distinguish the subject\nand the object in such sentences as \u201cthe son has killed the father,\u201d or\n\u201cthe father has killed the son,\u201d than to be able to indicate the person\nand tense of the verb. Of course we may say that in Chinese the two\ncases are distinguished without any outward signs, and by mere position;\nbut we have no evidence that the law of position was preserved in the\nAryan languages, after verbal inflection had once set in. Chinese\ndispenses with verbal inflection as well as with nominal, and an appeal\nto it would therefore prove either too much or too little.\n\nAt the end of the five periods which we have examined, but still before\nthe Aryan separation, Curtius places the sixth, which he calls the\nPeriod of the Formation of Cases, and the seventh, the Period of\nAdverbs. Why I cannot bring myself to accept the late date here assigned\nto declension, I\u00a0have tried to explain before. That adverbs existed\nbefore the great branches of Aryan speech became definitely separated\nhas been fully proved by Professor Curtius. I\u00a0only doubt whether the\nadverbial period can be separated chronologically from the case period.\nI\u00a0should say, on the contrary, that some of the adverbs in Sanskrit and\nthe other Aryan languages exhibit the most primitive and obsolete\ncase-terminations, and that they existed probably long before the system\nof case-terminations assumed its completeness.\n\nIf we look back at the results at which we have arrived in examining the\nattempt of Professor Curtius to establish seven distinct chronological\nperiods in the history of the Aryan speech, previous to its separation\ninto Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Teutonic, and Celtic, I\u00a0think we\nshall find two principles clearly established:--\n\n1. That it is impossible to distinguish more than _three_ successive\nphases in the growth of the Aryan language. In the first phase or period\nthe only materials were roots, not yet compounded, still less\narticulated grammatically, a\u00a0form of language to us almost\ninconceivable, yet even at present preserved in the literature and\nconversation of millions of human beings, the Chinese. In that stage of\nlanguage, \u201cking rule man heap law instrument,\u201d would mean, the king\nrules men legally.\n\nThe _second_ phase is characterized by the combination of roots, by\nwhich process one loses its independence and its accent, and is changed\nfrom a full and material into an empty or formal element. That phase\ncomprehends the formation of compound roots, of certain nominal and\nverbal stems, and of the most necessary forms of declension and\nconjugation. What distinguishes this phase from the inflectional is the\nconsciousness of the speaker, that one part of his word is the stem or\nthe body, and all the rest its environment, a\u00a0feeling analogous to that\nwhich we have when we speak of _man_-hood, _man_-ly, _man_-ful,\n_man_-kind, but which fails us when we speak of _man_ and _men_, or if\nwe speak of _wo-man_, instead of _wif-man_. The principle of combination\npreponderated when inflection was as yet unknown. But inflection itself\nwas the result of combination, and unless it had continued long after\ninflection set in, the very life of language would have become extinct.\n\nThe _third_ phase is the inflectional, when the base and the\nmodificatory elements of words coalesce, lose their independence in the\nmind of the speaker, and simply produce the impression of modification\ntaking place in the body of words, but without any intelligible reason.\nThis is the feeling which we have throughout nearly the whole of our own\nlanguage, and it is only by means of scientific reflection that we\ndistinguish between the root, the base, the suffix, and the termination.\nTo attempt more than this three-fold division seems to me impossible.\n\n2. The second principle which I tried to establish was that the growth\nof language does not lend itself to a chronological division, in the\nstrict sense of the word. Whatever forces are at work in the formation\nof languages, none of them ceases suddenly to make room for another, but\nthey work on with a certain continuity from beginning to end, only on a\nlarger or smaller scale. Inflection does not put a sudden end to\ncombination, nor combination to juxtaposition. When even in so modern a\nlanguage as English we can form by mere combination such words as\n_man-like_, and reduce them to _manly_, the power of combination cannot\nbe said to be extinct, although it may no longer be sufficiently strong\nto produce new cases or new personal terminations. We may admit, in the\ndevelopment of the Aryan language, previous to its division, three\nsuccessive strata of formation, a\u00a0_juxtapositional_, a _combinatory_,\nand an _inflectional_; but we shall have to confess that these strata\nare not regularly superimposed, but tilted, broken up, and convulsed.\nThey are very prominent each for a time, but even after that time is\nover, they may be traced at different points, pervading the very latest\nformations of tertiary speech. The true motive power in the progress of\nall language is combination, and that power is not extinct even in our\nown time.\n\n\n [Footnote 1: This Lecture has been translated by M. Louis Havet,\n and forms the first fasciculus of the Biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00c9cole des\n Hautes \u00c9tudes, publi\u00e9e sous les auspices du Minist\u00e8re de\n l\u2019Instruction Publique. Paris, 1869.]\n\n [Footnote 2: See Benfey, _Ueber die Aufgabe des Kratylos_,\n G\u00f6ttingen, 1868.]\n\n [Footnote 3: Theokritos, xvii. 9.]\n\n [Footnote 4: In my essay _On the Relation of Bengali to the Aryan\n and Aboriginal Languages of India_, published in 1848, I\u00a0tried to\n explain these plural suffixes, such as +dig+, +ga\u1e47a+, +j\u00e2ti+,\n +varga+, +dala+. I had translated the last word by _band_,\n supposing from Wilson\u2019s Dictionary, and from the \u015aabda-kalpa-druma\n that _dala_ could be used in the sense of band or multitude.\n I\u00a0doubt, however, whether _dala_ is ever used in Sanskrit in that\n sense, and I feel certain that it was not used in that sense with\n sufficient frequency to account for its adoption in Bengali. Dr.\n Friedrich M\u00fcller, in his useful abstracts of some of the grammars\n discovered by the _Novara_ in her journey round the earth\n (1857-59), has likewise referred +dal+ to the Sanskrit +dala+, but\n he renders what I had in English rendered by _band_, by the German\n word _Band_. This can only be an accident. I\u00a0meant _band_ in the\n sense of a band of robbers, which in German would be _Bande_. He\n seems to have misunderstood me, and to have taken _band_ for the\n German _Band_, which means a ribbon. Might +dala+ in Bengali be\n the Dravidian +ta\u1e37a+ or +da\u1e37a+, a host, a\u00a0crowd, which Dr.\n Caldwell (p.\u00a0197) mentions as a possible etymon of the pluralizing\n suffix in the Dravidian languages? Bengali certainly took the idea\n of forming its plurals by composition with words expressive of\n plurality from its Dravidian neighbor, and it is not impossible\n that in some cases it might have transferred the very word +da\u1e37a+,\n crowd. This +da\u1e37a+ and +ta\u1e37a+ appears in Tamil as _kala_ and\n _gala_, and as Sanskrit _k_ may in Sinhalese be represented by _v_\n (+loka+ = _lova_), I thought that the plural termination used in\n Sinhalese after inanimate nouns might possibly be a corruption of\n the Tamil _kala_. Mr. Childers, however, in his able \u201cEssay on the\n formation of the Plural of Neuter Nouns in Sinhalese\u201d\n (_J.\u00a0R.\u00a0A.\u00a0S._, 1874, p.\u00a040), thinks that the Sinhalese _vala_ is\n a corruption of the Sanskrit +vana+, forest, an opinion which\n seems likewise to be held by Mr. D\u2019Alwis (l.c. p.\u00a048). As a case\n in point, in support of mv own opinion, Mr. Childers mentioned to\n me the Sinhalese _malvaru_, Sanskrit +m\u00e2l\u00e2-k\u00e2ra+, a wreath-maker,\n a\u00a0gardener. In Persian both _\u00e2n_ and _h\u00e2_ are remnants of decayed\n plural terminations, not collective words added to the base.]\n\n [Footnote 5: Stanislas Julien, _Exercises Pratiques_, p. 14.]\n\n [Footnote 6: Endlicher, _Chinesische Grammatik_, \u00a7 122. Wade,\n _Progressive Course on the Parts of Speech_, p.\u00a0102. A\u00a0different\n division of words adopted by Chinese grammarians is that into\n _dead_ and _live words_, _ss\u00e8-ts\u00e9_ and _sing-ts\u00e9_, the former\n comprising nouns, the latter verbs. The same classes are sometimes\n called _tsing-ts\u00e9_ and _ho-ts\u00e9_, unmoved and moved words. This\n shows how purposeless it would be to try to find out whether\n language began with noun or verb. In the earliest phase of speech\n the same word was both noun and verb, according to the use that\n was made of it, and it is so still to a great extent in Chinese.\n See Endlicher, _Chinesische Grammatik_, \u00a7\u00a0219.]\n\n [Footnote 7: _Agglutinative_ seems an unnecessarily uncouth word,\n and as implying a something which glues two words together, a\u00a0kind\n of _Bindevocal_, it is objectionable as a technical term.\n _Combinatory_ is technically more correct, and less strange than\n agglutinative.]\n\n [Footnote 8: Professor Pott, in his article entitled \u201cMax M\u00fcller\n und die Kennzeichen der Sprachverwandtschaft,\u201d published in 1855,\n in the _Journal of the German Oriental Society_, vol. ix. p.\u00a0412,\n says, in confutation of Bunsen\u2019s view of a real historical\n progress of language from the lowest to the highest stage: \u201cSo\n cautious an inquirer as W.\u00a0von Humboldt declines expressly, in the\n last chapter of his work on the _Diversity of the Structure of\n Human Language_ (p.\u00a0414), any conclusions as to a real historical\n progress from one stage of language to another, or at least does\n not commit himself to any definite opinion. This is surely\n something very different from that gradual progress, and it would\n be a question whether, by admitting such an historical progress\n from stage to stage, we should not commit an absurdity hardly less\n palpable than by trying to raise infusoria into horses or still\n further into men. [What was an absurdity in 1855 does not seem to\n be so in 1875.] Mr. Bunsen, it is true, does not hesitate to call\n the monosyllabic idiom of the Chinese an inorganic formation. But\n how can we get from an inorganic to an organic language? In nature\n such a thing would be impossible. No stone becomes a plant, no\n plant a tree, by however wonderful a metamorphosis, except, in a\n different sense, by the process of nutrition, _i.e._, by\n regeneration. The former question, which Mr. Bunsen answers in the\n affirmative, is disposed of by him with the short dictum: \u2018The\n question whether a language can be supposed to begin with\n inflections, appears to us simply an absurdity;\u2019 but unfortunately\n he does not condescend, by a clear illustration, to make that\n absurdity palpable. Why, in inflectional languages, should the\n grammatical form always have added itself to the matter\n subsequently and _ab extra_? Why should it not partially from the\n beginning have been created with it and in it, as having a meaning\n with something else, but not having antecedently a meaning of its\n own?\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 9: Cf. D. G. Brinton, _The Myths of the New World_,\n p.\u00a06, note.]\n\n [Footnote 10: Julien, _Exercises Pratiques_, p. 120. Endlicher,\n _Chineseische Grammatik_, \u00a7\u00a0161. See, also, N\u00f6ldeke, _Orient und\n Occident_, vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a0759. _Grammar of the Bornu Language_\n (London, 1853), p.\u00a055: \u201cIn the Treaty the genitive is supplied by\n the relative pronoun _agu_, singularly corroborative of the Rev.\n R. Garnett\u2019s theory of the genitive case.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 11: \u201cTime changes the meaning of words as it does their\n sound. Thus, many old words are retained in compounds, but have\n lost their original signification. E.g., _\u2019k\u00b7eu_, mouth, has been\n replaced in colloquial usage by _\u2019tsui_, but it is still employed\n extensively in compound terms and in derived senses. Thus, _k\u00b7wai\u2018\n \u2019k\u00b7eu_ a rapid talker, _.men \u2019k\u00b7eu_, door, _,kwan \u2019k\u00b7eu_, custom\n house. So also _muh_, the original word for eye, has given place\n to _\u2019yen, tsing_, or _\u2019yen_ alone. It is, however, employed with\n other words in derived senses. E.g., _muh hia\u00b7_, at present; _muh\n luh_, table of contents.\n\n \u201cThe primitive word for head, _\u2019sheu_, has been replaced by\n _.t\u2018eu_, but is retained with various words in combination. E.g.,\n _tseh \u2019sheu_, robber chief.\u201d\n\n Edkins, _Grammar of the Chinese Colloquial Language_, 2d edition,\n 1864, p.\u00a0100.]\n\n [Footnote 12: Grimm, _Deutsche Grammatik_, ii. 339.]\n\n [Footnote 13: Cf. the German Liebhart, mignon, in Anshelm, 1, 335.\n Grimm, _Deutsche Grammatik_, iii. 707. I\u00a0feel more doubtful now as\n to _sweetard_. Dr. Morris mentions it in his _Historical Outlines\n of English Grammar_, p.\u00a0219; but Koch, when discussing the same\n derivations in his _English Grammar_, does not give the word. Mr.\n Skeat writes to me: \u201cThe form really used in Middle English is\n _sweeting_. Three examples are given in Stratmann. One of the best\n is in my edition of William of Palerne, where, however, it occurs\n not _once_ only (as\u00a0given by Stratmann), but _four times_, viz.:\n in lines 916, 1537, 2799, 3088. The lines are:--\n\n \u2018Nai, sertes, _sweting_, he seide\u00b7 that schal I neuer.\u2019 916\n \u2018& seide aswithe\u00b7 _sweting_, welcome!\u2019 1537\n \u2018Sertes, _sweting_, th\u00e6t is soth. seide william thanne.\u2019 2799\n \u2018treuli, _sweting_, that is soth\u00b7 seide william thane.\u2019 3088\n\n The date of this poem is about A.D. 1360. Shakespeare has both\n forms, viz.: _sweeting_ and _sweet-heart_. Chaucer has _swete\n herte_, just as we should use _sweet-heart_.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 14: Diez, _Grammatik_, ii. 358. Grimm, _Deutsche\n Grammatik_, i. p.\u00a0340, 706.]\n\n [Footnote 15: See _Sanskrit Grammar_, \u00a7 497. I doubt whether in\n Greek \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 is a denominative verb and stands for \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb(\u03bf)\u03f3\u03c9\n (Curtius, _Chronologie_, p.\u00a058). I\u00a0should prefer to explain it as\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1-\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1-\u03af\u03c9, to proclaim, as a verb of the fourth class.]\n\n [Footnote 16: Lex Repetund. \u201cceivis romanus ex hac lege fiet,\n nepotesque -- ceiveis romanei justei sunto.\u201d Cf. Egger, _Lat,\n Serm. Vetust. Reliq._, p.\u00a0245. Meunier, in _M\u00e9moires de la Societ\u00e9\n de Linguistique de Paris_, vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a034.]\n\n [Footnote 17: Still used as long by Plautus; of. Neue,\n _Formenlehre_, ii. p.\u00a0340.]\n\n [Footnote 18: In old Latin the termination of the first person\n singular was _em_. Thus Quintilian, i. 7, 23, says: \u201cQuid? non\n Cato Censorius _dicam_ et _faciam_, _dicem_ et _faciem_ scripsit,\n eundemque in ceteris, qu\u00e6 similiter cadunt, modum tenuit? quod et\n ex veteribus ejus libris manifestum est, et a Messala in libro de\n s. littera positum.\u201d Neue, _Formenlehre_, ii. p.\u00a0348. The\n introduction of _feram_, originally a subjunctive, to express the\n future in the first person, reminds us of the distinction in\n English between _I shall_ and _thou wilt_, though the analogy\n fails in the first person plural. In Homer the use of the\n subjunctive for the future is well known. See Curtius,\n _Chronologie_, p.\u00a050.]\n\n [Footnote 19: Historically the _i_ in _tuleritis_ should be long\n in the subjunctive of the perfect, short in the future.]\n\n [Footnote 20: Bleek, _On the Concord_, p. lxvi.]\n\n [Footnote 21: In \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3\u03c9, for \u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u03c9, the _i_ or _y_ is lost in Greek\n as usual. In other verbs _s_ and _y_ are both lost. Hence \u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\n becomes \u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c9, and \u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6 the so-called Attic future. Bopp,\n _Vergleich-Grammatik_, first ed., p.\u00a0903. In Latin we have traces\n of a similar future in forms like _fac-so_, _cap-so_, etc. See\n Neue, _Formenlehre_, ii. p.\u00a0421. The Epic dialect sometimes\n doubles the \u03c3 when the vowel is short, \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. But this can\n hardly be considered a relic of the original \u03c3\u03b9, because the same\n reduplication takes places sometimes in the Aorist, \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1.]\n\n [Footnote 22: See Bopp, _Vergleichende Grammatik_, \u00a7\u00a7 897, 898.\n These verbal adjectives should be carefully distinguished from\n nominal adjectives, such as Sanskrit +div-y\u00e1-s+, divinus,\n originally +div-i-a-s+, _i.e._, divi-bhavas, being in heaven;\n \u1f40\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, domesticus, originally \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9-\u03bf-\u03c2, being in the house.\n These are adjectives formed, it would seem, from old locatives,\n just as in Bask we can form from _etche_, house, _etche-tic_, of\n the house, and _etche-tic-acoa_, he who is of the house; or from\n _seme_, son, _semea-ren_, of the son, and _semea-ren-a_, he who is\n of the son. See W.\u00a0J. van Eys, _Essai de Grammaire de la Langue\n Basque_, 1867, p.\u00a016.]\n\n [Footnote 23: Bopp, _Vergleichende Grammatik_, \u00a7\u00a7 888-898.]\n\n [Footnote 24: Bacon, _Novum Organum_, i. 55.]\n\n [Footnote 25: Until a rational account of these changes,\n comprehended under the name of _Lautverschiebung_, is given, we\n must continue to look upon them, not as the result of phonetic\n decay, but of dialectic growth. I\u00a0am glad to find that this is\n more and more admitted by those who think for themselves, instead\n of simply repeating the opinions of others. Grimm\u2019s Law stands no\n longer alone, as peculiar to the Teutonic languages, but analogous\n changes have been pointed out in the South-African, the Chinese,\n the Polynesian dialects, showing that these changes are everywhere\n collateral, not successive. I\u00a0agree with Professor Curtius and\n other scholars that the impulse to what we call _Lautverschiebung_\n was given by the third modification in each series of consonants,\n by the _gh_, _dh_, _bh_ in Sanskrit, the \u03c7, \u03b8, \u03c6, in Greek.\n I\u00a0differ from him in considering the changes of _Lautverschiebung_\n as the result of dialectic variety, while he sees their motive\n power in phonetic corruption. But whether we take the one view or\n the other, I\u00a0do not see that Dr. Scherer has removed any of our\n difficulties. See Curtius, _Grundz\u00fcge_, 4th ed., p.\u00a0426, note. Dr.\n Scherer, in his thoughtful work, _Zur Geschichte der Deutschen\n Sprache_, has very nearly, though not quite, apprehended the\n meaning of my explanation as to the effects of dialectic change\n contrasted with those of phonetic decay. If it is allowable to use\n a more homely illustration, one might say with perfect truth, that\n each dialect chooses its own phonetic garment, as people choose\n the coats and trousers which best fit them. The simile, like all\n similes, is imperfect, yet it is far more exact than if we compare\n the ravages of phonetic decay, as is frequently done, to the wear\n and tear of these phonetic suits.]\n\n [Footnote 26: Edkins, _Grammar_, p. 84.]\n\n [Footnote 27: Having stated this on the authority of Mr. Edkins,\n one of our best living Chinese scholars, it is but fair that I\n should give the opinion of another Chinese scholar, the late\n Stanislas Julien, whose competence to give an opinion on this\n subject Mr. Edkins would probably be the first to acknowledge. All\n that we really want is the truth, not a momentary triumph of our\n own opinions. M.\u00a0Julien wrote to me in July, 1868:--\n\n \u201cJe ne suis pas du tout de l\u2019avis d\u2019Edkins qui dit qu\u2019un grand\n nombre de mots mongols sont chinois; c\u2019est faux, archifaux.\n\n _Sain_ est mandchou et veut dire bon, en chinois _chen_.\n _begen_, low: en chinois _hia_.\n _itchi_, droit; en chinois _yeou_.\n _sologa\u00ef_, left, gauche; en chinois _tso_.\n _c\u2019hihe_, straight; en chinois _tchi_ (rectus).\n _gadan_, outside; en chinois _wa\u00ef_.\n _logon_, green; en chinois _tsing_.\n _c\u2019hohon_, few; en chinois _chao_.\n _hungun_, light (not heavy); en chinois _king_.\n\n \u201cJe voudrais bien savoir comment M. Edkins prouve que les mots\n qu\u2019il cite sont chinois.\n\n \u201cFoucaux a \u00e9chou\u00e9 \u00e9galement en voulant prouver, autrefois, que\n 200 mots thib\u00e9tains qu\u2019il avait choisis ressembla\u00efent aux mots\n chinois correspondants.\u201d\n\n M. Stanislas Julien wrote again to me on the 21st of July:--\n\n \u201cJ\u2019ai peur que vous ne soyez f\u00e2ch\u00e9 du jugemont sev\u00e8re que j\u2019ai\n port\u00e9 sur les identifications faites par Edkins du mongol avec\n le chinois. J\u2019ai d\u2019abord pris dans votre savant article les mots\n mongols qu\u2019il cite et je vous ai montr\u00e9 qu\u2019ils ne ressemblent pas\n le moins du monde au chinois.\n\n \u201cJe vais vous en citer d\u2019autres tir\u00e9s du Dictionnaire de\n Khienlung chinois mandchou-mongol.\n\n Mongol Chinois\n _tegri_, ciel _thien._\n _naran_, soleil _ji._\n _naram barimoni_, } _ji-chi._\n \u00e9clipse de soleil }\n _saran_, lune _youe\u00ef._\n _oudoun_, \u00e9toile _sing._\n _egoul\u00e9_, nuages, _yun._\n _ayounga_, le tonnerre _lou\u00ef._\n _tchagilgan_, \u00e9clair _tien._\n _borogan_, la pluie _yu._\n _sigouderi_, la ros\u00e9e _lou._\n _kirago_, la gel\u00e9e _choang_.\n _lapsa_, la neige _ sioue._\n _salgin_, le vent _fong._\n _ousoun_, l\u2019eau _chou\u00ef._\n _gal_, le feu _ho._\n _siroi_, la terre _thou._\n _aisin_, l\u2019or _altan._\n\n \u201cJe vous donnerai, si vous le d\u00e9sirez, 1000 mots mongols avec\n leurs synonymes chinois, et je d\u00e9fie M.\u00a0Edkins de trouver dans les\n 1000 mots mongols un seul qui ressemble au mot chinois synonyme.\n\n \u201cComme j\u2019ai fait assez de thib\u00e9tain, je puis vous fournir aussi\n une multitude de mots thib\u00e9tains avec leurs correspondants en\n chinois, et je d\u00e9fierai \u00e9galement M.\u00a0Edkins de trouver un seul mot\n thib\u00e9tain dans mille qui ressemble au mot chinois qui a le m\u00eame\n sens.\u201d\n\n My old friend, M. Stanislas Julien, wrote to me once more on this\n subject, the 6th of August, 1868:--\n\n \u201cDepuis une quinzaine d\u2019anne\u00e9s, j\u2019ai l\u2019avantage d\u2019entretenir les\n meilleures relations avec M.\u00a0Edkins. J\u2019ai lu, anciennement dans un\n journal que publie M.\u00a0L\u00e9on de Rosny (actuellement professeur\n titulaire de la langue Japanaise) le travail o\u00f9 M.\u00a0Edkins a t\u00e2ch\u00e9\n de rapprocher et d\u2019identifier, par les sons, des mots mongols et\n chinois ayant la m\u00eame signification. Son syst\u00eame m\u2019a paru mal\n fond\u00e9. Quelques mots chinois peuvent \u00eatre entr\u00e9s dans la langue\n mongole par suite du contact des deux peuples, comme cela est\n arriv\u00e9 pour le mandchou, dont beaucoup de mots sont entr\u00e9s dans la\n langue mongole en en prenant les terminaisons; mais il ne faudrait\n pas se servir de ces exemples pour montrer l\u2019identit\u00e9 ou les\n ressemblances des deux langues.\n\n \u201cQuand les mandchous ont voulu traduire les livres chinois, ils\n ont rencontr\u00e9 un grand nombre de mots dont les synonymes\n n\u2019existaient pas dans leur langue. Ils se sont alors empar\u00e9 des\n mots chinois en leur donnant des terminaisons mandchoues, mais\n cette quasi-ressemblance de certains mots mandchous ne prouve\n point le moins du monde l\u2019identit\u00e9 des deux langues. Par exemple,\n un pr\u00e9fet se dit en chinois _tchi-fou_, et un sous-pr\u00e9fet\n _tchi-hien_; les mandchous qui ne poss\u00e9daient point ces\n fonctionaires se sont content\u00e9s de transcire les sons chinois\n _dchhifou_, _dchhikhiyan_.\n\n \u201cLe tafetas se dit en chinois _tcheou-tse_; les mandchous, n\u2019ayant\n point de mots pour dire tafetas, ont transcrit les sons chinois\n par _tchous\u00e9_. Le bambou se dit _tchou-tze_; ils ont \u00e9crit l\u2019arbre\n (moo) _tchous\u00e9_. Un titre de noblesse \u00e9crit sur du papier dor\u00e9\n s\u2019appelle _ts\u0115_; les mandchous \u00e9crivent _tche_. Je pourrais vous\n citer un nombre consid\u00e9rable de mots du m\u00eame genre, qui ne\n prouvent pas du tout l\u2019identit\u00e9 du mandchou et du chinois.\n\n \u201cL\u2019ambre s\u2019appelle _hou-pe_; les mandchous \u00e9crivent _kh\u00f4ba_. La\n barbe s\u2019appelle _hou-tse_, ils \u00e9crivent _kh\u00f4s\u00e9_.\n\n \u201cVoici de quelle mani\u00e8re les mandchous ont fait certains verbes.\n Une balance s\u2019appelle en chinois _thien ping_, ils \u00e9crivent\n _p\u2019ing-s\u00e9_; puis pour dire peser avec une balance, ils ont fait le\n verbe _p\u2019ingselembi_; _lembi_ est une terminaison commune \u00e0\n beaucoup de verbes.\n\n \u201cPour dire faire peser, ordonner de peser avec une balance, ils\n \u00e9crivent _p\u2019ingseleboumbi_; _boumbi_ est la forme factive ou\n causative; cette terminaison sert aussi pour le passif; de sorte\n que ce verbe peut signifier aussi _\u00eatre pes\u00e9 avec une balance_.\n\n \u201cJe pourrais citer aussi des mots mandchous auxquels on a donn\u00e9 la\n terminaison mongole, et _vice vers\u00e2_.\u201d\n\n These remarks, made by one who, during his lifetime, was\n recognised by friend and foe as the first Chinese scholar in\n Europe, ought to have their proper weight. They ought certainly to\n make us cautious before persuading ourselves that the connection\n between the northern and southern branches of the Turanian\n languages has been found in Chinese. On the other hand I am quite\n aware that all that M.\u00a0Stanislas Julien says against Mr. Edkins\n may be true, and that nevertheless Chinese may have been the\n central language from which Mongolian in the north and Tibetan in\n the south branched off. A\u00a0language, such as Chinese, with a small\n number of sounds and an immense number of meanings, can easily\n give birth to dialects which, in their later development, might\n branch off in totally different directions. Even with languages so\n closely connected as Sanskrit and Latin, it would be easy to make\n out a list of a thousand words in Latin which could not be matched\n in Sanskrit. The question, therefore, is not decided. What is\n wanted are researches carried on by competent scholars, in an\n unprejudiced and at the same time thoroughly scientific spirit.]\n\n [Footnote 28: If Mr. Chalmers\u2019 comparison of the Chinese and\n Bohemian names for daughter is so unpardonable, what shall we say\n of Bopp\u2019s comparison of the Bengali and Sanskrit names for sister?\n Sister in Bengali is +bohin\u00ee+, the Hindi +bahin+ and +bh\u00e2n+, the\n Prakrit +bahi\u1e47\u00ee+, the Sanskrit +bhagin\u00ee+. Bopp, in the most\n elaborate way, derives +bohin\u00ee+ from the Sanskrit +svas\u1e5b+, sister.\n Bopp, _Vergleichende Grammatik_, Vorrede zur vierten Abtheilung,\n p.\u00a0x.]\n\n [Footnote 29: Curtius, _Verbum_, p. 72.]\n\n [Footnote 30: Pott, E. F., 1871, p. 21.]\n\n [Footnote 31: Dr. Callaway, in his _Remarks on the Zulu Language_\n (1870), p.\u00a02, says: \u201cThe Zulu Language contains upwards of 20,000\n words in _bon\u00e2 fide_ use among the people. Those curious\n appellations for different colored cattle, or for different maize\n cobs, to express certain minute peculiarities of color or\n arrangement of color, which it is difficult for us to grasp, are\n not synonymous, but instances in which a new noun or name is used\n instead of adding adjectives to one name to express the various\n conditions of an object. Neither are these various verbs used to\n express varieties of the same action, synonyms, such as _ukupata_,\n to carry in the hand, _ukwetshata_, to carry on the shoulder,\n _ukubeleta_, to carry on the back.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 32: Bruppacher, _Lantlere der Oskischen Sprache_, p.\u00a048.\n B\u00fcchler, _Grundriss der Lateinischen Declination_, p.\u00a01.]\n\n [Footnote 33: \u201cDie Entstehung der Casus ist noch das\n allerdunkelste im weiten Bereich des indogermanischen\n Formensystems.\u201d Curtius, _Chronologie_, p.\u00a071.]\n\n [Footnote 34: Corssen, ii. 888.]\n\n [Footnote 35: Cf. Clemm, _Die neusten Forschungen auf dem Gebiet\n der Griechischen Composita_, p.\u00a09.]\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nON THE MIGRATION OF FABLES.\n\nA LECTURE DELIVERED AT THE ROYAL INSTITUTION, ON FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 1870.\n\n\n\u201cCount not your chickens before they be hatched,\u201d is a well-known\nproverb in English, and most people, if asked what was its origin, would\nprobably appeal to La Fontaine\u2019s delightful fable, _La Laiti\u00e8re et le\nPot au Lait_.[1] We all know Perrette, lightly stepping along from her\nvillage to the town, carrying the milk-pail on her head, and in her\nday-dreams selling her milk for a good sum, then buying a hundred eggs,\nthen selling the chickens, then buying a pig, fattening it, selling it\nagain, and buying a cow with a calf. The calf frolics about, and kicks\nup his legs--so does Perrette, and, alas! the pail falls down, the milk\nis spilt, her riches gone, and she only hopes when she comes home that\nshe may escape a flogging from her husband.\n\nDid La Fontaine invent this fable? or did he merely follow the example\nof Sokrates, who, as we know from the Ph\u00e6don,[2] occupied himself in\nprison, during the last days of his life, with turning into verse some\nof the fables, or, as he calls them, the myths of \u00c6sop.\n\nLa Fontaine published the first six books of his fables in 1668,[3] and\nit is well known that the subjects of most of these early fables were\ntaken from \u00c6sop, Ph\u00e6drus, Horace, and other classical fabulists, if we\nmay adopt this word \u201cfabuliste,\u201d which La Fontaine was the first to\nintroduce into French.\n\nIn 1678 a second edition of these six books was published, enriched by\nfive books of new fables, and in 1694 a new edition appeared, containing\none additional book, thus completing the collection of his charming\npoems.\n\nThe fable of Perrette stands in the seventh book, and was published,\ntherefore, for the first time in the edition of 1678. In the preface to\nthat edition La Fontaine says: \u201cIt is not necessary that I should say\nwhence I have taken the subjects of these new fables. I\u00a0shall only say,\nfrom a sense of gratitude, that I owe the largest portion of them to\nPilpay the Indian sage.\u201d\n\nIf, then, La Fontaine tells us himself that he borrowed the subjects of\nmost of his new fables from Pilpay, the Indian sage, we have clearly a\nright to look to India in order to see whether, in the ancient\nliterature of that country, any traces can be discovered of Perrette\nwith the milk-pail.\n\nSanskrit literature is very rich in fables and stories; no other\nliterature can vie with it in that respect; nay, it is extremely likely\nthat fables, in particular animal fables, had their principal source in\nIndia. In the sacred literature of the Buddhists, fables held a most\nprominent place. The Buddhist preachers, addressing themselves chiefly\nto the people, to the untaught, the uncared for, the outcast, spoke to\nthem, as we still speak to children, in fables, in proverbs and\nparables. Many of these fables and parables must have existed before the\nrise of the Buddhist religion; others, no doubt, were added on the spur\nof the moment, just as Sokrates would invent a myth or fable whenever\nthat form of argument seemed to him most likely to impress and convince\nhis hearers. But Buddhism gave a new and permanent sanction to this\nwhole branch of moral mythology, and in the sacred canon, as it was\nsettled in the third century before Christ, many a fable received, and\nholds to the present day, its recognized place. After the fall of\nBuddhism in India, and even during its decline, the Brahmans claimed the\ninheritance of their enemies, and used their popular fables for\neducational purposes. The best known of these collections of fables in\nSanskrit is the Pa\u00f1catantra, literally the Pentateuch, or Pentamerone.\nFrom it and from other sources another collection was made, well known\nto all Sanskrit scholars by the name of Hitopadesa, _i.e._, Salutary\nAdvice. Both these books have been published in England and Germany, and\nthere are translations of them in English, German, French, and other\nlanguages.[4]\n\nThe first question which we have to answer refers to the date of these\ncollections, and dates in the history of Sanskrit literature are always\ndifficult points. Fortunately, as we shall see, we can in this case fix\nthe date of the Pa\u00f1catantra at least, by means of a translation into\nancient Persian, which was made about 550 years after Christ, though\neven then we can only prove that a collection somewhat like the\nPa\u00f1katantra must have existed at that time; but we cannot refer the\nbook, in exactly that form in which we now possess it, to that distant\nperiod.\n\nIf we look for La Fontaine\u2019s fable in the Sanskrit stories of the\nPa\u00f1catantra, we do not find, indeed, the milkmaid counting her chickens\nbefore they are hatched, but we meet with the following story:--\n\n \u201cThere lived in a certain place a Br\u00e2hman, whose name was\n Svabh\u00e2vak\u1e5bpa\u1e47a, which means \u2018a\u00a0born miser.\u2019 He had collected a\n quantity of rice by begging (this reminds us somewhat of the\n Buddhist mendicants), and after having dined off it, he filled a pot\n with what was left over. He hung the pot on a peg on the wall,\n placed his couch beneath, and looking intently at it all the night,\n he thought, \u2018Ah, that pot is indeed brimful of rice. Now, if there\n should be a famine, I\u00a0should certainly make a hundred rupees by it.\n With this I shall buy a couple of goats. They will have young ones\n every six months, and thus I shall have a whole herd of goats. Then,\n with the goats, I\u00a0shall buy cows. As soon as they have calved,\n I\u00a0shall sell the calves. Then, with the cows, I\u00a0shall buy buffaloes;\n with the buffaloes, mares. When the mares have foaled, I\u00a0shall have\n plenty of horses; and when I sell them, plenty of gold. With that\n gold I shall get a house with four wings. And then a Br\u00e2hman will\n come to my house, and will give me his beautiful daughter, with a\n large dowry. She will have a son, and I shall call him Soma\u015barman.\n When he is old enough to be danced on his father\u2019s knee, I\u00a0shall sit\n with a book at the back of the stable, and while I am reading the\n boy will see me, jump from his mother\u2019s lap, and run towards me to\n be danced on my knee. He will come too near the horse\u2019s hoof, and,\n full of anger, I\u00a0shall call to my wife, \u201cTake the baby; take him!\u201d\n But she, distracted by some domestic work does not hear me. Then I\n get up, and give her such a kick with my foot.\u2019 While he thought\n this, he gave a kick with his foot, and broke the pot. All the rice\n fell over him, and made him quite white. Therefore, I\u00a0say, \u2018He who\n makes foolish plans for the future will be white all over, like the\n father of Soma\u015barman.\u2019\u201d[5]\n\nI shall at once proceed to read you the same story, though slightly\nmodified, from the Hitopade\u015ba.[6] The Hitopade\u015ba professes to be taken\nfrom the Pa\u00f1catantra and some other books; and in this case it would\nseem as if some other authority had been followed. You will see, at all\nevents, how much freedom there was in telling the old story of the man\nwho built castles in the air.\n\n \u201cIn the town of Dev\u00eeko\u1e6d\u1e6da there lived a Br\u00e2hman of the name of\n Deva\u015barman. At the feast of the great equinox he received a plate\n full of rice. He took it, went into a potter\u2019s shop, which was full\n of crockery, and, overcome by the heat, he lay down in a corner and\n began to doze. In order to protect his plate of rice, he kept a\n stick in his hand, and began to think, \u2018Now, if I sell this plate of\n rice, I\u00a0shall receive ten cowries (kapardaka). I\u00a0shall then, on the\n spot, buy pots and plates, and after having increased my capital\n again and again, I\u00a0shall buy and sell betel nuts and dresses till I\n become enormously rich. Then I shall marry four wives, and the\n youngest and prettiest of the four I shall make a great pet of. Then\n the other wives will be so angry, and begin to quarrel. But I shall\n be in a great rage, and take a stick, and give them a good\n flogging.\u2019 .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. While he said this, he flung his stick away; the\n plate of rice was smashed to pieces, and many of the pots in the\n shop were broken. The potter, hearing the noise, ran into the shop,\n and when he saw his pots broken, he gave the Br\u00e2hman a good\n scolding, and drove him out of his shop. Therefore I say, \u2018He who\n rejoices over plans for the future will come to grief, like the\n Br\u00e2hman who broke the pots.\u2019\u201d\n\nIn spite of the change of a Brahman into a milkmaid, no one, I\u00a0suppose,\nwill doubt that we have here in the stories of the Pa\u00f1catantra and\nHitopade\u015ba the first germs of La Fontaine\u2019s fable.[7] But how did that\nfable travel all the way from India to France? How did it doff its\nSanskrit garment and don the light dress of modern French? How was the\nstupid Brahman born again as the brisk milkmaid, \u201c_cotillon simple et\nsouliers plats_?\u201d\n\nIt seems a startling case of longevity that while languages have\nchanged, while works of art have perished, while empires have risen and\nvanished again, this simple children\u2019s story should have lived on, and\nmaintained its place of honor and its undisputed sway in every\nschool-room of the East and every nursery of the West. And yet it is a\ncase of longevity so well attested that even the most skeptical would\nhardly venture to question it. We have the passport of these stories\n_vis\u00e9ed_ at every place through which they have passed, and, as far as I\ncan judge, _parfaitement en r\u00e8gle_. The story of the migration of these\nIndian fables from East to West is indeed wonderful; more wonderful and\nmore instructive than many of these fables themselves. Will it be\nbelieved that we, in this Christian country and in the nineteenth\ncentury, teach our children the first, the most important lessons of\nworldly wisdom, nay, of a more than worldly wisdom, from books borrowed\nfrom Buddhists and Brahmans, from heretics and idolaters, and that wise\nwords, spoken a thousand, nay, two thousand years ago, in a lonely\nvillage of India, like precious seed scattered broadcast all over the\nworld, still bear fruit a hundred and a thousand-fold in that soil which\nis the most precious before God and man, the soul of a child? No\nlawgiver, no philosopher, has made his influence felt so widely, so\ndeeply, and so permanently as the author of these children\u2019s fables. But\nwho was he? We do not know. His name, like the name of many a benefactor\nof the human race, is forgotten. We only know he was an Indian--a\nnigger, as some people would call him--and that he lived at least two\nthousand years ago.\n\nNo doubt, when we first hear of the Indian origin of these fables, and\nof their migration from India to Europe, we wonder whether it can be so;\nbut the fact is, that the story of this Indo-European migration is not,\nlike the migration of the Indo-European languages, myths, and legends,\na\u00a0matter of theory, but of history, and that it was never quite\nforgotten either in the East or in the West. Each translator, as he\nhanded on his treasure, seems to have been anxious to show how he came\nby it.\n\nSeveral writers who have treated of the origin and spreading of\nIndo-European stories and fables, have mixed up two or three questions\nwhich ought to be treated each on its own merits.\n\nThe first question is whether the Aryans, when they broke up their\npro-ethnic community, carried away with them, not only their common\ngrammar and dictionary, but likewise some myths and legends which we\nfind that Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Germans, Slaves,\nwhen they emerge into the light of history, share in common? That\ncertain deities occur in India, Greece, and Germany, having the same\nnames and the same character, is a fact that can no longer be denied.\nThat certain heroes, too, known to Indians, Greeks, and Romans, point to\none and the same origin, both by their name and by their history, is a\nfact by this time admitted by all whose admission is of real value. As\nheroes are in most cases gods in disguise, there is nothing very\nstartling in the fact that nations, who had worshipped the same gods,\nshould also have preserved some common legends of demi-gods or heroes,\nnay, even in a later phase of thought, of fairies and ghosts. The case,\nhowever, becomes much more problematical when we ask, whether stories\nalso, fables told with a decided moral purpose, formed part of that\nearliest Aryan inheritance? This is still doubted by many who have no\ndoubts whatever as to common Aryan myths and legends, and even those\nwho, like myself, have tried to establish by tentative arguments the\nexistence of common Aryan fables, dating from before the Aryan\nseparation, have done so only by showing a possible connection between\nancient popular saws and mythological ideas, capable of a moral\napplication. To any one, for instance, who knows how in the poetical\nmythology of the Aryan tribes, the golden splendor of the rising sun\nleads to conceptions of the wealth of the Dawn in gold and jewels and\nher readiness to shower them upon her worshippers, the modern German\nproverb, _Morgenstunde hat Gold im Munde_, seems to have a kind of\nmythological ring, and the stories of benign fairies, changing\neverything into gold, sound likewise like an echo from the\nlong-forgotten forest of our common Aryan home. If we know how the trick\nof dragging stolen cattle backwards into their place of hiding, so that\ntheir footprints might not lead to the discovery of the thief, appears\nagain and again in the mythology of different Aryan nations, then the\npointing of the same trick as a kind of proverb, intended to convey a\nmoral lesson, and illustrated by fables of the same or a very similar\ncharacter in India and Greece, makes one feel inclined to suspect that\nhere too the roots of these fables may reach to a pro-ethnic period.\n_Vestigia nulla retrorsum_ is clearly an ancient proverb, dating from a\nnomadic period, and when we see how Plato (\u201cAlcibiades,\u201d i. 123) was\nperfectly familiar with the \u00c6sopian myth or fable,--\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03bc\u1fe6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, he says--of the fox declining to enter the lion\u2019s cave, because\nall footsteps went into it and none came out, and how the Sanskrit\nPa\u00f1catantra (III.\u00a014) tells of a jackal hesitating to enter his own\ncave, because he sees the footsteps of a lion going in, but not coming\nout, we feel strongly inclined to admit a common origin for both fables.\nHere, however, the idea that the Greeks, like La Fontaine, had borrowed\ntheir fable from the Pa\u00f1catantra would be simply absurd, and it would be\nmuch more rational, if the process must be one of borrowing, to admit,\nas Benfey (\u201cPantschatantra,\u201d i. 381) does, that the Hindus, after\nAlexander\u2019s discovery of India, borrowed this story from the Greeks. But\nif we consider that each of the two fables has its own peculiar\ntendency, the one deriving its lesson from the absence of backward\nfootprints of the victims, the other from the absence of backward\nfootprints of the lion himself, the admission of a common Aryan proverb\nsuch as \u201c_vestigia nulla retrorsum_\u201d would far better explain the facts\nsuch as we find them. I\u00a0am not ignorant of the difficulties of this\nexplanation, and I would myself point to the fact that among the\nHottentots, too, Dr. Bleek has found a fable of the jackal declining to\nvisit the sick lion, \u201cbecause the traces of the animals who went to see\nhim did not turn back.\u201d[8] Without, however, pronouncing any decided\nopinion on this vexed question, what I wish to place clearly before you\nis this, that the spreading of Aryan myths, legends, and fables, dating\nfrom a pro-ethnic period, has nothing whatever to do with the spreading\nof fables taking place in strictly historical times from India to\nArabia, to Greece and the rest of Europe, not by means of oral\ntradition, but through more or less faithful translations of literary\nworks. Those who like may doubt whether _Zeus_ was +Dyaus+, whether\n_Daphne_ was +Ahan\u00e2+, whether _La Belle au Bois_ was the mother of two\nchildren, called _L\u2019Aurore_ and _Le Jour_,[9] but the fact that a\ncollection of fables was, in the sixth century of our era, brought from\nIndia to Persia, and by means of various translations naturalized among\nPersians, Arabs, Greeks, Jews, and all the rest, admits of no doubt or\ncavil. Several thousand years have passed between those two migrations,\nand to mix them up together, to suppose that Comparative Mythology has\nanything to do with the migration of such fables as that of Perrette,\nwould be an anachronism of a portentous character.\n\nThere is a third question, viz., whether besides the two channels just\nmentioned, there were others through which Eastern fables could have\nreached Europe, or \u00c6sopian and other European fables have been\ntransferred to the East. There are such channels, no doubt. Persian and\nArab stories, of Indian origin, were through the crusaders brought back\nto Constantinople, Italy, and France; Buddhist fables were through\nMongolian[10] conquerors (13th century) carried to Russia and the\neastern parts of Europe. Greek stories may have reached Persia and India\nat the time of Alexander\u2019s conquests and during the reigns of the\nDiadochi, and even Christian legends may have found their way to the\nEast through missionaries, travellers, or slaves.\n\nLastly, there comes the question, how far our common human nature is\nsufficient to account for coincidences in beliefs, customs, proverbs,\nand fables, which, at first sight, seem to require an historical\nexplanation. I\u00a0shall mention but one instance. Professor Wilson (\u201cEssays\non Sanskrit Literature,\u201d i. p.\u00a0201) pointed out that the story of the\nTrojan horse occurs in a Hindu tale, only that instead of the horse we\nhave an elephant. But he rightly remarked that the coincidence was\naccidental. In the one case, after a siege of nine years, the principal\nheroes of the Greek army are concealed in a wooden horse, dragged into\nTroy by a stratagem, and the story ends by their falling upon the\nTrojans and conquering the city of Priam. In the other story a king bent\non securing a son-in-law, had an elephant constructed by able artists,\nand filled with armed men. The elephant was placed in a forest, and when\nthe young prince came to hunt, the armed men sprang out, overpowered the\nprince and brought him to the king, whose daughter he was to marry.\nHowever striking the similarity may seem to one unaccustomed to deal\nwith ancient legends, I\u00a0doubt whether any comparative mythologist has\npostulated a common Aryan origin for these two stories. They feel that,\nas far as the mere construction of a wooden animal is concerned, all\nthat was necessary to explain the origin of the idea in one place was\npresent also in the other, and that while the Trojan horse forms an\nessential part of a mythological cycle, there is nothing truly\nmythological or legendary in the Indian story. The idea of a hunter\ndisguising himself in the skin of an animal, or even of one animal\nassuming the disguise of another,[11] are familiar in every part of the\nworld, and if that is so, then the step from hiding under the skin of a\nlarge animal to that of hiding in a wooden animal is not very great.\n\nEvery one of these questions, as I said before, must be treated on its\nown merits, and while the traces of the first migration of Aryan fables\ncan be rediscovered only by the most minute and complex inductive\nprocesses, the documents of the latter are to be found in the library of\nevery intelligent collector of books. Thus, to return to Perrette and\nthe fables of Pilpay, Huet, the learned bishop of Avranches, the friend\nof La Fontaine, had only to examine the prefaces of the principal\ntranslations of the Indian fables in order to track their wanderings, as\nhe did in his famous \u201cTraite de l\u2019Origine des Romans,\u201d published at\nParis in 1670, two years after the appearance of the first collection of\nLa Fontaine\u2019s fables. Since his time the evidence has become more\nplentiful, and the whole subject has been more fully and more profoundly\ntreated by Sylvestre de Sacy,[12] Loiseleur Deslongchamps,[13] and\nProfessor Benfey.[14] But though we have a more accurate knowledge of\nthe stations by which the Eastern fables reached their last home in the\nWest, Bishop Huet knew as well as we do that they came originally from\nIndia through Persia by way of Bagdad and Constantinople.\n\nIn order to gain a commanding view of the countries traversed by these\nfables, let us take our position at Bagdad in the middle of the eighth\ncentury, and watch from that central point the movements of our literary\ncaravan in its progress from the far East to the far West. In the middle\nof the eighth century, during the reign of the great Khalif Almansur,\nAbdallah ibn Almokaffa wrote his famous collection of fables, the\n\u201cKalila and Dimnah,\u201d which we still possess. The Arabic text of these\nfables has been published by Sylvestre de Sacy, and there is an English\ntranslation of it by Mr. Knatchbull, formerly Professor of Arabic at\nOxford. Abdallah ibn Almokaffa was a Persian by birth, who after the\nfall of the Omeyyades became a convert to Mohammedanism, and rose to\nhigh office at the court of the Khalifs. Being in possession of\nimportant secrets of state, he became dangerous in the eyes of the\nKhalif Almansur, and was foully murdered.[15] In the preface, Abdallah\nibn Almokaffa tells us that he translated these fables from Pehlevi, the\nancient language of Persia; and that they had been translated into\nPehlevi (about two hundred years before his time) by Barz\u00fbyeh, the\nphysician of Khosru Nushirvan, the King of Persia, the contemporary of\nthe Emperor Justinian. The King of Persia had heard that there existed\nin India a book full of wisdom, and he had commanded his Vezier,\nBuzurjmihr, to find a man acquainted with the languages both of Persia\nand India. The man chosen was Barz\u00fbyeh. He travelled to India, got\npossession of the book, translated it into Persian, and brought it back\nto the court of Khosru. Declining all rewards beyond a dress of honor,\nhe only stipulated that an account of his own life and opinions should\nbe added to the book. This account, probably written by himself, is\nextremely curious. It is a kind of _Religio Medici_ of the sixth\ncentury, and shows us a soul dissatisfied with traditions and\nformularies, striving after truth, and finding rest only where many\nother seekers after truth have found rest before and after him, in a\nlife devoted to alleviating the sufferings of mankind.\n\nThere is another account of the journey of this Persian physician to\nIndia. It has the sanction of Fird\u00fasi, in the great Persian epic, the\nShah N\u00e2meh, and it is considered by some[16] as more original than the\none just quoted. According to it, the Persian physician read in a book\nthat there existed in India trees or herbs supplying a medicine with\nwhich the dead could be restored to life. At the command of the king he\nwent to India in search of those trees and herbs; but, after spending a\nyear in vain researches, he consulted some wise people on the subject.\nThey told him that the medicine of which he had read as having the power\nof restoring men to life had to be understood in a higher and more\nspiritual sense, and that what was really meant by it were ancient books\nof wisdom preserved in India, which imparted life to those who were dead\nin their folly and sins.[17] Thereupon the physician translated these\nbooks, and one of them was the collection of fables, the \u201cKalila and\nDimnah.\u201d\n\nIt is possible that both these stories were later inventions; the\npreface also by Ali, the son of Alshah Far\u00e9si, in which the names of\nBidpai and King Dabshelim are mentioned for the first time, is of later\ndate. But the fact remains that Abdallah ibn Almokaffa, the author of\nthe oldest Arabic collection of our fables, translated them from\nPehlevi, the language of Persia at the time of Khosru Nushirvan, and\nthat the Pehlevi text which he translated was believed to be a\ntranslation of a book brought from India in the middle of the sixth\ncentury. That Indian book could not have been the Pa\u00f1catantra, as we now\npossess it, but must have been a much larger collection of fables, for\nthe Arabic translation, the \u201cKalilah and Dimnah,\u201d contains eighteen\nchapters instead of the five of the Pa\u00f1catantra, and it is only in the\nfifth, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth chapters that\nwe find the same stories which form the five books of the Pa\u00f1katantra in\nthe _textus ornatior_. Even in these chapters the Arabic translator\nomits stories which we find in the Sanskrit text, and adds others which\nare not to be found there.\n\nIn this Arabic translation the story of the Brahman and the pot of rice\nruns as follows:--\n\n \u201cA religious man was in the habit of receiving every day from the\n house of a merchant a certain quantity of butter (oil) and honey, of\n which, having eaten as much as he wanted, he put the rest into a\n jar, which he hung on a nail in a corner of the room, hoping that\n the jar would in time be filled. Now, as he was leaning back one day\n on his couch, with a stick in his hand, and the jar suspended over\n his head, he thought of the high price of butter and honey, and said\n to himself, \u2018I\u00a0will sell what is in the jar, and buy with the money\n which I obtain for it ten goats, which, producing each of them a\n young one every five months, in addition to the produce of the kids\n as soon as they begin to bear, it will not be long before there is a\n large flock.\u2019 He continued to make his calculations, and found that\n he should at this rate, in the course of two years, have more than\n four hundred goats. \u2018At the expiration of this term I will buy,\u2019\n said he, \u2018a\u00a0hundred black cattle, in the proportion of a bull or a\n cow for every four goats. I\u00a0will then purchase land, and hire\n workmen to plough it with the beasts, and put it into tillage, so\n that before five years are over I shall, no doubt, have realized a\n great fortune by the sale of the milk which the cows will give, and\n of the produce of my land. My next business will be to build a\n magnificent house, and engage a number of servants, both male and\n female; and, when my establishment is completed, I\u00a0will marry the\n handsomest woman I can find, who, in due time becoming a mother,\n will present me with an heir to my possessions, who, as he advances\n in age, shall receive the best masters that can be procured; and, if\n the progress which he makes in learning is equal to my reasonable\n expectations, I\u00a0shall be amply repaid for the pains and expense\n which I have bestowed upon him; but if, on the other hand, he\n disappoints my hopes, the rod which I have here shall be the\n instrument with which I will make him feel the displeasure of a\n justly-offended parent.\u2019 At these words he suddenly raised the hand\n which held the stick towards the jar, and broke it, and the contents\n ran down upon his head and face.\u201d[18] .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nYou will have observed the coincidences between the Arabic and the\nSanskrit versions, but also a considerable divergence, particularly in\nthe winding up of the story. The Brahman and the holy man both build\ntheir castles in the air; but, while the former kicks his wife, the\nlatter only chastises his son. How this change came to pass we cannot\ntell. One might suppose that, at the time when the book was translated\nfrom Sanskrit into Pehlevi, or from Pehlevi into Arabic, the Sanskrit\nstory was exactly like the Arabic story, and that it was changed\nafterwards. But another explanation is equally admissible, viz., that\nthe Pehlevi or the Arabic translator wished to avoid the offensive\nbehavior of the husband kicking his wife, and therefore substituted the\nson as a more deserving object of castigation.\n\nWe have thus traced our story from Sanskrit to Pehlevi, and from Pehlevi\nto Arabic; we have followed it in its migrations from the hermitages of\nIndian sages to the court of the kings of Persia, and from thence to the\nresidence of the powerful Khalifs at Bagdad. Let us recollect that the\nKhalif Almansur, for whom the Arabic translation was made, was the\ncontemporary of Abderrhaman, who ruled in Spain, and that both were but\nlittle anterior to Harun al Rashid and Charlemagne. At that time,\ntherefore, the way was perfectly open for these Eastern fables, after\nthey had once reached Bagdad, to penetrate into the seats of Western\nlearning, and to spread to every part of the new empire of Charlemagne.\nThey may have done so, for all we know; but nearly three hundred years\npass before these fables meet us again in the literature of Europe. The\nCarlovingian empire had fallen to pieces, Spain had been rescued from\nthe Mohammedans, William the Conqueror had landed in England, and the\nCrusades had begun to turn the thoughts of Europe towards the East,\nwhen, about the year 1080, we hear of a Jew of the name of Symeon, the\nson of Seth, who translated these fables from Arabic into Greek. He\nstates in his preface that the book came originally from India, that it\nwas brought to the King Chosroes of Persia, and then translated into\nArabic. His own translation into Greek must have been made from an\nArabic MS. of the \u201cKalila and Dimna,\u201d in some places more perfect, in\nothers less perfect, than the one published by De Sacy. The Greek text\nhas been published, though very imperfectly, under the title of\n\u201cStephanites and Ichnelates.\u201d[19] Here our fable is told as follows\n(p.\u00a0337):--\n\n \u201cIt is said that a beggar kept some honey and butter in a jar close\n to where he slept. One night he thus thought within himself:\n \u2018I\u00a0shall sell this honey and butter for however small a sum; with it\n I shall buy ten goats, and these in five months will produce as many\n again. In five years they will become four hundred. With them I\n shall buy one hundred cows, and with them I shall cultivate some\n land. And what with their calves and the harvests, I\u00a0shall become\n rich in five years, and build a house with four wings,[20]\n ornamented with gold, and buy all kinds of servants, and marry a\n wife. She will give me a child, and I shall call him Beauty. It will\n be a boy, and I shall educate him properly; and if I see him lazy,\n I\u00a0shall give him such a flogging with this stick.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u2019 With\n these words he took a stick that was near him, struck the jar, and\n broke it, so that the honey and milk ran down on his beard.\u201d\n\nThis Greek translation might, no doubt, have reached La Fontaine; but as\nthe French poet was not a great scholar, least of all a reader of Greek\nMSS., and as the fables of Symeon Seth were not published till 1697, we\nmust look for other channels through which the old fable was carried\nalong from East to West.\n\nThere is, first of all, an Italian translation of the \u201cStephanites and\nIchnelates,\u201d which was published at Ferrara in 1583.[21] The title is,\n\u201cDel Governo de\u2019 Regni. Sotto morali essempi di animali ragionanti tra\nloro. Tratti prima di lingua Indiana in Agarena da Lelo Demno Saraceno.\nEt poi dall\u2019 Agarena nella Greca da Simeone Setto, philosopho\nAntiocheno. Et hora tradotti di Greco in Italiano.\u201d This translation was\nprobably the work of Giulio Nuti.\n\nThere is, besides, a Latin translation, or rather a free rendering of\nthe Greek translation by the learned Jesuit, Petrus Possinus, which was\npublished at Rome in 1666.[22] This may have been, and, according to\nsome authorities, has really been one of the sources from which La\nFontaine drew his inspirations. But though La Fontaine may have\nconsulted this work for other fables, I\u00a0do not think that he took from\nit the fable of Perrette and the milk-pail.\n\nThe fact is, these fables had found several other channels through\nwhich, as early as the thirteenth century, they reached the literary\nmarket of Europe, and became familiar as household words, at least among\nthe higher and educated classes. We shall follow the course of some of\nthese channels. First, then, a\u00a0learned Jew, whose name seems to have\nbeen Joel, translated our fables from Arabic into Hebrew (1250?). His\nwork has been preserved in one MS. at Paris, but has not yet been\npublished, except the tenth book, which was communicated by Dr. Neubauer\nto Benfey\u2019s journal, \u201cOrient und Occident\u201d (vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a0658). This Hebrew\ntranslation was translated by another converted Jew, Johannes of Capua,\ninto Latin. His translation was finished between 1263-1278, and, under\nthe title of \u201cDirectorium Human\u00e6 Vit\u00e6,\u201d it became very soon a popular\nwork with the select reading public of the thirteenth century.[23] In\nthe \u201cDirectorium,\u201d and in Joel\u2019s translation, the name of Sendebar is\nsubstituted for that of Bidpay. The \u201cDirectorium\u201d was translated into\nGerman at the command of Eberhard, the great Duke of W\u00fcrtemberg,[24] and\nboth the Latin text and the German translation occur, in repeated\neditions, among the rare books printed between 1480 and the end of the\nfifteenth century.[25] A\u00a0Spanish translation, founded both on the German\nand the Latin texts, appeared at Burgos in 1493;[26] and from these\ndifferent sources flowed in the sixteenth century the Italian renderings\nof Firenzuola (1548)[27] and Doni (1552).[28] As these Italian\ntranslations were repeated in French[29] and English, before the end of\nthe sixteenth century, they might no doubt have supplied La Fontaine\nwith subjects for his fables.\n\nBut, as far as we know, it was a third channel that really brought the\nIndian fables to the immediate notice of the French poet. A\u00a0Persian\npoet, of the name of Nasr Allah, translated the work of Abdallah ibn\nAlmokaffa into Persian about 1150. This Persian translation was enlarged\nin the fifteenth century by another Persian poet, Husain ben Ali called\nel Vaez, under the title of \u201cAnv\u00e1ri Suhaili.\u201d[30] This name will be\nfamiliar to many members of the Indian Civil Service, as being one of\nthe old Haileybury class-books which had to be construed by all who\nwished to gain high honors in Persia. This work, or at least the first\nbooks of it, were translated into French by David Sahid of Ispahan, and\npublished at Paris in 1644, under the title of \u201cLivre des Lumi\u00e8res, ou,\nla Conduite des Rois, compos\u00e9 par le Sage Pilpay, Indien.\u201d This\ntranslation, we know, fell into the hands of La Fontaine, and a number\nof his most charming fables were certainly borrowed from it.\n\nBut Perrette with the milk-pail has not yet arrived at the end of her\njourney, for if we look at the \u201cLivre des Lumi\u00e8res,\u201d as published at\nParis, we find neither the milkmaid nor her prototype, the Brahman who\nkicks his wife, or the religious man who flogs his boy. That story\noccurs in the later chapters, which were left out in the French\ntranslation; and La Fontaine, therefore, must have met with his model\nelsewhere.\n\nRemember that in all our wanderings we have not yet found the milkmaid,\nbut only the Brahman or the religious man. What we want to know is who\nfirst brought about this metamorphosis.\n\nNo doubt La Fontaine was quite the man to seize on any jewel which was\ncontained in the Oriental fables, to remove the cumbersome and\nforeign-looking setting, and then to place the principal figure in that\npretty frame in which most of us have first become acquainted with it.\nBut in this case the charmer\u2019s wand did not belong to La Fontaine, but\nto some forgotten worthy, whose very name it will be difficult to fix\nupon with certainty.\n\nWe have, as yet, traced three streams only, all starting from the Arabic\ntranslation of Abdallah ibn Almokaffa, one in the eleventh, another in\nthe twelfth, a\u00a0third in the thirteenth century, all reaching Europe,\nsome touching the very steps of the throne of Louis XIV., yet none of\nthem carrying the leaf which contained the story of \u201cPerrette,\u201d or of\nthe \u201cBrahman,\u201d to the threshold of La Fontaine\u2019s home. We must,\ntherefore, try again.\n\nAfter the conquest of Spain by the Mohammedans, Arabic literature had\nfound a new home in Western Europe, and among the numerous works\ntranslated from Arabic into Latin or Spanish, we find towards the end of\nthe thirteenth century (1289) a\u00a0Spanish translation of our fables,\ncalled \u201cCalila \u00e9 Dymna.\u201d[31] In this the name of the philosopher is\nchanged from Bidpai to Bundobel. This, or another translation from\nArabic, was turned into Latin verse by Raimond de B\u00e9ziers in 1313 (not\npublished).\n\nLastly, we find in the same century another translation from Arabic\nstraight into Latin verse, by Baldo, which became known under the name\nof \u201c\u00c6sopus alter.\u201d[32]\n\nFrom these frequent translations, and translations of translations, in\nthe eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, we see quite clearly\nthat these Indian fables were extremely popular, and were, in fact, more\nwidely read in Europe than the Bible, or any other book. They were not\nonly read in translations, but having been introduced into sermons,[33]\nhomilies, and works on morality, they were improved upon, acclimatized,\nlocalized, moralized, till at last it is almost impossible to recognize\ntheir Oriental features under their homely disguises.\n\nI shall give you one instance only.\n\nRabelais, in his \u201cGargantua,\u201d gives a long description how a man might\nconquer the whole world. At the end of this dialogue, which was meant as\na satire on Charles V., we read:--\n\n \u201cThere was there present at that time an old gentleman well\n experienced in the wars, a\u00a0stern soldier, and who had been in many\n great hazards, named Echephron, who, hearing this discourse, said:\n \u2018J\u2019ay grand peur que toute ceste entreprise sera semblable \u00e0 la\n farce _du pot au laict_ duquel un cordavanier se faisoit riche par\n resverie, puis le pot cass\u00e9, n\u2019eut de quoy disner.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis is clearly our story, only the Brahman has, as yet, been changed\ninto a shoemaker only, and the pot of rice or the jar of butter and\nhoney into a pitcher of milk. Now it is perfectly true that if a writer\nof the fifteenth century changed the Brahman into a shoemaker, La\nFontaine might, with the same right, have replaced the Brahman by his\nmilkmaid. Knowing that the story was current, was, in fact, common\nproperty in the fifteenth century, nay, even at a much earlier date, we\nmight really be satisfied after having brought the germs of \u201cPerrette\u201d\nwithin easy reach of La Fontaine. But, fortunately, we can make at least\none step further, a\u00a0step of about two centuries. This step backwards\nbrings us to the thirteenth century, and there we find our old Indian\nfriend again, and this time really changed into a milkmaid. The book I\nrefer to is written in Latin, and is called, \u201cDialogus Creaturarum\noptime moralizatus;\u201d in English, the \u201cDialogue of Creatures moralized.\u201d\nIt was a book intended to teach the principles of Christian morality by\nexamples taken from ancient fables. It was evidently a most successful\nbook, and was translated into several modern languages. There is an old\ntranslation of it in English, first printed by Rastell,[34] and\nafterwards repeated in 1816. I\u00a0shall read you from it the fable in\nwhich, as far as I can find, the milkmaid appears for the first time on\nthe stage, surrounded already by much of that scenery which, four\nhundred years later, received its last touches at the hand of La\nFontaine.\n\n \u201cDIALOGO C. (p.\u00a0ccxxiii.) For as it is but madnesse to trust to\n moche in surete, so it is but foly to hope to moche of vanyteys, for\n vayne be all erthly thinges longynge to men, as sayth Davyd, Psal.\n xciiii: Wher of it is tolde in fablys that a lady uppon a tyme\n delyvered to her mayden a _galon of mylke_ to sell at a cite, and by\n the way, as she sate and restid her by a dyche side, she began to\n thinke that with the money of the mylke she wold bye an henne, the\n which shulde bringe forth chekyns, and when they were growyn to\n hennys she wolde sell them and by piggis, and eschaunge them in to\n shepe, and the shepe in to oxen, and so whan she was come to\n richesse she sholde be maried right worshipfully unto some worthy\n man, and thus she reioycid. And whan she was thus mervelously\n comfortid and ravisshed inwardly in her secrete solace, thinkynge\n with howe greate ioye she shuld be ledde towarde the chirche with\n her husbond on horsebacke, she sayde to her self: \u2018Goo we, goo we.\u2019\n Sodaynlye she smote the ground with her fote, myndynge to spurre the\n horse, but her fote slypped, and she fell in the dyche, and there\n lay all her mylke, and so she was farre from her purpose, and never\n had that she hopid to have.\u201d[35]\n\nHere we have arrived at the end of our journey. It has been a long\njourney across fifteen or twenty centuries, and I am afraid our\nfollowing Perrette from country to country, and from language to\nlanguage, may have tired some of my hearers. I\u00a0shall, therefore, not\nattempt to fill the gap that divides the fable of the thirteenth century\nfrom La Fontaine. Suffice it to say, that the milkmaid, having once\ntaken the place of the Brahman, maintained it against all comers. We\nfind her as Dona Truhana, in the famous \u201cConde Lucanor,\u201d the work of the\nInfante Don Juan Manuel,[36] who died in 1347, the grandson of St.\nFerdinand, the nephew of Alfonso the Wise, though himself not a king,\nyet more powerful than a king; renowned both by his sword and by his\npen, and possibly not ignorant of Arabic, the language of his enemies.\nWe find her again in the \u201cContes et Nouvelles\u201d of Bonaventure des\nPeriers, published in the sixteenth century, a\u00a0book which we know that\nLa Fontaine was well acquainted with. We find her after La Fontaine in\nall the languages of Europe.[37]\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis large table could not be reproduced as printed, so the information\nhas been split into two groups. The table itself gives only the years\nand languages of the translations, with their family relationship. The\nfollowing lists then give the full text, again divided into two formats:\nthe first strictly chronological, the second sorted by branches.\n\nWords in [brackets] were added by the transcriber.]\n\n A.D. OLD COLLECTION OF INDIAN FABLES.\n |\n 500- 531-579 _Pehlevi_ (lost)\n 600 570 _Syriac_\n\n 700- 754-775 _Arabic_\n 800 _________|_________________________________________\n | | | | |\n 1000- | | | | 1080\n 1100 | | | | Greek\n | | | | |\n 1100- | | 1118-53 | _|_____\n 1200 | | Persian | | |\n | | | | | |\n 1200- | 1289 | 1250 | |\n 1300 Latin Spanish | Hebrew | |\n | | | | |\n | | 1263-78 | |\n | | Latin | |\n | | ______|_______ | |\n | | | | | |\n 1300- 1313 | [pre-1325] | | |\n 1400 Latin | German | | |\n | | | |\n 1400- 1494 1493 | |\n 1500 Persian Spanish | |\n _______________| | | |\n | | | | | |\n 1500- 1590 \u201cNew\u201d | 1540 1548 | |\n 1600 [Persian] | Turkish Italian | |\n | | | ___________|___ | |\n Hindustani | | | | | | |\n | | 1552 | 1556 | |\n | | Italian | French | |\n | | |_________|______ | |\n | | | | | |\n | | 1570 1579 | 1583\n | | English French | Italian\n 1600- 1644 | |\n 1700 French |--1654 Spanish 1666\n | Latin\n 1700- 1724\n\n 1800 French\n\n\n[Full text, by date:]\n\n531-579. Khosru Nushirvan, King of Persia; his physician, Barz\u00fbyeh,\ntranslates the Indian fables into _Pehlevi_, s. t. \u201cQalilag and Damnag\u201d\n(lost).\n\n570. Translation of the \u201cQualilag and Damnag,\u201d from Indian into\n_Syriac_, by Bud Periodeutes (Benfey and Socin).\n\n754-775. Khalif Almansur. Abdallah ibn Almokaffa (d. 760) translates the\nPehlevi into _Arabic_ (ed. de Sacy, 1816).\n\n1080. Into _Greek_, by Simeon Seth, s. t. \u201cIchnelates et Stephanites,\u201d\ned. Starkius, 1697.\n\n1118-53. Into _Persian_, by Abul Maali Nasr Allah (prose).\n\nInto _Latin_ by Baldo, s. t. Alter \u00c6sopus (ed. du M\u00e9ril).\n\n1250. Into _Hebrew_, by Rabbi Joel.\n\n1263-78. Into _Latin_, by Johannes of Capua, s. t. \u201cDirectorium human\u00e6\nvit\u00e6\u201d (print. 1480).\n\n1289. Into _Spanish_, by order of the Infante Don Alfonso, s. t. \u201cCalila\n\u00e9 Dymna\u201d (ed. de Gayangos)\n\n1313. Into _Latin_, by Raimond de Beziers, s. t. \u201cCalila et Dimna.\u201d\n\nInto _German_ under Eberhard, Duke of W\u00fcrtemberg (d. 1325), printed\nbefore 1483.\n\n1400-1500\n\n1493. Into _Spanish_, s. t. \u201cExemplario contra los Enga\u00f1os.\u201d\n\n1494. Modernized in _Persian_, by Husain ben Ali, el Vaez, s. t. \u201cAnvari\nSuhaili.\u201d\n\n1540. Into _Turkish_, by Ali Tchelebi, s. t. \u201cHomayun Nameh.\u201d\n\n1548. Into _Italian_, by Ange Firenzuola, s. t. \u201cDiscorsi degli\nAnimali.\u201d\n\n1552. Into _Italian_, by Doni, s. t. \u201cLa Filosofia Morale.\u201d\n\n1556. Into _French_, by Gabr. Cottier, s. t. \u201cLe Plaisant Discours des\nAnimaux.\u201d\n\n1570. Into _English_, by North.\n\n1579. Into _French_, by Pierre de La Rivey, s. t. \u201cDeux Livres de\nFilosofie Fabuleuse.\u201d\n\n1583. Into _Italian_, by G. Nuti, s. t. \u201cDel Governo de\u2019 Regni.\u201d\n\n1590. New, by Abulfazl, for Akbar, \u201cAyari Danish.\u201d\n\nTranslated into _Hindustani_, s. t. \u201cKhirud Ufroz,\u201d the Illuminator of\nthe Understanding.\n\n1644. Into _French_, by David Sahid d\u2019Ispahan (Gaulmin), s. t. \u201cLivre\ndes Lumi\u00e8res, ou la Conduite des Rois, compos\u00e9 par le sage Pilpay,\nIndien\u201d (4 cap. only).\n\nInto _Spanish_, by Brattuti, \u201cEspejo politico,\u201d 1654.\n\n1666. Into _Latin_, by Petrus Possinus.\n\n1724. Into _French_, by Galland, s. t. \u201cLes Contes et Fables\nIndiennes de Bibpa\u00ef et de Lokman\u201d (4 cap. only); finished in 1778 by\nCardonne.\n\n\n[Full text, by branches; each added indentation is a new branch.]\n\nInto _Latin_ by Baldo, s. t. Alter \u00c6sopus (ed. du M\u00e9ril).\n\n 1289. Into _Spanish_, by order of the Infante Don Alfonso, s. t.\n \u201cCalila \u00e9 Dymna\u201d (ed. de Gayangos)\n 1313. Into _Latin_, by Raimond de Beziers, s. t. \u201cCalila et Dimna.\u201d\n\n 1118-53. Into _Persian_, by Abul Maali Nasr Allah (prose).\n 1494. Modernized in _Persian_, by Husain ben Ali, el Vaez, s. t.\n \u201cAnvari Suhaili.\u201d\n a: 1590. New, by Abulfazl, for Akbar, \u201cAyari Danish.\u201d\n a: Translated into _Hindustani_, s. t. \u201cKhirud Ufroz,\u201d the\n Illuminator of the Understanding.\n b: 1644. Into _French_, by David Sahid d\u2019Ispahan (Gaulmin), s. t.\n \u201cLivre des Lumi\u00e8res, ou la Conduite des Rois, compos\u00e9 par le\n sage Pilpay, Indien\u201d (4 cap. only).\n c: 1540. Into _Turkish_, by Ali Tchelebi, s. t. \u201cHomayun Nameh.\u201d\n c: Into _Spanish_, by Brattuti, \u201cEspejo politico,\u201d 1654.\n c: 1724. Into _French_, by Galland, s. t. \u201cLes Contes et Fables\n Indiennes de Bibpa\u00ef et de Lokman\u201d (4 cap. only); finished in\n 1778 by Cardonne.\n\n 1250. Into _Hebrew_, by Rabbi Joel.\n 1263-78. Into _Latin_, by Johannes of Capua, s. t. \u201cDirectorium\n human\u00e6 vit\u00e6\u201d (print. 1480).\n a: Into _German_ under Eberhard, Duke of W\u00fcrtemberg (d. 1325),\n printed before 1483.\n b: 1493. Into _Spanish_, s. t. \u201cExemplario contra los Enga\u00f1os.\u201d\n b: 1548. Into _Italian_, by Ange Firenzuola, s. t. \u201cDiscorsi\n degli Animali.\u201d\n b: 1552. Into _Italian_, by Doni, s. t. \u201cLa Filosofia Morale.\u201d\n b: 1556. Into _French_, by Gabr. Cottier, s. t. \u201cLe Plaisant\n Discours des Animaux.\u201d\n b: 1570. Into _English_, by North.\n b: 1579. Into _French_, by Pierre de La Rivey, s. t. \u201cDeux\n Livres de Filosofie Fabuleuse.\u201d\n\n 1080. Into _Greek_, by Simeon Seth, s. t. \u201cIchnelates et\n Stephanites,\u201d ed. Starkius, 1697.\n 1583. Into _Italian_, by G. Nuti, s. t. \u201cDel Governo de\u2019\n Regni.\u201d\n 1666. Into _Latin_, by Petrus Possinus.\n\n\nYou see now before your eyes the bridge on which our fables came to us\nfrom East to West. The same bridge which brought us Perrette brought us\nhundreds of fables, all originally sprung up in India, many of them\ncarefully collected by Buddhist priests, and preserved in their sacred\ncanon, afterwards handed on to the Brahminic writers of a later age,\ncarried by Barz\u00fbyeh from India to the court of Persia, then to the\ncourts of the Khalifs at Bagdad and Cordova, and of the emperors at\nConstantinople. Some of them, no doubt, perished on their journey,\nothers were mixed up together, others were changed till we should hardly\nknow them again. Still, if you once know the eventful journey of\nPerrette, you know the journey of all the other fables that belong to\nthis Indian cycle. Few of them have gone through so many changes, few of\nthem have found so many friends, whether in the courts of kings or in\nthe huts of beggars. Few of them have been to places where Perrette has\nnot also been. This is why I selected her and her passage through the\nworld as the best illustration of a subject which otherwise would\nrequire a whole course of lectures to do it justice.\n\nBut though our fable represents one large class or cluster of fables, it\ndoes not represent all. There were several collections, besides the\nPancatantra, which found their way from India to Europe. The most\nimportant among them is the \u201cBook of the Seven Wise Masters, or the Book\nof Sindbad,\u201d the history of which has lately been written, with great\nlearning and ingenuity, by Signor Comparetti.[38]\n\nThese large collections of fables and stories mark what may be called\nthe high roads on which the literary products of the East were carried\nto the West. But there are, beside these high roads, some smaller, less\ntrodden paths on which single fables, sometimes mere proverbs, similes,\nor metaphors, have come to us from India, from Persepolis, from Damascus\nand Bagdad. I\u00a0have already alluded to the powerful influence which\nArabic literature exercised on Western Europe through Spain. Again,\na\u00a0most active interchange of Eastern and Western ideas took place at a\nlater time during the progress of the Crusades. Even the inroads of\nMongolian tribes into Russia and the East of Europe kept up a literary\nbartering between Oriental and Occidental nations.\n\nBut few would have suspected a Father of the Church as an importer of\nEastern fables. Yet so it is.\n\nAt the court of the same Khalif Almansur, where Abdallah ibn Almokaffa\ntranslated the fables of Calila and Dimna from Persian into Arabic,\nthere lived a Christian of the name of Sergius, who for many years held\nthe high office of treasurer to the Khalif. He had a son to whom he gave\nthe best education that could then be given, his chief tutor being one\nCosmas, an Italian monk, who had been taken prisoner by the Saracens,\nand sold as a slave at Bagdad. After the death of Sergius, his son\nsucceeded him for some time as chief councillor (\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) to\nthe Khalif Almansur. Such, however, had been the influence of the\nItalian monk on his pupil\u2019s mind, that he suddenly resolved to retire\nfrom the world, and to devote himself to study, meditation, and pious\nworks. From the monastery of St. Saba, near Jerusalem, this former\nminister of the Khalif issued the most learned works on theology,\nparticularly his \u201cExposition of the Orthodox Faith.\u201d He soon became the\nhighest authority on matters of dogma in the Eastern Church, and he\nstill holds his place among the saints both of the Eastern and Western\nChurches. His name was Joannes, and from being born at Damascus, the\nformer capital of the Khalifs, he is best known in history as Joannes\nDamascenus, or St. John of Damascus. He must have known Arabic, and\nprobably Persian; but his mastery of Greek earned him, later in life,\nthe name of Chrysorrhoas, or Gold-flowing. He became famous as the\ndefender of the sacred images, and as the determined opponent of the\nEmperor Leo the Isaurian, about 726. It is difficult in his life to\ndistinguish between legend and history, but that he had held high office\nat the court of the Khalif Almansur, that he boldly opposed the\niconoclastic policy of the Emperor Leo, and that he wrote the most\nlearned theological works of his time, cannot be easily questioned.\n\nAmong the works ascribed to him is a story called \u201cBarlaam and\nJoasaph.\u201d[39] There has been a fierce controversy as to whether he was\nthe author of it or not. Though for our own immediate purposes it would\nbe of little consequence whether the book was written by Joannes\nDamascenus or by some less distinguished ecclesiastic, I\u00a0must confess\nthat the arguments hitherto adduced against his authorship seem to me\nvery weak.\n\nThe Jesuits did not like the book, because it was a religious novel.\nThey pointed to a passage in which the Holy Ghost is represented as\nproceeding from the Father \u201cand the Son,\u201d as incompatible with the creed\nof an Eastern ecclesiastic. That very passage, however, has now been\nproved to be spurious; and it should be borne in mind, besides, that the\ncontroversy on the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the\nSon, or from the Father through the Son, dates a century later than\nJoannes. The fact, again, that the author does not mention\nMohammedanism,[40] proves nothing against the authorship of Joannes,\nbecause, as he places Barlaam and Joasaph in the early centuries of\nChristianity, he would have ruined his story by any allusion to\nMohammed\u2019s religion, then only a hundred years old. Besides, he had\nwritten a separate work, in which the relative merits of Christianity\nand Mohammedanism are discussed. The prominence given to the question of\nthe worship of images shows that the story could not have been written\nmuch before the time of Joannes Damascenus, and there is nothing in the\nstyle of our author that could be pointed out as incompatible with the\nstyle of the great theologian. On the contrary, the author of \u201cBarlaam\nand Joasaph\u201d quotes the same authors whom Joannes Damascenus quotes most\nfrequently--_e.g._, Basilius and Gregorius Nazianzenus. And no one but\nJoannes could have taken long passages from his own works without saying\nwhere he borrowed them.[41]\n\nThe story of \u201cBarlaam and Joasaph\u201d--or, as he is more commonly called,\nJosaphat--may be told in a few words: \u201cA\u00a0king in India, an enemy and\npersecutor of the Christians, has an only son. The astrologers have\npredicted that he would embrace the new doctrine. His father, therefore,\ntries by all means in his power to keep him ignorant of the miseries of\nthe world, and to create in him a taste for pleasure and enjoyment.\nA\u00a0Christian hermit, however, gains access to the prince, and instructs\nhim in the doctrines of the Christian religion. The young prince is not\nonly baptized, but resolves to give up all his earthly riches; and after\nhaving converted his own father and many of his subjects, he follows his\nteacher into the desert.\u201d\n\nThe real object of the book is to give a simple exposition of the\nprincipal doctrines of the Christian religion. It also contains a first\nattempt at comparative theology, for in the course of the story there is\na disputation on the merits of the principal religions of the world--the\nChald\u00e6an, the Egyptian, the Greek, the Jewish, and the Christian. But\none of the chief attractions of this manual of Christian theology\nconsisted in a number of fables and parables with which it is enlivened.\nMost of them have been traced to an Indian source. I\u00a0shall mention one\nonly which has found its way into almost every literature of the\nworld:[42]--\n\n \u201cA man was pursued by a unicorn, and while he tried to flee from it,\n he fell into a pit. In falling he stretched out both his arms, and\n laid hold of a small tree that was growing on one side of the pit.\n Having gained a firm footing, and holding to the tree, he fancied he\n was safe, when he saw two mice, a\u00a0black and a white one, busy\n gnawing the root of the tree to which he was clinging. Looking down\n into the pit, he perceived a horrid dragon with his mouth wide open,\n ready to devour him, and when examining the place on which his feet\n rested, the heads of four serpents glared at him. Then he looked up,\n and observed drops of honey falling down from the tree to which he\n clung. Suddenly the unicorn, the dragon, the mice, and the serpents\n were all forgotten, and his mind was intent only on catching the\n drops of sweet honey trickling down from the tree.\u201d\n\nAn explanation is hardly required. The unicorn is Death, always chasing\nman; the pit is the world; the small tree is man\u2019s life, constantly\ngnawed by the black and the white mouse--_i.e._, by night and day; the\nfour serpents are the four elements which compose the human body; the\ndragon below is meant for the jaws of hell. Surrounded by all those\nhorrors, man is yet able to forget them all, and to think only of the\npleasures of life, which, like a few drops of honey, fall into his mouth\nfrom the tree of life.[43]\n\nBut what is still more curious is, that the author of \u201cBarlaam and\nJosaphat\u201d has evidently taken his very hero, the Indian Prince Josaphat,\nfrom an Indian source. In the \u201cLalita Vistara\u201d--the life, though no\ndoubt the legendary life, of Buddha--the father of Buddha is a king.\nWhen his son is born, the Brahman Asita predicts that he will rise to\ngreat glory, and become either a powerful king, or, renouncing the\nthrone and embracing the life of a hermit become a Buddha.[44] The great\nobject of his father is to prevent this. He therefore keeps the young\nprince, when he grows up, in his garden and palaces, surrounded by all\npleasures which might turn his mind from contemplation to enjoyment.\nMore especially he is to know nothing of illness, old age, and death,\nwhich might open his eyes to the misery and unreality of life. After a\ntime, however, the prince receives permission to drive out; and then\nfollow the four drives,[45] so famous in Buddhist history. The places\nwhere these drives took place were commemorated by towers still standing\nin the time of Fa Hian\u2019s visit to India, early in the fifth century\nafter Christ, and even in the time of Hiouen Thsang, in the seventh\ncentury. I\u00a0shall read you a short account of the three drives:[46]--\n\n \u201cOne day when the prince with a large retinue was driving through\n the eastern gate of the city, on the way to one of his parks, he met\n on the road an old man, broken and decrepit. One could see the veins\n and muscles over the whole of his body, his teeth chattered, he was\n covered with wrinkles, bald, and hardly able to utter hollow and\n unmelodious sounds. He was bent on his stick, and all his limbs and\n joints trembled. \u2018Who is that man?\u2019 said the prince to his coachman.\n \u2018He is small and weak, his flesh and his blood are dried up, his\n muscles stick to his skin, his head is white, his teeth chatter, his\n body is wasted away; leaning on his stick, he is hardly able to\n walk, stumbling at every step. Is there something peculiar in his\n family, or is this the common lot of all created beings?\u2019\n\n \u201c\u2018Sir,\u2019 replied the coachman, \u2018that man is sinking under old age,\n his senses have become obtuse, suffering has destroyed his strength,\n and he is despised by his relations. He is without support and\n useless, and people have abandoned him, like a dead tree in a\n forest. But this is not peculiar to his family. In every creature\n youth is defeated by old age. Your father, your mother, all your\n relations, all your friends, will come to the same state; this is\n the appointed end of all creatures.\u2019\n\n \u201c\u2018Alas!\u2019 replied the prince, \u2018are creatures so ignorant, so weak and\n foolish as to be proud of the youth by which they are intoxicated,\n not seeing the old age which awaits them? As for me, I\u00a0go away.\n Coachman, turn my chariot quickly. What have I, the future prey of\n old age--what have I to do with pleasure?\u2019 And the young prince\n returned to the city without going to the park.\n\n \u201cAnother time the prince was driving through the southern gate to\n his pleasure-garden, when he perceived on the road a man suffering\n from illness, parched with fever, his body wasted, covered with mud,\n without a friend, without a home, hardly able to breathe, and\n frightened at the sight of himself, and the approach of death.\n Having questioned his coachman, and received from him the answer\n which he expected, the young prince said, \u2018Alas! health is but the\n sport of a dream, and the fear of suffering must take this frightful\n form. Where is the wise man who, after having seen what he is, could\n any longer think of joy and pleasure?\u2019 The prince turned his\n chariot, and returned to the city.\n\n \u201cA third time he was driving to his pleasure-garden through the\n western gate, when he saw a dead body on the road, lying on a bier\n and covered with a cloth. The friends stood about crying, sobbing,\n tearing their hair, covering their heads with dust, striking their\n breasts, and uttering wild cries. The prince, again, calling his\n coachman to witness this painful scene, exclaimed, \u2018Oh, woe to\n youth, which must be destroyed by old age! Woe to health, which must\n be destroyed by so many diseases! Woe to this life, where a man\n remains so short a time! If there were no old age, no disease, no\n death; if these could be made captive forever!\u2019 Then, betraying for\n the first time his intentions, the young prince said, \u2018Let us turn\n back, I\u00a0must think how to accomplish deliverance.\u2019\n\n \u201cA last meeting put an end to hesitation. He was driving through the\n northern gate on the way to his pleasure-gardens, when he saw a\n mendicant, who appeared outwardly calm, subdued, looking downwards,\n wearing with an air of dignity his religious vestment, and carrying\n an alms-bowl.\n\n \u201c\u2018Who is that man?\u2019 asked the prince.\n\n \u201c\u2018Sir,\u2019 replied the coachman, \u2018this man is one of those who are\n called Bhikshus, or mendicants. He has renounced all pleasures, all\n desires, and leads a life of austerity. He tries to conquer himself.\n He has become a devotee. Without passion, without envy, he walks\n about asking for alms.\u2019\n\n \u201c\u2018This is good and well said,\u2019 replied the prince. \u2018The life of a\n devotee has always been praised by the wise. It will be my refuge,\n and the refuge of other creatures; it will lead us to a real life,\n to happiness and immortality.\u2019\n\n \u201cWith these words the young prince turned his chariot, and returned\n to the city.\u201d\n\nIf we now compare the story of Joannes of Damascus, we find that the\nearly life of Josaphat is exactly the same as that of Buddha. His father\nis a king, and after the birth of his son, an astrologer predicts that\nhe will rise to glory; not, however, in his own kingdom, but in a higher\nand better one; in fact, that he will embrace the new and persecuted\nreligion of the Christians. Everything is done to prevent this. He is\nkept in a beautiful palace, surrounded by all that is enjoyable; and\ngreat care is taken to keep him in ignorance of sickness, old age, and\ndeath. After a time, however, his father gives him leave to drive out.\nOn one of his drives he sees two men, one maimed, the other blind. He\nasks what they are, and is told that they are suffering from disease. He\nthen inquires whether all men are liable to disease, and whether it is\nknown beforehand who will suffer from disease and who will be free; and\nwhen he hears the truth, he becomes sad, and returns home. Another time,\nwhen he drives out, he meets an old man with wrinkled face and shaking\nlegs, bent down, with white hair, his teeth gone, and his voice\nfaltering. He asks again what all this means, and is told that this is\nwhat happens to all men; and that no one can escape old age, and that in\nthe end all men must die. Thereupon he returns home to meditate on\ndeath, till at last a hermit appears,[47] and opens before his eyes a\nhigher view of life, as contained in the Gospel of Christ.\n\nNo one, I believe, can read these two stories without feeling convinced\nthat one was borrowed from the other; and as Fa Hian, three hundred\nyears before John of Damascus, saw the towers which commemorated the\nthree drives of Buddha still standing among the ruins of the royal city\nof Kapilavastu, it follows that the Greek father borrowed his subject\nfrom the Buddhist scriptures. Were it necessary, it would be easy to\npoint out still more minute coincidences between the life of Josaphat\nand of Buddha, the founder of the Buddhist religion. Both in the end\nconvert their royal fathers, both fight manfully against the assaults of\nthe flesh and the devil, both are regarded as saints before they die.\nPossibly even a proper name may have been transferred from the sacred\ncanon of the Buddhists to the pages of the Greek writer. The driver who\nconducts Buddha when he flees by night from his palace where he leaves\nhis wife, his only son, and all his treasures, in order to devote\nhimself to a contemplative life, is called Chandaka, in Burmese,\nSanna.[48] The friend and companion of Barlaam is called Zardan.[49]\nReinaud in his \u201cM\u00e9moire sur l\u2019Inde,\u201d p.\u00a091 (1849), was the first, it\nseems, to point out that Youdasf, mentioned by Massoudi as the founder\nof the Sab\u00e6an religion, and Youasaf, mentioned as the founder of\nBuddhism by the author of the \u201cKit\u00e1b-al-Fihrist,\u201d are both meant for\nBodhisattva, a\u00a0corruption quite intelligible with the system of\ntranscribing that name with Persian letters. Professor Benfey has\nidentified Theudas, the sorcerer in \u201cBarlaam and Joasaph,\u201d with the\nDevadatta of the Buddhist scriptures.[50]\n\nHow palpable these coincidences are between the two stories is best\nshown by the fact that they were pointed out, independently of each\nother, by scholars in France, Germany, and England. I\u00a0place France\nfirst, because in point of time M. Laboulaye was the first who called\nattention to it in one of his charming articles in the \u201cDebats.\u201d[51]\nA\u00a0more detailed comparison was given by Dr. Liebrecht.[52] And, lastly,\nMr. Beal, in his translation of the \u201cTravels of Fa Hian,\u201d[53] called\nattention to the same fact--viz., that the story of Josaphat was\nborrowed from the \u201cLife of Buddha.\u201d I\u00a0could mention the names of two or\nthree scholars besides who happened to read the two books, and who could\nnot help seeing, what was as clear as daylight, that Joannes Damascenus\ntook the principal character of his religious novel from the \u201cLalita\nVistara,\u201d one of the sacred books of the Buddhists; but the merit of\nhaving been the first belongs to M.\u00a0Laboulaye.\n\nThis fact is, no doubt, extremely curious in the history of literature;\nbut there is another fact connected with it which is more than curious,\nand I wonder that it has never been pointed out before. It is well known\nthat the story of \u201cBarlaam and Josaphat\u201d became a most popular book\nduring the Middle Ages. In the East it was translated into Syriac(?),\nArabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Hebrew; in the West it exists in Latin,\nFrench, Italian, German, English, Spanish, Bohemian, and Polish. As\nearly as 1204, a\u00a0King of Norway translated it into Icelandic, and at a\nlater time it was translated by a Jesuit missionary into Tagala, the\nclassical language of the Philippine Islands. But this is not all,\nBarlaam and Josaphat have actually risen to the rank of saints, both in\nthe Eastern and in the Western churches. In the Eastern church the 26th\nof August is the saints\u2019 day of Barlaam and Josaphat; in the Roman\nMartyrologium, the 27th of November is assigned to them.\n\nThere have been from time to time misgivings about the historical\ncharacter of these two saints. Leo Allatius, in his \u201cProlegomena,\u201d\nventured to ask the question, whether the story of \u201cBarlaam and\nJosaphat\u201d was more real than the \u201cCyrop\u00e6dia\u201d of Xenophon, or the\n\u201cUtopia\u201d of Thomas More; but, _en bon Catholique_, he replied, that as\nBarlaam and Josaphat were mentioned, not only in the Men\u00e6a of the Greek,\nbut also in the Martyrologium of the Roman Church, he could not bring\nhimself to believe that their history was imaginary. Billius thought\nthat to doubt the concluding words of the author, who says that he\nreceived the story of \u201cBarlaam and Josaphat\u201d from men incapable of\nfalsehood, would be to trust more in one\u2019s own suspicions than in\nChristian charity, which believeth all things. Bellarminus thought he\ncould prove the truth of the story by the fact that, at the end of it,\nthe author himself invokes the two saints Barlaam and Josaphat! Leo\nAllatius admitted, indeed, that some of the speeches and conversations\noccurring in the story might be the work of Joannes Damascenus, because\nJosaphat, having but recently been converted, could not have quoted so\nmany passages from the Bible. But he implies that even this could be\nexplained, because the Holy Ghost might have taught St. Josaphat what to\nsay. At all events, Leo has no mercy for those \u201cquibus omnia sub\nsanctorum nomine prodita male olent, quemadmodum de sanctis Georgio,\nChristophoro, Hippolyto, Catarina, aliisque nusquam eos in rerum natura\nextitisse impudentissime nugantur.\u201d The Bishop of Avranches had likewise\nhis doubts; but he calmed them by saying: \u201cNon pas que je veuille\nsoustenir que tout en soit suppos\u00e9: il y auroit de la t\u00e9merit\u00e9 \u00e0\ndesavouer qu\u2019il y ait jamais e\u00fb de Barlaam ni de Josaphat. Le t\u00e9moignage\ndu Martyrologe, qui les met au nombre des Saints, et leur intercession\nque Saint Jean Damascene reclame \u00e0 la fin de cette histoire ne\npermettent pas d\u2019en douter.\u201d[54]\n\nWith us the question as to the historical or purely imaginary character\nof Josaphat has assumed a new and totally different aspect. We willingly\naccept the statement of Joannes Damascenus that the story of \u201cBarlaam\nand Josaphat\u201d was told him by men who came from India. We know that in\nIndia a story was current of a prince who lived in the sixth century\nB.C., a prince of whom it was predicted that he would resign the throne,\nand devote his life to meditation, in order to rise to the rank of a\nBuddha. The story tells us that his father did everything to prevent\nthis; that he kept him in a palace secluded from the world, surrounded\nby all that makes life enjoyable; and that he tried to keep him in\nignorance of sickness, old age, and death. We know from the same story\nthat at last the young prince obtained permission to drive into the\ncountry, and that, by meeting an old man, a\u00a0sick man, and a corpse, his\neyes were opened to the unreality of life, and the vanity of this life\u2019s\npleasures; that he escaped from his palace, and, after defeating the\nassaults of all adversaries, became the founder of a new religion. This\nis the story, it may be the legendary story, but at all events the\nrecognized story of Gautama \u015a\u00e2kyamuni, best known to us under the name\nof Buddha.\n\nIf, then, Joannes Damascenus tells the same story, only putting the name\nof Joasaph or Josaphat, _i.e._, Bodhisattva, in the place of Buddha; if\nall that is human and personal in the life of St. Josaphat is taken from\nthe \u201cLalita Vistara\u201d--what follows? It follows that, in the same sense\nin which La Fontaine\u2019s Perrette is the Brahman of the Pa\u00f1catantra, St.\nJosaphat is the Buddha of the Buddhist canon. It follows that Buddha has\nbecome a saint in the Roman Church; it follows that, though under a\ndifferent name, the sage of Kapilavastu, the founder of a religion\nwhich, whatever we may think of its dogma, is, in the purity of its\nmorals, nearer to Christianity than any other religion, and which counts\neven now, after an existence of 2,400 years, 455,000,000 of believers,\nhas received the highest honors that the Christian Church can bestow.\nAnd whatever we may think of the sanctity of saints, let those who doubt\nthe right of Buddha to a place among them read the story of his life as\nit is told in the Buddhist canon. If he lived the life which is there\ndescribed, few saints have a better claim to the title than Buddha; and\nno one either in the Greek or in the Roman Church need be ashamed of\nhaving paid to Buddha\u2019s memory the honor that was intended for St.\nJosaphat, the prince, the hermit, and the saint.\n\nHistory, here as elsewhere, is stranger than fiction; and a kind fairy,\nwhom men call Chance, has here, as elsewhere, remedied the ingratitude\nand injustice of the world.\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nI am enabled to add here a short account of an important discovery made\nby Professor Benfey with regard to the Syriac translation of our\nCollection of Fables. Doubts had been expressed by Sylvestre de Sacy and\nothers, as to the existence of this translation, which was mentioned for\nthe first time in Ebedjesu\u2019s catalogue of Syriac writers published by\nAbraham Ecchellensis, and again later by Assemani (\u201cBiblioth. Orient.,\u201d\ntom. iii. part 1, p.\u00a0219). M.\u00a0Renan, on the contrary, had shown that the\ntitle of this translation, as transmitted to us, \u201cKalilag and Damnag,\u201d\nwas a guarantee of its historical authenticity. As a final k in Pehlevi\nbecomes h in modern Persian, a\u00a0title such as \u201cKalilag and Damnag,\u201d\nanswering to \u201cKalilak and Damnak\u201d in Pehlevi, in Sanskrit \u201cKara\u1e6daka and\nDamanaka,\u201d could only have been borrowed from the Persian before the\nMohammedan era. Now that the interesting researches of Professor Benfey\non this subject have been rewarded by the happy discovery of a Syriac\ntranslation, there remains but one point to be cleared up, viz., whether\nthis is really the translation made by Bud Periodeutes, and whether this\nsame translation was made, as Ebedjesu affirms, from the Indian text,\nor, as M.\u00a0Renan supposes, from a Pehlevi version. I\u00a0insert the account\nwhich Professor Benfey himself gave of his discovery in the Supplement\nto the \u201cAllgemeine Zeitung\u201d of July 12, 1871, and I may add that both\ntext and translation are nearly ready for publication (1875).\n\n_The oldest MS. of the Pantschatantra._\n\n G\u00d6TTINGEN, _July 6, 1871_.\n\nThe account I am about to give will recall the novel of our celebrated\ncompatriot Freytag (\u201cDie verlorene Handschrift,\u201d or \u201cThe Lost\u00a0MS.\u201d), but\nwith this essential difference, that we are not here treating of a\ncreation of the imagination, but of a real fact; not of the MS. of a\nwork of which many other copies exist, but of an unique specimen; in\nshort, of the MS. of a work which, on the faith of one single mention,\nwas believed to have been composed thirteen centuries ago. This mention,\nhowever, appeared to many critical scholars so untrustworthy, that they\nlooked upon it as the mere result of confusion. Another most important\ndifference is, that this search, which has lasted three years, has been\nfollowed by the happiest results: it has brought to light a MS. which,\neven in this century, rich in important discoveries, deserves to be\nranked as of the highest value. We have acquired in this MS. the oldest\nspecimen preserved to our days of a work, which, as translated into\nvarious languages, has been more widely disseminated and has had a\ngreater influence on the development of civilization than any other\nwork, excepting the Bible.\n\nBut to the point.\n\nThrough the researches, which I have published in my edition of the\nPantschatantra,[55] it is known that about the sixth century of our era,\na\u00a0work existed in India, which treated of deep political questions under\nthe form of fables, in which the actors were animals. It contained\nvarious chapters, but these subdivisions were not, as had been hitherto\nbelieved, eleven to thirteen in number, but, as the MS. just found shows\nmost clearly, there were at least twelve, perhaps thirteen or fourteen.\nThis work was afterwards so entirely altered in India, that five of\nthese divisions were separated from the other six or nine, and much\nenlarged, whilst the remaining ones were entirely set aside. This\napparently curtailed, but really enlarged edition of the old work, is\nthe Sanskrit book so well known as the Pantschatantra, \u201cThe Five Books.\u201d\nIt soon took the place, on its native soil, of the old work, causing the\nirreparable loss of the latter in India.\n\nBut before this change of the old work had been effected in its own\nland, it had, in the first half of the sixth century, been carried to\nPersia, and translated into Pehlevi under King Chosru Nuschirvan\n(531-579). According to the researches which I have described in my book\nalready quoted, the results of which are fully confirmed by the newly\ndiscovered MS., it cannot be doubted that, if this translation had been\npreserved, we should have in it a faithful reproduction of the original\nIndian work, from which, by various modifications, the Pantschatantra is\nderived. But unfortunately this Pehlevi translation, like its Indian\noriginal, is irretrievably lost.\n\nBut it is known to have been translated into Arabic in the eighth\ncentury by a native of Persia, by name Abdallah ibn Almokaffa (d.\u00a0760),\nwho had embraced Islamism, and it acquired, partly in this language,\npartly in translations and retranslations from it (apart from the\nrecensions in India, which penetrated to East, North, and South Asia,)\nthat extensive circulation which has caused it to exercise the greatest\ninfluence on civilization in Western Asia, and throughout Europe.\n\nBesides this translation into Pehlevi, there was, according to one\naccount, another, also of the sixth century, in Syriac. This account we\nowe to a Nestorian writer, who lived in the thirteenth century. He\nmentions in his catalogue of authors[56] a\u00a0certain Bud Periodeutes, who\nprobably about 570 had to inspect the Nestorian communities in Persia\nand India, and who says that, in addition to other books which he names,\n\u201che translated the book \u2018Qal\u00eelag and Damnag\u2019 from the Indian.\u201d\n\nUntil three years ago, not the faintest trace of this old Syrian\ntranslation was to be found, and the celebrated Orientalist, Silvestre\nde Sacy, in the historical memoir which he prefixed to his edition of\nthe Arabic translation, \u201cCalila and Dimna\u201d (Paris, 1816), thought\nhimself justified in seeing in this mention a mere confusion between\nBarz\u00fbyeh, the Pehlevi translator, and a Nestorian Monk.\n\nThe first trace of this Syriac version was found in May, 1868. On the\nsixth of that month, Professor Bickell of M\u00fcnster, the diligent promoter\nof Syrian philology, wrote to tell me that he had heard from a Syrian\nArchdeacon from Urumia, Jochann\u00e2n bar B\u00e2bisch, who had visited M\u00fcnster\nin the spring to collect alms, and had returned there again in May,\nthat, some time previously, several Chald\u00e6an priests who had been\nvisiting the Christians of St. Thomas in India, had brought back with\nthem some copies of this Syriac translation, and had given them to the\nCatholic Patriarch in Elkosh (near Mossul). He had received one of\nthese.\n\nThough the news appeared so unbelievable and the character of the Syrian\npriest little calculated to inspire confidence in his statements, it\nstill seemed to me of sufficient importance for me to ask my friends to\nmake further inquiries in India, where other copies ought still to be in\nexistence. Even were the result but a decided negative, it would be a\ngain to science. These inquiries had no effect in proving the truth of\nthe archdeacon\u2019s assertions; but, at the same time, they did not\ndisprove them. It would of course have been more natural to make\ninquiries among the Syrians. But from want of friends and from other\ncauses, which I shall mention further on, I\u00a0could hardly hope for any\ncertain results, and least of all, that if the MS. really existed,\nI\u00a0could obtain it, or a copy of it.\n\nThe track thus appeared to be lost, and not possible to be followed up,\nwhen, after the lapse of nearly two years, Professor Bickell, in a\nletter of February 22, 1870, drew my attention to the fact that the\nChald\u00e6an Patriarch, Jussuf Audo, who, according to Jochann\u00e2n bar\nB\u00e2bisch, was in possession of that translation, was now in Rome, as\nmember of the Council summoned by the Pope.\n\nThrough Dr. Sch\u00f6ll of Weimar, then in Rome, and one Italian savant,\nSignor Ignazio Guidi, I\u00a0was put into communication with the Patriarch,\nand with another Chald\u00e6an priest, Bishop Qajj\u00e2t, and received\ncommunications, the latest of June 11, 1870, which indeed proved the\ninformation of Jochann\u00e2n bar B\u00e2bisch to be entirely untrustworthy; but\nat the same time pointed to the probable existence of a MS. of the\nSyriac translation at Mard\u00een.\n\nI did not wait for the last letters, which might have saved the\ndiscoverer much trouble, but might also have frustrated the whole\ninquiry; but, as soon as I had learnt the place where the MS. might be,\nI\u00a0wrote; May 6, 1870, exactly two years after the first trace of the MS.\nhad been brought to light, to my former pupil and friend, Dr. Albert\nSocin of Basle, who was then in Asia on a scientific expedition, begging\nhim to make the most careful inquiries in Mard\u00een about this MS., and\nespecially to satisfy himself whether it had been derived from the\nArabian translation, or was independent of and older than the latter. We\nwill let Dr. Socin, the discoverer of the MS., tell us himself of his\nefforts and their results.\n\n\u201cI received your letter of May 6, 1870, a few days ago, by Bagdad and\nMossul, at Yacho on the Chab\u00f4ras. You say that you had heard that the\nbook was in the library at Mard\u00een. I\u00a0must own that I doubted seriously\nthe truth of the information, for Oriental Christians always say that\nthey possess every possible book, whilst in reality they have but few.\nI\u00a0found this on my journey through the \u2018Christian Mountain,\u2019 the T\u00fbr el\u2019\n\u2019Abed\u00een, where I visited many places and monasteries but little known.\nI\u00a0only saw Bibles in Estrangelo character, which were of value, nowhere\nprofane books; but the people are so fanatical, and watch their books so\nclosely, that it is very difficult to get sight of anything; and one has\nto keep them in good humor. Unless after a long sojourn, and with the\naid of bribery, there can never be any thought of buying anything from a\nmonastic library. Arrived in Mard\u00een, I\u00a0set myself to discover the book.\nI\u00a0naturally passed by all Moslem libraries, as Syriac books only exist\namong the Christians. I\u00a0settled at first that the library in question\ncould only be the Jacobite Cloister, \u2018Der ez Z\u00e0fer\u00e2n,\u2019 the most\nimportant centre of the Christians of Mard\u00een. I\u00a0therefore sent to the\nPatriarch of Diarbekir for most particular introductions, and started\nfor \u2018Der ez Z\u00e0fer\u00e2n,\u2019 which lies in the mountains, 5\u00bd hours from Mard\u00een.\nThe recommendations opened the library to me. I\u00a0looked through four\nhundred volumes, without finding anything; there was not much of any\nvalue. On my return to Mard\u00een, I\u00a0questioned people right and left; no\none knew anything about it. At length I summoned up courage one day, and\nwent to the Chald\u00e6an monastery. The different sects in Mard\u00een are most\nbitter against each other, and as I unfortunately lodged in the house of\nan American missionary, it was very difficult for me to gain access to\nthese Catholics, who were unknown to me. Luckily my servant was a\nCatholic, and could state that I had no proselytizing schemes. After a\ntime I asked about their books; Missals and Gospels were placed before\nme; I\u00a0asked if they had any books of Fables. \u2018Yes, there was one there.\u2019\nAfter a long search in the dust, it was found and brought to me.\nI\u00a0opened it, and saw at the first glance, in red letters, \u2018Qal\u00eelag and\nDamnag,\u2019 with the old termination g, which proved to me that the work\nwas not translated from the Arabic \u2018Calila ve Dimnah.\u2019 You may be\ncertain that I did not show what I felt. I\u00a0soon laid the book quietly\ndown. I\u00a0had indeed before asked the monk specially for \u2018Kalila and\nDimna,\u2019 and with some persistency, before I inquired generally for books\nof fables; but he had not the faintest suspicion that the book before\nhim was the one so eagerly sought after. After about a week or ten days,\nin order to arouse no suspicion, I\u00a0sent a trustworthy man to borrow the\nbook; but he was asked at once if it were for the \u2018Fr\u00e9ngi den Prot\u2019\n(Protestant), and my confidant was so good as to deny it, \u2018No, it was\nfor himself.\u2019 I\u00a0then examined the book more carefully. Having it safely\nin my possession, I\u00a0was not alarmed at the idea of a little hubbub.\nI\u00a0therefore made inquiries, but in all secret, whether they would sell\nit. \u2018No, never,\u2019 was the answer I expected and received, and the idea\nthat I had borrowed it for myself was revived. I\u00a0therefore began to have\na copy made. But I was obliged to leave Mard\u00een and even the neighboring\nDiarbekir, before I received the copy. In Mard\u00een itself the return of\nthe book was loudly demanded, as soon as they knew I was having it\ncopied. I\u00a0was indeed delighted when, through the kindness of friends,\n_post tot discrimina rerum_ I received the book at Aleppo.\u201d\n\nSo far writes my friend, the fortunate discoverer, who, as early as the\n19th of August, 1870, announced in a letter the happy recovery of the\nbook. On April 20, 1871, he kindly sent it to me from Basle.\n\nThis is not the place to descant on the high importance of this\ndiscovery. It is only necessary to add that there is not the least doubt\nthat it has put us in possession of the old Syriac translation, of which\nEbedjesu speaks. There is only one question still to be settled, whether\nit is derived direct from the Indian, or through the Pehlevi\ntranslation? In either case it is the oldest preserved rendering of the\noriginal, now lost in India, and therefore of priceless value.\n\nThe fuller treatment of this and other questions, which spring from this\ndiscovery, will find a place in the edition of the text, with\ntranslation and commentary, which Professor Bickell is preparing in\nconcert with Dr. Hoffman and myself.\n\n THEODOR BENFEY.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nNOTE A.\n\nIn modern times, too, each poet or fabulist tells the story as seems\nbest to him. I\u00a0give three recensions of the story of Perrette, copied\nfrom English schoolbooks.\n\n THE MILKMAID.\n\n A milkmaid who poised a full pail on her head,\n Thus mused on her prospects in life, it is said:--\n Let me see, I should think that this milk will procure\n One hundred good eggs or fourscore, to be sure.\n Well then, stop a bit, it must not be forgotten,\n Some of these may be broken, and some may be rotten;\n But if twenty for accident should be detached,\n It will leave me just sixty sounds eggs to be hatched.\n Well, sixty sound eggs--no, sound chickens I mean:\n Of these some may die--we\u2019ll suppose seventeen;\n Seventeen, not so many!--say ten at the most,\n Which will leave fifty chickens to boil or to roast.\n But then there\u2019s their barley, how much will they need?\n Why, they take but one grain at a time when they feed,\n So that\u2019s a mere trifle;--now then, let me see,\n At a fair market-price how much money there\u2019ll be.\n Six shillings a pair, five, four, three-and-six,\n To prevent all mistakes that low price I will fix;\n Now what will that make? Fifty chickens I said;\n Fifty times three-and-six?--I\u2019ll ask brother Ned.\n Oh! but stop, three-and-sixpence a pair I must sell them!\n Well, a pair is a couple; now then let us tell them.\n A couple in fifty will go (my poor brain),\n Why just a score times, and five pairs will remain.\n Twenty-five pairs of fowls, now how tiresome it is\n That I can\u2019t reckon up such money as this.\n Well there\u2019s no use in trying, so let\u2019s give a guess--\n I\u2019ll say twenty pounds, and it can be no less.\n Twenty pounds I am certain will buy me a cow,\n Thirty geese and two turkeys, eight pigs and a sow;\n Now if these turn out well, at the end of the year\n I shall fill both my pockets with guineas, \u2019tis clear.\n Forgetting her burden when this she had said,\n The maid superciliously tossed up her head,\n When, alas for her prospects! her milkpail descended,\n And so all her schemes for the future were ended.\n This moral, I think, may be safely attached--\n \u201cReckon not on your chickens before they are hatched!\u201d\n\n JEFFREYS TAYLOR.\n\nFABLE.\n\nA country maid was walking with a pail of milk upon her head, when she\nfell into the following train of thoughts: \u201cThe money for which I shall\nsell this milk will enable me to increase my stock of eggs to three\nhundred. These eggs will bring at least two hundred and fifty chickens.\nThe chickens will be fit to carry to market about Christmas, when\npoultry always bear a good price; so that by May-day I shall have money\nenough to buy me a new gown. Green?--let me consider--yes, green becomes\nmy complexion best, and green it shall be. In this dress I will go to\nthe fair, where all the young fellows will strive to have me for a\npartner; but I shall perhaps refuse every one of them, and with an air\nof distain toss from them.\u201d Charmed with this thought, she could not\nforbear acting with her head what thus passed in her mind, when down\ncame the pail of milk, and with it all her fancied happiness.--_From\nGuy\u2019s \u201cBritish Spelling Book._\u201d\n\nALNASKER.\n\nAlnasker was a very idle fellow, that would never set his hand to work\nduring his father\u2019s life. When his father died he left him to the value\nof a hundred pounds in Persian money. In order to make the best of it he\nlaid it out in glasses and bottles, and the finest china. These he piled\nup in a large open basket at his feet, and leaned his back upon the wall\nof his shop in the hope that many people would come in to buy. As he sat\nin this posture, with his eyes upon the basket, he fell into an amusing\ntrain of thought, and talked thus to himself: \u201cThis basket,\u201d says he,\n\u201ccost me a hundred pounds, which is all I had in the world. I\u00a0shall\nquickly make two hundred of it by selling in retail. These two hundred\nshall in course of trade rise to ten thousand, when I will lay aside my\ntrade of a glass-man, and turn a dealer in pearls and diamonds, and all\nsorts of rich stones. When I have got as much wealth as I can desire,\nI\u00a0will purchase the finest house I can find, with lands, slaves, and\nhorses. Then I shall set myself on the footing of a prince, and will ask\nthe grand Vizier\u2019s daughter to be my wife. As soon as I have married\nher, I\u00a0will buy her ten black servants, the youngest and best that can\nbe got for money. When I have brought this princess to my house, I\u00a0shall\ntake care to breed her in due respect for me. To this end I shall\nconfine her to her own rooms, make her a short visit, and talk but\nlittle to her. Her mother will then come and bring her daughter to me,\nas I am seated on a sofa. The daughter, with tears in her eyes, will\nfling herself at my feet, and beg me to take her into my favor. Then\nwill I, to impress her with a proper respect for my person, draw up my\nleg, and spurn her from me with my foot in such a manner that she shall\nfall down several paces from the sofa.\u201d Alnasker was entirely absorbed\nwith his ideas, and could not forbear acting with his foot what he had\nin his thoughts; so that, striking his basket of brittle ware, which was\nthe foundation of all his grand hopes, he kicked his glasses to a great\ndistance into the street, and broke them into a thousand\npieces.--\u201c_Spectator._\u201d (From the \u201cSixth Book,\u201d published by the\nScottish School Book Association, W.\u00a0Collins & Co., Edinburgh).\n\n\nNOTE B.\n\nPertsch, in Benfey\u2019s \u201cOrient und Occident,\u201d vol. ii. p. 261. Here the\nstory is told as follows: \u201cPerche si conta che un certo pouer huomo\nhauea uicino a doue dormiua, un mulino & del buturo, & una notte tra se\npensando disse, io uender\u00f2 questo mulino, & questo butturo tanto per il\nmeno, che io comprer\u00f2 diece capre. Le quali mi figliaranno in cinque\nmesi altre tante, & in cinque anni multiplicheranno fino a quattro\ncento; Le quali barattero in cento buoi, & con essi seminar\u00f2 una\nc\u00e3pagna, & insieme da figliuoli loro, & dal frutto della terra in altri\ncinque anni, sar\u00f2 oltre modo ricco, & far\u00f2 un palagio _quadro_, adorato,\n& comprer\u00f2 schiaui una infinit\u00e0, & prender\u00f2 moglie, la quale mi far\u00e0 un\nfigliuolo, & lo nominer\u00f2 Pancalo, & lo far\u00f2 ammaestrare come bisogna. Et\nse vedr\u00f2 che non si curi con questa bacchetta cos\u00ed il percoter\u00f2. Con che\nprendendo la bacchetta che gli era uicina, & battendo di essa il vaso\ndoue era il buturo, e\u00a0lo ruppe, & fuse il buturo. Dop\u00f2 gli partor\u00ec la\nmoglie un figliuolo, e\u00a0la moglie un d\u00ec gli disse, habbi un poco cura di\nquesto fanciullo o marito, fino che io uo e torno da un seruigio. La\nquale essendo andata fu anco il marito chiamato dal Signore della terra,\n& tra tanto auuenne che una serpe sal\u00ec sopra il fanciullo. Et vna\ndonzella uicina, corsa l\u00e0 l\u2019uccise. Tornato il marito uide insanguito\nl\u2019vscio, & pensando che costei l\u2019hauesse ucciso, auanti che il uedesse,\nle diede sul capo, di un bastone, e\u00a0l\u2019uccise. Entrato poi, & sano\ntrouando il figliuolo, & la serpe morta, si fu grandemente pentito, &\npi\u0101se amaramente. Cos\u00ed adunque i frettolosi in molte cose errano.\u201d (Page\n516.)\n\n\nNOTE C.\n\nThis and some other extracts, from books not to be found at Oxford, were\nkindly copied for me by my late friend, E.\u00a0Deutsch, of the British\nMuseum.\n\n\u201cGeorgii Pachymeris Michael Pal\u00e6ologus, sive Historia rerum a M.\u00a0P.\ngestarum,\u201d ed. Petr. Possinus. Rom\u00e6, 1666.\n\nAppendix ad observationes Pachymerianas, Specimen Sapienti\u00e6 Indorum\nveterum liber olim ex lingua Indica in Persicam a Perzoe Medico: ex\nPersica in Arabicam ab Anonymo: ex Arabica in Gr\u00e6cam a Symeone Seth,\na\u00a0Petro Possino Societ. Iesu, novissime e Gr\u00e6ca in Latinam translatus.\n\n\u201cHuic talia serio nuganti haud paulo cordatior mulier. Mihi videris,\nSponse, inquit, nostri cujusdam famuli egentissimi hominis similis ista\ninani provisione nimis remotarum et incerto eventu pendentrum rerum. Is\ndiurnis mercedibus mellis ac butyri non magna copia collect\u00e2 duobus ista\nvasis e terra coctili condiderat. Mox secum ita ratiocinans nocte quadam\ndicebat: Mel ego istud ac butyrum quindecim minimum vendam denariis. Ex\nhis decem Capras emam. H\u00e6 mihi quinto mense totidem alias parient.\nQuinque annis gregem Caprarum facile quadringentarum confecero. Has\ncommutare tunc placet cum bobus centum, quibus exarabo vim terr\u00e6 magnam\net numerum tritici maximum congeram. Ex fructibus hisce quinquennio\nmultiplicatis, pecunia\u00e6 scilicet tantus existet modus, ut facile in\nlocupletissimis numerer. Accedit dos uxoris quam istis opibus ditissiman\nnansciscar. Nascetur mihi filius quem jam nunc decerno nominare\nPanealum. Hunc educabo liberalissime, ut nobilium nulli concedat. Qui si\nubi adoleverit, ut juventus solet, contumacem se mihi pr\u00e6beat, haud\nferet impune. Baculo enim hoc illum hoc modo feriam. Arreptum inter h\u00e6c\ndicendum lecto vicinum baculum per tenebras jactavit, casuque incurrens\nin dolia mellis et butyri juxta posita, confregit utrumque, ita ut in\nejus etiam os barbamque still\u00e6 liquoris prosilirent; c\u00e6tera effusa et\nmixta pulveri prorsus corrumperentur; ac fundamentum spei tant\u00e6, inopem\net multum gementem momento destitueret.\u201d (Page 602.)\n\n\nNOTE D.\n\n\u201cDirectorium Human\u00e6 Vit\u00e6 alias Parabol\u00e6 Antiquorum Sapientum,\u201d fol. s.\nl. e. a. k. 4\u00a0(circ. 1480?): \u201cDicitque olim quidam fuit heremita apud\nquendam regem. Cui rex providerat quolibet die pro sua vita. Scilicet\nprovisionem de sua coquina et vasculum de melle. Ille vero comedebat\ndecocta, et reservabat mel in quodam vase suspenso super suum caput\ndonec esset plenum. Erat autem mel percarum in illis diebus. Quadam vero\ndie: dum jaceret in suo lecto elevato capite, respexit vas mellis quod\nsuper caput ei pendebat. Et recordatus quoniam mel de die in diem\nvendebatur pluris solito seu carius, et dixit in corde suo. Quum fuerit\nhoc vas plenum: vendam ipsum uno talento auri: de quo mihi emam decem\noves, et successu temporis he oves facient filios et filias, et erunt\nviginti. Postea vero ipsis multiplicatis cum filiis et filiabus in\nquatuor annis erunt quatuor centum. Tunc de quibuslibet quatuor ovibus\nemam vaccam et bovem et terram. Et vacc\u00e6 multiplicabuntur in filiis,\nquorum masculos accipiam mihi in culturam terre, pr\u00e6ter id quod\npercipiam de eis de lacte et lana, donec non consummatis aliis quinque\nannis multiplicabuntur in tantum quod habebo mihi magnas substantias et\ndivitias, et ero a cunctis reputatus dives et honestus. Et edificabo\nmihi tunc grandia et excellentia edificia pre omnibus meis vicinis et\nconsanguinibus, itaque omnes de meis divitiis loquantur, nonne erit mihi\nillud jocundum, cum omnes homines mihi reverentiam in omnibus locis\nexhibeant. Accipiam postea uxorem de nobilibus terre. Cumque eam\ncognovero, concipiet et pariet mihi filium nobilem et delectabilem cum\nbona fortuna et dei beneplacito qui crescet in scientia virtute, et\nrelinquam mihi per ipsum bonam memoriam post mei obitum et castigabo\nipsum dietim: si mee recalcitraverit doctrine; ac mihi in omnibus erit\nobediens, et si non: percutiam eum isto baclo et erecto baculo ad\npercutiendum percussit vas mellis et fregit ipsum et defluxit mel super\ncaput ejus.\u201d\n\n\nNOTE E.\n\n\u201cDas Buch der Weisheit der alter Weisen,\u201d Ulm, 1415. Here the story is\ngiven as follows:--\n\n\u201cMan sagt es wohnet eins mals ein br\u016fder der dritten regel der got fast\ndienet, bei eins k\u00fcnigs hof, den versach der k\u00fcnig alle tag z\u016f auff\nenthalt seines lebens ein kuchen speiss und ein fleschlein mit honig.\ndiser ass alle tag die speiss von der kuchen und den honig behielt er in\nein irden fleschlein das hieng ob seiner petstat so lang biss es voll\nward. Nun kam bald eine grosse te\u00fcr in den honig und eins morgens fr\u00fce\nlag er in seinem pett und sach das honig in dem fleschlein ob seinem\nhaubt hangen do fiel ym in sein gedanck die te\u00fcre des honigs und fieng\nan mit ihm selbs ze reden. wann diss fleschlein gantz vol honigs wirt so\nverkauff ich das umb f\u00fcnff g\u00fcldin, darum\u0305 kauff ich mir zehen g\u016fter\nschaff und die machen alle des jahrs lember. und dann werden eins jahrs\nzweintzig und die und das von yn kummen mag in zehen jaren werden\ntausent. dann kauff ich umb fier schaff ein ku und kauff dobei ochsen\nund ertrich die meren sich mit iren fr\u00fcchten und do nimb ich dann die\nfr\u00fccht z\u016f arbeit der \u00e4cker. von den andern k\u00fcen und schaffen nimb ich\nmilich und woll ee das andre f\u00fcnff jar f\u00fcrkommen so wird es sich allso\nmeren das ich ein grosse hab und reichtumb \u00fcberkumen wird dann will ich\nmir selbs knecht und kellerin kauffen und hohe und h\u00fcbsche b\u00e4w ton. und\ndarnach so nimm ich mir ein h\u00fcbsch weib von einem edeln geschlecht die\nbeschlaff ich mit kurtzweiliger lieb. so enpfecht sie und gebirt mir ein\nsch\u00f6n gl\u00fcckseligten sun und gottf\u00f6rchtigen. und der wirt wachsen in lere\nund k\u00fcnsten und in weissheit. durch den lass ich mir einen g\u016ften le\u00fcmde\nnach meinem tod. aber wird er nit f\u00f6lgig sein und meiner straff nit\nachten so wolt ich yn mit meinem stecken \u00fcber sein rucken on erbermde\ngar hart schlahen. und nam sein stecken da mit man pflag das pet ze\nmachen ym selbs ze zeigen wie frefelich er sein sun schlagen w\u00f6lt. und\nschl\u016fg das irden fass das ob seinem haubt hieng z\u016f st\u00fccken dass ym das\nhonig under sein antlit und in das pet troff und ward ym von allen sein\ngedencken nit dann das er sein antlit und pet weschen m\u016fst.\u201d\n\n\nNOTE F.\n\nThis translation has lately been published by Don Pascual de Gayangos in\nthe \u201cBiblioteca de Autores Espa\u00f1oles,\u201d Madrid, 1860, vol. li. Here the\nstory runs as follows (p.\u00a057):--\n\n\u201cDel religioso que verti\u00f3 la miel et la manteca sobre su cabeza.\n\n\u201cDijo la mujer: \u2018Dicen que un religioso habia cada dia limosna de casa\nde un mercader rico, pan \u00e9 manteca \u00e9 miel e otras cosas, et comia el pan\n\u00e9 lo \u00e1l condesaba, et ponia la miel \u00e9 la manteca en un jarra, fasta quel\na finch\u00f3, et tenia la jarra colgada \u00e1 la cabecera de su cama. Et vino\ntiempo que encareci\u00f3 la miel \u00e9 la manteca, et el religioso fabl\u00f3 un dia\nconsigo mismo, estando asentado en su cama, et dijo as\u00ed: Vender\u00e9 cuanto\nest\u00e1 en esta jarra por tantos maraved\u00eds, \u00e9\u00a0compar\u00e9 con ellos diez\ncabras, et empre\u00f1arse-han, \u00e9\u00a0parir\u00e1n \u00e1 cabo de cinco meses; et fizo\ncuenta de esta guisa, et fall\u00f3 que en cinco a\u00f1os montarian bien\ncuatrocientas cabras. Des\u00ed dijo: Venderlas-he todas, et con el precio\ndellas comprar\u00e9 cien vacas, por cada cuatro cabezas una vaca, \u00e9\u00a0haber\u00e9\nsimiente \u00e9 sembrar\u00e9 con los bueyes, et aprovecharme-he de los becerros\net de las fembras \u00e9 de la leche \u00e9 manteca, \u00e9\u00a0de las mieses habr\u00e9 grant\nhaber, et labrar\u00e9 muy nobles casas, \u00e9\u00a0comprar\u00e9 siervos \u00e9 siervas, et\nesto fecho casarme-he con una mujer muy rica, \u00e9\u00a0fermosa, \u00e9\u00a0de grant\nlogar, \u00e9\u00a0empre\u00f1arla-he de fijo varon, \u00e9\u00a0nacer\u00e1 complido de sus miembros,\net criarlo-he como \u00e1 fijo de rey, \u00e9\u00a0castigarlo-he con esta vara, si non\nquisiere ser bueno \u00e9 obediente\u2019. E \u00e9l deciendo esto, alz\u00f3 la vara que\ntenia en la mano, et feri\u00f3 en la olla que estaba colgada encima d\u00e9l,\n\u00e9\u00a0quebr\u00f3la, \u00e9\u00a0cay\u00f3le la miel \u00e9 la manteca sobre su cabeza,\u201d etc.\n\n\nNOTE G.\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: In the following selection, all brackets and\nparentheses are in the original.]\n\nSee \u201cPo\u00e9sies in\u00e9dites du Moyen \u00c2ge,\u201d par M. Ed\u00e9lstand Du M\u00e9ril. Paris,\n1854. XVI. De Viro et Vase Olei (p.\u00a0239):--\n\n \u201cUxor ab antiquo fuit infecunda marito.\n Mesticiam (l. m\u0153stitiam) cujus cupiens lenire vix (l. vir) hujus,\n His blandimentis solatur tristi[ti]a mentis:\n Cur sic tristaris? Dolor est tuus omnis inanis:\n Pulchr\u00e6 prolis eris satis amodo munere felix.\n Pro nihilo ducens conjunx h\u00e6c verbula prudens,\n His verbis plane quod ait vir monstrat inane:\n Rebus inops quidam . . . (bone vir, tibi dicam)\n _Vas oleo plenum_, longum quod retro per \u00e6vum\n Legerat orando, loca per diversa vagando,\n Fune ligans ar(c)to, tecto[que] suspendit ab alto.\n Sic pr\u00e6stolatur tempus quo pluris ematur[atur]\n Qua locupletari se sperat et arte beari.\n Talia dum captat, h\u00e6c stultus inania jactat:\n Ecce potens factus, fuero cum talia nactus,\n Vinciar uxori quantum queo nobiliori:\n Tunc sobolem gignam, se meque per omnia dignam,\n Cujus opus morum genus omne pr\u00e6ibit avorum.\n Cui nisi tot vit\u00e6 fuerint insignia rite,\n Fustis hic absque mora feriet caput ejus et [h]ora.\n Quod dum narraret, dextramque minando levaret,\n Ut percussisset puerum quasi pr\u00e6sto fuisset\n Vas in pr\u00e6dictum manus ejus dirigit ictum\n Servatumque sibi vas il[l]ico fregit olivi.\u201d\n\nI owe the following extract to the kindness of M. Paul Meyer:--\n\n_Apologi Ph\u00e6drii ex ludicris I. Regnerii Belnensis doct. Medici,\nDivione, apud Petrum Palliot, 1643 in 12, 126 pages et de plus un\nindex._\n\nLe recueil se divise en deux partis, pars I., pars II. La fable en\nquestion est \u00e0 la page 32, pars\u00a0I. fab. xxv.\n\nXXV.\n\n_Pagana et eius mercis emptor._\n\n Pagana mulier, lac in olla fictili,\n Ova in canistro, rustici mercem penus,\n Ad civitatem proximam ibat venditum.\n In eius aditu factus huic quidam obvius\n Quanti rogavit ista qu\u00e6 fers vis emi?\n Et illa tanti. Tantin\u2019? hoc fuerit nimis.\n Numerare num me vis quod est \u00e6quum? vide\n Hac merce quod sit nunc opus mihi plus dabo\n Quam pr\u00e6stet illam cede, et hos nummos cape,\n Ea quam superbe f\u0153de rusticitas agit,\n Hominem reliquit additis conviciis,\n Quasi \u00e6stimasset vilius mercem optimam.\n Aversa primos inde vix tulerat gradus,\n Cum lubricato corruit strato vi\u00e6:\n Lac olla fundit quassa, gallinace\u00e6\n Test\u00e6 vitellos congerunt c\u0153no suos\n Caput cruorem mittit impingens petr\u00e6\n Luxata nec fert coxa surgentem solo:\n Ridetur ejus non malum, sed mens procax,\n Qua merx et ipsa mercis et pretium perit;\n Seque illa deflens tot pati infortunia\n Nulli imputare quam sibi hanc sortem potest\n Dolor sed omnis s\u00e6viter recruduit\n Curationis danda cum merces fuit.\n\n In re minori cum quis et fragili tumet\n Hunc sortis ingens sternit indignatio.\n\n\nNOTE H.\n\nHulsbach, \u201cSylva Sermonum,\u201d Basile\u00e6, 1568, p. 28: \u201cIn sylva quadam\nmorabatur heremicola jam satis provect\u00e6 \u00e6tatis, qui quaque die accedebat\ncivitatem, afferens inde mensuram mellis, qua donabatur. Hoc recondebat\nin vase terreo, quod pependerat supra lectum suum. Uno dierum jacens in\nlecto, et habens bacalum in manu sua, h\u00e6c apud se dicebat: Quotidie mihi\ndatur vasculum mellis, quod dum indies recondo, fiet tandem summa\naliqua. Jam valet mensura staterem unum. Corraso autem ita floreno uno\naut altero, emam mihi oves, qu\u00e6 f\u0153nerabunt mihi plures: quibus\ndivenditis co\u00ebmam mihi elegantem uxorculam, cum qua transigam vitam meam\nl\u00e6tanter: ex ea suscitabo mihi puellam, quam instituam honeste. Si vero\nmihi noluerit obedire, hoc baculo eam ita comminuam: atque levato baculo\nconfregit suum vasculum, et effusum est mel, quare cassatum est suum\npropositum, et manendum adhuc in suo statu.\u201d\n\n\nNOTE I.\n\n\u201cEl Conde Lucanor, compuesto por el excelentissimo Principe don Iuan\nManuel, hijo del Infante don Manuel, y\u00a0nieto del Santo Rey don\nFernando,\u201d Madrid, 1642; cap. 29, p.\u00a096. He tells the story as follows:\n\u201cThere was a woman called Dona Truhana (Gertrude), rather poor than\nrich. One day she went to the market carrying a pot of honey on her\nhead. On her way she began to think that she would sell the pot of\nhoney, and buy a quantity of eggs, that from those eggs she would have\nchickens, that she would sell them and buy sheep; that the sheep would\ngive her lambs, and thus calculating all her gains, she began to think\nherself much richer than her neighbors. With the riches which she\nimagined she possessed, she thought how she would marry her sons and\ndaughters, and how she would walk in the street surrounded by her sons\nand daughters-in-law; and how people would consider her happy for having\namassed so large a fortune, though she had been so poor. While she was\nthinking over all this, she began to laugh for joy, and struck her head\nand forehead with her hand. The pot of honey fell down, was broken, and\nshe shed hot tears because she had lost all that she would have\npossessed if the pot of honey had not been broken.\u201d\n\n\nNOTE K.\n\nBonaventure des Periers, \u201cLes Contes ou les Nouvelles.\u201d Amsterdam, 1735.\nNouvelle XIV. (vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a0141). (First edition, Lyon, 1558): \u201cEt ne les\n(les Alquemistes) s\u00e7auroiton mieux comparer qu\u2019\u00e0 une bonne femme qui\nportoit une pot\u00e9e de laict au march\u00e9, faisant son compte ainsi: qu\u2019elle\nla vendroit deux liards: de ces deux liards elle en achepteroit une\ndouzaine d\u2019\u0153ufs, lesquelz elle mettroit couver, et en auroit une\ndouzaine de poussins: ces poussins deviendroient grands, et les feroit\nchaponner: ces chapons vaudroient cinq solz la piece, ce seroit un escu\net plus, dont elle achepteroit deux cochons, masle et femelle: qui\ndeviendroient grands et en feroient une douzaine d\u2019autres, qu\u2019elle\nvendroit vingt solz la piece; apres les avoir nourris quelque temps, ce\nseroient douze francs, dont elle achepteroit une iument, qui porteroit\nun beau poulain, lequel croistroit et deviendroit tant gentil: il\nsauteroit et feroit _Hin_. Et en disant _Hin_, la bonne femme, de l\u2019aise\nqu\u2019elle avoit en son compte, se print \u00e0 faire la ruade que feroit son\npoulain: et en ce faisant sa pot\u00e9e de laict va tomber, et se respandit\ntoute. Et voila ses \u0153ufs, ses poussins, ses chappons, ses cochons, sa\njument, et son poulain, tous par terre.\u201d\n\n\n [Footnote 1: La Fontaine, _Fables_, livre vii., fable 10.]\n\n [Footnote 2: Ph\u00e6don, 61, 5: \u039c\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f26 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u03c3\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd.]\n\n [Footnote 3: Robert, _Fables In\u00e9dites_, des XIIe, XIIIe, et XIVe\n Si\u00e8cles; Paris, 1825; vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a0ccxxvii.]\n\n [Footnote 4: _Pantschatantrum sive Quinquepartitum_, edidit\n I.\u00a0G.\u00a0L. Kosegarten. Bonn\u00e6, 1848.\n\n _Pantschatantra, F\u00fcnf B\u00fccher indischer Fablen, aus dem Sanskrit\n \u00fcbersetzt._ Von Th. Benfey. Leipzig, 1859.\n\n _Hitopadesa_, with interlinear translation, grammatical analysis,\n and English translation, in Max M\u00fcller\u2019s Handbooks for the study\n of Sanskrit. London, 1864.\n\n _Hitopadesa, eine alte indische Fabelsammlung aus dem Sanskrit zum\n ersten Mal in das Deutsche \u00fcbersetzt._ Von Max M\u00fcller. Leipzig,\n 1844.]\n\n [Footnote 5: _Pa\u00f1catantra_, v. 10.]\n\n [Footnote 6: _Hitopade\u015ba_, ed. Max M\u00fcller, p. 120; German\n translation, p.\u00a0159.]\n\n [Footnote 7: Note A, page 188.]\n\n [Footnote 8: _Hottentot Fables and Tales_, by Dr. W. H. I.\u00a0Bleek,\n London, 1894, p.\u00a019.]\n\n [Footnote 9: _Academy_, vol. v. p. 548.]\n\n [Footnote 10: _Die M\u00e4rchen des Siddhi-k\u00fcr_, or _Tales of an\n Enchanted Corpse_, translated from Kalmuk into German by B.\u00a0J\u00fclg,\n 1866. (This is based on the +Vet\u00e2lapa\u00f1cavi\u1e43\u015bati+.) _Die Geschichte\n des Ardschi-Bordschi Chan_, translated from Mongolian by Dr. B.\n J\u00fclg, 1868. (This is based on the +Si\u1e43h\u00e2sanadv\u00e2tri\u1e43\u015bati+.)\n A Mongolian translation of the _Kalila and Dimnah_, is ascribed to\n M\u00e9lik Said Iftikhar eddin Mohammed ben Abou Nasr, who died A.D.\n 1280. See Barbier de Meynard, \u201cDescription de la Ville de Kazvin,\u201d\n _Journal Asiatique_, 1857, p.\u00a0284; Lancereau, _Pantchatantra_,\n p.\u00a0xxv.]\n\n [Footnote 11: Plato\u2019s expression, \u201cAs I have put on the lion\u2019s\n skin\u201d (_Kratylos_, 411), seems to show that he knew the fable of\n an animal or a man having assumed the lion\u2019s skin without the\n lion\u2019s courage. The proverb \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039a\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 seems to be applied\n to men boasting before people who have no means of judging. It\n presupposes the story of a donkey appearing in a lion\u2019s skin.\n\n A similar idea is expressed in a fable of the Pa\u00f1catantra (IV.\u00a08)\n where a dyer, not being rich enough to feed his donkey, puts a\n tiger\u2019s skin on him. In this disguise the donkey is allowed to\n roam through all the corn-fields without being molested, till one\n day he sees a\u00a0female donkey, and begins to bray. Thereupon the\n owners of the field kill him.\n\n In the Hitopade\u015ba (III. 3) the same fable occurs, only that there\n it is the keeper of the field who on purpose disguises himself as\n a she-donkey, and when he hears the tiger bray, kills him.\n\n In the Chinese Avad\u00e2nas, translated by Stanislas Julien (vol. ii.\n p.\u00a059), the donkey takes a lion\u2019s skin and frightens everybody,\n till he begins to bray, and is recognized as a donkey.\n\n In this case it is again quite clear that the Greeks did not\n borrow their fable and proverb from the Pa\u00f1catantra; but it is not\n so easy to determine positively whether the fable was carried from\n the Greeks to the East, or whether it arose independently in two\n places.]\n\n [Footnote 12: _Calilah et Dimna, ou, Fables de Bidpai, en Arabe,\n pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9es d\u2019un M\u00e9moire sur l\u2019origine de ce livre._ Par Sylvestre\n de Sacy. Paris, 1816.]\n\n [Footnote 13: Loiseleur Deslongchamps, _Essai sur les Fables\n Indiennes, et sur leur Introduction en Europe._ Paris, 1838.]\n\n [Footnote 14: _Pantschatantra, F\u00fcnf Bucher indischer Fabeln,\n M\u00e4rchen und Erz\u00e4hlungen, mit Einleitung._ Von. Th. Benfey.\n Leipzig, 1859.]\n\n [Footnote 15: See Weil, _Geschichte der Chalifen_, vol. ii.\n p.\u00a084.]\n\n [Footnote 16: Benfey, p. 60.]\n\n [Footnote 17: Cf. _Barlaam et Joasaph_, ed. Boissonade, p.\u00a037.]\n\n [Footnote 18: _Kalila and Dimna; or, the Fables of Bidpai,\n translated from the Arabic._ By the Rev. Wyndham Knatchbull, A.M.\n Oxford, 1819.]\n\n [Footnote 19: _Specimen Sapienti\u00e6 Indorum Veterum, id est Liber\n Ethico-Politicus pervetustus, dictus Arabice Kalilah ve Dimnah,\n Gr\u00e6ce Stephanites et Ichnelates, nunc primum Gr\u00e6ce ex MS. Cod.\n Holsteiniano prodit cum versione Latina, opera S.\u00a0G. Starkii._\n Berolini, 1697.]\n\n [Footnote 20: This expression, a four-winged house, occurs also in\n the Pa\u00f1catantra. As it does not occur in the Arabic text,\n published by De Sacy, it is clear that Symeon must have followed\n another Arabic text in which this adjective, belonging to the\n Sanskrit, and no doubt to the Pehlevi text, also, had been\n preserved.]\n\n [Footnote 21: Note B, p. 190.]\n\n [Footnote 22: Note C, p. 191.]\n\n [Footnote 23: Note D, p. 192.]\n\n [Footnote 24: Note E, p. 193.]\n\n [Footnote 25: Benfey, _Orient und Occident_, vol. i. p. 138.]\n\n [Footnote 26: Ibid. vol. i. p. 501. Its title is: \u201cExemplario\n contra los enga\u00f1os y peligros del mundo,\u201d ibid. pp. 167, 168.]\n\n [Footnote 27: _Discorsi degli animali, di Messer Agnolo\n Firenzuola, in prose di M. A.\u00a0F._ (Fiorenza, 1548.)]\n\n [Footnote 28: _La Moral Filosophia del Doni, tratta da gli antichi\n scrittori._ Vinegia, 1552.\n\n _Trattati Diversi di Sendebar Indiano, filosopho morale._ Vinegia,\n 1552.\n\n P. 65. _Trattato Quarto._\n\n A woman tells her husband to wait till her son is born, and\n says:--\n\n \u201cStava uno Romito domestico ne i monti di Brianza a far penitenza\n e teneva alcune cassette d\u2019 api per suo spasso, e\u00a0di quelle a suoi\n tempi ne cavava il _Mele_, e di quello ne vendeva alcuna parte tal\n volta per i suoi besogni. Avenne che un\u2019 anno ne fu una gran\n carestia, e\u00a0egli attendeva a conservarlo, e\u00a0ogni giorno lo\n guardava mille volte, e\u00a0gli pareva cent\u2019 anni ogni hora, che e gli\n indugiava a empierlo di Mele,\u201d etc.]\n\n [Footnote 29: _Le Plaisant et Fac\u00e9tieux Discours des Animaux,\n novellement traduict de Tuscan en Fran\u00e7ois._ Lyon, 1556, par\n Gabriel Cottier.\n\n _Deux Livres de Filosofie Fabuleuse, le Premier Pris des Discours\n de M.\u00a0Ange Firenzuola le Second Extraict des Traictez de Sandebar\n Indien, par Pierre de La Rivey._ Lyon, 1579.\n\n The second book is a translation of the second part of Doni\u2019s\n _Filosofia Morale_.]\n\n [Footnote 30: _The Anvar-i Suhaili, or the Lights of Canopus,\n being the Persian version of the Fables of Pilpay, or the Book,\n Kalilah and Damnah, rendered into Persian by Husain V\u00e1\u2019iz\n U\u2019l-K\u00e1shifi, literally translated by E.\u00a0B. Eastwick._ Hertford,\n 1854.]\n\n [Footnote 31: Note F, p. 194.]\n\n [Footnote 32: Note G, p. 194.]\n\n [Footnote 33: Note H, p. 196.]\n\n [Footnote 34: _Dialogues of Creatures moralysed_, sm. 4to, circ.\n 1517. It is generally attributed to the press of John Rastell, but\n the opinion of Mr. Haslewood, in his preface to the reprint of\n 1816, that the book was printed on the continent, is perhaps the\n correct one. (_Quaritch\u2019s Catalogue_, July, 1870.)]\n\n [Footnote 35: The Latin text is more simple: \u201cUnde cum quedam\n domina dedisset ancille sue lac ut venderet et lac portaret ad\n urbem juxta fossatum cogitare cepit quod de p\u0305cio lactis emerit\n gallinam qu\u00e6 faceret pullos quos auctos in gallinas venderet et\n porcellos emeret eosque mutaret in oves et ipsas in boves. Sic que\n ditata contraheret cum aliquo nobili et sic gloriabatur. Et cum\n sic gloriaretur et cogitaret cum quanta gloria duceretur ad illum\n virum super equum dicendo gio gio cepit pede percutere terram\n quasi pungeret equum calcaribus. Sed tunc lubricatus est pes ejus\n et cecidit in fossatum effundendo lac. Sic enim non habuit quod se\n adepturam sperabat.\u201d _Dialogus Creaturarum optime moralizatus_\n (ascribed to Nicolaus Pergaminus, supposed to have lived in the\n thirteenth century). He quotes Elynandus, in _Gestis Romanorum_.\n First edition, \u201cper Gerardum leeu in oppido Goudensi inceptum;\n munere Dei finitus est, Anno Domini, 1480.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 36: Note I, p. 197.]\n\n [Footnote 37: My learned German translator, Dr. Felix Liebrecht,\n says in a note: \u201cOther books in which our story appears before La\n Fontaine are _Esopus_, by Burkhard Waldis, ed. H.\u00a0Kurz, Leipzig,\n 1862, ii. 177; note to _Des Bettlers Kaufmannschaft_; and\n Oesterley, in Kirchoff\u2019s _Wendunmuth_, v. 44, note to i. 171,\n _Vergebene Anschleg reich zuwerden_ (Bibl. des liter. Vereins zu\n Stuttg. No.\u00a099).\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 38: _Ricerche intorno al Libro di Sindibad._ Milano,\n 1869.]\n\n [Footnote 39: The Greek text was first published in 1832 by\n Boissonade, in his _Anecdota Gr\u00e6ca_, vol. iv. The title, as given\n in some MSS. is: \u1f39\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03b8\u03b9\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70\n \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6 [other MSS. read, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u1f38\u03c9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6], \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f97 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ac\u03bc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd. Joannes Monachus occurs as the name of the author in\n other works of Joannes Damascenus. See Leo Allatius, Prolegomena,\n p.\u00a0L., in _Damasceni Opera Omnia_. Ed. Lequien, 1748. Venice.\n\n At the end the author says: \u1f18\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f67\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5,\n \u1f43\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u1f7c\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd. \u0393\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f20\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bb\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c6 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f67\u03bd \u1f20 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n See also Wiener, _Jahrb\u00fccher_, vol. lxiii. pp. 44-83; vol. lxxii.\n pp. 274-288; vol. lxxiii. pp. 176-202.]\n\n [Footnote 40: Littr\u00e9, _Journal des Savants_, 1865, p. 337.]\n\n [Footnote 41: The _Martyrologium Romanum_, whatever its authority\n may be, states distinctly that the acts of Barlaam and Josaphat\n were written by Sanctus Joannes Damascenus. \u201cApud Indos Persis\n finitimos sanctorum Barlaam et Josaphat, quorum actus mirandos\n sanctus Joannes Damascenus conscripsit.\u201d See Leonis Allatii\n Prolegomena, in _Joannis Damasceni Opera_, ed. Lequien, vol.\u00a0i.\n p.\u00a0xxvi. He adds: \u201cEt Gennadius Patriarcha per Concil. Florent.\n cap.\u00a05: \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f25\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03b2\u03af\u1ff3 \u0392\u03b1\u03c1\u03bb\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u03ac\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03bd\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 42: The story of the caskets, well known from the\n _Merchant of Venice_, occurs in _Barlaam and Josaphat_, though it\n is used there for a different purpose.]\n\n [Footnote 43: Cf. Benfey, _Pantschatantra_, vol. i. p. 80; vol.\n ii. p.\u00a0528; _Les Avadanas, Contes et Apologues indiens_, par\n Stanislas Julien, i. pp. 132, 191; _Gesta Romanorum_, cap. 168;\n _Hom\u00e1yun Nameh_, cap. iv.; Grimm, _Deutsche Mythologie_, pp. 758,\n 759; Liebrecht, _Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr Rom. und Engl. Literatur_, 1860.]\n\n [Footnote 44: _Lalita Vistara_, ed. Calcutt., p. 126.]\n\n [Footnote 45: Ibid., p. 225.]\n\n [Footnote 46: See M. M.\u2019s _Chips from a German Workshop_, Amer.\n ed., vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a0207.]\n\n [Footnote 47: Minayeff, _M\u00e9langes Asiatiques_, vi. 5, p. 584,\n remarks: \u201cAccording to a legend in the _Mah\u00e2vastu_ of Ya\u015bas or\n Ya\u015boda (in\u00a0a less complete form to be found in Schiefner, _Eine\n tibetische Lebensbeschreibung S\u00e2kyamunis_, p.\u00a0247; Hardy, _Manual\n of Buddhism_, p.\u00a0187; Bigandet, _The Life or Legend of Gaudama_,\n p.\u00a0113), a\u00a0merchant appears in Yosoda\u2019s house, the night before he\n has the dream which induces him to leave his paternal house, and\n proclaims to him the true doctrine.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 48: _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol.\n iii. p.\u00a021.]\n\n [Footnote 49: In some places one might almost believe that Joannes\n Damascenus did not only hear the story of Buddha, as he says, from\n the mouth of people who had brought it to him from India, but that\n he had before him the very text of the _Lalita Vistara_. Thus in\n the account of the three or four drives we find indeed that the\n Buddhist canon represents Buddha as seeing on three successive\n drives, first an old, then a sick, and at last a dying man, while\n Joannes makes Joasaph meet two men on his first drive, one maimed,\n the other blind, and an old man, who is nearly dying, on his\n second drive. So far there is a difference which might best be\n explained by admitting the account given by Joannes Damascenus\n himself, viz: that the story was brought from India, and that it\n was simply told him by worthy and truthful men. But, if it was so,\n we have here another instance of the tenacity with which oral\n tradition is able to preserve the most minute points of the story.\n The old man is described by a long string of adjectives both in\n Greek and in Sanskrit, and many of them are strangely alike. The\n Greek \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, old, corresponds to the Sanskrit +j\u00eer\u1e47a+;\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, aged, is Sanskrit +v\u1e5bddha+; \u1f10\u03c1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, shriveled in his face, is +bal\u00eenicitak\u00e2ya+, the body\n covered with wrinkles; \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, weak in his knees,\n is +pravedhayam\u00e2na\u1e25 sarv\u00e2ngapratyangai\u1e25+, trembling in all his\n limbs; \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03c6\u03ce\u03c2, bent, is +kubja+; \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, gray, is\n +palitake\u015ba+; \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, toothless, is\n +kha\u1e47\u1e0dadanta+; \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, stammering, is\n +khurakhur\u00e2va\u015baktaka\u1e47\u1e6dha+.]\n\n [Footnote 50: _Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n Gesellschaft_, vol. xxiv p.\u00a0480.]\n\n [Footnote 51: _D\u00e9bats_, 1859, 21 and 26 Juillet.]\n\n [Footnote 52: _Die Quellen des Barlaam und Josaphat, in Jahrbuch\n f\u00fcr roman. und engl. Litteratur_, vol. ii. p.\u00a0314, 1860.]\n\n [Footnote 53: _Travels of Fah-hian and Sung-yun, Buddhist Pilgrims\n from China to India._ (400 A.D. and 518 A.D.) Translated from the\n Chinese by Samuel Beal. London, Tr\u00fcbner & Co. 1869.]\n\n [Footnote 54: Littr\u00e9, _Journal des Savants_, 1865, p. 337.]\n\n [Footnote 55: _Pantschatantra; F\u00fcnf. B\u00fccher indischer Fabeln,\n M\u00e4rchen und Erz\u00e4hlungen. Aus dem Sanskrit \u00fcbersetzt mit Einleitung\n und Ammerkungen_, 2 Theile, Leipzig, 1859; and particularly in the\n first part, the introduction, called \u201cUeber das Indische\n Grundwerk, und dessen Ausfl\u00fcsse, so wie \u00fcber die Quellen und die\n Verbreitung des Inhalts derselben.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 56: Cf. Assemani, _Biblioth. Orient._ iii. 1, 220, and\n Renan, in the _Journal Asiatique_, Cinq. S\u00e9rie, t.\u00a0vii. 1856,\n p.\u00a0251.]\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nON THE RESULTS OF THE\n\nSCIENCE OF LANGUAGE.\n\nINAUGURAL LECTURE, DELIVERED IN THE IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY OF STRASSBURG,\nMAY 23, 1872.\n\n\nYou will easily understand that, in giving my first lecture in a German\nUniversity, I\u00a0feel some difficulty in mastering and repressing the\nfeelings which stir within my heart. I\u00a0wish to speak to you, as it\nbecomes a teacher, with perfect calmness, thinking of nothing but of the\nsubject which 1 have to treat. But here where we are gathered together\nto-day, in this old free imperial town, in this University, full of the\nbrightest recollections of Alsatian history and German literature, even\na somewhat gray-headed German professor may be pardoned if, for some\nmoments at least, he gives free vent to the thoughts that are foremost\nin his mind. You will see, at least, that he feels and thinks as you all\nfeel and think, and that in living away from Germany he has not\nforgotten his German language, or lost his German heart.\n\nThe times in which we live are great, so great, that we can hardly\nconceive them great enough; so great that we, old and young, cannot be\ngreat and good and brave and hardworking enough, if we do not wish to\nappear quite unworthy of the times in which our lot has been cast.\n\nWe older people have lived through darker times, when to a German,\nlearning was the only refuge, the only comfort, the only pride; times\nwhen there was no Germany except in our recollection, and perhaps in our\nsecret hopes. And those who have lived through those sadder days feel\nall the more deeply the blessings of the present. We have a Germany\nagain, a\u00a0united, great, and strong country; and I call this a blessing,\nnot only in a material sense, as giving, at last, to our homes a real\nand lasting security against the inroads of our powerful neighbors, but\nalso in a moral sense, as placing every German under a greater\nresponsibility, as reminding us of our higher duties, as inspiring us\nwith courage and energy for the battle of the mind even more than for\nthe battle of the arm.\n\nThat blessing has cost us dear, fearfully dear, dearer than the friends\nof humanity had hoped; for, proud as we may be of our victories and our\nvictors, let us not deceive ourselves in this, that there is in the\nhistory of humanity nothing so inhuman, nothing that makes us so\nentirely despair of the genius of mankind, nothing that bows us so low\nto the very dust, as war--unless even war becomes ennobled and\nsanctified, as it was with us, by the sense of duty, duty towards our\ncountry, duty towards our town, duty towards our home, towards our\nfathers and mothers, our wives and children. Thus, and thus only, can\neven war become the highest and brightest of sacrifices; thus, and thus\nonly, may we look history straight in the face, and ask, \u201cWho would have\nacted differently?\u201d\n\nI do not speak here of politics in the ordinary sense of the word,--nay,\nI\u00a0gladly leave the groping for the petty causes of the late war to the\nscrutiny of those foreign statesmen who have eyes only for the\ninfinitesimally small, but cannot, or will not, see the powerful\nhandiwork of Divine justice that reveals itself in the history of\nnations as in the lives of individuals. I\u00a0speak of politics in their\ntrue and original meaning, as a branch of ethics, as Kant has proved\nthem to be, and from this point of view, politics become a duty from\nwhich no one may shrink, be he young or old. Every nation must have a\nconscience, like every individual; a\u00a0nation must be able to give to\nitself an account of the moral justification of a war in which it is to\nsacrifice everything that is most dear to man. And that is the greatest\nblessing of the late war, that every German, however deep he may delve\nin his heart, can say without a qualm or a quiver, \u201cThe German people\ndid not wish for war, nor for conquest. We wanted peace and freedom in\nour internal development. Another nation or rather its rulers, claimed\nthe right to draw for us lines of the Main, if not new frontiers of the\nRhine; they wished to prevent the accomplishment of that German union\nfor which our fathers had worked and suffered. The German nation would\ngladly have waited longer still, if thereby war could have been averted.\nWe knew that the union of Germany was inevitable, and the inevitable is\nin no hurry. But when the gauntlet was thrown in our face, and, be it\nremembered, with the acclamation of the whole French nation, then we\nknew what, under Napoleonic sway, we might expect from our powerful\nneighbor, and the whole German people rose as one man for defense, not\nfor defiance. The object of our war was peace, and a lasting peace, and\ntherefore now, after peace has been won, after our often menaced, often\nviolated, western frontier has been made secure forever by bastions,\nsuch as nature only can build, it becomes our duty to prove to the world\nthat we Germans are the same after as before the war, that military\nglory has nothing intoxicating to us, that we want peace with all the\nworld.\u201d\n\nYou know that the world at large does not prophesy well for us. We are\ntold that the old and simple German manners will go, that the ideal\ninterests of our life will be forgotten, that, as in other countries, so\nwith us, our love for the True and the Beautiful will be replaced by\nlove of pleasure, enjoyment, and vanities. It rests with us with all our\nmight to confound such evil prophesies, and to carry the banner of the\nGerman mind higher than ever. Germany can remain great only by what has\nmade her great--by simplicity of manners, contentment, industry,\nhonesty, high ideals, contempt of luxury, of display, and of vain-glory.\n\u201c_Non propter vitam vivendi perdere causas_,\u201d-- \u201cNot for the sake of\nlife to lose the real objects of life,\u201d this must be our watchword\nforever, and the _caus\u00e6 vit\u00e6_, the highest objects of life, are for us\nto-day, and will, I\u00a0trust, remain for coming generations the same as\nthey were in the days of Lessing, of Kant, of Schiller, and of Humboldt.\n\nAnd nowhere, methinks, can this return to the work of peace be better\ninaugurated than here in this very place, in Strassburg. It was a bold\nconception to begin the building of the new temple of learning in the\nvery midst of the old German frontier fortress. We are summoned here, as\nin the days of Nehemiah, when \u201cthe builders every one had his sword\ngirded by his side and so builded.\u201d It rests with us, the young as well\nas the old, that this bold conception shall not fail. And therefore I\ncould not resist the voice of my heart, or gainsay the wish of my\nfriends who believed that I, too, might bring a stone, however small, to\nthe building of this new temple of German science. And here I am among\nyou to try and do my best. Though I have lived long abroad, and pitched\nmy workshop for nearly twenty-five years on English soil, you know that\nI have always remained German in heart and mind. And this I must say for\nmy English friends, that they esteem a German who remains German far\nmore than one who wishes to pass himself off as English. An Englishman\nwishes every man to be what he is. I\u00a0am, and I always have been,\na\u00a0German living and working in England. The work of my life, the edition\nof the Rig-Veda, the oldest book of the Indian, aye, of the whole Aryan\nworld, could be carried out satisfactorily nowhere but in England, where\nthe rich collections of Oriental MSS., and the easy communications with\nIndia, offer to an Oriental scholar advantages such as no other country\ncan offer. That by living and working in England I have made some\nsacrifices, that I have lost many advantages which the free intercourse\nwith German scholars in a German university so richly offers, no one\nknows better than myself. Whatever I have seen of life, I\u00a0know of no\nlife more perfect than that of a German professor in a German school or\nuniversity. You know what Niebuhr thought of such a life, even though he\nwas a Prussian minister and ambassador at Rome. I\u00a0must read you some of\nhis words, they sound so honest and sincere: \u201cThere is no more grateful,\nmore serene life than that of a German teacher or professor, none that,\nthrough the nature of its duties and its work, secures so well the peace\nof our heart and our conscience. How many times have I deplored it with\na sad heart, that I should ever have left that path of life to enter\nupon a life of trouble which, even at the approach of old age, will\nprobably never give me lasting peace. The office of a schoolmaster, in\nparticular, is one of the most honorable, and despite of all the evils\nwhich now and then disturb its ideal beauty, it is for a truly noble\nheart the happiest path of life. It was the path which I had once chosen\nfor myself, and how I wish I had been allowed to follow it!\u201d\n\nI could quote to you the words of another Prussian ambassador, Bunsen.\nHe, too, often complained with sadness that he had missed his true path\nin life. He too, would gladly have exchanged the noisy hotel of the\nambassador for the quiet home of a German professor.\n\nFrom my earliest youth it has been the goal of my life to act as a\nprofessor in a German university, and if this dream of my youth was not\nto be fulfilled in its entirety, I\u00a0feel all the more grateful that,\nthrough the kindness of my friends and German colleagues, I\u00a0have been\nallowed, at least once in my life, to act during the present spring and\nsummer as a real German professor in a German university.\n\nThis was in my heart, and I wanted to say it, in order that you might\nknow with what purpose I have come, and with what real joy I begin the\nwork which has brought us together to-day.\n\nI shall lecture during the present term on \u201cThe Results of the Science\nof Language;\u201d but you will easily understand that to sum up in one\ncourse of lectures the results of researches which have been carried on\nwith unflagging industry by three generations of scholars, would be a\nsheer impossibility. Besides, a\u00a0mere detailing of results, though it is\npossible, is hardly calculated to subserve the real objects of academic\nteaching. You would not be satisfied with mere results: you want to know\nand to understand the method by which they have been obtained. You want\nto follow step by step that glorious progress of discovery which has led\nus to where we stand now. What is the use of knowing the Pythagorean\nproblem, if we cannot prove it? What would be the use of knowing that\nthe French _larme_ is the same as the German _Z\u00e4hre_ (tear), if we could\nnot with mathematical exactness trace every step by which these two\nwords have diverged till they became what they are?\n\nThe results of the Science of Language are enormous. There is no sphere\nof intellectual activity which has not felt more or less the influence\nof this new science. Nor is this to be wondered at. Language is the\norgan of all knowledge, and though we flatter ourselves that we are the\nlords of language, that we use it as a useful tool, and no more, believe\nme there are but few who can maintain their complete independence with\nrespect to language, few who can say of her, \u1f1c\u03c7\u03c9 \u039b\u03b1\u0390\u03b4\u03b1, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\nTo know language historically and genetically, to be able more\nparticularly to follow up the growth of our technical terms to their\nvery roots, this is in every science the best means to keep up a living\nconnection between the past and the present, the only way to make us\nfeel the ground on which we stand.\n\nLet us begin with what is nearest to us, _Philology_. Its whole\ncharacter has been changed as if by magic. The two classical languages,\nGreek and Latin, which looked as if they had fallen from the sky or been\nfound behind the hedge, have now recovered their title-deeds, and have\ntaken their legitimate place in that old and noble family which we call\nthe Indo-European, the Indo-Germanic, or by a shorter, if not a better\nname, the Aryan. In this way not only have their antecedents been\ncleared up, but their mutual relationship, too, has for the first time\nbeen placed in its proper light. The idea that Latin was derived from\nGreek, an idea excusable in scholars of the Scipionic period, or that\nLatin was a language made up of Italic, Greek, and Pelasgic elements,\na\u00a0view that had maintained itself to the time of Niebuhr, all this has\nnow been shown to be a physical impossibility. Greek and Latin stand\ntogether on terms of perfect equality; they are sisters, like French and\nItalian:--\n\n \u201cFacies non omnibus una,\n Nec diversa tamen qualem decet esse sororum.\u201d\n\nIf it could be a scientific question which of the two is the elder\nsister, Greek or Latin, Latin, I\u00a0believe, could produce better claims of\nseniority than Greek. Now, as in the modern history of language we are\nable to explain many things that are obscure in French and Italian by\ncalling in the Proven\u00e7al, the Spanish, the Portuguese, nay, even the\nWallachian and the Churw\u00e4lsch, we can do the same in the ancient history\nof language, and get light for many things which are difficult and\nunintelligible in Greek and Latin, by consulting Sanskrit, Zend, Gothic,\nIrish, and even Old Bulgarian. We can hardly form an idea of the\nsurprise which was occasioned among the scholars of Europe by the\ndiscovery of the Aryan family of languages, reaching with its branches\nfrom the Himalayan mountains to the Pyrenees. Not that scholars of any\neminence believed at the end of the last century that Greek and Latin\nwere derived from Hebrew: that prejudice had been disposed of once for\nall, in Germany at least, by Leibniz. But after that theory had been\ngiven up, no new truly scientific theory had taken its place. The\nlanguages of the world, with the exception of the Semitic, the family\ntype of which was not to be mistaken, lay scattered about as _disjecta\nmembra po\u00ebt\u00e6_, and no one thought of uniting them again into one organic\nwhole. It was the discovery of Sanskrit which led to the reunion of the\nAryan languages, and if Sanskrit had taught us nothing else, this alone\nwould establish its claim to a place among the academic sciences of our\ncentury.\n\nWhen Greek and Latin had once been restored to their true place in the\nnatural system of the Aryan languages, their special treatment, too,\nbecame necessarily a different one. In grammar, for instance, scholars\nwere no longer satisfied to give forms and rules, and to place what was\nirregular by the side of what was regular. They wished to know the\nreasons of the rules as well as of the exceptions; they asked why the\nforms were such as they were, and not otherwise; they required not only\na logical, but also an historical foundation of grammar. People asked\nthemselves for the first time, why so small a change as _mensa_ and\n_mens\u00e6_ could express the difference between one and many tables; why a\nsingle letter, like _r_, could possess the charm of changing I love,\n_amo_, into I am loved, _amor_. Instead of indulging in general\nspeculations on the logic of grammar, the riddles of grammar received\ntheir solution from a study of the historical development of language.\nFor every language there was to be a historical grammar, and in this way\na revolution was produced in philological studies to be compared only to\nthe revolution produced in chemistry by the discoveries of Lavoisier, or\nin geology by the theories of Lyell. For instance, instead of attempting\nan explanation why the genitive singular and the ablative plural of the\nfirst and second declensions could express rest in a place--_Rom\u00e6_, at\nRome; _Tarenti_, at Tarentum; _Athenis_, at Athens; _Gabiis_, at\nGabii--one glance at the past history of these languages showed that\nthese so-called genitives were not and never had been genitives, but\ncorresponded to the old locatives in _i_ and _su_ in Sanskrit. No doubt,\na\u00a0pupil can be made to learn anything that stands in a grammar; but I do\nnot believe that it can conduce to a sound development of his\nintellectual powers if he first learns at school the real meaning of the\ngenitive and ablative, and then has to accept on trust that, somehow or\nother, the same cases may express rest in a place. A\u00a0well-known English\ndivine, opposed to reform in spelling, as in everything else, once\ndeclared that the fearful orthography of English formed the best\npsychological foundation of English orthodoxy, because a child that had\nonce been brought to believe that t-h-r-o-u-g-h sounded like \u201cthrough,\u201d\nt-h-o-u-g-h like \u201cthough,\u201d r-o-u-g-h like \u201crough,\u201d would afterwards\nbelieve anything. Be that as it may, I\u00a0do not consider that grammatical\nrules like those just quoted on the genitive and ablative, assuming the\npower of the locative, are likely to strengthen the reasoning powers of\nany schoolboy.\n\nEven more pernicious to the growth of sound ideas was the study of\netymology, as formerly carried on in schools and universities.\nEverything here was left to chance or to authority, and it was not\nunusual that two or three etymologies of the same word had to be learnt,\nas if the same word might have had more than one parent. Yet it is many\nyears since Otfried M\u00fcller told classical scholars that they must either\nsurrender the whole subject of the historical growth of language,\netymology, and grammatical morphology, or trust in these matters\nentirely to the guidance of Comparative Philology. As a student at\nLeipzig, I\u00a0lived to see old Gottfried Hermann quoting the paradigms of\nSanskrit grammar in one of his last _Programs_; and Boeckh declared in\n1850, at the eleventh meeting of German philologists, that, in the\npresent state of the science of language, the grammar of the classical\nlanguages cannot dispense with the co\u00f6peration of comparative grammar.\nAnd yet there are scholars even now who would exclude the Science of\nLanguage from schools and universities. What gigantic steps truly\nscientific etymology has made in Greek and Latin, every scholar may see\nin the excellent works of Curtius and Corssen. The essential difference\nbetween the old and the new systems consists here, too, in this, that\nwhile formerly people were satisfied if they knew, or imagined they\nknew, from what source a certain word was derived, little value is now\nattached to the mere etymology of a word, unless at the same time it is\npossible to account, according to fixed phonetic laws, for all the\nchanges which a word has undergone in its passage through Latin, Greek,\nand Sanskrit. How far this conscientiousness may be carried is shown by\nthe fact that the best comparative philologists decline to admit, on\nphonetic grounds, the identity of such words as the Latin _Deus_, and\nthe Greek \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, although the strongest internal arguments may be urged\nin favor of the identity of these words.[1]\n\nLet us go on to _Mythology_. If mythology is an old dialect, outliving\nitself, and, on the strength of its sacred character, carried on to a\nnew period of language, it is easy to perceive that the historical\nmethod of the Science of Language would naturally lead here to most\nimportant results. Take only the one fact, which no one at present would\ndare to question, that the name of the highest deity among the Greeks\nand Romans, \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, and _Jupiter_, is the same as the Vedic +Dyaus+, the\nsky, and the old German _Zio_, Old Norse _Tyr_, whose name survives in\nthe modern names of _Dienstag_ or _Tuesday_. Does not this one word\nprove the union of those ancient races? Does it not show us, at the\nearliest dawn of history, the fathers of the Aryan race, the fathers of\nour own race, gathered together in the great temple of nature, like\nbrothers of the same house, and looking up in adoration to the sky as\nthe emblem of what they yearned for, a\u00a0father and a God. Nay, can we not\nhear in that old name of _Jupiter_, _i.e._, Heaven-Father, the true\nkey-note which still sounds on in our own prayer, \u201cOur Father which art\nin heaven,\u201d and which imparts to these words their deepest tone, and\ntheir fullest import? By an accurate study of these words we are able to\ndraw the bonds of language and belief even more closely together. You\nknow that the nom. sing. of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 has the acute, and so has the nom.\nsing. of +Dyaus+; but the vocative of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 has the circumflex, and so\nhas likewise the vocative of +Dyaus+ in the Veda.[2] Formerly the accent\nmight have been considered as something late, artificial, and purely\ngrammatical: the Science of Language has shown that it is as old as\nlanguage itself, and it has rightly called it the very soul of words.\nThus even in these faint pulsations of language, in the changes of\naccent in Greek and Sanskrit, may we feel the common blood that runs in\nthe veins of the old Aryan dialects.\n\nHistory, too, particularly the most ancient history, has received new\nlight and life from a comparative study of languages. Nations and\nlanguages were in ancient times almost synonymous, and what constitutes\nthe ideal unity of a nation lies far more in the intellectual factors,\nin religion and language, than in common descent and common blood. But\nfor that very reason we must here be most cautious. It is but too easily\nforgotten that if we speak of Aryan and Semitic families, the ground of\nclassification is language, and language only. There are Aryan and\nSemitic languages, but it is against all rules of logic to speak,\nwithout an expressed or implied qualification, of an Aryan race, of\nAryan blood, of Aryan skulls, and to attempt ethnological classification\non purely linguistic grounds. These two sciences, the Science of\nLanguage and the Science of Man, cannot, at least for the present, be\nkept too much asunder; and many misunderstandings, many controversies,\nwould have been avoided, if scholars had not attempted to draw\nconclusions from language to blood, or from blood to language. When each\nof these sciences shall have carried out independently its own\nclassification of men and of languages, then, and then only, will it be\ntime to compare their results; but even then, I\u00a0must repeat, what I have\nsaid many times before, it would be as wrong to speak of Aryan blood as\nof dolichocephalic grammar.[3]\n\nWe have all accustomed ourselves to look for the cradle of the Aryan\nlanguages in Asia, and to imagine these dialects flowing like streams\nfrom the centre of Asia to the South, the West, and the North. I\u00a0must\nconfess that Professor Benfey\u2019s protest against this theory seems to me\nvery opportune, and his arguments in favor of a more northern, if not\nEuropean, origin of the whole Aryan family of speech, deserve, at all\nevents, far more attention than they have hitherto received.\n\nFor the same reasons it seems to me at least a premature undertaking to\nuse the greater or smaller number of coincidences between two or more of\nthe Aryan languages as arguments in support of an earlier or later\nseparation of the people who spoke them. First of all, there are few\npoints on which the opinions of competent judges differ more decidedly\nthan when the exact degrees of relationship between the single Aryan\nlanguages have to be settled. There is agreement on one point only,\nviz., that Sanskrit and Zend are more closely united than any other\nlanguages. But though on this point there can hardly be any doubt, no\nsatisfactory explanation of this extraordinary agreement has as yet been\ngiven. In fact, it has been doubted whether what I called the \u201cSouthern\nDivision\u201d of the Aryan family could properly be called a division at\nall, as it consisted only of varieties of one and the same type of Aryan\nspeech. As soon as we go beyond Sanskrit and Zend, the best authorities\nare found to be in open conflict. Bopp maintained that the Slavonic\nlanguages were most closely allied to Sanskrit, an opinion shared by\nPott. Grimm, on the contrary, maintained a closer relationship between\nSlavonic and German. In this view he was supported by Lottner,\nSchleicher, and others, while Bopp to the last opposed it. After this,\nSchleicher (as,\u00a0before him, Newman in England) endeavored to prove a\ncloser contact between Celtic and Latin, and, accepting Greek as most\nclosely united with Latin, he proceeded to establish a Southwestern\nEuropean division, consisting of Celtic, Latin, and Greek, and running\nparallel with the Northwestern division, consisting of Teutonic and\nSlavonic; or, according to Ebel, of Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavonic.\n\nBut while these scholars classed Greek with Latin, others, such as\nGrassmann and Sonne, pointed out striking peculiarities which Greek\nshares with Sanskrit, and with Sanskrit only, as, for instance, the\naugment, the voiceless aspirates, the _alpha privativum_ (a,\u00a0not\u00a0an),\nthe +m\u00e2+ and \u03bc\u03ae _prohibitivum_, the +tara+ and \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf as the suffix of\nthe comparative, and some others. A\u00a0most decided divergence of opinion\nmanifested itself as touching the real relation of Greek and Latin.\nWhile some regarded these languages not only as sisters, but as twins,\nothers were not inclined to concede to them any closer relationship than\nthat which unites all the members of the Aryan family. While this\nconflict of opinions lasts (and they are not mere assertions, but\nopinions supported by arguments), it is clear that it would be premature\nto establish any historical conclusions, such, for instance, as that the\nSlaves remained longer united with the Indians and Persians than the\nGreeks, Romans, Germans, and Celts; or, if we follow Professor Sonne,\nthat the Greeks remained longer united with the Indians than the other\nAryan nations. I\u00a0must confess that I doubt whether the whole problem\nadmits of a scientific solution. If in a large family of languages we\ndiscover closer coincidences between some languages than between others,\nthis is no more than we should expect, according to the working of what\nI call the Dialectic Process. All these languages sprang up and grew and\ndiverged, before they were finally separated; some retained one form,\nothers another, so that even the apparently most distant members of the\nsame family might, on certain points, preserve relics in common which\nwere lost in all the other dialects, and _vice vers\u00e2_. No two languages,\nnot even Lithuanian and Old Slavonic, are so closely united as Sanskrit\nand Zend, which share together even technical terms, connected with a\ncomplicated sacrificial ceremonial. Yet there are words occurring in\nZend, and absent in Sanskrit, which crop up again sometimes in Greek,\nsometimes in Latin, sometimes in German.[4] As soon as we attempt to\ndraw from such coincidences and divergences historical conclusions as to\nthe earlier or later separation of the nations who developed these\nlanguages, we fall into contradictions like those which I pointed out\njust now between Bopp, Grimm, Schleicher, Ebel, Grassmann, Sonne, and\nothers. Much depends, in all scientific researches, on seeing that the\nquestion is properly put. To me the question, whether the closer\nrelations between certain independent dialects furnish evidence as to\nthe successive times of their separation, seems, by its very nature,\nfruitless. Nor have the answers been at all satisfactory. After a number\nof coincidences between the various members of the Aryan family have\nbeen carefully collected, we know no more in the end than what we knew\nat first, viz., that all the Aryan dialects are closely connected with\neach other. We know--\n\n1. That Slavonic is most closely united with German (Grimm, Schleicher);\n\n2. That German is most closely united with Celtic (Ebel, Lottner);\n\n3. That Celtic is most closely united with Latin (Newman, Schleicher);\n\n4. That Latin is most closely united with Greek (Mommsen, Curtius);\n\n5. That Greek is most closely united with Sanskrit (Grassmann, Sonne,\nKern);\n\n6. That Sanskrit is most closely united with Zend (Burnouf).\n\nLet a mathematician draw out the result, and it will be seen that we\nknow in the end no more than we knew at the beginning. Far be it for me\nto use a mere trick in arguing, and to say that none of these\nconclusions can be right, because each is contradicted by others. Quite\nthe contrary. I\u00a0admit that there is some truth in every one of these\nconclusions, and I maintain, for that very reason, that the only way to\nreconcile them all is to admit that the single dialects of the Aryan\nfamily did not break off in regular succession, but that, after a\nlong-continued community, they separated slowly, and, in some cases,\ncontemporaneously, from their family-circle, till they established at\nlast, under varying circumstances, their complete national independence.\nThis seems to me all that at present one may say with a good conscience,\nand what is in keeping with the law of development in all dialects.\n\nIf now we turn away from the purely philological results of the Science\nof Language, in order to glance at the advantages which other sciences\nhave derived from it, we shall find that they consist mostly in the\nlight that has been shed on obscure words and old customs. This\nadvantage is greater than, at first sight, it might seem to be. Every\nword has its history, and the beginning of this history, which is\nbrought to light by etymology, leads us back far beyond its first\nhistorical appearance. Every word, as we know, had originally a\npredicative meaning, and that predicative meaning differs often very\nconsiderably from the later traditional or technical meaning. This\npredicative meaning, however, being the most original meaning of the\nword, allows us an insight into the most primitive ideas of a nation.\n\nLet us take an instance from jurisprudence. _P\u0153na_, in classical Latin,\nmeans simply punishment, particularly what is either paid or suffered\nin order to atone for an injury. (_Si\u00a0injuriam faxit alteri, viginti\nquinque \u00e6ris p\u0153n\u0153 sunto, fragm. xii. tab._) The word agrees so\nremarkably, both in form and meaning, with the Greek \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae, that\nMommsen assigned to it a place in what he calls Gr\u00e6co-Italic ideas.[5]\nWe might suppose, therefore, that the ancient Italians took _p\u0153na_\noriginally in the sense of ransom, simply as a civil act, by which he\nwho had inflicted injury on another was, as far as he and the injured\nperson were concerned, restored _in integrum_. The etymology of the\nword, however, leads us back into a far more distant past, and shows us\nthat when the word _p\u0153na_ was first framed, punishment was conceived\nfrom a higher moral and religious point of view, as a purification from\nsin; for _p\u0153na_, as first shown by Professor Pott (and what has he not\nbeen the first to show?) is closely connected with the root pu, to\npurify. Thus we read in the \u201cAtharva-veda,\u201d xix. 33, 3:--\n\n \u201cTv\u00e1m bh\u00fb\u0301mim \u00e1tyeshi \u00f3jas\u00e2\n Tv\u00e1m v\u00e9dy\u00e2m s\u00eedasi c\u1ea5rur adhvar\u00e9\n Tv\u1ea5m pav\u00edtram \u1e5bshayo bh\u00e1rantas\n Tv\u00e1m pun\u00edhi durit\u1ea5ni asm\u00e1t.\u201d\n\n \u201cThou, O\u00a0God of Fire, goest mightily across the earth; thou sittest\n brilliantly on the altar at the sacrifice. The prophets carry Thee\n as the Purifier; purify us from all misdeeds.\u201d\n\nFrom this root +pu+ we have, in Latin, _p\u016brus_, and _p\u016dtus_, as in\n_argentum purum putum_, fine silver, or in _purus putus est ipse_,\nPlaut. Ps. 4, 2, 31. From it we also have the verb _purgare_, for\n_purigare_, to purge, used particularly with reference to purification\nfrom crime by means of religious observances. If this transition from\nthe idea of purging to that of punishing should seem strange, we have\nonly to think of _castigare_, meaning originally to purify, but\nafterwards in such expressions as _verbis et verberibus castigare_, to\nchide and to chasten.\n\nI cannot convince myself that the Latin _crimen_ has anything in\ncommon with \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. The Greek \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd is no doubt connected with Latin\n_cer-no_, from which _cribrum_, sieve. It means to separate, to sift,\nso that \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1 may well signify a judgment, but not a crime or misdeed.\n_Cr\u012bmen_, as every scholar knows or ought to know, meant originally an\naccusation, not a crime, and, in spite of all appearances to the\ncontrary, has nothing whatever in common with _discr\u012bmen_, which means\nwhat separates two things, a\u00a0difference, a\u00a0critical point. _In crimen\nvenire_ means to get into bad repute, to be calumniated; _in discrimine\nesse_ means to be in a critical and dangerous position.\n\nIt is one of the fundamental laws of etymology that in tracing words\nback to their roots, we have to show that their primary, not their\nsecondary meanings agree with the meaning of the root. Therefore, even\nif _cr\u012bmen_ had assumed in later times the meaning of judgment, yet its\nderivation from the Greek \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd would have to be rejected, because\nit would explain the secondary only, but not the primary meaning of\n_cr\u012bmen_. Nothing is clearer than the historical development of the\nmeanings of _cr\u012bmen_, beginning with accusation, and ending with guilt.\n\nI believe I have proved that _cr\u012bmen_ is really and truly the same word\nas the German _Verleumdung_, calumny.[6] _Verleumdung_ comes from\n_Leumund_, the Old High-German _hliumunt_, and this _hliumunt_ is the\nexact representative of the Vedic +\u015bromata+, derived from the root\n+\u015bru+, to hear, _cluere_, and signifying good report, glory, the Greek\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, the Old High-German _hruom_. The German word _Leumund_ can be\nused in a good and a bad sense, as good or evil report, while the Latin\n_cr\u012b-men_, for _croe-men_ (like _liber_ for _loeber_), is used only _in\nmalam partem_. It meant originally what is heard, report, _on dit_,\ngossip, accusation; lastly, the object of an accusation, a\u00a0crime, but\nnever judgment, in the technical sense of the word.\n\nThe only important objection that could be raised against tracing\n_cr\u012bmen_ back to the root +\u015bru+, is that this root has in the\nNorthwestern branch of the Aryan family assumed the form +clu+, instead\nof +cru+, as in \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, _cliens_, _gloria_, O.Sl. _slovo_, A.S. _hl\u00fbd_,\nloud, _inclutus_. I myself hesitated for a long time on account of this\nphonetic difficulty, nor do I think it is quite removed by the fact that\nBopp (\u201cComp. Gr.\u201d \u00a7\u00a020) identified the German _scrir-u-m\u00eas_, we cry\n(instead of _scriw-u-m\u00eas_), with Sk. +\u015br\u00e2v-ay\u00e2-mas+, we make hear; nor\nby the _r_ in _in-cre-p-are_, in \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, as compared with \u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9, nor even\nby the _r_ in \u1f00-\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf-\u03ac-\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, which Curtius seems inclined to derive from\n+\u015bru+. The question is whether this phonetic difficulty is such as to\nforce us to surrender the common origin of +\u015bromata+, _hliumunt_, and\n_cr\u012bmen_; but even if this should be the case, the derivation of\n_cr\u012bmen_ from _cerno_ or \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd would remain as impossible as ever.\n\nThis will give you an idea in what manner the Science of Language can\nopen before our eyes a period in the history of law, customs, and\nmanners, which hitherto was either entirely closed, or reached only by\ndevious paths. Formerly, for instance, it was supposed that the Latin\nword _lex_, law, was connected with the Greek \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. This is wrong,\nfor \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 never means law in the sense in which _lex_ does. \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\nfrom \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to collect, to gather, signifies, like \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2,\na\u00a0gathering, a\u00a0collection, an ordering, be it of words or thoughts. The\nidea that there is a \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, an order or law, for instance, in nature, is\nnot classical, but purely modern. It is not improbable that _lex_ is\nconnected with the English word _law_, only not by way of the Norman\n_loi_. English _law_ is A.S. _lagu_ (as\u00a0_saw_ corresponds both to the\nGerman _Sage_ and _S\u00e4ge_), and it meant originally what was laid down or\nsettled, with exactly the same conception as the German _Gesetz_. It has\nbeen attempted to derive the Latin _lex_, too, from the same root,\nthough there is this difficulty, that the root of _liegen_ and _legen_\ndoes not elsewhere occur in Latin. The mere disappearance of the\naspiration would be no serious obstacle. If, however, the Latin _lex_\ncannot be derived from that root, we must, with Corssen, refer it to the\nsame cluster of words to which _ligare_, to bind, _obligatio_, binding,\nand the Oscan ablative _lig-ud_ belong, and assign to it the original\nmeaning of _bond_. On no account can it be derived from _legere_, to\nread, as if it meant a bill first read before the people, and afterwards\nreceiving legal sanction by their approval.\n\nFrom these considerations we gain at least this negative result, that,\nbefore their separation, the Aryan languages had no settled word for\nlaw; and even such negative results have their importance. The Sanskrit\nword for law is +dharma+, derived from +dhar+, to hold fast. The Greek\nword is \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, derived from \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, to dispense, from which _Nemesis_,\nthe dispensing deity, and perhaps even _Numa_, the name of the fabulous\nking and lawgiver of Rome.\n\nOther words might easily be added which, by the disclosure of their\noriginal meaning, give us interesting hints as to the development of\nlegal conceptions and customs, such as marriage, inheritance, ordeals,\nand the like. But it is time to cast a glance at theology, which, more\neven than jurisprudence, has experienced the influence of the Science of\nLanguage. What was said with regard to mythology, applies with equal\nforce to theology. Here, too, words harden, and remain unchanged longer\neven than in other spheres of intellectual life; nay, their influence\noften becomes greater the more they harden, and the more their original\nmeaning is forgotten. Here it is most important that an intelligent\ntheologian should be able to follow up the historical development of the\n_termini technici_ and _sacrosancti_ of his science. Not only words like\n_priest_, _bishop_, _sacrament_, or _testament_, have to be correctly\napprehended in that meaning which they had in the first century, but\nexpressions like \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 have to be traced\nhistorically to the beginnings of Christianity, and beyond, if we wish\nto gain a conception of their full purport.\n\nIn addition to this, the Philosophy of Religion, which must always form\nthe true foundation of theological science, owes it to the Science of\nLanguage that the deepest germs of the consciousness of God among the\ndifferent nations of the world have for the first time been laid open.\nWe know now with perfect certainty that the names, that is, the most\noriginal conceptions, of the Deity among the Aryan nations, are as\nwidely removed from coarse fetichism as from abstract idealism. The\nAryans, as far as the annals of their language allow us to see,\nrecognized the presence of the Divine in the bright and sunny aspects of\nnature, and they, therefore, called the blue sky, the fertile earth, the\ngenial fire, the bright day, the golden dawn their +Devas+, that is,\ntheir bright ones. The same word, +Deva+ in Sanskrit, _Deus_ in Latin,\nremained unchanged in all their prayers, their rites, their\nsuperstitions, their philosophies, and even to-day it rises up to heaven\nfrom thousands of churches and cathedrals,--a word which, before there\nwere Brahmans or Germans, had been framed in the dark workshop of the\nAryan mind.\n\nThat the natural sciences, too, should have felt the electric shock of\nour new science is not surprising, considering that man is the crown of\nnature, the apex to which all other forces of nature point and tend. But\nthat which makes man man, is language. _Homo animal rationale, quia\norationale_, as Hobbes said. Buffon called the plant a sleeping animal;\nliving philosophers speak of the animal as a dumb man. Both, however,\nforget that the plant would cease to be a plant if it awoke, and that\nthe brute would cease to be a brute the moment it began to speak. There\nis, no doubt, in language a transition from the material to the\nspiritual: the raw material of language belongs to nature, but the form\nof language, that which really makes language, belongs to the spirit.\nWere it possible to trace human language _directly_ back to natural\nsounds, to interjections or imitations, the question whether the Science\nof Language belongs to the sphere of the natural or the historical\nsciences would at once be solved. But I doubt whether this crude view of\nthe origin of language counts one single supporter in Germany. With one\nfoot language stands, no doubt, in the realm of nature, but with the\nother in the realm of the spirit. Some years ago, when I thought it\nnecessary to bring out as clearly as possible the much neglected natural\nelement in language, I\u00a0tried to explain in what sense the Science of\nLanguage had a right to be called the last and the highest of the\nnatural sciences. But I need hardly say that I did not lose sight,\ntherefore, of the intellectual and historical character of language; and\nI may here express my conviction that the Science of Language will yet\nenable us to withstand the extreme theories of the evolutionists, and to\ndraw a hard and fast line between spirit and matter, between man and\nbrute.\n\nThis short survey must suffice to show you how omnipresent the Science\nof Language has become in all spheres of human knowledge, and how far\nits limits have been extended, so that it often seems impossible for one\nman to embrace the whole of its vast domain. From this I wish, in\nconclusion, to draw some necessary advice.\n\nWhoever devotes himself to the study of so comprehensive a science must\ntry never to lose sight of two virtues: conscientiousness and modesty.\nThe older we grow, the more we feel the limits of human knowledge. \u201cGood\ncare is taken,\u201d as Goethe said, \u201cthat trees should not grow into the\nsky.\u201d Every one of us can make himself real master of a small field of\nknowledge only, and what we gain in extent, we inevitably lose in depth.\nIt was impossible that Bopp should know Sanskrit like Colebrooke, Zend\nlike Burnouf, Greek like Hermann, Latin like Lachmann, German like\nGrimm, Slavonic like Miklosich, Celtic like Zeuss. That drawback lies in\nthe nature of all comparative studies. But it follows by no means that,\nas the French proverb says, _qui trop embrasse, mal \u00e9treint_. Bopp\u2019s\n\u201cComparative Grammar\u201d will always mark an epoch in linguistic studies,\nand no one has accused the old master of superficiality. There are, in\nfact, two kinds of knowledge; the one which we take in as real\nnourishment, which we convert _in succum et sanguinem_, which is always\npresent, which we can never lose; the other which, if I may say so, we\nput into our pockets, in order to find it there whenever it is wanted.\nFor comparative studies the second kind of knowledge is as important as\nthe first, but in order to use it properly, the greatest\nconscientiousness is required. Not only ought we, whenever we have to\nuse it, to go back to the original sources, to accept nothing on trust,\nto quote nothing at second-hand, and to verify every single point before\nwe rely on it for comparative purposes, but, even after we have done\neverything to guard against error, we ought to proceed with the greatest\ncaution and modesty. I\u00a0consider, for instance, that an accurate\nknowledge of Sanskrit is a _conditio sine qu\u00e2 non_ in the study of\nComparative Philology. According to my conviction, though I know it is\nnot shared by others, Sanskrit must forever remain the central point of\nour studies. But it is clearly impossible for us, while engaged in a\nscholarlike study of Sanskrit, to follow at the same time the gigantic\nstrides of Latin, Greek, German, Slavonic, and Celtic philology. Here we\nmust learn to be satisfied with what is possible, and apply for advice\nwhenever we want it, to those who are masters in these different\ndepartments of philology. Much has of late been said of the antagonism\nbetween comparative and classical philology. To me it seems that these\ntwo depend so much on each other for help and advice that their\nrepresentatives ought to be united by the closest ties of fellowship. We\nmust work on side by side, and accept counsel as readily as we give it.\nWithout the help of Comparative Philology, for instance, Greek scholars\nwould never have arrived at a correct understanding of the Digamma--nay,\na\u00a0freer intercourse with his colleague, Bopp, would have preserved\nBekker from several mistakes in his restoration of the Digamma in Homer.\nLatin scholars would have felt far more hesitation in introducing the\nold _d_ of the ablative in Plautus, if the analogy of Sanskrit had not\nso clearly proved its legitimacy.\n\nOn the other hand, we, comparative philologists, should readily ask and\ngladly accept the advice and help of our classical colleagues. Without\ntheir guidance, we can never advance securely; their warnings are to us\nof the greatest advantage, their approval our best reward. We are often\ntoo bold, we do not see all the difficulties that stand in the way of\nour speculations, we are too apt to forget that, in addition to its\ngeneral Aryan character, every language has its peculiar genius. Let us\nall be on our guard against omniscience and infallibility. Only through\na frank, honest, and truly brotherly co\u00f6peration can we hope for a true\nadvancement of knowledge. We all want the same thing; we all are\n_etymologists_--that is, lovers of truth. For this, before all things,\nthe spirit of truth, which is the living spirit of all science, must\ndwell within us. Whoever cannot yield to the voice of truth, whoever\ncannot say, \u201cI\u00a0was wrong,\u201d knows little as yet of the true spirit of\nscience.\n\nAllow me, in conclusion, to recall to your remembrance another passage\nfrom Niebuhr. He belongs to the good old race of German scholars. \u201cAbove\nall things,\u201d he writes, \u201cwe must in all scientific pursuits preserve our\ntruthfulness so pure that we thoroughly eschew every false appearance;\nthat we represent not even the smallest thing as certain of which we are\nnot completely convinced; that if we have to propose a conjecture, we\nspare no effort in representing the exact degree of its probability. If\nwe do not ourselves, when it is possible, indicate our errors, even such\nas no one else is likely to discover; if, in laying down our pen, we\ncannot say in the sight of God, \u2018Upon strict examination, I\u00a0have\nknowingly written nothing that is not true;\u2019 and if, without deceiving\neither ourselves or others, we have not presented even our most odious\nopponents in such a light only that we could justify it upon our\ndeath-beds--if we cannot do this, study and literature serve only to\nmake us unrighteous and sinful.\u201d\n\nFew, I fear, could add, with Niebuhr: \u201cIn this I am convinced that I do\nnot require from others anything of which a higher spirit, if He could\nread my soul, could convict me of having done the contrary.\u201d But all of\nus, young as well as old, should keep these words before our eyes and in\nour hearts. Thus, and thus only, will our studies not miss their\nhighest goal: thus, and thus only, may we hope to become true\netymologists--_i.e._, true lovers, seekers, and, I\u00a0trust, finders of\ntruth.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nNOTE A.\n\n\u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 AND DEUS.\n\nThat Greek \u03b8 does not legitimately represent a Sanskrit, Latin,\nSlavonic, and Celtic _d_ is a fact that ought never to have been\noverlooked by comparative philologists, and nothing could be more useful\nthan the strong protest entered by Windischmann, Schleicher, Curtius,\nand others, against the favorite identification of Sk. +deva+, _deus_,\nand \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Considering it as one of the first duties, in all etymological\nresearches, that we should pay implicit obedience to phonetic laws,\nI\u00a0have never, so far as I remember, quoted \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 as identical with\n_deus_, together with the other derivatives of the root +div+, such as\n+Dyaus+, \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, _Jupiter_, +deva+, Lith. _deva-s_, Irish _d\u00eda_.\n\nBut with all due respect for phonetic laws, I have never in my own heart\ndoubted that \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 belonged to the same cluster of words which the early\nAryans employed to express the brightness of the sky and of the day, and\nwhich helped them to utter their first conception of a god of the bright\nsky (+Dyaus+), of bright beings in heaven, as opposed to the powers of\nnight and darkness and winter (+deva+), and, lastly, of deity in the\nabstract.[7] I\u00a0have never become an atheist; and though I did not\nundervalue the powerful arguments advanced against the identity of\n_deus_ and \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, I\u00a0thought that other arguments also possessed their\nvalue, and could not be ignored with impunity. If, with our eyes shut,\nwe submit to the dictates of phonetic laws, we are forced to believe\nthat while the Greeks shared with the Hindus, the Italians, and Germans\nthe name for the bright god of the sky Zeus, +Dyaus+, _Jovis_, _Zio_,\nand while they again shared with them such derivatives as \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2,\nheavenly, Sk. +divyas+, they threw away the intermediate old Aryan word\nfor god, +deva+, _deus_, and formed a new one from a different root, but\nagreeing with the word which they had rejected in all letters but one.\nI\u00a0suppose that even the strongest supporters of the atheistic theory\nwould have accepted \u03b4\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, if it existed in Greek, as a correlative of\n+deva+ and _deus_; and I ask, would it not be an almost incredible\ncoincidence, if the Greeks, after giving up the common Aryan word, which\nwould have been \u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03b4\u03b5\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2, had coined a new word for god\nfrom a different root, yet coming so near to \u03b4\u03b5\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2 as \u03b8\u03b5\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2? These\ninternal difficulties seem to me nearly as great as the external: at all\nevents it would not be right to attempt to extenuate either.\n\nNow I think that, though much has been said against \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 for \u03b4\u03b5\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2,\nsomething may also be said in support of \u03b4\u03b5\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2 assuming the form of\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Curtius is quite right in repelling all arguments derived from Sk.\n+duhitar+ = \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, or Sk. +dv\u00e2r+ = \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1-\u03b1; but I think he does not do\nfull justice to the argument derived from \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 and \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. The Greek\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 has been explained as originally \u03c0\u03b9\u03dd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, the lost digamma causing\nthe aspiration of the initial \u03c0. Curtius says: \u201cThis etymology of \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\nis wrecked on the fact that in Homer the word does not mean a vessel for\ndrinking, but a kind of kettle.\u201d That is true, but the fact remains that\nin later Greek \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 means a drinking cup. Thus Pindar (\u201cIsthm.,\u201d v.\u00a058)\nsays:--\n\n \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03a4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd,\n\nwhich refers clearly to a golden goblet, and not a kettle. Besides, we\nhave an exactly analogous case in the Sk. +p\u00e2tram+. This, too, is\nclearly derived from +p\u00e2+, to drink, but it is used far more frequently\nin the sense of vessel in general, and its etymological meaning vanishes\naltogether when it comes to mean a vessel for something, a\u00a0fit person.\nI\u00a0see no etymology for \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, except \u03c0\u03b9\u03dd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, a\u00a0drinking vessel.\n\nSecondly, as to \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, which is supposed to be the same as \u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, and\nto represent the Sanskrit +p\u00eevaras+, fat, Curtius says that it occurs in\nAlexandrian poets only, that it there means bright, resplendent, and is\nused as an adjective of the dawn, while \u03c0\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 means fat, and fat only.\nAgainst this I venture to remark, first, that there are passages where\n\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 means sleek, as in Theocr. ii. 21, \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f60\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, said\nof a young plump girl, who in Sanskrit would be called +p\u00eevar\u00ee+;\nsecondly, that while \u03c0\u1fd6\u03b1\u03c1 is used for cream, \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 is used as an\nadjective of cream; and, thirdly, that the application of \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 to the\ndawn is hardly surprising, if we remember the change of meaning in\n\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 in Greek, and the application in the Veda of such words as\n+gh\u1e5bta prat\u00eeka+, to the dawn. Lastly, as in \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, I\u00a0see no etymology\nfor \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, except \u03c0\u03b9\u03dd\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nI think it is but fair therefore to admit that \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 for \u03b4\u03b5\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2 would find\nsome support by the analogy of \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 for \u03c0\u03b9\u03dd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, and of \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 for\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03dd\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. There still remain difficulties enough to make us cautious in\nasserting the identity of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and _deus_; but in forming our own\nopinion these difficulties should be weighed impartially against the\ninternal difficulties involved in placing \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 as a totally independent\nword, by the side of +deva+ and _deus_. And, as in \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 and \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, may\nwe not say of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 also that there is no etymology for it, if we\nseparate it from \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 and \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, from +Dyaus+ and +divyas+? Curtius\nhimself rejects Plato\u2019s and Schleicher\u2019s derivation of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 from \u03b8\u03ad\u03c9, to\nrun: likewise C.\u00a0Hoffmann\u2019s from +dhava+, man; likewise B\u00fchler\u2019s from a\nroot +dhi+, to think or to shine; likewise that of Herodotus and\nA.\u00a0G\u00f6bel from \u03b8\u03b5\u03c2, a\u00a0secondary form of \u03b8\u03b5, to settle. Ascoli\u2019s analysis\nis highly sagacious, but it is too artificial. Ascoli[8] identifies\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, not with +deva+, but with _divy\u00e1-s_. +Divy\u00e1s+ becoming \u03b4\u03b9\u03dd\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n(like +satya+, \u1f10\u03c4\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2), the accent on the last syllable would produce the\nchange to \u03b4\u03dd\u03b5\u03cc-\u03c2, \u03dd would cause aspiration in the preceding\nconsonant and then disappear, leaving \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 = +divy\u00e1s+. All these changes\nare just possible phonetically, but, as Curtius observes, the point for\nwhich the theists contend is not gained, for we should still have to\nadmit that the Greeks lost the common word for god, +deva+ and _deus_,\nand that they alone replaced it by a derivative +divya+, meaning\nheavenly, not bright.\n\nCurtius himself seems in favor of deriving \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 from \u03b8\u03b5\u03c2, to implore,\nwhich we have in \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3-\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, etc. \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, taken as\na passive derivative, might, he thinks, have the meaning of \u1f00\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 in\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and mean the implored being. I\u00a0cannot think that this is a\nsatisfactory derivation. It might be defended phonetically and\netymologically, though I cannot think of any analogous passive\nderivatives of a root ending in _s_. Where it fails to carry conviction\nis in leaving unexplained the loss of the common Aryan word for deity,\nand in putting in its place a name that savors of very modern thought.\n\nI think the strongest argument against the supposed aspirating power of\nmedial _v_, and its subsequent disappearance, lies in the fact that\nthere are so many words having medial _v_, which show no trace of this\nphonetic process (Curtius, p.\u00a0507). On the other hand, it should be\nborne in mind, that the Greeks might have felt a natural objection to\nthe forms which would have rendered +deva+ with real exactness, I\u00a0mean\n\u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03b4\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2, the former conveying the meaning of double, the latter of\nfear. A\u00a0mere wish to keep the name for god distinct from these words\nmight have produced the phonetic anomaly of which we complain; and,\nafter all, though I do not like to use that excuse, there are exceptions\nto phonetic laws. No one can explain how \u1f44\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 was derived from \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03ce or\n\u1f15\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 from \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac, yet the internal evidence is too strong to be shaken\nby phonetic objections. In the case of \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 and _deus_ the internal\nevidence seems to me nearly as strong as in \u1f44\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f15\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, and\nthough unwilling to give a final verdict, I\u00a0think the question of the\nloss in Greek of the Aryan word for god and its replacement by another\nword nearly identical in form, but totally distinct in origin, should be\nleft for the present an open question in Comparative Philology.\n\n\nNOTE B.\n\nTHE VOCATIVE OF +DYA\u00daS+ AND \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\n\nThe vocative of +Dyaus+, having the circumflex, is one of those\nlinguistic gems which one finds now and then in the Rig-Veda, and which\nby right ought to have a place of honor in a Museum of Antiquities. It\nis a unique form. It occurs but once in the Rig-Veda, never again, as\nfar as we know at present, in the whole of Vedic literature, and yet it\nis exactly that form which a student of language would expect who is\nfamiliar with the working of the laws of accent in Sanskrit and in\nGreek. Without a thorough knowledge of these laws, the circumflexed\nvocative in Sanskrit, +Dya\u00fbs+, corresponding to Greek \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6, would seem\na mere anomaly, possibly an accidental coincidence, whereas in reality\nit affords the most striking proof of the organic working of the laws of\naccent, and at the same time an unanswerable testimony in favor of the\ngenuineness of the ancient text of the Rig-Veda.\n\nThe laws of accent bearing on this circumflexed vocative are so simple\nthat I thought they would have been understood by everybody. As this\ndoes not seem to have been the case, I\u00a0add a few explanatory remarks.\n\nIt was Benfey who, as on so many other points, so on the accent of\nvocatives, was the first to point out (in\u00a01845) that it was a\nfundamental law of the Aryan language to place the acute on the first\nsyllable of all vocatives, both in the singular, and in the dual and\nplural.[9] In Sanskrit this law admits of no exception; in Greek and\nLatin the rhythmic accent has prevailed to that extent that we only find\na few traces left of the original Aryan accentuation. It is well known\nthat in vocatives of nouns ending in _ius_, the ancient Romans preserved\nthe accent on the first syllable, that they said _V\u00edrgili_, _V\u00e1leri_,\nfrom _Virg\u00edlius_ and _Val\u00e9rius_. This statement of Nigidius Figulus,\npreserved by Gellius, though with the remark that in his time no one\nwould say so, is the only evidence of the former existence of the\nAryan law of accentuation in Latin. In Greek the evidence is more\nconsiderable, but the vocatives with the accent on the first syllable\nare, by the supreme law of the rhythmic accent in Greek, reduced to\nvocatives, drawing back their accent as far as they can, consistently\nwith the law which restricts the accent to the last three syllables.\nThus while in Sanskrit a word like \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd would in the vocative\nretract the accent on the first syllable \u1f0c\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, the Greek could do\nno more than say \u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd with the accent on the antepenultimate. In\nthe same manner the vocative of \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2, can only be \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2,\nwhereas in Sanskrit it would have been \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nHere, however, the question arises, whether in words like \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd[10]\nand \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2[11] the accent was not originally on the\nantepenultimate, but drawn on the penultimate by the rhythmic law. This\nis certainly the case in \u1f25\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, as the vocative of \u1f21\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, for we know\nthat both in Sanskrit and Greek, comparatives in \u03b9\u03c9\u03bd retract their\naccent as far as possible, and have it always on the first syllable in\nSanskrit, always on the penultimate in Greek, if the last syllable is\nlong. But, _cessante caus\u00e2 cessat effectus_, and therefore the accent\ngoes back on the antepenultimate, not only in the vocative, but likewise\nin the nom. neuter \u1f25\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nIt is possible that the same process may explain the vocative \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\nfrom \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, if we compare Sanskrit compounds with +pati+, such as\n+d\u00e2s\u00e1pati+, +g\u1ea5spati+, +d\u00e1mpati+, which leave the accent on the first\nmember of the compound. In \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 also all becomes regular, if we admit\nthe original accentuation to have been \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, changed in \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, but\npreserved in the genitive \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, and the vocative \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1.[12]\n\nBut there are other words in which this cannot be the case, for\ninstance, \u1f04\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03b5, \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5, \u03bc\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5 from \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, \u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. Here\nthe accent is the old Aryan vocatival accent. Again, in \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1,\nSk. +pit\u1ea5+, +pit\u00e1ram+, in \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, Sk. +m\u00e2t\u1ea5+, +m\u00e2t\u00e1ram+, in\n\u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1, Sk. +duhit\u1ea5+, +duhit\u00e1ram+, the radical accent was\nthroughout on the suffix +t\u00e1r+, nor would the rules of the rhythmic\naccent in Greek prevent it from being on the antepenultimate in the\naccusative. The fact therefore that it is retracted on the penultimate\nand antepenultimate in the vocative, shows clearly that we have here,\ntoo, the last working of the original Aryan accentuation. The irregular\naccent in the nom. sing. of \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, instead of \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, is probably due to\nthe frequent use of the vocative (an\u00a0explanation which I had adopted\nbefore I had seen Benfey\u2019s essay), and the same cause may explain the\napparently irregular accentuation in \u03b8\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, by the side of \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1,\nin \u03b8\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, and \u03b8\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. Similar vocatives with retracted accent are\n\u03b4\u1fb6\u03b5\u03c1, nom. \u03b4\u03b1\u03ae\u03c1, \u03b5\u1f34\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, nom. \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, nom. \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ae, \u03c3\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, nom.\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1, nom. \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1, \u1f0c\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, nom. \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03a0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, nom. \u03a0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd,\n\u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2, nom. \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2.\n\nWe have thus established the fact that one feature of the primitive\nAryan accentuation, which consisted in the very natural process of\nplacing the high accent on the first syllable of vocatives, was strictly\npreserved in Sanskrit, while in Greek and Latin it only left some\nscattered traces of its former existence. Without the light derived from\nSanskrit, the changes in the accent of vocatives in Greek and Latin\nwould be inexplicable, they would be, what they are in Greek grammar,\nmere anomalies; while, if placed by the side of Sanskrit, they are\nreadily recognized as what they really are, remnants of a former age,\npreserved by frequent usage or by an agent whom we do not like to\nrecognize, though we cannot altogether ignore him,--viz. chance.\n\nTaking our position on the fact that change of accent in the vocative in\nGreek is due to the continued influence of an older system of Aryan\naccentuation, we now see how the change of nom. \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 into voc. \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6,\nand of nom. +Dya\u00fas+, into voc. +Dya\u00fb\u0301s+, rests on the same principle.\nIn Sanskrit the change, though at first sight irregular, admits of\nexplanation. What we call the circumflex in Sanskrit, is the combination\nof a rising and falling of the voice, or, as we should say in Greek, of\nan acute and grave accent. As +Dya\u00fas+ was originally +Dia\u00fas+, and is\nfrequently used as two syllables in the Veda, the vocative would have\nbeen +D\u00eda\u00f9s+, and this contracted would become +Dyaus+. Thus we have\n+paribhv\u1ebf+ from +paribh\u00fbs+. In Greek the facts are the same, but the\nexplanation is more difficult. The general rule in Greek is that\nvocatives in \u03bf\u03c5, \u03bf\u03b9, and \u03b5\u03c5, from oxytone or perispome nominatives, are\nperispome; as \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6, \u039b\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6, \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, from \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\nplacenta, \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u039b\u03b7\u03c4\u03ce, \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2. The rationale of that rule has\nnever been explained, as far as Greek is concerned. Under this rule the\nvocative of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 becomes \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6; but no Greek grammarian has attempted to\nexplain the process by which \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 becomes \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6, and nothing remains for\nthe present but to admit that we have in it an ancient Aryan relic\npreserved in Greek long after the causes which had produced it had\nceased to act. It would fall into the same category as \u03b5\u1f36\u03bc\u03b9 and \u1f34\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd.\nHere, too, the efficient cause of the length and shortness of the\nradical vowel _i_, viz., the change of accent, Sk. +\u00e9mi+, but +im\u00e1s+,\nhas disappeared in Greek, while its effect has been preserved. But\nwhatever explanation may hereafter be adopted, the simple fact which I\nhad pointed out remains, the motive power which changed the nom. +dya\u00fas+\ninto the vocative +dya\u00fb\u0301s+, is the same which changed \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 into \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6.\nThose who do not understand, or do not admit this, are bound to produce,\nfrom the resources of Greek itself, another motive power to account for\nthe change of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 into \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6; but they must not imagine that a mere\nreference to a Greek elementary grammar suffices for explaining that\nprocess.\n\nThe passage in the Rig-Veda (VI. 51, 5) to which I referred is unique,\nand I therefore give it here, though it has in the meantime been most\nably discussed by Benfey in his \u201cEssay on the Vocative\u201d (1872).\n\n \u201cDya\u00fb\u0301\u1e25 p\u00edta\u1e25 p\u1e5bthivi m\u1ea5ta\u1e25 \u00e1dhruk\n \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f00\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba(\u03ad\u03c2)\n \u00c1gne bhr\u1ea5ta\u1e25 vasava\u1e25 m\u1e5bl\u00e1ta na\u1e25[13]\n Ignis \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03dd\u03ad\u03a3\u03b7\u03dd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 nos.\u201d\n\nThis passage is clearly one of great antiquity, for it still recognizes\n+Dya\u00fas+, the father, as the supreme god, Earth, the mother, by his side,\nand Agni, fire, as the brother, not of Heaven and Earth, but of man,\nbecause living with men on the hearth of their houses. +Vasu+, as a\ngeneral name of the bright gods, like +deva+ in other hymns,\ncorresponds, I\u00a0believe, to the Greek adjective \u1f10\u03b0\u03c2. The genitive plural\n\u1f10\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd is likewise derived from \u1f10\u03b0\u03c2 or +v\u00e1sus+, by Benfey (l.c. p.\u00a057),\nand +d\u00e2t\u1ea5 v\u00e1s\u00fbn\u00e2m+ (Rv.\u00a0VIII. 51,\u00a05) comes certainly very near to \u03b4\u03bf\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1\n\u1f10\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd. The only difficulty would be the \u0101 instead of the \u03b7, as in \u1f10\u1fc6\u03bf\u03c2,\nthe gen. sing. of \u1f10\u03b0\u03c2 in Homer, a\u00a0difficulty which might be removed by\ntracing the gen. plur. \u1f10\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd back to a fem. \u1f10\u03ac, corresponding to a Sk.\n+vasav\u00ee+ or +vasavy\u00e2+. As to \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, it is phonetically the nearest\napproach to +m\u1e5blata+, _i.e._, *+mardata+, though in Greek it means \u201cmake\nmild\u201d rather than \u201cbe mild.\u201d Mild and _mollis_ come from the same root.\n\nWhat gives to this passage its special value is, that in all other\npassages when +dyaus+ occurs as a vocative and as bisyllabic, it appears\nsimply with the _ud\u00e2tta_, thus showing at how early a time even the\nHindus forgot the meaning of the circumflex on _dya\u00fb\u0301s_, and its\nlegitimate appearance in that place. Thus in Rv. VIII. 100, 12, we\nread,--\n\n \u201cS\u00e1khe Vish\u1e47o vitar\u00e1m v\u00ed kramasva,\n Dya\u00fa\u1e25 deh\u00ed lok\u00e1m v\u00e1jr\u00e2ya visk\u00e1bhe\n H\u00e1n\u00e2va v\u1e5btr\u00e1m ri\u1e47\u00e1c\u00e2va s\u00edndh\u00fbn\n \u00cdndrasya yantu prasav\u00e9 v\u00eds\u1e5bsh\u1e6d\u00e2\u1e25.\u201d\n\n \u201cFriend Vish\u1e47u, stride further,\n Dyaus give room for the lightning to leap,\n Let us both kill V\u1e5btra and free the rivers,\n Let them go, sent forth at the command of Indra.\u201d\n\nHere, I have little doubt, the ancient Rishis pronounced +Dya\u00fb\u0301s+, but\nthe later poets, and the still later +\u00c2c\u00e2ryas+ were satisfied with the\nacute, and with the acute the word is written here in all the MSS.\nI\u00a0know.\n\n\nNOTE C.\n\nARYAN WORDS OCCURRING IN ZEND, BUT NOT IN SANSKRIT.\n\nIt has been objected that the three instances which I had quoted of Zend\nwords, not occurring in Sanskrit, but preserved in one or the other of\nthe Indo-European languages, were not sufficient to establish the fact\nwhich I wished to establish, particularly as one of them, +kehrp+,\nexisted in Sanskrit, or, at least, in Vedic Sanskrit, as +k\u1e5bp+. I admit\nthat I ought to have mentioned the Vedic +k\u1e5bp+, rather than the later\n+kalpa+; but I doubt whether the conclusions which I wished to draw\nwould have been at all affected by this. For what I remarked with regard\nto +kalpa+, applies with equal force to +k\u1e5bp+; it does not in Sanskrit\nmean body or flesh, like +kehrp+, and _corpus_, but simply form. But\neven if +kehrp+ were not a case in point, nothing would have been easier\nthan to replace it by other words, if at the time of printing my lecture\nI had had my collectanea at hand. I\u00a0now subjoin a more complete list of\nwords, present in Zend, absent in Sanskrit, but preserved in Greek,\nLatin, or German.\n\n Zend +ana+, prep., upon; Greek \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac; Goth, _ana_, upon.\n\n Zend +erezata\u00eana+, adj., made of silver; Lat. _argentinus_. In Sk.\n we have +rajatam+, silver, but no corresponding adjective.\n\n Zend +i\u00e7i+, ice; O.N. _\u00eess_; A.S. _\u00ees_; O.H.S. _\u00ees_.\n\nGrimm compares the Irish _eirr_, snow, and he remarks that the other\nAryan languages have each framed their own words for ice, Lith. _ledas_,\nO.S. _led_, and distantly connected with these, through the Russian\n_cholodnyi_, the Latin _glacies_, for _gelacies_, Greek \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nThe root from which these Greek words for ice are derived has left\nseveral derivatives in other languages, such as Lat. _cru-s-ta_, and\nO.N. _hr\u00ee-m_, rime, hoar-frost, and in Zend +khr\u00fbta+, used as an\nadjective of +zim+, winter, originally the hard winter. In Zend\n+khr\u00fbma+, and +khr\u00fbra+, Sk. +kr\u00fbra+, as in Greek \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03cc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, the meaning\nhas changed to _crudus_, _crudelis_. In the English _raw_, O.H.G.\n_hr\u00e2o_, a similar change of meaning may be observed.\n\nAnother name connected with ice and winter is the Zend +zy\u00e2o+, frost,\nfrom the root +hi+, which has given us \u03c7\u03b9-\u03ce\u03bd, Sk. +hi-ma+, Lat.\n_hiem-s_, O.S. _zima_, but which in the simplest form has been preserved\nin Zend only and in the O.N. _g\u0229_. Fick quotes _g\u0229_ with the doubtful\nmeanings of cold and snow, Curtius with that of storm, identifying it\nwith Norw. _gj\u00f6_, _nix autumni recens_.\n\nThere is still another name for snow, absent in Sanskrit, but fully\nrepresented in Zend and the other Aryan languages, viz., Zend _\u00e7nizh_,\nto snow, Lat. _nix_, Goth. _sna\u00edv-s_, Lith. _snig-ti_, to snow, Ir.\n_snechta_, snow, Gr. \u03bd\u03af\u03c6-\u03b1 (acc).[14]\n\n Zend +a\u00eava+, one; Gr. \u03bf\u1f36\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n Zend +kamara+, girdle, vault; Gr. \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1, vault, covered carriage;\n A.S. _himil_. Connected with this we find the Zend +kameredhe+,\n skull, vault of head, very nearly connected with \u03ba\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n Zend +kareta+, knife; Lith. _kalta-s_, knife; cf. _culter_, Sk.\n +kart-ari+, etc. The Slav. _korda_, O.N. _kordi_, Hung. _kard_, are\n treated by Justi as words borrowed from Persian.\n\n Zend +cvant+, Lat. _quantus_. Sk. has +t\u00e2vat+, _tantus_, and\n +y\u00e2vat+, but not +k\u00e2vat+.\n\n Zend +gara\u1e47h+, reverence; Gr. \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n Zend +thr\u00e2fa\u1e47h+, food; Gr. -\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2.\n\n Zend +da+, _e.g._ +va\u00ea\u00e7men-da+, towards the house; Gr. \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd-\u03b4\u03b5; cf.\n Goth. _du_, to, O.S. _do_.\n\n Zend +daiti+, gift; Gr. \u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, Lat. _d\u00f4s_, _d\u00f4ti-s_, Lith. _d\u016fti-s_.\n\n Zend +d\u00e2mi+, creation; Gr. \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, law.\n\n Zend +na\u00e7u+, corpse; Gr. \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03c2; Goth. _nau-s_.\n\n Zend +napo+, nom. sing.; A.S. _nefa_; O.H.G. _nefo_.\n\n Zend +paithya+ in +qa\u00eapaithya+, own; Lat. _sua-pte_, _ipse_; Lith.\n _pati-s_, self.\n\n Zend +peretu+, bridge; Lat. _portus_.\n\n Zend +fra\u00easta+, most, best; Gr. \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n Zend +brvat+, brow; Gr. \u1f00\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 (Macedon.); Lat.\n _frons_.\n\n Zend +madh+, to cure; Lat. _mederi_.\n\n Zend +man+, in +upa-man+, to wait; Lat. _manere_.\n\n Zend +m\u00eezhda+; Gr. \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2; Goth. _mizd-\u00f4_; O.S. _m\u00eezda_.\n\n Zend +y\u00e2re+, year; Goth. _jer_; O.S. _jar\u016d_, spring.\n\n Zend +y\u00e2o\u1e47h+, +y\u00e2h+, to gird; +y\u00e2onha+, dress; Gr. \u03b6\u03c9\u03c3 in \u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9;\n O.S. _po-yasu_, girdle.\n\n Zend +r\u00e2\u00e7ta+, straight; Lat. _rectus_; Goth. _raiht-s_.\n\n Zend +rap+, to go; Lat. _repere_.\n\n Zend +varez+, to work, +vareza+, work, +varstva+, work; Goth,\n _vaurkjan_, to work; Gr. \u1f14\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1, \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b6\u03c9; Goth. _vaurstv_.\n\n Zend +va\u00eati+, willow; Lith. _v\u1ef9ti-s_, withy; Lat. _v\u00eetis_.\n\n Zend +\u00e7taman+, mouth; Gr. \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n\n [Footnote 1: Note A, p. 227.]\n\n [Footnote 2: Note B, p. 230.]\n\n [Footnote 3: See M. M.\u2019s _Letter to Chevalier Bunsen, on the\n Turanian Languages_, 1854, second chapter, second section,\n \u201cEthnology versus Phonology.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 4: Note C, p. 235.]\n\n [Footnote 5: \u201cJudgment (_crimen_, \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd), penance (_p\u0153na_,\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae), retribution (_talio_, \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c9, \u03c4\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, are Gr\u00e6co-Italic\n conceptions.\u201d Mommsen, _R\u00f6m. Geschichte_, vol.\u00a0i. p.\u00a025.]\n\n [Footnote 6: See my article in Kuhn\u2019s _Zeitschrift_, vol. xix.\n p.\u00a046.]\n\n [Footnote 7: _Lectures on the Science of Language_, vol. ii.\n p.\u00a0467.]\n\n [Footnote 8: _Rendiconti del Reale Instituto Lombardo, classe de\n lettre_, iv. fasc. 6.]\n\n [Footnote 9: See Benfey, _\u00dcber die Enstehung des Indo-germanischen\n Vocativs_, G\u00f6ttingen, 1872, p.\u00a035.]\n\n [Footnote 10: The rule is that vocatives in \u03bf\u03bd from proper names\n in \u03c9\u03bd retract the accent, except \u039b\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, and those in \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, as\n \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd from \u039b\u03c5\u03ba\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd.]\n\n [Footnote 11: Vocatives in \u03b5\u03c2 from proper names in \u03b7\u03c2 retract the\n accent, as \u03a3\u03ce\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, except those in \u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, as\n \u0394\u03b5\u03b9\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.]\n\n [Footnote 12: Benfey, l.c. p. 40.]\n\n [Footnote 13: See, also, M. M.\u2019s _Lectures on the Science of\n Language_, vol. ii, p.\u00a0472.]\n\n [Footnote 14: See M. M.\u2019s _Introduction to the Science of\n Religion_, p.\u00a0372, note.]\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nWESTMINSTER LECTURE.\n\nON MISSIONS.[1]\n\nDELIVERED IN THE NAVE OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY, ON THE EVENING OF DECEMBER\n3, 1873.\n\n\nThe number of religions which have attained stability and permanence in\nthe history of the world is very small. If we leave out of consideration\nthose vague and varying forms of faith and worship which we find among\nuncivilized and unsettled races, among races ignorant of reading and\nwriting, who have neither a literature nor laws, nor even hymns and\nprayers handed down by oral teaching from father to son, from mother to\ndaughter, we see that the number of the real historical religions of\nmankind amounts to no more than eight. The Semitic races have produced\nthree--the Jewish, the Christian, the Mohammedan; the Aryan, or\nIndo-European races an equal number--the Brahman, the Buddhist, and the\nParsi. Add to these the two religious systems of China, that of\nConfucius and Lao-tse, and you have before you what may be called the\neight distinct languages or utterances of the faith of mankind from the\nbeginning of the world to the present day; you have before you in broad\noutlines the religious map of the whole world.\n\nAll these religions, however, have a history, a history more deeply\ninteresting than the history of language, or literature, or art, or\npolitics. Religions are not unchangeable; on the contrary, they are\nalways growing and changing; and if they cease to grow and cease to\nchange, they cease to live. Some of these religions stand by themselves,\ntotally independent of all the rest; others are closely united, or have\ninfluenced each other during various stages of their growth and decay.\nThey must therefore be studied together, if we wish to understand their\nreal character, their growth, their decay, and their resuscitations.\nThus, Mohammedanism would be unintelligible without Christianity;\nChristianity without Judaism: and there are similar bonds that hold\ntogether the great religions of India and Persia--the faith of the\nBrahman, the Buddhist, and the Parsi. After a careful study of the\norigin and growth of these religions, and after a critical examination\nof the sacred books on which all of them profess to be founded, it has\nbecome possible to subject them all to a scientific classification, in\nthe same manner as languages, apparently unconnected and mutually\nunintelligible, have been scientifically arranged and classified; and by\na comparison of those points which all or some of them share in common,\nas well as by a determination of those which are peculiar to each, a\u00a0new\nscience has been called into life, a\u00a0science which concerns us all, and\nin which all who truly care for religion must sooner or later take their\npart--_the Science of Religion_.\n\nAmong the various classifications[2] which have been applied to the\nreligions of the world, there is one that interests us more immediately\nto-night, I\u00a0mean the division into Non-Missionary and Missionary\nreligions. This is by no means, as might be supposed, a\u00a0classification\nbased on an unimportant or merely accidental characteristic; on the\ncontrary, it rests on what is the very heart-blood in every system of\nhuman faith. Among the six religions of the Aryan and Semitic world,\nthere are three that are opposed to all missionary enterprise--Judaism,\nBrahmanism, and Zoroastrianism; and three that have a missionary\ncharacter from their very beginning--Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and\nChristianity.\n\nThe Jews, particularly in ancient times, never thought of spreading\ntheir religion. Their religion was to them a treasure, a\u00a0privilege,\na\u00a0blessing, something to distinguish them, as the chosen people of God,\nfrom all the rest of the world. A\u00a0Jew must be of the seed of Abraham:\nand when in later times, owing chiefly to political circumstances, the\nJews had to admit strangers to some of the privileges of their\ntheocracy, they looked upon them, not as souls that had been gained,\nsaved, born again into a new brotherhood, but as strangers \u05d2\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b5\u05d9\u05d9\u05dd\u202d\u202d,\nas Proselytes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9); which means men who have come to them as\naliens, not to be trusted, as their saying was, until the twenty-fourth\ngeneration.[3]\n\nA very similar feeling prevented the Brahmans from ever attempting to\nproselytize those who did not by birth belong to the spiritual\naristocracy of their country. Their wish was rather to keep the light to\nthemselves, to repel intruders; they went so far as to punish those who\nhappened to be near enough to hear even the sound of their prayers, or\nto witness their sacrifices.[4]\n\nThe Parsi, too, does not wish for converts to his religion; he is proud\nof his faith, as of his blood; and though he believes in the final\nvictory of truth and light, though he says to every man, \u201cBe bright as\nthe sun, pure as the moon,\u201d he himself does very little to drive away\nspiritual darkness from the face of the earth, by letting the light that\nis within him shine before the world.\n\nBut now let us look at the other cluster of religions, at Buddhism,\nMohammedanism, and Christianity. However they may differ from each other\nin some of their most essential doctrines, this they share in\ncommon--they all have faith in themselves, they all have life and vigor,\nthey want to convince, they mean to conquer. From the very earliest dawn\nof their existence these three religions were missionary; their very\nfounders, or their first apostles, recognized the new duty of spreading\nthe truth, of refuting error, of bringing the whole world to acknowledge\nthe paramount, if not the divine, authority of their doctrines. This is\nwhat gives to them all a common expression, and lifts them high above\nthe level of the other religions of the world.\n\nLet us begin with Buddhism. We know, indeed, very little of its origin\nand earliest growth, for the earliest beginnings of all religions\nwithdraw themselves by necessity from the eye of the historian. But we\nhave something like contemporary evidence of the Great Council, held at\nP\u00e2\u1e6daliputra, 246 B.C., in which the sacred canon of the Buddhist\nscriptures was settled, and at the end of which missionaries were chosen\nand sent forth to preach the new doctrine, not only in India, but far\nbeyond the frontiers of that vast country.[5] We possess inscriptions\ncontaining the edicts of the king who was to Buddhism what Constantine\nwas to Christianity, who broke with the traditions of the old religion\nof the Brahmans, and recognized the doctrines of Buddha as the state\nreligion of India. We possess the description of the Council of\nP\u00e2\u1e6daliputra, which was to India what the Council of Nic\u00e6a, 570 years\nlater, was to Europe; and we can still read there[6] the simple story,\nhow the chief elder who had presided over the Council, an old man, too\nweak to travel by land, and carried from his hermitage to the Council in\na boat--how that man, when the Council was over, began to reflect on the\nfuture, and found that the time had come to establish the religion of\nBuddha in foreign countries. He therefore dispatched some of the most\neminent priests to Cashmere, Cabul, and farther west, to the colonies\nfounded by the Greeks in Bactria, to Alexandria on the Caucasus, and\nother cities. He sent others northward to Nepal, and to the inhabited\nportions of the Himalayan mountains. Another mission proceeded to the\nDekhan, to the people of Mysore, to the Mahrattas, perhaps to Goa; nay,\neven Birma and Ceylon are mentioned as among the earliest missionary\nstations of Buddhist priests. We still possess accounts of their manner\nof preaching. When threatened by infuriated crowds, one of those\nBuddhist missionaries said calmly, \u201cIf the whole world, including the\nDeva heavens, were to come and terrify me, they would not be able to\ncreate in me fear and terror.\u201d And when he had brought the people to\nlisten, he dismissed them with the simple prayer, \u201cDo not hereafter give\nway to anger, as before; do not destroy the crops, for all men love\nhappiness. Show mercy to all living beings, and let men dwell in peace.\u201d\n\nNo doubt, the accounts of the successes achieved by those early\nmissionaries are exaggerated, and their fights with snakes and dragons\nand evil spirits remind us sometimes of the legendary accounts of the\nachievements of such men as St. Patrick in Ireland, or St. Boniface in\nGermany. But the fact that missionaries were sent out to convert the\nworld seems beyond the reach of reasonable doubt;[7] and this fact\nrepresents to us at that time a new thought, new, not only in the\nhistory of India, but in the history of the whole world. The recognition\nof a duty to preach the truth to every man, woman, and child, was an\nidea opposed to the deepest instincts of Brahmanism; and when, at the\nend of the chapter on the first missions, we read the simple words of\nthe old chronicler, \u201cwho would demur, if the salvation of the world is\nat stake?\u201d we feel at once that we move in a new world, we see the dawn\nof a new day, the opening of vaster horizons--we feel, for the first\ntime in the history of the world, the beating of the great heart of\nhumanity.[8]\n\nThe Koran breathes a different spirit; it does not invite, it rather\ncompels the world to come in. Yet there are passages, particularly in\nthe earlier portions, which show that Mohammed, too, had realized the\nidea of humanity, and of a religion of humanity; nay, that at first he\nwished to unite his own religion with that of the Jews and Christians,\ncomprehending all under the common name of Isl\u00e2m. Isl\u00e2m meant originally\nhumility or devotion; and all who humbled themselves before God, and\nwere filled with real reverence, were called Moslim. \u201cThe Isl\u00e2m,\u201d says\nMohammed, \u201cis the true worship of God. When men dispute with you, say,\n\u2018I\u00a0am a Moslim.\u2019 Ask those who have sacred books, and ask the heathen;\n\u2018Are you Moslim?\u201d\u2019 If they are, they are on the right path; but if they\nturn away, then you have no other task but to deliver the message, to\npreach to them the Isl\u00e2m.\u201d[9]\n\nAs to our own religion, its very soul is missionary, progressive,\nworld-embracing; it would cease to exist, if it ceased to be\nmissionary--if it disregarded the parting words of its Founder: \u201cGo ye\ntherefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe\nall things I have commanded; and, lo, I\u00a0am with you alway, even unto the\nend of the world.\u201d\n\nIt is this missionary character, peculiar to these three religions,\nBuddhism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity, which binds them together,\nand lifts them to a higher sphere. Their differences, no doubt, are\ngreat; on some points they are opposed to each other like day and night.\nBut they could not be what they are, they could not have achieved what\nthey have achieved, unless the spirit of truth and the spirit of love\nhad been alive in the hearts of their founders, their first messengers,\nand missionaries.\n\nThe spirit of truth is the life-spring of all religion, and where it\nexists it must manifest itself, it must plead, it must persuade, it must\nconvince and convert. Missionary work, however, in the usual sense of\nthe word, is only one manifestation of that spirit; for the same spirit\nwhich fills the heart of the missionary with daring abroad, gives\ncourage also to the preacher at home, bearing witness to the truth that\nis within him. The religions which can boast of missionaries who left\nthe old home of their childhood, and parted with parents and\nfriends--never to meet again in this life--who went into the wilderness,\nwilling to spend a life of toil among strangers, ready, if need be, to\nlay down their life as witnesses to the truth, as martyrs for the glory\nof God--the same religions are rich also in those honest and intrepid\ninquirers who, at the bidding of the same spirit of truth, were ready to\nleave behind them the cherished creed of their childhood, to separate\nfrom the friends they loved best, to stand alone among men that shrug\ntheir shoulders, and ask, \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d and to bear in silence a\nmartyrdom more galling often than death itself. There are men who say\nthat, if they held the whole truth in their hand, they would not open\none finger. Such men know little of the working of the spirit of truth,\nof the true missionary spirit. As long as there are doubt and darkness\nand anxiety in the soul of an inquirer, reticence may be his natural\nattitude. But when once doubt has yielded to certainty, darkness to\nlight, anxiety to joy, the rays of truth will burst forth; and to close\nour hand or to shut our lips would be as impossible as for the petals of\na flower to shut themselves against the summons of the sun of spring.\n\nWhat is there in this short life that should seal our lips? What should\nwe wait for, if we are not to speak _here_ and _now_? There is\nmissionary work at home as much as abroad; there are thousands waiting\nto listen if _one_ man will but speak the truth, and nothing but the\ntruth; there are thousands starving, because they cannot find that food\nwhich is convenient for them.\n\nAnd even if the spirit of truth might be chained down by fear or\nprudence, the spirit of love would never yield. Once recognize the\ncommon brotherhood of mankind, not as a name or a theory, but as a real\nbond, as a bond more binding, more lasting than the bonds of family,\ncaste, and race, and the questions, Why should I upon my hand? why\nshould I open my heart? why should I speak to my brother? will never be\nasked again. Is it not far better to speak than to walk through life\nsilent, unknown, unknowing? Has any one of us ever spoken to his friend,\nand opened to him his inmost soul, and been answered with harshness or\nrepelled with scorn? Has any one of us, be he priest or layman, ever\nlistened to the honest questionings of a truth-loving soul, without\nfeeling his own soul filled with love? aye, without feeling humbled by\nthe very honesty of a brother\u2019s confession?\n\nIf we would but confess, friend to friend, if we would be but honest,\nman to man, we should not want confessors or confessionals.\n\nIf our doubts and difficulties are self-made, if they can be removed by\nwiser and better men, why not give to our brother the opportunity of\nhelping us? But if our difficulties are not self-made, if they are not\ndue either to ignorance or presumption, is it not even then better for\nus to know that we are all carrying the same burden, the common burden\nof humanity, if haply we may find, that for the heavy laden there is but\none who can give them rest?\n\nThere may be times when silence is gold, and speech silver: but there\nare times also when silence is death, and speech is life--the very life\nof Pentecost.\n\nHow can man be afraid of man? How can we be afraid of those whom we\nlove?\n\nAre the young afraid of the old? But nothing delights the older man more\nthan to see that he is trusted by the young, and that they believe he\nwill tell them the truth.\n\nAre the old afraid of the young? But nothing sustains the young more\nthan to know that they do not stand alone in their troubles, and that in\nmany trials of the soul the father is as helpless as the child.\n\nAre the women afraid of men? But men are not wiser in the things\nappertaining to God than women, and real love of God is theirs far more\nthan ours.\n\nAre men afraid of women? But though women may hide their troubles more\ncarefully, their heart aches as much as ours, when they whisper to\nthemselves, \u201cLord, I\u00a0believe, help thou my unbelief.\u201d\n\nAre the laity afraid of the clergy? But where is the clergyman who would\nnot respect honest doubt more than unquestioning faith?\n\nAre the clergy afraid of the laity? But surely we know, in this place at\nleast, that the clear voice of honesty and humility draws more hearts\nthan the harsh accents of dogmatic assurance or ecclesiastic\nexclusiveness.\n\n \u201cThere lives more faith in honest doubt,\n Believe me, than in half the creeds.\u201d\n\nA missionary must know no fear; his heart must overflow with love--love\nof man, love of truth, love of God; and in this, the highest and truest\nsense of the word, every Christian is, or ought to be, a\u00a0missionary.\n\nAnd now, let us look again at the religions in which the missionary\nspirit has been at work, and compare them with those in which any\nattempt to convince others by argument, to save souls, to bear witness\nto the truth, is treated with pity or scorn. _The former are alive, the\nlatter are dying or dead._\n\nThe religion of Zoroaster--the religion of Cyrus, of Darius and\nXerxes--which, but for the battles of Marathon and Salamis, might have\nbecome the religion of the civilized world, is now professed by only\n100,000 souls--that is, by about a ten-thousandth part of the\ninhabitants of the world. During the last two centuries their number has\nsteadily decreased from four to one hundred thousand, and another\ncentury will probably exhaust what is still left of the worshippers of\nthe Wise Spirit, Ahura-mazda.\n\nThe Jews are about thirty times the number of the Parsis, and they\ntherefore represent a more appreciable portion of mankind. Though it is\nnot likely that they will ever increase in number, yet such is their\nphysical vigor and their intellectual tenacity, such also their pride of\nrace and their faith in Jehovah, that we can hardly imagine that their\npatriarchal religion and their ancient customs will soon vanish from the\nface of the earth.\n\nBut though the religions of the Parsis and Jews might justly seem to\nhave paid the penalty of their anti-missionary spirit, how, it will be\nsaid, can the same be maintained with regard to the religion of the\nBrahmans? That religion is still professed by at least 110,000,000 of\nhuman souls, and, to judge from the last census, even that enormous\nnumber falls much short of the real truth. And yet I do not shrink from\nsaying that their religion is dying or dead. And why? Because it cannot\nstand the light of day. The worship of \u015aiva, of Vish\u1e47u, and the other\npopular deities, is of the same, nay, in many cases of a more degraded\nand savage character than the worship of Jupiter, Apollo, and Minerva;\nit belongs to a stratum of thought which is long buried beneath our\nfeet: it may live on, like the lion and the tiger, but the mere air of\nfree thought and civilized life will extinguish it. A\u00a0religion may\nlinger on for a long time, it may be accepted by the large masses of the\npeople, because it is there, and there is nothing better. But when a\nreligion has ceased to produce defenders of the faith, prophets,\nchampions, martyrs, it has ceased to live, in the true sense of the\nword; and in that sense the old, orthodox Brahmanism has ceased to live\nfor more than a thousand years.\n\nIt is true there are millions of children, women, and men in India who\nfall down before the stone image of Vish\u1e47u, with his four arms, riding\non a creature half bird, half man, or sleeping on the serpent; who\nworship \u015aiva, a\u00a0monster with three eyes, riding naked on a bull, with a\nnecklace of skulls for his ornament. There are human beings who still\nbelieve in a god of war, K\u00e2rtik\u00eaya, with six faces, riding on a peacock,\nand holding bow and arrow in his hands; and who invoke a god of success,\nGa\u1e47e\u015ba, with four hands and an elephant\u2019s head, sitting on a rat. Nay,\nit is true that, in the broad daylight of the nineteenth century, the\nfigure of the goddess Kali is carried through the streets of her own\ncity, Calcutta,[10] her wild disheveled hair reaching to her feet, with\na necklace of human heads, her tongue protruded from her mouth, her\ngirdle stained with blood. All this is true; but ask any Hindu who can\nread and write and think, whether these are the gods he believes in, and\nhe will smile at your credulity. How long this living death of national\nreligion in India may last, no one can tell: for our purposes, however,\nfor gaining an idea of the issue of the great religious struggle of the\nfuture, that religion too is dead and gone.\n\nThe three religions which are alive, and between which the decisive\nbattle for the dominion of the world will have to be fought, are the\nthree missionary religions, _Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity_.\nThough religious statistics are perhaps the most uncertain of all, yet\nit is well to have a general conception of the forces of our enemies;\nand it is well to know that, though the number of Christians is double\nthe number of Mohammedans, the Buddhist religion still occupies the\nfirst place in the religious census of mankind.[11]\n\nBuddhism rules supreme in Central, Northern, Eastern, and Southern Asia,\nand it gradually absorbs whatever there is left of aboriginal heathenism\nin that vast and populous area.\n\nMohammedanism claims as its own Arabia, Persia, great parts of India,\nAsia Minor, Turkey, and Egypt; and its greatest conquests by missionary\nefforts are made among the heathen population of Africa.\n\nChristianity reigns in Europe and America, and it is conquering the\nnative races of Polynesia and Melanesia, while its missionary outposts\nare scattered all over the world.\n\nBetween these three powers, then, the religious battle of the future,\nthe Holy War of mankind, will have to be fought, and is being fought at\nthe present moment, though apparently with little effect. To convert a\nMohammedan is difficult; to convert a Buddhist, more difficult still; to\nconvert a Christian, let us hope, well nigh impossible.\n\nWhat then, it may be asked, is the use of missionaries? Why should we\nspend millions on foreign missions, when there are children in our\ncities who are allowed to grow up in ignorance? Why should we deprive\nourselves of some of the noblest, boldest, most ardent and devoted\nspirits and send them into the wilderness, while so many laborers are\nwanted in the vineyard at home.\n\nIt is right to ask these questions; and we ought not to blame those\npolitical economists who tell us that every convert costs us \u00a3200, and\nthat at the present rate of progress it would take more than 200,000\nyears to evangelize the world. There is nothing at all startling in\nthese figures. Every child born in Europe is as much a heathen as the\nchild of a Melanesian cannibal; and it costs us more than \u00a3200 to turn a\nchild into a Christian man. The other calculation is totally erroneous;\nfor an intellectual harvest must not be calculated by adding simply\ngrain to grain, but by counting each grain as a living seed, that will\nbring forth fruit a hundred and a thousand fold.\n\nIf we want to know what work there is for the missionary to do, what\nresults we may expect from it, we must distinguish between two kinds of\nwork: the one is _parental_, the other _controversial_. Among\nuncivilized races the work of the missionary is the work of a parent;\nwhether his pupils are young in years or old, he has to treat them with\na parent\u2019s love, to teach them with a parent\u2019s authority; he has to win\nthem, not to argue with them. I\u00a0know this kind of missionary work is\noften despised; it is called mere religious kidnapping; and it is said\nthat missionary success obtained by such means proves nothing for the\ntruth of Christianity; that the child handed over to a Mohammedan would\ngrow up a Mohammedan, as much as a child taken by a Christian missionary\nbecomes a Christian. All this is true; missionary success obtained by\nsuch means proves nothing for the truth of our creeds: but it proves,\nwhat is far more important, it proves Christian love. Read only the\n\u201cLife of Patteson,\u201d the bishop of Melanesia; follow him in his vessel,\nsailing from island to island, begging for children, carrying them off\nas a mother her new-born child, nursing them, washing and combing them,\nclothing them, feeding them, teaching them in his Episcopal Palace, in\nwhich he himself is everything, nurse, and housemaid, and cook,\nschoolmaster, physician, and bishop--read there, how that man who tore\nhimself away from his aged father, from his friends, from his favorite\nstudies and pursuits, had the most loving of hearts for these children,\nhow indignantly he repelled for them the name of savages, how he trusted\nthem, respected them, honored them, and when they were formed and\nestablished, took them back to their island home, there to be a leaven\nfor future ages. Yes, read the life, the work, the death of that man,\na\u00a0death in very truth, a\u00a0ransom for the sins of others--and then say\nwhether you would like to suppress a profession that can call forth such\nself-denial, such heroism, such sanctity, such love. It has been my\nprivilege to have known some of the finest and noblest spirits which\nEngland has produced during this century, but there is none to whose\nmemory I look up with greater reverence, none by whose friendship I feel\nmore deeply humbled than by that of that true saint, that true martyr,\nthat truly parental missionary.\n\nThe work of the parental missionary is clear, and its success\nundeniable, not only in Polynesia and Melanesia, but in many parts of\nIndia--(think only of the bright light of Tinnevelly)--in Africa, in\nChina, in America, in Syria, in Turkey, aye, in the very heart of\nLondon.\n\nThe case is different with the controversial missionary, who has to\nattack the faith of men brought up in other religions, in religions\nwhich contain much truth, though mixed up with much error. Here the\ndifficulties are immense, the results very discouraging. Nor need we\nwonder at this. We know, each of us, but too well, how little argument\navails in theological discussion; how often it produces the very\nopposite result of what we expected; confirming rather than shaking\nopinions no less erroneous, no less indefensible, than many articles of\nthe Mohammedan or Buddhist faith.\n\nAnd even when argument proves successful, when it forces a verdict from\nan unwilling judge, how often has the result been disappointing; because\nin tearing up the rotten stem on which the tree rested, its tenderest\nfibres have been injured, its roots unsettled, its life destroyed.\n\nWe have little ground to expect that these controversial weapons will\ncarry the day in the struggle between the three great religions of the\nworld.\n\nBut there is a third kind of missionary activity, which has produced the\nmost important results, and through which alone, I\u00a0believe, the final\nvictory will be gained. Whenever two religions are brought into contact,\nwhen members of each live together in peace, abstaining from all direct\nattempts at conversion, whether by force or by argument, though\nconscious all the time of the fact that they and their religion are on\ntheir trial, that they are being watched, that they are responsible for\nall they say and do--the effect has always been the greatest blessing to\nboth. It calls out all the best elements in each, and at the same time\nkeeps under all that is felt to be of doubtful value, of uncertain\ntruth. Whenever this has happened in the history of the world, it has\ngenerally led either to the reform of both systems, or to the foundation\nof a new religion.\n\nWhen after the conquest of India the violent measures for the conversion\nof the Hindus to Mohammedanism had ceased, and Mohammedans and Brahmans\nlived together in the enjoyment of perfect equality, the result was a\npurified Mohammedanism, and a purified Brahmanism.[12] The worshippers\nof Vish\u1e47u, \u015aiva, and other deities became ashamed of these mythological\ngods, and were led to admit that there was, either over and above these\nindividual deities, or instead of them, a\u00a0higher divine power (the\nPara-Brahma), the true source of all being, the only and almighty ruler\nof the world. That religious movement assumed its most important\ndevelopment at the beginning of the twelfth century, when R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja\nfounded the reformed sect of the worshippers of Vish\u1e47u; and again, in\nthe fourteenth century, when his fifth successor, R\u00e2m\u00e2nanda, imparted a\nstill more liberal character to that powerful sect. Not only did he\nabolish many of the restrictions of caste, many of the minute ceremonial\nobservances in eating, drinking, and bathing, but he replaced the\nclassical Sanskrit--which was unintelligible to the large masses of the\npeople--by the living vernaculars, in which he preached a purer worship\nof God.\n\nThe most remarkable man of that time was a weaver, the pupil of\nR\u00e2m\u00e2nanda, known by the name of Kabir. He indeed deserved the name which\nthe members of the reformed sect claimed for themselves, Avadh\u00fbta, which\nmeans one who has shaken off the dust of superstition. He broke entirely\nwith the popular mythology and the customs of the ceremonial law, and\naddressed himself alike to Hindu and Mohammedan. According to him, there\nis but one God, the creator of the world, without beginning and end, of\ninconceivable purity, and irresistible strength. The pure man is the\nimage of God, and after death attains community with God. The\ncommandments of Kabir are few: Not to injure anything that has life, for\nlife is of God; to speak the truth; to keep aloof from the world; to\nobey the teacher. His poetry is most beautiful, hardly surpassed in any\nother language.\n\nStill more important in the history of India was the reform of N\u00e2nak,\nthe founder of the Sikh religion. He, too, worked entirely in the spirit\nof Kabir. Both labored to persuade the Hindus and Mohammedans that the\ntruly essential parts of their creeds were the same, that they ought to\ndiscard the varieties of practical detail, and the corruptions of their\nteachers, for the worship of the _One Only Supreme_, whether he was\ntermed Allah or Vish\u1e47u.\n\nThe effect of these religious reforms has been highly beneficial; it has\ncut into the very roots of idolatry, and has spread throughout India an\nintelligent and spiritual worship, which may at any time develop into a\nhigher national creed.\n\nThe same effect which Mohammedanism produced on Hinduism is now being\nproduced, in a much higher degree, on the religious mind of India by the\nmere presence of Christianity. That silent influence began to tell many\nyears ago, even at a time when no missionaries were allowed within the\nterritory of the old East India Company. Its first representative was\nRam Mohun Roy, born just one hundred years ago, in 1772, who died at\nBristol in 1833, the founder of the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j. A\u00a0man so highly\ncultivated and so highly religious as he was, could not but feel\nhumiliated at the spectacle which the popular religion of his country\npresented to his English friends. He drew their attention to the fact\nthat there was a purer religion to be found in the old sacred writings\nof his people, the Vedas. He went so far as to claim for the Vedas a\ndivine origin, and to attempt the foundation of a reformed faith on\ntheir authority. In this attempt he failed.\n\nNo doubt the Vedas and other works of the ancient poets and prophets of\nIndia, contain treasures of truth, which ought never to be forgotten,\nleast of all by the sons of India. The late good Bishop Cotton, in his\naddress to the students of a missionary institution at Calcutta, advised\nthem to use a certain hymn of the Rig-Veda in their daily prayers.[13]\nNowhere do we find stronger arguments against idolatry, nowhere has the\nunity of the Deity been upheld more strenuously against the errors of\npolytheism than by some of the ancient sages of India. Even in the\noldest of their sacred books, the Rig-Veda, composed three or four\nthousand years ago--where we find hymns addressed to the different\ndeities of the sky, the air, the earth, the rivers--the protest of the\nhuman heart against many gods, breaks forth from time to time with no\nuncertain sound. One poet, after he has asked to whom sacrifice is due,\nanswers, \u201cto Him who is God above all gods.\u201d[14] Another poet, after\nenumerating the names of many deities, affirms, without hesitation, that\n\u201cthese are all but names of Him who is One.\u201d And even when single\ndeities are invoked, it is not difficult to see that, in the mind of the\npoet, each one of the names is meant to express the highest conception\nof deity of which the human mind was _then_ capable. The god of the sky\nis called Father and Mother and Friend; he is the Creator, the Upholder\nof the Universe; he rewards virtue and punishes sin; he listens to the\nprayers of those who love him.\n\nBut granting all this, we may well understand why an attempt to claim\nfor these books a divine origin, and thus to make them an artificial\nfoundation for a new religion, failed. The successor of Ram Mohun Roy,\nthe present head of the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j, the wise and excellent\nDebendran\u00e2th Tagore, was for a time even more decided in holding to the\nVedas as the sole foundation of the new faith. But this could not last.\nAs soon as the true character of the Vedas,[15] which but few people in\nIndia can understand, became known, partly through the efforts of\nnative, partly of European scholars, the Indian reformers relinquished\nthe claim of divine inspiration in favor of their Vedas, and were\nsatisfied with a selection of passages from the works of the ancient\nsages of India, to express and embody the creed which the members of the\nBrahma-Sam\u00e2j hold in common.[16]\n\nThe work which these religious reformers have been doing in India is\nexcellent, and those only who know what it is, in religious matters, to\nbreak with the past, to forsake the established custom of a nation, to\noppose the rush of public opinion, to brave adverse criticism, to submit\nto social persecution, can form any idea of what those men have\nsuffered, in bearing witness to the truth that was within them.\n\nThey could not reckon on any sympathy on the part of Christian\nmissionaries; nor did their work attract much attention in Europe till\nvery lately, when a schism broke out in the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j between the old\nconservative party and a new party, led by Keshub Chunder Sen. The\nformer, though willing to surrender all that was clearly idolatrous in\nthe ancient religion and customs of India, wished to retain all that\nmight safely be retained: it did not wish to see the religion of India\ndenationalized. The other party, inspired and led by Keshub Chunder Sen,\nwent further in their zeal for religious purity. All that smacked of the\nold leaven was to be surrendered; not only caste, but even that sacred\ncord--the religious riband which makes and marks the Brahman, which is\nto remind him at every moment of his life, and whatever work he may be\nengaged in, of his God, of his ancestors, and of his children--even that\nwas to be abandoned; and instead of founding their creed exclusively on\nthe utterances of the ancient sages of their own country, all that was\nbest in the sacred books of the whole world was selected and formed into\na new sacred code.[17]\n\nThe schism between these two parties is deeply to be deplored; but it is\na sign of life. It augurs success rather than failure for the future. It\nis the same schism which St. Paul had to heal in the Church of Corinth,\nand he healed it with the words, so often misunderstood, \u201cKnowledge\npuffeth up, but charity edifieth.\u201d\n\nIn the eyes of our missionaries this religious reform in India has not\nfound much favor: nor need we wonder at this. Their object is to\ntransplant, if possible, Christianity in its full integrity from England\nto India, as we might wish to transplant a full-grown tree. They do not\ndeny the moral worth, the noble aspirations, the self-sacrificing zeal\nof these native reformers; but they fear that all this will but increase\ntheir dangerous influence, and retard the progress of Christianity, by\ndrawing some of the best minds of India, that might have been gained\nover to our religion, into a different current. They feel towards Keshub\nChunder Sen[18] as Athanasius might have felt towards Ulfilas, the Arian\nBishop of the Goths: and yet, what would have become of Christianity in\nEurope but for those Gothic races, but for those Arian heretics, who\nwere considered more dangerous than downright pagans?\n\nIf we think of the future of India, and of the influence which that\ncountry has always exercised on the East, the movement of religious\nreform which is now going on appears to my mind the most momentous in\nthis momentous century. If our missionaries feel constrained to\nrepudiate it as their own work, history will be more just to them than\nthey themselves.[19] And if not as the work of Christian missionaries,\nit will be recognized hereafter as the work of those missionary\nChristians who have lived in India, as examples of a true Christian\nlife, who have approached the natives in a truly missionary spirit, in\nthe spirit of truth and in the spirit of love; whose bright presence has\nthawed the ice, and brought out beneath it the old soil, ready to\nblossom into new life. These Indian puritans are not against us; for all\nthe highest purposes of life they are with us, and we, I\u00a0trust, with\nthem. What would the early Christians have said to men, outside the pale\nof Christianity, who spoke of Christ and his doctrine as some of these\nIndian reformers? Would they have said to them, \u201cUnless you speak our\nlanguage and think our thoughts, unless you accept our Creed and sign\nour Articles, we can have nothing in common with you.\u201d\n\nO that Christians, and particularly missionaries, would lay to heart the\nwords of a missionary Bishop![20] \u201cI\u00a0have for years thought,\u201d writes\nBishop Patteson, \u201cthat we seek in our missions a great deal too much to\nmake _English_ Christians.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Evidently the heathen man is not\ntreated fairly, if we encumber our message with unnecessary\nrequirements. The ancient Church had its \u2018selection of fundamentals.\u2019\n.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Any one can see what mistakes we have made in India.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Few\nmen think themselves into the state of the Eastern mind.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. We seek\nto denationalize these races, as far as I can see; whereas we ought\nsurely to change as little as possible--only what is clearly\nincompatible with the simplest form of Christian teaching and practice.\nI\u00a0do not mean that we are to compromise truth .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. but do we not\noverlay it a good deal with human traditions!\u201d\n\nIf we had many such missionaries as Bishop Patteson and Bishop Cotton,\nif Christianity were not only preached, but lived in that spirit, it\nwould then prove itself what it is--the religion of humanity at large,\nlarge enough itself to take in all shades and diversities of character\nand race.\n\nAnd more than that--if this true missionary spirit, this spirit of truth\nand love, of forbearance, of trust, of toleration, of humility, were\nonce to kindle the hearts of all those chivalrous ambassadors of Christ,\nthe message of the Gospel which they have to deliver would then become\nas great a blessing to the giver as to the receiver. Even now,\nmissionary work unites, both at home and abroad, those who are widely\nseparated by the barriers of theological sects.[21]\n\nIt might do so far more still. When we stand before a common enemy, we\nsoon forget our own small feuds. But why? Often, I\u00a0fear, from motives of\nprudence only and selfishness. Can we not, then, if we stand in spirit\nbefore a common friend--can we not, before the face of God, forget our\nsmall feuds, for very shame? If missionaries admit to their fold\nconverts who can hardly understand the equivocal abstractions of our\ncreeds and formulas, is it necessary to exclude those who understand\nthem but too well to submit the wings of their free spirit to such\ngalling chains! When we try to think of the majesty of God, what are all\nthose formulas but the stammerings of children, which only a loving\nfather can interpret and understand! The fundamentals of our religion\nare not in these poor creeds; true Christianity lives, not in our\nbelief, but in our love--_in our love of God, and in our love of man,\nfounded on our love of God_.\n\nThat is the whole Law and the Prophets, that is the religion to be\npreached to the whole world, that is the Gospel which will conquer all\nother religions--even Buddhism and Mohammedanism--which will win the\nhearts of all men.\n\nThere can never be too much love, though there may be too much\nfaith--particularly when it leads to the requirement of exactly the same\nmeasure of faith in others. Let those who wish for the true success of\nmissionary work learn to throw in of the abundance of their faith; let\nthem learn to demand less from others than from themselves. That is the\nbest offering, the most valuable contribution which they can make to-day\nto the missionary cause.\n\nLet missionaries preach the Gospel again as it was preached when it\nbegan the conquest of the Roman Empire and the Gothic nations; when it\nhad to struggle with powers and principalities, with time-honored\nreligions and triumphant philosophies, with pride of civilization and\nsavagery of life--and yet came out victorious. At that time conversion\nwas not a question to be settled by the acceptance or rejection of\ncertain formulas or articles; a\u00a0simple prayer was often enough: \u201cGod be\nmerciful to me a sinner.\u201d\n\nThere is one kind of faith that revels in words, there is another that\ncan hardly find utterance: the former is like riches that come to us by\ninheritance; the latter is like the daily bread, which each of us has to\nwin in the sweat of his brow. We cannot expect the former from new\nconverts; we ought not to expect it or to exact it, for fear that it\nmight lead to hypocrisy or superstition. The mere believing of miracles,\nthe mere repeating of formulas requires no effort in converts, brought\nup to believe in the Pur\u00e2\u1e47as of the Brahmans or the Buddhist J\u00e2takas.\nThey find it much easier to accept a legend than to love God, to repeat\na creed than to forgive their enemies. In this respect they are exactly\nlike ourselves. Let missionaries remember that the Christian faith at\nhome is no longer what it was, and that it is impossible to have one\nCreed to preach abroad, another to preach at home. Much that was\nformerly considered as essential is now neglected; much that was\nformerly neglected is now considered as essential. I\u00a0think of the laity\nmore than of the clergy; but what would the clergy be without the laity?\nThere are many of our best men, men of the greatest power and influence\nin literature, science, art, politics, aye even in the Church itself,\nwho are no longer Christian in the old sense of the word. Some imagine\nthey have ceased to be Christians altogether, because they feel that\nthey cannot believe as much as others profess to believe. We cannot\nafford to lose these men, nor shall we lose them if we learn to be\nsatisfied with what satisfied Christ and the Apostles, with what\nsatisfies many a hard-working missionary. If Christianity is to retain\nits hold on Europe and America, if it is to conquer in the Holy War of\nthe future, it must throw off its heavy armor, the helmet of brass and\nthe coat of mail, and face the world like David, with his staff, his\nstones, and his sling. We want less of creeds, but more of trust; less\nof ceremony, but more of work; less of solemnity, but more of genial\nhonesty; less of doctrine, but more of love. There is a faith, as small\nas a grain of mustard-seed, but that grain alone can move mountains, and\nmore than that, it can move hearts. Whatever the world may say of us, of\nus of little faith, let us remember that there was one who accepted the\noffering of the poor widow. She threw in but two mites, but that was all\nshe had, even all her living.\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nNOTE A.\n\n Mah\u00e2dayass\u00e2pi jinassa ka\u1e0d\u1e0dhana\u1e43,\n Vih\u00e2ya patta\u1e43 amata\u1e43 sukham pi te\n Kari\u1e43su lokassa hita\u1e43 tahi\u1e43 tahi\u1e43,\n Bhaveyya ko lokahite pam\u00e2dav\u00e2?\n\nThe first line is elliptical.\n\n (Imitating) the resignation of the all-merciful Conqueror,\n They also, resigning the deathless bliss within their reach,\n Worked the welfare of mankind in various lands.\n What man is there who would be remiss in doing good to mankind?\n\nHardy, in his \u201cManual of Buddhism\u201d (p. 187), relates how fifty-four\nprinces and a thousand fire-worshippers became the disciples of Buddha.\n\u201cWhilst Buddha remained at Isipatana, Yasa, the son of Sujat\u00e1, who had\nbeen brought up in all delicacy, one night went secretly to him, was\nreceived with affection, became a priest, and entered the first path.\nThe father, on discovering that he had fled, was disconsolate: but\nBuddha delivered to him a discourse, by which he became a rahat. The\nfifty-four companions of Yasa went to the monastery to induce him to\nreturn, and play with them as usual; but when they saw him, they were so\nstruck with his manner and appearance, that they also resolved on\nbecoming priests. When they went to Buddha, they were admitted, by the\npower of +irdhi+ received the +pirikara+ requisites of the priesthood,\nand became rahats. Buddha had now sixty disciples who were rahats, and\nhe commanded them to go by different ways, and proclaim to all that a\nsupreme Buddha had appeared in the world.\u201d\n\nMr. Childers has kindly sent me the following extract from Fausb\u00f6ll\u2019s\n\u201cDhammapada\u201d (p.\u00a0119), where the same story is told:--\n\n. . . . Yasakulaputtassa upanissayasampatti\u1e43 disv\u00e2 ta\u1e43 rattibh\u00e2ge\nnibbijjitv\u00e2 geha\u1e43 pah\u00e2ya nikkhanta\u1e43 \u201cehi Yasati\u201d pakkositv\u00e2, tasmi\u00f1 \u00f1eva\nrattibh\u00e2ge sot\u00e2pattiphala\u1e43 punadivase arahattu\u1e43 p\u00e2pesi. Apare pi tassa\nsah\u00e2yake catupa\u1e47\u1e47\u00e2sajane ehibhikkhupabbajj\u00e2ya pabb\u00e2jetv\u00e2 arahattu\u1e43\np\u00e2pesi. Eva\u1e43 loke ekasa\u1e6d\u1e6dhiy\u00e2 arahantesu j\u00e2tesu vutthavasso pav\u00e2retva\n\u201ccaratha bhikkhave c\u00e2rikan\u201d ti sa\u1e6d\u1e6dhi\u1e43 bhikkh\u00fb dis\u00e2su pesetv\u00e2.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\u201cSeeing that the young nobleman Yasa was ripe for conversion, in the\nnight, when weary with the vanities of the world he had left his home\nand embraced the ascetic life,--he called him, saying, \u2018Follow me,\nYasa,\u2019 and that very night he caused him to obtain the fruition of the\nfirst path, and on the following day arhatship. And fifty-four other\npersons, who were friends of Yasa\u2019s, he ordained with the formula,\n\u2018Follow me, priest,\u2019 and caused them to attain arhatship. Thus when\nthere were sixty-one arhats in the world, having passed the period of\nseclusion during the rains and resumed active duties, he sent forth the\nsixty priests in all directions, saying, \u2018Go forth, priests, on your\nrounds (or\u00a0travels).\u2019\u201d\n\nAnother passage, too, showing Buddha\u2019s desire to see his doctrine\npreached in the whole world, was pointed out to me by Mr. Childers from\nthe \u201cMah\u00e2parinibb\u00e2na Sutta,\u201d which has since been published by this\nindefatigable scholar in the \u201cJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society,\u201d\nvol. vii., p.\u00a077:--\n\n\u201cThree months before his death, when Gautama\u2019s health and strength is\nfast failing, he is tempted by M\u00e2ra, who comes to him and urges him to\nbring his life and mission at once to a close by attaining Nirv\u00e2\u1e47a\n(dying). Buddha replies that he will not die until his disciples are\nperfect on all points, and able to maintain the Truth with power against\nall unbelievers. M\u00e2ra replies that this is already the case, whereupon\nBuddha uses these striking words: Na t\u00e2v\u00e2ha\u1e43 p\u00e2pima parinibbayiss\u00e2mi\ny\u00e2va me ima\u1e43 brahmacariya\u1e43 na iddha\u00f1 c\u2019 eva bhavissati ph\u00eeta\u00f1 ca\nvitth\u00e2rika\u1e43 b\u00e2huja\u00f1\u00f1a\u1e43 puthubh\u00fbta\u1e43, y\u00e2vad eva manusschi suppak\u00e2sitan ti.\n\u2018O\u00a0wicked one, I\u00a0will not die until this my holy religion thrives and\nprospers, until it is widely spread, known to many peoples, and grown\ngreat, until it is completely published among men.\u2019 Mara again asserts\nthat this is already the case, and Buddha replies, \u2018Strive no more,\nwicked one, the death of the Tathagata is at hand, at the end of three\nmonths from this time, the Tath\u00e2gata will attain Nirv\u00e2\u1e47a.\u2019\u201d\n\n\nNOTE B.\n\nTHE SCHISM IN THE BRAHMA-SAM\u00c2J.[22]\n\nThe present position of the two parties in the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j is well\ndescribed by Rajnarain Bose (the \u201cAdi Brahmo Samaj,\u201d Calcutta, 1873,\np.\u00a011). \u201cThe particular opinions above referred to can be divided into\ntwo comprehensive classes--conservative and progressive. The\nconservative Brahmos are those who are unwilling to push religious and\nsocial reformation to any great extreme. They are of opinion that\nreformation should be gradual, the law of gradual progress being\nuniversally prevalent in nature. They also say that the principle of\nBrahmic harmony requires a harmonious discharge of all our duties, and\nthat, as it is a duty to take a part in reformation, so there are other\nduties to perform, namely, those towards parents and society, and that\nwe should harmonize all these duties as much as we can. However\nunsatisfactory such arguments may appear to a progressive Brahmo, they\nare such as could not be slighted at first sight. They are certainly\nsuch as to make the conservative Brahmo think sincerely that he is\njustified in not pushing religious and social reformation to any great\nextreme. The progressive Brahmo cannot therefore call him a hypocrite.\nA\u00a0union of both the conservative and the progressive elements in the\nBrahmo church is necessary for its stability. The conservative element\nwill prevent the progressive from spoiling the cause of reformation by\ntaking premature and abortive measures for advancing that cause; the\nprogressive element will prevent the conservative from proving a stolid\nobstruction to it. The conservative element will serve as a link between\nthe progressive element and the orthodox community, and prevent the\nprogressive Brahmo from being completely estranged from that community,\nas the native Christians are; while the progressive element will prevent\nthe conservative from remaining inert and being absorbed by the orthodox\ncommunity. The common interests of Brahmo Dharma should lead both\nclasses to respect, and be on amicable terms with each other. It is true\nthe progressive of the present half century will prove the conservative\nof the next; but there could never come a time when the two classes\nwould cease to exist in the bosom of the church. She should, like a wise\nmother, make them live in peace with each other, and work harmoniously\ntogether for her benefit.\n\n\u201cAs idolatry is intimately interwoven with our social fabric,\nconservative Brahmos, though discarding it in other respects, find it\nvery difficult to do so on the occasion of such very important domestic\nceremonies as marriage, +shradh+ (ancestral sacrifices), and +upanayana+\n(spiritual apprenticing); but they should consider that Brahmoism is not\nso imperative on any other point as on the renunciation of idolatry. It\ncan allow conservatism in other respects, but not on the point of\nidolatry. It can consider a man a Brahmo if he be conservative in other\nrespects than idolatry; but it can never consider an idolater to be a\nBrahmo. The conservative Brahmo can do one thing, that is, observe the\nold ritual, leaving out only the idolatrous portion of it, if he do not\nchoose to follow the positive Brahmo ritual laid down in the \u2018Anushth\u00e1na\nPaddhati.\u2019 Liberty should be given by the progressive Brahmo to the\nconservative Brahmo in judging of the idolatrous character of the\nportions of the old ritual rejected by him. If a progressive Brahmo\nrequires a conservative one to reject those portions which the former\nconsiders to be idolatrous, but the latter does not, he denies liberty\nof conscience to a fellow-Brahmo.\n\n\u201cThe Adi Brahmo-Samaj is the national Hindu Theistic Church, whose\nprinciples of church reformation we have been describing above. Its\ndemeanor towards the old religion of the country is friendly, but\ncorrective and reformative. It is this circumstance which pre\u00ebminently\ndistinguishes it from the Brahmo-Samaj of India, whose attitude to that\nreligion is antagonistic and offensive. The mission of the Adi Samaj is\nto fulfill the old religion, and not to destroy it. The attitude of the\nAdi Samaj to the old religion is friendly, but it is not at the same\ntime opposed to progress. It is a mistake to call it a conservative\nchurch. It is rather a conservative-progressive church, or, more\ncorrectly, simply a church or religious body, leaving matters of social\nreformation to the judgments of individual members or bodies of such\nmembers. It contains both progressive and conservative members. As the\nultra-progressive Brahmos, who wanted to eliminate the conservative\nelement from it, were obliged to secede from it, so if a high\nconservative party arise in its bosom which would attempt to do violence\nto the progressive element and convert the church into a partly\nconservative one, that party also would be obliged to secede from it.\nOnly men who can be tolerant of each others opinions, and can respect\neach others earnest convictions, progressive and conservative, can\nremain its members.\u201d\n\nThe strong national feeling of the Indian reformers finds expression in\nthe following passage from \u201cBrahmic Questions,\u201d p.\u00a09:--\n\n\u201cA Samaj is accessible to all. The minds of the majority of our\ncountrymen are not deeply saturated with Christian sentiments. What\nwould they think of a Brahmo minister who would quote on the Vedi\n(altar) sayings from the Bible? Would they not from that time conceive\nan intolerable hatred towards Brahmoism and everything Brahmo? If\nquoting a sentence from the Bible or Koran offend our countrymen, we\nshall not do so. Truth is as catholic when taken from the S\u00e2stras as\nfrom the Koran or the Bible. True liberality consists, not in quoting\ntexts from the religious Scriptures of other nations, but in bringing\nup, as we advance, the rear who are groveling in ignorance and\nsuperstition. We certainly do not act against the dictates of\nconscience, if we quote texts from the Hindu S\u00e2stras only, and not from\nall the religious Scriptures of all the countries on the face of the\nglobe. Moreover, there is not a single saying in the Scriptures of other\nnations, which has not its counterpart in the S\u00e2stras.\u201d\n\nAnd again in \u201cThe Adi Brahma-Samaj, its Views and Principles,\u201d p.\u00a01:--\n\n\u201cThe members of the Adi Samaj, aiming to diffuse the truths of Theism\namong their own nation, the Hindus, have naturally adopted a Hindu mode\nof propagation, just as an Arab Theist would adopt an Arabian mode of\npropagation, and a Chinese Theist a Chinese one. Such differences in the\naspect of Theism in different countries must naturally arise from the\nusual course of things, but they are adventitious, not essential,\nnational, not sectarian. Although Brahmoism is universal religion, it is\nimpossible to communicate a universal form to it. It must wear a\nparticular form in a particular country. A\u00a0so-called universal form\nwould make it appear grotesque and ridiculous to the nation or religious\ndenomination among whom it is intended to be propagated, and would not\ncommand their veneration. In conformity with such views, the Adi Samaj\nhas adopted a Hindu form to propagate Theism among Hindus. It has\ntherefore retained many innocent Hindu usages and customs, and has\nadopted a form of divine service containing passages extracted from the\nHindu S\u00e2stras only, a\u00a0book of Theistic texts containing selections from\nthose sacred books only, and a ritual containing as much of the ancient\nform as could be kept consistently with the dictates of conscience.\u201d\n\n\nNOTE C.\n\nEXTRACTS FROM KESHUB CHUNDER SEN\u2019S LECTURE ON CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY,\n1870.\n\n\u201cWhy have I cherished respect and reverence for Christ? . . . Why is it\nthat, though I do not take the name of \u2018Christian,\u2019 I\u00a0still persevere in\noffering my hearty thanksgivings to Jesus Christ? There must be\nsomething in the life and death of Christ,--there must be something in\nhis great gospel which tends to bring comfort and light and strength to\na heart heavy-laden with iniquity and wickedness.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. I studied Christ\nethically, nay spiritually,--and I studied the Bible also in the same\nspirit, and I must acknowledge candidly and sincerely that I owe a great\ndeal to Christ and to the gospel of Christ.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u201cMy first inquiry was, What is the creed taught in the Bible? .\u00a0.\u00a0. Must\nI go through all the dogmas and doctrines which constitute Christianity\nin the eye of the various sects, or is there something simple which I\ncan at once grasp and turn to account?\n\n\u201cI found Christ spoke one language, and Christianity another. I\u00a0went to\nhim prepared to hear what he had to say, and was immensely gratified\nwhen he told me: \u2018Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy\nmind, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and love thy\nneighbor as thyself;\u2019 and then he added, \u2018This is the whole law and the\nprophets,\u2019 in other words, the whole philosophy, theology, and ethics of\nthe law and the prophets are concentrated in these two great doctrines\nof love to God and love to man; and then elsewhere he said, \u2018This do and\nye shall inherit everlasting life.\u2019 .\u00a0.\u00a0. If we love God and love man we\nbecome Christ-like, and so attain everlasting life.\n\n\u201cChrist never demanded from me worship or adoration that is due to God,\nthe Creator of the Universe.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. He places himself before me as the\nspirit I must imbibe in order to approach the Divine Father, as the\ngreat Teacher and guide who will lead me to God.\n\n\u201cThere are some persons who believe that if we pass through the ceremony\nof baptism and sacrament, we shall be accepted by God, but if you accept\nbaptism as an outward rite, you cannot thereby render your life\nacceptable to God, for Christ wants something internal, a\u00a0complete\nconversion of the heart, a\u00a0giving up the yoke of mammon and accepting\nthe yoke of religion, and truth, and God. He wants us to baptize our\nhearts not with cold water, but with the fire of religious and spiritual\nenthusiasm; he calls upon us not to go through any outward rite, but to\nmake baptism a ceremony of the heart, a\u00a0spiritual enkindling of all our\nenergies, of all our loftiest and most heavenly aspirations and\nactivities. That is true baptism. So with regard to the doctrine of the\nsacrament. There are many who eat the bread and drink the wine at the\nsacramental table, and go through the ceremony in the most pious and\nfervent spirit; but, after all, what does the sacrament mean? If men\nsimply adopt it as a tribute of respect and honor to Christ, shall he be\nsatisfied? Shall they themselves be satisfied? Can we look upon them as\nChristians simply because they have gone through this rite regularly for\ntwenty or fifty years of their lives? I\u00a0think not. Christ demands of us\nabsolute sanctification and purification of the heart. In this matter,\nalso, I\u00a0see Christ on one side, and Christian sects on the other.\n\n\u201cWhat is that bread which Christ asked his disciples to eat? what that\nwine which he asked them to taste? Any man who has simple intelligence\nin him, would at once come to the conclusion that all this was\nmetaphorical, and highly and eminently spiritual. Now, are you prepared\nto accept Christ simply as an outward Christ, an outward teacher, an\nexternal atonement and propitiation, or will you prove true to Christ by\naccepting his solemn injunctions in their spiritual importance and\nweight? He distinctly says, every follower of his must eat his flesh and\ndrink his blood. If we eat, bread is converted into strength and health,\nand becomes the means of prolonging our life; so, spiritually, if we\ntake truth into our heart, if we put Christ into the soul, we assimilate\nthe spirit of Christ to our spiritual being, and then we find Christ\nincorporated into our existence and converted into spiritual strength,\nand health, and joy, and blessedness. Christ wants something that will\namount to self-sacrifice, a\u00a0casting away of the old man, and a new\ngrowth in the heart. I\u00a0thus draw a line of demarcation between the\nvisible and outward Christ, and the invisible and inward Christ, between\nbodily Christ and spiritual Christ, between the Christ of images and\npictures, and the Christ that grows in the heart, between dead Christ\nand living Christ, between Christ that lived and that was, and Christ\nthat does live and that is.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u201cTo be a Christian then is to be Christ-like. Christianity means\nbecoming like Christ, not acceptance of Christ as a proposition or as an\noutward representation, but spiritual conformity with the life and\ncharacter of Christ. And what is Christ? By Christ I understand one who\nsaid, \u2018Thy will be done;\u2019 and when I talk of Christ, I\u00a0talk of that\nspirit of loyalty to God, that spirit of absolute determinedness and\npreparedness to say at all times and in all circumstances, \u2018Thy will be\ndone, not mine.\u2019 .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u201cThis prayer about forgiving an enemy and loving an enemy, this\ntranscendental doctrine of love of man, is really sweet to me, and when\nI think of that blessed Man of God, crucified on the cross, and uttering\nthose blessed words, \u2018Father, forgive them, they know not what they do;\u2019\noh! I\u00a0feel that I must love that being, I\u00a0feel that there is something\nwithin me which is touched by these sweet and heavenly utterances,\nI\u00a0feel that I must love Christ, let Christians say what they like\nagainst me; that Christ I must love, for he preached love for an\nenemy.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u201cWhen every individual man becomes Christian in spirit--repudiate the\nname, if you like--when every individual man becomes as prayerful as\nChrist was, as loving and forgiving towards enemies as Christ was, as\nself-sacrificing as Christ was, then these little units, these little\nindividualities, will coalesce and combine together by the natural\naffinity of their hearts; and these new creatures, reformed,\nregenerated, in the child-like and Christ-like spirit of devotion and\nfaith, will feel drawn towards each other, and they shall constitute a\nreal Christian church, a\u00a0real Christian nation. Allow me, friends, to\nsay, England is not yet a Christian nation.\u201d\n\n\nEXTRACTS FROM A CATECHISM ISSUED BY A MEMBER OF THE ADI BRAHMO-SAMAJ.\n\n_Q._ Who is the deity of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ The One True God, one only without a second, whom all Hindu \u015a\u00e2stras\nproclaim.\n\n_Q._ What is the divine worship of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ Loving God, and doing the works He loveth.\n\n_Q._ What is the temple of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ The pure heart.\n\n_Q._ What are the ceremonial observances of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ Good works.\n\n_Q._ What is the sacrifice of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ Renunciation of selfishness.\n\n_Q._ What are the austerities of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ Not committing sin. The Mah\u00e1bh\u00e1rata says, He who does not commit\nsin in mind, speech, action, or understanding, performs austerities; not\nhe who drieth up his body.\n\n_Q._ What is the place of pilgrimage of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ The company of the good.\n\n_Q._ What is the Veda of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ Divine knowledge. It is superior to all Vedas. The Veda itself\nsays: The inferior knowledge is the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama\nVeda, the Atharva Veda, etc.; the superior knowledge is that which\ntreats of God.\n\n_Q._ What is the most sacred formula of the Brahmos?\n\n_A._ Be good and do good.\n\n_Q._ Who is the true Brahman?\n\n_A._ He who knows Brahma. The Brihad\u00e2ra\u1e47yaka-Upanishad says: He who\ndeparts from this world knowing God, is a Brahman. (See \u201cBrahmic\nQuestions of the Day,\u201d 1869.)\n\n\nTHE END AND THE MEANS OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS.\n\nA SERMON[23] PREACHED BY ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D., DEAN OF\nWESTMINSTER, ON THE DAY OF INTERCESSION FOR MISSIONS, WEDNESDAY,\nDECEMBER 3, 1873.\n\n _Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a\n Christian. And Paul said, I\u00a0would to God, that, not only thou, but\n all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as\n I am, except these bonds._\n\n \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f08\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u00b7 \u1f18\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. \u1f49\u00a0\u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u00b7 \u0395\u1f50\u03be\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f02\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03ce \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n ACTS xxvi. 28, 29.\n\nWhen I preached on a like occasion last year, I spoke at some length of\nthe prospects of Christian missions,[24] and I ventured to give seven\ngrounds which the peculiar circumstances of our time afforded for\ngreater confidence in the future. First, the better knowledge of the\nDivine nature acquired by the extinction of the once universal belief\nthat all heathens were everlastingly lost; secondly, the increased\nacquaintance with the heathen religions themselves; thirdly, the\ninstruction which Christian missionaries have gained or may gain from\ntheir actual experience in foreign parts; fourthly, the recognition of\nthe fact that the main hindrance to the success of Christian missions\narises from the vices and sins of Christendom; fifthly, an\nacknowledgment of the indirect influences of Christianity through\nlegislation and civilization; sixthly, the newly awakened perception of\nthe duty of making exact, unvarnished, impartial statements on this\nsubject; seventhly, the testimony borne by missionary experience to the\ncommon elements and essential principles of the Christian religion.\n\nOn these--the peculiar grounds for hope and for exertion in this our\ngeneration--I content myself with referring to the observations which I\nthen made, and which I will not now repeat.\n\nI propose on this occasion to make a few remarks on the End and on the\nMeans of Christian Missions; remarks which must of necessity be general\nin their import, but which for that reason are the more suitable to be\noffered by one who cannot speak from personal and special experience.\n\nThe text is taken from a striking incident in the life of the greatest\nof apostolic missionaries. It was in the presence of Festus and Agrippa\nthat Paul had poured forth those few burning utterances which to Festus\nseemed like madness, but which Paul himself declared to be words of\ntruth and soberness. Then it was that the Jewish prince, Agrippa--far\nbetter instructed and seeing deeper into Paul\u2019s mind than the heathen\nFestus, yet still unconvinced--broke in upon the conversation with the\nwords which in the English translation have well nigh passed into a\nproverb, \u201cAlmost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.\u201d The sense which\nthey thus give would be in itself perfectly suitable to the halting,\nfickle character of the Herodian family, and would accurately describe\nthe numerous half-converts throughout the world--\u201cAlmost,\u201d but not\nquite, \u201cthou persuadest me to join the good cause.\u201d But the sense which,\nby the nearly universal consent of modern scholars, they really bear in\nthe original is something still more instructive. The only meaning of\nwhich the Greek words are capable is an exclamation, half in jest and\nhalf in earnest, \u201cIt is but a very brief and simple argument that you\noffer to work so great a change;\u201d or, if we may venture to bring out the\nsense more forcibly, \u201cSo few words, and such a vast conclusion!\u201d \u201cSo\nslight a foundation, and so gigantic a superstructure!\u201d \u201cSo scanty an\noutfit, and so perilous an enterprise!\u201d The speech breathes something of\nthe spirit of Naaman, when he was told to wash in the Jordan--\u201cAre not\nAbana and Pharpar better than all the waters of Israel?\u201d It is like the\ncomplaint of the popular prophets in the time of Hezekiah, whose taste\ndemanded stronger flavor than the noble simplicity of Isaiah, \u201cThou\ngivest us only line upon line, precept upon precept.\u201d It breathes the\nspirit of the Ephesian Christians who, when they heard St. John\u2019s\nrepeated maxim of \u201cLittle children, love one another,\u201d said, \u201cIs this\nall that he has to tell us?\u201d It expresses the spirit of many an one\nsince, who has stumbled at the threshold of the genuine Gospel--\u201cSo\nvague, so simple, so universal. Is this worth the sacrifice that you\ndemand? Give us a demonstrative argument, a\u00a0vast ceremonial, a\u00a0complex\nsystem, a\u00a0uniform government. Nothing else will satisfy us.\u201d\n\nAs Agrippa\u2019s objection, so is Paul\u2019s answer. It would have indeed borne\na good sense had he meant what in our English version he is made to say,\n\u201cI\u00a0would that thou wert converted both \u2018almost and altogether.\u2019 Halfness\nor wholeness--I admire them both. Half a soul is better than none at\nall. To have come half way is better than never to have started at all;\nbut half is only good, because it leads towards the whole.\u201d\nNevertheless, following the real meaning of Agrippa\u2019s remark, St. Paul\u2019s\nretort, in fact, bears a yet deeper significance--\u201cI would to God, that\nwhether by little or by much, whether by brief arguments or by long\narguments, somehow and somewhere, the change were wrought. The means to\nme are comparatively nothing, so long as the end is accomplished.\u201d It is\nthe same spirit as that which dictated the noble expression in the\nEpistle to the Philippians: \u201cSome preach Christ of envy and strife, some\nalso of good will. The one preach Christ of contention, the other of\nlove. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence or in\ntruth, Christ is preached.\u201d[25]\n\nAnd then he proceeds to vindicate the end which makes him indifferent as\nto the means. Agrippa, in his brief taunt, had said, \u201cSuch are the\narguments by which you would fain make me a _Christian_.\u201d It is one of\nthe few, one of the only three occasions on which that glorious name is\nused in the New Testament. It is here charged not with the venerable\nmeaning which we now attach to it, but with the novel and degrading\nassociations which it bore in the mouth of every Jew and every Roman at\nthat time--of Tacitus or Josephus, no less than of Festus or Agrippa.\n\u201cIs it,\u201d so the king meant to say, \u201cis it that you think to make me a\n_Christian_, a member of that despised, heretical, innovating sect, of\nwhich the very name is a sufficient condemnation?\u201d\n\nIt is only by bearing this in mind that we see the force of St. Paul\u2019s\nanswer. He does not insist on the word; he does not fight even for this\nsacred title; he does not take it up as a pugnacious champion might take\nup the glove which his adversary had thrown down; he does not say,\n\u201cI\u00a0would that thou wast a Christian.\u201d In his answer he bears his\ntestimony to one of the gravest, the most fruitful, of all theological\ntruths--that it is not the name but the thing, not the form but the\nreality, on which stress must be laid; and he gives the most lucid,\nheart-stirring illustration of what the reality is. \u201cI\u00a0would that not\nonly thou, but all those who hear me were (I\u00a0ask for no ambiguous\ncatchword or byword, but) what you see before you; I\u00a0would that you all\nwere such as I am--such as I am, upheld by the hopes, filled with the\naffections, that sustain my charmed existence;\u201d and then, with that\nexquisite courtesy which characterizes so many traits of the Apostle\u2019s\nhistory, glancing at the chains which bound him to the Roman\nguard--\u201c\u2018except these bonds.\u2019 This, whether you call it Christian or\nnot, is what I desire to see you and all the world.\u201d \u201cYou see it before\nyou in the life, the character, the spirit, of one who knows what\nChristianity is, and who wishes that all his fellow-creatures should\npartake of the happiness that he has gained, repose on the same\nprinciples that give him strength.\u201d This, then, is the statement of the\ngreatest of missionaries, both as to the end which he sought to attain,\nand the means by which he and we should seek to attain it.\n\nI. Let us first take the End: \u201cSuch as I am, except these bonds.\u201d That\nis the state to which St. Paul desired to bring all those who heard him.\nThat, according to him, was the description of a Christian. No doubt if\nhe had been pressed yet further, he would have said that he meant, \u201cSuch\nas Jesus Christ, my Lord.\u201d But he was satisfied with taking such a\nliving, human, imperfect exemplification as he whom Festus and Agrippa\nsaw in their presence. \u201cSuch as Paul was.\u201d Here is no ambiguous\ndefinition, no obsolete form. What manner of man he was we know even\nbetter than Festus or Agrippa knew. Look at him with all his\ncharacteristic peculiarities; a\u00a0man passionately devoted to his own\nfaithful friends, and clinging to the reminiscences of his race and\ncountry, yet with a heart open to embrace all mankind; a\u00a0man combining\nthe strongest convictions with an unbounded toleration of differences,\nand an unbounded confidence in truth; a\u00a0man penetrated with the freedom\nof the Spirit, but with a profound appreciation of the value of great\nexisting institutions, whether civil or religious--a thorough Roman\ncitizen and a thorough Eastern gentleman; embarked on a career of daring\nfortitude and endurance, undertaken in the strength of the persuasion\nthat in Jesus Christ of Nazareth he had seen the highest perfection of\nDivine and human goodness--a Master worth living for and worth dying\nfor, whose Spirit was to be the regenerating power of the whole world.\nThis character, this condition it was to which St. Paul desired that his\nhearers should be brought. One only reservation he makes; \u201cexcept these\nbonds,\u201d except those limitations, those circumscriptions, those\nvexations, those irritations, which belonged to the suffering, toil-worn\ncircumstances in which he was at that moment placed.\n\nSuch is the aim which, following the example of their most illustrious\npredecessor, all missionaries ought to have before their eyes. To\ncreate, to preach, to exhibit those elements of character, those\napostolical graces, those Divine intuitions, which even the hard Roman\nmagistrate and the superficial Jewish prince recognized in Paul of\nTarsus. Where these are, there is Christianity. In proportion as any of\nthese are attained, in that proportion has a human being become a\nChristian. Wherever and in proportion as these are not, there the\nmissionary\u2019s labor has failed--there the seed has been sown to no\npurpose--there the name of Christian may be, but the reality is not.\n\nThis pre\u00ebminence of the object of Christian missions--namely, the\nformation of heroic, apostolic, and therefore Christian characters--has\na wide practical importance. In these days--when there is so much\ntemptation to dwell on the scaffolding, the apparatus, the organization\nof religion, as though it were religion itself--it is doubly necessary\nto bear in mind what true Religion is, wherein lies the essential\nsuperiority of Christianity to all the other forms of religion on the\nsurface of the earth. It is not merely the baptism of thousands of\ninfants, such as filled a large part of the aspirations even of so great\na missionary as Francis Xavier; nor the adoption of the name of Christ,\nas was done on so vast a scale by the ferocious rebels of China; nor the\nrepetition, with ever so much accuracy, of the Christian creed, as was\ndone by the pretended converts from Mahommedanism or Judaism, under the\nterrible compulsion of the Catholic sovereigns of Spain. Nor is it the\nassurance ever so frequently repeated, that we are saved; nor is it the\nabsolution, ever so solemnly pronounced by a priest; nor is it the\nshedding of floods of tears; nor is it the adoption of voluntary\nself-degradation or solitary seclusion. All these may be found in other\nreligions in even greater force than in Christianity. That which alone,\nif anything, stamps Christianity as the supreme religion, is that its\nessence, its object, is in none of these things, valuable as some of\nthem may be as signs and symptoms of the change which every mission is\nintended to effect. The change itself, the end itself, Christianity\nitself, is at once greater and simpler. It is to be such as Paul was; it\nis to produce characters, which in truthfulness, in independence, in\nmercy, in purity, in charity, may recall something of the great Apostle,\neven as he recalled something of the mind which was in Christ Jesus. It\nwas this clear vision of what he desired to see as the fruits of his\nteaching that made St. Paul so ready to admire whatsoever things were\nlovely and of good report wherever he found them. In Gentile or in Jew,\nin heathen or in Christian, he recognized at once the spirits kindred to\nhis own, and welcomed them accordingly. He felt that he could raise them\nyet higher; but he was eager to claim them as his brethren even from the\nfirst.[26] Even in the legends which surround his history there has been\npreserved something of this genuine apostolic sympathy. It was a fine\ntouch in the ancient Latin hymn which described how, when he landed at\nPuteoli, he turned aside to the hill of Pausilipo to shed a tear over\nthe tomb of Virgil, and thought how much he might have made of that\nnoble soul if he had found him still on earth:--\n\n \u201cAd Maronis mausoleum\n Ductus, fudit super eum\n Pi\u00e6 rorem lacrym\u00e6--\n \u2018Quantum,\u2019 dixit, \u2018te fecissem\n Si te vivum invenissem,\n Poetarum maxime.\u2019\u201d\n\nIt was this which made him cling with such affectionate interest to his\nconverts, to his friends, to his sons, as he calls them, in Christ\nJesus. All that he sought, all that he looked for in them, was that they\nshould show in their characters the seal of the spirit that animated\nhimself. Whether they derived this character from himself or from\nApollos or Cephas he cared not to ask. He was their pupil as much as\ntheir master. He disclaimed all dominion over their independent faith;\nhe claimed only to be a helper in their joy.\n\nThis reproduction of Paul--this reproduction of all that is best in\nourselves or better than ourselves--in the minds and hearts of mankind,\nis the true work of the Christian missionary; and, in order to do this,\nhe must be himself that which he wishes to impress upon them in\nhumility, goodness, courtesy, and holiness, except only the straitening\nbonds which cramp or confine each separate character, nation, and\nchurch. No disparager of Christian missions can dispute this *--no\nchampion of Christian missions need go beyond this. When, in the last\ncentury, the Danish missionary, Schwarz, was pursuing his labors at\nTanjore, and the Rajah Hyder Ali desired to treat with the English\ngovernment, he said: \u201cDo not send to me any of your agents, for I trust\nneither their words nor their treaties. But send to me the missionary of\nwhose character I hear so much from every one; him will I receive and\ntrust.\u201d That was the electrifying, vivifying effect of the apparition of\nsuch an one as Paul--\u201ca man who had indeed done nothing worthy of bonds\nor of death\u201d--a man in whose entire disinterestedness and in whose\ntransparent honor the image and superscription of his Master was written\nso that no one could mistake it. \u201cIn every nation, he that feareth God\nand worketh righteousness\u201d is the noblest work of God our Creator--the\nmost precious result of human endeavor. If any such--by missionary\nefforts, either of convert or teacher, either direct or indirect--have\nbeen produced, then the prayers uttered, the labors inspired, the hopes\nexpressed in these and like services have not been altogether in vain.\nOne of the most striking facts to which our attention has been called as\ndemanding our thankfulness on this day is the solemn testimony borne by\nthe Government of India to the fruits of \u201cthe blameless lives and\nself-denying labors of its six hundred Protestant missionaries.\u201d And\nwhat are those fruits? Not merely the adoption of this or that outward\nform of Christianity by this or that section of the Indian community. It\nis something which is in appearance less, but in reality far greater\nthan this. It is something less like the question of Agrippa, but more\nlike the answer of Paul. It is that they have \u201cinfused new vigor into\nthe stereotyped life of the vast populations placed under English rule;\u201d\nit is that they are \u201cpreparing those populations to be in every way\nbetter men and better citizens of the great Empire under which they\ndwell.\u201d That is a verdict on which we can rest with the assurance that\nit is not likely to be reversed. Individual conversions may relapse--may\nbe accounted for by special motives; but long-sustained, wide-reaching\nchanges of the whole tenor and bent of a man or of a nation are beyond\nsuspicion. When we see the immovable, and, as the official document\nsays, \u201cthe stereotyped\u201d forms of Indian life re-animated with a vigor\nunknown to the Oriental races in earlier days, this is a regeneration as\nsurprising as that which, to a famous missionary of the past generation,\nseemed as impossible as the restoration of a mummy to life--namely, the\nconversion of a single Brahmin.\n\nThis, then, is the End of Christian missions, whether to heathens or to\nChristians, namely, to make better men and better citizens--to raise the\nwhole of society by inspiring it with a higher view of duty, with a\nstronger sense of truth; with a more powerful conviction that only by\ngoodness and truth can God be approached or Christ be served--that God\nis goodness and truth, and that Christ is the Image of God, because He\nis goodness and truth. If this be the legitimate result of Christianity,\nno further arguments are needed to prove that it contains a light which\nis worth imparting, and which, wherever it is imparted, vindicates its\nheavenly origin and its heavenly tendency.\n\nII. This is the End; and now what are the Means? They are what we might\nexpect in the view of so great an end. Anything (so\u00a0the Apostle\ntells\u00a0us), be it small or great, short or long, scanty or ample,--the\nmanners of a Jew for Jews, the manners of a Gentile for Gentiles, \u201call\nthings for all men,\u201d[27]--are worth considering if \u201cby any of these\nmeans he might save,\u201d that is, elevate, sanctify, purify any of those to\nwhom he spoke. When we reflect upon the many various efforts to do good\nin this manifold world--the multitude of sermons, societies, agencies,\nexcitements, which to some seem as futile and fruitless as to others\nthey seem precious and important--it is a true consolation to bear in\nmind the Apostle\u2019s wise and generous maxim, \u201cWhether by little or by\nmuch, whether in pretence or in truth, whether of strife or of good\nwill, Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will\nrejoice.\u201d It may be by a short, sudden, electric shock, or it may be by\na long course of civilizing, humanizing tendencies. It may be by a\nsingle text, such as that which awoke the conscience of Augustine; or a\nsingle interview like Justin\u2019s with the unknown philosopher; or it may\nbe by a long systematic treatise--Butler\u2019s \u201cAnalogy,\u201d or Lardner\u2019s\n\u201cCredibilia,\u201d or the \u201cInstitutes\u201d of Calvin, or the \u201cSumma Theologi\u00e6\u201d of\nAquinas. It may be by the sudden flush of victory in battle, such as\nconvinced Clovis on the field of Tolbiac; or the argument of a peaceful\nconference, such as convinced our own Ethelbert. It may be by teachers\nsteeped in what was by half the Christian world regarded as deadly\nheresy, such as the Arian Bishop Ulfilas, by whom were converted to the\nfaith those mighty Gothic tribes which formed the first elements of\nEuropean Christendom, and whose deeds Augustine regarded,\nnotwithstanding their errors, as the glory of the Christian name.[28] It\nmay be by teachers immersed in superstitions as barbarous, as completely\nrepudiated by the civilized world, as were those of the famous Roman\nPontiff who sent the first missionaries to these shores. Sometimes the\nchange has been effected by the sight of a single picture, as when\nVladimir of Russia was shown the representation of the Last Judgment;\nsometimes by a dream or a sign, known only to those who were affected by\nit--such as the vision of the Cross which arrested Constantine on his\nway to Rome, or changed Colonel Gardiner\u2019s dissolute youth to a manhood\nof strict and sober piety. Sometimes it has been by the earnest\npreaching of missionaries, confessedly ill-educated and ill-prepared for\nthe work which they had to accomplish; sometimes by the slow\ninfiltration of Christian literature and Christian civilization; the\ngrandeur, in old days, of Rome and Constantinople; in our days, the\nsuperiority of European genius, the spread of English commerce, the\nestablishment of just laws, pure homes, merciful institutions.\n\nWe do not say that all these means are equally good or equally\nefficacious. St. Paul, in his argument with Agrippa, did not mean to say\nthat \u201calmost and altogether,\u201d that \u201cmuch and little,\u201d were the same; he\ndid not mean that it was equally good that Christ should be preached in\nstrife or in good-will; he did not mean that a good end justified bad\nmeans, or that we may do evil that good may come; he did not mean to\njustify the falsehoods which are profanely called pious frauds, nor the\npersecutions which have been set on foot by those who thought to do God\nservice, or the attempt to stimulate artificial excitement by\nundermining the moral strength and manly independence of the human\nspirit. God forbid! But what he meant, and what we mean with him, is\nthis: In true Christian missions, in the conversion of human souls from\ndead works, from sin, from folly, from barbarism, from hardness, from\nselfishness, to goodness and purity, justice and truth, the field is so\nvast, the diversity of character in men and nations is so infinite, the\nenterprise so arduous, the aspects of Divine truth so various, that it\nis on the one hand a duty for each one to follow out that particular\nmeans of conversion which seems to him most efficacious, and on the\nother hand to acquiesce in the converging use of many means which\ncannot, by the nature of the case, appear equally efficacious to every\none. Such a toleration, such an adoption of the different modes of\ncarrying on what John Bunyan called \u201cthe Holy War,\u201d \u201cthe Siege of Man\u2019s\nSoul,\u201d must indeed be always controlled by the determination to keep the\nhigh, paramount, universal end always in view; by the vigilant endeavor\nto repress the exaggeration, to denounce the follies and the falsehoods\nwhich infect even the best attempts of narrow and fallible, though good\nand faithful, servants of their Lord. But, if once we have this\nprinciple fixed in our minds, it surely becomes a solace to remember\nthat the soul of man is won by a thousand different approaches--that\nthus the instruments which often seem most unworthy may yet serve to\nproduce a result far above themselves--that when \u201cwe have toiled all\nnight and taken nothing\u201d by keeping close to the shore, or by throwing\nout our nets always on one side, yet if we have courage \u201cto launch out\ninto the deep, and cast out our nets on the other side of the ship,\u201d we\nshall \u201cenclose a great multitude of fishes, so that the net shall\nbreak.\u201d\n\nHe is a traitor to the cause who exalts the means above the end, or who\nseeks an end altogether different from that to which his allegiance\nbinds him; but he is not a traitor, but a faithful soldier, who makes\nthe best use of all the means that are placed in his hands. Long after\nthe imperfect instruments have perished the results will endure, and in\nforms wholly unlike the insufficiency or the meagreness of the first\npropelling cause. The preaching of Henry Martyn may have been tinged by\na zeal often not according to knowledge; but the savor of his holy and\nself-denying life has passed like a sweet-smelling incense through the\nwhole framework of Indian society. \u201cEven,\u201d so he said himself, \u201cif I\nshould never see a native converted, God may design by my patience and\ncontinuance in the work to encourage future missionaries.\u201d\n\nThe more profoundly we are impressed with the degradation of the heathen\nnations, with the corruption of the Christian churches, the more\nthankful should we be for any attempts, however slight and however\nvarious, to quicken the sluggish mass, and enlighten the blackness of\nthe night, provided only that the mass is permanently quickened, and the\ndarkness is in any measure dispelled. \u201cI\u00a0have lived too long,\u201d said Lord\nMacaulay on his return from India to England, \u201cI\u00a0have lived too long in\na country where people worship cows, to think much of the differences\nwhich part Christians from Christians.\u201d And, in fact, as the official\nreport to which I have referred testifies in strong terms, the presence\nof the great evils which Indian missionaries have to confront, has often\nproduced in them a noble and truly Christian indifference to the trivial\ndivergences between themselves. \u201cEven a one-eyed man,\u201d says the proverb,\n\u201cis a king amongst the blind.\u201d Even the shepherd\u2019s sling may perchance\nsmite down the Goliath of Gath. The rough sledge-hammer of a rustic\npreacher may strike home, where the most polished scholar would plead in\nvain. The calm judgment of the wise and good, or the silent example, or\nthe understanding sympathy, or the wide survey of the whole field of the\nreligions of mankind, may awaken convictions which all the declamations\nof all the churches would fail to arouse.\n\nThe misery of the war on the coast of Africa, the terrible prospect of\nthe Indian famine, may furnish the very opening which we most desire.\nThey may be the very touchstones by which these suffering heathens will\ntest the practical efficiency of a Christian government and a Christian\nnation, of Christian missionaries and Christian people, and, having so\ntested it, will judge.\n\nWhen the first Napoleon suddenly found himself among the quicksands of\nthe Red Sea he ordered his generals to ride out in so many opposite\ndirections, and the first who arrived on firm ground to call on the rest\nto follow. This is what we may ask of all the various schemes and\nagencies--all the various inquiries after truth now at work in all the\ndifferent branches and classes of Christendom--\u201cRide out amongst those\nquicksands! Ride out in the most opposite directions, and let him that\nfirst finds solid ground call out to us! It may perchance be the very\nground in the midst of this quaking morass where we shall be able to\nstand firm and move the world.\u201d\n\nThere is one special variety of means which I would venture to name in\nconclusion. Ever since the close of the Apostolic age there have been\ntwo separate agencies in the Christian Church by which the work of\nconversion has been carried on. The chief, the recognized, the ordinary\nagency has been that of the clergy. Every presbyter, every bishop in the\nChurch of the first ages, and again in the beginning of Christian\nEurope, was, in the strict sense of the word, a\u00a0missionary; and although\ntheir functions have in these latter days been for the most part best\nfulfilled by following their stationary, fixed, pastoral charges, yet it\nis still from their ranks in all the different churches that the noble\narmy of missionaries and martyrs in foreign lands has been, and is and\nmust be recruited. Most unwise and unworthy would be any word which\nshould underrate the importance of this mighty element in the work of\nrenewing the face of the earth. But there has always been recognized,\nmore or less distinctly, the agency of Christian laymen in this same\nwork of evangelization. Not only in that more general sense in which I\nhave already indicated the effect of the laws, and literature, and\ninfluence of Christian Europe--not only in that unquestionable sense in\nwhich the best of all missionaries is a high-minded governor, or an\nupright magistrate, or a devout and pure-minded soldier, who is always\n\u201ctrusting in God and doing his duty;\u201d not only in these senses do we\nlook for the co\u00f6peration of laymen, but also in the more direct forms of\ninstruction, of intelligent and far-seeing interest in labors, which,\nthough carried on mainly by the clergy, must, if they are to be good for\nanything, concern all mankind alike. In the early centuries of\nChristianity the aid of laymen was freely invoked and freely given in\nthis great cause. Such was Origen, the most learned and the most gifted\nof the Fathers, who preached as a layman in the presence of presbyters\nand bishops. Such was one of the first evangelizers of India, Pant\u00e6nus;\nsuch was the hermit Telemachus, whose earnest protest, aided by his\nheroic death, extinguished at Rome the horrors of the gladiatorial\ngames; such was Antony, the mighty preacher in the wilds of the Thebaid\nand the streets of Alexandria; such, in later days, was Francis of\nAssisi, when first he began his career as the most famous preacher of\nthe Middle Ages; such, just before the Reformation, was our own Sir\nThomas More.[29] In these instances, as in many others, the influence,\nthe learning, the zeal of laymen, was directly imported into the work of\nChristianizing the nations of Europe. It is for this reason that we in\nour age also, so far as the law and order of our churches permit, have\nfrequently received the assistance of laymen; who, by the weight of\ntheir character or their knowledge, can render a fresh testimony, or\nthrow a fresh light on subjects where we, the clergy, should perhaps be\nheard less willingly. As their voices have been raised on this sacred\nsubject of missions in many a humble parish church; as also on other\nsacred topics, such as Christian art and history, their words have often\nbeen heard within the consecrated walls of this and other great abbeys\nand cathedrals;--so, in the hope that a more systematic form may thus be\ngiven to our knowledge, and a more concentrated direction to our zeal,\nwe shall have the privilege of listening this evening in the nave of\nthis church to a scholar renowned throughout the world, whose knowledge\nof all heathen religions, ancient and modern, in their relation to the\nexperience of Christian missions, probably exceeds that of any other\nsingle person in Europe.\n\nI conclude by once more applying the Apostle\u2019s words to the Means and\nthe End of Christian missions. We would to God that whether by little or\nby much, whether by sudden stroke or by elaborate reasoning, whether in\na brief moment or by long process of years, whether by the fervor of\nactive clergy, or by the learning of impartial laymen, whether by\nilliterate simplicity or by wide philosophy--not only those who hear me,\nbut all on whom the services of this day, far and near, have any\ninfluence, may become, at least in some degree, such as was Paul the\nApostle, such as have been the wisest and best of Christian\nmissionaries, except only those bonds which belong to time and place,\nnot to the Eternal Spirit and the Everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ. We\ncannot wish a better wish, or pray a better prayer to God on this day\nthan that amongst the missionaries who teach, amongst the heathens who\nhear, there should be raised up men who should exhibit that type of\nChristian truth and of Christian life which was seen by Festus and\nAgrippa in Paul of Tarsus. May the Giver of all good gifts give to us\nsome portion of his cheerful and manly faith, of his fearless energy, of\nhis horror of narrowness and superstition, of his love for God and for\nmankind, of his absolute faith in the triumph of his Redeemer\u2019s cause.\nMay God our Father waken in us the sense that we are all his children;\nmay the whole earth become more and more one fold under one Good\nShepherd, Jesus Christ his Son; may the Holy Spirit of Heaven\n\n \u201cOur souls inspire,\n And lighten with celestial fire.\u201d\n\n\nON THE VITALITY OF BRAHMANISM.\n\nThe delivery of a lecture on Missions in Westminster Abbey by a layman,\nand that layman a German, caused great excitement at the time. While\nsome persons of great experience and authority in Church and State\nexpressed their full approval of the bold step which the Dean of\nWestminister had taken, and while some of the most devoted missionaries\nconveyed to me their hearty thanks for what I had said in my lecture,\nothers could not find terms sufficiently violent to vent their\ndispleasure against the Dean, and to proclaim their horror at the\nheretical opinions embodied in my address. I\u00a0was publicly threatened\nwith legal proceedings, and an eminent lawyer informed me in the \u201cTimes\u201d\nof the exact length of imprisonment I should have to undergo.\n\nI did not reply. I had lived long enough in England to know that no good\ncause can ever be served by a breach of the law, and neither the Dean\nnor I myself would have acted as we did unless it had been ascertained\nbeforehand from the highest authorities that, with the sanction of the\nDean, there was nothing illegal in a layman delivering such a lecture\nwithin the precincts of his Abbey. As to the opinions which I expressed\non that occasion, I\u00a0had expressed them before in my published \u201cLectures\non the Science of Religion.\u201d Whether they are orthodox or heretical,\nothers are more competent to determine than I am. I\u00a0simply hold them to\nbe true, and at my time of life, mere contradictions, abuse, or even\nthreats are not likely to keep me from expressing opinions which,\nwhether rightly or wrongly, seem to me founded in truth.\n\nBut while I refrained from replying to mere outbursts of anger, I\u00a0gladly\navailed myself of the opportunity offered by an article published in the\n\u201cFortnightly Review\u201d (July, 1874), by Mr. Lyall, a\u00a0highly distinguished\nIndian civilian, in order to explain more fully some of the views\nexpressed in my lecture which seemed liable to misapprehension.\nUnfortunately the writer of the article \u201cOn Missionary Religions\u201d had\nnot the whole of my lecture before him when writing his criticisms, but\nhad to form his opinion of it from a condensed report which appeared in\nthe \u201cTimes\u201d of December 5th, 1873. The limits of a lecture are in\nthemselves very narrow, and when so large a subject as that of which I\nhad to treat in Westminster Abbey had to be condensed within sixty\nminutes, not only those who wish to misunderstand, but those also who\ntry to judge fairly, may discover in what has been said, or what has not\nbeen said, a\u00a0very different meaning from that which the lecturer wished\nto convey. And if a closely-packed lecture is compressed once more into\none column of the \u201cTimes,\u201d it is hardly possible to avoid what has\nhappened in this case. Mr. Lyall has blamed me for not quoting facts or\nstatements which, as he will have seen by this time, I\u00a0had quoted in my\nlecture. I\u00a0am reminded by him, for instance, of the remarks made by Sir\nGeorge Campbell in his report upon the government of Bengal in 1871-72,\nwhen he wrote, \u201cIt is a great mistake to suppose that the Hindu religion\nis not proselytizing; the system of castes gives room for the\nintroduction of any number of outsiders; so long as people do not\ninterfere with existing castes, they may form a new caste and call\nthemselves Hindus; and the Brahmans are always ready to receive all who\nwill submit to them and pay them. The process of manufacturing Rajputs\nfrom ambitious aborigines goes on before our eyes.\u201d \u201cThis,\u201d Mr. Lyall\nobserves, \u201cis one recently recorded observation out of many that might\nbe quoted.\u201d\n\nIt is this very passage which I had quoted in my third note, only that\nin quoting it from the \u201cReport on the Progress and Condition of India,\u201d\nlaid before Parliament in 1873, I\u00a0had added the caution of the reporter,\nthat \u201cthis assertion must be taken with reserve.\u201d\n\nWith such small exceptions, however, I have really nothing to complain\nof in the line of argument adopted by Mr. Lyall. I\u00a0believe that, after\nhaving read my paper, he would have modified some portions of what he\nhas written, but I feel equally certain that it is well that what he has\nwritten should have been written, and should be carefully pondered both\nby those who have the interests of the natives, and by those who have\nthe interests of Christian missions at heart. The few remarks which I\ntake the liberty of making are made by way of explanation only; on all\ntruly essential points I believe there is not much difference of opinion\nbetween Mr. Lyall and myself.\n\nAs my lecture in Westminister Abbey was delivered shortly after the\npublication of my \u201cIntroduction to the Science of Religion,\u201d I\u00a0ventured\nto take certain points which I had fully treated there as generally\nknown. One of them is the exact value to be ascribed to canonical books\nin a scientific treatment of religion. When Mr. Lyall observes _in\nlimine_, that inferences as to the nature and tendency of various\nexisting religions which are drawn from study and exegetic comparison of\ntheir scriptures, must be qualified by actual observation of these\nreligions and their popular form and working effects, he expresses an\nopinion which I hold as strongly as he holds it himself. After\nenumerating the books which are recognized as sacred or authoritative by\nlarge religious communities in India, books of such bulk and such\ndifficulty that it seems almost impossible for any single scholar to\nmaster them in their entirety, I\u00a0added (p.\u00a0111), \u201cAnd even then our eyes\nwould not have reached many of the sacred recesses in which the Hindu\nmind has taken refuge, either to meditate on the great problems of life,\nor to free itself from the temptations and fetters of worldly existence\nby penances and mortifications of the most exquisite cruelty. India has\nalways been teeming with religious sects, and its religious life has\nbeen broken up into countless local centres which it required all the\ningenuity and perseverance of a priestly caste to hold together with a\nsemblance of dogmatic uniformity.\u201d\n\nWe must take care, however, in all scientific studies, not to render a\ntask impossible by attaching to it conditions which, humanly speaking,\ncannot be fulfilled. It is desirable, no doubt, to study some of the\nlocal varieties of faith and worship in every religion, but it is\nimpossible to do this with anything like completeness. Were we to wait\ntill we had examined every Christian sect before trusting ourselves to\nform a general judgment of Christianity, not one of us could honestly\nsay that he knew his own religion. It seems to me that in studying\nreligions we must expect to meet with the same difficulties which we\nhave to encounter in the comparative study of languages. It may, no\ndoubt, be argued with great force that no one knows English who is\nignorant of the spoken dialects, of the jargon of sailors and miners, or\nof the slang of public-houses and prisons. It is perfectly true that\nwhat we call the literary and classical language is never the really\nliving language of a people, and that a foreigner may know Shakespeare,\nMilton, and Byron, and yet fail to understand, if not the debates in\nParliament, at all events the wrangling of sellers and buyers in the\nmarkets of the city. Nevertheless, when we learn English, or German, or\nFrench, or any of the dead languages, such as Latin and Greek, we must\ndepend on grammars, which grammars are founded on a few classical\nwriters; and when we speak of these languages in general, when we\nsubject them to a scientific treatment, analyze them, and attempt to\nclassify them, we avail ourselves for all such purposes almost\nexclusively of classical works, of literary productions of recognized\nauthority. It is the same, and it can hardly be otherwise, when we\napproach the study of religions, whether for practical or for scientific\npurposes. Suppose a Hindu wished to know what the Christian religion\nreally was, should we tell him to go first to Rome, then to Paris, then\nto St. Petersburg, then to Athens, then to Oxford, then to Berlin, that\nhe might hear the sermons of Roman Catholics, Greeks, and Protestants,\nor read their so-called religious papers, in order to form out of these\nscattered impressions an idea of the real nature of the working effects\nof Christianity? Or should we not rather tell him to take the Bible, and\nthe hymns of Christian Churches, and from them to form his ideal of true\nChristianity? A\u00a0religion is much more likely to become \u201ca\u00a0mysterious\nthing,\u201d when it is sought for in the heart of each individual believer,\nwhere alone, no doubt, it truly lives, or in the endless shibboleths of\nparties, or in the often contradictory tenets of sects, than when it is\nstudied in those sacred books which are recognized as authoritative by\nall believers, however much they may vary in their interpretations of\ncertain passages, and still more in the practical application of the\ndoctrines contained in their sacred codes to the ordering of their daily\nlife. Let the dialects of languages or religions be studied by all\nmeans, let even the peculiarities in the utterances of each town,\nvillage, or family, be carefully noted; but let it be recognized at the\nsame time that, for practical purposes, the immense variety of\nindividual expression has to be merged in one general type, and that\nthis alone supplies the chance of a truly scientific treatment.\n\nSo much in justification of the principle which I have followed\nthroughout in my treatment of the so-called Book-religions, holding that\nthey must be judged, first of all, out of their own mouths, _i.e._, out\nof their sacred writings. Although each individual believer is\nresponsible for his religion, no religion can be made responsible for\neach individual believer. Even if we adopt the theory of development in\nreligion, and grant to every thinking man his right of private\ninterpretation, there remains, and their must always remain, to the\nhistorian of religion, an appeal to the statutes of the original code\nwith which each religion stands and falls, and by which alone it can\njustly be judged.\n\nIt may be, as Mr. Lyall says, an inveterate modern habit to assume all\ngreat historic names to represent something definite, symmetrical, and\norganized. It may be that Asiatic institutions, as he asserts, are\nincapable of being circumscribed by rules and formal definitions. But\nMr. Lyall, if he directed his attention to European institutions, would\nmeet with much the same difficulties there. Christianity, in the largest\nsense of the word, is as difficult to define as Brahmanism, the English\nconstitution is as unsymmetrical as the system of caste. Yet, if we mean\nto speak and argue about them, we must attempt to define them, and with\nregard to any religion, whether Asiatic or European, no definition, it\nseems to me, can be fairer than that which we gain from its canonical\nbooks.\n\nI now come to a more important point. I had divided the six great\nreligions of the world into _Missionary_ and _non-Missionary_, including\nJudaism, Brahmanism, and Zoroastrianism, under the latter; Buddhism,\nChristianity, and Mohammedanism, under the former category. If I had\nfollowed the good old rule of always giving a definition of technical\nterms, the objections raised by Mr. Lyall and others would probably\nnever have been urged. I\u00a0thought, however, that from the whole tenor of\nmy lecture it would have been clear that by missionary religions I meant\n_those in which the spreading of the truth and the conversion of\nunbelievers are raised to the rank of a sacred duty by the founder or\nhis immediate successors_. In explaining the meaning of the word\nproselyte, or \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, I\u00a0had shown that literally it means those\nwho come to us, not those to whom we go, so that even a religion so\nexclusive as Judaism might admit proselytes, might possibly, if we\ninsisted only on the etymological meaning of the word, be called\nproselytizing, without having any right to the name of a missionary\nreligion. But I imagined that I had said enough to make such a\nmisunderstanding impossible. We may say that the English nobility grows,\nbut we should never say that it proselytizes, and it would be a mere\nplaying with words if, because Brahmanism admits new-comers, we were to\nclaim for it the title of a proselytizing religion. The Brahmanic\nScriptures have not a word of welcome for converts, quite the contrary;\nand as long as these Scriptures are recognized as the highest authority\nby the Hindus themselves, we have no right to ascribe to Brahmanism what\nis in direct contradiction with their teaching. The burning of widows\nwas not enjoined in the Vedas, and hence, in order to gain a sanction\nfor it, a\u00a0passage in the Veda was falsified. No such necessity was ever\nfelt with regard to gaining converts for the Brahmanic faith, and this\nshows that, though admission to certain Brahmanic privileges may be\neasier at present than it was in the days of Vi\u015bv\u00e2mitra, conversion by\npersuasion has never become an integral portion of the Brahmanic law.\n\nHowever, as Mr. Lyall does not stand alone in his opinions, and as\nothers have claimed for Judaism and Zoroastrianism the same missionary\ncharacter which he claims in the name of Brahmanism, a\u00a0few explanations\nmay not be out of place.\n\nTill very lately, an orthodox Jew was rather proud of the fact that he\nand his people had never condescended to spread their religion among\nChristians by such means as Christians use for the conversion of Jews.\nThe Parsi community, too, seemed to share with the Quakers a prudent\nreluctance in admitting outsiders to the advantages conferred by\nmembership of so respectable and influential a community, while the\nBrahmans certainly were the very last to compass heaven and earth for\nthe conversion of Mlecchas or outcasts. Suddenly, however, all this is\nchanged. The Chief Rabbi in London, stung to the quick by the reproach\nof the absence of the missionary spirit in Judaism, has delivered a\nsermon to show that I had maligned his people, and that, though they\nnever had missionaries, they had been the most proselytizing people in\nthe world. Some strong arguments in support of the same view have been\nbrought forward by the Rev. Charles Voysey, whose conception of Judaism,\nhowever, is founded rather on what the great prophets wished it should\nhave been than on what history teaches us it was. As the facts and\narguments advanced by the Jewish advocates did not modify my judgment of\nthe historical character of Judaism, I\u00a0did not think it necessary to\nreply, particularly as another eminent Rabbi, the editor of the \u201cJewish\nWorld,\u201d fully endorsed my views of Judaism, and expressed his surprise\nat the unorthodox theories advanced by so high an authority as Dr.\nAdler. I\u00a0am informed, however, that the discussion thus originated will\nnot remain without practical results, and that something like a Jewish\nMissionary Society is actually forming in London, to prove that, if\nmissionary zeal is a test of life, the Jewish religion will not shrink\nfrom such a test. \u201cWe have done something,\u201d the Rev. Charles Voysey\nremarks, \u201cto stir them up; but let us not forget that our reminder was\nanswered, not by a repulse or expression of surprise, but by an\nassurance that many earnest Jews had already been thinking of this very\nwork, and planning among themselves how they could revive some kind of\nmissionary enterprise. Before long, I\u00a0feel sure they will give practical\nevidence that the missionary spirit is still alive and striving in their\nreligion.\u201d And again: \u201cThe Jews will soon show whether their religion is\nalive or dead, will soon meet the rival religions of the world on more\nthan equal terms, and will once more take the lead in these days of\nenlightened belief, and in search after conceptions worthy of a God,\njust as of old Judaism stood on a lofty height, far above all the\nreligions of mankind.\u201d\n\nWhat has happened in London seems to have happened in Bombay also. The\nZoroastrians, too, did not like to be told that their religion was\ndying, and that their gradual decay was due to the absence of the\nmissionary spirit among them. We read in the \u201cOriental\u201d of April, 1874,\n\u201cThere is a discussion as to whether it is contrary to the creed of\nZoroaster to seek converts to the faith. While conceding that Zoroaster\nwas himself opposed to proselytizing heathens, most of the Parsis hold\nthat the great decrease in the number of his followers renders it\nabsolutely necessary to attempt to augment the sect.\u201d\n\nLastly, Mr. Lyall stands up for Brahmanism, and maintains that in India\nBrahmanism had spread out during the last hundred years, while Islam and\nChristianity have contracted. \u201cMore persons in India,\u201d he says, \u201cbecome\nevery year Brahmanists, than all the converts to all the other religions\nin India, put together.\u201d \u201cThe number of converts,\u201d he maintains, \u201cadded\nto Brahmanism in the last few generations, especially in this country,\nmust be immense; and _if the word proselyte may be used in the sense of\none that has come, not necessarily being one that has been invited or\npersuaded to come_, then Brahmanism may lay claim to be by far the most\nsuccessful proselytizing religion of modern times in India.\u201d\n\nThe words which I have ventured to put in italics, will show at once how\nlittle difference of opinion there is between Mr. Lyall and myself, as\nlong as we use the same words in the same sense. If proselytizing could\nbe used in the etymological sense, here assigned to it by Mr. Lyall,\nthen, no doubt, Brahmanism would be a proselytizing or missionary\nreligion. But this is mere playing with words. In English, proselytizing\nis never used in that sense. If I meant by missionary religions nothing\nmore than religions which are capable of increase by admitting those\nthat wish to be admitted, religions which say to the world at large,\n\u201cKnock and it shall be opened unto you,\u201d but no more, then, no doubt,\nBrahmanism, or at least some phases of it, might be called by that name.\nBut what, according to my explanation, constitutes a missionary religion\nis something totally different. It is the spirit of truth in the hearts\nof believers which cannot rest unless it manifests itself in thought,\nword, and deed, which is not satisfied till it has carried its message\nto every human soul, till what it believes to be the truth is accepted\nas the truth by all members of the human family.\n\nThat spirit imparts to certain religions a character of their own,\na\u00a0character which, if I am not mistaken, constitutes the vital principle\nof our own religion, and of the other two which, in that respect, stand\nnearest to Christianity--Buddhism and Mohammedanism. This is not a mere\noutward difference, depending on the willingness of others to join or\nnot to join; it is an inward difference which stamped Christianity as a\nmissionary religion, when as yet it counted no more than twelve\napostles, and which lays on every one that calls himself a Christian the\nduty of avowing his convictions, whatever they may be, and gaining\nothers to embrace the truth. In that sense every true Christian is a\nmissionary. Mr. Lyall is evidently aware of all this, if we may judge by\nthe expressions which he uses when speaking of the increase of\nBrahmanism. He speaks of the clans and races which inhabit the\nhill-tracts, the out-lying uplands, and the uncleared jungle districts\nof India, as _melting_ into Hinduism. He represents the ethnical\nfrontier, described by Mr. Hunter in the \u201cAnnals of Rural Bengal,\u201d as an\never-breaking shore of primitive beliefs, which _tumble_ constantly into\nthe ocean of Brahmanism. And even when he dwells on the fact that\nnon-Aryans are invited by the Brahmans to enter in, he adds that this is\ndone for the sake of profit and repute, not from a wish to eradicate\nerror, to save souls, or to spread the truth. Such instances occurred\neven in the ancient history of India; and I had myself, in my \u201cHistory\nof Ancient Sanskrit Literature,\u201d pointed out the case of the Rathakaras\nor carpenters who were admitted to the Vedic sacrifices, and who,\nprobably from a mere similarity of name--their leader being called\nBribu,--had the old Vedic Ribhus assigned to them as their peculiar\ndeities. But these were exceptions, they were _concessions aux n\u00e8gres_,\ndeviations from traditional rules, entirely owing to the pressure of\ncircumstances; not manifestations springing from religious impulses. If\nMr. Lyall remarks himself, that a religion which thus, half\ninvoluntarily, enlarges its borders, is not, in the strict sense of the\nword, a\u00a0missionary religion, he shows that he is fully aware of the\nprofound difference between a religion that grows by mere agglomeration\nand a religion that grows by its own strength, by its irrepressible\nmissionary zeal. In answer to his concluding remark, that this ground\nwas _not_ taken in my lecture, I\u00a0can only say that it was, nay, that it\nformed the very foundation on which the whole argument of my lecture was\nmeant to rest.\n\nThere is more force in the objections which Mr. Lyall raises against my\ncalling Brahmanism already dead. The word was too strong; at all events,\nit was liable to be misunderstood. What I meant to say was that the\npopular worship of \u015aiva and Vish\u1e47u belongs to the same intellectual\nstratum as the worship of Jupiter and Apollo, that it is an anachronism\nin the nineteenth century, and that, for our purposes, for\nprognosticating the issues of the religious struggles of the future, it\nmay simply be set aside. For settling any of the questions that may be\nsaid to be pending between Christianity, Mohammedanism, and Buddhism,\nBrahmanism is dead. For converting any number of Christians,\nMohammedans, and Buddhists back to idolworship, Brahmanism is dead. It\nmay absorb Sonthals, and Gonds, and Bhils, and other half savage races,\nwith their rough-hewn jungle deities, it may even raise them to a higher\nstage of civilization, and imbue them with the first principles of a\ntruer faith and a purer worship, but for carrying any of the strong\npositions of Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity, Brahmanism is\npowerless and dead. In India itself, where it clings to the soil with a\nthousand roots, it was beaten by Buddhism, and, if it afterwards\nrecovered its position, that was due to physical force, not to\npersuasion and conversion. The struggle between Mohammedanism and\nBrahmanism in India was on both sides a political rather than a\nreligious struggle: still when a change of religion arose from\nconviction, we see Brahmanism yielding to the purer light of Islam, not\nIslam to Brahmanism.\n\nI did not undervalue the actual power of Brahmanism, particularly its\npower of resistance; nor did I prophesy its speedy extinction. I\u00a0said on\nthe contrary that \u201ca\u00a0religion may linger on for a long time, and be\naccepted by the large masses of the people, because it is there, and\nthere is nothing better.\u201d \u201cIt is true,\u201d I\u00a0added, \u201cthere are millions of\nchildren, women, and men in India who fall down before the stone image\nof Vish\u1e47u, with his four arms, riding on a creature, half-bird,\nhalf-man, or sleeping on the serpent; who worship \u015aiva, a\u00a0monster with\nthree eyes, riding naked on a bull, with a necklace of skulls for his\nornament. There are human beings who still believe in a god of war,\nK\u00e2rtikeya, with six faces, riding on a peacock, and holding bow and\narrow in his hands; and who invoke a god of success, Ga\u1e47e\u015ba, with four\nhands and an elephant\u2019s head, sitting on a rat. Nay, it is true that, in\nthe broad daylight of the nineteenth century, the figure of the goddess\nKali is carried through the streets of her own city, Calcutta, her wild\ndisheveled hair reaching to her feet, with a necklace of human heads,\nher tongue protruded from her mouth, her girdle stained with blood. All\nthis is true; but ask any Hindu who can read and write and think,\nwhether these are the gods he believes in, and he will smile at your\ncredulity. How long this living death of national religion in India may\nlast, no one can tell: for our purposes, however, for gaining an idea of\nthe issue of the great religious struggle of the future, that religion\nis dead and gone.\u201d\n\nI ask Mr. Lyall, is this true or is it not? He says himself, \u201cthat\nBrahmanism may possibly melt away of a heap and break up, I\u00a0would not\nabsolutely deny.\u201d Would Mr. Lyall say the same of Buddhism,\nMohammedanism, or Christianity? He points himself to the description\nwhich Gibbon gives of the ancient Roman religion in the second century\nof the Christian era, and shows how closely applicable it is to the\npresent state of Brahmanism in India. \u201cThe tolerant superstition of the\npeople, \u2018not confined by the claims of any speculative system,\u2019 the\n\u2018devout polytheist, whom fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a\u00a0dream, or an\nomen, a\u00a0singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed to\nmultiply the articles of his belief, and to enlarge the list of his\nprotectors;\u2019 the \u2018ingenious youth alike instructed in every school to\nreject and despise the religion of the multitude;\u2019 the philosophic class\nwho \u2018look with indulgence on the errors of the vulgar, diligently\npractice the ceremonies of their fathers, and devoutly frequent the\ntemples of their gods;\u2019 the \u2018magistrates who know and value the\nadvantages of religion as it is connected with civil government;\u2019--all\nthese scenes and feelings are represented in India at this moment,\nthough by no means in all parts of India.\u201d If, then, in the second\ncentury a student of religious pathology had expressed his conviction\nthat in spite of the number of its professors, in spite of its\nantiquity, in spite of its indigenous character, in spite of its\npolitical, civil, and social influences, in spite of its temples and\npriests, in spite of its schools and philosophers, the ancient religion\nof Jupiter had lost its vitality, was sick unto death, nay, for all real\npurposes was dead, would he have been far wrong? It may be replied, no\ndoubt, that similar corruptions have crept into other religions also,\nthat gaudy dolls are carried about in Christian cathedrals, that people\nare invited to see tears rolling down from the eyes of images, or to\nworship wine changed into blood, to say nothing of even more terrible\nhallucinations on the Eucharist propounded from so-called Protestant\npulpits, and that, in spite of all this, we should not call the\nChristian religion dying or dead. This is true, and I thought that by my\nremarks on the different revivals of Hinduism from the twelfth to the\nnineteenth century, I\u00a0had sufficiently indicated that new life may\nspring even from such apparently hopeless corruption. If it is\nBrahmanism that lives in the sects of R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja and R\u00e2m\u00e2nanda, in the\npoetry of Kabir and the wisdom of N\u00e0nak, in the honest purposes of Ram\nMohun Roy and in the high aspirations of Keshub Chunder Sen, then I\nquite agree with Mr. Lyall that Brahmanism is not dead, but lives more\nintensely than ever.\n\nBut here, for some reason or other, Mr. Lyall seems to demur to my\nhopeful estimate of Brahmoism. He had expressed his own conviction that\nBrahmanism, though it might suddenly collapse and vanish, was more\nlikely gradually to spiritualize and centralize its Pantheon, reduce its\ntheology to a compact system, soften down its morals by symbolisms and\ninterportations, discard \u201cdogmatic extremes,\u201d and generally to bring\nitself into accordance with improved standards of science and\nintelligence. He had also quoted with implied approval the remark of\nqualified observers, \u201cthat we might at any time witness a great\nBrahmanic reforming revival in India, if some really gifted and\nsingularly powerful prophet were to arise among the Hindus.\u201d But when I\nhinted that this prophet had actually arisen, and that in Brahmoism, as\npreached by Ram Mohun Roy, Debendranath Tagore, and Keshub Chunder Sen,\nwe ought to recognize a transition from Brahmanism to a purer faith;\nwhen I pointed out that, though Christian missionaries might not wish to\nrecognize Brahmoism as their work, it was the work of those missionary\nChristians who have lived in India as examples of a true Christian life,\nwho have approached the natives in a truly missionary spirit, in the\nspirit of truth and in the spirit of love, Mr. Lyall replies that\n\u201cBrahmoism, as propagated by Keshub Chunder Sen, seems to be\nUnitarianism of an European type, and, so far as one can understand its\nargument, appears to have no logical stability or _locus standi_ between\nrevelation and pure rationalism; that it propounds either too much or\ntoo little to its hearers.\u201d \u201cA\u00a0faith,\u201d he continues, \u201cwhich contains\nmere fervent sentiments, and high conceptions of morality, does not\npartake of the complexion or nature of those religions which have\nencompassed the heart of great nations, nor is it generally supposed in\nIndia that Brahmoism is perceptibly on the increase.\u201d\n\n_Mutatis mutandis_, this is very much what an orthodox Rabbi might have\nsaid of Christianity. Let us wait. I\u00a0am not given to prophecy, but\nthough I am no longer young, I\u00a0still hold to a belief that a cause\nupheld with such honesty of purpose, purity, and unselfishness as\nBrahmoism has been, must and will meet with ultimate success. Does Mr.\nLyall think that Unitarian Christianity is no Christianity? Does he find\nlogical stability in Trinitarianism? Does he consider pure rationalism\nincompatible with revelation? Does he know of any teacher who might not\nbe accused of saying either too little or too much? In A.D. 890 the\nDouble Procession was as much a burning question as the Homoousia in\n324,--are, therefore, both Channing and Dr. D\u00f6llinger to be\nanathematized now? Brahmoism may not be like the religions of old, but\nmust the religions of the future be like the religions of the past?\nHowever, I\u00a0do not wish to draw Mr. Lyall into a theological argument.\nHis estimate of the real value and vitality of Brahmoism may be right,\nmine may be wrong. His presence in India, and his personal intercourse\nwith the Brahmos, may have given him opportunities of judging which I\nhave not. Only let us not forget that for watching the movements of a\ngreat struggle, and for judging of its successful issue, a\u00a0certain\ndistance from the field of battle has its advantages, and that judges in\nIndia have not always proved the best judges of India.\n\nOne point, however, I am quite willing to concede. If Brahmoism and\nsimilar movements may be considered as reforms and resuscitations of\nBrahmanism, then I withdraw my expression that Brahmanism is dead. Only\nlet us remember that we are thus using Brahmanism in two very different\nsenses, that we are again playing with words. In the one sense it is\nstark idolatry, in the other the loftiest spiritual worship. The former\nasserts the existence of many personal gods, the latter shrinks even\nfrom the attribute of personality as too human a conception of the\nHighest Spirit. The former makes the priest a kind of god on earth, the\nlatter proclaims the priesthood of all men; the former is guided by\nscriptures which man calls sacred, the latter knows of no sacred oracles\nbut the still small voice in the heart of every man. The two are like\ntwo opposite poles. What is negative on one side is positive on the\nother; what is regarded by the one as the most sacred truth is\nanathematized by the other as deadly error.\n\nMr. Lyall tells us of Gh\u00e1si D\u00e1s, an inspired prophet, who sojourned in\nthe wilderness for six months, and then issued forth preaching to the\npoor and ignorant the creed of the True Name (Satn\u00e1m). He gathered about\nhalf a million people together before he died in 1850. He borrowed his\ndoctrines from the well-known Hindu sect of the Satn\u00e2mis, and though he\ndenounced Brahmanic abuses, he instituted caste rules of his own, and\nhis successor was murdered, not for heresy, but because he aped\nBrahmanic insignia and privileges. Mr. Lyall thinks that this community,\nif left alone, will relapse into a modified Brahmanism. This may be so,\nbut it can hardly be said, that a reform, the followers of which are\nmurdered for aping Brahmanic insignia and privileges, represents\nBrahmanism which Mr. Lyall defines as \u201cthe broad denomination of what is\nrecognized by all Hindus as the supreme theological faculty and the\ncomprehensive scheme of authoritative tradition to which all minor\nbeliefs are referred for sanction.\u201d\n\nWhen I spoke of Brahmanism as dead, I meant the popular orthodox\nBrahmanism, which is openly patronized by the Brahmans, though scorned\nby them in secret; I\u00a0did not, and could not, mean the worship of Bramah\nas the Supreme Spirit, which has existed in India from the time of the\nUpanishads to the present day, and has lately assumed the name of\nBrahmoism,--a worship so pure, so exalted, so deeply human, so truly\ndivine, that every man can join in it without apostasy, whether he be\nborn a Jew, a\u00a0Gentile, or a Christian.\n\nThat many antagonistic forms of religious faith, some the most degraded,\nothers the most exalted, should live on the same soil, among the same\npeople, is indeed a disheartening truth, enough almost to shake one\u2019s\nbelief in the common origin and the common destinies of the human race.\nAnd yet we must not shut our eyes to the fact that amongst ourselves,\ntoo, men who call themselves Christians are almost as widely separated\nfrom each other in their conceptions of the Divine and the Human, in\ntheir grounds of belief and in their sense of duty, as, in India, the\nworshippers of Ga\u1e47e\u015ba, the god of success, with four hands and an\nelephant\u2019s head, sitting on a rat, on one side, and the believers in the\ntrue Brahma on the other. There is a Christianity that is dead, though\nit may be professed by millions of people, but there is also, let us\ntrust, a\u00a0Christianity that is alive, though it may count but twelve\napostles. As in India, so in Europe, many would call death what we call\nlife, many would call life what we call death. Here, as elsewhere, it is\nhigh time that men should define the exact meaning of their words,\ntrusting that definiteness, frankness, and honesty may offer a better\nchance of mutual understanding, and serve as a stronger bond of union\nbetween man and man, than vague formulas, faint-hearted reticence, and\nwhat is at the root of it all, want of true love of Man, and of true\nfaith in God.\n\nIf Mr. Lyall imagined that the object of my Lecture was to discourage\nmissionary efforts, he must have found out his mistake, when he came to\nread it, as I delivered it in Westminster Abbey. I\u00a0know of no nobler\nlife than that of a true missionary. I\u00a0tried to defend the labors of the\npaternal missionary against disparaging criticisms. I\u00a0tried to account\nfor the small success of controversial missions, by showing how little\nis gained by mere argument and casuistry at home. And I pointed to the\nindirect missionary influence, exercised by every man who leads a\nChristian life in India or elsewhere, as the most encouraging sign of\nthe final triumph of a pure and living Christianity. It is very\npossible, as Mr. Lyall says somewhat sarcastically, that \u201cmissionaries\nwill even yet hardly agree that the essentials of their religion are not\nin the creeds, but in love; because they are sent forth to propound\nscriptures which say clearly that what we believe or disbelieve is\nliterally a _burning_ question.\u201d But those who, with Mr. Lyall, consider\nlove of man founded on love of God, nothing but \u201cflat morality,\u201d must\nhave forgotten that a Higher One than they declared, that on these two\nhang all the law and the commandments. By placing abstruse tenets, the\nhandiwork of Popes and Councils, in the place of Christ\u2019s teaching, and\nby making a belief in these positive articles a _burning_ question, weak\nmortals have driven weak mortals to ask, \u201cAre we Christians still?\u201d Let\nthem for once \u201cby observation and experience\u201d try the oldest and\nsimplest and most positive article of Christianity, real love of man\nfounded on real love of God, and I believe they will soon ask\nthemselves, \u201cWhen shall we be Christians at last?\u201d\n\n\n [Footnote 1: \u201cNOTICE.\n\n \u201cWestminster Abbey. Day of Intercession for Missions, Wednesday,\n December 3d, 1873. Lecture in the Nave, at eight o\u2019clock, p.m.\n\n Hymn 25 (_Bp. Heber_)\n _Wittenberg_ (p.\u00a050).\n\n \u201cFrom Greenland\u2019s icy mountains,\n From India\u2019s coral strands,\n Where Afric\u2019s sunny fountains,\n Roll down their golden sands;\n From many an ancient river,\n From many a palmy plain,\n They call us to deliver\n Their land from error\u2019s chain.\n\n \u201cWhat though the spicy breezes\n Blow soft o\u2019er Ceylon\u2019s isle;\n Though every prospect pleases,\n And only man is vile!\n In vain with lavish kindness\n The gifts of God are strown;\n The heathen in his blindness\n Bows down to wood and stone.\n\n \u201cCan we whose souls are lighted\n With wisdom from on high,\n Can we to men benighted\n The lamp of life deny?\n Salvation, O Salvation!\n The joyful sound proclaim,\n Till earth\u2019s remotest nation\n Has learnt Messiah\u2019s name.\n\n \u201cWaft, waft, ye winds, his story;\n And you, ye waters, roll;\n Till, like a sea of glory,\n It spreads from pole to pole;\n Till o\u2019er our ransomed nature,\n The Lamb for sinners slain,\n Redeemer, King, Creator,\n In bliss returns to reign. Amen.\n\n \u201cThere will be a Lecture delivered in the Nave, on Missions, by\n Professor Max M\u00fcller, M.A.\n\n Ps. 100 (_New Version_)\n _Old Hundredth_ (p.\u00a021).\n\n \u201cWith one consent let all the earth\n To God their cheerful voices raise;\n Glad homage pay with awful mirth,\n And sing before Him songs of praise.\n\n \u201cConvinced that He is God alone,\n From Whom both we and all proceed;\n We whom He chooses for His own,\n The flock that He vouchsafes to feed.\n\n \u201cO enter then His temple gate,\n Thence to His courts devoutly press;\n And still your grateful hymns repeat,\n And still His Name with praises bless.\n\n \u201cFor He\u2019s the Lord supremely good,\n His mercy is forever sure;\n His truth, which all times firmly stood,\n To endless ages shall endure. Amen.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 2: Different systems of classification applied to the\n religions of the world are discussed in my _Introduction to the\n Science of Religion_, pp. 122-143.]\n\n [Footnote 3: \u201cProselyto ne fidas usque ad vigesimam quartam\n generationem,\u201d Jalkut Ruth, f. 163. d; Danz, in Meuschen, _Nov.\n Test, ex Talm. illustr._, p.\u00a0651.]\n\n [Footnote 4: _India, Progress and Condition_, Blue Book presented\n to Parliament, 1873, p.\u00a099. \u201cIt is asserted (but the assertion\n must be taken with reserve) that it is a mistake to suppose that\n the Hindu religion is not proselytizing. Any number of outsiders,\n so long as they do not interfere with established castes, can form\n a new caste, and call themselves Hindus, and the Brahmans are\n always ready to receive all who submit to and pay them.\u201d Can this\n be called proselytizing?]\n\n [Footnote 5: Cf. _Mahavanso_, cap. 5.]\n\n [Footnote 6: Cf. _Mahavanso_, cap. 12.]\n\n [Footnote 7: In some of the places mentioned by the _Chronicle_ as\n among the earliest stations of Buddhist missions, relics have been\n discovered containing the names of the very missionaries mentioned\n by the _Chronicle_. See Koeppen, _Die Religion des Buddha_,\n p.\u00a0188.]\n\n [Footnote 8: Note A, p. 266.]\n\n [Footnote 9: \u201c_Isl\u00e2m_ is the verbal noun, and _Moslim_ the\n participle of the same root, which also yields _Sal\u00e2m_, peace, and\n _salim_ and _salym_, whole, honest. _Isl\u00e2m_ means, therefore, to\n satisfy or pacify by forbearance; it also means simply\n subjection.\u201d Sprenger, _Mohammad_, i. p.\u00a069; iii. 486.]\n\n [Footnote 10: Lassen, _Indische Alterthumskunde_, vol. iv. p.\u00a0635.\n Cf. _Indian Antiquary_, 1873, p.\u00a0370. _Academy_, 1874, p.\u00a061.]\n\n [Footnote 11: _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. i.; _Essays on\n the Science of Religion_, pp. 161, 216.]\n\n [Footnote 12: Lassen, _Indische Alterthumskunde_, vol. iv. p.\u00a0606;\n Wilson, _Asiatic Researches_, xvi. p.\u00a021.]\n\n [Footnote 13: See _Brahmic Questions of the Day_, 1869, p.\u00a016.]\n\n [Footnote 14: _History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature_, by M.\u00a0M.\n (2d\u00a0ed.) p.\u00a0569.]\n\n [Footnote 15: _The Adi Brahma-Samaj, Its views and Principles_,\n Calcutta, 1870, p.\u00a010.]\n\n [Footnote 16: _A Brief History of the Calcutta Brahma-Sam\u00e2j_,\n 1868, p.\u00a015.]\n\n [Footnote 17: See Note B, p. 269.]\n\n [Footnote 18: See Note C, p. 272.]\n\n [Footnote 19: The _Indian Mirror_ (Sept. 10, 1869) constantly\n treats of missionary efforts of various kinds in a spirit which is\n not only friendly, but even desirous of reciprocal sympathy; and\n hopeful that whatever differences may exist between them (the\n missionaries) and the Brahmos, the two parties will heartily\n combine as brethren to exterminate idolatry, and promote true\n morality in India.\n\n Many of our ministers and leading men, says the _Indian Mirror_,\n are recruited from missionary schools, which, by affording\n religious education, prove more favorable to the growth and spread\n of Brahmoism than government schools with Comte and Secularism\n (_Indian Theism_, by S.\u00a0D. Collet, 1870, p.\u00a022).]\n\n [Footnote 20: _Life of John Coleridge Patteson_, by C. M. Yonge,\n ii. p.\u00a0167.]\n\n [Footnote 21: \u201cThe large body of European and American\n missionaries settled in India bring their various moral influences\n to bear upon the country with the greater force, because they act\n together with a compactness which is but little understood. Though\n belonging to various denominations of Christians, yet from the\n nature of their work, their isolated position, and their long\n experience, they have been led to think rather of the numerous\n questions on which they agree, than of those on which they differ,\n and they co\u00f6perate heartily together. Localities are divided among\n them by friendly arrangements, and, with a few exceptions, it is a\n fixed rule among them that they will not interfere with each\n other\u2019s converts and each other\u2019s spheres of duty. School books,\n translations of the Scriptures and religious works, prepared by\n various missions, are used in common; and help and improvements\n secured by one mission are freely placed at the command of all.\n The large body of missionaries resident in each of the presidency\n towns form missionary conferences, hold periodic meetings, and act\n together on public matters. They have frequently addressed the\n Indian government on important social questions involving the\n welfare of the native community, and have suggested valuable\n improvements in existing laws. During the past twenty years, on\n five occasions, general conferences have been held for mutual\n consultation respecting their missionary work; and in January\n last, at the latest of these gatherings, at Allahabad, 121\n missionaries met together, belonging to twenty different\n societies, and including several men of long experience who have\n been twenty years in India.\u201d _India, Progress and Condition_,\n 1873, p.\u00a0134.]\n\n [Footnote 22: Brahma-Sam\u00e2j, the Church of Brahma, is the general\n title. When the schism took place, the original Sam\u00e2j was called\n Adi Brahma-Sam\u00e2j, _i.e._, the First Church of Brahma, while the\n progressive party, under Keshub Chunder Sen was distinguished by\n the name of the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j of India. The vowels _u_ and _o_ are\n often the same in Bengali, and are sometimes used for _a_.]\n\n [Footnote 23: This sermon, which was preached by the Dean of\n Westminster in the forenoon of Wednesday, December 3d, 1873, and\n in which his reasons are stated for inviting a layman to speak on\n the subject of missions in the evening of the same day, and within\n the same sacred precincts, is here reprinted with his kind\n permission.]\n\n [Footnote 24: _Prospects of Christian Missions_, a sermon preached\n in Westminster Abbey on December 20, 1872. Strahan & Co., London.]\n\n [Footnote 25: Phil. i. 13-16.]\n\n [Footnote 26: Acts xiv. 16, 17; xvii. 23, 28; xix. 37; xxi. 26;\n xxii. 28; xxv. 11. Rom. ii. 6-15; xiii. 1-7; xiv. 9; 1\u00a0Cor. ix.\n 20-22; xx. 33. Phil. iv. 8.]\n\n [Footnote 27: 1 Cor. ix. 20-22.]\n\n [Footnote 28: In the well-known passage where, speaking of the\n moderation and humanity of these heretical Arians in the capture\n of Rome, he concludes: \u201cHoc Christi nomini, hoc Christiano tempori\n tribuendum quisquis non videt, c\u00e6ecus; quisquis non laudat,\n ingratus; quisquis laudanti reluctatur, ingratus est.\u201d _De\n Civitate Dei_, i. c.\u00a07. Compare Ibid. c.\u00a01, and Sermon cv., _De.\n Ev. S. Luc._]\n\n [Footnote 29: \u201cSir Thomas More, after he was called to the Bar in\n Lincoln\u2019s Inn, did, for a considerable time, read a public lecture\n out of S.\u00a0Augustine, _De Civitate Dei_, in the Church of\n S.\u00a0Lawrence in the Old Jewry to which the learneder sort of the\n City of London did resort.\u201d Wood\u2019s _Athen\u00e6 Oxonienses_, fol. ed.\n 1721, pp. 182, 183.]\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nOPENING ADDRESS.\n\nDELIVERED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE ARYAN SECTION AT THE INTERNATIONAL\nCONGRESS OF ORIENTALISTS, HELD IN LONDON, SEPTEMBER 14-21, 1874.\n\n\nNo one likes to be asked, what business he has to exist, and yet,\nwhatever we do, whether singly or in concert with others, the first\nquestion which the world never fails to address to us, is _Dic cur hic?_\nWhy are you here? or to put it into French, What is your _raison\nd\u2019\u00eatre_? We have had to submit to this examination even before we\nexisted, and many a time have I been asked the question, both by friend\nand foe, What is the good of an International Congress of Orientalists?\n\nI shall endeavor, as shortly as possible, to answer that question, and\nshow that our Congress is not a mere fortuitous congeries of barren\natoms or molecules, but that we are at least Leibnizian monads, each\nwith his own self, and force and will, and each determined, within the\nlimits of some pre\u00ebstablished harmony, to help in working out some\ncommon purpose, and to achieve some real and lasting good.\n\nIt is generally thought that the chief object of a scientific Congress\nis social, and I am not one of those who are incapable of appreciating\nthe delights and benefits of social intercourse with hard-working and\nhonest-thinking men. Much as I detest what is commonly called society,\nI\u00a0willingly give up glaciers and waterfalls, cathedrals and picture\ngalleries, for one half hour of real society, of free, frank, fresh, and\nfriendly intercourse, face to face, and mind to mind, with a great, and\nnoble, and loving soul, such as was Bunsen; with a man intrepid in his\nthoughts, his words, and his deeds, such as was John Stuart Mill; or\nwith a scholar who, whether he had been quarrying heavy blocks, or\nchiseling the most brittle filigree work, poured out all his treasures\nbefore you with the pride and pleasure of a child, such as was Eug\u00e9ne\nBurnouf. A\u00a0Congress therefore, and particularly an International\nCongress, would certainly seem to answer some worthy purpose, were it\nonly by bringing together fellow workers of all countries and ages, by\nchanging what were to us merely great names into pleasant companions,\nand by satisfying that very right and rational curiosity which we all\nfeel, after having read a really good book, of seeing what the man looks\nlike who could achieve such triumphs.\n\nAll this is perfectly true; yet, however pleasant to ourselves this\nsocial intercourse may appear, in the eyes of the world at large it will\nhardly be considered a sufficient excuse for our existence. In order\ntherefore to satisfy that outer world that we are really doing\nsomething, we point of course to the papers which are read at our public\nmeetings, and to the discussions which they elicit. Much as I value that\nfeature also in a scientific congress, I\u00a0confess I doubt, and I know\nthat many share that doubt, whether the same result might not be\nobtained with much less trouble. A\u00a0paper that contains something really\nnew and valuable, the result, it may be, of years of toil and thought,\nrequires to be read with care in a quiet corner of our own study, before\nthe expression of our assent or dissent can be of any weight or value.\nThere is too much hollow praise, and occasionally too much wrangling and\nill-natured abuse at our scientific tournaments, and the world at large,\nwhich is never without a tinge of malice and a vein of quiet humor, has\nfrequently expressed its concern at the waste of \u201coil and vinegar\u201d which\nis occasioned by the frequent meetings of our British and Foreign\nAssociations.\n\nWhat then is the real use of a Congress, such as that which has brought\nus together this week from all parts of the world? What is the real\nexcuse for our existence? Why are we here, and not in our workshops?\n\nIt seems to me that the real and permanent use of these scientific\ngatherings is twofold.\n\n(1) They enable us to take stock, to compare notes, to see where we are,\nand to find out where we ought to be going.\n\n(2) They give us an opportunity, from time to time, to tell the world\nwhere we are, what we have been doing for the world, and what, in\nreturn, we expect the world to do for us.\n\nThe danger of all scientific work at present, not only among Oriental\nscholars, but, as far as I can see, everywhere, is the tendency to\nextreme specialization. Our age shows in that respect a decided reaction\nagainst the spirit of a former age, which those with gray heads among us\ncan still remember, an age represented in Germany by such names as\nHumboldt, Ritter, B\u00f6ckh, Johannes, M\u00fcller, Bopp, Bunsen, and others; men\nwho look to us like giants, carrying a weight of knowledge far too heavy\nfor the shoulders of such mortals as now be; aye, men who _were_ giants,\nbut whose chief strength consisted in this, that they were never\nentirely absorbed or bewildered by special researches, but kept their\neye steadily on the highest objects of all human knowledge; who could\ntrace the vast outlines of the kosmos of nature or the kosmos of the\nmind with an unwavering hand, and to whose maps and guide books we must\nstill recur, whenever we are in danger of losing our way in the mazes of\nminute research. At the present moment such works as Humboldt\u2019s\n\u201cKosmos,\u201d or Bopp\u2019s \u201cComparative Grammar,\u201d or Bunsen\u2019s \u201cChristianity and\nMankind,\u201d would be impossible. No one would dare to write them, for fear\nof not knowing the exact depth at which the _Protogenes Haeckelii_ has\nlately been discovered or the lengthening of a vowel in the\n+Sa\u1e43hitap\u00e2\u1e6dha+ of the Rig-Veda. It is quite right that this should be\nso, at least, for a time; but all rivers, all brooks, all rills, are\nmeant to flow into the ocean, and all special knowledge, to keep it from\nstagnation, must have an outlet into the general knowledge of the world.\nKnowledge for its own sake, as it is sometimes called, is the most\ndangerous idol that a student can worship. We despise the miser who\namasses money for the sake of money, but still more contemptible is the\nintellectual miser who hoards up knowledge instead of spending it,\nthough, with regard to most of our knowledge, we may be well assured and\nsatisfied that, as we brought nothing into the world so we may carry\nnothing out.\n\nAgainst this danger of mistaking the means for the end, of making bricks\nwithout making mortar, of working for ourselves instead of working for\nothers, meetings such as our own, bringing together so large a number of\nthe first Oriental scholars of Europe, seem to me a most excellent\nsafeguard. They draw us out of our shell, away from our common routine,\naway from that small orbit of thought in which each of us moves day\nafter day, and make us realize more fully, that there are other stars\nmoving all around us in our little universe, that we all belong to one\ncelestial system, or to one terrestrial commonwealth, and that, if we\nwant to see real progress in that work with which we are more especially\nentrusted, the re-conquest of the Eastern world, we must work with one\nanother, for one another, like members of one body, like soldiers of one\narmy, guided by common principles, striving after common purposes, and\nsustained by common sympathies. Oriental literature is of such enormous\ndimensions that our small army of scholars can occupy certain prominent\npositions only; but those points, like the stations of a trigonometrical\nsurvey, ought to be carefully chosen, so as to be able to work in\nharmony together. I\u00a0hope that in that respect our Congress may prove of\nspecial benefit. We shall hear, each of us, from others, what they wish\nus to do. \u201cWhy don\u2019t you finish this?\u201d \u201cWhy don\u2019t you publish that?\u201d are\nquestions which we have already heard asked by many of our friends. We\nshall be able to avoid what happens so often, that two men collect\nmaterials for exactly the same work, and we may possibly hear of some\ncombined effort to carry out great works, which can only be carried out\n_viribus unitis_, and of which I may at least mention one, a\u00a0translation\nof the \u201cSacred Books of Mankind.\u201d Important progress has already been\nmade for setting on foot this great undertaking, an undertaking which I\nthink the world has a right to demand from Oriental scholars, but which\ncan only be carried out by joint action. This Congress has helped us to\nlay the foundation-stone, and I trust that at our next Congress we shall\nbe able to produce some tangible results.\n\nI now come to the second point. A Congress enables us to tell the world\nwhat we have been doing. This, it seems to me, is particularly needful\nwith regard to Oriental studies which, with the exception of Hebrew,\nstill stand outside the pale of our schools and universities, and are\ncultivated by the very smallest number of students. And yet, I\u00a0make bold\nto say, that during the last hundred, and still more during the last\nfifty years, Oriental studies have contributed more than any other\nbranch of scientific research to change, to purify, to clear, and\nintensify the intellectual atmosphere of Europe, and to widen our\nhorizon in all that pertains to the Science of Man, in history,\nphilology, theology, and philosophy. We have not only conquered and\nannexed new worlds to the ancient empire of learning, but we have\nleavened the old world with ideas that are already fermenting even in\nthe daily bread of our schools and universities. Most of those here\npresent know that I am not exaggerating; but as the world is skeptical\nwhile listening to orations _pro domo_, I shall attempt to make good my\nassertions.\n\nAt first, the study of Oriental literature was a matter of curiosity\nonly, and it is so still to a great extent, particularly in England. Sir\nWilliam Jones, whose name is the only one among Oriental scholars that\nhas ever obtained a real popularity in England, represents most worthily\nthat phase of Oriental studies. Read only the two volumes of his life,\nand they will certainly leave on your mind the distinct impression that\nSir William Jones was not only a man of extensive learning and refined\ntaste, but undoubtedly a very great man--one in a million. He was a good\nclassical scholar of the old school, a\u00a0well-read historian, a\u00a0thoughtful\nlawyer, a\u00a0clear-headed politician, and a true gentleman, in the old\nsense of the word. He moved in the best, I\u00a0mean the most cultivated\nsociety, the great writers and thinkers of the day listened to him with\nrespect, and say what you like, we still live by his grace, we still\ndraw on that stock of general interest which he excited in the English\nmind for Eastern subjects.\n\nYet the interest which Sir William Jones took in Oriental literature was\npurely \u00e6sthetic. He chose what was beautiful in Persian and translated\nit, as he would translate an ode of Horace. He was charmed with\nK\u00e2lid\u00e2sa\u2019s play of \u201cSakuntala\u201d--and who is not?--and he left us his\nclassical reproduction of one of the finest of Eastern gems. Being a\njudge in India, he thought it his duty to acquaint himself with the\nnative law-books in their original language, and he gave us his masterly\ntranslation of the \u201cLaws of Manu.\u201d Sir William Jones was fully aware of\nthe startling similarity between Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek. More than a\nhundred years ago, in a letter written to Prince Adam Czartoryski, in\nthe year 1770, he says: \u201cMany learned investigators of antiquity are\nfully persuaded, that a very old and almost primeval language was in use\namong the northern nations, from which not only the Celtic dialect, but\neven Greek and Latin are derived; in fact, we find \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 and \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 in\nPersian, nor is \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 so far removed from _dockter_, or even \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 and\n_nomen_ from Persian _n\u00e2m_, as to make it ridiculous to suppose that\nthey sprang from the same root. We must confess,\u201d he adds, \u201cthat these\nresearches are very obscure and uncertain, and you will allow, not so\nagreeable as an ode of Hafez, or an elegy of Amr\u2019alkeis.\u201d In a letter,\ndated 1787, he says: \u201cYou will be surprised at the resemblance between\nSanskrit and both Greek and Latin.\u201d\n\nColebrooke also, the great successor of Sir William Jones, was fully\naware of the relationship between Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German, and\neven Slavonic. I\u00a0possess some curious MS. notes of his, of the year 1801\nor 1802, containing long lists of words, expressive of the most\nessential ideas of primitive life, and which he proved to be identical\nin Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German, and Slavonic.[1]\n\nYet neither Colebrooke nor Sir William Jones perceived the full import\nof these facts. Sir William Jones died young; Colebrooke\u2019s energies,\nmarvelous as they were, were partly absorbed by official work, so that\nit was left to German and French scholars to bring to light the full\nwealth of the mine which those great English scholars had been the first\nto open. We know now that in language, and in all that is implied by\nlanguage, India and Europe are one; but to prove this, against the\nincredulity of all the greatest scholars of the day, was no easy matter.\nIt could be done effectually in one way only, viz., by giving to\nOriental studies a strictly scientific character, by requiring from\nOriental students not only the devotion of an _amateur_, but the same\nthoroughness, minuteness, and critical accuracy which were long\nconsidered the exclusive property of Greek and Latin scholars. I\u00a0could\nnot think of giving here a history of the work done during the last\nfifty years. It has been admirably described in Benfey\u2019s \u201cHistory of the\nScience of Language.\u201d[2] Even if I attempted to give merely the names of\nthose who have been most distinguished by really original\ndiscoveries--the names of Bopp, Pott, Grimm, Burnouf, Rawlinson,\nMiklosich, Benfey, Kuhn, Zeuss, Whitley, Stokes--I am afraid my list\nwould be considered very incomplete.\n\nBut let us look at what has been achieved by these men, and many others\nwho followed their banners! The East, formerly a land of dreams, of\nfables, and fairies, has become to us a land of unmistakable reality;\nthe curtain between the West and the East has been lifted, and our old\nforgotten home stands before us again in bright colors and definite\noutlines. Two worlds, separated for thousands of years, have been\nreunited as by a magic spell, and we feel rich in a past that may well\nbe the pride of our noble Aryan family. We say no longer vaguely and\npoetically _Ex Oriente Lux_, but we know that all the most vital\nelements of our knowledge and civilization,--our languages, our\nalphabets, our figures, our weights and measures, our art, our religion,\nour traditions, our very nursery stories, come to us from the East; and\nwe must confess that but for the rays of Eastern light, whether Aryan or\nSemitic or Hamitic, that called forth the hidden germs of the dark and\ndreary West, Europe, now the very light of the world, might have\nremained forever a barren and forgotten promontory of the primeval\nAsiatic continent. We live indeed in a new world; the barrier between\nthe West and the East, that seemed insurmountable, has vanished. The\nEast is ours, we are its heirs, and claim by right our share in its\ninheritance.\n\nWe know what it was for the Northern nations, the old barbarians of\nEurope, to be brought into spiritual contact with Rome and Greece, and\nto learn that beyond the small, poor world in which they had moved,\nthere was an older, richer, brighter world, the ancient world of Rome\nand Athens, with its arts and laws, its poetry and philosophy, all of\nwhich they might call their own and make their own by claiming the\nheritage of the past. We know how, from that time, the Classical and\nTeutonic spirits mingled together and formed that stream of modern\nthought on whose shores we ourselves live and move. A\u00a0new stream is now\nbeing brought into the same bed, the stream of Oriental thought, and\nalready the colors of the old stream show very clearly the influence of\nthat new tributary. Look at any of the important works published during\nthe last twenty years, not only on language, but on literature,\nmythology, law, religion, and philosophy, and you will see on every page\nthe working of a new spirit. I\u00a0do not say that the East can ever teach\nus new things, but it can place before us old things, and leave us to\ndraw from them lessons more strange and startling than anything dreamt\nof in our philosophy.\n\nBefore all, a study of the East has taught us the same lesson which the\nNorthern nations once learnt in Rome and Athens, that there are other\nworlds beside our own, that there are other religions, other\nmythologies, other laws, and that the history of philosophy from Thales\nto Hegel is not the whole history of human thought. In all these\nsubjects the East has supplied us with parallels, and with all that is\nimplied in parallels, viz., the possibility of comparing, measuring, and\nunderstanding. The _comparative spirit_ is the truly scientific spirit\nof our age, nay of all ages. An empirical acquaintance with single facts\ndoes not constitute knowledge in the true sense of the word. All human\nknowledge begins with the Two or the Dyad, the comprehension of two\nsingle things as one. If in these days we may still quote Aristotle, we\nmay boldly say that \u201cthere is no science of that which is unique.\u201d\nA\u00a0single event may be purely accidental, it comes and goes, it is\ninexplicable, it does not call for an explanation. But as soon as the\nsame fact is repeated, the work of comparison begins, and the first step\nis made in that wonderful process which we call generalization, and\nwhich is at the root of all intellectual knowledge and of all\nintellectual language. This primitive process of comparison is repeated\nagain and again, and when we now give the title of _Comparative_ to the\nhighest kind of knowledge in every branch of science, we have only\nreplaced the old word _intelligent_ (_i.e._, interligent) or\ninter-twining, by a new and more expressive term, _comparative_. I shall\nsay nothing about the complete revolution of the study of languages by\nmeans of the comparative method, for here I can appeal to such names as\nMommsen and Curtius, to show that the best among classical scholars are\nthemselves the most ready to acknowledge the importance of the results\nobtained by the intertwining of Eastern and Western philology.\n\nBut take mythology. As long as we had only the mythology of the\nclassical nations to deal with, we looked upon it simply as strange,\nanomalous, and irrational. When, however, the same strange stories, the\nsame hallucinations, turned up in the most ancient mythology of India,\nwhen not only the character and achievements, but the very names of some\nof the gods and heroes were found to be the same, then every thoughtful\nobserver saw that there must be a system in that ancient madness, that\nthere must be some order in that strange mob of gods and heroes, and\nthat it must be the task of comparative mythology to find out, what\nreason there is in all that mass of unreason.\n\nThe same comparative method has been applied to the study of religion\nalso. All religions are Oriental, and with the exception of the\nChristian, their sacred books are all written in Oriental languages. The\nmaterials, therefore, for a comparative study of the religious systems\nof the world had all to be supplied by Oriental scholars. But far more\nimportant than those materials, is the spirit in which they have been\ntreated. The sacred books of the principal religions of mankind had to\nbe placed side by side with perfect impartiality, in order to discern\nthe points which they share in common as well as those that are peculiar\nto each. The results already obtained by this simple juxtaposition are\nfull of important lessons, and the fact that the truths on which all\nreligions agree far exceed those on which they differ, has hardly been\nsufficiently appreciated. I\u00a0feel convinced, however, that the time will\ncome when those who at present profess to be most disquieted by our\nstudies, will be the most grateful for our support,--for having shown by\nevidence which cannot be controverted, that all religions spring from\nthe same sacred soil, the human heart; that all are quickened by the\nsame divine spirit, the still small voice; and that, though the outward\nforms of religion may change, may wither and decay, yet, as long as man\nis what he is and what he has been, he will postulate again and again\nthe Infinite as the very condition of the Finite, he will yearn for\nsomething which the world cannot give, he will feel his weakness and\ndependence, and in that weakness and dependence discover the deepest\nsources of his hope, and trust, and strength.\n\nA patient study of the sacred scriptures of the world is what is wanted\nat present more than anything else, in order to clear our own ideas of\nthe origin, the nature, the purposes of religion. There can be no\nscience of one religion, but there can be a science of many. We have\nlearnt already one lesson, that behind the helpless expressions which\nlanguage has devised, whether in the East or in the West, for uttering\nthe unutterable, be it _Dyaushpit\u00e2_ or _Ahuramazda_, be it _Jehovah_ or\n_Allah_, be it the All or the Nothing, be it the First Cause or Our\nFather in heaven, there is the same intention, the same striving, the\nsame stammering, the same faith. Other lessons will follow, till in the\nend we shall be able to restore that ancient bond which unites not only\nthe East with the West, but all the members of the human family, and may\nlearn to understand what a Persian poet meant when he wrote many\ncenturies ago (I\u00a0quote from Mr. Conway\u2019s \u201cSacred Anthology\u201d), \u201cDiversity\nof worship has divided the human race into seventy-two nations. From\namong all their dogmas I have selected one--the Love of God.\u201d\n\nNor is this comparative spirit restricted to the treatment of language,\nmythology, and religion. While hitherto we knew the origin and spreading\nof most of the ancient arts and sciences in one channel only, and had to\nbe satisfied with tracing their sources to Greece and Rome, and thence\ndown the main stream of European civilization, we have now for many of\nthem one or two parallel histories in India and in China. The history of\ngeometry, for instance,--the first formation of geometrical conceptions\nor technical terms--was hitherto known to us from Greece only: now we\ncan compare the gradual elaboration of geometrical principles both in\nGreece and India, and thus arrive at some idea of what is natural or\ninevitable, and what is accidental or purely personal in each. It was\nknown, for instance, that in Greece the calculation of solid figures\nbegan with the building of altars, and you will hear to-day from Dr.\nThibaut, that in India also the first impulse to geometric science was\ngiven, not by the measuring of fields, as the name implies, but by the\nminute observances in building altars.\n\nSimilar coincidences and divergences have been brought to light by a\ncomparative study of the history of astronomy, of music, of grammar,\nbut, most of all, by a comparative study of philosophic thought. There\nare indeed few problems in philosophy which have not occupied the Indian\nmind, and nothing can exceed the interest of watching the Hindu and the\nGreek, working on the same problems, each in his own way, yet both in\nthe end arriving at much the same results. Such are the coincidences\nbetween the two, that but lately an eminent German professor,[3]\npublished a treatise to show that the Greeks had borrowed their\nphilosophy from India, while others lean to the opinion that in\nphilosophy the Hindus are the pupils of the Greeks. This is the same\nfeeling which impelled Dugald Stewart, when he saw the striking\nsimilarity between Greek and Sanskrit, to maintain that Sanskrit must\nhave been put together after the model of Greek and Latin by those\narch-forgers and liars, the Brahmans, and that the whole of Sanskrit\nliterature was an imposition. The comparative method has put an end to\nsuch violent theories. It teaches us that what is possible in one\ncountry is possible also in another; it shows us that, as there are\nantecedents for Plato and Aristotle in Greece, there are antecedents for\nthe Ved\u00e2nta and S\u00e2nkhya philosophies in India, and that each had its own\nindependent growth. It is true, that when we first meet in Indian\nphilosophy with our old friends, the four or five elements, the atoms,\nour metaphysics, our logic, our syllogism, we are startled; but we soon\ndiscover that, given the human mind and human language, and the world by\nwhich we are surrounded, the different systems of philosophy of Thales\nand Hegel, of Vy\u00e2sa and Kapila, are inevitable solutions. They all come\nand go, they are maintained and refuted, till at last all philosophy\nends where it ought to begin, with an inquiry into the necessary\nconditions and the inevitable forms of knowledge, represented by a\ncriticism of Pure Reason and, what is more important still, by a\ncriticism of Language.\n\nMuch has been done of late for Indian philosophy, particularly by\nBallantyne and Hall, by Cowell and Gough, by the editors of the\n\u201cBibliotheca Indica,\u201d and the \u201cPandit.\u201d Yet it is much to be desired,\nthat some young scholars, well versed in the history of European\nphilosophy, should devote themselves more ardently to this promising\nbranch of Indian literature. No doubt they would find it a great help,\nif they were able to spend some years in India, in order to learn from\nthe last and fast disappearing representatives of some of the old\nschools of Indian philosophy what they alone can teach. What can be done\nby such a combination of Eastern and Western knowledge, has lately been\nshown by the excellent work done by Dr. Kielhorn, the Professor of\nSanskrit at the Deccan College in Punah. But there is now so much of\npublished materials, and Sanskrit MSS. also are so easily obtained from\nIndia, that much might be done in England, or in France, or in\nGermany--much that would be of interest not only to Oriental scholars,\nbut to all philosophers whose powers of independent appreciation are not\nentirely blunted by their study of Plato and Aristotle, of Berkeley,\nHume, and Kant.\n\nI have so far dwelt chiefly on the powerful influence which the East,\nand more particularly India, has exercised on the intellectual life and\nwork of the West. But the progress of Oriental scholarship in Europe,\nand the discovery of that spiritual relationship which binds India and\nEngland together, have likewise produced practical effects of the\ngreatest moment in the East. The Hindus, in their first intercourse with\nEnglish scholars, placed before them the treasures of their native\nliterature with all the natural pride of a nation that considered itself\nthe oldest, the wisest, the most enlightened nation in the world. For a\ntime, but for a short time only, the claims of their literature to a\nfabulous antiquity were admitted, and dazzled by the unexpected\ndiscovery of a new classical literature, people raved about the beauty\nof Sanskrit poetry in truly Oriental strains. Then followed a sudden\nreaction, and the natives themselves, on becoming more and more\nacquainted with European history and literature, began to feel the\nchildishness of their claims, and to be almost ashamed of their own\nclassics. This was a national misfortune. A\u00a0people that can feel no\npride in the past, in its history and literature, loses the mainstay of\nits national character. When Germany was in the very depth of its\npolitical degradation, it turned to its ancient literature, and drew\nhope for the future from the study of the past. Something of the same\nkind is now passing in India. A\u00a0new taste, not without some political\ningredients, has sprung up for the ancient literature of the country;\na\u00a0more intelligent appreciation of their real merits has taken the place\nof the extravagant admiration for the masterworks of their old poets;\nthere is a revival in the study of Sanskrit, a\u00a0surprising activity in\nthe republication of Sanskrit texts, and there are traces among the\nHindus of a growing feeling, not very different from that which Tacitus\ndescribed, when he said of the Germans: \u201cWho would go to Germany,\na\u00a0country without natural beauty, with a wretched climate, miserable to\ncultivate or to look at--_unless it be his fatherland_?\u201d\n\nEven the discovery that Sanskrit, English, Greek, and Latin are cognate\nlanguages, has not been without its influence on the scholars and\nthinkers, or the leaders of public opinion, in India. They, more than\nothers, had felt for a time most keenly the intellectual superiority of\nthe West, and they rose again in their own estimation by learning that,\nphysically, or at all events, intellectually, they had been and might be\nagain, the peers of Greeks and Romans and Saxons. These silent\ninfluences often escape the eye of the politician and the historian, but\nat critical moments they decide the fate of whole nations and\nempires.[4]\n\nThe intellectual life of India at the present moment is full of\ninteresting problems. It is too much the fashion to look only at its\ndarker sides, and to forget that such intellectual regenerations as we\nare witnessing in India, are impossible without convulsions and\nfailures. A\u00a0new race of men is growing up in India, who have stepped,\nas it were, over a thousand years, and have entered at once on the\nintellectual inheritance of Europe. They carry off prizes at English\nschools, take their degrees in English universities, and are in every\nrespect our equals. They have temptations which we have not, and now and\nthen they succumb; but we, too, have temptations of our own, and we do\nnot always resist. One can hardly trust one\u2019s eyes in reading their\nwritings, whether in English or Bengali, many of which would reflect\ncredit on our own Quarterlies. With regard to what is of the greatest\ninterest to us, their scholarship, it is true that the old school of\nSanskrit scholars is dying out, and much will die with it which we shall\nnever recover; but a new and most promising school of Sanskrit students,\neducated by European professors, is springing up, and they will, nay,\nto judge from recent controversies, they have already become most\nformidable rivals to our own scholars. The essays of Dr. Bhao Daji,\nwhom, I\u00a0regret to say, we have lately lost by death, on disputed\npoints in Indian arch\u00e6ology and literature, are most valuable. The\nindefatigable Rajendra Lal Mitra is rendering most excellent service in\nthe publications of the Asiatic Society at Calcutta, and he discusses\nthe theories of European Orientalists with all the ease and grace of\nan English reviewer. The R\u00e2jah of Besmah, Giripras\u00e2da-sinha, has just\nfinished his magnificent edition of the \u201cWhite Yajurveda.\u201d The Sanskrit\nbooks published at Calcutta by T\u00e2r\u00e2n\u00e2tha, and others, form a complete\nlibrary, and T\u00e2r\u00e2n\u00e2tha\u2019s new \u201cDictionary of the Sanskrit Language\u201d will\nprove most useful and valuable. The editions of Sanskrit texts published\nat Bombay by Professor Bh\u00e2\u1e47\u1e0d\u00e2rkar, Shankar Pandurang Pandit, and others,\nneed not fear comparison with the best work of European scholars. There\nis a school of native students at Benares whose publications, under\nthe auspices of Mr. Griffith, have made their journal, the \u201cPandit,\u201d\nindispensable to every Sanskrit scholar. R\u00e2j\u00e2r\u00e2mas\u00e2str\u00ee\u2019s and\nB\u00e2la\u015b\u00e2str\u00ee\u2019s edition of the \u201cMah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya\u201d has received the highest\npraise from European students. In the \u201cAntiquary,\u201d a\u00a0paper very ably\nconducted by Mr. Burgess, we meet with contributions from several\nlearned natives, among them from his Highness the Prince of Travancore,\nfrom Ram Dass Sen, the Zemindar of Berhampore, from K\u00e2shin\u00e2th Trimbak\nTelang, from Sashagiri\u015b\u00e2str\u00ee, and others, which are read with the\ngreatest interest and advantage by European scholars. The collected\nessays of Ram Dass Sen well deserve a translation into English, and\nRajan\u00eek\u00e2nta\u2019s \u201cLife of the Poet Jajadeva,\u201d just published, bears witness\nto the same revival of literary tastes and patriotic feelings.\n\nBesides this purely literary movement, there is a religious movement\ngoing on in India, the Brahmo-Sam\u00e2j, which, both in its origin and its\nlater development, is mainly the result of European influences. It began\nwith an attempt to bring the modern corrupt forms of worship back to the\npurity and simplicity of the Vedas; and by ascribing to the Veda the\nauthority of a Divine Revelation, it was hoped to secure that infallible\nauthority without which no religion was supposed to be possible. How was\nthat movement stopped, and turned into a new channel? Simply by the\npublication of the Veda, and by the works of European scholars, such as\nStevenson, Mill, Rosen, Wilson, and others, who showed to the natives\nwhat the Veda really was, and made them see the folly of their way.[5]\nThus the religion, the literature, the whole character of the people of\nIndia are becoming more and more Indo-European. They work for us, as we\nwork for them. Many a letter have I received from native scholars in\nwhich they express their admiration for the wonderful achievements of\nEuropean ingenuity, for railways, and telegraphs, and all the rest; and\nyet what, according to their own confession, has startled them and\ndelighted them most, is the interest we have taken in their literature,\nand the new life which we have imparted to their ancient history. I\u00a0know\nthese matters seem small, when we are near to them, when we are in the\nvery midst of them. Like the tangled threads hanging on a loom, they\nlook worthless, purposeless. But history weaves her woof out of all of\nthem, and after a time, when we see the full and finished design, we\nperceive that no color, however quiet, could have been dropped, no\nshade, however slight, could have been missed, without spoiling the\nwhole.\n\nAnd now, after having given this account of our stewardship, let me say\nin conclusion a few words on the claims which Oriental studies have on\npublic sympathy and support.\n\nLet me begin with the Universities--I mean, of course the English\nUniversities--and more particularly that University which has been to me\nfor many years an _Alma Mater_, Oxford. While we have there, or are\nfounding there, professorships for every branch of Theology,\nJurisprudence, and Physical Science, we have hardly any provision for\nthe study of Oriental languages. We have a chair of Hebrew, rendered\nillustrious by the greatest living theologian of England, and we have a\nchair of Sanskrit, which has left its mark in the history of Sanskrit\nliterature; but for the modern languages of India, whether Aryan or\nDravidian, for the language and literature of Persia, both ancient and\nmodern, for the language and antiquities of Egypt and Babylon, for\nChinese, for Turkish, nay even for Arabic, there is nothing deserving\nthe name of a chair. When in a Report on University Reform, I\u00a0ventured\nto point out these gaps, and to remark that in the smallest of German\nUniversities most of these subjects were represented by professors,\nI\u00a0was asked whether I was in earnest in maintaining that Oxford, the\nfirst University in what has rightly been called the greatest Oriental\nEmpire, ought really to support the study of Oriental languages.\n\nThe second claim we prefer is on the Missionary Societies. I have lately\nincurred very severe obloquy for my supposed hostility to missionary\nenterprise. All I can say is, I\u00a0wish that there were ten missionaries\nfor every one we have now. I\u00a0have always counted missionaries among my\nbest friends; I\u00a0have again and again acknowledged how much Oriental\nstudies and linguistic studies in general, owe to them, and I am proud\nto say that, even now, while missionaries at home have abused me in\nunmeasured language, missionaries abroad, devoted, hard-working\nmissionaries, have thanked me for what I said of them and their work in\nmy lay-sermon in Westminster Abbey last December.\n\nNow it seems to me that, first of all, our Universities, and I think\nagain chiefly of Oxford, might do much more for missions than they do at\npresent. If we had a sufficient staff of professors for Eastern\nlanguages, we could prepare young missionaries for their work, and\nshould be able to send out from time to time such men as Patteson, the\nBishop of Melanesia, who was every inch an Oxford man. And in these\nmissionaries we might have not only apostles of religion and\ncivilization, but at the same time, the most valuable pioneers of\nscientific research. I\u00a0know there are some authorities at home who\ndeclare that such a combination is impossible, or at least undesirable;\nthat a man cannot serve two masters, and that a missionary must do his\nown work and nothing else. Nothing, I\u00a0believe, can be more mistaken.\nFirst of all, some of our most efficient missionaries have been those\nwho have done also the most excellent work as scholars, and whenever I\nhave conversed on this subject with missionaries who have seen active\nservice, they all agree that they cannot be converting all day long, and\nthat nothing is more refreshing and invigorating to them than some\nliterary or scientific work. Now what I should like to see is this:\nI\u00a0should like to see ten or twenty of our non-resident fellowships,\nwhich at present are doing more harm than good, assigned to missionary\nwork, to be given to young men who have taken their degree, and who,\nwhether laymen or clergymen, are willing to work as assistant\nmissionaries on distant stations, with the distinct understanding that\nthey should devote some of their time to scientific work, whether the\nstudy of languages, or flowers, or stars, and that they should send home\nevery year some account of their labors. These men would be like\nscientific consuls, to whom students at home might apply for information\nand help. They would have opportunities of distinguishing themselves by\nreally useful work, far more than in London, and after ten years, they\nmight either return to Europe with a well-established reputation, or if\nthey find that they have a real call for missionary work, devote all\ntheir life to it. Though to my own mind there is no nobler work than\nthat of a missionary, yet I believe that some such connection with the\nUniversities and men of science would raise their position, and would\ncall out more general interest, and secure to the missionary cause the\ngood-will of those whose will is apt to become law.\n\nThirdly, I think that Oriental studies have a claim on the colonies and\nthe colonial governments. The English colonies are scattered all over\nthe globe, and many of them in localities where an immense deal of\nuseful scientific work might be done, and would be done with the\nslightest encouragement from the local authorities, and something like a\nsystematic supervision on the part of the Colonial Office at home. Some\nyears ago I ventured to address the Colonial Secretary of State on this\nsubject, and a letter was sent out in consequence to all the English\ncolonies, inviting information on the languages, monuments, customs, and\ntraditions of the native races. Some most valuable reports have been\nsent home during the last five or six years, but when it was suggested\nthat these reports should be published in a permanent form, the expense\nthat would have been required for printing every year a volume of\nColonial Reports, and which would not have amounted to more than a few\nhundred pounds for all the colonies of the British Empire, part of it to\nbe recovered by the sale of the book, was considered too large.\n\nNow we should bear in mind that at the present moment some of the tribes\nliving in or near the English colonies in Australia, Polynesia, Africa,\nand America, are actually dying out, their languages are disappearing,\ntheir customs, traditions, and religions will soon be completely swept\naway. To the student of language, the dialect of a savage tribe is as\nvaluable as Sanskrit or Hebrew, nay, for the solution of certain\nproblems, more so; every one of these languages is the growth of\nthousands and thousands of years, the workmanship of millions and\nmillions of human beings. If they were now preserved, they might\nhereafter fill the most critical gaps in the history of the human race.\nAt Rome at the time of the Scipios, hundreds of people might have\nwritten down a grammar and dictionary of the Etruscan language, of\nOscan, or Umbrian; but there were men then, as there are now, who\nshrugged their shoulders and said, What can be the use of preserving\nthese barbarous, uncouth idioms?--What would we not give now for some\nsuch records?\n\nAnd this is not all. The study of savage tribes has assumed a new\ninterest of late, when the question of the exact relation of man to the\nrest of the animal kingdom has again roused the passions not only of\nscientific inquirers, but also of the public at large. Now what is\nwanted for the solution of this question, are more facts and fewer\ntheories, and these facts can only be gained by a patient study of the\nlowest races of mankind. When religion was held to be the specific\ncharacter of man, it was asserted by many travellers that they had seen\nraces without any religious ideas; when language was seen to be the real\nfrontier line between man and beast, it was maintained that there were\nhuman beings without language. Now all we want to know are facts, let\nthe conclusions be whatever they may. It is by no means easy to decide\nwhether savage tribes have a religion or not; at all events it requires\nthe same discernment, and the same honesty of purpose as to find out\nwhether men of the highest intellect among us have a religion or not.\nI\u00a0call the Introduction to Spencer\u2019s \u201cFirst Principles\u201d deeply\nreligious, but I can well understand that a missionary, reporting on a\ntribe of Spencerian savages, might declare that they had no idea\nwhatsoever of religion. Looking at a report sent home lately by the\nindefatigable Governor of New South Wales, Sir Hercules Robinson, I\u00a0find\nthe following description of the religious ideas of the Kamilarois, one\nof the most degraded tribes in the Northwestern district of the\ncolony:--\n\n\u201cBhaiami is regarded by them as the maker of all things. The name\nsignifies \u2018maker,\u2019 or \u2018cutter-out,\u2019 from the verb +bhai+, +baialli+,\n+baia+. He is regarded as the rewarder and punisher of men according to\ntheir conduct. He sees all, and knows all, if not directly, through the\nsubordinate deity Turram\u00fblan, who presides at the Bora. Bhaiami is said\nto have been once on the earth. Turram\u00fblan is mediator in all the\noperations of Bhaiami upon man, and in all man\u2019s transactions with\nBhaiami. Turram\u00fblan means \u2018leg on one side only,\u2019 \u2018one-legged.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis description is given by the Rev. C. Greenway, and if there is any\ntheological bias in it, let us make allowance for it. But there remains\nthe fact that Bhaiami, their name for deity, comes from a root +bhai+,\nto \u201cmake,\u201d to \u201ccut out,\u201d and if we remember that hardly any of the names\nfor deity, either among the Aryan or Semitic nations, comes from a root\nwith so abstract a meaning, we shall admit, I\u00a0think, that such reports\nas these should not be allowed to lie forgotten in the pigeon-holes of\nthe Colonial Office, or in the pages of a monthly journal.\n\nWhat applies to religion, applies to language. We have been told again\nand again that the Veddahs in Ceylon have no language. Sir Emerson\nTennant wrote \u201cthat they mutually make themselves understood by signs,\ngrimaces, and guttural sounds, which have little resemblance to definite\nwords or language in general.\u201d When these statements were repeated,\nI\u00a0tried to induce the Government of Ceylon to send a competent man to\nsettle the question. I\u00a0did not receive all I wanted, and therefore\npostponed the publication of what was sent me. But I may say so much,\nthat more than half of the words used by the Veddahs, are, like\nSinghalese itself, mere corruption of Sanskrit; their very name is the\nSanskrit word for hunter, +veddh\u00e2+, or, as Mr. Childers supposes,\n+vy\u00e2dha+. There is a remnant of words in their language of which I can\nmake nothing as yet. But so much is certain; either the Veddahs started\nwith the common inheritance of Aryan words and ideas; or, at all events,\nthey lived for a long time in contact with Aryan people, and adopted\nfrom them such words as were wanting in their language. If they now\nstand low in the scale of humanity, they once stood higher, nay they may\npossibly prove, in language, if not in blood, the distant cousins of\nPlato, and Newton, and Goethe.\n\nIt is most essential to keep _la carri\u00e8re ouverte_ for facts, even more\nthan for theories, and for the supply of such facts the Colonial\nGovernment might render most useful service.\n\nIt is but right to state that whenever I have applied to the Governors\nof any of the Colonies, I\u00a0have invariably met with the greatest kindness\nand readiness to help. Some of them take the warmest interest in these\nresearches. Sir George Grey\u2019s services to the science of language have\nhardly been sufficiently appreciated as yet, and the Linguistic Library\nwhich he founded at the Cape, places him of right by the side of Sir\nThomas Bodley. Sir Hercules Robinson, Mr. Musgrave in South Australia,\nSir Henry Barkley at the Cape, and several others, are quite aware of\nthe importance of linguistic and ethnological researches. What is wanted\nis encouragement from home, and some systematic guidance. Dr. Bleek, the\nexcellent librarian of Sir George Grey\u2019s Library at the Cape, who has\ndevoted the whole of his life to the study of savage dialects, and whose\nComparative Grammar of the South African languages will hold its place\nby the side of Bopp\u2019s, Diez\u2019s, and Caldwell\u2019s Comparative Grammars, is\nmost anxious that there should be a permanent linguistic and\nethnological station established at the Cape; in fact, that there should\nbe a linguist attached to every zo\u00f6logical station. At the Cape there\nare not only the Zulu dialects to be studied, but two most important\nlanguages, that of the Hottentots and that of the Bushmen. Dr. Bleek has\nlately been enabled to write down several volumes of traditional\nliterature from the mouths of some Bushman prisoners, but he says, \u201cmy\npowers and my life are drawing to an end, and unless I have some young\nmen to assist me, and carry on my work, much of what I have done will be\nlost.\u201d There is no time to be lost, and I trust therefore that my appeal\nwill not be considered importunate by the present Colonial Minister.\n\nLast of all, we turn to India, the very cradle of Oriental scholarship,\nand here, instead of being importunate and urging new claims for\nassistance, I\u00a0think I am expressing the feelings of all Oriental\nscholars in publicly acknowledging the readiness with which the Indian\nGovernment, whether at home or in India, whether during the days of the\nold East India Company, or now under the auspices of the Secretary of\nState, has always assisted every enterprise tending to throw light on\nthe literature, the religion, the laws and customs, the arts and\nmanufactures of that ancient Oriental Empire.\n\nOnly last night I received the first volume of a work which will mark a\nnew era in the history of Oriental typography. Three valuable MSS. of\nthe Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya have been photolithographed at the expense of the Indian\nGovernment, and under the supervision of one whom many of us will miss\nhere to-day, the late Professor Goldst\u00fccker. It is a magnificent\npublication, and as there are only fifty copies printed, it will soon\nbecome more valuable than a real MS.\n\nThere are two surveys carried on at the present moment in India,\na\u00a0literary and an arch\u00e6ological survey. Many years ago, when Lord Elgin\nwent to India as Governor-general, I\u00a0suggested to him the necessity of\ntaking measures in order to rescue from destruction whatever could still\nbe rescued of the ancient literature of the country. Lord Elgin died\nbefore any active measures could be taken, but the plan found a more\npowerful advocate in Mr. Whitley Stokes, who urged the Government to\nappoint some Sanskrit scholars to visit all places containing\ncollections of Sanskrit MSS., and to publish lists of their titles, so\nthat we might know, at all events, how much of a literature, that had\nbeen preserved for thousands of years, was still in existence at the\npresent moment. This work was confided to Dr. B\u00fchler, Dr. Kielhorn, Mr.\nBurnell, Rajendralal Mitra, and others. Several of their catalogues have\nbeen published, and there is but one feeling among all Sanskrit scholars\nas to the value of their work. But they also feel that the time has come\nfor doing more. The mere titles of the MSS. whet our appetite, but do\nnot satisfy it. There are, of course, hundreds of books where the title,\nthe name of the author, the _locus et annus_ are all we care to know.\nBut of books which are scarce, and hitherto not known out of India, we\nwant to know more. We want some information of the subject and its\ntreatment, and if possible, of the date, of the author, and of the\nwriters quoted by him. We want extracts, intelligently chosen, in fact,\nwe want something like the excellent catalogue which Dr. Aufrecht has\nmade for the Bodleian Library. In Mr. Burnell, Dr. B\u00fchler, Dr. Kielhorn,\nthe Government possesses scholars who could do that work admirably; what\nthey want is more leisure, more funds, more assistance.\n\nContemporaneously with the Literary Survey, there is the Arch\u00e6ological\nSurvey, carried on by that gallant and indefatigable scholar, General\nCunningham. His published reports show the systematic progress of his\nwork, and his occasional communications in the Journal of the Asiatic\nSociety of Bengal tell us of his newest discoveries. The very last\nnumber of that journal brought us the news of the discovery of the\nwonderful ruins of the Buddhist temple of Bharahut,[6] which, with their\nrepresentations of scenes from the early Buddhist literature, with their\ninscriptions and architectural style, may enable us to find a _terminus\na quo_ for the literary and religious history of India. We should not\nforget the services which Mr. Fergusson has rendered to the history of\nIndian architecture, both by awakening an interest in the subject, and\nby the magnificent publication of the drawings of the sculptures of\nSanchi and Amravati, carried on under the authority of the Secretary of\nState for India. Let us hope that these new discoveries may supply him\nwith materials for another volume, worthy of its companion.\n\nIt was supposed for a time that there was a third survey carried on in\nIndia, ethnological and linguistic, and the volume, published by Colonel\nDalton, \u201cDescriptive Ethnology of Bengal,\u201d with portraits from\nphotographs, was a most excellent beginning. But the other India\nGovernments have not hitherto followed the example of the Bengal\nGovernment, and nothing has of late come to my knowledge in this\nimportant line of research. Would not Dr. Hunter, who has done so much\nfor a scientific study of the non-Aryan languages and races of India,\ntake up this important branch of research, and give us, not only\nphotographs and graphic description, but also, what is most wanted,\nscholarlike grammars of the principal races of India? Lists of words, if\ncarefully chosen, like those in Colonel Dalton\u2019s work and in Sir George\nCampbell\u2019s \u201cSpecimens,\u201d are, no doubt, most valuable for preliminary\nresearches, but without grammars, none of the great questions which are\nstill pending in Indian Ethnology will ever be satisfactorily and\ndefinitely settled. No real advance has been made in the classification\nof Indian dialects since the time when I endeavored, some twenty years\nago, to sum up what was then known on that subject, in my letter to\nBunsen \u201cOn the Turanian Languages.\u201d What I then for the first time\nventured to maintain against the highest authorities in Indian\nlinguistic ethnology, viz., that the dialects of the Mundas or the Koles\nconstituted a third and totally independent class of languages in India,\nrelated neither to the Aryan nor to the Dravidian families, has since\nbeen fully confirmed by later researches, and is now, I\u00a0believe,\ngenerally accepted. The fact also, on which I then strongly insisted,\nthat the Uraon Koles, and Rajmahal Koles, might be Koles in blood, but\ncertainly not in language, their language being, like that of the Gonds,\nDravidian, is now no longer disputed. But beyond this, all is still as\nhypothetical as it was twenty years ago, simply because we can get no\ngrammars of the Munda dialects. Why do not the German missionaries at\nRanchi, who have done such excellent work among the Koles, publish a\ngrammatical analysis of that interesting cluster of dialects? Only a\nweek ago, one of them, Mr. Jellinghaus, gave me a grammatical sketch of\nthe Mund\u00e1ri language, and even this, short as it is, was quite\nsufficient to show that the supposed relationship between the Munda\ndialects and the Khasia language, of which we have a grammar, is\nuntenable. The similarities pointed out by Mason between the Munda\ndialects and the Talaing of Pegu, are certainly startling, but equally\nstartling are the divergences; and here again no real result will be\nobtained without a comparison of the grammatical structure of the two\nlanguages. The other classes of Indian languages, the Taic, the\nGangetic, subdivided into Trans-Himalayan and Sub-Himalayan, the\nLohitic, and Tamulic, are still retained, though some of their names\nhave been changed. Without wishing to defend the names which I had\nchosen for these classes, I\u00a0must say that I look upon the constant\nintroduction of new technical terms as an unmixed evil. Every\nclassificatory term is imperfect. Aryan, Semitic, Hamitic, Turanian, all\nare imperfect, but, if they are but rightly defined, they can do no\nharm, whereas a new term, however superior at first sight, always makes\nconfusion worse confounded. The chemists do not hesitate to call sugar\nan acid rather than part with an old established term; why should not we\nin the science of language follow their good example?\n\nDr. Leitner\u2019s labors in Dardistan should here be mentioned. They date\nfrom the year 1866. Considering the shortness of the time allotted to\nhim for exploring that country, he has been most successful in\ncollecting his linguistic materials. We owe him a vocabulary of two\nShin\u00e2 dialects (the Ghilghiti and Astori), and of the Arnyia, the\nKhayuna, and the Kal\u00e2sha-M\u00e2nder. These vocabularies are so arranged as\nto give us a fair idea of the systems of conjugation and declension.\nOther vocabularies, arranged according to subjects, allow us an insight\ninto the intellectual life of the Shinas, and we also receive most\ninteresting information on the customs, legends, superstitions, and\nreligion of the Dardus. Some of the important results, obtained by the\nsame enterprising scholar in his excavations on the Takht-i-bahai hills\nwill be laid before the Arch\u00e6ological Section of this Congress. It is\nimpossible to look at the Buddhist sculptures which he has brought home\nwithout perceiving that there is in them a foreign element. They are\nBuddhist sculptures, but they differ both in treatment and expression\nfrom what was hitherto known of Buddhist art in various parts of the\nworld. Dr. Leitner thinks that the foreign element came from Greece,\nfrom Greek or Macedonian workmen, the descendants of Alexander\u2019s\ncompanions; others think that local and individual influences are\nsufficient to account for apparent deviations from the common Buddhist\ntype. On this point I feel totally incompetent to express an opinion,\nbut whatever the judgment of our arch\u00e6ological colleagues may be,\nneither they nor we ourselves can have any doubt that Dr. Leitner\ndeserves our sincere gratitude as an indefatigable explorer and\nsuccessful discoverer.\n\nMany of the most valuable treasures of every kind and sort, collected\nduring these official surveys, and by private enterprise, are now\ndeposited in the Indian Museum in London, a\u00a0real mine of literary and\narch\u00e6ological wealth, opened with the greatest liberality to all who are\nwilling to work in it.\n\nIt is unfortunate, no doubt, that this meeting of Oriental scholars\nshould have taken place at a time when the treasures of the Indian\nMuseum are still in their temporary exile; yet, if they share in the\nregret felt by every friend of India, at the delay in the building of a\nnew museum, worthy both of England and of India, they will also carry\naway the conviction, that such delay is simply due to a desire to do the\nbest that can be done, in order to carry out in the end something little\nshort of that magnificent scheme of an Indian Institute, drawn by the\nexperienced hand of Mr. Forbes Watson.\n\nAnd now, in conclusion, I have to express my own gratitude for the\nliberality both of the Directors of the old East India Company and of\nthe present Secretary of State for India in Council, for having enabled\nme to publish that work the last sheet of which I am able to present to\nthis Meeting to-day, the \u201cRig-Veda, with the Commentary of S\u00e2ya\u1e47\u00e2c\u00e2rya.\u201d\nIt is the oldest book of the Aryan world, but it is also one of the\nlargest, and its publication would have been simply impossible without\nthe enlightened liberality of the Indian Government. For twenty-five\nyears I find, that taking the large and small editions of the Rig-Veda\ntogether, I\u00a0have printed every year what would make a volume of about\nsix hundred pages octavo. Such a publication would have ruined any\nbookseller, for it must be confessed, that there is little that is\nattractive in the Veda, nothing that could excite general interest. From\nan \u00e6sthetic point of view, no one would care for the hymns of the\nRig-Veda, and I can well understand how, in the beginning of our\ncentury, even so discriminating a scholar as Colebrooke could express\nhis opinion that, \u201cThe Vedas are too voluminous for a complete\ntranslation, and what they contain would hardly reward the labor of the\nreader, much less that of the translator. The ancient dialect in which\nthey are composed, and specially that of the three first Vedas, is\nextremely difficult and obscure; and, though curious, as the parent of a\nmore polished and refined language, its difficulties must long continue\nto prevent such an examination of the whole Vedas, as would be requisite\nfor extracting all that is remarkable and important in those voluminous\nworks. But they well deserve to be occasionally consulted by the\nOriental scholar.\u201d Nothing shows the change from the purely \u00e6sthetic to\nthe purely scientific interest in the language and literature of India\nmore clearly than the fact that for the last twenty-five years the work\nof nearly all Sanskrit scholars has been concentrated on the Veda. When\nsome thirty years ago I received my first lessons in Sanskrit from\nProfessor Brockhaus, whom I am happy and proud to see to-day among us,\nthere were but few students who ventured to dive into the depths of\nVedic literature. To-day among the Sanskrit scholars whom Germany has\nsent to us--Professors Stenzler, Spiegel, Weber, Hang, Pertsch,\nWindisch--there is not one who has not won his laurels on the field of\nVedic scholarship. In France also a new school of Sanskrit students has\nsprung up who have done most excellent work for the interpretation of\nthe Veda, and who bid fair to rival the glorious school of French\nOrientalists at the beginning of this century, both by their persevering\nindustry and by that \u201csweetness and light\u201d which seems to be the\nbirthright of their nation. But, I\u00a0say again, there is little that is\nbeautiful, in our sense of the word, to be found in the hymns of the\nRig-Veda, and what little there is, has been so often dwelt on, that\nquite an erroneous impression as to the real nature of Vedic poetry has\nbeen produced in the mind of the public. My old friend, the Dean of St.\nPaul\u2019s, for instance, in some thoughtful lectures which he delivered\nthis year on the \u201cSacred Poetry of Early Religions,\u201d has instituted a\ncomparison between the Psalms and the hymns of the Veda, and he arrives\nat the conclusion that the Psalms are superior to the Vedic hymns. No\ndoubt they are, from the point of view which he has chosen, but the\nchief value of these hymns lies in the fact that they are so different\nfrom the Psalms, or, if you like, that they are so inferior to the\nPsalms. They are Aryan, the Psalms Semitic; they belong to a primitive\nand rude state of society, the Psalms, at least most of them, are\ncontemporaneous with or even later than the heydays of the Jewish\nmonarchy. This strange misconception of the true character of the Vedic\nhymns seemed to me to become so general, that when some years ago I had\nto publish the first volume of my translation, I\u00a0intentionally selected\na class of hymns which should in no way encourage such erroneous\nopinions. It was interesting to watch the disappointment. What, it was\nsaid, are these strange, savage, grotesque invocations of the\nStorm-gods, the inspired strains of the ancient sages of India? Is this\nthe wisdom of the East? Is this the primeval revelation? Even scholars\nof high reputation joined in the outcry, and my friends hinted to me\nthat they would not have wasted their life on such a book.\n\nNow, suppose a geologist had brought to light the bones of a fossil\nanimal, dating from a period anterior to any in which traces of animal\nlife had been discovered before, would any young lady venture to say by\nway of criticism, \u201cYes, these bones are very curious, but they are not\npretty!\u201d Or suppose a new Egyptian statue had been discovered, belonging\nto a dynasty hitherto unrepresented by any statues, would even a\nschool-boy dare to say, \u201cYes, it is very nice, but the Venus of Milo is\nnicer?\u201d Or suppose an old MS. is brought to Europe, do we find fault\nwith it, because it is not neatly printed? If a chemist discovers a new\nelement, is he pitied because it is not gold? If a botanist writes on\ngerms, has he to defend himself, because he does not write on flowers?\nWhy, it is simply because the Veda is so different from what it was\nexpected to be, because it is not like the Psalms, not like Pindar, not\nlike the Bhagavadg\u00eet\u00e2, it is because it stands alone by itself, and\nreveals to us the earliest germs of religious thought, such as they\nreally were; it is because it places before us a language, more\nprimitive than any we knew before; it is because its poetry is what you\nmay call savage, uncouth, rude, horrible, it is for that very reason\nthat it was worth while to dig and dig till the old buried city was\nrecovered, showing us what man was, what we were, before we had reached\nthe level of David, the level of Homer, the level of Zoroaster, showing\nus the very cradle of our thoughts, our words, and our deeds. _I_ am not\ndisappointed with the Veda, and I shall conclude my address with the\nlast verses of the last hymn, which you have now in your hands,--verses\nwhich thousands of years ago may have been addressed to a similar\nmeeting of Aryan fellow-men, and which are not inappropriate to our\nown:--\n\n S\u00e1m gacchadhvam s\u00e1m vadadhvam s\u00e1m va\u1e25 m\u00e1n\u00e2\u1e43si j\u00e0nat\u00e2m,\n Dev\u00e2h bh\u00e2g\u00e1m y\u00e1th\u00e2 p\u00fb\u0301rve[7] sa\u1e43j\u00e2n\u00e2n\u1ea5\u1e25 up\u1ea5sate,\n Sam\u00e2n\u00e1h m\u00e1ntra\u1e25 s\u00e1miti\u1e25 sam\u00e1n\u00ee\u0301 sam\u00e2n\u00e1m m\u00e1na\u1e25 sah\u00e1 citt\u00e1m esh\u00e2m,\n Samn\u00e1m m\u00e1ntram abh\u00ed mantraye va\u1e25 sam\u00e2n\u00e9na va\u1e25 hav\u00edsh\u00e2 juhomi.\n Sam\u00e2n\u00ee\u0301 va\u1e25 \u1ea5k\u00fbti\u1e25 sam\u00e2n\u1ea5 h\u1e5bday\u00e2ni va\u1e25,\n Sam\u00e2n\u00e1m astu va\u1e25 m\u00e1na\u1e25 y\u00e1th\u00e2 va\u1e25 s\u00fasaha \u00e1sati.\n\n\u201cCome together! Speak together! Let your minds be concordant--the gods\nby being concordant receive their share, one after the other. Their word\nis the same, their counsel is the same, their mind is the same, their\nthoughts are at one; I\u00a0address to you the same word, I\u00a0worship you with\nthe same sacrifice. Let your endeavor be the same! Let your hearts be\nthe same! Let your mind be the same, that it may go well with you.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\nNOTE A.\n\nIn the \u201cIndian Mirror,\u201d published at Calcutta, 20 September, 1874,\na\u00a0native writer gave utterance almost at the same time to the same\nfeelings:--\n\n\u201cWhen the dominion passed from the Mogul to the hands of Englishmen, the\nlatter regarded the natives as little better than niggers, having a\ncivilization perhaps a shade better than that of the barbarians.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\nThe gulf was wide between the conquerors and the conquered.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. There\nwas no affection to lessen the distance between the two races.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The\ndiscovery of Sanskrit entirely revolutionized the course of thought and\nspeculations. It served as the \u2018open sesame\u2019 to many hidden treasures.\nIt was then that the position of India in the scale of civilization was\ndistinctly apprehended. It was then that our relations with the advanced\nnations of the world were fully realized. We were niggers at one time.\nWe now become brethren.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The advent of the English found us a\nnation low sunk in the mire of superstitions, ignorance, and political\nservitude. The advent of scholars like Sir William Jones found us fully\nestablished in a rank above that of every nation as that from which\nmodern civilization could be distinctly traced. It would be interesting\nto contemplate what would have been our position if the science of\nphilology had not been discovered.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. It was only when the labor of\nscholars brought to light the treasures of our antiquity that they\nperceived how near we were to their races in almost all things that they\nheld dear in their life. It was then that our claims on their affection\nand regard were first established. As Hindus we ought never to forget\nthe labor of scholars. We owe them our life as a nation, our freedom as\na recognized society, and our position in the scale of races. It is the\nfashion with many to decry the labors of those men as dry, unprofitable,\nand dreamy. We should know that it is to the study of the roots and\ninflections of the Sanskrit language that we owe our national\nsalvation.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Within a very few years after the discovery of\nSanskrit, a\u00a0revolution took place in the history of comparative science.\nNever were so many discoveries made at once, and from the speculations\nof learned scholars like ----, the dawnings of many truths are even now\nvisible to the world.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Comparative mythology and comparative\nreligion are new terms altogether in the world.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. We say again that\nIndia has no reason to forget the services of scholars.\u201d\n\n\nNOTE B.\n\nThe following letter addressed by me to the \u201cAcademy,\u201d October 17, 1874,\np.\u00a0433, gives the reasons for this statement:--\n\n\u201cI was aware of the mission of the four young Brahmans sent to Benares\nin 1845, to copy out and study the four Vedas respectively. I\u00a0had read\nof it last in the \u2018Historical Sketch of the Brahmo Samaj,\u2019 which Miss\nCollet had the kindness to send me. But what I said in my address before\nthe Oriental Congress referred to earlier times. That mission in 1845\nwas, in fact, the last result of much previous discussion, which\ngradually weakened and destroyed in the mind of Ram Mohun Roy and his\nfollowers their traditional faith in the Divine origin of the Vedas. At\nfirst Ram Mohun Roy met the arguments of his English friends by simply\nsaying, \u2018If you claim a Divine origin for your sacred books, so do we;\u2019\nand when he was pressed by the argument derived from internal evidence,\nhe appealed to a few hymns, such as the G\u00e2yatr\u00ee, and to the Upanishads,\nas by no means inferior to passages in the Bible, and not unworthy of a\ndivine author. The Veda with him was chiefly in the Upanishads, and he\nhad hardly any knowledge of the hymns of the Rig-Veda. I\u00a0state this on\nthe authority of a conversation that passed between him and young Rosen,\nwho was then working at the MSS. of the Rig-Veda-Sanhit\u00e2 in the British\nMuseum, and to whom Ram Mohun Roy expressed his regret at not being able\nto read his own sacred books.\n\n\u201cThere were other channels, too, through which, after Ram Mohun Roy\u2019s\ndeath in 1833, a\u00a0knowledge of the studies of European scholars may have\nreached the still hesitating reformers of the Brahma Sabh\u00e1. Dvarka N\u00e1th\nTagore paid a visit to Europe in the year 1845. I\u00a0write from memory.\nThough not a man of deep religious feelings, he was an enlightened and\nshrewd observer of all that passed before his eyes. He was not a\nSanskrit scholar; and I well recollect, when we paid a visit together to\nEug\u00e8ne Burnouf, Dvarka N\u00e1th Tagore putting his dark delicate hand on one\nside of Burnouf\u2019s edition of the \u2018Bhagavat Pur\u00e2\u1e47a,\u2019 containing the\nFrench translation, and saying he could understand that, but not the\nSanskrit original on the opposite page. I\u00a0saw him frequently at Paris,\nwhere I was then engaged in collecting materials for a complete edition\nof the Vedas and the commentary of S\u00e2ya\u1e47\u00e2c\u00e2rya. Many a morning did I\npass in his rooms, smoking, accompanying him on the pianoforte, and\ndiscussing questions in which we took a common interest. I\u00a0remember one\nmorning, after he had been singing some Italian, French, and German\nmusic, I\u00a0asked him to sing an Indian song. He declined at first, saying\nthat he knew I should not like it; but at last he yielded, and sang, not\none of the modern Persian songs, which commonly go by the name of\nIndian, but a genuine native piece of music. I\u00a0listened quietly, but\nwhen it was over, I\u00a0told him that it seemed strange to me, how one who\ncould appreciate Italian and German music could find any pleasure in\nwhat sounded to me like mere noise, without melody, rhythm, or harmony.\n\u2018Oh,\u2019 he said, \u2018that is exactly like you Europeans! When I first heard\nyour Italian and German music I disliked it; it was no music to me at\nall. But I persevered, I\u00a0became accustomed to it, I\u00a0found out what was\ngood in it, and now I am able to enjoy it. But you despise whatever is\nstrange to you, whether in music, or philosophy, or religion; you will\nnot listen and learn, and we shall understand you much sooner than you\nwill understand us.\u2019\n\n\u201cIn our conversations on the Vedas he never, as far as I recollect,\ndefended the divine origin of his own sacred writings in the abstract,\nbut he displayed great casuistic cleverness in maintaining that every\nargument that had ever been adduced in support of a supernatural origin\nof the Bible could be used with equal force in favor of a divine\nauthorship of the Veda. His own ideas of the Veda were chiefly derived\nfrom the Upanishads, and he frequently assured me that there was much\nmore of Vedic literature in India than we imagined. This Dvarka N\u00e1th\nTagore was the father of Debendra N\u00e1th Tagore, the true founder of the\nBrahmo Sam\u00e1j, who, in 1845, sent the four young Brahmans to Benares to\ncopy out and study the four Vedas. Though Dvarka N\u00e1th Tagore was so far\northodox that he maintained a number of Brahmans, yet it was he also who\ncontinued the grant for the support of the Church, founded at Calcutta\nby Ram Mohun Roy. One letter written by Dvarka N\u00e1th Tagore from Paris to\nCalcutta in 1845, would supply the missing link between what was passing\nat that time in a room of a hotel on the Place Vend\u00f4me, and the\nresolution taken at Calcutta to find out, once for all, what the Vedas\nreally are.\n\n\u201cIn India itself the idea of a critical and historical study of the Veda\noriginated certainly with English scholars. Dr. Mill once showed me the\nfirst attempt at printing the sacred G\u00e2yatr\u00ee in Calcutta; and, if I am\nnot mistaken, he added that unfortunately the gentleman who had printed\nit died soon after, thus confirming the prophecies of the Brahmans that\nsuch a sacrilege would not remain unavenged by the gods. Dr. Mill,\nStevenson, Wilson, and others were the first to show to the educated\nnatives in India that the Upanishads belonged to a later age than the\nhymns of the Rig-Veda, and likewise the first to exhibit to Ram Mohun\nRoy and his friends the real character of these ancient hymns. On a mind\nlike Ram Mohun Roy\u2019s the effect was probably much more immediate than on\nhis followers, so that it took several years before they decided on\nsending their commissioners to Benares to report on the Veda and its\nreal character. Yet that mission was, I\u00a0believe, the result of a slow\nprocess of attrition produced by the contact between native and European\nminds, and as such I wished to present it in my address at the Oriental\nCongress.\u201d\n\n\n [Footnote 1: These lists of common Aryan words were published in\n the _Academy_, October 10, 1874, and are reprinted at the end of\n the next article \u201cOn the Life of Colebrooke.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 2: _Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und Orientalischen\n Philologie in Deutschland_, von Theodor Benfey. M\u00fcnchen, 1869.]\n\n [Footnote 3: _Aristoteles\u2019 Metaphysik, eine Tochter der\n S\u00e2nkhya-Lehre des Kapila_, von Dr. C.\u00a0B. Schl\u00fcter. 1874.]\n\n [Footnote 4: See Note A, p. 355.]\n\n [Footnote 5: See Note B, p. 356.]\n\n [Footnote 6: _Academy_, August 1, 1874.]\n\n [Footnote 7: I read +yath\u00e2p\u00fbrve+ as one word.]\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nLIFE OF COLEBROOKE.[1]\n\n\nThe name and fame of Henry Thomas Colebrooke are better known in India,\nFrance, Germany, Italy--nay, even in Russia--than in his own country. He\nwas born in London on the 15th of June, 1765; he died in London on the\n10th of March, 1837; and if now, after waiting for thirty-six years, his\nonly surviving son, Sir Edward Colebrooke, has at last given us a more\ncomplete account of his father\u2019s life, the impulse has come chiefly from\nColebrooke\u2019s admirers abroad, who wished to know what the man had been\nwhose works they know so well. If Colebrooke had simply been a\ndistinguished, even a highly distinguished, servant of the East India\nCompany, we could well understand that, where the historian has so many\neminent services to record, those of Henry Thomas Colebrooke should have\nbeen allowed to pass almost unnoticed. The history of British India has\nstill to be written, and it will be no easy task to write it. Macaulay\u2019s\n\u201cLives\u201d of Clive and Warren Hastings are but two specimens to show how\nit ought to be, and yet how it cannot be, written. There is in the\nannals of the conquest and administrative tenure of India so much of the\nbold generalship of raw recruits, the statesmanship of common clerks,\nand the heroic devotion of mere adventurers, that even the largest\ncanvas of the historian must dwarf the stature of heroes; and characters\nwhich, in the history of Greece or England, would stand out in bold\nrelief, must vanish unnoticed in the crowd. The substance of the present\nmemoir appeared in the \u201cJournal\u201d of the Royal Asiatic Society soon after\nMr. Colebrooke\u2019s death. It consisted originally of a brief notice of his\npublic and literary career, interspersed with extracts from his letters\nto his family during the first twenty years of residence in India. Being\nasked a few years since to allow this notice to appear in a new edition\nof his \u201cMiscellaneous Essays,\u201d which Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall desired to\nrepublish, Sir Edward thought it incumbent on him to render it more\nworthy of his father\u2019s reputation. The letters in the present volume\nare, for the most part, given in full; and some additional\ncorrespondence is included in it, besides a few papers of literary\ninterest, and a journal kept by him during his residence at Nagpur,\nwhich was left incomplete. Two addresses delivered to the Royal Asiatic\nand Astronomical Societies, and the narrative of a journey to and from\nthe capital of Berar, are given in an appendix and complete the volume,\nwhich is now on the eve of publication.\n\nAlthough, as we shall see, the career of Mr. Colebrooke, as a servant of\nthe East India Company, was highly distinguished, and in its\nvicissitudes, as here told by his son, both interesting and instructive,\nyet his most lasting fame will not be that of the able administrator,\nthe learned lawyer, the thoughtful financier and politician, but that of\nthe founder and father of true Sanskrit scholarship in Europe. In that\ncharacter Colebrooke has secured his place in the history of the world,\na\u00a0place which neither envy nor ignorance can ever take from him. Had he\nlived in Germany, we should long ago have seen his statue in his native\nplace, his name written in letters of gold on the walls of academies; we\nshould have heard of Colebrooke jubilees and Colebrooke scholarships. In\nEngland, if any notice is taken of the discovery of Sanskrit--a\ndiscovery in many respects equally important, in some even more\nimportant, than the revival of Greek scholarship in the fifteenth\ncentury--we may possibly hear the popular name of Sir William Jones and\nhis classical translation of Sakuntala; but of the infinitely more\nimportant achievements of Colebrooke, not one word. The fact is, the\ntime has not yet come when the full importance of the Sanskrit philology\ncan be appreciated by the public at large. It was the same with Greek\nphilology. When Greek began to be studied by some of the leading spirits\nin Europe, the subject seemed at first one of purely literary curiosity.\nWhen its claims were pressed on the public, they were met by opposition,\nand even ridicule; and those who knew least of Greek were most eloquent\nin their denunciations. Even when its study had become more general, and\nbeen introduced at universities and schools, it remained in the eyes of\nmany a mere accomplishment--its true value for higher than scholastic\npurposes being scarcely suspected. At present we know that the revival\nof Greek scholarship affected the deepest interests of humanity, that it\nwas in reality a revival of that consciousness which links large\nportions of mankind together, connects the living with the dead, and\nthus secures to each generation the full intellectual inheritance of our\nrace. Without that historical consciousness the life of man would be\nephemeral and vain. The more we can see backward, and place ourselves in\nreal sympathy with the past, the more truly do we make the life of\nformer generations our own, and are able to fulfill our own appointed\nduty in carrying on the work which was begun centuries ago in Athens and\nat Rome. But while the unbroken traditions of the Roman world, and the\nrevival of Greek culture among us, restored to us the intellectual\npatrimony of Greece and Rome only, and made the Teutonic race in a\ncertain sense Greek and Roman, the discovery of Sanskrit will have a\nmuch larger influence. Like a new intellectual spring, it is meant to\nrevive the broken fibres that once united the Southeastern with the\nNorthwestern branches of the Aryan family; and thus to r\u00ebestablish the\nspiritual brotherhood, not only of the Teutonic, Greek, and Roman, but\nlikewise of the Slavonic, Celtic, Indian, and Persian branches. It is to\nmake the mind of man wider, his heart larger, his sympathies\nworld-embracing; it is to make us truly _humaniores_, richer and prouder\nin the full perception of what humanity has been, and what it is meant\nto be. This is the real object of the more comprehensive studies of the\nnineteenth century, and though the full appreciation of this their true\nimport may be reserved to the future, no one who follows the\nintellectual progress of mankind attentively can fail to see that, even\nnow, the comparative study of languages, mythologies, and religions has\nwidened our horizon; that much which was lost has been regained; and\nthat a new world, if it has not yet been occupied, is certainly in\nsight. It is curious to observe that those to whom we chiefly owe the\ndiscovery of Sanskrit were as little conscious of the real importance of\ntheir discovery as Columbus was when he landed at St. Salvador. What Mr.\nColebrooke did, was done from a sense of duty, rather than from literary\ncuriosity; but there was also a tinge of enthusiasm in his character,\nlike that which carries a traveller to the wastes of Africa or the\nicebound regions of the Pole. Whenever there was work ready for him, he\nwas ready for the work. But he had no theories to substantiate, no\npreconceived objects to attain. Sobriety and thoroughness are the\ndistinguishing features of all his works. There is in them no trace of\nhaste or carelessness; but neither is there evidence of any\nextraordinary effort, or minute professional scholarship. In the same\nbusiness-like spirit in which he collected the revenue of his province\nhe collected his knowledge of Sanskrit literature; with the same\njudicial impartiality with which he delivered his judgments he delivered\nthe results at which he had arrived after his extensive and careful\nreading; and with the same sense of confidence with which he quietly\nwaited for the effects of his political and financial measures, in spite\nof the apathy or the opposition with which they met at first, he left\nhis written works to the judgment of posterity, never wasting his time\nin the repeated assertion of his opinions, or in useless controversy,\nthough he was by no means insensible to his own literary reputation. The\nbiography of such a man deserves a careful study; and we think that Sir\nEdward Colebrooke has fulfilled more than a purely filial duty in giving\nto the world a full account of the private, public, and literary life of\nhis great father.\n\nColebrooke was the son of a wealthy London banker, Sir George\nColebrooke, a\u00a0Member of Parliament, and a man in his time of some\npolitical importance. Having proved himself a successful advocate of the\nold privileges of the East India Company, he was invited to join the\nCourt of Directors, and became in 1769 chairman of the Company. His\nchairmanship was distinguished in history by the appointment of Warren\nHastings to the highest office in India, and there are in existence\nletters from that illustrious man to Sir George, written in the crisis\nof his Indian Administration, which show the intimate and confidential\nrelations subsisting between them. But when, in later years, Sir George\nColebrooke became involved in pecuniary difficulties, and Indian\nappointments were successively obtained for his two sons, James Edward\nand Henry Thomas, it does not appear that Warren Hastings took any\nactive steps to advance them, beyond appointing the elder brother to an\noffice of some importance on his secretariat. Henry, the younger\nbrother, had been educated at home, and at the age of fifteen he had\nlaid a solid foundation in Latin, Greek, French, and particularly in\nmathematics. As he never seems to have been urged on, he learned what he\nlearned quietly and thoroughly, trying from the first to satisfy himself\nrather than others. Thus a love of knowledge for its own sake remained\nfirmly engrained in his mind through life, and explains much of what\nwould otherwise remain inexplicable in his literary career.\n\nAt the age of eighteen he started for India, and arrived at Madras in\n1783, having narrowly escaped capture by French cruisers. The times were\nanxious times for India, and full of interest to an observer of\npolitical events. In his very first letter from India Colebrooke thus\nsketches the political situation:--\n\n \u201cThe state of affairs in India seems to bear a far more favorable\n aspect than for a long time past. The peace with the Mahrattas and\n the death of Hyder Ally, the intended invasion of Tippoo\u2019s country\n by the Mahrattas, sufficiently removed all alarm from the country\n powers; but there are likewise accounts arrived, and which seem to\n be credited, of the defeat of Tippoo by Colonel Matthews, who\n commands on the other coast.\u201d\n\nFrom Madras Colebrooke proceeded, in 1783, to Calcutta, where he met his\nelder brother, already established in the service. His own start in\nofficial life was delayed, and took place under circumstances by no\nmeans auspicious. The tone, both in political and private life, was at\nthat time at its lowest ebb in India. Drinking, gambling, and\nextravagance of all kinds were tolerated even in the best society, and\nColebrooke could not entirely escape the evil effects of the moral\natmosphere in which he had to live. It is all the more remarkable that\nhis taste for work never deserted him, and \u201cthat he would retire to his\nmidnight Sanskrit studies unaffected by the excitement of the\ngambling-table.\u201d It was not till 1786--a year after Warren Hastings had\nleft India--that he received his first official appointment, as\nAssistant Collector of Revenue in Tirhut. His father seems to have\nadvised him from the first to be assiduous in acquiring the vernacular\nlanguages, and we find him at an early period of his Indian career thus\nwriting on this subject: \u201cThe one, and that the most necessary, Moors\n(now called Hindustani), by not being written, bars all close\napplication; the other, Persian, is too dry to entice, and is so seldom\nof any use, that I seek its acquisition very leisurely.\u201d He asked his\nfather in turn to send him the Greek and Latin classics, evidently\nintending to carry on his old favorite studies, rather than begin a new\ncareer as an Oriental scholar. For a time he seemed, indeed, deeply\ndisappointed with his life in India, and his prospects were anything but\nencouraging. But although he seriously thought of throwing up his\nposition and returning to England, he was busy nevertheless in\nelaborating a scheme for the better regulation of the Indian service.\nHis chief idea was, that the three functions of the civil service--the\ncommercial, the revenue, and the diplomatic--should be separated; that\neach branch should be presided over by an independent board, and that\nthose who had qualified themselves for one branch should not be\ntransferred to another. Curiously enough, he lived to prove by his own\nexample the applicability of the old system, being himself transferred\nfrom the revenue department to a judgeship, then employed on an\nimportant diplomatic mission, and lastly raised to a seat in Council,\nand acquitting himself well in each of these different employments.\nAfter a time his discontent seems to have vanished. He quietly settled\ndown to his work in collecting the revenue of Tirhut; and his official\nduties soon became so absorbing, that he found little time for\nprojecting reforms of the Indian Civil Service.\n\nSoon also his Oriental studies gave him a new interest in the country\nand the people. The first allusions to Oriental literature occur in a\nletter dated Patna, December 10, 1786. It is addressed to his father,\nwho had desired some information concerning the religion of the Hindus.\nColebrooke\u2019s own interest in Sanskrit literature was from the first\nscientific rather than literary. His love of mathematics and astronomy\nmade him anxious to find out what the Brahmans had achieved in these\nbranches of knowledge. It is surprising to see how correct is the first\ncommunication which he sends to his father on the four modes of\nreckoning time adopted by Hindu astronomers, and which he seems chiefly\nto have drawn from Persian sources. The passage (pp.\u00a023-26) is too long\nto be given here, but we recommend it to the careful attention of\nSanskrit scholars, who will find it more accurate than what has but\nlately been written on the same subject. Colebrooke treated, again, of\nthe different measures of time in his essay \u201cOn Indian Weights and\nMeasures,\u201d published in the \u201cAsiatic Researches,\u201d 1798; and in stating\nthe rule for finding the planets which preside over the day, called\n_Hor\u00e2_, he was the first to point out the coincidence between that\nexpression and our name for the twenty-fourth part of the day. In one of\nthe notes to his Dissertation on the Algebra of the Hindus he showed\nthat this and other astrological terms were evidently borrowed by the\nHindus from the Greeks, or other external sources; and in a manuscript\nnote published for the first time by Sir E.\u00a0Colebrooke, we find him\nfollowing up the same subject, and calling attention to the fact that\nthe word _Hor\u00e2_ occurs in the Sanskrit vocabulary--the _Medin\u00ee-Kosha_,\nand bears there, among other significations, that of the rising of a\nsign of the zodiac, or half a sign. This, as he remarks, is in diurnal\nmotion one _hour_, thus confirming the connection between the Indian and\nEuropean significations of the word.\n\nWhile he thus felt attracted towards the study of Oriental literature by\nhis own scientific interests, it seems that Sanskrit literature and\npoetry by themselves had no charms for him. On the contrary, he declares\nhimself repelled by the false taste of Oriental writers; and he speaks\nvery slightingly of \u201cthe _amateurs_ who do not seek the acquisition of\nuseful knowledge, but would only wish to attract notice, without the\nlabor of deserving it, which is readily accomplished by an ode from the\nPersian, an apologue from the Sanskrit, or a song from some unheard-of\ndialect of Hinduee, of which _amateur_ favors the public with a _free_\ntranslation, without understanding the original, as you will immediately\nbe convinced, if you peruse that repository of nonsense, the \u2018Asiatic\nMiscellany.\u2019\u201d He makes one exception, however, in favor of Wilkins.\n\u201cI\u00a0have never yet seen any book,\u201d he writes, \u201cwhich can be depended on\nfor information concerning the real opinions of the Hindus, except\nWilkins\u2019s \u2018Bhagvat Geeta.\u2019 That gentleman was Sanskrit mad, and has more\nmaterials and more general knowledge respecting the Hindus than any\nother foreigner ever acquired since the days of Pythagoras.\u201d Arabic,\ntoo, did not then find much more favor in his eyes than Sanskrit. \u201cThus\nmuch,\u201d he writes, \u201cI\u00a0am induced to believe, that the Arabic language is\nof more difficult acquisition than Latin, or even than Greek; and,\nalthough it may be concise and nervous, it will not reward the labor of\nthe student, since, in the works of science, he can find nothing new,\nand, in those of literature, he could not avoid feeling his judgment\noffended by the false taste in which they are written, and his\nimagination being heated by the glow of their imagery. A\u00a0few dry facts\nmight, however, reward the literary drudge.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d\n\nIt may be doubted, indeed, whether Colebrooke would ever have overcome\nthese prejudices, had it not been for his father\u2019s exhortations. In\n1789, Colebrooke was transferred from Tirhut to Purneah; and such was\nhis interest in his new and more responsible office, that, according to\nhis own expression, he felt for it all the solicitude of a young author.\nEngrossed in his work, a\u00a0ten years\u2019 settlement of some of the districts\nof his new collectorship, he writes to his father in July, 1790:--\n\n \u201cThe religion, manners, natural history, traditions, and arts of\n this country may, certainly, furnish subjects on which my\n communications might, perhaps, be not uninteresting; but to offer\n anything deserving of attention would require a season of leisure to\n collect and digest information. Engaged in public and busy scenes,\n my mind is wholly engrossed by the cares and duties of my station;\n in vain I seek, for relaxation\u2019s sake, to direct my thoughts to\n other subjects; matters of business constantly recur. It is for this\n cause that I have occasionally apologized for a dearth of subjects,\n having no occurrences to relate, and the matters which occupy my\n attention being uninteresting as a subject of correspondence.\u201d\n\nWhen, after a time, the hope of distinguishing himself impelled\nColebrooke to new exertions, and he determined to become an author, the\nsubject which he chose was not antiquarian or philosophical, but purely\npractical.\n\n \u201cTranslations,\u201d he writes, in 1790, \u201care for those who rather need\n to fill their purses than gratify their ambition. For original\n compositions on Oriental history and sciences is required more\n reading in the literature of the East than I possess, or am likely\n to attain. My subject should be connected with those matters to\n which my attention is professionally led. One subject is, I\u00a0believe,\n yet untouched--the agriculture of Bengal. On this I have been\n curious of information; and, having obtained some, I\u00a0am now pursuing\n inquiries with some degree of regularity. I\u00a0wish for your opinion,\n whether it would be worth while to reduce into form the information\n which may be obtained on a subject necessarily dry, and which\n (curious, perhaps) is, certainly, useless to English readers.\u201d\n\nAmong the subjects of which he wishes to treat in this work we find some\nof antiquarian interest, _e.g._, what castes of Hindus are altogether\nforbid cultivating, and what castes have religious prejudices against\nthe culture of particular articles. Others are purely technical; for\ninstance, the question of the succession and mixture of crops. He states\nthat the Hindus have some traditional maxims on the succession of crops\nto which they rigidly adhere; and with regard to mixture, he observes\nthat two, three, or even four different articles are sown in the same\nfield, and gathered successively, as they ripen; that they are sometimes\nall sown on the same day, sometimes at different periods, etc.\n\nHis letters now became more and more interesting, and they generally\ncontain some fragments which show us how the sphere of his inquiries\nbecame more and more extended. We find (p.\u00a039) observations on the\nPsylli of Egypt and the snake-charmers of India, on the Sikhs (p.\u00a045),\non human sacrifices in India (p.\u00a046). The spirit of inquiry which had\nbeen kindled by Sir W. Jones, more particularly since the foundation of\nthe Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784, had evidently reached Colebrooke.\nIt is difficult to fix the exact date when he began the study of\nSanskrit. He seems to have taken it up and left it again in despair\nseveral times. In 1793 he was removed from Purneah to Nattore. From that\nplace he sent to his father the first volumes of the \u201cAsiatic\nResearches,\u201d published by the members of the Asiatic Society. He drew\nhis father\u2019s attention to some articles in them, which would seem to\nprove that the ancient Hindus possessed a knowledge of Egypt and of the\nJews, but he adds: \u201cNo historical light can be expected from Sanskrit\nliterature; but it may, nevertheless, be curious, if not useful, to\npublish such of their legends as seem to resemble others known to\nEuropean mythology.\u201d The first glimmering of comparative mythology in\n1793!\n\nAgain he writes in 1793, \u201cIn my Sanskrit studies, I do not confine\nmyself now to particular subjects, but skim the surface of all their\nsciences. I\u00a0will subjoin, for your amusement, some remarks on subjects\ntreated in the \u2018Researches.\u2019\u201d\n\nWhat the results of that skimming were, and how far more philosophical\nhis appreciation of Hindu literature had then become, may be seen from\nthe end of the same letter, written from Rajshahi, December, 6, 1793:--\n\n \u201cUpon the whole, whatever may be the true antiquity of this nation,\n whether their mythology be a corruption of the pure deism we find in\n their books, or their deism a refinement from gross idolatry;\n whether their religious and moral precepts have been engrafted on\n the elegant philosophy of the Ny\u00e2ya and Mim\u00e2ns\u00e2, or this philosophy\n been refined on the plainer text of the Veda; the Hindu is the most\n ancient nation of which we have valuable remains, and has been\n surpassed by none in refinement and civilization; though the utmost\n pitch of refinement to which it ever arrived preceded, in time, the\n dawn of civilization in any other nation of which we have even the\n name in history. The further our literary inquiries are extended\n here, the more vast and stupendous is the scene which opens to us;\n at the same time, that the true and false, the sublime and the\n puerile, wisdom and absurdity, are so intermixed, that, at every\n step, we have to smile at folly, while we admire and acknowledge the\n philosophical truth, though couched in obscure allegory and puerile\n fable.\u201d\n\nIn 1794, Colebrooke presented to the Asiatic Society his first paper,\n\u201cOn the Duties of a Faithful Hindu Widow,\u201d and he told his father at the\nsame time, that he meant to pursue his Sanskrit inquiries diligently,\nand in a spirit which seems to have guided all his work through life:\n\u201cThe only caution,\u201d he says, \u201cwhich occurs to me is, not to hazard in\npublication anything crude or imperfect, which would injure my\nreputation as a man of letters; to avoid this, the precaution may be\ntaken of submitting my manuscripts to private perusal.\u201d\n\nColebrooke might indeed from that time have become altogether devoted to\nthe study of Sanskrit, had not his political feelings been strongly\nroused by the new Charter of the East India Company, which, instead of\nsanctioning reforms long demanded by political economists, confirmed\nnearly all the old privileges of their trade. Colebrooke was a\nfree-trader by conviction, and because he had at heart the interests\nboth of India and of England. It is quite gratifying to find a man,\ngenerally so cold and prudent as Colebrooke, warm with indignation at\nthe folly and injustice of the policy carried out by England with regard\nto her Indian subjects. He knew very well that it was personally\ndangerous for a covenanted servant to discuss and attack the privileges\nof the Company, but he felt that he ought to think and act, not merely\nas the servant of a commercial company, but as the servant of the\nBritish Government. He wished, even at that early time, that India\nshould become an integral portion of the British Empire, and cease to\nbe, as soon as possible, a\u00a0mere appendage, yielding a large commercial\nrevenue. He was encouraged in these views by Mr. Anthony Lambert, and\nthe two friends at last decided to embody their views in a work, which\nthey privately printed, under the title of \u201cRemarks on the Present State\nof the Husbandry and Commerce of Bengal.\u201d Colebrooke, as we know, had\npaid considerable attention to the subject of husbandry, and he now\ncontributed much of the material which he had collected for a purely\ndidactic work, to this controversial and political treatise. He is\nlikewise responsible, and he never tried to shirk that responsibility,\nfor most of the advanced financial theories which it contains. The\nvolume was sent to England, and submitted to the Prime Minister of the\nday and several other persons of influence. It seems to have produced an\nimpression in the quarters most concerned, but it was considered prudent\nto stop its further circulation on account of the dangerous free-trade\nprinciples, which it supported with powerful arguments. Colebrooke had\nleft the discretion of publishing the work in England to his friends,\nand he cheerfully submitted to their decision. He himself, however,\nnever ceased to advocate the most liberal financial opinions, and being\nconsidered by those in power in Leadenhall Street as a dangerous young\nman, his advancement in India became slower than it would otherwise have\nbeen.\n\nA man of Colebrooke\u2019s power, however, was too useful to the Indian\nGovernment to be passed over altogether, and though his career was\nneither rapid nor brilliant, it was nevertheless most successful. Just\nat the time when Sir W. Jones had died suddenly, Colebrooke was removed\nfrom the revenue to the judicial branch of the Indian service, and there\nwas no man in India, except Colebrooke, who could carry on the work\nwhich Sir W. Jones had left unfinished, viz.: \u201cThe Digest of Hindu and\nMohammedan Laws.\u201d At the instance of Warren Hastings, a\u00a0clause had been\ninserted in the Act of 1772, providing that \u201cMaulavies and Pundits\nshould attend the Courts, to expound the law and assist in passing the\ndecrees.\u201d In all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste, and\nreligious usages and institutions, the ancient laws of the Hindus were\nto be followed, and for that purpose a body of laws from their own books\nhad to be compiled. Under the direction of Warren Hastings, nine\nBrahmans had been commissioned to draw up a code, which appeared in\n1776, under the title of \u201cCode of Gentoo Laws.\u201d[2] It had been\noriginally compiled in Sanskrit, then translated into Persian, and from\nthat into English. As that code, however, was very imperfect, Sir W.\nJones had urged on the Government the necessity of a more complete and\nauthentic compilation. Texts were to be collected, after the model of\nJustinian\u2019s Pandects, from law-books of approved authority, and to be\ndigested according to a scientific analysis, with references to original\nauthors. The task of arranging the text-books and compiling the new code\nfell chiefly to a learned Pandit, Jagann\u00e2tha, and the task of\ntranslating it was now, after the death of Sir W. Jones, undertaken by\nColebrooke. This task was no easy one, and could hardly be carried out\nwithout the help of really learned pandits. Fortunately Colebrooke was\nremoved at the time when he undertook this work, to Mirzapur, close to\nBenares, the seat of Brahmanical learning, in the north of India, and\nthe seat of a Hindu College. Here Colebrooke found not only rich\ncollections of Sanskrit MSS, but likewise a number of law pandits, who\ncould solve many of the difficulties which he had to encounter in the\ntranslation of Jagann\u00e2tha\u2019s Digest. After two years of incessant labor,\nwe find Colebrooke on January 3, 1797, announcing the completion of his\ntask, which at once established his position as the best Sanskrit\nscholar of the day. Oriental studies were at that time in the ascendant\nin India. A\u00a0dictionary was being compiled, and several grammars were in\npreparation. Types also had been cut, and for the first time Sanskrit\ntexts issued from the press in Devan\u00e2gar\u00ee letters. Native scholars, too,\nbegan to feel a pride in the revival of their ancient literature. The\nBrahmans, as Colebrooke writes, were by no means averse to instruct\nstrangers; they did not even conceal from him the most sacred texts of\nthe Veda. Colebrooke\u2019s \u201cEssays on the Religious Ceremonies of the\nHindus,\u201d which appeared in the fifth volume of the \u201cAsiatic Researches\u201d\nin the same year as his translation of the \u201cDigest,\u201d show very clearly\nthat he had found excellent instructors, and had been initiated in the\nmost sacred literature of the Brahmans. An important paper on the Hindu\nschools of law seems to date from the same period, and shows a\nfamiliarity, not only with the legal authorities of India, but with the\nwhole structure of the traditional and sacred literature of the\nBrahmans, which but few Sanskrit scholars could lay claim to even at the\npresent day. In the fifth volume of the \u201cAsiatic Researches\u201d appeared\nalso his essay \u201cOn Indian Weights and Measures,\u201d and his \u201cEnumeration of\nIndian Classes.\u201d A\u00a0short, but thoughtful memorandum on the origin of\ncaste, written during that period, and printed for the first time in his\n\u201cLife,\u201d will be read with interest by all who are acquainted with the\ndifferent views of living scholars on this important subject.\n\nColebrooke\u2019s idea was that the institution of caste was not artificial\nor conventional, but that it began with the simple division of freemen\nand slaves, which we find among all ancient nations. This division, as\nhe supposes, existed among the Hindus before they settled in India. It\nbecame positive law after their emigration from the northern mountains\ninto India, and was there adapted to the new state of the Hindus,\nsettled among the aborigines. The class of slaves or +\u015a\u00fbdras+ consisted\nof those who came into India in that degraded state, and those of the\naborigines who submitted and were spared. Menial offices and mechanical\nlabor were deemed unworthy of freemen in other countries besides India,\nand it cannot therefore appear strange that the class of the +\u015a\u00fbdras+\ncomprehended in India both servants and mechanics, both Hindus and\nemancipated aborigines. The class of freemen included originally the\npriest, the soldier, the merchant, and the husbandman. It was divided\ninto three orders, the +Br\u00e2hma\u1e47as+, +Kshatriyas+, and +Vai\u015byas+, the\nlast comprehending merchants and husbandmen indiscriminately, being the\nyeomen of the country and the citizens of the town. According to\nColebrooke\u2019s opinion, the +Kshatriyas+ consisted originally of kings and\ntheir descendants. It was the order of princes, rather than of mere\nsoldiers. The +Br\u00e2hma\u1e47as+ comprehended no more than the descendants of a\nfew religious men who, by superior knowledge and the austerity of their\nlives, had gained an ascendency over the people. Neither of these orders\nwas originally very numerous, and their prominence gave no offense to\nthe far more powerful body of the citizens and yeomen.\n\nWhen legislators began to give their sanction to this social system,\ntheir chief object seems to have been to guard against too great a\nconfusion of the four orders--the two orders of nobility, the sacerdotal\nand the princely, and the two orders of the people, the citizens and the\nslaves, by either prohibiting intermarriage, or by degrading the\noffspring of alliances between members of different orders. If men of\nsuperior married women of inferior, but next adjoining, rank, the\noffspring of their marriage sank to the rank of their mothers, or\nobtained a position intermediate between the two. The children of such\nmarriages were distinguished by separate titles. Thus, the son of a\n+Br\u00e2hma\u1e47a+ by a +Kshatriya+ woman was called +M\u00fbrdh\u00e2bhishikta+, which\nimplies royalty. They formed a distinct tribe of princes or military\nnobility, and were by some reckoned superior to the +Kshatriya+. The son\nof a +Br\u00e2hma\u1e47a+ by a +Vai\u015bya+ woman was a +Vaidya+ or +Ambash\u1e6dha+; the\noffspring of a +Kshatriya+ by a +Vaisya+ was a +Mahishya+, forming two\ntribes of respectable citizens. But if a greater disproportion of rank\nexisted between the parents--if, for instance, a\u00a0+Br\u00e2hma\u1e47a+ married a\n+\u015a\u00fbdra+, the offspring of their marriage, the +Nish\u00e2da+, suffered\ngreater social penalties; he became impure, notwithstanding the nobility\nof his father. Marriages, again, between women of superior with men of\ninferior rank were considered more objectionable than marriages of men\nof superior with women of inferior rank, a\u00a0sentiment which continues to\nthe present day.\n\nWhat is peculiar to the social system, as sanctioned by Hindu\nlegislators, and gives it its artificial character, is their attempt to\nprovide by minute regulations for the rank to be assigned to new tribes,\nand to point out professions suitable to that rank. The tribes had each\nan internal government, and professions naturally formed themselves into\ncompanies. From this source, while the corporations imitated the\nregulations of tribes, a\u00a0multitude of new and arbitrary tribes sprang\nup, the origin of which, as assigned by Manu and other legislators, was\nprobably, as Colebrooke admits, more or less fanciful.\n\nIn his \u201cRemarks on the Husbandry and Internal Commerce of Bengal,\u201d the\nsubject of caste in its bearing on the social improvement of the Indian\nnation was likewise treated by Colebrooke. In reply to the erroneous\nviews then prevalent as to the supposed barriers which caste placed\nagainst the free development of the Hindus, he writes:--\n\n \u201cAn erroneous doctrine has been started, as if the great population\n of these provinces could not avail to effect improvements,\n notwithstanding opportunities afforded by an increased demand for\n particular manufactures or for raw produce: because, \u2018professions\n are hereditary among the Hindus; the offspring of men of one calling\n do not intrude into any other; professions are confined to\n hereditary descent; and the produce of any particular manufacture\n cannot be extended according to the increase of the demand, but must\n depend upon the population of the caste, or tribe, which works on\n that manufacture; or, in other words, if the demand for any article\n should exceed the ability of the number of workmen who produce it,\n the deficiency cannot be supplied by calling in assistance from\n other tribes.\u2019\n\n \u201cIn opposition to this unfounded opinion, it is necessary that we\n not only show, as has been already done, that the population is\n actually sufficient for great improvement, but we must also prove,\n that professions are not separated by an impassable line, and that\n the population affords a sufficient number whose religions\n prejudices permit, and whose inclination leads them to engage in,\n those occupations through which the desired improvement may be\n effected.\n\n \u201cThe Muselmans, to whom the argument above quoted cannot in any\n manner be applied, bear no inconsiderable proportion to the whole\n population. Other descriptions of people, not governed by Hindu\n institutions, are found among the inhabitants of these provinces; in\n regard to these, also, the objection is irrelevant. The Hindus\n themselves, to whom the doctrine which we combat is meant to be\n applied, cannot exceed nine tenths of the population; probably, they\n do not bear so great a proportion to the other tribes. They are, as\n is well known, divided into four grand classes; but the three first\n of them are much less numerous than the +\u015a\u00fbdra+. The aggregate of\n +Br\u00e2hma\u1e47a+, +Kshatriya+, and +Vai\u015bya+ may amount, at the most, to a\n fifth of the population; and even these are not absolutely\n restricted to their own appointed occupations. Commerce and\n agriculture are universally permitted; and, under the designation of\n servants of the other three tribes, the +\u015a\u00fbdras+ seem to be allowed\n to prosecute any manufacture.\n\n \u201cIn this tribe are included not only the true +\u015a\u00fbdras+, but also the\n several castes whose origin is ascribed to the promiscuous\n intercourse of the four classes. To these, also, their several\n occupations were assigned; but neither are they restricted, by\n rigorous injunctions, to their own appointed occupations. For any\n person unable to procure a subsistence by the exercise of his own\n profession may earn a livelihood in the calling of a subordinate\n caste, within certain limits in the scale of relative precedence\n assigned to each; and no forfeiture is now incurred by his intruding\n into a superior profession. It was, indeed, the duty of the Hindu\n magistrate to restrain the encroachments of inferior tribes on the\n occupations of superior castes; but, under a foreign government,\n this restraint has no existence.\n\n \u201cIn practice, little attention is paid to the limitations to which\n we have here alluded: daily observation shows even Br\u00e2hmanas\n exercising the menial profession of a S\u00fbdra. We are aware that every\n caste forms itself into clubs, or lodges, consisting of the several\n individuals of that caste residing within a small distance; and that\n these clubs, or lodges, govern themselves by particular rules and\n customs, or by laws. But, though some restrictions and limitations,\n not founded on religious prejudices, are found among their by-laws,\n it may be received, as a general maxim, that the occupation\n appointed for each tribe is entitled merely to a preference. Every\n profession, with few exceptions, is open to every description of\n persons, and the discouragement arising from religious prejudices is\n not greater than what exists in Great Britain from the effects of\n municipal and corporation laws. In Bengal, the numbers of people\n actually willing to apply to any particular occupation are\n sufficient for the unlimited extension of any manufacture.\n\n \u201cIf these facts and observations be not considered as a conclusive\n refutation of the unfounded assertion made on this subject, we must\n appeal to the experience of every gentleman who may have resided in\n the provinces of Bengal, whether a change of occupation and\n profession does not frequently and indefinitely occur? Whether\n Br\u00e2hmanas are not employed in the most servile offices? And whether\n the S\u00fbdra is not seen elevated to situations of respectability and\n importance? In short, whether the assertion above quoted be not\n altogether destitute of foundation?\u201d\n\nIt is much to be regretted that studies so auspiciously begun were\nsuddenly interrupted by a diplomatic mission, which called Colebrooke\naway from Mirzapur, and retained him from 1798 to 1801 at Nagpur, the\ncapital of Berar. Colebrooke himself had by this time discovered that,\nhowever distinguished his public career might be, his lasting fame must\ndepend on his Sanskrit studies. We find him even at Nagpur continuing\nhis literary work, particularly the compilation and translation of a\nSupplementary Digest. He also prepared, as far as this was possible in\nthe midst of diplomatic avocations, some of his most important\ncontributions to the \u201cAsiatic Researches,\u201d one on Sanskrit prosody,\nwhich did not appear till 1808, and was then styled an essay on Sanskrit\nand Prakrit poetry; one on the Vedas, another on Indian Theogonies (not\npublished), and a critical treatise on Indian plants. At last, in May,\n1801, he left Nagpur to return to his post at Mirzapur. Shortly\nafterwards he was summoned to Calcutta, and appointed a member of the\nnewly constituted Court of Appeal. He at the same time accepted the\nhonorary post of Professor of Sanskrit at the college recently\nestablished at Fort William, without, however, taking an active part in\nthe teaching of pupils. He seems to have been a director of studies\nrather than an actual professor, but he rendered valuable service as\nexaminer in Sanskrit, Bengali, Hindustani, and Persian. In 1801 appeared\nhis essay on the Sanskrit and Prakrit languages, which shows how well he\nhad qualified himself to act as professor of Sanskrit, and how well, in\naddition to the legal and sacred literature of the Brahmans, he had\nmastered the _belles lettres_ of India also, which at first, as we saw,\nhad rather repelled him by their extravagance and want of taste.\n\nAnd here we have to take note of a fact which has never been mentioned\nin the history of the science of language, viz., that Colebrooke at that\nearly time devoted considerable attention to the study of Comparative\nPhilology. To judge from his papers, which have never been published,\nbut which are still in the possession of Sir E. Colebrooke, the range of\nhis comparisons was very wide, and embraced not only Sanskrit, Greek,\nand Latin, with their derivatives, but also the Germanic and Slavonic\nlanguages.[3]\n\nThe principal work, however, of this period of his life was his Sanskrit\nGrammar. Though it was never finished, it will always keep its place,\nlike a classical _torso_, more admired in its unfinished state than\nother works which stand by its side; finished, yet less perfect. Sir E.\nColebrooke has endeavored to convey to the general reader some idea of\nthe difficulties which had to be overcome by those who, for the first\ntime, approached the study of the native grammarians, particularly of\nP\u00e2\u1e47ini. But this grammatical literature, the 3,996 grammatical _s\u00fbtras_\nor rules, which determine every possible form of the Sanskrit language\nin a manner unthought of by the grammarians of any other country, the\nglosses and commentaries, one piled upon the other, which are\nindispensable for a successful unraveling of P\u00e2\u1e47ini\u2019s artful web, which\nstart every objection, reasonable or unreasonable, that can be imagined,\neither against P\u00e2\u1e47ini himself or against his interpreters, which\nestablish general principles, register every exception, and defend all\nforms apparently anomalous of the ancient Vedic language; all this\ntogether is so completely _sui generis_, that those only who have\nthemselves followed Colebrooke\u2019s footsteps can appreciate the boldness\nof the first adventurer, and the perseverance of the first explorer of\nthat grammatical labyrinth. Colebrooke\u2019s own Grammar of the Sanskrit\nlanguage, founded on works of native grammarians, has sometimes been\naccused of obscurity, nor can it be denied that for those who wish to\nacquire the elements of the language, it is almost useless. But those\nwho know the materials which Colebrooke worked up in his grammar, will\nreadily give him credit for what he has done in bringing the _indigesta\nmoles_ which he found before him into something like order. He made the\nfirst step, and a very considerable step it was, in translating the\nstrange phraseology of Sanskrit grammarians into something at least\nintelligible to European scholars. How it could have been imagined that\ntheir extraordinary grammatical phraseology was borrowed by the Hindus\nfrom the Greeks, or that its formation was influenced by the grammatical\nschools established among the Greeks in Bactria, is difficult to\nunderstand, if one possesses but the slightest acquaintance with the\ncharacter of either system, or with their respective historical\ndevelopments. It would be far more accurate to say that the Indian and\nGreek systems of grammar represent two opposite poles, exhibiting the\ntwo starting-points from which alone the grammar of a language can be\nattacked, viz., the theoretical and the empirical. Greek grammar begins\nwith philosophy, and forces language into the categories established by\nlogic. Indian grammar begins with a mere collection of facts,\nsystematizes them mechanically, and thus leads in the end to a system\nwhich, though marvelous for its completeness and perfection, is\nnevertheless, from a higher point of view, a\u00a0mere triumph of scholastic\npedantry.\n\nColebrooke\u2019s grammar, even in its unfinished state, will always be the\nbest introduction to a study of the native grammarians--a study\nindispensable to every sound Sanskrit scholar. In accuracy of statement\nit still holds the first place among European grammars, and it is only\nto be regretted that the references to P\u00e2nini and other grammatical\nauthorities, which existed in Colebrooke\u2019s manuscript, should have been\nleft out when it came to be printed. The modern school of Sanskrit\nstudents has entirely reverted to Colebrooke\u2019s views on the importance\nof a study of the native grammarians. It is no longer considered\nsufficient to know the correct forms of Sanskrit declension or\nconjugation: if challenged, we must be prepared to substantiate their\ncorrectness by giving chapter and verse from P\u00e2\u1e47ini, the fountain-head\nof Indian grammar. If Sir E. Colebrooke says that \u201cBopp also drew deeply\nfrom the fountain-head of Indian grammar in his subsequent labors,\u201d he\nhas been misinformed. Bopp may have changed his opinion that \u201cthe\nstudent might arrive at a critical knowledge of Sanskrit by an attentive\nstudy of Foster and Wilkins, without referring to native authorities;\u201d\nbut he himself never went beyond, nor is there any evidence in his\npublished works that he himself tried to work his way through the\nintricacies of P\u00e2\u1e47ini.\n\nIn addition to his grammatical studies, Colebrooke was engaged in\nseveral other subjects. He worked at the Supplement to the \u201cDigest of\nLaws,\u201d which assumed very large proportions; he devoted some of his time\nto the deciphering of ancient inscriptions, in the hope of finding some\nfixed points in the history of India; he undertook to supply the\nOriental synonymes for Roxburgh\u2019s \u201cFlora Indica\u201d--a most laborious task,\nrequiring a knowledge of botany as well as an intimate acquaintance with\nOriental languages. In 1804 and 1805, while preparing his classical\nessay on the Vedas for the press, we find him approaching the study of\nthe religion of Buddha. In all these varied researches, it is most\ninteresting to observe the difference between him and all the other\ncontributors to the \u201cAsiatic Researches\u201d at that time. They were all\ncarried away by theories or enthusiasm; they were all betrayed into\nassertions or conjectures which proved unfounded. Colebrooke alone, the\nmost hard-working and most comprehensive student, never allows one word\nto escape his pen for which he has not his authority; and when he speaks\nof the treatises of Sir W. Jones, Wilford, and others, he readily admits\nthat they contain curious matter, but as he expresses himself, \u201cvery\nlittle conviction.\u201d When speaking of his own work, as for instance, what\nhe had written on the Vedas, he says: \u201cI\u00a0imagine my treatise on the\nVedas will be thought curious; but, like the rest of my publications,\nlittle interesting to the general reader.\u201d\n\nIn 1805, Colebrooke became President of the Court of Appeal--a high and,\nas it would seem, lucrative post, which made him unwilling to aspire to\nany other appointment. His leisure, though more limited than before, was\ndevoted, as formerly, to his favorite studies; and in 1807 he accepted\nthe presidency of the Asiatic Society--a post never before or after\nfilled so worthily. He not only contributed himself several articles to\nthe \u201cAsiatic Researches,\u201d published by the Society, viz., \u201cOn the Sect\nof Jina,\u201d \u201cOn the Indian and Arabic Divisions of the Zodiack,\u201d and \u201cOn\nthe Frankincense of the Ancients;\u201d but he encouraged also many useful\nliterary undertakings, and threw out, among other things, an idea which\nhas but lately been carried out, viz., a\u00a0_Catalogue raisonn\u00e9_ of all\nthat is extant in Asiatic literature. His own studies became more and\nmore concentrated on the most ancient literature of India, the Vedas,\nand the question of their real antiquity led him again to a more\nexhaustive examination of the astronomical literature of the Brahmans.\nIn all these researches, which were necessarily of a somewhat\nconjectural character, Colebrooke was guided by his usual caution.\nInstead of attempting, for instance, a\u00a0free and more or less divinatory\ntranslation of the hymns of the Rig-Veda, he began with the tedious but\ninevitable work of exploring the native commentaries. No one who has not\nseen his MSS., now preserved at the India Office, and the marginal notes\nwith which the folios of S\u00e2ya\u1e47a\u2019s commentary are covered, can form any\nidea of the conscientiousness with which he collected the materials for\nhis essay. He was by no means a blind follower of S\u00e2ya\u1e47a, or a believer\nin the infallibility of traditional interpretation. The question on\nwhich so much useless ingenuity has since been expended, whether in\ntranslating the Veda we should be guided by native authorities or by the\nrules of critical scholarship, must have seemed to him, as to every\nsensible person, answered as soon as it was asked. He answered it by\nsetting to work patiently, in order to find out, first, all that could\nbe learnt from native scholars, and afterwards to form his own opinion.\nHis experience as a practical man, his judicial frame of mind, his\nfreedom from literary vanity, kept him, here as elsewhere, from falling\ninto the pits of learned pedantry. It will seem almost incredible to\nlater generations that German and English scholars should have wasted so\nmuch of their time in trying to prove, either that we should take no\nnotice whatever of the traditional interpretation of the Veda, or that,\nin following it, we should entirely surrender our right of private\njudgment. Yet that is the controversy which has occupied of late years\nsome of our best Sanskrit scholars, which has filled our journals with\narticles as full of learning as of acrimony, and has actually divided\nthe students of the history of ancient religion into two hostile camps.\nColebrooke knew that he had more useful work before him than to discuss\nthe infallibility of fallible interpreters--a question handled with\ngreater ingenuity by the Maim\u00e2nsaka philosophers than by any living\ncasuists. He wished to leave substantial work behind him; and though he\nclaimed no freedom from error for himself, yet he felt conscious of\nhaving done all his work carefully and honestly, and was willing to\nleave it, such as it was, to the judgment of his contemporaries and of\nposterity. Once only during the whole of his life did he allow himself\nto be drawn into a literary controversy; and here, too, he must have\nfelt what most men feel in the end--that it would have been better if he\nhad not engaged in it. The subject of the controversy was the antiquity\nand originality of Hindu astronomy. Much had been written for and\nagainst it by various writers, but by most of them without a full\ncommand of the necessary evidence. Colebrooke himself maintained a\ndoubtful attitude. He began, as usual, with a careful study of the\nsources at that time available, with translations of Sanskrit treatises,\nwith astronomical calculations and verifications; but, being unable to\nsatisfy himself, he abstained from giving a definite opinion. Bentley,\nwho had published a paper in which the antiquity and originality of\nHindu astronomy were totally denied, was probably aware that Colebrooke\nwas not convinced by his arguments. When, therefore, an adverse\ncriticism of his views appeared in the first number of our Review,\nBentley jumped at the conclusion that it was written or inspired by\nColebrooke. Hence arose his animosity, which lasted for many years, and\nvented itself from time to time in virulent abuse of Colebrooke, whom\nBentley accused not only of unintentional error, but of willful\nmisrepresentation and unfair suppression of the truth. Colebrooke ought\nto have known that in the republic of letters scholars are sometimes\nbrought into strange society. Being what he was, he need not--nay, he\nought not--to have noticed such literary rowdyism. But as the point at\nissue was of deep interest to him, and as he himself had a much higher\nopinion of Bentley\u2019s real merits than his reviewer, he at last\nvouchsafed an answer in the \u201cAsiatic Journal\u201d of March, 1826. With\nregard to Bentley\u2019s personalities, he says: \u201cI\u00a0never spoke nor wrote of\nMr. Bentley with disrespect, and I gave no provocation for the tone of\nhis attack on me.\u201d As to the question itself, he sums up his position\nwith simplicity and dignity. \u201cI\u00a0have been no favorer,\u201d he writes, \u201cno\nadvocate of Indian astronomy. I\u00a0have endeavored to lay before the\npublic, in an intelligible form, the fruits of my researches concerning\nit. I\u00a0have repeatedly noticed its imperfections, and have been ready to\nadmit that it has been no scanty borrower as to theory.\u201d\n\nColebrooke\u2019s stay in India was a long one. He arrived there in 1782,\nwhen only seventeen years of age, and he left it in 1815, at the age of\nfifty. During all this time we see him uninterruptedly engaged in his\nofficial work, and devoting all his leisure to literary labor. The\nresults which we have noticed so far, were already astonishing, and\nquite sufficient to form a solid basis of his literary fame. But we have\nby no means exhausted the roll of his works. We saw that a supplement to\nthe \u201cDigest of Laws\u201d occupied him for several years. In it he proposed\nto recast the whole title of inheritance, so imperfectly treated in the\n\u201cDigest\u201d which he translated, and supplement it with a series of\ncompilations on the several heads of Criminal Law, Pleading, and\nEvidence, as treated by Indian jurists. In a letter to Sir T. Strange he\nspeaks of the Sanskrit text as complete, and of the translation as\nconsiderably advanced; but it was not till 1810 that he published, as a\nfirst installment, his translation of two important treatises on\ninheritance, representing the views of different schools on this\nsubject. Much of the material which he collected with a view of\nimproving the administration of law in India, and bringing it into\nharmony with the legal traditions of the country, remained unpublished,\npartly because his labors were anticipated by timely reforms, partly\nbecause his official duties became too onerous to allow him to finish\nhis work in a manner satisfactory to himself.\n\nBut although the bent of Colebrooke\u2019s mind was originally scientific,\nand the philological researches which have conferred the greatest lustre\non his name grew insensibly beneath his pen, the services he rendered to\nIndian jurisprudence would deserve the highest praise and gratitude if\nhe had no other title to fame. Among his earlier studies he had applied\nhimself to the Roman law with a zeal uncommon among Englishmen of his\nstanding, and he has left behind him a treatise on the Roman Law of\nContracts. When he directed the same powers of investigation to the\nsources of Indian law he found everything in confusion. The texts and\nglosses were various and confused. The local customs which abound in\nIndia had not been discriminated. Printing was of course unknown to\nthese texts; and as no supreme judicial intelligence and authority\nexisted to give unity to the whole system, nothing could be more\nperplexing than the state of the law. From this chaos Colebrooke brought\nforth order and light. The publication of the \u201cDhaya-bh\u00e2ga,\u201d as the\ncardinal exposition of the law of inheritance, which is the basis of\nHindu society, laid the foundation of no less a work than the revival of\nHindu jurisprudence, which had been overlaid by the Mohammedan conquest.\nOn this foundation a superstructure has now been raised by the combined\nefforts of Indian and English lawyers: but the authority which is to\nthis day most frequently invoked as one of conclusive weight and\nlearning is that of Colebrooke. By the collection and revision of the\nancient texts which would probably have been lost without his\nintervention, he became in some degree the legislator of India.\n\nIn 1807 he had been promoted to a seat in Council--the highest honor to\nwhich a civilian, at the end of his career, could aspire. The five\nyears\u2019 tenure of his office coincided very nearly with Lord Minto\u2019s\nGovernor-generalship of India. During these five years the scholar\nbecame more and more merged in the statesman. His marriage also took\nplace at the same time, which was destined to be happy, but short. Two\nmonths after his wife\u2019s death he sailed for England, determined to\ndevote the rest of his life to the studies which had become dear to him,\nand which, as he now felt himself, were to secure to him the honorable\nplace of the father and founder of true Sanskrit scholarship in Europe.\nThough his earliest tastes still attracted him strongly towards physical\nscience, and though, after his return to England, he devoted more time\nthan in India to astronomical, botanical, chemical, and geological\nresearches, yet, as an author, he remained true to his vocation as a\nSanskrit scholar, and he added some of the most important works to the\nlong list of his Oriental publications. How high an estimate he enjoyed\namong the students of physical science is best shown by his election as\nPresident of the Astronomical Society, after the death of Sir John\nHerschel in 1822. Some of his published contributions to the scientific\njournals, chiefly on geological subjects, are said to be highly\nspeculative, which is certainly not the character of his Oriental works.\nNay, judging from the tenor of the works which he devoted to\nscholarship, we should think that everything he wrote on other subjects\nwould deserve the most careful and unprejudiced attention, before it was\nallowed to be forgotten; and we should be glad to see a complete edition\nof all his writings, which have a character at once so varied and so\nprofound.\n\nWe have still to mention some of his more important Oriental\npublications, which he either began or finished after his return to\nEngland. The first is his \u201cAlgebra, with Arithmetic and Mensuration,\nfrom the Sanskrit of Brahmagupta and Bh\u00e2skara, preceded by a\nDissertation on the State of the Sciences as known to the Hindus,\u201d\nLondon, 1817. It is still the standard work on the subject, and likely\nto remain so, as an intimate knowledge of mathematics is but seldom\ncombined with so complete a mastery of Sanskrit as Colebrooke possessed.\nHe had been preceded by the labors of Burrow and E.\u00a0Strachey; but it is\nentirely due to him that mathematicians are now enabled to form a clear\nidea of the progress which the Indians had made in this branch of\nknowledge, especially as regards indeterminate analysis. It became\nhenceforth firmly established that the \u201cArabian Algebra had real points\nof resemblance to that of the Indians, and not to that of the Greeks;\nthat the Diophantine analysis was only slightly cultivated by the Arabs;\nand that, finally, the Indian was more scientific and profound than\neither.\u201d Some of the links in his argument, which Colebrooke himself\ndesignated as weak, have since been subjected to renewed criticism; but\nit is interesting to observe how here, too, hardly anything really new\nhas been added by subsequent scholars. The questions of the antiquity of\nHindu mathematics--of its indigenous or foreign origin, as well as the\ndates to be assigned to the principal Sanskrit writers, such as\nBh\u00e2skara, Brahmagupta, Aryabha\u1e6d\u1e6da, etc.,--are very much in the same\nstate as he left them. And although some living scholars have tried to\nfollow in his footsteps, as far as learning is concerned, they have\nnever approached him in those qualities which are more essential to the\ndiscovery of truth than mere reading, viz., caution, fairness, and\nmodesty.\n\nTwo events remain still to be noticed before we close the narrative of\nthe quiet and useful years which Colebrooke spent in England. In 1818 he\npresented his extremely valuable collection of Sanskrit MSS. to the East\nIndia Company, and thus founded a treasury from which every student of\nSanskrit has since drawn his best supplies. It may be truly said, that\nwithout the free access to this collection--granted to every scholar,\nEnglish or foreign--few of the really important publications of Sanskrit\ntexts, which have appeared during the last fifty years, would have been\npossible; so that in this sense also, Colebrooke deserves the title of\nthe founder of Sanskrit scholarship in Europe.\n\nThe last service which he rendered to Oriental literature was the\nfoundation of the Royal Asiatic Society. He had spent a year at the Cape\nof Good Hope, in order to superintend some landed property which he had\nacquired there; and after his return to London, in 1822, he succeeded in\ncreating a society which should do in England the work which the Asiatic\nSociety of Bengal, founded in 1784 at Calcutta, by Sir W. Jones, had\ndone in India. Though he declined to become the first president, he\nbecame the director of the new society. His object was not only to\nstimulate Oriental scholars living in England to greater exertions, but\nlikewise to excite in the English public a more general interest in\nOriental studies. There was at that time far more interest shown in\nFrance and Germany for the literature of the East than in England,\nthough England alone possessed an Eastern Empire. Thus we find\nColebrooke writing in one of his letters to Professor Wilson:--\n\n \u201cSchlegel, in what he said of some of us (English Orientalists) and\n of our labors, did not purpose to be uncandid, nor to undervalue\n what has been done. In your summary of what he said you set it to\n the right account. I\u00a0am not personally acquainted with him, though\n in correspondence. I\u00a0do think, with him, that as much has not been\n done by the English as might have been expected from us. Excepting\n you and me, and two or three more, who is there that has done\n anything! In England nobody cares about Oriental literature, or is\n likely to give the least attention to it.\u201d\n\nAnd again:--\n\n \u201cI rejoice to learn that your great work on the Indian drama may be\n soon expected by us. I\u00a0anticipate much gratification from a perusal.\n Careless and indifferent as our countrymen are, I\u00a0think,\n nevertheless, you and I may derive some complacent feelings from the\n reflection that, following the footsteps of Sir W. Jones, we have,\n with so little aid of collaborators, and so little encouragement,\n opened nearly every avenue, and left it to foreigners, who are\n taking up the clue we have furnished, to complete the outline of\n what we have sketched. It is some gratification to national pride\n that the opportunity which the English have enjoyed has not been\n wholly unemployed.\u201d\n\nColebrooke\u2019s last contributions to Oriental learning, which appeared in\nthe \u201cTransactions\u201d of the newly-founded Royal Asiatic Society, consist\nchiefly in his masterly treatises on Hindu philosophy. In 1823 he read\nhis paper on the S\u00e2nkhya system; in 1824 his paper on the Ny\u00e2ya and\nVai\u015beshika systems; in 1826 his papers on the M\u00eem\u00e2ns\u00e2; and, in 1827, his\ntwo papers on Indian Sectaries and on the Ved\u00e2nta. These papers, too,\nstill retain their value, unimpaired by later researches. They are dry,\nand to those not acquainted with the subject they may fail to give a\nliving picture of the philosophical struggles of the Indian mind. But\nthe statements which they contain can, with very few exceptions, still\nbe quoted as authoritative, while those who have worked their way\nthrough the same materials which he used for the compilation of his\nessays, feel most struck by the conciseness with which he was able to\ngive the results of his extensive reading in this, the most abstruse\ndomain of Sanskrit literature. The publication of these papers on the\nschools of Indian metaphysics, which anticipated with entire fidelity\nthe materialism and idealism of Greece and of modern thought, enabled\nVictor Cousin to introduce a brilliant survey of the philosophy of India\ninto his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, first delivered, we\nthink, in 1828. Cousin knew and thought of Colebrooke exclusively as a\nmetaphysician. He probably cared nothing for his other labors. But as a\nmetaphysician he placed him in the first rank, and never spoke of him\nwithout an expression of veneration, very unusual on the eloquent but\nsomewhat imperious lips of the French philosopher.\n\nThe last years of Colebrooke\u2019s life were full of suffering, both bodily\nand mental. He died, after a lingering illness, on March 10, 1837.\n\nTo many even among those who follow the progress of Oriental scholarship\nwith interest and attention, the estimate which we have given of\nColebrooke\u2019s merits may seem too high; but we doubt whether from the\ninner circle of Sanskrit scholars, any dissentient voice will be raised\nagainst our awarding to him the first place among Sanskritists, both\ndead and living. The number of Sanskrit scholars has by this time become\nconsiderable, and there is hardly a country in Europe which may not be\nproud of some distinguished names. In India, too, a\u00a0new and most useful\nschool of Sanskrit students is rising, who are doing excellent work in\nbringing to light the forgotten treasures of their country\u2019s literature.\nBut here we must, first of all, distinguish between two classes of\nscholars. There are those who have learnt enough of Sanskrit to be able\nto read texts that have been published and translated, who can discuss\ntheir merits and defects, correct some mistakes, and even produce new\nand more correct editions. There are others who venture on new ground,\nwho devote themselves to the study of MSS., and who by editions of new\ntexts, by translations of works hitherto untranslated, or by essays on\nbranches of literature not yet explored, really add to the store of our\nknowledge. If we speak of Colebrooke as _facile princeps_ among Sanskrit\nscholars, we are thinking of real scholars only, and we thus reduce the\nnumber of those who could compete with him to a much smaller compass.\n\nSecondly, we must distinguish between those who came before Colebrooke\nand those who came after him, and who built on his foundations. That\namong the latter class there are some scholars who have carried on the\nwork begun by Colebrooke beyond the point where he left it, is no more\nthan natural. It would be disgraceful if it were otherwise, if we had\nnot penetrated further into the intricacies of P\u00e2\u1e47ini, if we had not a\nmore complete knowledge of the Indian systems of philosophy, if we had\nnot discovered in the literature of the Vedic period treasures of which\nColebrooke had no idea, if we had not improved the standards of\ncriticism which are to guide in the critical restoration of Sanskrit\ntexts. But in all these branches of Sanskrit scholarship those who have\ndone the best work are exactly those who speak most highly of\nColebrooke\u2019s labors, They are proud to call themselves his disciples.\nThey would decline to be considered his rivals.\n\nThere remains, therefore, in reality, only one who could be considered a\nrival of Colebrooke, and whose name is certainly more widely known than\nhis, viz., Sir William Jones. It is by no means necessary to be unjust\nto him in order to be just to Colebrooke. First of all, he came before\nColebrooke, and had to scale some of the most forbidding outworks of\nSanskrit scholarship. Secondly, Sir William Jones died young, Colebrooke\nlived to a good old age. Were we speaking only of the two men, and their\npersonal qualities, we should readily admit that in some respects Sir W.\nJones stood higher than Colebrooke. He was evidently a man possessed of\ngreat originality, of a highly cultivated taste, and of an exceptional\npower of assimilating the exotic beauty of Eastern poetry. We may go\neven further, and frankly admit that, possibly, without the impulse\ngiven to Oriental scholarship through Sir William Jones\u2019s influence and\nexample, we should never have counted Colebrooke\u2019s name among the\nprofessors of Sanskrit. But we are here speaking not of the men, but of\nthe works which they left behind; and here the difference between the\ntwo is enormous. The fact is, that Colebrooke was gifted with the\ncritical conscience of a scholar--Sir W. Jones was not. Sir W. Jones\ncould not wish for higher testimony in his favor than that of Colebrooke\nhimself. Immediately after his death, Colebrooke wrote to his father,\nJune, 1794:--\n\n \u201cSince I wrote to you the world has sustained an irreparable loss in\n the death of Sir W. Jones. As a judge, as a constitutional lawyer,\n and for his amiable qualities in private life, he must have been\n lost with heartfelt regret. But his loss as a literary character\n will be felt in a wider circle. It was his intention shortly to have\n returned to Europe, where the most valuable works might have been\n expected from his pen. His premature death leaves the results of his\n researches unarranged, and must lose to the world much that was only\n committed to memory, and much of which the notes must be\n unintelligible to those into whose hands his papers fall. It must be\n long before he is replaced in the same career of literature, if he\n is ever so. None of those who are now engaged in Oriental researches\n are so fully informed in the classical languages of the East; and I\n fear that, in the progress of their inquiries, none will be found to\n have such comprehensive views.\u201d\n\nAnd again:--\n\n \u201cYou ask how we are to supply his place? Indeed, but ill. Our\n present and future presidents may preside with dignity and\n propriety; but who can supply his place in diligent and ingenious\n researches? Not even the combined efforts of the whole Society; and\n the field is large, and few the cultivators.\u201d\n\nStill later in life, when a reaction had set in, and the indiscriminate\nadmiration of Sir W. Jones had given way to an equally indiscriminate\ndepreciation of his merits, Colebrooke, who was then the most competent\njudge, writes to his father:--\n\n \u201cAs for the other point you mention, the use of a translation by\n Wilkins, without acknowledgment, I\u00a0can bear testimony that Sir W.\n Jones\u2019s own labors in Manu sufficed without the aid of a\n translation. He had carried an interlineary Latin version through\n all the difficult chapters; he had read the original three times\n through, and he had carefully studied the commentaries. This I know,\n because it appears clearly so from the copies of Manu and his\n commentators which Sir William used, and which I have seen. I\u00a0must\n think that he paid a sufficient compliment to Wilkins, when he said,\n that without his aid he should never have learned Sanskrit.\n I\u00a0observe with regret a growing disposition, here and in England, to\n depreciate Sir W. Jones\u2019s merits. It has not hitherto shown itself\n beyond private circles and conversation. Should the same disposition\n be manifested in print, I\u00a0shall think myself bound to bear public\n testimony to his attainments in Sanskrit.\u201d\n\nSuch candid appreciation of the merits of Sir W. Jones, conveyed in a\nprivate letter, and coming from the pen of the only person then\ncompetent to judge both of the strong and the weak points in the\nscholarship of Sir William Jones, ought to caution us against any\ninconsiderate judgment. Yet we do not hesitate to declare that, as\nSanskrit scholars, Sir William Jones and Colebrooke cannot be compared.\nSir William had explored a few fields only, Colebrooke had surveyed\nalmost the whole domain of Sanskrit literature. Sir William was able to\nread fragments of epic poetry, a\u00a0play, and the laws of Manu. But the\nreally difficult works, the grammatical treatises and commentaries, the\nphilosophical systems, and, before all, the immense literature of the\nVedic period, were never seriously approached by him. Sir William Jones\nreminds us sometimes of the dashing and impatient general who tries to\ntake every fortress by bombardment or by storm, while Colebrooke never\ntrusts to anything but a regular siege. They will both retain places of\nhonor in our literary Walhallas. But ask any librarian, and he will say\nthat at the present day the collected works of Sir W. Jones are hardly\never consulted by Sanskrit scholars, while Colebrooke\u2019s essays are even\nnow passing through a new edition, and we hope Sir Edward Colebrooke\nwill one day give the world a complete edition of his father\u2019s works.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nCOMPARATIVE VIEW OF SANSKRIT AND OTHER LANGUAGES,\n\nBy T. H. Colebrooke.\n\n Oxford, September, 1874.\n\n\nI mentioned in my Address before the Aryan section of the Oriental\nCongress that I possessed some MS. notes of Colebrooke\u2019s on Comparative\nPhilology. They were sent to me some time ago by his son, Sir E.\nColebrooke, who gave me leave to publish them, if I thought them of\nsufficient importance. They were written down, as far as we know, about\nthe years 1801 or 1802, and contain long lists of words expressive of\nsome of the most important elements of early civilization, in Sanskrit,\nGreek, Latin, Teutonic, Celtic, and Slavonic. Like everything that\nColebrooke wrote, these lists are prepared with great care. They exist\nin rough notes, in a first, and in a second copy. I\u00a0give them from the\nsecond copy, in which many words from less important languages are\nomitted, and several doubtful comparisons suppressed. I\u00a0have purposely\naltered nothing, for the interest of these lists is chiefly historical,\nshowing how, long before the days of Bopp and Grimm, Colebrooke had\nclearly perceived the relationship of all the principal branches of the\nAryan family, and, what is more important, how he had anticipated the\nhistorical conclusions which a comparison of the principal words of the\ngreat dialects of the Aryan family enables us to draw with regard to the\nstate of civilization anterior to the first separation of the Aryan\nrace. No one acquainted with the progress which Comparative Philology\nhas made during the last seventy years would think of quoting some of\nthe comparisons here suggested by Colebrooke as authoritative. The\nrestraints which phonetic laws have since imposed on the comparison of\nwords were unknown in his days. But with all that, it is most surprising\nto see how careful Colebrooke was, even when he had to guess, and how\nwell he succeeded in collecting those words which form the earliest\ncommon dictionary of our ancestors, and supply the only trustworthy\nmaterials for a history of the very beginnings of the Aryan race.\n\n MAX MULLER.\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThe transliteration system in this section is different from M\u00fcller\u2019s.\nNote in particular:\n\n c, c\u2019h, ch, j = k, kh, c, j (M\u00fcller\u2019s k, kh, {k}, {g})\n r\u012d = \u1e5b (M\u00fcller\u2019s {ri})\n \u00e4 \u00ef \u00f6 \u00fc dots represent dieresis, not umlaut\n\nThe letter \u1e6d was shown as t\u0301 (t with acute). This has been regularized\nbecause Colebrooke\u2019s form may not display reliably. The form \u0144 for \u1e47\nhas been retained; \u1e0d does not occur.]\n\n+Father.+\n\n _Sans._ Pitr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Beng._ _Hind._ Pit\u00e1. _Pers._ Pider.\n\n _Sans._ Janayitr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Gr._ Geneter, Gennetor. _Lat._ Genitor.\n\n _Sans._ T\u00e1ta. _Beng._ T\u00e1t. _Arm._ Tat. _Wal._ _Corn._ Tad.\n _Ang._ Dad.\n\n _Sans._ Vaptr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Beng._ B\u00e1p\u00e1. _Hind._ B\u00e1b\u00e1, B\u00e1p. _Germ._ Vater.\n _Belg._ Vader. _Isl._ Bader. _Gr._ _Lat._ Pater.\n\n+Mother.+\n\n _Sans._ Janayitr\u00ed, Janan\u00ed. _Gr._ Genn\u00eateira. _Lat._ Genitrix.\n\n _Sans._ M\u00e1tr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Beng._ M\u00e1t\u00e1. _Lat._ Mater. _Gr._ Meter.\n _Sclav._ Mati. _Ir._ Mat\u2019hair. _Germ._ Mutter. _Sax._ Moder.\n _Belg._ _Isl._ Mooder.\n\nN.B. The roots _jan_ and _jani_ (the past tense of which last is\n_jajny\u00e9_, pronounced _jagy\u00e9_ in Bengal, Tirhut, etc.) are evidently\nanalogous to the Latin _gigno_, and Greek _gennao_.\n\n+Son.+\n\n _Sans._ Putra. _Hind._ Putr, P\u00fat. _T\u00e1mil._ Putren. _Ori._ P\u00fa\u00e1.\n\n _Sans._ S\u00fanu. _Hind._ S\u00fan, Su\u00e4n. _Goth._ Sunus. _Sax._ Suna.\n _Belg._ Soen, Sone. _Sue._ Son. _Dalm._ Szun. _Pol._ _Boh._ Syn.\n _Scl._ Sin, Syn.\n\n+Grandson.+\n\n _Sans._ Naptr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Lat._ Nepos. _Hind._ N\u00e1t\u00ed. _Mahr._ N\u00e1t\u00fa.\n\n+Granddaughter.+\n\n _Sans._ Naptr\u00ed. _Lat._ Neptis. _Hind._ Natn\u00ed. _Beng._ N\u00e1tn\u00ed.\n _Ori._ N\u00e1tuni.\n\n+Daughter\u2019s Son.+\n\n _Sans._ Dauhitra. _Beng._ Dauhitro. _Hind._ D\u00f3ht\u00e1.\n _Gr._ Thugatridous.\n\n+Son\u2019s Son.+\n\n _Sans._ Pautra. _Hind._ P\u00f3t\u00e1. _Beng._ Pautro.\n\n+Daughter.+\n\n _Sans._ Duhitr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Beng._ Duhit\u00e1. _Hind._ D\u00f3hit\u00e1.\n _Goth._ Dauhter. _Sax._ Dohter. _Pers._ Dokhter. _Belg._ Dochtere.\n _Germ._ Tochter. _Gr._ Thygater. _Sue._ Dotter. _Isl._ Dooter.\n _Dan._ Daater.\n\n _Sans._ T\u00f3c\u00e1. _Russ._ Doke. _Hind._ Dh\u00edya, Dh\u00ed. _Or._ Jh\u00ed\u00e4.\n _Scl._ Hzhi. _Dalm._ Hchii. _Boh._ Dey, Deera. _Ir._ Dear.\n\n+Brother.+\n\n _Sans._ Bhr\u00e1tr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Hind._ Bhr\u00e1t\u00e1, Bha\u00ef, Bhay\u00e1, B\u00edr, B\u00edran.\n _Pers._ Bir\u00e1dar. _Corn._ Bredar. _Wal._ Braud. _Ir._ Brathair.\n _Arm._ Breur. _Mona._ Breyr. _Scl._ Brat. _Russ._ Brate.\n _Dalm._ Brath. _Boh._ Bradr. _Germ._ Bruder. _Ang.-Sax._ Brother.\n _Sax._ Brother. _Lat._ Frater. _Gall._ Fr\u00e8re.\n\n+Sister.+\n\n _Sans._ Bhagin\u00ed. _Hind._ Bhagn\u00ed, Bahin, Bhain\u00e1. _Beng._ Bhogin\u00ed,\n Bo\u00efn. _Mahr._ Bahin. _Or._ Bhaun\u00ed.\n\n _Sans._ Swasr\u012d (-s\u00e1). _Ir._ Shiur. _Gall._ Soeur. _Mona._ Sywr.\n _Sicil._ Suora. _Lat._ Soror. _Germ._ Schwester. _Sax._ Sweoster.\n _Goth._ Swister. _Holl._ Zuster. _Wal._ C\u2019huaer.\n\n+Father-in-law.+\n\n _Sans._ \u015awa\u015bura. _Beng._ S\u00f3sur. _Mahr._ Sasar\u00e1. _Hind._ Susar,\n S\u00fasr\u00e1, Sas\u00far. _Lat._ S\u00f3cer, Socerus. _Gr._ Hecyros.\n\n+Mother-in-law.+\n\n _Sans._ \u015awa\u015br\u00fa. _Beng._ Sosru, S\u00e1suri. _Hind._ S\u00e1s. _Mahr._ S\u00e1s\u00fa.\n _Lat._ Socrus. _Gr._ Hecyra.\n\n+Wife\u2019s Brother.+\n\n _Sans._ Sy\u00e1la. _Beng._ Sy\u00e1loc. _Hind._ S\u00e1l\u00e1. _Or._ Sal\u00e1.\n\n+Husband\u2019s Brother.+\n\n _Sans._ D\u00e9vr\u012d (-v\u00e1), D\u00e9vara. _Hind._ D\u00e9war. _Guj._ D\u00edyar.\n _Mahr._ D\u00edr. _Gr._ Da\u00ear. _Lat._ Levir (_olim_ Devir).\n\n+Son-in-law.+\n\n _Sans._ J\u00e1m\u00e1tr\u012d (-t\u00e1). _Hind._ Jam\u00e1\u00ed, Jaw\u00e1\u00ed. _Pers._ D\u00e1m\u00e1d.\n\n+Widow.+\n\n _Sans._ Vidhav\u00e1. _Lat._ Vidua. _Sax._ Widwa. _Holl._ Weduwe.\n\n+Daughter-in-law.+\n\n _Sans._ Badh\u00fa. _Hind._ Bah\u00fa. _Beng._ B\u00e4\u00fa. _Gall._ Bru.\n\n _Sans._ Snush\u00e1. _Cashm._ Nus. _Penj._ Nuh. _Gr._ Nyos. _Lat._ Nurus.\n\n+Sun.+\n\n _Sans._ Heli (-lis). _Gr._ Helios. _Arm._ Heol. _Wal._ Hayl, Heyluen.\n\n _Sans._ Mitra. _Pehl._ Mithra.\n\n _Sans._ Mihara, Mahira. _Pers._ Mihr.\n\n _Sans._ S\u00fara, S\u00farya. _Hind._ S\u00farej. _Mahr._ S\u00farj, S\u00farya. _Ori._ Suruy.\n\n+Moon.+\n\n _Sans._ Chandra. _Hind._ Ch\u00e1nd, Chandr, Chandram\u00e1.\n\n _Sans._ M\u00e1s (m\u00e1h). _Pers._ M\u00e1h. _Boh._ Mesyc. _Pol._ Miesyac.\n _Dalm._ Miszecz.\n\n+Star.+\n\n _Sans._ T\u00e1r\u00e1. _Hind._ T\u00e1r\u00e1. _Pers._ Sitareh. _Gr._ Aster.\n _Belg._ Sterre. _Sax._ Steorra. _Germ._ Stern. _Corn._ _Arm._ Steren.\n\n+Month.+\n\n _Sans._ M\u00e1sa (-sas). _Hind._ Mahin\u00e1, M\u00e1s. _Pers._ M\u00e1h.\n _Scl._ Messcz. _Dalm._ Miszecz. _Wal._ Misguaith. _Gr._ Mene.\n _Lat._ Mensis. _Gall._ Mois.\n\n+Day.+\n\n _Sans._ Diva. _Mahr._ Diwas. _Lat._ Dies. _Sax._ D\u00e6g.\n\n _Sans._ Dina. _Hind._ Din. _Boh._ Den. _Scl._ Dan. _Dalm._ Daan.\n _Pol._ Dzien. _Ang._ (Ant.) Den.\n\n+Night.+\n\n _Sans._ R\u00e1tri. _Hind._ R\u00e1t. _Penj._ R\u00e1tter.\n\n _Sans._ Ni\u015b, Ni\u015b\u00e1. _Wal._ _Arm._ Nos.\n\n _Sans._ Nact\u00e1. _Lat._ Nox. _Gr._ Nyx. _Goth._ Nahts, Nauts.\n _Sax._ Niht. _Isl._ Natt. _Boh._ Noc. _Gall._ Nuit.\n\n+By Night.+\n\n _Sans._ (adv.) Nactam. _Lat._ Noctu. _Gr._ Nyctor.\n\n+Sky, Heaven.+\n\n _Sans._ Div, Diva. _Beng._ Dibi. _Liv._ Debbes.\n\n _Sans._ Swar, Swarga. _Hind._ Swarag. _Guz._ Sarag. _Cant._ Cerua.\n\n _Sans._ Nabhas. _Beng._ Nebho. _Russ._ Nebo. _Scl._ Nebu.\n _Boh._ Nebe. _Pol._ Niebo.\n\n+God.+\n\n _Sans._ D\u00e9va (-vas), D\u00e9vat\u00e1. _Hind._ D\u00e9wat\u00e1. _Penj._ D\u00e9\u00fa.\n _Tamil._ Taivam. _Lat._ Deus. _Gr._ Theos. _Wal._ Diju. _Ir._ Diu.\n\n _Sans._ Bhagav\u00e1n. _Dalm._ Bogh. _Croat._ Bog.\n\n+Fire.+\n\n _Sans._ Agni. _Casm._ Agin. _Beng._ \u00c1gun. _Hind._ Ag. _Scl._ Ogein.\n _Croat._ Ogayn. _Pol._ Ogien. _Dalm._ Ogany. _Lat._ Ignis.\n\n _Sans._ Vahni. _Boh._ Ohen.\n\n _Sans._ Anala. _Beng._ Onol. _Mona._ Aul.\n\n _Sans._ \u015aushman (m\u00e1). _Cant._ Sua.\n\n _Sans._ Tan\u00fanap\u00e1t. _Wal._ T\u00e2n. _Ir._ Teene.\n\n _Sans._ Varhis. _Sax._ V\u00fcr. _Belg._ Vier.\n\n+Water.+\n\n _Sans._ \u00c1p. _Pers._ \u00c1b.\n\n _Sans._ P\u00e1n\u00edya. _Hind._ P\u00e1n\u00ed.\n\n _Sans._ Udaca. _Russ._ Ouode. _Scl._ Voda. _Boh._ Woda.\n\n _Sans._ N\u00edra, N\u00e1ra. _Beng._ N\u00edr. _Carn._ N\u00edra. _Tel._ N\u00edllu.\n _Vulg. Gr._ Nero.\n\n _Sans._ Jala. _Hind._ Jal. _Ir._ Gil.\n\n _Sans._ Ar\u0144a. _Ir._ An.\n\n _Sans._ V\u00e1r, V\u00e1ri. _Beng._ B\u00e1r. _Ir._ Bir. _Cant._ Vra.\n\n+Cloud.+\n\n _Sans._ Abhra. _Penj._ Abhar. _Casm._ Abar. _Pers._ Abr.\n _Gr._ Ombros. _Lat._ Imber.\n\n+Man.+\n\n _Sans._ Nara. _Pers._ Nar. _Gr._ Aner.\n\n _Sans._ M\u00e1nava, M\u00e1nusha. _Guz._ M\u00e1nas. _Beng._ M\u00e1nus. _Dan._ Mand.\n _Sax._ Man, Men.\n\n+Mind.+\n\n _Sans._ Manas. _Gr._ Menos. _Lat._ Mens.\n\n+Bone.+\n\n _Sans._ Had\u00b4d\u00b4a. _Hind._ Had\u00ed.\n\n _Sans._ Asthi. _Lat._ Os. _Gr._ Osteon.\n\n+Hand.+\n\n _Sans._ Hasta. _Hind._ H\u00e1t\u2019h. _Penj._ Hatt\u2019h. _Beng._ H\u00e1t.\n _Pers._ Dest.\n\n _Sans._ Cara. _Gr._ Cheir. _Vulg. Gr._ Chere.\n\n _Sans._ P\u00e1ni. _Wal._ Pawen. _Ang._ Paw.\n\n+Knee.+\n\n _Sans._ J\u00e1nu. _Penj._ J\u00e1hnu. _Pers._ Z\u00e1nu. _Hind._ Gutan\u00e1.\n _Gr._ Gonu. _Lat._ Genu. _Gall._ Genou. _Sax._ Cneow.\n\n+Foot.+\n\n _Sans._ P\u00e1da, Pad. _Or._ P\u00e1d. _Beng._ Pod, P\u00e1. _Hind._ P\u00e1\u00fa, Payar.\n _Lat._ Pes (pedis). _Gr._ Pous (podos). _Vulg. Gr._ Podare.\n _Gall._ Pied. _Goth._ Fotus. _Sax._ Fot, Vot. _Sue._ Foot.\n\n _Sans._ Anghri. _Beng._ Onghri. _Scl._ Noga. _Pol._ Nogi.\n\n+Breast.+\n\n _Sans._ Stana. _Beng._ Stan. (_Ang._ Pap.) _Gr._ Sternon.\n _Lat._ Sternum. (_Ang._ Chest.)\n\n+Navel.+\n\n _Sans._ N\u00e1bhi. _Hind._ N\u00e1bh. _Beng._ N\u00e1\u00ef. _Or._ Nahi. _Pers._ N\u00e1f.\n _Gr._ Omphalos. _Sax._ Nafela, Navela.\n\n+Ear.+\n\n _Sans._ Car\u0144a. _Hind._ C\u00e1n. _Arm._ Skuarn. _Corn._ Skevam.\n\n+Nose.+\n\n _Sans._ Nasic\u00e1, N\u00e1s\u00e1, Nasya. _Hind._ N\u00e1c. _Penj._ Nacca.\n _Casm._ Nast. _Lat._ Nasus. _Germ._ Nase. _Belg._ Nuese.\n _Sax._ Noese, Nosa. _Sue._ Nasa. _Boh._ Nos. _Scl._ Nus.\n _Dalm._ Nooss.\n\n+Tooth.+\n\n _Sans._ Danta. _Hind._ D\u00e1nt. _Penj._ Dand. _Pers._ Dendan.\n _Wal._ Dant. _Lat._ Dens. _Gall._ Dent. _Gr._ Odous (-ontos).\n _Belg._ Tant, Tand. _Sax._ Toth.\n\n+Mouth.+\n\n _Sans._ Muc\u2019ha. _Hind._ Muc\u2019h, Muh, Munh, M\u00fanh. _Penj. _ M\u00fah.\n _Guz._ M\u00f3h. _Sax._ Muth.\n\n+Elbow.+\n\n _Sans._ Anka, flank; Anga, membrum. _Gr._ Agk\u014dn.\n\n+Voice.+\n\n _Sans._ V\u00e1ch (v\u00e1c). _Lat._ Vox. _Gr._ Ossa.\n\n+Name.+\n\n _Sans._ N\u00e1man (-ma). _Hind._ N\u00e1m, N\u00e1on\u0306. _Pers._ N\u00e1m. _Gr._ Onoma.\n _Lat._ Nomen. _Gall._ Nom. _Sax._ Nama.\n\n+King.+\n\n _Sans._ R\u00e1j (-t\u00b4, -d\u00b4), R\u00e1jan (-j\u00e1). _Hind._ R\u00e1j\u00e1. _Lat._ Rex.\n _Gall._ Roy. _Wal._ Rhuy, Rhiydh. _Ir._ Righ, Rak.\n\n+Kingdom.+\n\n _Sans._ R\u00e1jnya (-am). _Lat._ Regnum.\n\n+Town.+\n\n _Sans._ C\u2019h\u00e9ta. _Hind._ C\u2019h\u00e9r\u00e1. _Wal._ Kaer. _Arm._ Koer.\n\n+House.+\n\n _Sans._ \u00d3cas. _Gr._ Oicos.\n\n _Sans._ Gr\u012dha. _Hind._ Ghar. _Casm._ Gar.\n\n+Ship _or_ Boat.+\n\n _Sans._ Nau (naus). _Gr._ Naus. _Lat._ Navis. _Pers._ Nau.\n _Hind._ Nau, N\u00e1\u00fa. _Or._ N\u00e1. _Carn._ N\u00e1viya.\n\n+A Small Boat.+\n\n _Sans._ Plava. _Mah._ Plav. _Gr._ Ploion.\n\n+Thing, Wealth.+\n\n _Sans._ Rai (r\u00e1s). _Lat._ Res.\n\n+Mountain.+\n\n _Sans._ Parvata. _Hind._ Parbat, Pah\u00e1r. _Penj._ Parabat.\n _Carn._ Parbatavu.\n\n _Sans._ Adri. _Penj._ Adari. _Ir._ Ard.\n\n _Sans._ Naga, Aga. _Ir._ Aigh.\n\n _Sans._ Gr\u00e1van (-v\u00e1), Giri. _Lus._ Grib. _Scl._ Hrib.\n\n+Rock _or_ Stone.+\n\n _Sans._ Prastara. _Hind._ Patt\u2019har. _Guz._ Pat\u2019har. _Beng._ Pat\u2019har.\n _Gr._ Petra. _Lat._ Petra.\n\n _Sans._ Gr\u00e1van (-v\u00e1). _Penj._ Gar\u00e1v.\n\n+Tree.+\n\n _Sans._ Dru (drus), Druma (-mas). _Gr._ Drys (Drymos, a\u00a0wood).\n _Epir._ Druu. _Russ._ Dreous. _Scl._ Drevu.\n\n _Sans._ Taru. _Goth._ Triu, Trie. _Sax._ Treo, Treow. _Dan._ Tree.\n\n+Pomegranate.+\n\n _Sans._ R\u00f3hita. _Gr._ Rhoa, Rhoia.\n\n+Horse.+\n\n _Sans._ Gh\u00f3\u1e6daca. _Hind._ Gh\u00f3r\u00e1. _Guz._ Gh\u00f3r\u00f3. _Casm._ Guru.\n _Wal._ Goruydh, Govar.\n\n _Sans._ Haya (-yas). _Ant. Sans._ Arusha. _Isl._ Hors, Hestur.\n _Dan._ Hest. _Sue._ Hast. _Sax._ Hors.\n\n _Sans._ A\u015bva. _Penj._ Aswa. _Pers._ Asp.\n\n+Ass.+\n\n _Sans._ C\u2019hara. _Penj._ C\u2019har. _Pers._ Khar.\n\n _Sans._ Gardabha. _Hind._ Gadh\u00e1. _Tirh._ Gadah\u00e1.\n\n+Mule.+\n\n _Sans._ A\u015bwatara. _Pers._ Astar.\n\n+Camel.+\n\n _Sans._ Ush\u1e6dra. _Hind._ Unt. _Guz._ Ut. _Penj._ Ustar.\n _Pers._ Ushtur, Shutur.\n\n+Ox, Cow, Bull.+\n\n _Sans._ G\u00f3 (gaus). _Hind._ Gau, G\u00e1\u00ed. _Beng._ Goru. _Pers._ Gau.\n _Sax._ Cu. _Sue._ Koo. _Belg._ Koe. _Germ._ Kue. _Sans._ Ucshan\n (-sh\u00e1). _Sax._ Oxa. _Dan._ Oxe. _Isl._ Uxe. _Boh._ Ochse.\n _Germ._ Ochs. _Wai._ Ychs.\n\n _Sans._ Vr\u012dsha, Vr\u012dshan (-sh\u00e1). _Tirh._ Brikh. _Boh._ Byk.\n _Pol._ Beik. _Dalm._ Bak. _Lus._ Bik. _Hung._ Bika. _Wal._ Byuch.\n _Arm._ Biych. _Corn._ Byuh.\n\n+Goat.+\n\n _Sans._ Bucca, Barcara. _Hind._ Bacr\u00e1. _Mahr._ B\u00f3car. _Guz._ B\u00f3car\u00f3.\n _Beng._ B\u00f3c\u00e1. _Arm._ Buch. _Corn._ Byk. _Sax._ Bucca. _Gall._ Bouc.\n _Sue._ Bock. _Belg._ Bocke. _Ital._ Becco.\n\n+Ewe.+\n\n _Sans._ Avi (-vis). _Gr._ Ois. _Lat._ Ovis. _Sax._ Eowe.\n\n+Wool.+\n\n _Sans._ Ur\u0144\u00e1. _Hind._ Un. _Scl._ Volna. _Pol._ Welna. _Boh._ Wlna.\n _Dalm._ Vuna. _Sue._ Ull. _Isl._ Ull. _Belg._ Wul. _Germ._ Wolle.\n _A.-Sax._ Wulle. _Wal._ Gulan. _Corn._ Gluan. _Arm._ Gloan.\n _Ir._ Olann.\n\n+Hair of the Body.+\n\n _Sans._ Lava. _Ir._ Lo.\n\n _Sans._ L\u00f3man (-ma), R\u00f3man (-ma). _Hind._ R\u00f3\u00e1n. _Beng._ L\u00f3m, R\u00f3m.\n _Casm._ R\u00fam. _Mah._ R\u00f3m\u00e9.\n\n+Hair of the Head.+\n\n _Sans._ C\u00e9sa. _Hind._ C\u00e9s. _Casm._ C\u00eds. _Lat._ Crinis.\n\n _Sans._ B\u00e1la. _Hind._ B\u00e1l.\n\n+Hog.+\n\n _Sans._ S\u00facara (fem -r\u00ed). _Penj._ S\u00far.\n _Hind._ S\u00fa\u00e4r, S\u00fawar, S\u00fa, Su\u00e9n. _Beng._ Sh\u00facar, Sh\u00fa\u00f3r. _Mahr._ D\u00facar.\n _Tirh._ S\u00fagar. _Nepal._ Sur\u00fan. _Dan._ Suin. _Sue._ Swiin.\n _Lus._ Swina. _Carn._ Swynia, Swine. _Ang._ Swine. _Sax._ Sugn.\n _Holl._ Soeg, Sauwe. _Germ._ Sauw. _Ang._ Sow. _Belg._ Soch.\n _Lat._ Sus. _Gr._ Hys, Sys. _Lacon._ Sika. _Pers._ Khuc.\n _Wal._ H\u00fakh. _Corn._ Hoch, Hoh.\n\n+Boar.+\n\n _Sans._ Var\u00e1ha. _Hind._ Bar\u00e1h. _Oris._ Barah\u00e1. _Beng._ Bor\u00e1h\u00f3, Bor\u00e1.\n _Corn._ Bora, Baedh. _Belg._ Beer. _Sax._ Bar. _Ang._ Boar.\n _Span._ Berraco. _Gall._ Verrat. _Ital._ Verro.\n\n+Mouse.+\n\n _Sans._ M\u00fashaca, M\u00fash\u00e1. _Hind._ Mus, Mus\u00e1, Mus\u00ed, M\u00fasr\u00ed, M\u00fasn\u00e1.\n _Penj._ M\u00fash\u00e1. _Tirh._ M\u00fas. _Lat._ Mus. _Gr._ M\u00fbs. _Sax._ Mus.\n\n+Bear.+\n\n _Sans._ Ricsha. _Hind._ R\u00edch\u2019h. _Penj._ Richh. _Guz._ R\u00e9nchh.\n _Tirh._ Rikh.\n\n _Sans._ Bhalla, Bhallaca, Bh\u00e1ll\u00faca. _Hind._ Bh\u00e1l, Bh\u00e1l\u00fa.\n\n _Sans._ Ach\u2019ha, Acsha. _Gr._ Arctos. _Wal._ Arth.\n\n+Wolf.+\n\n _Sans._ Vr\u012dca. _Dalm._ Vuuk. _Scl._ Vulk. _Pol._ Wulk.\n\n+Insect.+\n\n _Sans._ Cr\u012dmi. _Pers._ Cirm. _Beng._ Crimi. _Tamil._ Crimi.\n\n+Serpent.+\n\n _Sans._ Ahi (ahis). _Gr._ Ophis. _Sans._ Sarpa. _Pers._ Serp.\n _Lat._ Serpens. _Hind._ S\u00e1rp.\n\n+Cuckoo.+\n\n _Sans._ Cocila. _Hind._ Coil. _Lat._ Cuculus. _Gr._ Kokkyx.\n\n _Sans._ Pica. _Lat._ Picus.\n\n+Crab.+\n\n _Sans._ Carcata. _Beng._ C\u00e1nc\u0155\u00e1, C\u00e9nc\u0155\u00e1. _Hind._ C\u00e9ncr\u00e1, C\u00e9cr\u00e1.\n _Gr._ Carcinos. _Lat._ Cancer. _Wal._ Krank. _Corn._ _Arm._ Kankr.\n _Gall._ Cancre. _Ir._ Kruban. _Sax._ Crabbe. _Ang._ Crab.\n\n+Cucumber.+\n\n _Sans._ Carcat\u00ed. _Beng._ C\u00e1ncur. _Hind._ C\u00e1cr\u00ed. _Lat._ Cucumer,\n Cucumis. _Gall._ Concombre. _Ang._ Cucumber.\n\n+Sound.+\n\n _Sans._ Swana, Sw\u00e1na. _Lat._ Sonus. _Wal._ S\u00fbn, S\u00f4n, Sain.\n _Sax._ Sund.\n\n+Sleep.+\n\n _Sans._ Swapna, \u015aaya, Sw\u00e1pa. _Beng._ Sh\u00f3\u00f6n.\n _Hind._ (Supna) Sona [to sleep]. _Gr._ Hypnos.\n _Wal._ Heppian [to sleep]. _Sax._ Sleepan. _Ang._ Sleep.\n\n+New.+\n\n _Sans._ Nava (m. Navas, f. Nav\u00e1, n. Navam), Nav\u00edna. _Lat._ Novus.\n _Gr._ Neos, Nearos. _Pers._ N\u00f3. _Hind._ Nay\u00e1, Naw\u00e9n. _Beng._ Niara.\n _Wal._ _Corn._ Neuydh. _Ir._ N\u00faadh. _Arm._ Nevedh, Noadh.\n _Gall._ Neuf. _Ang._ New. _Sax._ Neow.\n\n+Young.+\n\n _Sans._ Yuvan (Yuv\u00e2). _Lat._ Juvenis.\n\n+Thin.+\n\n _Sans._ Tanus. _Lat._ Tenuis.\n\n+Great.+\n\n _Sans._ Mah\u00e2. _Gr._ Megas. _Lat._ Magnus.\n\n+Broad.+\n\n _Sans._ Urus. _Gr._ Eurus.\n\n+Old.+\n\n _Sans._ J\u00edr\u0144as. _Gr._ Geron.\n\n+Other.+\n\n _Sans._ Itaras. _Gr._ Heteros.\n\n _Sans._ Anyas. _Lat._ Alius.\n\n+Fool.+\n\n _Sans._ M\u00fad\u2019has, M\u00farchas. _Gr._ Moros.\n\n+Dry.+\n\n _Sans._ Csh\u00e1ras. _Gr._ Xeros.\n\n+Sin.+\n\n _Sans._ Agha. _Gr._ Hagos (veneratio, scelus).\n\n+One.+\n\n _Sans._ Eca. _Hind._ _Beng._ _etc._ Ec. _Pers._ Y\u00e9c.\n\n+Two.+\n\n _Sans._ Dwi (nom. du. Dwau). _Hind._ Do. _Pers._ Do. _Gr._ Dyo.\n _Lat._ Duo. _Gall._ Deux. _Corn._ Deau. _Arm._ Dou. _Ir._ Do.\n _Goth._ Twai. _Sax._ Twu. _Ang._ Two.\n\n+Three.+\n\n _Sans._ Tri (nom. pl. Trayas). _Lat._ Tres. _Gr._ Treis.\n _Gall._ Trois. _Germ._ Drei. _Holl._ Dry. _Sax._ Threo.\n _Ang._ Three. _Wal._ _Arm._ _Ir._ Tri. _Corn._ Tre.\n\n+Four.+\n\n _Sans._ Chatur (nom. pl. Chatw\u00e1ras, fem. Chatasras). _Lat._ Quatuor.\n _Gall._ Quatre. _Gr._ Tessares. _Pers._ Cheh\u00e1r. _Hind._ Cheh\u00e1r.\n\n+And.+\n\n _Sans._ Cha. _Lat._ Que.\n\n+Five.+\n\n _Sans._ Pancha. _Hind._ P\u00e1nch. _Pers._ Penj. _Gr._ Pente.\n _Arm._ _Corn._ Pemp. _Wai._ Pymp.\n\n+Six.+\n\n _Sans._ Shash. _Pers._ Shesh. _Lat._ Sex. _Gr._ Hex.\n _Gall._ _Ang._ Six. _Wal._ Khu\u00eakh. _Corn._ Huih. _Arm._ Huekh.\n _Ir._ She, Seishear.\n\n+Seven.+\n\n _Sans._ Sapta. _Lat._ Septem. _Gall._ Sept. _Germ._ Sieben.\n _Ang._ Seven. _Sax._ Seofon. _Gr._ Hepta. _Pers._ Heft. _Hind._ S\u00e1t.\n _Wal._ Saith. _Arm._ _Corn._ Seith. _Ir._ Sheakhd.\n\n+Eight.+\n\n _Sans._ Asht\u2019a. _Pers._ Hasht. _Hind._ \u00c1th. _Gall._ Huit.\n _Sax._ Eahta. _Ang._ Eight. _Ir._ Okht. _Lat._ Octo.\n\n+Nine.+\n\n _Sans._ Nava. _Hind._ N\u00f3. _Lat._ Novem. _Wal._ _Corn._ Nau.\n _Arm._ N\u00e2o. _Ir._ Nyi. _Pers._ Noh. _Gall. _ Neuf. _Sax._ Nigon.\n _Ang._ Nine.\n\n+Ten.+\n\n _Sans._ Da\u015ba. _Hind._ Das. _Pers._ Dah. _Lat. _ Decem. _Ir._ Deikh.\n _Arm._ D\u00eak. _Corn._ D\u00eag.\n\nPRONOUNS.\n\n+I.+\n\n _Sans._ Aham (acc. M\u00e1; poss. and dat. M\u00e9; du. Nau; pl. Nas).\n _Lat._ _Gr._ Ego, etc. _Pers._ Men. _Hind._ Mai. _Ir._ Me.\n _Wal._ _Corn._ Mi. _Arm._ Ma.\n\n+Thou.+\n\n _Sans._ Twam (acc. Tw\u00e1; poss. and dat. T\u00e9; du. V\u00e1m; pl. Vas).\n _Lat._ Tu, etc. _Gr._ Su, etc. _Hind._ T\u00fa, Tain. _Beng._ Tumi, Tui.\n _Ir._ Tu. _Pers._ To. _Arm._ Te. _Corn._ Ta. _Wal._ Ti.\n\nPREPOSITIONS, ETC.\n\n _Sans._ Antar. _Lat._ Inter. _Sans._ Upari. _Gr._ Hyper.\n _Lat._ Super. _Sans._ Upa. _Gr._ Hypo. _Lat._ Sub. _Sans._ Apa.\n _Gr._ Apo. _Sans._ Pari. _Gr._ Peri. _Sans._ Pra. _Gr._ _Lat._ Pro.\n _Sans._ Par\u00e1. _Gr._ Pera. _Sans._ Abhi. _Gr._ Amphi. _Sans._ Ati.\n _Gr._ Anti. _Sans._ Ama. _Gr._ Am\u00e1. _Sans._ Anu. _Gr._ Ana.\n\nTERMINATIONS.\n\n _Sans._ (terminations of comparatives and superlatives) Taras, tamas.\n _Gr._ Teros, tatos. _Lat._ Terus, timus. _Sans._ Ish\u1e6dhas.\n _Gr._ Istos.\n\n _Sans._ (termin. of nouns of agency) Tr\u012d. _Gr._ Tor, ter. _Lat._ Tor.\n\n _Sans._ (termin. of participle) Tas. _Gr._ Tos. _Lat._ Tus.\n\n _Sans._ (termin. of supine) Tum. _Lat._ Tum.\n\nVERBS.\n\n+To Be+, Root AS.\n\n _Sans._ Asti, Asi, Asmi, Santi, Stha, Smas.\n\n _Gr._ Esti, E\u00ees (Essi), Eimi (D. Emmi), Eisi (D. Enti), Este, Esmen\n (D.\u00a0Eimes).\n\n _Lat._ Est, Es, Sum, Sunt, Estis, Sumus.\n\n+To Go+, Root I.\n\n _Sans._ \u00c9ti, \u00c9si. \u00c9mi, Yanti, Itha, Imas.\n\n _Lat._ It, Is, Eo, Eunt, Itis, Imus.\n\n _Gr._ E\u00eesi, E\u00ees, E\u00eemi, E\u00eesi, Ite, Imen (D. Imes).\n\n+To Eat+, Root AD.\n\n _Sans._ Atti, Atsi, Admi, Adanti, Attha, Admas. _Lat._ Edit, Edis,\n Edo, Edunt, Editis, Edimus. _Gr._ Esthiei. _Sax._ Etan.\n\n+To Give+, Root DA.\n\n _Sans._ Dad\u00e1ti, Dad\u00e1si, Dad\u00e1mi. _Lat._ Dat, Das, Do. _Gr._ Did\u014dsi,\n Did\u014ds, Did\u014dmi.\n\n Hence, _Sans._ D\u00e1nam, _Lat._ Donum.\n\n+To Join+, Root YUJ.\n\n _Sans._ Yunacti, Yunjanti. _Lat._ Jungit, Jungunt. _Sans._ Yunajmi.\n _Gr._ Zeugnumi.\n\n Hence, _Sans._ Yugam. _Lat._ Yugum. _Gr._ Zugos, Zugon. _Hind._ Ju\u00e4.\n _Sax._ Geoc. _Ang._ Yoke. _Dutch._ Joek.\n\n+To Sit+, Root SAD.\n\n _Sans._ S\u00eddati, S\u00eddanti. _Lat._ Sedet, Sedent.\n\n Hence, _Sans._ Sadas. _Lat._ Sedes.\n\n+To Subdue+, Root DAM.\n\n _Sans._ D\u00e1mayati. _Gr._ Damaei. _Lat._ Domat.\n\n Hence, Damanam. Damnum.\n\n+To Drink+, Root PA or P\u012a\n\n _Sans._ Pibati, Pibanti; Piyat\u00e9. _Lat._ Bibit, Bibunt. _Gr._ Pinei,\n Pinousi.\n\n+To Die+, Root MR\u012c.\n\n _Sans._ Mr\u012dyat\u00e9, Mr\u012dyant\u00e9. _Lat._ Moritur, Moriuntur.\n\n Hence, Mr\u012dtis, Mors, Mr\u012dtas, Mortuus.\n\n+To Know+, Root JNYA.\n\n _Sans._ J\u00e1n\u00e1t\u00ed, J\u00e1nanti. _Gr._ Ginosco _or_ Gignosco. _Lat._ Nosco.\n\n Hence, Jny\u00e1tas. _Lat._ N\u00f3tus. _Gr._ Gnostos.\n\n+To Beget+, Root JAN.\n\n _Sans._ J\u00e1yat\u00e9. Pret. Jajny\u00e9 (pronounced jagy\u00e9). _Gr._ Ginomai _vel_\n Gignomai. _Lat._ Gigno.\n\n+To Go+, Root SR\u012cP.\n\n _Sans._ Sarpati. _Lat._ Serpit. _Gr._ Herpei.\n\n+To See+, Root DR\u012cS.\n\n _Gr._ Derco. _Sans._ Dr\u012d\u015b. _Hind._ D\u00e9k\u2019h, to see.\n\n+To Procreate+, Root SU.\n\n _Sans._ S\u00fayat\u00e9 (rad. S\u00fa).\n\n Hence, _Sans._ S\u00fata, son. _Hind._ Su\u00e4n\u0306. _Gr._ Huios, Huieus.\n\n+To Know+, Root VID.\n\n _Sans._ Vid, to know. _Lat._ Video, to see.\n\n+To Delight+, Root TR\u012cP.\n\n _Sans._ Trip. _Gr._ Terpo.\n\n+To Strew+, Root STR\u012c.\n\n _Sans._ Str\u012d. _Lat._ Sterno. _Ang._ To strew. _Gr._ Stornumi,\n Stronnumi.\n\nADVERBS, ETC.\n\n _Sans._ A. _Gr._ A _priv._ (before vowels An).\n\n _Sans._ Su. _Gr._ E\u00fb.\n\n _Sans._ Dus. _Gr._ Dys.\n\n _Sans._ Cha. _Gr._ Te. _Lat._ Que.\n\n _Sans._ Na, No. _Lat._ Ne, Non. _Ang._ No.\n\n _Sans._ Chit (in comp.). _Lat._ Quid. _Gr._ Ti.\n\n _Sans._ Nanu. _Lat._ Nonne.\n\n _Sans._ Prabh\u00e1te. _Gr._ Pro\u00ef.\n\n _Sans._ Pura, Puratas. _Gr._ Pro, Proteros, etc.\n\n _Sans._ Punar. _Gr._ Palin.\n\n _Sans._ Pura. _Gr._ Palai.\n\n _Sans._ Alam. _Gr._ Halis.\n\n _Sans._ Hyas. _Gr._ Chthes.\n\n _Sans._ Adya. _Hind._ Aj. _Lat._ Hodie.\n\n\n [Footnote 1: _Miscellaneous Essays._ By Henry Thomas Colebrooke.\n With a Life of the author by his son. In three volumes. London:\n 1872.]\n\n [Footnote 2: The word +Gentoo+, which was commonly applied in the\n last century to the Hindus, is, according to Wilson, derived from\n the Portuguese word _gentio_, gentile or heathen. The word\n _caste_, too, comes from the same source.]\n\n [Footnote 3: See the list of words given at the end of this\n article, p.\u00a0400.]\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\nMY REPLY TO MR. DARWIN.\n\n\nDuring the whole of the year that has just passed away, all my spare\ntime has been required for the completion of my edition of the Rig-Veda\nand its Sanskrit commentary. I\u00a0had to shut my eyes to everything else.\nMany a book which I felt tempted to read was put aside, and hardly a\nsingle Review could draw me away from my purpose. Thus it has come to\npass that I did not know, till a few days ago, that some Lectures which\nI had delivered at the Royal Institution on \u201cMr. Darwin\u2019s Philosophy of\nLanguage,\u201d and which had been fully reported in \u201cFraser\u2019s Magazine\u201d for\nMay, June, and July, 1873, had elicited a reply emanating from one who\nwrites if not in, at least with Mr. Darwin\u2019s name, and who himself would\nbe, no doubt most proud to acknowledge the influence of \u201cfamily bias.\u201d\nI\u00a0could not have guessed from the title of the paper, \u201cProfessor Whitney\non the Origin of Language: by George H. Darwin,\u201d that it was meant as an\nanswer to the arguments which I had ventured to advance in my Lectures\nat the Royal Institution against Mr. Darwin\u2019s views on language. It was\nonly when telling a friend that I soon hoped to find time to complete\nthose Lectures, that I was asked whether I had seen Darwin\u2019s reply.\nI\u00a0read it at once in the November number of the \u201cContemporary Review;\u201d\nand, as it will take some time before I can hope to finish my book on\n\u201cLanguage as the true barrier between Man and Beast,\u201d I\u00a0determined, in\nthe meantime, to publish a brief rejoinder to the defense of Mr.\nDarwin\u2019s philosophy, so ably and chivalrously conducted by his son.\n\nWith regard to the proximate cause of Mr. Darwin\u2019s defense of his\nfather\u2019s views on language--viz. an article in the \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d\nI\u00a0may say at once that I knew nothing about it till I saw Mr. G.\nDarwin\u2019s article; and if there should be any suspicion in Mr. Darwin\u2019s\nmind that the writer in the \u201cQuarterly Review\u201d is in any sense of the\nword my _alter ego_ I can completely remove that impression.\n\nIt seems that the writer in the \u201cQuarterly\u201d expressed himself in the\nfollowing terms with regard to Mr. Darwin\u2019s competency on linguistic\nproblems:--\n\n \u201cFew recent intellectual phenomena are more astounding than the\n ignorance of these elementary yet fundamental distinctions and\n principles (_i.e._, as to the essence of language) exhibited by\n conspicuous advocates of the monistic hypothesis. Mr. Darwin, for\n example, does not exhibit the faintest indication of having grasped\n them.\u201d\n\nMr. Darwin, I mean the father, if he has read my lectures, or anything\nelse I have written, might easily have known that that is not the tone\nin which I write, least of all when speaking of men who have rendered\nsuch excellent service to the advancement of science as the author of\nthe book \u201cOn the Origin of Species.\u201d To me, the few pages devoted to\nlanguage by Mr. Darwin were full of interest, as showing the conclusions\nto which that school of philosophy which he so worthily represents is\ndriven with regard to the nature and origin of language. If put into\nmore becoming language, however, I\u00a0do not think there would be anything\noffensive in stating that Mr. Darwin, Sr., knows the results of the\nScience of Language at second hand only, and that his opinions on the\nsubject, however interesting as coming from him, cannot be accepted or\nquoted as authoritative. It has often done infinite mischief when men\nwho have acquired a right to speak with authority on one subject,\nexpress opinions on other subjects with which they are but slightly\nacquainted. These opinions, though never intended for that purpose, are\nsure to be invested by others, particularly by interested persons, with\nan authority to which in themselves they have no right whatever. It is\ntrue it would be difficult to carry on any scientific work, without to\nsome extent recognizing the authority of those who have established\ntheir claim to a certain amount of infallibility within their own\nspecial spheres of study. But when either the Pope expresses an opinion\non astronomy, or the Duke of Wellington on a work of art, they certainly\nought not to be offended if asked for their reasons, like any other\nmortals. No linguistic student, if he had ventured to express an opinion\non the fertilization of orchids, differing from that of Mr. Darwin,\nwould feel aggrieved by being told that his opinion, though showing\nintelligence, did not show that real grasp of the whole bearing of the\nproblem which can be acquired by a life-long devotion only. If the\nlinguistic student, who may be fond of orchids, cared only for a\ntemporary triumph in the eyes of the world, he might easily find, among\nthe numerous antagonists of Mr. Darwin, one who agreed with himself, and\nappeal to him as showing that he, though a mere layman in the Science of\nBotany, was supported in his opinions by other distinguished botanists.\nBut no real advance in the discovery of truth can ever be achieved by\nsuch mere cleverness. How can the soundness and truth of Mr. Darwin\u2019s\nphilosophy of language be established by an appeal like that with which\nMr. Darwin, Jr., opens his defense of his father?\n\n \u201cProfessor Whitney,\u201d he says, \u201cis the first philologist of note who\n has professedly taken on himself to combat the views of Professor\n Max M\u00fcller; and as the opinions of the latter most properly command\n a vast deal of respect in England, we think it will be good service\n to direct the attention of English readers to this powerful attack,\n and, as we think, successful refutation of the somewhat dogmatic\n views of our Oxford linguist.\u201d\n\nFirst of all, nothing would convey a more erroneous impression than to\nsay that Professor Whitney was the first philologist of note who has\ncombated my views. There is as much combat in the linguistic as in the\nphysical camp, though Mr. Darwin may not be aware of it. Beginning with\nProfessor Pott, I\u00a0could give a long list of most illustrious scholars in\nGermany, France, Italy, and surely in England also, who have subjected\nmy views on language to a far more searching criticism than Professor\nWhitney in America. But even if Professor Whitney were the only\nphilologist who differed from me, or agreed with Mr. Darwin, how would\nthat affect the soundness of Mr. Darwin\u2019s theories on language? Suppose\nI were to quote in return the opinion of M.\u00a0Renouvier, the distinguished\nauthor of \u201cLes Principes de la Nature,\u201d who, in his journal, \u201cLa\nCritique Philosophique,\u201d expresses his conviction that my criticism of\nMr. Darwin\u2019s philosophy contains not a simple _pol\u00e9mique_, but has the\ncharacter of a _r\u00e9dressement_; would that dishearten Mr. Darwin? I\u00a0must\nconfess that I had never before read Professor Whitney\u2019s \u201cLectures on\nLanguage,\u201d which were published in America in 1867; and I ought to thank\nMr. Darwin for having obliged me to do so now, for I have seldom perused\na book with greater interest and pleasure,--I might almost say,\namusement. It was like walking through old familiar places, like\nlistening to music which one knows one has heard before somewhere, and,\nfor that very reason, enjoys all the more. Not unfrequently I was met by\nthe _ipsissima verba_ of my own lectures on the Science of Language,\nthough immediately after they seemed to be changed into an inverted\nfugue. Often I saw how carefully the same books and pamphlets which I\nhad waded through had been studied: and on almost every page there were\nthe same doubts and difficulties, the same hopes and fears, the same\nhesitations and misgivings through which I myself well remembered having\npassed when preparing my two series of \u201cLectures on Language.\u201d Of\ncourse, we must not expect in Professor Whitney\u2019s Lectures, anything\nlike a systematic or exhaustive treatment. They touch on points which\nwere most likely to interest large audiences at Washington, and other\ntowns in America. They were meant to be popular, and nothing would be\nmore unfair than to blame an author for not giving what he did not mean\nto give. The only just complaint we have heard made about these Lectures\nis that they give sometimes too much of what is irreverently called\n\u201cpadding.\u201d Professor Whitney had read my own Lectures before writing\nhis; and though he is quite right in saying the principal facts on which\nhis reasonings are founded have been for some time past the commonplaces\nof Comparative Philology, and required no acknowledgment, he makes an\nhonorable exception in my favor, and acknowledges most readily having\nborrowed here and there an illustration from my Lectures. As to my own\nviews on the Science of Language, I\u00a0am glad to find that on all really\nimportant points, he far more frequently indorses them--nay,\ncorroborates them by new proofs and illustrations--than attempts to\nrefute them; and even in the latter case he generally does so by simply\npronouncing his decided preference for one out of two opinions, while I\nhad been satisfied with stating what could be said on either side. He\nmight here and there have tempered the wind to the shorn lamb, but I\nbelieve there is far more license allowed in America, in the expression\nof dissent, than in England; and it is both interesting and instructive\nin the study of Dialectic Growth, to see how words which would be\nconsidered offensive in England, have ceased to be so on the other side\nof the Atlantic, and are admitted into the most respectable of American\nReviews.\n\nWith regard to the question, for instance, on which so much has lately\nbeen written, whether we ought to ascribe to language a natural growth\nor historical change, I\u00a0see not one single argument produced on either\nside of the question in Professor Whitney\u2019s Second Lecture, beyond those\nwhich I had discussed in my Second Lecture. After stating all that could\nbe said in support of extending the name of history to the gradual\ndevelopment of language, I\u00a0tried to show that, after all, that name\nwould not be quite accurate.\n\n \u201cThe process,\u201d I\u00a0said, \u201cthrough which language is settled and\n unsettled combines in one the two opposite elements of necessity and\n free will. Though the individual seems to be the prime agent in\n producing new words and new grammatical forms, he is so only after\n his individuality has been merged in the common action of the\n family, tribe, or nation to which he belongs. He can do nothing by\n himself, and the first impulse to a new formation in language,\n though given by an individual, is mostly, if not always, given\n without premeditation, nay, unconsciously. The individual, as such,\n is powerless, and the results, apparently produced by him, depend on\n laws beyond his control, and on the co\u00f6peration of all those who\n form together with him one class, one body, one organic whole.\u201d\n (Page\u00a043.)\n\nAfter going through the whole argument, I summed up in the end by\nsaying:--\n\n \u201cWe cannot be careful enough in the use of our words. Strictly\n speaking, neither _history_ nor _growth_ is applicable to the\n changes of the shifting surface of the earth. _History_ applies to\n the actions of free agents, _growth_ to the natural unfolding of\n organic beings. We speak, however, of the growth of the crust of the\n earth,[1] and we know what we mean by it; and it is in this sense,\n but not in the sense of growth as applied to a tree, that we have a\n right to speak of the growth of language.\u201d\n\nWhat do we find in Professor Whitney\u2019s Second Lecture? He objects, like\nmyself, to comparing the growth of language and the growth of a tree,\nand like myself, he admits of an excuse, viz., when the metaphor is\nemployed for the sake of brevity or liveliness of delineation (p.\u00a035).\nI\u00a0had said:--\n\n \u201cEver since Horace, it has been usual to compare the changes of\n language with the growth of trees. But comparisons are treacherous\n things; and though we cannot help using metaphorical expressions, we\n should always be on our guard,\u201d etc.\n\nSo far we are in perfect harmony. But immediately after, the wind begins\nto blow. One sentence is torn out from the context, where I had said:--\n\n \u201cThat it is not in the power of man (not men) either to produce or\n to prevent change in language; that we might think as well of\n changing the laws which control the circulation of our blood, or of\n adding an inch to our height, as of altering the laws of speech, or\n inventing new words, _according to our pleasure_.\u201d\n\nIn order to guard against every possible apprehension as to what I meant\nby _according to our pleasure_, I quoted the well-known anecdotes of the\nEmperor Tiberius and of the Emperor Sigismund, and referred to the\nattempts of Protagoras, and other purists, as equally futile. Here the\nRepublican indignation of the American writer is roused; I, at least,\ncan find no other motive. He tells me that what I really wanted to say\nwas this:--\n\n \u201cIf so high and mighty a personage as an emperor could not do so\n small a thing as alter the gender and termination of a single\n word--much less can any one of inferior consideration hope to\n accomplish such a change.\u201d .\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\nHe then exclaims:--\n\n \u201cThe utter futility of deriving such a doctrine from such a pair of\n incidents, or a thousand like them, is almost too obvious to be\n worth the trouble of pointing out.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. High political station does\n not confer the right to make or unmake language,\u201d etc.\n\nNow every reader, even though looking only at these short extracts, will\nsee that the real point of my argument is here entirely missed, though I\ndo not mean to say that it was intentionally missed. The stress was laid\nby me on the words _according to our pleasure_; and in order to\nelucidate that point, I\u00a0first quoted instances taken from those who in\nother matters have the right of saying _car tel est mon plaisir_, and\nthen from others. I\u00a0feel a little guilty in not having mentioned the\nanecdote about _carrosse_; but not being able to verify it, I\u00a0thought I\nmight leave it to my opponents. However, after having quoted the two\nEmperors, I\u00a0quoted a more humble personage, Protagoras, and referred to\nother attempts at purism in language; but all that is, of course, passed\nover by my critic, as not answering his purpose.\n\nSometimes, amidst all the loud assertion of difference of opinion on\nProfessor Whitney\u2019s part, not only the substantial, but strange to say,\nthe verbal agreement between his and my own Second Lecture is startling.\nI\u00a0had said: \u201cThe first impulse to a new formation in language, though\ngiven by an individual, is mostly, if not always, given _without\npremeditation_, nay, _unconsciously_.\u201d My antagonist varies this very\nslightly and says: \u201cThe work of each individual is done\n_unpremeditately, or, as it were, unconsciously_\u201d (p.\u00a045). While I had\nsaid that we individually can no more change language, _selon notre\nplaisir_, than we can add an inch to our stature, Professor Whitney\nagain adopts a slight alteration and expresses himself as follows: \u201cThey\n(the facts of language) are almost as little the work of man as is the\nform of his skull\u201d (p.\u00a052). What is the difference between us? What is\nthe difference between changing our stature and changing our skull? Nor\ndoes he use the word growth as applied to language, less frequently than\nmyself; nay, sometimes he uses it so entirely without the necessary\nlimitations, that even I should have shrunk from adopting his\nphraseology. We read--\u201cIn this sense language is a growth\u201d (p.\u00a046);\n\u201ca\u00a0language, like an organic body, is no mere aggregate of similar\nparticles--it is a complex of related and mutually helpful parts\u201d\n(p.\u00a046); \u201clanguage is fitly comparable with an organized body\u201d (p.\u00a050);\n\u201ccompared with them, language is a real growth\u201d (p.\u00a051); etc., etc.,\netc.\n\nIn fact, after all has been said by Professor Whitney that had been said\nbefore, the only difference that remains is this--that he, after making\nall these concessions, prefers to class the Science of Language as an\nhistorical, not as a physical science. Why should he not? Everybody who\nis familiar with such questions, knows that all depends on a clear and\naccurate definition of the terms which we employ. The method of the\nScience of Language and the physical sciences is admitted, even by him,\nto be the same (p.\u00a052). Everything therefore depends on the wider or\nnarrower definition which we adopt of physical science. Enlarge the\ndefinition of the natural sciences, and the science of language will\nenter in freely; narrow it, and it will enter with difficulty, or not at\nall. The same with the historical sciences. Enlarge their definition,\nand the science of language will enter in freely; narrow it, and it will\nenter with difficulty, or not at all. There is hardly a word that is\nused in so many different meanings as nature, and that man in many of\nhis apparently freest acts is under the sway of unsuspected laws of\nnature, cannot sound so very novel to a student of Kant\u2019s writings, to\nsay nothing of later philosophers.[2] My principal object in claiming\nfor the Science of Language the name of a physical science, was to make\nit quite clear, once for all, that Comparative Philology was totally\ndistinct from ordinary Philology, that it treats language not as a\nvehicle of literature, but for its own sake; that it wants to explain\nthe origin and development far more than the idiomatic use of words, and\nthat for all these purposes it must adopt a strictly inductive method.\nMany of these views which, when I delivered my first lectures, met with\nvery determined opposition, are now generally accepted, and I can well\nunderstand, that younger readers should be surprised at the elaborate\nand minute arguments by which I tried to show in what sense the Science\nof Language may be counted as one of the physical sciences. Let them but\nread other books of the same period, and they will see with how much\nzeal these questions were then being discussed, particularly in England.\nWriting in England, and chiefly for English readers, I\u00a0tried as much as\npossible to adapt myself to the intellectual atmosphere of that country,\nand as to the classification of the inductive sciences, I\u00a0started from\nthat which was then most widely known, that of Whewell in his \u201cHistory\nof the Inductive Sciences.\u201d He classes the Science of Language as one of\nthe palaitiological sciences, but makes a distinction between\npalaitiological sciences treating of material things--for instance,\ngeology, and others respecting the products which result from man\u2019s\nimaginative and social endowments--for instance, Comparative Philology.\nHe still excludes the latter from the circle of the physical\nsciences,[3] properly so called, but he adds:--\n\n \u201cWe have seen that biology leads us to psychology, if we choose to\n follow the path; and thus the passage from the material to the\n immaterial has already unfolded itself at one point; and we now\n perceive that there are several large provinces of speculation which\n concern subjects belonging to man\u2019s immaterial nature, and which are\n governed by the same laws as sciences altogether physical. It is not\n our business to dwell on the prospects which our philosophy thus\n opens to our contemplation: but we may allow ourselves, in this last\n stage of our pilgrimage among the foundations of the physical\n sciences, to be cheered and animated by the ray that thus beams upon\n us, however dimly, from a higher and brighter region.\u201d\n\nConsidering the high position which Dr. Whewell held among the\nconflicting parties of philosophic and religious thought in England, we\nshould hardly have expected that the hope which he expressed of a\npossible transition from the material to the immaterial, and the place\nwhich he tentatively, and I more decidedly, assigned to the Science of\nLanguage, could have roused any orthodox animosities. Yet here is the\nsecret spring of Professor Whitney\u2019s efforts to claim for the Science of\nLanguage, in spite of his own admissions as a scholar, a\u00a0place among the\nmoral and historical, as distinct from the physical sciences. The\ntheological bias, long kept back, breaks through at last, and we are\ntreated to the following sermon:--\n\n \u201cThere is a school of modern philosophers who are trying to\n materialize all science, to eliminate the distinction between the\n physical and the intellectual and moral, to declare for nought the\n free action of the human will, and to resolve the whole story of the\n fates of mankind into a series of purely material effects, produced\n by assignable physical causes, and explainable in the past, or\n determinable in the future, by an intimate knowledge of those\n causes, by a recognition of the action of compulsory motives upon\n the passively obedient nature of man. With such, language will\n naturally pass, along with the rest, for a physical product, and its\n study for physical science; and, however we may dissent from their\n general classification, we cannot quarrel with its application in\n the particular instance. But by those who still hold to the grand\n distinction,\u201d etc., etc., etc.\n\nAt the end of this arguing _pro_ and _con._, the matter itself remains\nexactly where it was before. The Science of Language is a physical\nscience, if we extend the meaning of nature so far as to include human\nnature, in those manifestations at least where the individual does not\nact freely, but under reciprocal restraint. The Science of Language is\nan historical, or, as Professor Whitney prefers to call it, a\u00a0moral\nscience, if we comprehend under history the acts performed by men\n\u201cunpremeditately, or, as it were, unconsciously,\u201d and therefore beyond\nthe reach of moral considerations.\n\nI may seem to have entered more fully into this question than its real\nimportance requires, but I was anxious, before replying to Mr. Darwin\u2019s\nobjections, to show to him the general style of argument that pervades\nProfessor Whitney\u2019s writings, and the character of the armory from which\nhe has borrowed his weapons against me. I\u00a0have not been able to get\naccess to Professor Whitney\u2019s last article, and shall therefore confine\nmyself here to those arguments only which Mr. Darwin has adopted as his\nown, though, even if I had seen the whole of the American article,\nI\u00a0should have preferred not to enter into any personal controversy with\nProfessor Whitney. I\u00a0have expressed my sincere appreciation of the\nindustry and acumen which that scholar displays in his lectures on the\nScience of Language. There are some portions, particularly those on the\nSemitic and American languages, where he has left me far behind. There\nare some illustrations extremely well chosen, and worked out with a\ntouch of poetic genius; there are whole chapters where by keeping more\non the surface of his subject, he has succeeded in making it far more\nattractive and popular than I could have hoped to do. That treatment,\nhowever, entails its dangers, unless an author remembers, at every\nmoment, that in addressing a popular audience he is in honor bound to be\nfar more careful than if he writes for his own professional colleagues\nonly. The comparative portion, I\u00a0mean particularly the Seventh Lecture,\nis hardly what one would have expected from so experienced a teacher,\nand it is strange to find (p.\u00a0219) the inscription on the Duilian column\nreferred to about B.C. 263, after Ritschl and Mommsen had pointed out\nits affected archaisms; to see (p.\u00a0222) the name Ahura-Mazda rendered by\n\u201cthe mighty spirit;\u201d to meet (p.\u00a0258) with \u201csarvan\u00e2man,\u201d the Sanskrit\nname for pronoun, translated by \u201cname for everything, universal\ndesignation;\u201d to hear the Ph\u0153nician alphabet still spoken of as the\n_ultimate_ source of the world\u2019s alphabets, etc. Such mistakes, however,\ncan be corrected, but what can never be corrected is the unfortunate\ntone which Professor Whitney has adopted throughout. His one object\nseems to be to show to his countrymen that he is the equal of Bopp,\nRenan, Schleicher, Steinthal, Bleek, Hang, and others--aye, their\nsuperior. In stating their opinions, in criticizing their work, in\nsuggesting motives, he shrinks from nothing, evidently trusting to the\nold adage, _semper aliquid h\u0153ret_. I have often asked myself, why should\nProfessor Whitney have assumed this exceptional position among\nComparative Philologists. It is not American to attack others, simply in\norder to acquire notoriety. America has possessed, and still possesses,\nsome excellent scholars, whom every one of these German and French\n_savants_ would be proud to acknowledge as his peers. Mr. Marsh\u2019s\n\u201cLectures on the English Language\u201d are a recognized standard work in\nEngland; Professor\u2019s March\u2019s \u201cAnglo-Saxon Grammar\u201d has been praised by\neverybody. Why is there no trace of self-assertion or personal abuse in\nany of their works? It is curious to observe in Professor Whitney\u2019s\nworks, that the less he has thought on certain subjects, the louder he\nspeaks, and where arguments fail him, _epitheta ornantia_, such as\n_worthless_, _futile_, _absurd_, _ridiculous_, _superficial_, _unsound_,\n_high-flown_, _pretentious_, _disingenuous_, _false_, are poured out in\nabundance. I\u00a0believe there is not one of these choice counters with\nwhich, at some time or other, he has not presented me; nay, he has even\npoured the soothing oil of praise over my bruised head. _Quand on se\npermet tout, on peut faire quelque chose._ But what has been the result?\nIt has actually become a distinction to belong to the noble army of his\nmartyrs, while, whenever one is praised by him, one feels inclined to\nsay with Phocion, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03bf\u03cd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b1.\n\nWhat such behavior may lead to, we have lately seen in an encounter\nbetween the same American _savant_ and Professor Steinthal, of\nBerlin.[4] In his earlier writings Professor Whitney spoke of Professor\nSteinthal as an eminent master in linguistic science, from whose\nwritings he had derived the greatest instruction and enlightenment.\nAfterwards the friendly relations between the Yale and Berlin professors\nseem to have changed, and at last Professor Steinthal became so\nexasperated by the misrepresentations and the overbearing tone of the\nAmerican linguist, that he, in a moment of irritation, forgot himself so\nfar as to retaliate with the same missiles with which he had been\nassailed. What the missiles used in such encounters are, may be seen\nfrom a few specimens. One could hardly quote them all in an English\nReview. While dwelling on the system of bold misrepresentation adopted\nby Professor Whitney, Professor Steinthal calls him--\u201cThat vain man who\nonly wants to be named and praised;\u201d \u201cthat horrible humbug;\u201d \u201cthat\nscolding flirt;\u201d \u201cthat tricky attorney;\u201d \u201cwherever I read him, hollow\nvacuity yawns in my face; arrogant vanity grins at me.\u201d Surely, mere\nwords can go no further--we must expect to hear of tomahawk and\nbowie-knife next. Scholars who object to the use of such weapons,\nwhether for offensive or defensive purposes, can do nothing but what I\nhave done for years--remain silent, select what is good in Professor\nWhitney\u2019s writings, and try to forget the rest.\n\nSurely, students of language, of all people in the world, ought to know\nwhat words are made of, and how easy it is to pour out a whole\ndictionary of abuse without producing the slightest effect. A\u00a0page of\noffensive language weighs nothing--it simply shows the gall of\nbitterness and the weakness of the cause; whereas real learning, real\nlove of truth, real sympathy with our fellow-laborers, manifest\nthemselves in a very different manner. There were philosophers of old\nwho held that words must have been produced by nature, not by art,\nbecause curses produced such terrible effects. Professor Whitney holds\nthat language was produced \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, not \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, and yet he shares the\nsame superstitious faith in words. He bitterly complains that those whom\nhe reviles, do not revile him again. He wonders that no one answers his\nstrictures, and he is gradually becoming convinced that he is\nunanswerable. Whatever Mr. Darwin, Jr., may think of Professor Whitney\nas an ally, I\u00a0feel certain that Mr. Darwin, Sr., would be the last to\napprove the spirit of his works, and that a few pages of his\ncontroversial writings would make him say: _Non tali auxilio._\n\nI now proceed to examine some of the extracts which Mr. Darwin, Jr.,\nadopts from Professor Whitney\u2019s article, and even in them we shall see\nat once what I may call the spirit of the advocate, though others might\ncall it by another name.\n\nInstead of examining the facts on which my conclusions were founded, or\nshowing, by one or two cases, at least, that I had made a mistake or\noffended against the strict rules of logic, there appears the following\nsweeping exordium, which has done service before in many an opening\naddress of the counsel for the defendant:--\n\n \u201cIt is never entirely easy to reduce to a skeleton of logical\n statement a discussion as carried on by M\u00fcller, because he is\n careless of logical sequence and connection, preferring to pour\n himself out, as it were, over his subject, in a gush of genial\n assertion and interesting illustration.\u201d\n\nWhere is the force of such a sentence? It is a mere pouring out of\nassertions, though without any interesting illustration, and not exactly\ngenial. All we learn from it is, that Professor Whitney does not find it\nentirely easy to reduce what I have written to a skeleton of logical\nsequence, but whether the fault is mine or his, remains surely to be\nproved. There may be a very strong logical backbone in arguments which\nmake the least display of Aldrich, while in others there is a kind of\nwhited and sepulchral logic which seldom augurs well for what is behind\nand beneath.\n\nThere is a very simple rule of logic, sometimes called the Law of the\nExcluded Middle, according to which either a given proposition or its\ncontradictory must be true. By selecting passages somewhat freely from\ndifferent parts of Professor Whitney\u2019s lectures, nothing would be easier\nthan to prove, and not simply to assert that he has violated again and\nagain that fundamental principle. In his earlier Lectures we are told,\nthat \u201cto ascribe the differences of language and linguistic growth\ndirectly to physical causes, .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. is wholly meaningless and futile\u201d\n(p.\u00a0152). When we come to the great variety of the American languages,\nwe are told that \u201ctheir differentiation has been favored by the\ninfluence of the variety of climate and mode of life.\u201d On page 40, we\nread that a great genius \u201cmay now and then coin a new word!\u201d On page\n123, we are told \u201cit is not true that a genius can impress a marked\neffect upon language.\u201d On page 177, M.\u00a0Renan and myself are told that we\nhave committed a serious error in admitting dialects as antecedent\nfeeders of national or classical languages, and that it is hardly worth\nwhile to spend any effort in refuting such an opinion. On page 181, we\nread, \u201ca\u00a0certain degree of dialectic variety is inseparable from the\nbeing of any language,\u201d etc., etc., etc.\n\nI should not call this a fair way of dealing with any book; I\u00a0only give\nthese few specimens to show that the task of changing Professor\nWhitney\u2019s Lecture into a logical skeleton would not always be an easy\none.\n\nThe pleading is now carried on by Mr. G. Darwin:--\n\n \u201cIn taking up the cudgels, M\u00fcller is _clearly_ impelled by an\n overmastering fear lest man should lose \u2018his proud position in the\n creation\u2019 if his animal descent is proved.\u201d\n\nI should in nowise be ashamed of the fear thus ascribed to me, but\nwhether it was an overmastering fear, let those judge who have read such\npassages in my Lectures, as the following:--\n\n \u201cThe question is not whether the belief that animals so distant as a\n man, a\u00a0monkey, an elephant, and a humming bird, a\u00a0snake, a\u00a0frog, and\n a fish, could all have sprung from the same parents is monstrous,\n but simply and solely whether it is true. If it is true, we shall\n soon learn to digest it. Appeals to the pride or humility of man, to\n scientific courage, or religious piety, are all equally out of\n place.\u201d\n\nIf this and other passages in my Lectures are inspired by overmastering\nfear, then surely Talleyrand was right in saying that language was\nintended to disguise our thoughts. And may I not add, that if such\ncharges can be made with impunity, we shall soon have to say, with a\nstill more notorious diplomatist, \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d Such reckless charges\nmay look heroic, but what applied to the famous charge of Balaclava,\napplies to them: _C\u2019est magnifique, sans doute, mais ce n\u2019est pas la\nguerre._\n\nI am next charged, I do not know whether by the senior or the junior\ncounsel, with maintaining the extraordinary position that if an\ninsensible graduation could be established between ape and man, their\nminds would be _identical_.\n\nHere all depends on what is meant by _mind_ and by _identical_. Does Mr.\nDarwin mean by \u201cmind\u201d something substantial--an agent that deals with\nthe impressions received through the senses, as a builder deals with his\nbricks? Then, according to his father\u2019s view, the one builder may build\na mere hovel, the other may erect a cathedral, but through their descent\nthey are substantially the same. Or does he mean by \u201cmind,\u201d the mode and\nmanner in which sensations are received and arranged, what one might\ncall, in fact, the law of sensuous gravitation? Then I say again,\naccording to his father\u2019s view, that law is substantially the same for\nanimal and man. Nor is this a conclusion derived from Mr. Darwin\u2019s\npremises against his will. It is the opinion strongly advocated by him.\nHe has collected the most interesting observations on the incipient\ngerms, not only of language, but of \u00e6sthetics and ethics, among animals.\nIf Mr. Darwin, Jr., holds that the mind of man is not substantially\nidentical with the animal mind, if he admits a break somewhere in the\nascending scale from the Protogenes to the first Man, then we should be\ndriven to the old conclusion--viz., that man was formed of the dust of\nthe ground, but that God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,\nand man became a living soul. Does Mr. Darwin, Jr., accept this?\n\nNext it is said, that by a similar argument the distinction between\nblack and white, hot and cold, a\u00a0high and a low note might be\neliminated. This sounds no doubt formidable--it almost looks like a\nlogical skeleton. But let us not be frightened by words. Black and white\nare no doubt as different as possible, so are hot and cold, a\u00a0high and a\nlow note. But what is the difference between a high and a low note? It\nis simply the smaller or larger number of vibrations in a given time. We\ncan count these vibrations, and we also know that, from time to time, as\nthe velocity of the vibrations increases, our dull senses can\ndistinguish new tones. We have therefore here to deal with differences\nthat used to be called differences of degree, as opposed to differences\nin kind. What applies to a low and a high note, applies to a low and\nhigh degree of heat, and to the various degrees of light which we call\nby the names of colors. In all these cases, what philosophers call the\nsubstance, remains the same, just as, according to evolutionists, the\nsubstance of man and animal is the same. Therefore, if man differs from\nan animal no more than a high note differs from a low, or, _vice vers\u00e2_,\nif a high note differs no more from a low than man differs from an ape,\nmy argument would seem to stand in spite of the shower of words poured\nover it.\n\nI myself referred to the difference between a high and a low note for a\ntotally different purpose, viz., in order to call attention to those\nstrange lines and limits in nature which, in spite of insensible\ngraduation, enable us to distinguish broad degrees of sound which we\ncall keys; broad degrees of light, which we call colors; broad degrees\nof heat, for which our language has a less perfect nomenclature. These\nlines and limits have never been explained, nor the higher limits which\nseparate sound from light, and light from heat. Why we should derive\npleasure from the exact number of vibrations which yield C, and then\nhave painful sensations till we come to the exact number of vibrations\nwhich yield C sharp, remains as yet a mystery. But as showing that\nnature had drawn these sharp lines across the continuous stream of\nvibrations, whether of sound or light, seemed to me an important\nproblem, particularly for evolutionist philosophers, who see in nature\nnothing but \u201cinsensible graduation.\u201d\n\nThe next charge brought against me is, that I overlook the undoubted and\nundisputed fact that species do actually vary in nature. This seems to\nme begging the whole question. If terms like _species_ are fetched from\nthe lumber-room of scholastic philosophy, they must be defined with\nlogical exactness, particularly at present, when the very existence of\nsuch a thing as a _species_ depends on the meaning which we assign to\nit. Nature gives us individuals only, and each individual differs from\nthe other. But \u201cspecies\u201d is a thing of _human workmanship_,[5] and it\ndepends entirely on the disputed definition of the term, whether species\nvary or not. In one sense, Mr. Darwin\u2019s book, \u201cOn the Origin of\nSpecies,\u201d may be called an attempt to repeal the term \u201cspecies,\u201d or, at\nall events, an attempt at giving a new definition to that word which it\nnever had before. No one appreciates more than I do the service he has\nrendered in calling forth a new examination of that old and somewhat\nrusty instrument of thought.[6] Only, do not let us take for granted\nwhat has to be proved.\n\nThe dust of words grows thicker and thicker as we go on, for I am next\ntold that the same line of proof would show \u201cthat the stature of a man\nor boy was identical, because the boy passes through every gradation on\nattaining the one stature from the other. No one could maintain such a\nposition who grasped the doctrines of continuity and of the differential\ncalculus.\u201d It seems to me that even without the help of the differential\ncalculus, we can, with the help of logic and grammar, put a stop to this\nargument. Boy is the subject, stature looks like a subject, but is\nmerely a predicate, and should have been treated as such by Mr. Darwin.\nIf a boy arrives by insensible graduation or growth at the stature of\nman, the man is substantially the same as the boy. His stature may be\ndifferent, the color of his hair may be so likewise; but what\nphilosophers used to call the substance, or the individuality, or the\npersonality, or what we may call the man, remains the same. If\nevolutionists really maintain that the difference between man and beast\nis the same as between a grown-up man and a boy, the whole of my\nargument is granted, and granted with a completeness which I had no\nright to expect. Will Mr. Darwin, Senior, indorse the concessions thus\nmade by Mr. Darwin, Junior?\n\nIn order to show how the simplest matters can be complicated by a free\nuse of scholastic terms, I\u00a0quote the following sentence, which is meant\nas an answer to my argument:--\n\n \u201cAccording to what is called the Darwinian theory, organisms are in\n fact precisely the result of a multiple integration of a complex\n function of a very great number of variables; many of such variables\n being bound together by relationships amongst themselves, an example\n of one such relationship being afforded by the law, which has been\n called \u2018correlation of growth.\u2019\u201d\n\nNext follows a rocket from Mr. Whitney\u2019s armory:--\n\n \u201cAs a linguist,\u201d he says, \u201cProfessor M\u00fcller claims to have found in\n language an endowment which has no analogies, and no preparations in\n even the beings nearest to man, and of which, therefore, no process\n of transmutation could furnish an explanation. Here is the pivot on\n which his whole argument rests and revolves.\u201d\n\nSo far, the statement is correct, only that I expressed myself a little\nmore cautiously. It is well known, that the animals which in other\nrespects come nearest to man, possess very imperfect phonetic organs,\nand that it would be improper, therefore, to refer more particularly to\nthem. But, however that may be, I\u00a0expected at all events some proof that\nI had made a mistake, that my argument jars, or my pivot gives. But\nnothing of the kind. No facts, no arguments, but simply an assertion\nthat I do not argue the case with moderation and acuteness, on strict\nscientific grounds, and by scientific methods in setting up language as\nthe specific difference between man and animals. And why? Because many\nother writers have adduced other differences as _the_ correct ones.\n\nThere is a good deal of purely explosive matter in these vague charges\nof want of moderation and acuteness. But what is the kernel?\nI\u00a0represented language as the specific difference between man and\nanimals, without mentioning other differences which others believe to be\nspecific. It would seem to show moderation rather than the absence of\nit, if I confined myself to language, to the study of which I have\ndevoted the whole of my life; and perhaps a certain acuteness, in not\ntouching on questions which I do not pretend to have studied, as they\nought to be. But there were other reasons, too, which made me look upon\nlanguage as _the_ specific difference. The so-called specific\ndifferences mentioned by others fall into two classes--those that are\nimplied by language, as I defined the word, and those which have been\nproved untenable by Mr. Darwin and others. Let us read on now, to see\nwhat these specific differences are:--\n\n \u201cMan alone is capable of progressive improvement.\u201d\n\n Partly denied by Mr. Darwin, partly shown to be the result of\nlanguage, through which each successive generation profits by the\nexperience of its predecessors.\n\n \u201cHe alone makes use of tools or fire.\u201d\n The former disproved by Mr. Darwin, the latter true.\n\n \u201cHe alone domesticates other animals.\u201d\n Denied, in the case of the ants.\n\n \u201cHe alone possesses property.\u201d\n Disproved by every dog in-the-manger.\n\n \u201cHe alone employs language.\u201d\n True.\n\n \u201cNo other animal is self-conscious.\u201d\n Either right or wrong, according to the definition of the word,\n and never capable of direct proof.\n\n \u201cHe alone comprehends himself.\u201d\n True, implied by language.\n\n \u201cHe alone has the power of abstraction.\u201d\n True, implied by language.\n\n \u201cHe alone possesses general ideas.\u201d\n True, implied by language.\n\n \u201cHe alone has sense of beauty.\u201d\n Disproved or rendered doubtful by sexual selection.\n\n \u201cHe alone is liable to caprice.\u201d\n Disproved by every horse, or monkey, or mule.\n\n \u201cHe alone has the feeling of gratitude.\u201d\n Disproved by every dog.\n\n \u201cHe alone has the feeling of mystery.\u201d\n _Cela me passe._\n\n \u201cHe alone believes in God.\u201d\n True.\n\n \u201cHe alone is endowed with a conscience.\u201d\n Denied by Mr. Darwin.\n\nDid it show then such want of moderation or acuteness if I confined\nmyself to language, and what is implied by language, as the specific\ndifference between man and beast? Really, one sometimes yearns for an\nadversary who can hit straight, instead of these random strokes page\nafter page.\n\nThe next attack is so feeble that I should gladly pass it by, did I not\nknow from past experience that the very opposite motive would be\nassigned to my doing so. I\u00a0had stated that if there is a _terra\nincognita_ which excludes all positive knowledge, it is the mind of\nanimals. How, then, I\u00a0am asked, do you know that no animal possesses the\nfaintest germs of the faculty of abstracting and generalizing, and that\nanimals receive their knowledge through the senses only? I\u00a0still\nrecollect the time when any philosopher who, even by way of\nillustration, ventured to appeal to the mind of animals, was simply\ntabooed, and I thought every student of the history of philosophy would\nhave understood what I meant by saying that the whole subject was\ntranscendent. However, here is my answer: I\u00a0hold that animals receive\ntheir knowledge through the senses, because I can apply a crucial test,\nand show that if I shut their eyes, they cannot see. And I hold that\nthey are without the faculty of abstracting and generalizing, because I\nhave here nothing before me but mere assertions, I\u00a0know of no crucial\ntest to prove that these assertions are true. Those who have read my\nLectures, and were able to reduce them to a skeleton of logical\nstatement, might have seen that I had adduced another reason, viz., the\nfact that general conceptions are impossible without language (using\nlanguage in the widest sense, so as to include hieroglyphic, numerical,\nand other signs), and that as no one has yet discovered any outward\ntraces of language among animals, we are justified in not ascribing to\nthem, as yet, the possession of abstract ideas. This seems to me to\nexplain fully \u201cwhy the same person (viz., my poor self) should be\ninvolved in such profound ignorance, and yet have so complete a\nknowledge of the limits of the animal mind.\u201d If I had said that man has\nfive senses, and no more, would that be wrong? Yet having myself only\nfive senses, I\u00a0could not possibly prove that other men may not have a\nsixth sense, or at all events a disposition to develop it. But I am\nquite willing to carry my agnosticism, with regard to the inner life of\nanimals, still further, and to say again what I wrote in my Lectures\n(p.\u00a046):--\n\n \u201cI say again and again, that according to the strict rules of\n positive philosophy, we have no right either to assert or to deny\n anything with reference to the so-called mind of animals.\u201d\n\nBut there is another piece of Chinese artillery brought out by Mr. G.\nDarwin. As if not trusting it himself, he calls on Mr. Whitney to fire\nit off--\u201cThe minds of our fellow men, too,\u201d we are told, \u201care a _terra\nincognita_ in exactly the same sense as are those of animals.\u201d\n\nNo student of psychology would deny that each individual has immediate\nknowledge of his own mind only, but even Mr. G. Darwin reminds Mr.\nWhitney that, after all, with man we have one additional source of\nevidence--viz., language; nay, he even doubts whether there may not be\nothers, too. If Mr. Darwin, Jr., grants that, I\u00a0willingly grant him that\nthe horse\u2019s impression of green--nay, my friend\u2019s impression of\ngreen--may be totally different from my own, to say nothing of\nDaltonism, color-blindness, and all the rest.[7]\n\nAfter this, I need hardly dwell on the old attempts at proving, by a\nnumber of anecdotes, that animals possess conceptual knowledge. The\nanecdotes are always amusing, and are sure to meet with a grateful\npublic, but for our purpose they have long been ruled out of court. If\nMr. Darwin, Jr., should ever pass through Oxford, I\u00a0promise to show him\nin my own dog, Waldmann, far more startling instances of sagacity than\nany he has mentioned, though I am afraid he will be confirmed all the\nmore in his anthropomorphic interpretation of canine intelligence.\n\nNow comes a new appeal _ad populum_. I had ventured to say that in our\ndays nothing was more strongly to be recommended to young and old\nphilosophers than a study of the history of philosophy. There is a\ncontinuity, not only in Nature, but also in the progress of the human\nmind; and to ignore that continuity, to begin always like Thales or\nDemocritus, is like having a special creation every day. Evolutionists\nseem to imagine that there is evolution for everything, except for\nevolutionism. What would chemists say, if every young student began\nagain with the theory of a phlogiston, or every geologist with\nVulcanism, or every astronomer with the Ptolem\u00e6ic system? However, I\u00a0did\nnot go back very far; I\u00a0only claimed a little consideration for the work\ndone by such giants as Locke, Hume, Berkeley, and Kant. I\u00a0expressed a\nhope that certain questions might be considered as closed, or, if they\nwere to be re-opened, that at least the controversy should be taken up\nwhere it was left at the end of the last debate. Here, however, I\u00a0failed\nto make any impression. My appeal is stigmatized as \u201can attempt to crush\nmy adversaries by a reference to Kant, Hume, Berkeley, and Locke.\u201d And\nthe popular tribune finishes with the following brave words:\n\u201cFortunately we live in an age, which (except for temporary relapses)\ndoes not pay any great attention to the pious founders, and which tries\nto judge for itself.\u201d\n\nI never try to crush my adversaries by deputy. Kant, Hume, Berkeley, and\nLocke may all be antiquated for all I know; but I still hold it would be\nuseful to read them, before we declare too emphatically that we have\nleft them behind.\n\nI cannot deny myself the satisfaction of quoting on this point the wise\nand weighty words of Huxley:--\n\n \u201cIt is much easier to ask such questions than to answer them,\n especially if one desires to be on good terms with one\u2019s\n contemporaries: but, if I must give an answer, it is this: The\n growth of physical science is now so prodigiously rapid, that those\n who are actively engaged in keeping up with the present, have much\n ado to find time to look at the past, and even grow into the habit\n of neglecting it. But, natural as this result may be, it is none the\n less detrimental. The intellect loses, for there is assuredly no\n more effectual method of clearing up one\u2019s own mind on any subject\n than by talking it over, so to speak, with men of real power and\n grasp who have considered it from a totally different point of view.\n The parallax of time helps us to the true position of a conception,\n as the parallax of space helps us to that of a star. And the moral\n nature loses no less. It is well to turn aside from the fretful stir\n of the present, and to dwell with gratitude and respect upon the\n services of those mighty men of old who have gone down to the grave\n with their weapons of war, but who, while they yet lived, won\n splendid victories over ignorance.\u201d\n\nNext follow some extraordinary efforts on Mr. Whitney\u2019s part to show\nthat Locke, whose arguments I had simply re-stated, knew very little\nabout human or animal understanding, and then the threadbare argument of\nthe deaf and dumb is brushed up once more. Until something new is said\non that old subject, I\u00a0must be allowed to remain myself deaf and\ndumb.[8]\n\nThen comes the final and decisive charge. I had said that \u201cif the\nscience of language has proved anything, it has proved that conceptual\nor discursive thought can be carried on in words only.\u201d Here again I had\nquoted a strong array of authorities--not, indeed, to kill free\ninquiry--I am not so bloodthirsty, as my friends imagine--but to direct\nit to those channels where it had been carried on before. I\u00a0quoted\nLocke, I\u00a0quoted Schelling, Hegel, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Schopenhauer,\nand Mansel--philosophers diametrically opposed to each other on many\npoints, yet all agreeing in what seems to many so strange a doctrine,\nthat conceptual thought is impossible without language (comprehending by\nlanguage hieroglyphic, numerical, and similar symbols). I\u00a0might have\nquoted many other thinkers and poets. Professor Huxley seems clearly to\nhave seen the difference between trains of thought and trains of\nfeelings. \u201cBrutes,\u201d he says, \u201cthough, from the absence of language, they\ncan have no trains of thoughts, but only trains of feelings, yet have a\nconsciousness which, more or less distinctly, foreshadows our own.\u201d And\nwho could express the right view of language more beautifully than Jean\nPaul?--\n\n \u201cMich d\u00fcnkt, der Mensch w\u00fcrde sich, so wie das spracblose Thier, das\n in der \u00e4ussern Welt, wie in einem dunkeln, bet\u00e4ubenden Wellen-Meere\n schwimmt, ebenfalls in dem vollgestirnten Himmel der \u00e4ussern\n Anschauung dumpf verlieren, wenn er das verworrene Leuchten nicht\n durch Sprache in Sternbilder abtheilte, und sich durch diese das\n Ganze in Theile f\u00fcr das Bewusstein aufl\u00f6sete.\u201d\n\nHaving discussed that question very fully in my Lectures, I shall\nattempt no more at present than to show that the objections raised by\nMr. Darwin, Jr., entirely miss the point. Does he really think that\nthose men could have spent all their lives in considering that question,\nand never have been struck by the palpable objections raised by him? Let\nus treat such neighbors, at least like ourselves. I\u00a0shall, however, do\nmy best to show Mr. Darwin that even I had not been ignorant of these\nobjections. I\u00a0shall follow him through every point, and, for fear of\nmisrepresenting him, quote his own words:--\n\n \u201c(1) Concepts may be formed, and yet not put before the\n consciousness of the conceiver, so that he \u2018realizes\u2019 what he is\n doing.\u201d\n\nDoes that mean that the conceiver conceives concepts without conceiving\nthem? Then, I\u00a0ask, whom do these concepts belong to, where are they, and\nunder what conditions were they realized? Is to conceive an active or a\npassive verb? May I once more quote Kant without incurring the suspicion\nof wishing to strangle free inquiry by authority? \u201cConcepts,\u201d says the\nold veteran, \u201care founded on the spontaneity of thought, sensuous\nintuitions on the receptivity of impressions.\u201d\n\n \u201c(2) Complex thoughts are doubtless impossible without symbols, just\n as are the higher mathematics?\u201d\n\nAre lower mathematics possible without numerical symbols, and where is\nthe line which separates complex from simple thought? Everything would\nseem to depend on that line which is so often spoken of by our critics.\nThere ought to be something in that line which would at once remove the\nblunders committed by Humboldt and others. It would define the limit\nbetween inarticulate and articulate thought; it might possibly be the\nvery frontier between the animal and the human mind, and yet that magic\nline is simply conceived, spoken of freely, but never realized, _i.e._,\nnever traced with logical precision. Till that is done, that line,\nthough it may exist, is to me as if it did not exist.\n\n \u201c(3) We know that dogs doubt and hesitate, and finally determine to\n act without any external determining circumstance.\u201d\n\nHow this argument fits in here, is not quite clear to me; but, whatever\nits drift may be, a\u00a0perusal of Professor Huxley\u2019s excellent paper, \u201cThe\nHypothesis that Animals are Automata,\u201d will supply a full answer.\n\n \u201c(4) Professor Whitney very happily illustrates the independence of\n thought from language, by calling up our state of mind when casting\n about, often in the most open manner, for new designations, for new\n forms of knowledge, or when drawing distinctions, and pointing\n conclusions, which words are then stretched or narrowed to cover.\u201d\n\nLanguage with us has become so completely traditional, that we\nfrequently learn words first and their meaning afterwards. The problem\nof the original relation between concepts and words, however, refers to\nperiods when these words did not yet exist, but had to be framed for the\nfirst time. We are speaking of totally different things; he, of the\ngeology, I, if I may say so, of the chemistry of speech. But even if we\naccepted the test from modern languages, does not the very form of the\nquestion supply the answer? If we want _new_ designations, _new_ forms\nof knowledge, do we not confess that we have old designations, though\nimperfect ones; old forms of knowledge which no longer answer our\npurpose? Our old words, then, become gradually stretched or narrowed,\nexactly as our knowledge becomes stretched or narrowed, or we at last\nthrow away the old word, and borrow another from our own, or even from a\nforeign language.\n\n \u201cIt is a proof,\u201d Mr. Darwin says, \u201cthat we realized and conceived\n the idea of the texture and nature of a musical sound before we had\n a word for it, that we had to borrow the expressive word \u201c_timbre_\u201d\n from the French.\u201d\n\nBut how did we realize and conceive the idea before we had a word for\nit? Surely, by old words. We called it quality, texture, nature--we knew\nit as the result of the presence and absence of various harmonics. In\nGerman, we stretched an old word, and called it _Farbe_; in English,\n_timbre_ was borrowed from the French, just as we may call a pound\n_vingt-cinq francs_; but the French themselves got their word by the\nordinary process--viz., by stretching the old word, _tympanum_.\n\n \u201c(5) If M\u00fcller had brought before him some wholly new animal he\n would find that he could shut his eyes, and call up the image of it\n readily enough without any accompanying name.\u201d\n\nAll this is far, far away from the real field of battle. No doubt, if I\nlook at the sun and shut my eyes, the image remains for a time. By\nimagination I can also recall other sensuous impressions, and, in an\nattack of fever, I\u00a0have had sensuous impressions resuscitated without my\nwill. But how does that touch conceptual knowledge? As soon as I want to\nknow what animal it is which I conjure up or imagine to myself, I\u00a0must\neither have, for shortness\u2019 sake, its scientific name, or I must\nconceive and realize its ears, or its legs, or its tail, or something\nelse, but always something for which there is a name.\n\nI have thus, in spite of the old warning, _Ne Hercules contra duos_,\ngone through the whole string of charges brought against me by Mr.\nDarwin and Professor Whitney; and while trying to show them that I was\nnot entirely unprepared for their combined attack, I\u00a0hope I have not\nbeen wanting in that respect which is due even to a somewhat rancorous\nassailant. I\u00a0have not returned evil for evil, nor have I noticed\nobjections which I could not refute without seeming to be offensive. Is\nit not mere skirmishing with blank cartridge, when Professor Whitney\nassures me that I have never fathomed \u201cthe theory of the antecedency of\nthe idea to the word in the minds of those who hold that theory?\u201d\nSurely, that is the theory which everybody holds who forms his idea of\nthe origin of language from the manner in which we acquire a traditional\nlanguage ready made, or, later in life, learn foreign languages. It has\nbeen my object to show that our problem is not, how languages are\nlearnt, but how language is developed. We might as well form our ideas\nof the origin of the alphabet from the manner in which we learn to\nwrite, and then smile when we are told that, in writing \u201cF\u201d we still\ndraw in the two upper strokes, the two horns of the _cerastes_, and that\nthe connecting line in the \u201cH\u201d is the last remnant of the lines dividing\nthe sieve, both hieroglyphics occurring in the name of Chufu or Cheops.\n\nPhilosophy is a study as much as philology, and though common sense is,\nno doubt, very valuable within its proper limits, I\u00a0do not hesitate to\nsay, though I hear already the distant grumbling of _Jupiter tonans_,\nthat it is generally the very opposite of philosophy. One of the most\neminent and most learned of living German philosophers--Professor\nCarriere, of Munchen--says in a very friendly review of Professor\nWhitney\u2019s \u201cLectures on Language\u201d--\n\n \u201cPhilosophical depth and precision in psychological analysis are not\n his strong points, and in that respect the reader will hardly find\n anything new in his Lectures.\u201d\n\nHe goes on to say that--\n\n \u201cThe American scholar did not see that language is meant first for\n forming, afterwards for communicating thought.\u201d \u201cWordmaking,\u201d he\n says with great truth, \u201cis the first philosophy--the first poetry of\n mankind. We can have sensations, desires, intentions, but we cannot\n think, in the proper sense of the word, without language. Every word\n expresses the general. Mr. Whitney has not understood this, and his\n calling language a human institution is very shallow.\u201d\n\nAgainst Professor Whitney\u2019s view that language is arbitrary and\nconventional, and against the opposite view that language is\ninstinctive, Professor Carriere quotes the happy expression of M.\u00a0Renan,\n\u201c_La liaison du sens et du mot n\u2019est jamais n\u00e9cessaire, jamais\narbitraire, toujours elle est motiv\u00e9e._\u201d Here the nail is hit on the\nhead. Professor Carriero highly commends Professor Whitney\u2019s lectures,\nand he does by no means adopt all my own views; but he felt obliged to\nenter a protest against certain journalistic proceedings which in\nGermany have attracted general attention.\n\nIn conclusion, if I may judge from Professor Whitney\u2019s lectures, unless\nhe has changed very much of late, I\u00a0doubt whether he would prove a real\nally of Mr. Darwin in his views on the origin of language. Towards the\nend of his article, even Mr. Darwin, Jr., becomes suspicious. Professor\nWhitney, he says, makes a dangerous assertion when he says that we shall\nnever know anything of the transitional forms through which language has\npassed, and he advises his friend to read a book lately published by\nCount G.\u00a0A. de Goddesand Liancourt and F.\u00a0Pincott, called \u201cPrimitive and\nUniversal Laws of Language,\u201d in which he would find much information and\nenlightenment on the real origin of roots. There is an unintentional\nirony in that advice which Professor Whitney will not fail to\nappreciate. How any one who cares for truth can speak of a dangerous\nassertion, I\u00a0do not understand. The Pope may say so, or a barrister;\na\u00a0true friend of truth knows of no danger.\n\nIn his \u201cLectures on Language,\u201d Professor Whitney protests strongly\nagainst Darwinian materialism. But, as he confesses himself half a\nconvert to the _Bow-wow_ and _Pooh-pooh_ theories, thus showing how\nwrong I was in supposing that those theories had no advocates among\ncomparative philologists in the nineteenth century; nay, as now, after\nhe has discovered at last that I am no believer in _Ding-dongism_, he\nseems inclined to say a kind word for the advocates of that\ntheory--Heyse and Steinthal--who knows whether, after my Lectures on\nDarwin\u2019s \u201cPhilosophy of Language,\u201d he may not be converted by Bleek and\nHaeckel, the mad Darwinian, as he calls him?\n\nAll this, no doubt, has its humorous side, and I have tried to answer it\ngood-humoredly. But it seems to me that it also has a very serious\nimport. Why is there all this wrangling as to whether man is the\ndescendant of a lower animal or not? Why cannot people examine the\nquestion in a temper more consonant with a real love of truth? Why look\nfor artificial barriers between man and beast, if they are not there?\nWhy try to remove real barriers, if they are there? Surely we shall\nremain what we are, whatever befall. When we throw the question back\ninto a very distant antiquity, all seems to grow confused and out of\nfocus. Yet time and space make little difference in the solution of\nthese problems. Let us see what exists to-day. We see to-day that the\nlowest of savages--men whose language is said to be no better than the\nclucking of hens, or the twittering of birds, and who have been declared\nin many respects lower even than animals, possess this one specific\ncharacteristic, that if you take one of their babies, and bring it up in\nEngland, it will learn to speak as well as any English baby, while no\namount of education will elicit any attempts at language from the\nhighest animals, whether bipeds or quadrupeds. That disposition cannot\nhave, been formed by definite nervous structures, congenitally framed,\nfor we are told by the best Agriologists that both father and mother\nclucked like hens. This fact, therefore, unless disproved by experiment,\nremains, whatever the explanation may be.\n\nLet us suppose, then, that myriads of years ago there was, out of\nmyriads of animal beings, one, and one only, which made that step which\nin the end led to language, while the whole rest of the creation\nremained behind;--what would follow? That one being then, like the\nsavage baby now, must have possessed something of his own--a germ very\nimperfect, it may be, yet found nowhere else, and that germ, that\ncapacity, that disposition--call it what you like--is, and always will\nremain the specific difference of himself and all his descendants. It\nmakes no difference whether we say it came of itself, or it was due to\nenvironment, or it was the gift of a Being in whom we live and move. All\nthese are but different expressions for the Unknown. If that germ of the\nLogos had to pass through thousands of forms, from the Protogenes to\nAdam, before it was fit to fulfill its purpose, what is that to us? It\nwas there _potenti\u00e2_ from the beginning; it manifested itself where it\nwas, in the paulo-post-future man; it never manifested itself where it\nwas not, in any of the creatures that were animals from the beginning,\nand remained so to the end.\n\nSurely, even if all scholastic philosophy must now be swept away, if to\nbe able to reduce all the wisdom of the past to a _tabula rasa_ is\nhenceforth to be the test of a true philosopher, a\u00a0few landmarks may\nstill be allowed to remain, and we may venture to quote, for instance,\n_Ex nihilo nihil fit_, without being accused of trying to crush free\ninquiry by an appeal to authority. Language is something, it\npre-supposes something; and that which it pre-supposes, that from which\nit sprang, whatever its pre-historic, pre-mundane, pre-cosmic state may\nhave been, must have been different from that from which it did not\nspring. People ask whether that germ of language was \u201cslowly evolved,\u201d\nor \u201cdivinely implanted,\u201d but if they would but lay a firm grip on their\nwords and thoughts, they would see that these two expressions, which\nhave been made the watchwords of two hostile camps, differ from each\nother dialectically only.\n\nThat there is in us an animal--aye, a bestial nature--has never been\ndenied; to deny it would take away the very foundation of Psychology and\nEthics. We cannot be reminded too often that all the materials of our\nknowledge we share with animals; that, like them, we begin with sensuous\nimpressions, and then, like ourselves, and like ourselves only, proceed\nto the General, the Ideal, the Eternal. We cannot be reminded too often\nthat in many things we are like the beasts of the field, but that, like\nourselves, and like ourselves only, we can rise superior to our bestial\nself, and strive after what is Unselfish, Good, and God-like. The wing\nby which we soar above the Sensuous, was called by wise men of old the\n_Logos_; the wing which lifts us above the Sensual, was called by good\nmen of old the _Daimonion_. Let us take continual care, especially\nwithin the precincts of the Temple of Science, lest by abusing the gift\nof speech or doing violence to the voice of conscience, we soil the two\nwings of our soul, and fall back, through our own fault, to the dreaded\nlevel of the Gorilla.\n\n\n [Footnote 1: \u201cThe vast number of grammatical forms has had a\n stratified origin. As on the surface of the earth older and\n younger layers of stones are found one above the other, or one by\n the side of the other, We had similar appearances in language at\n any time of its existence.\u201d Curtius, _Zur Chronologie_, p.\u00a014.]\n\n [Footnote 2: See _Academy_, 19 June, 1875.]\n\n [Footnote 3: As it has been objected that I had no right to claim\n Dr. Whewell\u2019s authority in support of my classification, I\u00a0may\n here add a passage from a letter (Nov. 4, 1861) addressed to me by\n Dr. Whewell, in which he fully approves of my treating the Science\n of Language as one of the physical sciences. \u201cYou have more than\n once done me the honor, in your lectures, of referring to what I\n have written but it seems to me possible that you may not have\n remarked how completely I agree with you in classing the Science\n of Language among the physical sciences, as to its history and\n structure.\u201d]\n\n [Footnote 4: _Antikritik, Wie einer den Nagel auf den Kopf\n trifft_: Berl. 1874.]\n\n [Footnote 5: Cf. Sachs\u2019 _Botany_, p. 830.]\n\n [Footnote 6: See _Lectures on the Science of Language_, vol. ii.]\n\n [Footnote 7: Fiske, _Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy_, vol.\u00a0i.\n p.\u00a017.]\n\n [Footnote 8: See Kilian, _Uber die Racenfrage der Semitischen und\n Arischen Sprachb\u00e4nde_, 1874.]\n\n\n\n\nX.\n\nIN SELF-DEFENSE.\n\nPRESENT STATE OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.\n\n\nIt has been remarked by many observers that in all branches of physical\nas well as historical learning there is at the present moment a strongly\npronounced tendency towards special researches. No one can hold his own\namong his fellow-workers who cannot point to some discovery, however\nsmall, to some observation, to some decipherings, to some edition of a\ntext hitherto unpublished, or, at least, to some conjectural readings\nwhich are, in the true sense of the word, his property. A\u00a0man must now\nhave served from the ranks before he is admitted to act as a general,\nand not even Darwin or Mommsen would have commanded general attention\nfor their theories on the ancient history of Rome, or on the primitive\ndevelopment of animal life, unless they had been known for years as\nsturdy workers in their respective quarries.\n\nOn the whole, I believe that this state of public opinion has produced a\nsalutary effect, but it has also its dangers. An army that means\nconquest, cannot always depend on its scouts and pioneers, nor must it\nbe broken up altogether into single detachments of tirailleurs. From\ntime to time, it has to make a combined movement in advance, and for\nthat purpose it wants commanders who know the general outlines of the\nbattle-field, and are familiar with the work that can best be done by\neach branch of the service.\n\nEVOLUTIONISM.\n\nIf we look upon scholars, historians, students of physical science, and\nabstract philosophers, as so many branches of the great army of\nknowledge which has been fighting its way for centuries for the conquest\nof truth, it might be said, if we may follow up our comparison a little\nfurther, that the light cavalry of physical science had lately made a\nquick movement in advance, and detached itself too much from the support\nof the infantry and heavy artillery. The charge was made against the old\nimpregnable fortress, the Origin of Life, and to judge from the\nvictorious hurrahs of the assaulting squadron, we might have thought\nthat a breach had at last been effected, and that the keys to the long\nhidden secrets of creation and development had been surrendered. As the\ngeneral commanding this attack, we all recognize Mr. Darwin, supported\nby a brilliant staff of dashing officers, and if ever general was well\nchosen for victory, it was the author of the \u201cOrigin of Species.\u201d\n\nThere was indeed for a time a sanguine hope, shared by many a brave\nsoldier, that the old warfare of the world would, in our time, be\ncrowned with success, that we should know at last what we are, whence we\ncame, and whither we go; that, beginning with the simplest elementary\nsubstances, we should be able to follow the process of combination and\ndivision, leading by numberless and imperceptible changes from the\nlowest Bathybios to the highest Hypsibios, and that we should succeed in\nestablishing by incontrovertible facts what old sages had but guessed,\nviz., that there is nowhere anything hard and specific in nature, but\nall is flowing and growing, without an efficient cause or a determining\npurpose, under the sway of circumstances only, or of a self-created\nenvironment. \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1fe5\u03b5\u1fd6.\n\nBut that hope is no longer so loudly and confidently expressed as it was\nsome years ago. For a time all seemed clear and simple. We began with\nProtoplasm, which anybody might see at the bottom of the sea, developing\ninto Moneres, and we ended with the bimanous mammal called _Homo_,\nwhether _sapiens_ or _insipiens_, everything between the two being\nmatter of imperceptible development.\n\nDIFFICULTIES IN EVOLUTIONISM.\n\nThe difficulties began where they generally begin, at the beginning and\nat the end. _Protoplasm_ was a name that produced at first a soothing\neffect on the inquisitive mind, but when it was asked, whence that power\nof development, possessed by the Protoplasm which begins as a Moneres\nand ends as Homo, but entirely absent in other Protoplasm, which resists\nall mechanical manipulation, and never enters upon organic growth, it\nwas seen that the problem of development had not been solved, but only\nshifted, and that, instead of simple Protoplasm, very peculiar kinds of\nProtoplasm were required, which under circumstances might become and\nremain a Moneres, and under circumstances might become and remain _Homo_\nforever. That which determined Protoplasm to enter upon its marvelous\ncareer, the first \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, remained as unknown as ever. It was\nopen to call it an internal and unconscious, or an external and\nconscious power, or both together: physical, metaphysical, and religious\nmythology were left as free as ever. The best proof of this we find in\nthe fact that Mr. Darwin himself retained his belief in a personal\nCreator, while Haeckel denies all necessity of admitting a conscious\nagent; and Von Hartmann[1] sees in what is called the philosophy of\nevolutionism the strongest confirmation of idealism, \u201call development\nbeing in truth but the realization of the unconscious reason of the\ncreative idea.\u201d\n\nGLOTTOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONISM.\n\nWhile the difficulty at the beginning consists in this that, after all,\nnothing can be developed except what was enveloped, the difficulty at\nthe end is this that something is supposed to be developed that was not\nenveloped. It was here where I thought it became my duty to draw Mr.\nDarwin\u2019s attention to difficulties which he had not suspected at all, or\nwhich, at all events, he had allowed himself to under-value. Mr. Darwin\nhad tried to prove that there was nothing to prevent us from admitting a\npossible transition from the brute to man, as far as their physical\nstructure was concerned, and it was natural that he should wish to\nbelieve that the same applied to their mental capacities. Now, whatever\ndifference of opinion there might be among philosophers as to the\nclassification and naming of these capacities, and as to any rudimentary\ntraces of them to be discovered in animals, there had always been a\nuniversal consent that language was a distinguishing characteristic of\nman. Without inquiring what was implied by language, so much was\ncertain, that language was something tangible, present in every man,\nabsent in every brute. Nothing, therefore, was more natural than that\nMr. Darwin should wish to show that this was an error: that language was\nnothing specific in man, but had its antecedents, however imperfect, in\nthe signs of communication among animals. Influenced, no doubt, by the\nworks of some of his friends and relatives on the origin of language, he\nthought that it had been proved that our words could be derived\n_directly_ from imitative and interjectional sounds. If the Science of\nLanguage has proved anything, it has proved that this is not the case.\nWe know that, with certain exceptions, about which there can be little\ncontroversy, all our words are derived from roots, and that every one of\nthese roots is the expression of a general concept. \u201cWithout roots, no\nlanguage; without concepts, no roots,\u201d these are the two pillars on\nwhich our philosophy of language stands, and with which it falls.\n\nMR. WEDGWOOD\u2019S DICTIONARY.\n\nAny word taken from Mr. Wedgwood\u2019s Dictionary will show the difference\nbetween those who derive words _directly_ from imitative and\ninterjectional sounds, and those who do not. For instance, s.v. _to\nplunge_, we read:--\n\n \u201cFr. _plonger_ Du. _plotsen_, _plonssen_, _plonzen_, to fall into\n the water--Kil.; _plotsen_, also to fall suddenly on the ground. The\n origin, like that of _plump_, is a representation of the noise made\n by the fall. Swiss _bluntschen_, the sound of a thick heavy body\n falling into the water.\u201d Under _plump_ we read, \u201cthat the radical\n image is the sound made by a compact body falling into the water, or\n of a mass of wet falling to the ground. _He smit den sten in\u2019t\n water, plump! seg dat_, \u2018He threw the stone into the water; it cried\n plump!\u2019 _Plumpen_, to make the noise represented by plump, to fall\n with such a noise, etc., etc., etc.\u201d\n\nAll this sounds extremely plausible, and to a man not specially\nconversant with linguistic studies, far more plausible than the real\netymology of the word. To plunge is, no doubt, as Mr. Wedgwood says, the\nFrench _plonger_ but the French _plonger_ is _plumbicare_, while in\nItalian _piombare_ is _cadere a piombo_, to fall straight like the\nplummet. To plunge, therefore, has nothing to do with the splashing\nsound of heavy bodies falling into the water, but with the concept of\nstraightness, here symbolized by the plummet.\n\nThis case, however, would only show the disregard of historical facts\nwith which the onomatop\u0153ic school has been so frequently and so justly\ncharged. But as we cannot trace _plumbum_, or \u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, or Old Slav.\n_olovo_ with any certainty to a root such as _mal_, to be soft, let us\ntake another word, such as _feather_. Here, again, we find that Mr.\nWedgwood connects it with such words as Bav. _fledern_, Du. _vlederen_,\nto flap, flutter, the loss of the _l_ being explained by such words as\nto splutter and to sputter. We have first to note the disregard of\nhistorical facts, for _feather_ is O.H.G. _fedara_, Sk. pat-tra, Gr.\n\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd for \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, all derived from a root _pat_, to fly, from which we\nhave also _penna_, old _pesna_, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4-\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, _peto_, _impetus_, etc. The\nroot _pat_ expresses violent motion, and it is specialized into upward\nmotion, \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, I fly; downward motion, Sk. +patati+, he falls; and\nonward motion, as in Latin _peto_, _impetus_, etc. Feather, therefore,\nas derived from this root, was conceived as the instrument of flying,\nand was never intended to imitate the noise of Du. _vlederen_, to\nflutter, and to flap.\n\nMY LECTURES ON MR. DARWIN\u2019S PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE.\n\nAs this want of historical treatment among onomatop\u0153ic philologists has\nfrequently been dwelt on by myself and others, these instances may\nsuffice to mark the difference between the school so ably and powerfully\nrepresented by Mr. Wedgwood, and the school of Bopp, to which I and most\ncomparative philologists belong. It was in the name of that school that\nI ventured to address my protest to the school of evolutionists,\nreminding them of difficulties, which they had either ignored\naltogether, or, at all events, greatly undervalued, and putting our case\nbefore them in such a form that even philosophers, not conversant with\nthe special researches of philologists, might gain a clear insight into\nthe present state of our science, and form their opinion accordingly.\n\nIn doing this I thought I was simply performing a duty which, in the\npresent state of divided and subdivided labor, has to be performed, if\nwe wish to prevent a useless waste of life. However different our\npursuits may be, we all belong, as I said before, to the same army, we\nall have the same interests at heart, we are bound together by what the\nFrench would call the strongest of all solidarities, the love of truth.\nIf I had thought only of my own fellow-laborers in the field of the\nScience of Language, I\u00a0should not have considered that there was any\nnecessity for the three Lectures which I delivered in 1873 at the Royal\nInstitution. In my first course of Lectures on the Science of Language\n(1861), delivered before Evolutionism had assumed its present\ndimensions, I\u00a0had already expressed my conviction that language is the\none great barrier between the brute and man.\n\n \u201cMan speaks,\u201d I\u00a0said, \u201cand no brute has ever uttered a word.\n Language is something more palpable than a fold of the brain or an\n angle of the skull. It admits of no caviling, and no process of\n natural selection will ever distill significant words out of the\n notes of birds or the cries of beasts.\u201d\n\nNo scholar, so far as I know, has ever controverted any of these\nstatements. But when Evolutionism became, as it fully deserved, the\nabsorbing interest of all students of nature, when it was supposed that,\nif a Moneres could develop into a Man, Bow-wow and Pooh-pooh might well\nhave developed by imperceptible degrees into Greek and Latin, I\u00a0thought\nit was time to state the case for the Science of Language and its\nbearing on some of the problems of Evolutionism more fully, and I gladly\naccepted the invitation to lecture once more on this subject at the\nRoyal Institution in 1873. My object was no more than a statement of\nfacts, showing that the results of the Science of Language did not at\npresent tally with the results of Evolutionism, that words could no\nlonger be derived directly from imitative and interjectional sounds,\nthat between these sounds and the first beginnings of language, in the\ntechnical sense of the word, a\u00a0barrier had been discovered, represented\nby what we call Roots, and that, as far as we know, no attempt, not even\nthe faintest, has ever been made by any animal, except man, to approach\nor to cross that barrier. I\u00a0went one step further. I\u00a0showed that Roots\nwere with man the embodiments of general concepts, and that the only way\nin which man realized general concepts, was by means of those roots, and\nwords derived from roots. I\u00a0therefore argued as follows: We do not know\nanything and cannot possibly know anything of the mind of animals:\ntherefore, the proper attitude of the philosopher with regard to the\nmental capacities of animals is one of complete neutrality. For all we\nknow, the mental capacities of animals may be of a higher order than our\nown, as their sensuous capacities certainly are in many cases. All this,\nhowever, is guesswork; one thing only is certain. If we are right that\nman realizes his conceptual thought by means of words, derived from\nroots, and that no animal possesses words derived from roots, it\nfollows, not indeed, that animals have no conceptual thought (in\u00a0saying\nthis, I\u00a0went too far), but that their conceptual thought is different in\nits realized shape from our own.\n\nFrom public and private discussions which followed the delivery of my\nlectures at the Royal Institution (an\u00a0abstract of them was published in\n\u201cFraser\u2019s Magazine,\u201d and republished, I\u00a0believe, in America), it became\nclear to me that the object which I had in view had been fully attained.\nGeneral attention had been roused to the fact that at all events the\nScience of Language had something to say in the matter of Evolutionism,\nand I know that those whom it most concerned were turning their thoughts\nin good earnest to the difficulties which I had pointed out. I\u00a0wanted no\nmore, and I thought it best to let the matter ferment for a time.\n\nMR. GEORGE DARWIN\u2019S ARTICLE IN THE \u201cCONTEMPORARY REVIEW.\u201d\n\nBut what was my surprise when I found that a gentleman who had acquired\nconsiderable notoriety, not indeed by any special and original\nresearches in Comparative Philology, but by his repeated attempts at\nvilifying the works of other scholars, Professor Whitney, had sent a\npaper to Mr. Darwin, intended to throw discredit on the statements which\nI had recommended to his serious consideration. I\u00a0did not know of that\npaper till an abstract of it appeared in the \u201cContemporary Review,\u201d\nsigned George Darwin, and written with the avowed purpose of\ndiscrediting the statements which I had made in my Lecture at the Royal\nInstitution. If Professor Whitney\u2019s appeal had been addressed to\nscholars only, I\u00a0should gladly have left them to judge for themselves.\nBut as Mr. Darwin, Jr., was prevailed upon to stand sponsor to Professor\nWhitney\u2019s last production, and to lend to it, if not the weight, at\nleast the lustre of his name, I\u00a0could not, without appearing\nuncourteous, let it pass in silence. I\u00a0am not one of those who believe\nthat truth is much advanced by public controversy, and I have carefully\neschewed it during the whole of my literary career. But if I had left\nProfessor Whitney\u2019s assertions unanswered, I\u00a0could hardly have\ncomplained, if Mr. Darwin, Sr., and the many excellent _savants_ who\nshare his views, had imagined that I had represented the difficulties\nwhich the students of language feel with regard to animals developing a\nlanguage, in a false light; that in fact, instead of wishing to assist,\nI\u00a0had tried to impede the onward march of our brave army. I\u00a0have that\nfaith in \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 Darwin, that I believe they want honest advice, from\nwhatever quarter it may come, and I therefore was persuaded to deviate\nfor once from my usual course, and, by answering _seriatim_ every\nobjection raised by Professor Whitney, to show that my advice had been\ntendered _bon\u00e2 fide_, that I had not spoken in the character of a\nspecial pleader, but simply and solely as a man of truth.\n\nMY ANSWER TO MR. DARWIN.\n\nMy \u201cAnswer to Mr. Darwin\u201d appeared in the \u201cContemporary Review\u201d of\nNovember, 1874, and if it had only elicited the letter which I received\nfrom Mr. Darwin, Sr., I\u00a0should have been amply repaid for the trouble I\nhad taken in the matter.\n\nIt produced, however, a still more important result, for it elicited\nfrom the American assailant a hasty rejoinder, which opened the eyes\neven of his best friends to the utter weakness of his case. Professor\nWhitney, himself, had evidently not expected that I should notice his\nassault. He had challenged me so often before, and I had never answered\nhim. Why, then, should I have replied now? My answer is, because, for\nthe first time, his charges had been countersigned by another.\n\nI had not even read his books before, and he blames me severely for that\nneglect, bluntly asking me, why I had not read them. That is indeed a\nquestion extremely difficult to answer without appearing to be rude.\nHowever, I\u00a0may say this, that to know what books one must read, and what\nbooks one may safely leave unread, is an art which, in these days of\nliterary fertility, every student has to learn. We know on the whole\nwhat each scholar is doing, we know those who are engaged in special and\noriginal work, and we are in duty bound to read whatever they write.\nThis in the present state of Comparative Philology, when independent\nwork is being done in every country of Europe, is as much as any man can\ndo, nay, often more than I feel able to do. But then, on the other hand,\nwe claim the liberty of leaving uncut other books in our science, which,\nhowever entertaining they may be in other respects, are not likely to\ncontain any new facts. In doing this, we run a risk, but we cannot help\nit.\n\nAnd let me ask Professor Whitney, if by chance he had opened a book and\nalighted on the following passage, would he have read much more?\n\n \u201cTake as instances _home_ and _homely_, _scarce_ and _scarcely_,\n _direct_ and _directly_, _lust_ and _lusty_, _naught_ and _naughty_,\n _clerk_ and _clergy_, a _forge_ and a _forgery_, _candid_ and\n _candidate_, _hospital_ and _hospitality_, _idiom_ and _idiocy_,\n _alight_ and _delight_, etc.\u201d\n\nIs there any philologist, comparative or otherwise, who does not know\nthat _light_, the Gothic _liuhath_, is connected with the Latin\n_lucere_; that to _delight_ is connected with Latin _delector_, Old\nFrench _deleiter_, and with Latin _de-lic-ere_; while to _alight_ is of\nTeutonic origin, and connected with Gothic _leihts_, Latin _levis_,\nSanskrit _laghus_?\n\nBut then, Professor Whitney continues, when at last he had forced me to\nread some of his writings, why did I not read them carefully? Why did I\nread Mr. Darwin\u2019s article in the \u201cContemporary Review\u201d only, and not his\nown in an American journal?\n\nNow here I feel somewhat guilty: still I can offer some excuse. I\u00a0did\nnot read Professor Whitney\u2019s reply in the American original, first,\nbecause I could not get it in time; secondly, because I only felt bound\nto answer the arguments which Mr. Darwin had adopted as his own. Looking\nat the original article afterwards, I\u00a0found that I had not been entirely\nwrong. I\u00a0see that Mr. Darwin has used a very wise discretion in his\nselection, and I may now tell Professor Whitney that he ought really to\nbe extremely grateful that nothing except what Mr. Darwin had approved\nof, was placed before the English readers of the \u201cContemporary Review,\u201d\nand therefore answered by me in the same journal.\n\nTHE PHENICIAN ALPHABET.\n\nOther charges, however, of neglect and carelessness on my part in\nreading Professor Whitney\u2019s writings, I\u00a0can meet by a direct negative.\nAmong the more glaring mistakes of his lectures which I had pointed out,\nwas this, that fifteen years after Roug\u00e9\u2019s discovery, Professor Whitney\nstill speaks of \u201cthe Phenician alphabet as the ultimate source of the\nworld\u2019s alphabets.\u201d Professor Whitney answers: \u201cIf Professor M\u00fcller had\nread my twelfth lecture he would have found the derivative nature of the\nPhenician alphabet fully discussed.\u201d When I read this, I\u00a0felt a pang,\nfor it was quite true that I had not read that lecture. I\u00a0saw a note to\nit, in which Professor Whitney states that the sketch of the history of\nwriting contained in it was based on Steinthal\u2019s admirable essay on the\n\u201cDevelopment of Writing,\u201d and being acquainted with that, I\u00a0thought I\ncould dispense with lecture No. 12. However, as I thought it strange\nthat there should be so glaring a contradiction between two lectures of\nthe same course, that in one the Phenician alphabet should be\nrepresented as the ultimate source, in another as a derivative alphabet,\nI\u00a0set to work and read lecture No. 12. Will it be believed that there is\nnot one word in it about Roug\u00e9\u2019s discovery, published, as I said,\nfifteen years ago, that the old explanation that _Aleph_ stood for an\nox, _Beth_ for a house, _Gimel_ for camel, _Daleth_ for door, is simply\nrepeated, and that similarities are detected between the forms of the\nletters and the figures of the objects whose names they bear? Therefore\nof two things one, either Professor Whitney was totally ignorant of what\nhas been published on this subject during the last fifteen years by\nRoug\u00e9, father and son, by Brugsch, Lenormant and others, or he thought\nhe might safely charge me with having misrepresented him, because\nneither I nor any one else was likely to read lecture No. 12.\n\nAfter this instance of what Professor Whitney considers permissible,\nI\u00a0need hardly say more; but having been cited by him before a tribunal\nwhich hardly knows me, to substantiate what I had asserted in my \u201cAnswer\nto Mr. Darwin,\u201d it may be better to go manfully through a most\ndistasteful task, to answer _seriatim_ point after point, and thus to\nleave on record one of the most extraordinary cases of what I can only\ncall Literary Daltonism.\n\nLIKE AND UNLIKE.\n\nI am accused by Professor Whitney of having read his lectures\ncarelessly, because I had only been struck by what seemed to me\nrepetitions from my own writings, without observing the deeper\ndifference between his lectures and my own. He therefore advises me to\nread his lectures again. I\u00a0am afraid I cannot do that, nor do I see any\nnecessity for it, because though I was certainly staggered by a number\nof coincidences between his lectures and my own, I\u00a0was perfectly aware\nthat they differed from each other more than I cared to say. I\u00a0imagined\nI had conveyed this as clearly as I could, without saying anything\noffensive, by observing that in many places his arguments seemed to me\nlike an _inverted fugue_ on a _motive_ taken from my lectures. But if I\nwas not sufficiently outspoken on that point, I\u00a0am quite willing to make\namends for it now.\n\nAN INVERTED FUGUE.\n\nI must give one instance at least of what I mean by an _inverted fugue_.\n\nI had laid great stress on the fact that, though we are accustomed to\nspeak of language as a thing by itself, language after all is not\nsomething independent and substantial, but, in the first instance, an\nact, and to be studied as such. Thus I said (p.\u00a051):--\n\n \u201cTo speak of language as a thing by itself, as living a life of its\n own, as growing to maturity, producing offspring, and dying away, is\n sheer mythology.\u201d\n\nAgain (p. 58):--\n\n \u201cLanguage exists in man, it lives in being spoken, it dies with each\n word that is pronounced, and is no longer heard.\u201d\n\nWhen I came to Professor Whitney\u2019s Second Lecture, and read (p.\u00a035):--\n\n \u201cLanguage has, in fact, no existence save in the minds and mouths of\n those who use it,\u201d\n\nI felt pleasantly reminded of what I knew I had said somewhere. But what\nwas my surprise, when a few lines further on I read:--\n\n \u201cThis truth is sometimes explicitly denied, and the opposite\n doctrine is set up, that language has a life and growth independent\n of its speakers, with which men cannot interfere. A\u00a0recent popular\n writer (Professor Max M\u00fcller) asserts that, \u2018although there is a\n continuous change in language, it is not in the power of man either\n to produce or to prevent it. We might think as well of changing the\n laws which control the circulation of our blood, or of adding an\n inch to our height, as of altering the laws of speech, or inventing\n new words according to our own pleasure.\u2019\u201d\n\nHow is one to fight against such attacks? The very words which Professor\nWhitney had paraphrased before, only substituting \u201cskull\u201d for \u201cheight,\u201d\nand by which I had tried to prove \u201cthat languages are not the artful\ncreations of individuals,\u201d are turned against me to show that, because I\ndenied to any _single_ individual the power of changing language _ad\nlibitum_, I had set up the opposite doctrine, viz. that language has a\nlife and growth independent of its speakers.\n\nDoes Professor Whitney believe that any attentive reader can be taken in\nby such artifices? Suppose I had said that in a well-organized republic\nno individual can change the laws according to his pleasure, would it\nfollow that I held the opposite doctrine, that laws have a life and\ngrowth independent of the lawgiver? The simile is weak, because an\nindividual may, under very peculiar circumstances, change a law\naccording to his pleasure: but weak as it is, I\u00a0hope it will convince\nProfessor Whitney that Formal Logic is not altogether a useless study to\na Professor of Linguistics. I\u00a0only wonder what Professor Whitney would\nhave said if he had been able to find in my Lectures a definition of\nlanguage (p.\u00a046), worthy of Friedrich Schlegel, viz.:--\n\n \u201cLanguage, like an organic body, is no mere aggregate of similar\n particles; it is a complex of related and mutually helpful parts.\u201d\n\nAnd again:--\n\n \u201cThe rise, development, decline, and extinction of language are like\n the birth, increase, decay, and death of a living creature.\u201d\n\nIn these poetical utterances of Professor Whitney\u2019s we have an outbreak\nof philological mythology of a very serious nature, and this many years\nafter I had uttered my warning that \u201cto speak of language as a thing by\nitself, as living a life of its own, as growing to maturity, producing\noffspring, and dying away, is sheer mythology\u201d (I.\u00a0p.\u00a051).\n\nREPETITIONS AND VARIATIONS.\n\nIt is, no doubt, quite natural that in reading Professor Whitney\u2019s\nlectures I should have been struck more forcibly than others by\ncoincidences, which have reference not only to general arguments, but\neven to modes of expression and illustrations. I\u00a0had pointed out some of\nthese verbal or slightly disguised coincidences in my first article, but\nI could add many more. As we open the book, it begins by stating that\nthe Science of Language is a modern science, that its growth was\nanalogous to that of other sciences, that from a mere collection of\nfacts it advanced to classification, and from thence to inductive\nreasoning on language. We are told that ancient nations considered the\nlanguages of their neighbors as merely barbarous, that Christianity\nchanged that view, that a study of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew widened the\nhorizon of scholars, and that at present no dialect, however rude, is\nwithout importance to the students of the Science of Language. Next\ncomes the importance of the discovery of Sanskrit, and a challenge for a\nplace among the recognized sciences in favor of our new science.\n\nNow I ask any one who may have read my Lectures, whether it was not very\nnatural that I should be struck with a certain similarity between my old\ncourse of lectures on the Science of Language, and the lectures\ndelivered soon after on the Science of Language at Washington? But I was\nnot blind to the differences, and I never wished to claim as my own what\nwas original in the American book.\n\nFor instance, when the American Professor says that one of the most\nimportant problems is to find out \u201cHow we learn English,\u201d I\u00a0said at\nonce, \u201cThat\u2019s his ane;\u201d and when after leading us from mother to\ngrandmother, and great-grandmother, he ends with Adam, and says:--\n\n \u201cIt is only the first man before whom every beast of the field and\n every fowl of the air must present itself, to see what he will call\n it; and whatever he calls any living creature, that is the name\n thereof, not to himself alone, but to his family and descendants,\n who are content to style each as their father had done before them.\u201d\n\nI said again, \u201cThat\u2019s his ane.\u201d\n\nWhen afterwards we read about the large and small number of words used\nby different ranks and classes, and by different writers, when we come\nto the changes in English, the phonetic changes, to phonetics in\ngeneral, to changes of meaning, etc., few, I\u00a0think, will fail to\nperceive what I naturally perceived most strongly, \u201cthe leaves of memory\nrustling in the dark.\u201d I\u00a0perceived even such accidental reminiscences\nas:--\n\n _Old Prussian leaving behind a brief catechism_ (p.\u00a0215), and,\n\n _Old Prussian leaving behind an old catechism_ (p.\u00a0200);\n\n _Frisian having a literature of its own_ (p.\u00a0211), and the\n\n _Frisians having a literature of their own_ (p.\u00a0178),\n\nthough, of course, no other reader could possibly perceive such\nunimportant coincidences. These, no doubt, were mere accidents; but when\nwe consider that there is perhaps no science which admits of more varied\nillustration than the Science of Language, then to find page after page\nthe same instances which one had collected one\u2019s self, certainly left\nthe impression that the soil from which these American lectures sprang,\nwas chiefly alluvial. Of course, as Professor Whitney has acknowledged\nhis indebtedness to me for these illustrations, I\u00a0have no complaint to\nmake, I\u00a0only protest against his ingratitude in representing such\nillustrations as mere by-work. For the purpose of teaching and placing a\ndifficult subject into its proper light, illustrations, I\u00a0think, are\nhardly less important than arguments. In order to show, for instance, in\nwhat sense Chinese may be called a _parler enfantin_, I had said:--\n\n \u201cIf a child says _up_, that _up_ is to his mind, noun, verb,\n adjective, all in one. It means, I\u00a0want to get up on my mother\u2019s\n lap.\u201d\n\nWhat has Professor Whitney to say on the same subject?\n\n \u201cIt is thus that, even at present, children begin to talk; a\u00a0radical\n word or two means in their mouths a whole sentence; _up_ signifies\n \u2018Take me up into your lap.\u2019\u201d\n\nEnough of this, if not too much. Perhaps a thousand years hence, if any\nof our books survive so long, the question whether my lectures were\nwritten by myself, or by an American scholar settled in Germany, may\nexercise the critical acumen of the philologists of the future.\n\nLECTURES PRINTED IN ENGLAND ALSO.\n\nBut I see there is one more charge of carelessness brought against me,\nand as I promised to answer every one, I\u00a0must at least mention it.\n\n \u201cHe has not even observed that my Lectures are printed and published\n in England, and not only in America.\u201d\n\nWhy I ought to have observed this, I do not understand. Would it have\nserved as an advertisement? Should I have said that the author resided\nin Canada to secure his book against the imminent danger of piracy in\nEngland? Or does Professor Whitney suspect here too, one of those\nsinister influences which he thought had interfered with the sale of his\nbooks in England? However, whatever sin of omission I have committed,\nI\u00a0am quite willing to apologize, in order to proceed to graver matters.\n\nTHE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE AS ONE OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES.\n\nI stand charged next not only with having read Professor Whitney\u2019s\nwritings in too cursory a manner, but with actually having\nmisrepresented his views on the question, so often discussed of late,\nwhether the Science of Language should be reckoned one of the historical\nor one of the physical sciences. Let us look at the facts:--\n\nI had tried to show in my very first Lecture in what sense the Science\nof Language might properly be called a physical, and in what sense it\nmight be called an historical science. I\u00a0had given full weight to the\narguments on either side, because I felt that, owing to the twofold\nnature of man, much might be said with perfect truth for one or the\nother view. When I look back on what I wrote many years ago, after\nhaving carefully weighed all that has been written on the subject during\nthe last fifteen years, I\u00a0am glad to find that I can repeat every word I\nthen wrote, without a single change or qualification.\n\n \u201cThe process\u201d I\u00a0said (p.\u00a049), \u201cthrough which language is settled and\n unsettled, combines in one the two opposite elements of necessity\n and freewill. Though the individual seems to be the prime mover in\n producing new words and new grammatical forms, he is so only after\n his individuality has been merged in the common action of the\n family, tribe, or nation to which he belongs. He can do nothing by\n himself, and the first impulse to a new formation in language,\n _though given by an individual_, is mostly, if not always, given\n without premeditation, nay, unconsciously. The individual, as such,\n is powerless, and the results apparently produced by him, depend on\n laws beyond his control, and on the co\u00f6peration of all those who\n form together with him one class, one body, or one organic whole.\n But though it is easy to show that language cannot be changed or\n moulded by the taste, the fancy, or genius of man, it is\n nevertheless through the instrumentality of man alone that language\n can be changed.\u201d\n\nNow I ask any reader of Mr. Whitney\u2019s Lectures, whether he has found in\nthem anything in addition to what I had said on this subject, anything\nmaterially or even in form, differing from it. He speaks indeed of the\nactual additions made by individuals to language, but he treats them, as\nI did, as rare exceptions (p.\u00a032), and I cannot help thinking that when\nhe wrote (p.\u00a052):--\n\n \u201cLanguages are almost as little the work of man as is the form of\n his skull, the outlines of his face, the construction of his arm and\n hand,\u201d\n\nhe was simply paraphrasing what I had said, though, as will be seen, far\nmore cautiously than my American colleague, because my remarks referred\nto the laws of language only, not to language as a whole (p.\u00a047):--\n\n \u201cWe might think as well of changing the laws which control the\n circulation of our blood, or of adding an inch to our height, as of\n altering the laws of speech, and inventing new words, _according to\n our own pleasure_.\u201d\n\nI cannot hope to convince Mr. Whitney, for after I had tried to explain\nto him, why I considered the question whether the Science of Language is\nto be classed as a physical or an historical science, as chiefly a\nquestion of technical definition, he replies:--\n\n \u201cThat I should probably consider it as more than a matter of\n terminology or technical definition whether our science is an\n historical science, _because men make language_, or a physical\n science, _because men do not make language_.\u201d\n\nEverybody will see that to attempt a serious argument on such\nconditions, is simply impossible.\n\nIf Professor Whitney can produce one single passage in all my writings\nwhere I said that _men do not make language_, I promise to write no more\non language at all. I\u00a0see now that it is Schleicher who, according to\nProfessor Whitney, at least, held these crude views, who called\nlanguages natural organisms, which, without being determinable by the\nwill of man, arose, grew, and developed themselves, in accordance with\nfixed laws, and then again grow old and die out; who ascribed to\nlanguage that succession of phenomena which is wont to be termed life,\nand who accordingly classed _Glottik_, the Science of Language, as a\nnatural science. These are the very opinions which, with the exception\nof the last, are combated in my writings.\n\nI understood perfectly well what Mr. Whitney meant, when he, like nearly\nall scholars before him, claimed the Science of Language as an\nhistorical or a moral science. Man is an amphibious creature, and all\nthe sciences concerning man, will be more or less amphibious sciences.\nI\u00a0did not rush into print, because he took the opposite side to the one\nI had taken. On the contrary, having myself laid great stress on the\nfact that language was not to be treated as an artful creation of the\nindividual, I\u00a0was glad that the artistic element in language, such as it\nis, should have found so eloquent an advocate. But I confess, I\u00a0was\ndisappointed when I saw that, with the exception of a few purely\nsentimental protests, there was nothing in Mr. Whitney\u2019s treatment of\nthe subject that differed from my own. I\u00a0proved this, if not to his\nsatisfaction, at least to that of others, by giving _verbatim_ extracts\nfrom his Lectures, and what is the consequence? As he can no longer deny\nhis own words, he uses the only defense which remained, he now accuses\nme of garbling quotations and thus misrepresenting him. This, of course,\nmay be said of all quotations, short of reprinting a whole chapter. Yet\nto my mind the charge is so serious, that I feel in duty bound to repel\nit, not by words, but by facts.\n\nThis is the way in which Professor Whitney tries to escape from the net\nin which he had entangled himself. In his reply to my argument he\nsays:--\n\n \u201cHe chooses even more than once a sentence, in order to prove that I\n maintain an opinion, directly from an argument in support of the\n opposite opinion; for instance, in quoting my words, \u2018that languages\n are almost as little the work of man as is the form of his skull,\u2019\n he overlooks the preceding parts of the same sentence: \u2018_as opposed_\n to the objects which he, the linguist, follows in his researches,\n and the results which he wishes to attain.\u2019 The whole is a part of a\n section which is to prove that the absence of reflection and\n conscious intent, takes away from the facts of language the\n subjective character which would otherwise belong to them as\n products of the voluntary action.\u201d\n\nVery well. We now have what Professor Whitney says that he said. Let us\nnow read what he really said (p.\u00a051):--\n\n \u201cThe linguistic student feels that he is not dealing with _the\n artful creations of individuals_. So far as concerns the purposes\n for which he examines them, and the results he would derive from\n them, they are almost as little the work of man as is the form of\n his skull.\u201d\n\nTo render \u201cso far as concerns the purposes\u201d by \u201cGegen\u00fcber den Zwecken,\ndie er bei seinen Untersuchungen verfolgt,\u201d is a strong measure. But\neven thus, the facts remain as I, not as he, had stated them. There was\nno garbling on my part, but something worse than garbling on his, and\nall this for no purpose whatever, except for one which I do not like to\nsuggest. As a linguistic student Professor Whitney feels what I had\nfelt, \u2018that we are not dealing with the artful creations of\nindividuals.\u2019 What Professor Whitney may feel besides about language,\ndoes not concern us, but it does concern us, and it does still more\nconcern him, that he should not endeavor to impart to scientific\nlanguage that character which, as he admits, it has not, viz., that of\nbeing the very artful creation of an individual.\n\nI am quite willing to admit, and I have done so before on several\noccasions, that I may have laid too great stress on those\ncharacteristics of the Science of Language by which it belongs to the\nphysical sciences. I\u00a0have explained why I did so at the time. In fact\nthese are not new questions. Because I had said, as Dr. Whewell had said\nbefore me,--\n\n \u201cThat there are several large provinces of speculation which concern\n subjects belonging to man\u2019s immaterial nature, and which are\n governed by the same laws as sciences altogether physical,\u201d\n\nit did not follow, as Professor Whitney seems to think, that I regarded\nlanguage as something like a cow or a potato. I\u00a0cannot defend myself\nagainst such puerilities.\n\nIn reviewing Schleicher\u2019s essay, \u201cOn Darwinism tested by the Science of\nLanguage,\u201d I\u00a0had said:--\n\n \u201cIt is not very creditable to the students of the Science of\n Language that there should have been among them so much wrangling as\n to whether that science is to be treated as one of the natural or as\n one of the historical sciences. They, if any one, ought to have seen\n that they were playing with language, or rather that language was\n playing with them, and that unless a proper definition is first\n given of what is meant by nature and by natural science, the\n pleading for and against the admission of the Science of Language to\n the circle of the natural sciences, may be carried on _ad\n infinitum_. It is, of course, open to anybody so to define the\n meaning of nature as to exclude human nature, and so to narrow the\n sphere of the natural sciences, as to leave no place for the Science\n of Language. It is also possible so to interpret the meaning of\n growth that it becomes inapplicable alike to the gradual formation\n of the earth\u2019s crust, and to the slow accumulation of the _humus_ of\n language. Let the definition of these terms be plainly laid down,\n and the controversy, if it will not cease at once, will at all\n events become more fruitful. It will then turn on the legitimate\n definition of such terms as nature and mind, necessity and\n free-will, and it will have to be determined by philosophers rather\n than by scholars. Unless appearances deceive us, it is not the\n tendency of modern philosophy to isolate human nature, and to\n separate it by impassable barriers from nature at large, but rather\n to discover the bridges which lead from one bank to the other, and\n to lay bare the hidden foundations which, deep beneath the surface,\n connect the two opposite shores. It is, in fact, easy to see that\n the old medi\u00e6val discussions on necessity and free-will are turning\n up again in our own time, though slightly disguised, in the\n discussions on the proper place which man holds in the realm of\n nature; nay, that the same antinomies have been at the root of the\n controversy from the days when Greek philosophers maintained that\n language existed \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 or \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, to our own days, when scholars\n range themselves in two hostile camps, claiming for the Science of\n Language a place either among the physical or the historical\n branches of knowledge.\u201d\n\nAnd again:--\n\n \u201cAt all events we should never allow ourselves to forget that, if we\n speak of languages as natural productions, and of the Science of\n Language as one of the natural sciences, what we chiefly wish to say\n is, that languages are not produced by the free-will of individuals,\n and that, if they are works of art, they are works of what may be\n called a natural or unconscious art--an art in which the individual,\n though he is the agent, is not a free agent, but checked and\n governed from the very first breath of speech by the implied\n cooperation of those to whom his language is addressed, and without\n whose acceptance language, not being understood, would cease to be\n language.\u201d\n\nIn the first lecture which I delivered at Strassburg, I dwelt on the\nsame problem, and said:--\n\n \u201cThere is, no doubt, in language a transition from the material to\n the spiritual; the raw material of language belongs to nature, but\n the form of language, that which really makes language, belongs to\n the spirit. Were it possible to trace human language _directly_ back\n to natural sounds, to interjections or imitations, the question\n whether the Science of Language belongs to the sphere of the natural\n or the historical sciences would at once be solved. But I doubt\n whether this crude view of the origin of language counts one single\n supporter in Germany. With one foot language stands, no doubt, in\n the realm of nature, but with the other in the realm of spirit. Some\n years ago, when I thought it necessary to bring out as clearly as\n possible the much neglected natural element in language, I\u00a0tried to\n explain in what sense the Science of Language had a right to be\n called the last and the highest of the natural sciences. But I need\n hardly say that I did not lose sight, therefore, of the intellectual\n and historical character of language; and I may here express my\n conviction that the Science of Language will yet enable us to\n withstand the extreme theories of the evolutionists, and to draw a\n hard and fast line between spirit and matter, between man and\n brute.\u201d\n\nProfessor Whitney will see, therefore, that all that can be said, and be\njustly said, against treating the Science of Language as a purely\nphysical science was not so new to me as he expected; nay, his friends\nmight possibly tell him that the _pro\u2019s_ and _con\u2019s_ of this question\nhad been far more fully and fairly weighed before his own lectures were\npublished than afterwards. A\u00a0writer on this subject, if he wishes to win\nnew laurels, must do more than furbish up old weapons, and fight against\nmonsters which owe their existence to nothing but his own heated\nimagination.\n\nIS GLOTTOLOGY A SCIENCE?\n\nHis knowledge of the German language ought to have kept Professor\nWhitney from an insinuation that I had claimed for Glottology a place\namong the physical sciences, because I feared that otherwise the title\nof \u201cscience\u201d would be altogether denied to my researches. Now whatever\nartificial restriction may have been forced on the term \u201cscience\u201d in\nEnglish and American, the corresponding term in German, _Wissenschaft_,\nhas, as yet, resisted all such violence, and it was as a German that I\nventured to call _Sprachwissenschaft_ by its right name in English, and\ndid not hesitate to speak even of a Science of Mythology, a\u00a0Science of\nReligion, and a Science of Thought.\n\nFinally, as to my wishing to smuggle in Glottology, and to secure for it\nat least some small corner in the circle of the Physical Sciences, I\u00a0am\nafraid I cannot lay claim to such modesty. When at the meeting of the\nBritish Association at Oxford in 1847, Bunsen claimed the establishment\nof a separate section for Ethnology, he said:--\n\n \u201cIf man is the apex of creation, it seems right on the one side,\n that a historical inquiry into his origin and development should\n never be allowed to sever itself from the general body of natural\n science, and, in particular, from physiology. But on the other hand,\n if man is the apex of creation, if he is the end to which all\n organic formations tend from the very beginning; if man is at once\n the mystery and the key of natural science; if that is the only view\n of natural science worthy of our age, then ethnologic philology,\n once established on principles as clear as the physiological are, is\n _the highest branch_ of that science for the advancement of which\n this Association is instituted. It is not an appendix to physiology\n or to anything else; but its object is, on the contrary, capable of\n becoming the end and goal of the labors and transactions of a\n scientific association.\u201d\n\nThese words of my departed friend express better than anything which I\ncan say, what I meant by claiming for the Science of Language and the\nScience of Man, a\u00a0place among the physical sciences. By enlarging the\ndefinition of physical science so as to make it comprehend both\nAnthropology and Glottology, I\u00a0thought I was claiming a wider scope and\na higher dignity for physical science. The idea of calling language a\nvegetable, in order to smuggle it through the toll-bar of the physical\nsciences, certainly never entered my mind.\n\nWhen one remembers how since 1847, man has become the central point of\nthe discussions of the British Association year after year, Bunsen\u2019s\nwords sound almost prophetic, and it might have been guessed, even in\nAmerica, that the friend and pupil of Bunsen was not likely to abate\nmuch in his claims for the recognition of the Science of Man, as the\nhighest of all sciences.\n\nHave I done? Yes, I believe I have answered all that required an answer\nin Mr. Darwin\u2019s article, in Professor Whitney\u2019s new attack in the\n\u201cContemporary Review,\u201d and in his Lectures. But alas! there is still a\npage bristling with challenges.\n\nHave I read not only his lectures, but all his controversial articles?\nNo. Then I ought.\n\nHave I quoted any passage from his writings to prove that the less he\nhas thought on a subject, the louder he speaks No. Then I ought.\n\nHave I produced any proof that he wonders that no one answers his\nstrictures? No. Then I ought.\n\nHe actually appeals to my honor. What can I do? I cannot say that I have\nsince read all his controversial articles, but I have read a\nconsiderable number, and I frankly confess that on many points they have\nraised my opinion of Professor Whitney\u2019s acquirements. It is true, he is\nnot an original worker, but he is a hard reader, and a very smart\nwriter. The gall of bitterness that pervades all his writings, is\ncertainly painful, but that concerns him far more than us.\n\nLANGUAGE AND THOUGHT INSEPARABLE.\n\nFirst then, I am asked to explain what I meant by saying that Professor\nWhitney speaks the loudest on subjects on which he has thought the\nleast. I\u00a0could best explain my meaning, if I were to collect all that\nProfessor Whitney has written on the relation of language to thought. He\ncertainly grows most boisterous in these latitudes, and yet he evidently\nhas never, as yet, read up that subject, nay, he seems convinced that\nwhat has been written on it by such dreamers as Locke, Schelling, Hegel,\nHumboldt, Schopenhauer, Mansel, and others, deserves no consideration\nwhatever. To maintain, what every one of these philosophers maintains,\nthat a conception cannot be entertained without the support of a word,\nwould be, according to the Yale Professor, the sheerest folly\n(p.\u00a0125),--\u201cpart of that superficial and unsound philosophy which\nconfounds and identifies speech, thought, and reason\u201d (p.\u00a0439).\n\nI can quite enter into these feelings, for I can still remember the\nmental effort that is required in order to surrender our usual view of\nlanguage, as a mere sign or instrument of thought, and to recognize in\nit the realization of all conceptual thought. A\u00a0mere dictionary would,\nno doubt, seem the best answer to those who hold that thought and\nlanguage are inseparable, and to throw a stout Webster at our head might\nbe considered by many as good a refutation of such sheer folly, as a\nslap in the face was supposed to be of Berkeley\u2019s idealism. However,\nProfessor Whitney is an assiduous reader, and I do not at all despair\nthat the time will come when he will see what these thinkers really mean\nby conceptual thought and by language, and I am quite prepared to hear\nhim say that \u201che had known all that long ago, that any child knew it,\nthat it was mere _bathos_, and that it was only due to a want of clear\nand definitive expression, or to a want of knowledge of English,\nexcusable in a foreigner, if there had been so much darkening of counsel\nby words without thought.\u201d I\u00a0shall then be told that:--\n\n \u201cI consulted excellent authorities, and I worked these up with a\n commendable degree of industry, but that I am wanting in the inner\n light .\u00a0.\u00a0. and have never gained a comprehension of the movements\n that go on in my own mind, without which real insight into the\n relation of language to thought is impossible\u201d (p.\u00a0268).\n\nPROFESSOR PRANTL ON THE REFORM OF LOGIC.\n\nIn order to accelerate that event, may I advise Professor Whitney to\nread some articles lately published by Professor Prantl? Professor\nPrantl is _facile princeps_ among German logicians, he is the author of\nthe \u201cHistory of Logic,\u201d and therefore perhaps even the American\nProfessor will not consider him, as he does others who differ from him,\nas quite ignorant of the first rules of logic! At the meeting of the\nRoyal Academy at Munich, March 6, 1875, Professor Prantl claimed\npermission, after having finished his \u201cHistory of Logic,\u201d to lay some\nthoughts for the \u201cReform of Logic,\u201d before the members of that Academy,\nthe very fundamental principle of that reform being\n\n_The essential unity of thought and language._\n\n \u201cRealized thought, or what others might call the realization of the\n faculty of thought, exists therefore in language only, and _vice\n vers\u00e2_, every element of language contains thought. Every kind of\n priority of real thought before its expression in language, is to be\n denied, as well as any separate existence of thought\u201d (p.\u00a0181).\n\n \u201cIn one sense I should not deny that there is something in animals\n which in a very high degree of elevation is called language in man.\n In recognition of the distance produced by this high degree of\n elevation, one can agree with Max M\u00fcller, that language is the true\n frontier between brute and man.\u201d (p.\u00a0168).\n\nOr, if the Yale Professor wants a more popular treatment of the subject,\nhe might read Dr. Loewe\u2019s essay on \u201cThe Simultaneity of the Genesis of\nSpeech and Thought,\u201d also published this year. Dr. Loewe, too, avails\nhimself gladly of the new results obtained by the Science of Language,\nand shows clearly that the origin of thought is the origin of language.\n\nEvery one who has to write on philosophical subjects in English, German,\nand French, or who has to superintend translations of what he has\nwritten into other languages, must know how difficult it is to guard\nalways against being misunderstood, but a reader familiar with his\nsubject at once makes allowance for this; he does not raise clouds of\ndust for nothing. Observe the difference between some criticisms passed\non what I had said, by Dr. Loewe, and by others. I\u00a0had said in my\nLectures (ii.\u00a082):--\n\n \u201cIt is possible, without language, to see, to perceive, to stare at,\n to dream about things; but, without words, not even such simple\n _ideas_ as white or black can be for a moment realized.\u201d\n\nMy German translator had rendered _ideas_ by _Vorstellungen_ while I\nused the word in the sense of concept, _Begriff_. Dr. Loewe in\ncommenting on this passage says:--\n\n \u201cIf M. M. maintains that _Vorstellungen_, such as white and black,\n cannot be realized for a moment without words, he is right, but only\n if by _Vorstellung_ he means _Begriff_. And this is clearly his\n meaning, because shortly before he had insisted on the fact that it\n was conceptual thought which is impossible without words. Were we to\n take his words literally, then it would be wrong, for sensuous\n images (Sinnesbilder), such as white and black, do not require words\n for their realization. One glance at the psychical life of animals\n would suffice to prove that sensuous representation (Vorstellen) can\n be carried out without language, for it is equally certain that\n animals have sensuous images as that they have no words.\u201d\n\nThis is the language of a well-schooled philosopher, who cares for truth\nand not for controversy, _\u00e0\u00a0tout prix_. Let us contrast it for a moment\nwith the language of Professor Whitney (p.\u00a0249):--\n\n \u201cThis may be taking a very high view of language; it certainly is\n taking a very low view of reason. If only that part of man\u2019s\n superior endowments which finds its manifestation in language is to\n receive the name of reason, what shall we style the rest? We had\n thought that the love and intelligence, the soul, that looks out of\n a child\u2019s eyes upon us to reward our care long before it begins to\n prattle, were also marks of reason,\u201d etc.\n\nThis is a pretty domestic idyl, but the marvelous confusion between\nconceptual thought and the inarticulate signs of the affections, will,\nI\u00a0fear, remind logicians of infantine prattle with no mark of reason\nabout it, rather than of scientific argument.\n\nIt is quite clear, therefore, from this single specimen, that it would\nbe impossible to argue with Professor Whitney on this subject. He\nreturns to it again and again, his language grows stronger and stronger\nevery time, yet all the time he speaks like a man whom nothing shall\nconvince that the earth does move. He does not even know that he might\nhave quoted very great authorities on his side of the question, only\nthat they, knowing the bearings of the whole problem, speak of their\nantagonists with the respect due say by Ny\u00e2ya to a S\u00e2nkhya philosopher,\nnot with the contempt which a Brahman feels for a Mleccha.\n\nGRAMMATICAL BLUNDERS.\n\nBut let us take a subject where, at all events, it is possible to argue\nwith the Professor--I mean Sanskrit Grammar--and we shall see again that\nhe is most apodictic when he is least informed. He has criticised the\nfirst volume of my translation of the Rig-Veda. He dislikes it very\nmuch, and gives me very excellent advice as to what I ought to have done\nand what I ought not. He thinks I ought to have thought of the large\npublic who want to know something of the Veda, and not of mere scholars.\nHe thinks that the hymns addressed to the Dawn would have pleased the\nyoung ladies better than the hymns to the Stormgods, and he broadly\nhints that all the _pi\u00e8ces justificatives_ which I give in my commentary\nare _de trop_. A translation, such as Langlois\u2019, would, no doubt, have\npleased him best. I\u00a0do not object to his views, and I hope that he or\nhis friends may some day give us a translation of the Rig-Veda, carried\nout in that spirit. I\u00a0shall devote the remaining years of my life to\ncarrying on what I ventured to call and still call the first _traduction\nraisonn\u00e9e_ of the Veda, on those principles which, after mature\nreflection, I\u00a0adopted in the first volume, and which I still consider\nthe only principles in accordance with the requirements of sound\nscholarship. The very reason why I chose the hymns to the Maruts was\nbecause I thought it was high time to put an end to the mere trifling\nwith Vedic translation. They are, no doubt, the most difficult, the most\nrugged, and, it may be, the least attractive hymns, but they are on that\nvery account an excellent introduction to a scholarlike study of the\nVeda. Mere guessing and skipping will not avail us here. There is no\nroyal road to the discovery of the meaning of difficult words in the\nVeda. We must trace words of doubtful meaning through every passage\nwhere they occur, and we must give an account of their meaning by\ntranslating every passage that can be translated, marking the rest as,\nfor the present, untranslatable. Boehtlingk and Roth\u2019s excellent\nDictionary is the first step in that direction, and a most important\nstep. But in it the passages have only undergone their first sifting and\nclassifying; they are not translated, nor are they given with perfect\ncompleteness. Now if one single passage is left out of consideration in\nestablishing the meaning of a word, the whole work has to be done again.\nIt is only by adopting my own tedious, it may be, but exhaustive method\nthat a scholar may feel that whatever work he has done, it is done once\nfor all.\n\nOn such questions, however, it is easy to write a great deal in general\nterms; though it is difficult to say anything on which all competent\nscholars are not by this time fully agreed. It is not for me to gainsay\nmy American critic that my renderings into English, being those of a\nforeigner, are tame and spiritless, but I doubt, whether in a new\nedition I shall change my translation, \u201cthe lights in heaven shine\nforth,\u201d for what the American Professor suggests: \u201ca\u00a0sheen shines out in\nthe sky,\u201d or \u201cgleams glimmer in the sky.\u201d\n\nAll this, however, anybody might have written after dinner. But once at\nleast Professor Whitney, Professor of Sanskrit in Yale, attempts to come\nto close quarters, and ventures on a remark on Sanskrit grammar. It is\nthe only passage in all his writings, as far as I remember, where,\ninstead of indulging in mere sheet lightning, he comes down upon me with\na crashing thunderbolt, and points out a real grammatical blunder. He\nsays it is--\n\n \u201cAn extremely violent and improbable grammatical process to render\n +pari tasthushas+, as if the reading were +paritasthiv\u00e2\u1e43sas+. The\n participial form +tasthushas+ has no right to be anything but an\n accusative plural, or a genitive or ablative singular; let us have\n the authority for making a nominative plural of it, and treating\n +pari+ as its prefix, and better authority than the mere dictum of a\n Hindu grammarian.\u201d\n\nThose who are acquainted with Vedic studies know that Professor Benfey\nhas been for years preparing a grammar of the Vedic dialect, and, as\nthere is plenty of work for all workers, I\u00a0purposely left the\ngrammatical questions to him, confining myself in my commentary to the\nmost necessary grammatical remarks, and giving my chief attention to the\nmeaning of words and the poetical conceptions of the ancient poets. If\nthe use of the accusatival form +tasthushas+, with the sense of a\nnominative, had been confined to the Veda, or had never been remarked on\nbefore, I\u00a0ought, no doubt, to have called attention to it. But similar\nanomalous forms occur in Epic literature also, and more than that,\nattention had but lately been called to them by a very eminent Dutch\nscholar, Dr. Kern, who, in his translation of the B\u1e5bhat-Sa\u1e43hit\u00e2, remarks\nthat the ungrammatical nom. plur. +vidushas+ is by no means rare in the\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata and kindred works. If Professor Whitney had only read as far\nas the eleventh hymn in the first book of the Rig-Veda, he would have\nmet there in +abibhyushas+ an undoubted nom. plur. in +ushas+:--\n\n tv\u1ea5m dev\u1ea5\u1e25 \u00e1bibhyusha\u1e25 tujy\u00e1m\u00e2n\u00e2sa\u1e25 \u00e2vishu\u1e25,\n\n The gods, stirred up, came to thee, not fearing.\n\nNow, I ask, was I so far wrong when I said that Professor Whitney speaks\nloudest when he knows least, and that in charging me, for once at least,\nwith a tangible blunder, he only betrayed his ignorance of Sanskrit\ngrammar? In former times a scholar, after such a misfortune, would have\ntaken a vow of silence or gone into a monastery. What will Professor\nWhitney do? He will take a vow of speech, and rush into a North American\nReview.\n\nHARD AND SOFT.\n\nThere are other subjects to which Professor Whitney has of late paid\nmuch more attention than to Sanskrit Grammar, and we shall find that on\nthem he argues in a much gentler tone.\n\nIt is well known that Professor Whitney held curious views about the\nrelation of vowels to consonants, and I therefore was not surprised to\nhear from him that \u201cmy view of the essential difference between vowels\nand consonants will not bear examination.\u201d He mixes up what I call the\nsubstance (breath and voice) with the form (squeezes and checks), and\nforgets that _in rerum natur\u00e2_ there exist no consonants except as\nmodifying the column of voice and breath, or as what Hindu grammarians\ncall +vyanjana+, _i.e._, determinants; and no vowels except as modified\nby consonants. In order to support the second part of this statement,\nviz., that it is impossible to pronounce an initial vowel without a\nslight, and to many hardly perceptible, initial noise, the _coup de la\nglotte_, I had appealed to musicians who know how difficult it is, in\nplaying on the flute or on the violin, to weaken or to avoid certain\nnoises (_Ansatz_) arising from the first impulses imparted to the air,\nbefore it can produce really musical sensations. Professor Whitney, in\nquoting this paragraph, leaves out the sentence where I say that I want\nto explain the difficulty of pronouncing initial vowels without some\n_spiritus lenis_, and charges me with comparing all consonants with the\nunmusical noises of musical instruments. This was in 1866, whereas in\n1854 I had said: \u201cIf we regard the human voice as a continuous stream of\nair, emitted as breath from the lungs and changed by the vibration of\nthe _chord\u00e6 vocales_ into vocal sound, as it leaves the larynx, this\nstream itself, as modified by certain positions of the mouth, would\nrepresent the vowels. In the consonants, on the contrary, we should have\nto recognize a number of stops opposing for a moment the free passage of\nthis vocal air.\u201d I\u00a0ask any scholar or lawyer, what is one to do against\nsuch misrepresentations? How is one to qualify them, when to call them\nunintentional would be nearly as offensive as to call them intentional?\n\nThe greatest offense, however, which I have committed in his eyes is\nthat I revived the old names of _hard_ and _soft_, instead of _surd_ and\n_sonant_. Now I thought that one could only revive what is dead, but I\nbelieve there is not a single scholar alive who does not use always or\noccasionally the terms _hard_ and _soft_. Even Professor Whitney can\nonly call these technical terms obsolescent; but he thinks my influence\nis so omnipotent that, if I had struck a stroke against these\nobsolescent terms, they would have been well nigh or quite finished.\nI\u00a0cannot accept that compliment. I\u00a0have tried my strokes against much\nmore objectionable things than _hard_ and _soft_, and they have not yet\nvanished. I\u00a0know of no living philologist who does not use the old terms\n_hard_ and _soft_, though everybody knows that they are imperfect. I\u00a0see\nthat Professor Pott[2] in one passage where he uses _sonant_ thinks it\nnecessary to explain it by _soft_. Why, then, am I singled out as the\ngreat criminal? I\u00a0do not object to the use of _surd_ or _sonant_. I have\nused these terms from the very beginning of my literary career, and as\nProfessor Whitney evidently doubts my word, I\u00a0may refer him to my\n_Proposals_, submitted to the Alphabetic Conferences in 1854. he will\nfind that as early as that date, I\u00a0already used _sonant_, though, like\nPott, I\u00a0explained this new term by the more familiar _soft_. If he will\nappeal to Professor Lepsius, he will hear how, even at that time, I\u00a0had\ntranslated for him the chapters of the Pr\u00e2ti\u015b\u00e2khyas, which explain the\ntrue structure of a physiological alphabet, and ascribe the distinction\nbetween k and g to the absence and presence of voice. I\u00a0purposely\navoided these new terms, because I doubted, and I still doubt, whether\nwe should gain much by their adoption. I\u00a0do not exactly share the\nmisgivings that a _surd mute_ might be mistaken for a _deaf and dumb_\nletter, but I think the name is awkward. _Voiced_ and _voiceless_ would\nseem much better renderings of the excellent Sanskrit terms +ghoshavat+\nand +aghosha+, in order to indicate that it is the presence and absence\nof the voice which causes their difference. Frequent changes in\ntechnical terms are much to be deprecated,[3] particularly if the new\nterms are themselves imperfect.\n\nEvery scholar knows by this time what is meant by _hard_ and _soft_,\nviz., _voiceless_ and _voiced_. The names _hard_ and _soft_, though not\nperfect, have, like most imperfect names, some kind of excuse, as I\ntried to show by Czermak\u2019s experiments.[4] But while a good deal may be\nsaid for _soft_ and _hard_, what excuse can be pleaded for such a term\nas _media_, meaning originally a letter between the _Psila_ and the\n_Dasea_? Yet, would it be believed that this very term is used by\nProfessor Whitney on the page following immediately after his\npuritanical sermon against my backslidings!\n\nThis gentle sermon, however, which Professor Whitney preaches at me, as\nif I were the Pope of Comparative Philologists, is nothing compared with\nwhat follows later. When he saw that the difference between _voiced_ and\n_voiceless_ letters was not so novel to me as he had imagined, that it\nwas known to me even before I published the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khya,--nay, when I\nhad told him that, to quote the words of Professor Br\u00fccke, the founder\nof scientific phonetics,--\n\n \u201cThe medias had been classed as _sonant_ in all the systems\n elaborated by the students of language who have studied comparative\n phonology,\u201d\n\nhe does not hesitate to write as follows:--\n\n \u201cProfessor M\u00fcller, like some other students of philology (who except\n Professor Whitney himself?) finds himself unable longer to resist\n the force of the arguments against _hard_ and _soft_, and is\n convinced that _surd_ and _sonant_ are the proper terms to use; but,\n instead of frankly abandoning the one, and accepting the other in\n their place, he would fain make his hearers believe that he has\n always held and taught as he now wishes he had done. It is either a\n case of disingenuousness or of remarkable self-deception: there\n appears to be no third alternative.\u201d\n\nI call this a gentle reproof, as coming from Professor Whitney; but I\nmust say at the same time that I seldom saw greater daring displayed,\nregardless of all consequences. The American captain sitting on the\nsafety-valve to keep his vessel from blowing up, is nothing in\ncomparison with our American Professor. I\u00a0have shown that in 1854 the\nterms _surd_ and _sonant_ were no novelty to me. But as Professor\nWhitney had not yet joined our ranks at that time, he might very\nproperly plead ignorance of a paper which I myself have declared\nantiquated by what I had written afterwards on the same subject. But\nwill it be believed that in the very same lecture which he is\ncriticising, there occurs the following passage (ii.\u00a0p.\u00a0156):--\n\n \u201cWhat is it that changes k into g, t\u00a0into d, p\u00a0into b? B\u00a0is called a\n media, a\u00a0soft letter, a\u00a0sonant, in opposition to P, which is called\n a tenuis, a\u00a0hard letter, or a surd. But what is meant by these\n terms? A\u00a0tenuis, we saw, was so called by the Greeks, in opposition\n to the aspirates, the Greek grammarians wishing to express that the\n aspirates had a rough or shaggy sound, whereas the tenues were bald,\n slight, or thin. This does not help us much. _Soft_ and _hard_ are\n terms which, no doubt, express an outward difference of b and p, but\n they do not explain the cause of that difference. _Surd_ and\n _sonant_ are apt to mislead; for if, according to the old system\n both p and b continue to be classed as mute, it is difficult to see\n how, taking words in their proper sense, a\u00a0mute letter could be\n sonant.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Both p and b are momentary negations of breath and\n voice; or, as the Hindu grammarians say, both are formed by complete\n contact. But b differs from p in so far as, in order to pronounce\n it, breath must have been changed by the glottis into voice, which\n voice, whether loud or whispered, partly precedes, partly follows\n the check.\u201d\n\nAnd again:--\n\n \u201cBut although the hardness and softness are secondary qualities of\n _tenues medi\u00e6_, of surd and sonant letters, the true physiological\n difference between p and b, t\u00a0and d, k\u00a0and g, is that in the former\n the glottis is wide open, in the latter narrowed, so as to produce\n either whispered or loud voice.\u201d\n\nIn my introduction to the \u201cOutline Dictionary for Missionaries,\u201d\npublished in 1867, I\u00a0wrote:--\n\n \u201cUnfortunately, everybody is so familiar with his alphabet, that it\n takes some time to convince people that they know next to nothing\n about the true nature of their letters. Take even a scholar, and ask\n him what is T, and he may possibly say, a\u00a0dental tenuis; ask him\n what is D, and he may reply, a\u00a0dental media. But ask him what he\n really means by a tenuis or media, or what he considers the true\n difference between T and D, and he may probably say that T is hard\n and D is soft; or that T is sharp and D is flat; or, on the\n contrary, as some writers have actually maintained, that the sound\n of D requires a stronger impulse of the tongue than the sound of T:\n but we shall never get an answer that goes to the root of the\n matter, and lays hold of the mainspring and prime cause of all these\n secondary distinctions between T and\u00a0D. If we consult Professor\n Helmholtz on the same subject, he tells us that \u2019the series of\n so-called medi\u00e6, b, d, g, differs from that of the tenues, p, t, k,\n by this, that for the former the glottis is, at the time of\n consonantal opening, sufficiently narrowed to enable it to sound, or\n at least to produce the noise of the _vox clandestina_, or whisper,\n while it is wide open with tenues, and therefore unable to sound.\n Medi\u00e6 are therefore accompanied by the tone of the voice, and this\n may even, where they begin a syllable, set in a moment before, and\n where they end a syllable, continue a moment after the opening of\n the mouth, because some air may be driven into the closed cavity of\n the mouth, and support the sound of the vocal chords of the larynx.\n Because of the narrowed glottis, the rush of the air is more\n moderate, the noise of the air less sharp than with the tenuis, so\n that a great mass of air may rush at once from the chest.\u201d\n\n \u201cThis to many may seem strange and hardly intelligible. But if they\n find that, several centuries before our era, the Indian grammarians\n gave exactly the same definition of the difference between p, t, k,\n and b, d, g, such a coincidence may possibly startle them, and lead\n them to inquire for themselves into the working of that wonderful\n instrument by which we produce the various sounds of our alphabet.\u201d\n\nIf Professor Whitney asserts--\n\n \u201cThat I _repeatedly_ will not allow that the sonant letters _are_\n intonated, but only that they _may be_ intonated,\u201d\n\nI have no answer but a direct negative. For me to say so, would be to\nrun counter to all my own teaching, and if there is anywhere a passage\nthat would admit of such a construction, Professor Whitney knows\nperfectly well that this could be due to nothing but an accidental want\nof precision in expressing myself. I\u00a0know of no such passage.[5]\n\nIn order to leave no doubt as to the real distinction between k, t,\np\u00a0and g, d, b, I\u00a0quoted, for the satisfaction of Sanskrit scholars,\nthe technical terms by which native grammarians define so admirably\nthe process of their formation, the +v\u00e2hyaprayatna+, viz.,\n+viv\u00e2ra\u015bv\u00e2s\u00e2ghosh\u00e2\u1e25+, and +sa\u1e43v\u00e2ran\u00e2daghosh\u00e2\u1e25+. Would it be believed\nthat Professor Whitney accuses me of having invented these long Sanskrit\nterms, and to have appended them superfluously and pedantically, as\nhe says, to each list of synonyms? \u201cThey are found in no Sanskrit\ngrammarian,\u201d he says. Here again I have no answer but a direct negative.\nThey are found in the native commentary on P\u00e2\u1e47ini\u2019s Grammar, in\nBoehtlingk\u2019s edition, p.\u00a04, and fully explained in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya.\n\nIf one has again and again to answer the assertions of a critic by\ndirect negatives, is it to be wondered at that one rather shrinks from\nsuch encounters? I\u00a0have for the last twenty years discussed these\nphonetic problems with the most competent authorities. Not trusting to\nmy own knowledge of physiology and acoustics, I\u00a0submitted everything\nthat I had written on the alphabet, before it was published, to the\napproval of such men as Helmholtz, Alexander Ellis, Professor Rolleston,\nand I hold their _vu et approuv\u00e9_. I had no desire, therefore, to\ndiscuss these questions anew with Professor Whitney, or to try to remove\nthe erroneous views which, till lately, he entertained on the structure\nof a physiological alphabet. I\u00a0believe Professor Whitney has still much\nto learn on this subject, and as I never ask anybody to read what I\nmyself have written, still less to read it a second time, might I\nsuggest to him to read at all events the writings of Br\u00fccke, Helmholtz,\nCzermak, to say nothing of Wheatstone, Ellis, and Bell, before he again\ndescends into this arena? If he had ever made an attempt to master that\none short quotation from Br\u00fccke, which I gave on p.\u00a0159, or even that\nshorter one from Czermak, which I gave on p.\u00a0143:--\n\n \u201cDie Reibungslaute zerfallen genau so wie die Verschlusslaute in\n _weiche_ oder _t\u00f6nende_, bei denen das Stimmritzenger\u00e4usch oder der\n laute Stimmton mitlautet, und in _harte_ oder _tonlose_, bei denen\n der Kehlkopf absolut still ist,\u201d\n\nthe theory which I followed in the classification both of the Checks and\nthe Breathings would not have sounded so unintelligible to him as he\nsays it did; he would have received some rays of that inner light on\nphonetics which he misses in my Lectures, and would have seen that\nbesides the disingenuousness or the self-deception which he imputes to\nme, in order to escape from the perplexity in which he found himself,\nthere was after all a third alternative, though he denies it, viz., his\nbeing unwilling to confess his own \u1f40\u03c8\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1.\n\nFIR, OAK, BEECH.\n\nI now proceed to the next charge. I am told that I am in honor bound to\nproduce a passage where Professor Whitney expressed his dissatisfaction\nat not being answered, or, as I had ventured to express it, considering\nthe general style of his criticism, when he is angry that those whom he\nabuses, do not abuse him in turn. He is evidently conscious that there\nis some slight foundation for what I had said, for he says that if\nSteinthal thought he was angry, because \u201che (Mr.\u00a0William Dwight Whitney)\nand his school\u201d had not been refuted, instead of philosophers of the\nlast century, he was mistaken. Yet what can be the meaning of this\nsentence, that \u201cProfessor Steinthal ought to have confronted _the living\nand aggressive_ views of others,\u201d _i.e._, of Mr. William Dwight Whitney\nand his school? (p.\u00a0365.)\n\nHowever, I shall not appeal to that; I shall take a case which, in this\ntedious process of incrimination and recrimination, may perhaps revive\nfor a moment the flagging interest of my readers.\n\nI had in the second volume of my Lectures called attention to a curious\nparallelism in the changes of meaning in certain names of trees and in\nthe changes of vegetation recorded in the strata of the earth. My facts\nwere these. _Foraha_ in Old High German, _F\u00f6hre_ in modern German,\n_furh_ in Anglo-Saxon, _fir_ in English, signify the _pinus silvestris_.\nIn the Lombard Laws the same word _fereha_ means oak, and so does its\ncorresponding word in Latin, _quercus_.\n\nSecondly, \u03c6\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2 in Greek means oak, the corresponding word in Latin,\n_fagus_, and in Gothic, _b\u00f4ka_, means beech.\n\nThat is to say, in certain Aryan languages we find words meaning fir,\nassuming the meaning of oak; and words meaning oak, assuming the name of\nbeech.\n\nNow in the North of Europe geologists find that a vegetation of fir\nexists at the lowest depth of peat deposits; that this was succeeded by\na vegetation of oak, and this by a vegetation of beech. Even in the\nlowest stratum a stone implement was found under a fir, showing the\npresence of human beings.\n\nPutting these two sets of facts together, I said: Is it possible to\nexplain the change of meaning in one word which meant fir and came to\nmean oak, and in another which meant oak and came to mean beech, by the\nchange of vegetation which actually took place in early ages? I\u00a0said it\nwas an hypothesis, and an hypothesis only. I\u00a0pointed out myself all that\nseemed doubtful in it, but I thought that the changes of meaning and the\nparallel changes of vegetation required an explanation, and until a\nbetter one could be given, I\u00a0ventured to suggest that such changes of\nmeaning were as the shadows cast on language by real, though\nprehistoric, events.\n\nI asked for an impartial examination of the facts I had collected, and\nof the theory I had based on them. What do I receive from Professor\nWhitney? I\u00a0must quote his _ipsissima verba_, to show the spirit that\npervades his arguments:--\n\n \u201cIt will not be difficult,\u201d he says, \u201cto gratify our author by\n refuting his hypothesis. Not the very slightest shade of\n plausibility, that we can discover, belongs to it. Besides the\n serious minor objections to which it is liable, it involves at least\n three impossible suppositions, either one of which ought to be\n enough to insure its rejection.\n\n \u201cIn the first place it assumes that the indications afforded by the\n peat-bogs of Denmark are conclusive as regards the condition of\n Europe--of all that part of it, at least, which is occupied by the\n Germanic and Italic races; that, throughout this whole region, firs,\n oaks, and beeches have supplanted and succeeded each other,\n notwithstanding that we find all of them, or two of them, still\n growing peaceably together in many countries.\u201d\n\nHere Professor Whitney is, as usual, ploughing with my heifer. I\u00a0said:--\n\n \u201cI must leave it to the geologist and botanist to determine whether\n the changes of vegetation as described above, took place in the same\n rotation over the whole of Europe, or in the North only,\u201d\n\nI had consulted several of my own geological friends, and they all told\nme that there was, as yet, no evidence in Central Europe and Italy of a\nsuccession of vegetation different from that in the North, and that, in\nthe present state of geological science, they could say no more. In the\nabsence of evidence to the contrary, I\u00a0said, Let us wait and see;\nProfessor Whitney says, Don\u2019t wait.\n\nHis second objection is his own, but hardly worthy of him.\n\n \u201cThe hypothesis,\u201d he says, \u201cassumes that the Germanic and Italic\n races, while they knew and named the fir-tree only, yet kept by them\n all the time, laid up in a napkin, the original term for oak, ready\n to be turned into an appellation for beech, when the oaks went out\n of fashion.\u201d\n\nThis is not so. The Aryan nations formed many new words, when the\nnecessity for them arose. There, was no difficulty in framing ever so\nmany names for the oak, and there can be little doubt that the name\n\u03c6\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2 was derived from \u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9, the oak tree being called \u03c6\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2,\nbecause it supplied food or mast for the cattle. If there remained some\nconsciousness of this meaning among the Greeks, and the Italians, and\nGermans, then the transference of the name from the oak to the beech\nwould become still more easily intelligible, because both the beech-nuts\nand the acorns supplied the ordinary mast for cattle.\n\nProfessor Whitney probably had misgivings that these two objections were\nnot likely to carry much weight, so he adds a third.\n\n \u201cThe hypothesis,\u201d he says, \u201cimplies a method of transfer of names\n from one object to another which is totally inadmissible; this,\n namely--that, as the forest of firs gave way to that of oaks, the\n meaning of fir in the word _quercus_ gave way to that of oak: and in\n like manner in the other case. Now if the Latins had gone to sleep\n some fine night under the shade of their majestic oaks, and had\n waked in the morning to find themselves _patul\u00e6 sub tegmine fagi_,\n they might naturally enough have been led, in their bewilderment, to\n give the old name to the new tree. But who does not see that, in the\n slow and gradual process by which, under the influence of a change\n of climatic conditions, one species of tree should come to prevail\n over another, the supplanter would not inherit the title of the\n supplanted, but would acquire one of its own, the two subsisting\n together during the period of the struggle, and that of the\n supplanted going out of use and memory as the species it designated\n disappeared?\u201d\n\nThis objection was of course so obvious that I had thought it my duty to\ngive a number of instances where old words have been transferred, not\n_per saltum_, but slowly and gradually, to new objects, such as _musket_\noriginally a dappled sparrow-hawk, afterwards a gun. Other instances\nmight have been added, such as \u03b8\u03ac\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, the Sanskrit _dah_, the latter\nmeaning to burn, the former to bury. But the best illustrations are\nunintentionally offered by Professor Whitney himself. On p.\u00a0303 he\nalludes to the fact that the names _robin_ and _blackbird_ have been\napplied in America, for the sake of convenience, and under the\ngovernment of old associations, to birds essentially unlike, or only\nsuperficially like, those to which they belong in the mother country. Of\ncourse, every Englishman who settled in America knew that the bird he\ncalled _robin_ was not the old Robin Redbreast he knew in England. Yet\nthe two names co-existed for a time in literature, nay, they may still\nbe said to co-exist in their twofold application, though, from a\nstrictly American point of view, the supplanting American bird has\ninherited the title of the supplanted Cock-Robin of England.\n\nNow, I ask, was there anything in these three cheap objections that\nrequired an answer? Two of them I had myself fully considered, the third\nwas so flimsy that I thought no one would have dwelt on it. Anyhow,\nI\u00a0felt convinced that every reader was competent to judge between\nProfessor Whitney and myself, and it certainly never entered my mind\nthat I was in honor bound, either to strike out my chapter on the Words\nfor _Fir_, _Oak_, and _Beech_, or to fight.\n\nWas I then so far wrong when I said that Professor Whitney cannot\nunderstand how anybody could leave what he is pleased to call his\narguments, unheeded? Does he not express his surprise that in every new\nedition I adhere to my views on _Fir_, _Oak_, and _Beech_, though he\nhimself had told me that I was wrong, and when he calls my expressed\ndesire for real criticism a mere \u201crhetorical flourish,\u201d is this,\naccording to the opinion of American gentlemen, or is it not, abuse?\n\nEPITHETA ORNANTIA.\n\nProfessor Whitney\u2019s ideas of what is real criticism, and what is mere\nbanter, personal abuse, or rudeness are indeed strange. He does not seem\nto be aware that his name has become a by-word, at least in Europe, and\nhe defends himself against the charge of abusiveness with so much ardor\nthat one sometimes feels doubtful whether it is all the mere rhetoric of\na bad conscience, or a case of the most extraordinary self-deception. He\ndeclares in so many words that he was never personal (_Ich bestreite\ndurchaus, dass was ich schrieb, im geringsten pers\u00f6nlich war_), and he\nimmediately goes on to say that \u201cSteinthal burst a two from anger and\nrancor, and his answer was a mere outpouring of abuse against his\npersonality.\u201d\n\nNow I am the last person or personality in the world to approve of the\ntone of Steinthal\u2019s answer, and if Professor Whitney asks why I had\nquoted it several times in public, it was because I thought it ought to\nbe a warning to others. I\u00a0think that all who are interested in\nmaintaining certain civilized usages even in the midst of war, ought to\nprotest against such a return to primitive savagery, and I am glad to\nfind that my friend, Mr. Matthew Arnold, one of the highest authorities\non the rules of literary warfare, entertains the same opinion, and has\nquoted what I had quoted from Professor Steinthal\u2019s pamphlet, together\nwith other specimens of theological rancor, as extreme cases of bad\ntaste.\n\nI frankly admit, however, that, when I said that Steinthal had defended\nhimself with the same weapons with which his American antagonist\nattacked him, I\u00a0said too much. Professor Whitney does not proceed to\nsuch extremities as Professor Steinthal. But giving him full credit so\nfar, I\u00a0still cannot help thinking that it was a fight with poisoned\narrows on one side, with clubs on the other. As Professor Whitney calls\nfor proofs, here they are:--\n\n Page 332. Why does he call Professor Steinthal, _Hajjim Steinthal_?\n Is that personal or not?\n\n Page 335. \u201cProfessor Steinthal startles and rebuffs a commonsense\n inquirer with a reply from a wholly different and unexpected point\n of view; as when you ask a physician, \u2018Well, Doctor, how does your\n patient promise this morning?\u2019 and he answers, with a wise look and\n an oracular shake of the head, \u2018It is not given to humanity to look\n into futurity.\u2019 The effect is not destitute of the element of\n _bathos_.\u201d Is that personal?\n\n Page 337. Steinthal\u2019s mode of arguing is \u201cmore easy and convenient\n than fair and ingenuous.\u201d Is that personal?\n\n Page 338. \u201cA\u00a0mere verbal quibble.\u201d\n\n Page 346. \u201cThe eminent psychologist may show himself a mere\n blunderer.\u201d\n\n Page 356. \u201cTo our unpsychological apprehension, there is something\n monstrous in the very suggestion that a word is an act of the mind.\u201d\n\n Page 357. \u201cProdigious .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Chaotic nebulosity .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. We should\n not have supposed any man, at this age of the world, capable of\n penning the sentences we have quoted.\u201d\n\n Page 359. \u201cWe are heartily tired of these comparisons that go\n limping along on one foot, or even on hardly the decent stump of a\n foot.\u201d\n\n Page 363. \u201cCan there be more utter mockery than this? We ask for\n bread, and a stone is thrown us.\u201d\n\n Page 365. \u201cHe does not take the slightest notice of the _living_ and\n _aggressive_ views of others.\u201d\n\n Page 366. \u201cAll this, again, is in our opinion very verbiage, mere\n turbid talk.\u201d\n\n Page. 367. \u201cThe statement is either a truism or falsity.\u201d\n\n Page 372. \u201cWe must pronounce Professor Steinthal\u2019s attempt .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. a\n complete failure, a\u00a0mere continuation of the same delusive\n reasonings by which he originally arrived at it.\u201d\n\n Page 374. \u201cWe have found in his book nothing but mistaken facts and\n erroneous deductions.\u201d\n\nIf that is the language in which Professor Whitney speaks of one whom he\ncalls--\n\n \u201cAn eminent master in linguistic science, from whom he has derived\n great instruction and enlightenment,\u201d and \u201cwhose books he has\n constantly had upon his table,\u201d\n\nwhat can other poor mortals like myself expect? It is true he has\navoided actionable expressions, while Professor Steinthal has not, at\nleast, according to German and English law. But suppose that hereafter,\nwhen certain small animals have crossed what he calls \u201cthe impervious\ndistance,\u201d and acquired the power of language, they were to say, \u201cWe\nhave only stung you, and you have killed us,\u201d would they obtain much\ncommiseration?\n\nI had collected a number of _epitheta ornantia_ which I had gathered at\nrandom from Mr. Whitney\u2019s writings, such as _worthless_, _futile_,\n_absurd_, _ridiculous_, _superficial_, _unsound_, _high-flown_,\n_pretentious_, _disingenuous_, _false_, and I claimed the honor of every\none of them having been presented to me as well as to other scholars by\nour American assailant. Here, for the first time, Professor Whitney\nseems staggered at his own vocabulary. However, he is never at a loss\nhow to escape. \u201cAs the epithets are translated into German,\u201d he says,\n\u201che is quite unable to find the passages to which I may refer.\u201d This is\nfeeble. However, without taxing his memory further, he says that he\nfeels certain it must be a mistake, because he never could have used\nsuch language. He never in his life said anything personal, but\ncriticised opinions only. This is \u201cthe language of simple-minded\nconsciousness of rectitude.\u201d\n\nWhat can I do? Professor Whitney ought to know his own writings better\nthan I do, and nothing remains to me, in order to repel the gravest of\nall accusations, but to publish in the smallest type the following\nSpicilegium. I\u00a0must add that in order to do this work once for all,\nI\u00a0have complied with Professor Whitney\u2019s request, and read nearly all\nthe articles with which he has honored every one of my writings, and in\ndoing so I believe I have at last found the key to much that seemed to\nme before almost inexplicable.\n\nFormerly I had simply acquiesced in the statement made by one of his\nbest friends, Professor Weber,[6] who, some ten years ago, when\nreproving Professor Whitney for the acrimony of his language, said:--\n\n \u201cI believe I am not wrong when I trace it to two causes: first,\n Professor Whitney found himself forced to acknowledge as erroneous\n and to withdraw several of his former views and assertions, which he\n had defended with great assurance, and this disturbed his\n equanimity; secondly, and still more, there were the miserable\n political circumstances of North America, which could not but\n exercise an irritating and galling effect on so warm a patriot as\n Whitney, an effect which was transferred unconsciously to his\n literary criticisms and polemics, whenever he felt inclined to it.\u201d\n\nThese two scholars were then discussing the question, whether the\nNakshatras or the Lunar Zodiac of the Hindus, should be considered as\nthe natural discovery of the Brahmans, or as derived by them, one knows\nnot how, from China, from Chald\u00e6a, or from some other unknown country.\nThey both made great efforts, Professor Weber chiefly in Sanskrit,\nProfessor Whitney in astronomy, in order to substantiate their\nrespective opinions. Professor Weber showed that Professor Whitney was\nnot very strong in Sanskrit, Professor Whitney retaliated by showing\nthat Professor Weber, as a philologue, had attempted to prove that the\nprecession of the equinox was from West to East, and not from East to\nWest. All this, at the time, was amusing to bystanders, but by this time\nboth combatants have probably found out, that the hypothesis of a\nforeign origin of the Nakshatras, whether Chinese or Babylonian, was\nuncalled for, or, at all events, is as uncertain to-day as it was ten\nyears ago. I\u00a0myself, not being an astronomer, had been content to place\nthe evidence from Sanskrit sources before a friend of mine, an excellent\nastronomer at Oxford, and after discussing the question again and again\nwith him, had arrived at the conviction that there was no excuse for so\nviolent a theory as postulating a foreign origin of the simple\ntriseinadic division of the Nakshatra Zodiac. I\u00a0quite admit that my\npractical knowledge of astronomy is very small,[7] but I do believe that\nmy astronomical ignorance was an advantage rather than a disadvantage to\nme in rightly understanding the first glimmerings of astronomical ideas\namong the Hindus. Be that as it may, I\u00a0believe that at the present\nmoment few scholars of repute doubt the native origin of the Nakshatras,\nand hardly one admits an early influence of Babylonian or Chinese\nscience on India. I\u00a0stated my case in the preface to the fourth volume\nof my edition of the Rig-Veda, and if anybody wishes to see what can be\ndone by misrepresentation, let him read what is written there, and what\nProfessor Whitney made of it in his articles in the \u201cJournal of the\nAmerican Oriental Society.\u201d His misunderstandings are so desperate, that\nhe himself at times feels uneasy, and admits that a more charitable\ninterpretation of what I wanted to say would be possible. When I saw\nthis style of arguing, the utter absence of any regard for what was, or\nwhat might charitably be supposed to have been, my meaning, I\u00a0made up my\nmind once for all, that that American gentleman should never have an\nanswer from me, and in spite of strong temptation I kept my resolve till\nnow. A\u00a0man who could say of Lassen that his statements were \u201cwholly and\nreprehensibly incorrect,\u201d because he said that Colebrooke had shown that\nthe Arabs received their lunar mansions from the Hindus, was not likely\nto show mercy to any other German professor.\n\nI find, however, by reading one of his Essays, that there is a more\nspecial reason why, in his repeated onslaughts on me, both before and\nafter the Rebellion, \u201che thinks he may dispense with the ordinary\ncourtesies of literary warfare.\u201d I\u00a0may tell it in his own words:--\n\n \u201cSome one (I\u00a0may add the name, now, it was the late Professor\n Goldst\u00fccker) falls fiercely upon the work of a company of\n collaborators; they unite in its defense; thereupon the aggressor\n reviles them as a mutual admiration society; and M\u00fcller repeats the\n accusation, giving it his own indorsement, and volunteering in\n addition that of another scholar.\u201d\n\nI might possibly represent the case in a different light, but I am\nwilling to accept the _acte d\u2019accusation_ as it comes from the hand of\nmy accuser; nay more, I\u00a0am quite ready to plead guilty to it. Only let\nme explain how I came to commit this great offense. What is here\nreferred to must have happened more than ten years ago. Professor\nGoldst\u00fccker had criticised the Sanskrit Dictionary published by\nProfessors Boehtlingk and Roth, and \u201cthe company of collaborators\u201d had\nunited in its defense, only, as Professor Whitney is authorized to\nassure us, \u201cwithout any apparent or known concert.\u201d Professor\nGoldst\u00fccker was an old friend of mine, to whom in the beginning of my\nliterary career at Berlin and in Paris, I\u00a0was indebted for much personal\nkindness. He helped me when no one else did, and many a day, and many a\nnight too, we had worked together at the same table, he encouraging me\nto persevere when I was on the point of giving up the study of Sanskrit\naltogether. When Professor Goldst\u00fccker came to England, he undertook a\nnew edition of Wilson\u2019s \u201cSanskrit Dictionary,\u201d and he very soon became\nentangled in a controversy with \u201cthe company of collaborators\u201d of\nanother Sanskrit dictionary, published at the expense of the Russian\nAcademy. I\u00a0do not defend him, far from it. He had a weakness very common\namong scholars;--he could not bear to see a work praised beyond its real\nmerits, and he thought it was his duty to set everything right that\nseemed to him wrong. He was very angry with me, because I would not join\nin his condemnation of the St. Petersburg dictionary. I\u00a0could not do\nthat, because, without being blind to its defects, I\u00a0considered it a\nmost valuable performance, highly creditable to all its collaborators;\nnay, I\u00a0felt bound to say so publicly in England, because it was in\nEngland that this excellent work had been unduly condemned. This\nembittered my relations with Professor Goldst\u00fccker, and when the attacks\nby the company of collaborators on him grew thicker and thicker, while I\nwas treated by them with the greatest civility, he persuaded himself\nthat I had taken part against him, that I had in fact become a sleeping\npartner in what was then called the \u201cInternational Praise Insurance\nSociety.\u201d To show him once for all that this was not the case, and that\nI was perfectly independent of any company of collaborators, I\u00a0wrote\nwhat I wrote at the time. Nor did I do so without having had placed\nbefore me several reviews, which certainly seemed to give to the old\nsaying _laudari a viro laudato_ a novel meaning. Having done what I\nthought I was bound to do for an old friend, I\u00a0was perfectly prepared to\ntake the consequences of what might seem a rash act, and when I was\ntwitted with having done so anonymously, I, of course, thought it my\nduty to reprint the article, at the first opportunity, with my name. Now\nlet it be borne in mind that one of the chief culprits, nay, as appeared\nafterwards, the most eager mischief-maker, was Professor Whitney\nhimself, and let us now hear what he has to say. As if he himself were\nentirely unconcerned in the matter, instead of having been the chief\nculprit, he speaks of \u201ccool effrontery;\u201d \u201cmagisterial assumption,\ntowards a parcel of naughty boys caught in their naughtiness;\u201d \u201cmost\ndiscreditable;\u201d \u201cthe epithet outrageous is hardly too strong.\u201d Here his\nbreath fails him, and, fortunately for me, the climax ends. And this, we\nare asked to believe, is not loud and boisterous but gentle and calm: it\nis in fact \u201cthe language of simple-minded consciousness of rectitude!\u201d\n\nThese gentle onslaughts were written and published by Professor Whitney\nten years ago. I\u00a0happen to know that a kind of _colportage_ was\nestablished to send his articles to gentlemen whom they would not\notherwise have reached. I\u00a0was told again and again, that I ought to put\nan end to these maneuvers, and yet, during all these years, I\u00a0thought I\ncould perfectly well afford to take no notice of them. But when after\nsuch proceedings Professor Whitney turns round, and challenges me before\na public which is not acquainted with these matters, to produce any of\nthe _epitheta ornantia_ I had mentioned as having been applied by him to\nme, to Renan, to Schleicher, to Oppert, to Bleek, nay, even to Bopp and\nBurnouf and Lassen, when with all \u201cthe simple-minded consciousness of\nrectitude\u201d he declares, that he was never personal, then I ask, Could I\nremain silent any longer?\n\nHow hard Professor Whitney is driven in order to fix any real blame on\nme, may be seen from what follows. The article in which the obnoxious\npassage which, I\u00a0was told, deprived me of any claim to the amenities of\nliterary intercourse occurs, had been reprinted in the \u201cIndische\nStudien,\u201d before I reprinted it in the first volume of \u201cChips.\u201d In\nreprinting it myself, I\u00a0had rewritten parts of it, and had also made a\nfew additions. In the \u201cIndische Studien,\u201d on the contrary, it had been\nreprinted in its original form, and had besides been disfigured by\nseveral inaccuracies or misprints. Referring to these, I\u00a0had said that\nit had been, as usual, very incorrectly reprinted. Let us hear what an\nAmerican pleader can make out of this:--\n\n \u201cIn this he was too little mindful of the requirements of fair\n dealing; for he leaves any one who may take the trouble to turn to\n the \u2018Indische Studien,\u2019 and compare the version there given with\n that found among the \u2018Chips,\u2019 to infer that all the discordances he\n shall discover are attributable to Weber\u2019s incorrectness, whereas\n they are in fact mainly alterations which M\u00fcller has made in his own\n reprint; and the real inaccuracies are perfectly trivial in\n character and few in number--such printer\u2019s blunders as are rarely\n avoided by Germans who print English, or by English who print\n German. We should doubtless be doing M\u00fcller injustice if we\n maintained that he deliberately meant Weber to bear the odium of all\n the discrepancies which a comparer might find; but he is equally\n responsible for the result, if it is owing only to carelessness on\n his part.\u201d\n\nWhat will the intelligent gentlemen of the jury say to this? Because I\ncomplained of such blunders as altars being \u201cconstrued,\u201d instead of\n\u201cconstructed,\u201d \u201cenlightoned\u201d instead of \u201cenlightened,\u201d \u201cgratulate\u201d\ninstead of \u201ccongratulate,\u201d and similar inaccuracies, occurring in an\nunauthorized reprint of my article, therefore I really wanted to throw\nthe odium of what I had myself written in the original article, and what\nwas, as far as the language was concerned, perfectly correct, on\nProfessor Weber. Can forensic ingenuity go further? If America possesses\nmany such powerful pleaders, we wonder how life can be secure.\n\nHaving thus ascertained whence _ill\u00e6 lacrum\u00e6_, I must now produce a\nsmall bottle at least of the tears themselves which Professor Whitney\nhas shed over me, and over men far better than myself, all of which, he\nsays, were never meant to be personal, and most of which have evidently\nbeen quite dried up in his memory.\n\n I begin with Bopp. \u201cAlthough his mode of working is wonderfully\n genial, his vision of great acuteness, and his instinct a generally\n trustworthy guide, he is liable to wander far from the safe track,\n and has done not a little labor over which a broad and heavy mantle\n of charity needs to be drawn\u201d (I.\u00a0208).\n\n M. Renan and myself have \u201ccommitted the very serious error of\n inverting the mutual relation of dialectic variety and uniformity of\n speech, thus turning topsy-turvy the whole history of linguistic\n development.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. It may seem hardly worth while to spend any\n effort in refuting an opinion of which the falsity will have been\n made apparent by the exposition already given\u201d (p.\u00a0177).\n\n In another place (p.\u00a0284) M. Renan is told that his objection to the\n doctrine of a primitive Indo-European monosyllabism is noticed, not\n for any cogency which it possesses, but only on account of the\n respectability of M.\u00a0Renan.\n\n Lassen and Burnouf, who thought that the geographical reminiscences\n in the first chapter of the Vendidad had a historical foundation,\n are told that their \u201cclaim is baseless, and even preposterous\u201d\n (p.\u00a0201). Yet what Professor Whitney\u2019s knowledge of Zend must be, we\n may judge from what he says of Burnouf\u2019s literary productions. \u201cIt\n is well known,\u201d he says, \u201cthat the great French scholar produced\n _two or three bulky volumes_ upon the Avesta.\u201d I\u00a0know of _one_ bulky\n volume only, \u201cCommentaire sur la Ya\u00e7na,\u201d tome i., Paris, 1833, but\n that may be due to my lamentable ignorance.\n\n \u201cProfessor Oppert simply exposes himself in the somewhat ridiculous\n attitude of one who knocks down, with gestures of awe and fright,\n a\u00a0tremendous man of straw of his own erecting (I.\u00a0218). His\n erroneous assumptions will be received with most derisive\n incredulity (I.\u00a0221); the incoherence and aimlessness of his\n reasonings (I.\u00a0223); an ill-considered tirade, a\u00a0tissue of\n misrepresentations of linguistic science (I.\u00a0237). He cannot impose\n upon us by his authority, nor attract us by his eloquence: his\n present essay is as heavy in style, as loose and vague in\n expression, unsound in argument, arrogant in tone\u201d (I.\u00a0238). The\n motive imputed to Professor Oppert in writing his Essay is that \u201che\n is a Jew, and wanted to stand up for the Shemites.\u201d\n\n If Professor Oppert is put down as a Shemite, Dr. Bleek is sneered\n at as a German. \u201cHis work is written with much apparent profundity,\n one of a class, not quite unknown in Germany, in which a minimum of\n valuable truth is wrapped up in a maximum of sonating phraseology\u201d\n (I.\u00a0292). Poor Germany catches it again on page 315. \u201cEven, or\n especially in Germany,\u201d we are told, \u201cmany an able and acute scholar\n seems minded to indemnify himself for dry and tedious grubbings\n among the roots and forms of Comparative Philology by the most airy\n ventures in the way of constructing Spanish castles of linguistic\n science.\u201d\n\n In his last work Professor Whitney takes credit for having at last\n rescued the Science of Language from the incongruities and\n absurdities of European scholars.\n\n Now on page 119 Professor Whitney very properly reproves another\n scholar, Professor Goldst\u00fccker, for having laughed at the _German_\n school of Vedic interpretation. \u201cHe emphasizes it,\u201d he says, \u201cdwells\n upon it, reiterates it three or four times in a paragraph, as if\n there lay in the words themselves some potent argument. Any\n uninformed person would say, we are confident, that he was making an\n unworthy appeal to English prejudice against foreign men and foreign\n ways.\u201d Professor Whitney finishes up with charging Professor\n Goldst\u00fccker, who was himself a German--I beg my reader\u2019s pardon, but\n I am only quoting from a North American Review--with \u201cfouling his\n own nest.\u201d Professor Whitney, I\u00a0believe, studied in a German\n university. Did he never hear of a \u2019cute little bird, who does to\n the nest in which he was reared, what he says Professor Goldst\u00fccker\n did to his own?\n\n \u03a7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f60 \u0393\u03ce\u03bb\u03b4\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03ba\u03c1\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bd \u1f08\u0390\u03b4\u03b1\u03bf \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7\n \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\n\n Haeckel is called a headlong Darwinian (I.\u00a0293), Schleicher is\n infected with Darwinism (I.\u00a0294), \u201che represents a false and hurtful\n tendency (I.\u00a0298), he is blind to the plainest truths, and employs a\n mode of reasoning in which there is neither logic nor common sense\n (I.\u00a0323). His essays are unsound, illogical, untrue; but there are\n still incautious sciolists by whom every error that has a great name\n attached to it is liable to be received as pure truth, and who are\n ever specially attracted by good hearty paradoxes\u201d (I.\u00a0330).\n\n I add a few more references to the _epitheta ornantia_ which I was\n charged with having invented. \u201cUtter futility\u201d (p.\u00a036); \u201cmeaningless\n and futile\u201d (p.\u00a0152); \u201cheadlong materialist\u201d (p.\u00a0153); \u201cbetter\n humble and true (Whitney) than high-flown, pretentious, and false\u201d\n (not-Whitney, p.\u00a0434); \u201csimply and solely nonsense\u201d (I.\u00a0255);\n \u201cdarkening of counsel by words without knowledge\u201d (I.\u00a0255);\n \u201crhetorical talk\u201d (I.\u00a0723); \u201cflourish of trumpets, lamentable (not\n to say) ridiculous failure\u201d (I.\u00a0277).\n\nWhat a contrast between the rattling discharges of these _mitrailleuses_\nat the beginning of the war, and the whining and whimpering assurance\nnow made by the American professor, that he never in his life said\nanything personal or offensive!\n\nWHY I OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ANSWERED.\n\nHaving taken the trouble of collecting these spent balls from the\nvarious battlefields of the American general, I\u00a0hope that even Professor\nWhitney will no longer charge me with having spoken without book. As\nlong as he cited me before the tribunal of scholars only, I\u00a0should have\nconsidered it an insult to them to suppose that they could not, if they\nliked, form their own judgment. For fifteen years have I kept my fire,\ntill, like a Chinese juggler, Professor Whitney must have imagined he\nhad nearly finished my outline on the wall with the knives so skillfully\naimed to miss me. But when he dragged me before a tribunal where my name\nwas hardly known, when he thought that by catching the _aura popularis_\nof Darwinism, he could discredit me in the eyes of the leaders of that\npowerful army, when he actually got possession of the pen of the son,\nfondly trusting it would carry with it the weight of the father, then I\nthought I owed it to myself, and to the cause of truth and its progress,\nto meet his reckless charges by clear rebutting evidence. I\u00a0did this in\nmy \u201cAnswer to Mr. Darwin,\u201d and as I did it, I\u00a0did it thoroughly, leaving\nno single charge unanswered, however trifling. At the same time, while\nshowing the unreasonableness of his denunciations, I\u00a0could not help\npointing out some serious errors into which Professor Whitney had\nfallen. Some thrusts can only be parried by _a-tempo_ thrusts.\n\nProfessor Whitney, like an experienced advocate, passes over in silence\nthe most serious faults which I had pointed out in his \u201cLectures,\u201d and\nafter he has attempted--with what success, let others judge--to clear\nhimself from a few, he turns round, and thinks it best once for all to\ndeny my competency to judge him. And why?\n\n \u201cI do not consider Professor M\u00fcller capable of judging me justly,\u201d\n he says. And why? \u201cBecause I have felt moved, on account of his\n extraordinary popularity and the exceptional importance attached to\n his utterances, to criticise him more frequently than anybody else.\u201d\n\nIs not this the height of forensic ingenuity? Because A has criticised\nB, therefore B cannot criticise A justly. In that case A has indeed\nnothing to do but to criticise B C D to Z, and then no one in the world\ncan criticise him justly. I\u00a0have watched many controversies, I\u00a0have\nobserved many stratagems and bold movements to cover a retreat, but\nnothing to equal this. Professor Pott was very hard on Professor\nCurtius, but he did not screen himself by denying to his adversary the\ncompetency to criticise him in turn. What would Newman have said, if\nKingsley had tried to shut him up with such a remark, a\u00a0remark really\nworthy of one literary combatant only, the famous Pastor Goeze, the\ncritic of Lessing?\n\nWhat would even Professor Whitney think, if I were to say that, because\nI have criticised his \u201cLectures,\u201d he could not justly criticise my\n\u201cSanskrit Grammar?\u201d He might not think it good taste to publish an\nadvertisement to dissuade students in America from using my grammar; he\nmight think it unworthy of himself and dishonorable to institute\ncomparisons, the object of which would be too transparent in the eyes\neven of his best friends in Germany. Mr. Whitney has lived too long in\nGermany not to know the saying, _Man merkt die Absicht und man wird\nverstimmt_. But should I ever say that he was incompetent to criticise\nmy \u201cSanskrit Grammar\u201d justly? Certainly not. All that I might possibly\nventure to say is, that before Professor Whitney undertakes to criticise\nmy own or any other Sanskrit grammar, he should look at \u00a7\u00a084 of my\ngrammar, and practice that very simple rule, that if Visarga is preceded\nby _a_, and followed by _a_, the Visarga is dropt, _a_ changed to _o_,\nand the initial vowel elided. If with this rule clearly impressed on his\nmemory, he will look at his edition of the Atharva-Veda Pr\u00e2ti\u015b\u00e2khya,\nI.\u00a033, then perhaps, instead of charging Hindu grammarians in his usual\nstyle with \u201copinions obviously and grossly incorrect and hardly worth\nquoting,\u201d he might discover that +eke sp\u1e5bsh\u1e6dam+ could only have been\nmeant in the MSS. for +eke \u2019sp\u1e5bsh\u1e6dam+, and that the proper translation\nwas not that vowels are formed _by contact_, but that they are formed\n_without contact_. Instead of saying that none of the other Pr\u00e2ti\u015b\u00e2khyas\nfavors this opinion, he would find the same statement in the Rig-Veda\nPr\u00e2ti\u015b\u00e2khya, S\u00fbtra 719, page cclxi of my edition, and he might perhaps\nsay to himself, that before criticising Sanskrit grammars, it would be\nuseful to learn at least the phonetic rules. I\u00a0had pointed out this slip\nbefore, in the second edition of my \u201cSanskrit Grammar;\u201d but, as to judge\nfrom an article of his on the accent, Professor Whitney has not seen\nthat second edition (1870), which contains the Appendix on the accent in\nSanskrit, I\u00a0beg leave to call his attention to it again.\n\nWHY I OUGHT TO BE GRATEFUL.\n\nI am glad to say that we now come to a more amusing part of this\ncontroversy. After I had been told that because I was attacked first,\ntherefore I was not able to criticise Professor Whitney\u2019s writings\njustly, I\u00a0am next told that I ought to be very grateful for having been\nattacked, nay, I\u00a0am told that, in my heart of hearts, I\u00a0am really very\ngrateful indeed. I\u00a0must quote this passage in full:--\n\n \u201cDuring the last eight years I have repeatedly taken the opportunity\n accurately to examine and frankly to criticise the views of others\n and the arguments by which they were supported. I\u00a0have done this\n more particularly against eminent and famous men whom the public has\n accustomed itself to regard as guides in matters referring to the\n Science of Language. What unknown and uncared for people say, is of\n no consequence whatever; but if Schleicher and Steinthal, Renan and\n M\u00fcller, teach what to me seems an error, and try to support it by\n proofs, then surely I am not only justified, but called upon to\n refute them, if I can. Among these students the last-named seems to\n be of different opinion. In his article, \u2018My Reply to Mr. Darwin,\u2019\n published in the March number of the \u2018Deutsche Rundschau,\u2019 he thinks\n it necessary to read me a severe lecture on my presumption, although\n he also flatters me by the hint that my custom of criticising the\n most eminent men only is appreciated, and those whom I criticise\n feel honored by it.\u201d\n\nI confess when I read this, I wished I had really paid such a pretty\ncompliment to my kind critic, but looking through my article from\nbeginning to end, I find no hint anywhere that could bear so favorable\nan interpretation, unless it is where I speak of \u201cthe noble army of his\nmartyrs,\u201d and of the untranslated remark of Phocion, which he may have\ntaken for a compliment. In saying that it was acknowledged to be an\nhonor to be attacked by him, Professor Whitney was, no doubt, thinking\nof the words of Ovid, _Summa petunt dextra fulmina missa Jovis_, and I\nam not going in future to deny him the title of the Jovial and Olympian\ncritic, nor should I suggest to him to read the line in Ovid immediately\npreceding the one quoted. Against one thing only I must protest. Though\nthe last named, I\u00a0am surely not, as he boldly asserts, the only one of\nthe four _sommit\u00e9s_ struck by his Olympian thunderbolts, who have humbly\ndeclined too frequent a repetition of his celestial favors. Schleicher,\nno doubt, was safe, for alas, he is dead! But Steinthal surely has\nuttered rather Promethean protests against the Olympian,--\n\n \u039f\u1f36\u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u2019, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc7\u00b7\n\nand as to M. Renan, does his silence mean more than--\n\n \u1f18\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u0396\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\n\nI confess, then, frankly that, in my heart of hearts, I am not grateful\nfor these cruel kindnesses, and if he says that the other Serene\nHighnesses have been less ungrateful than I am, I\u00a0fear this is again one\nof his over-confident assertions. My publishers in America may be\ngrateful to him, for I am told that, owing to Professor Whitney\u2019s\narticles, much more interest in my works has been excited in America\nthan I could ever have expected. But I cannot help thinking that by the\nline of action he has followed, he has done infinite harm to the science\nwhich we both have at heart. In order to account somehow or other for\nhis promiscuous onslaughts, he now tells Mr. Darwin and his friends that\nin the Science of Language all is chaos. That is not so, unless Mr.\nWhitney is here using chaos in a purely subjective sense. There are\ndifferences of opinion, as there are in every living and progressive\nscience, but even those who differ most widely, perfectly understand and\nrespect each other, because they know that, from the days of Plato and\nAristotle, men who start from different points, arrive at different\nconclusions, particularly when the highest problems in every science are\nunder consideration. I\u00a0do not agree with Professor Steinthal, but I\nunderstand him; I\u00a0do not agree with Dr. Bleek, but I respect him;\nI\u00a0differ most of all from Schleicher, but I think that an hour or two of\nprivate conversation, if it were possible still, would have brought us\nmuch nearer together. At all events, in reading any of their books,\nI\u00a0feel interested, I\u00a0breathe a new atmosphere, I\u00a0get new ideas, I\u00a0feel\nanimated and invigorated. I\u00a0have now read nearly all that Professor\nWhitney has written on the Science of Language, and I have not found one\nsingle new fact, one single result of independent research, nay, not\neven one single new etymology, that I could have added to my\nCollectanea. If I am wrong, let it be proved. That language is an\ninstitution, that language is an instrument, that we learn our language\nfrom our mothers, as they learned it from their mothers and so on till\nwe come to Adam and Eve, that language is meant for communication, all\nthis surely had been argued out before, and with arguments, when\nnecessary, as strong as any adduced by Professor Whitney.\n\nProfessor Whitney may not be aware of this, or have forgotten it; but a\nfertile writer like him ought at all events to have a good memory. In\nhis reply, p.\u00a0262, he tells us, for instance, as one of his latest\ndiscoveries, that in studying language, we ought to begin with modern\nlanguages, and that when we come to more ancient periods, we should\nalways infer similar causes from similar effects, and never admit new\nforces or new processes, except when those which we know prove totally\ninefficient. In my own Lectures I had laid it down as one of the\nfundamental principles of the Science of Language that \u201cwhat is real in\nmodern formations must be admitted as possible in ancient formations,\nand that what has been found true on a small scale may be true on a\nlarger scale.\u201d I\u00a0had devoted considerable space to the elucidation of\nthis principle, and what did Professor Whitney write at that time\n(1865)?\n\n \u201cThe conclusion sounds almost like a bathos; we should have called\n these, not fundamental principles, but obvious considerations, which\n hardly required any illustration\u201d (p.\u00a0243).\n\nHere is another instance of failure of memory. He assures us:--\n\n \u201cThat he would never venture to charge anybody with being influenced\n in his literary labors by personal vanity and a desire of notoriety,\n except perhaps after giving a long string of proofs--nay, not even\n then\u201d (p.\u00a0274).\n\nYet it was he who said of (I. 131) the late Professor Goldst\u00fccker that--\n\n \u201cMere denunciation of one\u2019s fellows and worship of Hindu\n predecessors do not make one a Vedic scholar,\u201d\n\nand that, after he had himself admitted that \u201cno one would be found to\nquestion his (Professor Goldst\u00fccker\u2019s) immense learning, his minute\naccuracy, and the sincerity and intensity of his convictions.\u201d\n\nBy misunderstanding and sometimes, unless I am greatly mistaken,\nwillfully closing his eyes to the real views of other scholars,\nProfessor Whitney has created for himself a rich material for the\ndisplay of his forensic talents. Like the poor Hindu grammarian, we are\nfirst made to say the opposite of what we said, and are then brow-beaten\nas holding opinions \u201cobviously and grossly incorrect and hardly worth\nquoting.\u201d All this is clever, but is it right? Is it even wise?\n\nMuch of what I have here written sounds very harsh, I know; but what is\none to do? I\u00a0have that respect for language and for my friends, and, may\nI add, for myself, to avoid harsh and abusive words, as much as\npossible. I\u00a0do not believe in the German saying, _Auf einen groben Klotz\ngeh\u00f6rt ein grober Keil_. I have tried hard, throughout the whole of my\nliterary career, and even in this \u201cDefense,\u201d not to use the weapons that\nhave been used against me during so many years of almost uninterrupted\nattacks. Much is allowed, however, in self-defense that would be\nblamable in an unprovoked attack, and if I have used here and there the\ncool steel, I\u00a0trust that clean wounds, inflicted by a sharp sword, will\nheal sooner than gashes made with rude stones and unpolished flints.\n\nProfessor Whitney might still, I feel convinced, do some very useful\nwork, as the apostle of the Science of Language in America, if only,\ninstead of dealing in general theories, he would apply himself to a\ncritical study of scientific facts, and if he would not consider it his\npeculiar calling to attack the personal character of other scholars. If\nhe must needs criticise, would it be quite impossible for him, even in\nhis character of Censor, to believe that other scholars are as honest as\nhimself, as independent, as outspoken, as devoted at all hazards to the\ncause of truth? Does he really believe in his haste that all men who\ndiffer from him, or who tell him that he has misapprehended their\nteaching, are humbugs, pharisees, or liars? Professor Steinthal was a\ngreat friend of his, does he imagine that his violent resentment was\nentirely unprovoked? I\u00a0have had hundreds of reviews of my books, some\nwritten by men who knew more, some by men who knew less than myself.\nBoth classes of reviews proved very useful, but, beyond correcting\nmatters of fact, I\u00a0never felt called upon to answer, or to enter into\npersonal recriminations with any one of my reviewers. We should not\nforget that, after all, reviews are written by men, and that there are\noften very tangible reasons why the same book is fiercely praised and\nfiercely abused. No doubt, every writer who believes in the truth of his\nopinions, wishes to see them accepted as widely as possible; but reviews\nhave never been the most powerful engines for the propaganda of truth,\nand no one who has once known what it is to feel one\u2019s self face to face\nwith Truth, would for one moment compare the applause of the many with\nthe silent approval of the still small voice of conscience within. Why\ndo we write? Chiefly, I\u00a0believe, because we think we have discovered\nfacts unknown to others, or arrived at opinions opposed to those\nhitherto held. Knowing the effort one has made one\u2019s self in shaking off\nold opinions or accepting new facts, no student would expect that\neverybody else would at once follow his lead. Indeed, we wish to differ\nfrom certain authorities, we wish to be criticised by them; their\nopposition is far more important, far more useful, far more welcome to\nus, than their approval could ever be. It would be an impossible task\nwere we to attempt to convert personally every writer who still differs\nfrom us. Besides, there is no wheat without bran, and nothing is more\ninstructive than to watch how the millstones of public opinion slowly\nand noiselessly separate the one from the other. I\u00a0have brought my\nharvest, such as it was, to the mill: I\u00a0do not cry out when I see it\nground. From my peers I have received the highest rewards which a\nscholar can receive, rewards far, far above my deserts; the public at\nlarge has treated me no worse than others; and, if I have made some\nenemies, all I can say is, I\u00a0do not envy the man who in his passage\nthrough life has made none.\n\nEven now, though I am sorry for what Professor Whitney has done, I\u00a0am\nnot angry with him. He has great opportunities in America, but also\ngreat temptations. There is no part of the civilized world where a\nscholar might do more useful work than in America, by the bold and\npatient exploration of languages but little known, and rapidly\ndisappearing. Professor Whitney may still do for the philology of his\ncountry what Dr. Bleek has done for the languages of Africa at the\nsacrifice of a lifelong expatriation, alas! I\u00a0have just time to add, at\nthe sacrifice of his life.\n\nBut I admit that America has also its temptations. There are but few\nscholars there who could or would check Professor Whitney, even in his\nwildest moods of asseveration, and by his command of a number of\nAmerican papers, he can easily secure to himself a temporary triumph.\nYet, I\u00a0believe, he would find a work, such as Bancroft\u2019s \u201cOn the Native\nRaces of the Pacific States of North America,\u201d a\u00a0far more useful\ncontribution to our science, and a far more permanent monument of his\nlife, than reviews and criticisms, however brilliant and popular.\n\nIt was because I thought Professor Whitney capable of rendering useful\nservice to the Science of Language in America that I forbore so long,\nthat I never for years noticed his intentional rudeness and arrogance,\nthat I received him, when he called on me at Oxford, with perfect\ncivility, that I assisted him when he wanted my help in procuring copies\nof MSS. at Oxford. I\u00a0could well afford to forget what had happened, and\nI tried for many years to give him credit for honorable, though\nmistaken, motives in making himself the mouthpiece of what he calls the\ncompany of collaborators.\n\nIn fact, if he had arraigned me again and again before a tribunal of\ncompetent judges, I\u00a0should gladly have left my peers to decide between\nme and my American traducer. But when he cleverly changed the venue and\nbrought his case before a tribunal where forensic skill was far more\nlikely to carry the day than complicated evidence that could be\nappreciated by a special jury only, then, at last, I\u00a0had to break\nthrough my reserve. It was not exactly cowardice that had kept me so\nlong from encountering the most skillful of American swordsmen, but when\nthe duel was forced upon me, I\u00a0determined it should be fought out once\nfor all.\n\nI might have said much more; in fact, I had written much more than what\nI here publish in self-defense, but I wished to confine my reply as much\nas possible to bare facts. Professor Whitney has still to learn, it\nseems, that in a duel, whether military or literary, it is the bullets\nwhich hit, not the smoke, or the report, however loud. I\u00a0do not flatter\nmyself that with regard to theories on the nature of language or the\nrelation between language and thought there ever will be perfect\nunanimity among scholars, but as to my bullets or my facts, I\u00a0believe\nthe case is different. I\u00a0claim no infallibility, however, and would not\naccept the papal tiara among comparative philologists, even though it\nwas offered me in such tempting terms by the hands of Professor Whitney.\nIn order, therefore, to satisfy Mr. Darwin, Professor Haeckel, and\nothers whose good opinion I highly value, because I know that they care\nfor truth far more than for victory, I\u00a0now appeal to Professor Whitney\nto choose from among his best friends three who are _Professores\nordinarii_ in any university of England, France, Germany, or Italy, and\nby their verdict I promise to abide. Let them decide the following\npoints as to simple matters of fact, the principal bones of contention\nbetween Professor Whitney and myself:--\n\n 1. Whether the Latin of the inscription on the Duilian Column\n represents the Latin as spoken in 263 B.C. (p.\u00a0430);\n\n 2. Whether Ahura-Mazda can be rendered by \u201cthe mighty spirit\u201d\n (p.\u00a0430);\n\n 3. Whether +sarvan\u00e2man+ in Sanskrit means \u201cname for everything\u201d\n (p.\u00a0430);\n\n 4. Whether Professor Whitney knew that the Phenician alphabet had by\n Roug\u00e9 and others been traced back to an Egyptian source (pp.\u00a0430,\n 450, 468);\n\n 5. Whether Professor Whitney thought that the words _light_,\n _alight_, and _delight_ could be traced to the same source (p.\u00a0467);\n\n 6. Whether in the passages pointed out on p.\u00a0434, Professor Whitney\n contradicts himself or not;\n\n 7. Whether he has been able to produce any passage from my writings\n to substantiate the charge that in my Lectures I was impelled by an\n overmastering fear lest man should lose his proud position in the\n creation (p.\u00a0435);\n\n 8. Whether there are _verbatim_ coincidences between my Lectures and\n those of Professor Whitney (pp.\u00a0425, 470-474);\n\n 9. Whether I ever denied that language was made through the\n instrumentality of man (p.\u00a0470);\n\n 10. Whether I had or had not fully explained under what restrictions\n the Science of Language might be treated as one of the physical\n sciences, and whether Professor Whitney has added any new\n restrictions (pp.\u00a0422 seq., 475 seq.);\n\n 11. Whether Professor Whitney apprehended in what sense some of the\n greatest philosophers declared conceptual thought impossible without\n language (p.\u00a0484);\n\n 12. Whether the grammatical blunder, with regard to the Sanskrit\n +pari tasthushas+ as a nominative plur., was mine or his (p.\u00a0490);\n\n 13. Whether I had not clearly defined the difference between hard\n and soft consonants long before Professor Whitney, and whether he\n has not misrepresented what I had written on the subject (p.\u00a0490);\n\n 14. Whether in saying that the soft consonants can be intonated,\n I\u00a0could have meant that they may or may not be intonated (p.\u00a0497);\n\n 15. Whether I invented the terms +viv\u00e2rasv\u00e2\u015b\u00e2ghosh\u00e2\u1e25+ and\n +sa\u1e43v\u00e2ran\u00e2daghosh\u00e2\u1e25+, and whether they are to be found in no\n Sanskrit grammarian (p.\u00a0498);\n\n 16. Whether I was right in saying that Professor Whitney had\n complained about myself and others not noticing his attacks, and\n whether his remarks on my chapter on Fir, Oak, and Beech required\n being noticed (p.\u00a0500);\n\n 17. Whether I had invented the _Epitheta ornantia_ applied by\n Professor Whitney to myself and other scholars, or whether they\n occur in his own writings (p.\u00a0504);\n\n 18. Whether E. Burnouf has written two or three bulky volumes on the\n Avesta, or only one (p.\u00a0515);\n\n 19. Whether Professor Whitney made a grammatical blunder in\n translating a passage of the Atharva-Veda Pr\u00e2ti\u015b\u00e2khya, and on the\n strength of it charged the Hindu grammarian with holding opinions\n \u201cobviously and grossly incorrect, and hardly worth quoting\u201d\n (p.\u00a0519);\n\n 20. Whether Professor Whitney has occasionally been forgetful\n (p.\u00a0523).\n\nSurely there are among Professor Whitney\u2019s personal friends scholars who\ncould say Yes or No to any of these twenty questions, and whose verdict\nwould be accepted, and not by scholars only, as beyond suspicion.\nAnyhow, I\u00a0can do no more for the sake of peace, and to put an end to the\nsupposed state of chaos in the Science of Language, and I am willing to\nappear in person or by deputy before any such tribunal of competent\njudges.\n\nI hope I have thus at last given Professor Whitney that satisfaction\nwhich he has claimed from me for so many years; and let me assure him\nthat I part with him without any personal feeling of bitterness or\nhostility. I\u00a0have grudged him no praise in former days, and whatever\nuseful work we may receive from him in future, whether on the languages\nof India or of America, his books shall always receive at my hands the\nsame justice as if they had been written by my best friend. I\u00a0have never\nbelonged to any company of collaborators, and never shall; but whosoever\nserves in the noble army for the conquest of truth, be he private or\ngeneral, will always find in me a faithful friend, and, if need be,\na\u00a0fearless defender. I\u00a0gladly conclude with the words of old Fairfax\n(Bulk and Selvedge, 1674): \u201cI\u00a0believe no man wishes with more\nearnestness than I do, that all men of learning and knowledge were men\nof kindness and sweetness, and that such as can outdo others would\noutlove them too; especially while self bewhispers us, that it stands us\nall in need to be forgiven as well as to forgive.\u201d\n\n THE MUMBLES, NEAR SWANSEA, WALES,\n\n _September, 1875._\n\n\n [Footnote 1: See a very remarkable article by Von Hartmann on\n Haeckel, in the _Deutsche Rundschau_. July, 1875.]\n\n [Footnote 2: _Etymologische Forschungen_, 1871, p. 78, t\u00f6nende,\n _d.h._ weiche.]\n\n [Footnote 3: See p. 348.]\n\n [Footnote 4: _Lectures_, vol. ii. p. 157.]\n\n [Footnote 5: Having still that kind of faith left, that a man\n could not willfully say a thing which he knows to be untrue,\n I\u00a0looked again at every passage where I have dwelt on the\n difference between soft and hard consonants, and I think I may\n have found the passage which Professor Whitney grasped at, when he\n thought that I knew nothing of the difference between voiced and\n voiceless letters, until he had enlightened me on the subject.\n Speaking of letters, not as things by themselves, but as acts,\n I\u00a0sometimes speak of the process that produces the hard consonant\n first, and then go on to say that it can be voiced, and be made\n soft. Thus when speaking of s and z, I\u00a0say, the former is\n completely surd, the latter capable of intonation, and the same\n expression occurs again. Could Professor Whitney have thought that\n I meant to say that z was only capable of intonation, but was not\n necessarily intonated? I\u00a0believe he did, for it is with regard to\n s and z that, as I see, he says, \u201cit is a marvel to find men like\n Max M\u00fcller, in his last lectures about language, who still cling\n to the old view that a z, for instance, differs from s primarily\n by inferior force of utterance.\u201d Now, I\u00a0admit that my expression,\n \u201ccapable of intonation\u201d might be misunderstood, and might have\n misled a mere tiro in these matters, who alighted on this passage,\n without reading anything before or after. But that a professor in\n an American university could have taken my words in that sense is\n to me, I\u00a0confess, a\u00a0puzzle, call it intellectual or moral, as you\n like.]\n\n [Footnote 6: _Indische Studien_, x. 459.]\n\n [Footnote 7: When I saw how M. Biot, the great astronomer, treated\n Professor Weber _du haut en bas_, because, in criticising Biot\u2019s\n opinion he had shown some ignorance of astronomy, I\u00a0said, from a\n kind of fellow-feeling: \u201cWeber\u2019s Essays are very creditable to the\n author, and hardly deserved the withering contempt with which they\n were treated by Biot. I\u00a0differ from nearly all the conclusions at\n which Professor Weber arrives, but I admire his great diligence in\n collecting the necessary evidence.\u201d Upon this the American\n gentleman reads me the following lesson: First of all, I\u00a0am told\n that my statement involves a gross error of fact; I\u00a0ought to have\n said, Weber\u2019s Essay, not Essays, because one of them, and the most\n important, was not published till after Biot\u2019s death. I\u00a0accept the\n reproof, but I believe all whom it concerned knew what Essay I\n meant. But secondly, I\u00a0am told that the epithet _withering_ is\n only used by Americans when they intend to imply that, in their\n opinion, the subject of the contempt is withered, or ought to be\n withered by it. This may be so in American, but I totally deny\n that it is so in English. \u201cWithering contempt,\u201d in English, means,\n as far as I know, a\u00a0kind of silly and arrogant contempt, such, for\n instance, as Professor Whitney displays towards me and others,\n intended to annihilate us in the eyes of the public, but utterly\n harmless in its consequences. But let me ask the American critic\n what he meant when, speaking of Biot\u2019s treatment of Weber, he\n said, \u201cBiot thought that Weber\u2019s opinions had been _whiffed_ away\n by him as if unworthy of serious consideration.\u201d Does _whiff away_\n in America mean more or less than _withering_? What Professor\n Whitney should have objected to was the adverb _hardly_. I wish I\n had said _vix, et ne vix quidem_.]\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThe Index is given as printed, covering volumes III and IV. Volume\nIII is available from Project Gutenberg as e-text 26572.\n\nNote that, because of the author\u2019s transliteration system, many Sanskrit\nwords in c and j will be alphabetized as k and g. All footnotes given as\n164 or 165 should be read as 163, 164.\n\nSpelling and capitalization of roots from the Colebrooke appendix has\nbeen regularized. The original forms, if different, are shown in\n[[double brackets]].]\n\n\n Abbot of Cluny and Louis IX., iii. 179.\n Abdallah ibn Almokaffa, author of \u201cKalilah and Dimnah,\u201d iv. 151, 184.\n Abdorrhaman, iv. 155.\n Abelard, iii. 51.\n Aberdeen, Lord, iii. 378.\n Ablative in _as_, as infinitive, iv. 50.\n ---- in _d_, iv. 225.\n ---- in to\u1e25, as infinitive, iv. 55.\n Abo, in Finland, iii. 310.\n Abury, remains at, iii. 285.\n Accusative in _am_, as infinitive, iv. 50.\n ---- in _tum_, as infinitive, iv. 55.\n ---- with the infinitive, iv. 38.\n Achilles, medi\u00e6val stories of, iii. 9.\n \u201cActa Eruditorum,\u201d iii. 194.\n Adam of Bremen, iii. 119.\n Ad-venire = l\u2019avenir, iv. 37.\n Adverb, the infinitive as an, iv. 31.\n ---- \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, iv. 30.\n Adverbs, previous to Aryan separation, iv. 135.\n ---- Aryan, iv. 415.\n \u00c6gyptus, iii. 249.\n \u00c6neas, medi\u00e6val stories of, iii. 9.\n \u00c6neas Sylvius, iii. 30.\n ---- as Pope Pius II., iii. 63.\n \u201c\u00c6neid,\u201d by Heinrich von Veldecke, iii. 10.\n \u201c\u00c6sopus alter,\u201d iv. 161.\n Affixing languages, iv. 85.\n African languages, Koelle\u2019s sixty-seven, iii. 427.\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 = \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9, iv. 91.\n Agglutinative languages, iv. 79, see Combining languages.\n [[Author\u2019s normal form is \u201ccombinatory\u201d.]]\n Agni, god of fire, iv. 47.\n Agricola, iii. 67.\n Agricola = Schnitter, iii. 29.\n Agricola, not agrum-cola, iv. 133.\n Agriculture of Bengal, iv. 369.\n Agriologists, iv. 453.\n Ahan\u00e2, same as Daphne, iv. 148.\n Ahura-Mazda, name of, iv. 430.\n Ak, the root, iv. 28.\n Aksh-an, or ak-an, iv. 26.\n Ak-sh-i, eye, iv. 25.\n Alam, with infinitive, iv. 48.\n Alcuin, iii. 6.\n Alemannish, iii. 122.\n \u201cAlexander,\u201d by Lamprecht, iii. 9.\n ---- medi\u00e6val stories of, iii. 9.\n Alexander\u2019s conquest, brings Greek stories to India, iv. 149.\n Alexandria ad Caucasum, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration, from the Sanskrit of\n Brahmagupta and Bh\u00e2skara, iv. 391.\n Ali, the son of Alshah Far\u00e9si, iv. 153.\n Alight, to, its etymology, iv. 467.\n All Souls\u2019 College, iii. 490.\n Alpha privativum, iv. 213.\n Alphabet, origin of the Phenician, iv. 450, 468.\n American, polysynthetic dialects, iv. 70.\n Amestris, wife of Xerxes, iii. 417.\n An, a suffix, iv. 33, 34.\n Ancient Germany, by Bethmann-Hollweg, iii. 412.\n And, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n Andanemja, Gothic, to be accepted, iv. 94.\n Andrew Borde, on Cornwall, iii. 243.\n Andrian, Baron, iii. 396.\n Ane, dative in, iv. 34.\n Angarii or Angivarii, iii. 117.\n Angenehm, agreeable, to be accepted, iv. 94.\n Angle or angre, for ange, iii. 166.\n Anglevarii, iii. 117.\n Anglia or Angria, iii. 118.\n Anglii or Angrii, iii. 118.\n Anglo-Saxon, iii. 122.\n ---- chair of, iv. 12, 13.\n ---- MSS. collected, iv. 12.\n ---- grammar, by March, iv. 447.\n Angrarii, tribe of, iii. 117.\n Angria or Anglia, iii. 118.\n Angrii or Anglii, iii. 118.\n Angrivarii, iii. 117.\n Angulus, the etymon of Anglia, iii. 118.\n Animals are automata, the hypothesis that, iv. 448.\n ---- their mind, terra incognita, iv. 442.\n ---- nearest to man, have very imperfect phonetic organs, iv. 440.\n ---- have sensuous images, but no words, iv. 487.\n Anno, poem on, iii. 9.\n Annoyance, iii. 182.\n An-ti, those and he, iv. 113.\n Antiquary, the, iv. 335.\n \u201cAnv\u00e1ri-Suhaili,\u201d by Husain ben Ali, iv. 159.\n \u1f08\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd (\u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1), iv. 30, 31.\n Arabian Algebra, likeness to Indian, iv. 391.\n Arabic, difficulty of, iv. 368.\n ---- lectureship of, iv. 11.\n ---- lectureship of, not aided by Henry VIII., iv. 12.\n ---- lectureship of, supported by Archbishop Laud, iv. 12.\n ---- MSS. collected by Laud, iv. 12.\n ---- translation of fables, iv. 154.\n Arch\u00e6ological survey of India, iv. 346.\n Aria, iii. 441.\n Arian, not Iranian, iii. 429.\n Aristotle, iv. 327.\n ---- his knowledge of language, iv. 64.\n Arndt, iii. 402.\n Arnim, iii. 103.\n Arnold, iii. 39.\n ---- Dr., iii. 362, 397.\n ---- Matthew, iv. 505.\n Arnyia dialects, iv. 349.\n Arthur, stories of, iii. 9.\n Aryan family, iv. 16, 70, 71.\n Aryan language, seven periods of, iv. 118.\n ---- first period, iv. 119.\n ---- second period, iv. 124.\n ---- third period, iv. 124.\n ---- fourth period, iv. 129.\n ---- fifth period, iv. 131.\n ---- sixth period, iv. 135.\n ---- seventh period, iv. 135.\n ---- three strata only, iv. 136, 137.\n ---- inflectional, iv. 80.\n ---- no word for law in, iv. 220.\n Aryan nations, Benfey\u2019s protest against their Eastern origin, iv. 212.\n ---- religions, three historical, iv. 240.\n ---- skulls, iv. 211.\n ---- suffixes, iv. 33.\n ---- words for father, mother, brother, etc, iv. 401. _seq._\n ---- words found in Zend, and not in Sanskrit, iv. 235.\n Aryan and Semitic languages, common origin of, iv. 96.\n Aryans, Southern division of, iv. 212.\n As, root, to be, Aryan words for, iv. 414.\n Ascoli, on gutturals, iv. 61, 104.\n Ashburnham, Lord, his MSS. of the Credo, iii. 165.\n Ashley, Lord, and Bunsen, iii. 367.\n -\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 for -\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, iv. 112.\n Asiatic literature, catalogue raisonn\u00e9 of, iv. 385.\n ---- Researches, iv. 370.\n ---- Society of Calcutta, iv. 14.\n ---- Society of Calcutta, Colebrooke, President of, iv. 385.\n Asita\u2019s prophecy about Buddha, iv. 171.\n Aspirates, the, iv. 495.\n Ass, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n Asti, with infinitive, iv. 48.\n Astor, Bunsen\u2019s pupil and friend, iii. 348, 485.\n Astori dialects of Shin\u00e2, iv. 349.\n Astrological terms borrowed by Hindus from Greeks, iv. 367.\n Astronomical Society, Colebrooke, President of, iv. 391.\n Astronomy, antiquity of Hindu, iv. 387.\n A\u015bvais = equis, iv. 84.\n A\u015bvebhis = equobus, iv. 84.\n Athenian law of inheritance, prize essay by Bunsen, iii. 348.\n Attal Sarazin in Cornwall, iii. 307.\n Atterbom, Swedish poet, letters to Wilhelm M\u00fcller, iii. 105.\n Attic future, iv. 94 _note_.\n Attila, iii. 412.\n Aufrecht, Dr., iii. 417, 425, 443.\n Aug\u00e2, O.H.G., iv. 26.\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03b3\u03ae, Auge, iv. 25.\n Augment, in Greek and Sanskrit, iv. 114.\n Augustenburg, Prince of, iii. 85, 88.\n Autbert, Bishop of Avranches, iii. 328.\n Avadh\u00fbta, sect of the, iv. 257.\n Avenir, the future, ad-venire, iv. 38.\n Avesta, two or three bulky volumes on the, iv. 515.\n Avranches, Bishop of, on Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 178.\n ---- Bishop of, Autbert, iii. 328.\n Ayase, to go, iv. 36.\n Axmouth, iii. 289.\n\n Bachmann, on the Negro skull, iii. 252.\n Bacon, Lord, iii. 217.\n ---- on history of literature, iii. 3.\n ---- observations on the disposition of men for philosophy\n and science, iv. 97.\n ---- on Spinoza, iii. 218.\n ---- his Metaphysique, iii. 223.\n ---- his Physique, iii. 223.\n ---- his inductive method, iii. 225.\n ---- compared with Shakespeare, iii. 225.\n ---- author of Shakespeare\u2019s plays, iii. 226.\n ---- Macaulay on, iii. 227.\n Bactria, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n Baldo, his translation of \u201cKalila and Dimnah,\u201d iv. 161.\n Bampton, iii. 293.\n Bancroft, \u201cOn the Native Races of America,\u201d iv. 526.\n Banks, Sir Joseph, iii. 256.\n Bannister, Dr., iii. 242.\n ---- on Jews in Cornwall, iii. 313.\n B\u00e2ntu family of language, iv. 70.\n Barahut, Buddhist remains at, iv. 346.\n Barbarossa, Frederick, iii. 51, 52.\n Barclay, Alexander, his translation of \u201cNarrenschiff,\u201d iii. 72.\n Barlaam and Joasaph, iv. 168.\n Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 177.\n ---- changed into Christian saints, iv. 177.\n ---- Laboulaye, Liebrecht, Beal, on, iv. 176, 177.\n ---- Leo Allatius on, iv. 178.\n ---- Billius and Bellarminus on, iv. 178.\n ---- the Bishop of Avranches on, iv. 178.\n Barrington, Daines, iii. 256.\n Baruch, his share in Isaiah, iii. 481, 484.\n Barzuyeh, author of Pehlevi translation of fables, iv. 152, 184.\n \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, vocative, iv. 233.\n Basilius and Gregorius Nazianzenus, quoted by author of \u201cBarlaam\n and Josaphat,\u201d iv. 169.\n Bask language, iii. 429.\n Bask, derivative adjectives in, iv. 94.\n Basle, University of, iii. 63.\n Bathybios, iv. 457.\n Bavarian dialect, iii. 122.\n Bayard, iv. 90.\n Beal, on the story of Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 176.\n Beamdun = Bampton, iii. 293.\n Bear, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n \u03b2\u03ad\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 = vayodhai, iv. 56.\n Beget, to, root, Jan, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n Beheim, Michael, iii. 18.\n Beieinander, Das, in the development of language, iv. 33.\n Bekker, on the Digamma in Homer, iii. 420; iv. 225.\n Bellows, Mr., on acts of vandalism in Cornwall, iii. 279.\n Benares, iii. 406.\n Benedictine Monks, rule of, iii. 5.\n Benfey, Professor, iii. 446.\n ---- his discovery of the old Syriac translation of the fables,\n iv. 181.\n ---- his history of the Science of Language, iv. 325.\n ---- his protest against the eastern origin of the Aryan nation,\n iv. 212.\n Bengal, agriculture of, iv. 370.\n ---- Colebrooke, on the husbandry of, iv. 373.\n Bengali, plural in, iv. 74.\n Bentley, on the antiquity of Hindu astronomy, iv. 387.\n Berkeley, iii. 218.\n Bernard, derivation of the word, iv. 90.\n Bernays, iii. 415.\n Bernhard, bearminded, iv. 90.\n Berthold, Duke of Z\u00e4hringen, iii. 13.\n Berthold, iii. 20.\n Besmah, Rajah of, Giripras\u00e2dasinha, iv. 335.\n Bethmann Hollweg, iii. 412, 443.\n Bhagin\u00ee, sister, in Sanskrit, iv. 110 _note_.\n Bhagvat Geeta, _i.e._ Bhagavad-G\u00eet\u00e2, iv. 368.\n Bhaiami, maker or cutter out, iv. 342, 343.\n Bha\u1e47\u1e0darkar, Prof., iv. 335.\n Bhao Daji, Dr., iv. 334.\n Bh\u00e2skara, Brahmagupta, \u00c2ryabha\u1e6d\u1e6da, iv. 392.\n \u03b2\u03af\u03b1, not connected with jy\u00e2ni, iv. 62.\n Bible, first complete translation in German, 1373, iii. 21.\n ---- new translation by Bunsen, iii. 448.\n ---- partly translated, iii. 20.\n Bibliotheca volante, 1677, iii. 194.\n Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale, iii. 415.\n ---- Universelle et Historique, iii. 194.\n Bickell, Professor, iv. 184.\n Bidpai, mentioned by Ali, iv. 153; see _Pilpay_.\n ---- or Sendebar, iv. 158.\n Billius, on Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 178.\n Birma, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n Black, in the Schleswig-Hollstein ialect, iii. 130.\n Blackbird, iv. 503.\n Bleek, Dr., iii. 399; iv. 343, 522.\n ---- Whitney on, iv. 515.\n Blid and blithe, iii. 130.\n Blood, as determining nationality, iii. 247.\n Boar, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n Bodhisattva, corrupted to Youdasf and Youasaf, iv. 176.\n Bodmer, iii. 39.\n Bodener d. 1776, his letter on Cornish, iii. 246.\n Boeckh, on Comparative Grammar, iv. 209.\n Boehme, Jacob, iii. 39, 218.\n Boehtlingk _versus_ Schott, iii. 429.\n Boehtlingk and Roth, Sanskrit Dictionary published by, iv. 511.\n Boetticher, Dr., iii. 416, 422, 433. (fragment of Livy).\n Bohin\u00ee, Bengali, for sister, iv. 110 _note_.\n Boie, and the Hainbund, iii. 127.\n Boileau, iii. 197.\n Bologna, University of, iv. 11.\n Bombay, Parsis of, iv. 305.\n Bonaventure des Periers, his \u201cContes et Nouvelles,\u201d iv. 164.\n Bone, Aryan words for, iv. 405.\n Bonn, iii. 406.\n Book of Heroes, the Heldenbuch, iii. 69.\n ---- edited by Caspar von der Roen, iii. 69.\n ---- of Love, iii. 70.\n ---- of Sindbad, iv. 106.\n Book-religions, iv. 301.\n Books of Moses, poetical translation of, iii. 9.\n Bopp, his Comparative Grammar, iv. 17, 319.\n ---- Whitney on, iv. 515.\n Borde, Andrew, on Cornwall, iii. 243.\n Borghese, on Latin inscriptions, iii. 419.\n Botterell, Mr., on the Men-an-tol, iii. 279.\n Bottervogel, botterhahn, botterhex, butterfly, iii. 130.\n \u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6, vocative, iv. 233.\n Boucher de Perthes, iii. 283.\n Bow-wow, Pooh-pooh theories, iv. 469.\n Brace, Manual of Races, iii. 252.\n Brahma, as the Supreme Spirit, iv. 315.\n Brahma-Dharma, the, iv. 269.\n Brahma-Samaj, iv. 258, 259, 335.\n Brahma-Samaj, schism in, iv. 260, 269.\n ---- of India, iv. 269 _note_.\n Brahman, the, and the rice, iv. 142.\n Brahmanism, its vitality, iv. 296, 308.\n Brahmans, their sacred cord, iv. 260.\n ---- do not proselytize, iv. 242.\n ---- sent to Benares to copy Vedas, iv. 357.\n Brandis, iii. 350, 352, 399, 438, 442.\n Breast, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Bremen Dictionary, Low German, iii. 123 _note_.\n Brentano, iii. 103.\n Brewster, iii. 420.\n Bribu, leader of the Rathakaras, iv. 307.\n Bride of Messina, Schiller\u2019s play, iii. 92, 97, 427.\n British Association at Oxford, 1847, iii. 372.\n Broad, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Broad degrees of heat, light, and sound, iv. 437.\n Brockhaus, Professor, iv. 351.\n Brossard, iv. 90.\n Brother, Aryan words for, iv. 402.\n Brown-Willy, iii. 292.\n Brvat, Zend, brow, iv. 236.\n Bruit, iii. 171.\n Bud Periodeutes, his translation of fables, iv. 181, 183.\n Buddha, iii. 486.\n ---- life of, iv. 171.\n ---- his four drives, iv. 172.\n ---- identity with Josaphat, iv. 174, 180.\n ---- his driver, iv. 175.\n ---- his disciples, iv. 267.\n ---- his interview with M\u00e2ra, iv. 268.\n Buddhism, its history, iv. 242 _seq._\n Buddhism, countries professing it, iv. 252.\n Buddhist fables, iv. 141.\n ---- ---- carried by Mongolians to Russia, iv. 149.\n ---- Missionaries, sent to Cashmere, etc., iv. 243.\n B\u00fchler, Dr., iv. 345.\n B\u00fcrger, iii. 127.\n B\u00fcsen, in Dithmarsch, iii. 138.\n Buffon, his view of plants, iv. 222.\n Building of altars, iv. 330.\n Bundobel, for Bidpay, iv. 161.\n Bunsen, iv. 318.\n ---- Sir R. Peel on, iii. 347.\n ---- his prize essay on Athenian law of inheritance, iii. 348.\n ---- his fellow students, iii. 348.\n ---- his journey to Denmark, iii. 352.\n ---- his copy of MSS. of V\u00f6luspa, iii. 352.\n ---- his friendship with Niebuhr, iii. 129, 353.\n ---- his marriage, iii. 357.\n ---- his life at Rome, iii. 358.\n ---- his Hymn- and Prayer-book, iii. 361, 413.\n ---- his friends at Rome, iii. 362.\n ---- his visit to England, iii. 362.\n ---- made D.C.L. at Oxford, iii. 363.\n ---- Prussian Envoy in England, iii. 370.\n ---- leaves England, iii. 382.\n ---- his \u201cHippolytus,\u201d iii. 382, 416.\n ---- his \u201cSigns of the Times,\u201d iii. 382.\n ---- his \u201cGod in History,\u201d iii. 382, 473.\n ---- his death, iii. 384.\n ---- his Chinese studies, iii. 402.\n ---- his recall, iii. 409.\n ---- and Chateaubriand, iii. 411.\n ---- at Heidelberg, iii. 439, 440.\n ---- \u201cEgypt\u2019s Place in History,\u201d iii. 469.\n ---- Bible-work, iii. 452.\n ---- letters to Max M\u00fcller, iii. 393.\n ---- his views on German professors, iv. 204.\n ---- his \u201cChristianity and Mankind,\u201d iii. 382; iv. 320.\n ---- Burhware, iii. 117.\n Burgess, Mr., iv. 335.\n Burnell, Dr., iv. 345.\n Burning of widows, iv. 303.\n Burnouf, Eug\u00e8ne, iv. 318, 515.\n Burns, poems of, iii. 126.\n Bursa, or Royal Exchange, iii. 234.\n Bushmen, their traditional literature, iv. 344.\n ---- their language, iv. 344.\n But, buten, iii. 131.\n Butler\u2019s Analogy, iv. 287.\n By night, Aryan words for, iv. 404.\n\n Cabale und Liebe, iii. 84.\n Cabul, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 243.\n Cadaver, iv. 24.\n Cadmus, son of Libya, iii. 249.\n C\u00e6sar, iii. 240.\n C\u00e6sarius, Joh., iii. 64.\n Calcutta, city of Kali, iv. 251.\n ---- its goddess, iv. 309.\n ---- Colebrooke goes to, iv. 365.\n ---- Colebrooke at, iv. 381.\n Caldwell, Dr., iv. 74 _note_.\n ---- on Infinitive, iv. 60.\n Call, to, not from calare, iv. 104.\n Callaway, Remarks on the Zulu language, iv. 122.\n Cambridge, iii. 236.\n Camel, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n Camelford, iii. 292.\n Campbell, Sir George, on the Hindu religion, iv. 297.\n Camphausen, iii. 443.\n Canterbury, iii. 117, 237.\n Cantware, people of Kent, iii. 117.\n Cant-ware-burh, iii. 117.\n Capperonier\u2019s edition of Joinville, iii. 161.\n _Cap-so_, iv. 94 _note_.\n _Caput_ = _Haubida_, iv. 26.\n Cara clowse in cowse, iii. 321.\n _Care_, not from cura, iv. 104.\n Carew, on Cornish, iii. 244.\n Carlyle, iii. 54, 363, 397.\n Carlyle\u2019s Life of Schiller, iii. 76.\n Carnac in Brittany, iii. 268.\n Carriere, Professor, iv. 451.\n _Carrosse_, iv. 425.\n Case-terminations, traced back, iv. 131.\n Cashmere, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 243.\n Caskets, story of the, in Merchant of Venice, iv. 170 _note_.\n Caspar von der Roen, iii. 69.\n Caste, iv. 374 _note_.\n ---- Colebrooke on, iv. 376, 377.\n _Castigare_, iv. 217.\n Catalogue raisonn\u00e9 of Asiatic literature, iv. 385.\n Catalogues of MSS. still existing in India, iv. 345.\n Catechism of the Adi Brahma-Sam\u00e2j, iv. 275.\n Catrou, iii. 196.\n Causality, the idea of, iii. 220.\n Celibacy and Fellowships, iv. 9.\n Celtes, Meissel, iii. 29.\n Celtic influence in Cornwall, iii. 242.\n ---- languages, iv. 3.\n ---- most closely united with Latin (Newman, Schleicher), iv. 215.\n ---- so-called monuments in the Dekhan, iii. 269.\n Celts and Germans, first distinguished by C\u00e6sar, iii. 240.\n ---- Druids among the, iii. 241.\n Cenail, iii. 301.\n _Cerno_, to distinguish, iv. 217.\n Ceylon, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n Chaldaic lectureship, iv. 11.\n Chaldea, Nakshatras derived from, iv. 508.\n Chalmers, \u201cOrigin of Chinese,\u201d iv. 105.\n Chambers\u2019 collection, the, iii. 397.\n Champollion, iii. 362.\n ---- discoveries of, iv. 2.\n Chandaka, or Sanna, Buddha\u2019s driver, iv. 175.\n Channing, iv. 313.\n Chaos, in the Science of Language, iv. 522.\n Charlemagne, iii. 5; iv. 155.\n ---- stories of, iii. 9.\n Charles V. and Joinville\u2019s history, iii. 158.\n ---- Rabelais\u2019 satire on, iv. 161.\n Chasot, iii. 200.\n ---- his youth, iii. 201.\n ---- his campaigns, iii. 206, 207.\n ---- goes to France, iii. 209.\n ---- his life at L\u00fcbeck, iii. 210.\n ---- his last meeting with Frederic the Great, iii. 211.\n Chateaubriand, iii. 362.\n ---- and Bunsen, iii. 411.\n Chemistry of language, iv. 449.\n Chepsted, iii. 234.\n Chief Rabbi in London, iv. 304.\n Childers, Mr., Essay on the Plural in Singhalese, iv. 74 _note_.\n China, Nakshatras supposed to be derived from, iv. 508.\n Chinese studies, Bunsen\u2019s, iii. 402.\n ---- Professorships of, iv. 3.\n ---- Grammar, iv. 76.\n ---- full and empty words, iv. 77.\n ---- dead and live words, iv. 77 _note_.\n ---- belongs to the isolating languages, iv. 79.\n ---- dialects of, iv. 102.\n ---- words in Mongolian, iv. 105.\n \u03c7\u03b9-\u03ce\u03bd = hi-ma, hiems, iv. 235.\n Chiwidden, iii. 299.\n Christian IX. and the Eider boundary, iii. 120.\n Christianity, countries professing, iv. 252.\n Christians of St. Thomas in India, iv. 184.\n Chronicle of the Roman Emperors, iii. 9.\n Chroniclers, old, iii. 159.\n Chronology of the Indo-Germanic languages, by Prof. Curtius, iv. 118.\n Chrysorrhoas (St. John of Damascus), iv. 168.\n Cimbric Chersonese, the, iii. 116.\n Circumflex in the vocative of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, iv. 210.\n ---- in Sanskrit, iv. 233.\n Cistvaen or Kistvaen, iii. 266, 267.\n Clarendon, Lord, iii. 433.\n Classical reproduction of Sakuntala, by Sir W. Jones, iv. 323.\n Classification of skulls, iii. 248.\n ---- of languages, iv. 70.\n ---- applied to religions, iv. 241.\n Claudius, iii. 128.\n Clement V. and his proposals for founding Lectureships, iv. 11.\n Clemm, Die neusten Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Griechischen\n Composita, iv. 133 _note_.\n Cleversulzbach, village of, iii. 75.\n Cloud, Aryan words for, iv. 405.\n Clovis, his conversion, iv. 287.\n _Cluere_, to hear, iv. 218.\n \u00c7nish, Zend, to snow, iv. 236.\n Coat cards, iii. 289.\n Cobden, death of his son, iii. 458.\n _Codardo_, coward, iv. 90.\n Code of Gentoo Laws, iv. 374.\n C\u0153urdoux, le P\u00e8re, iv. 14.\n Coincidences, iv. 472.\n Colebrooke, on the Vedas, iv. 350.\n ---- Life of, iv. 359.\n ---- started for India, iv. 364.\n ---- arrived at Madras, iv. 364.\n ---- goes to Calcutta, iv. 365.\n ---- becomes Collector of Tribute in Tirhut, iv. 365.\n ---- on Indian Weights and Measures, iv. 367.\n ---- goes to Purneah, iv. 369.\n ---- goes to Nattore, iv. 370.\n ---- on the duties of Hindu Widows, iv. 372.\n ---- on the Husbandry and Commerce of Bengal, iv. 373.\n ---- goes to Mirzapur, iv. 374.\n ---- translates Digest of Hindu and Mohammedan Laws, iv. 375.\n ---- on Caste, iv. 376, 378.\n ---- at Nagpur, iv. 380.\n ---- his supplementary Digest of Laws, iv. 380.\n ---- Essays on Sanskrit and Prakrit poetry, iv. 380.\n ---- Essays on the Vedas, iv. 380.\n ---- Essays on Indian Theogonies, iv. 380.\n ---- Essays on Indian Plants, iv. 380.\n ---- returns to Mirzapur, iv. 381.\n ---- goes to Calcutta, iv. 381.\n ---- member of the Court of Appeal, iv. 381.\n ---- Professor of Sanskrit, iv. 381.\n ---- attention to Comparative Philology, iv. 381.\n ---- his Sanskrit Grammar, iv. 381.\n ---- President of the Court of Appeal, iv. 385.\n ---- President of the Asiatic Society, iv. 385.\n ---- promoted to a Seat in Council, iv. 390.\n ---- leaves India, iv. 390.\n ---- the Legislator of India, iv. 390.\n ---- President of the Astronomical Society, iv. 391.\n ---- his translation of the Algebra of Brahmagupta and Bh\u00e2skara,\n iv. 391.\n ---- presents his Sanskrit MSS. to the East India Company, iv. 392.\n ---- founds the Royal Asiatic Society, iv. 392.\n ---- his treatises on Hindu philosophy, iv. 394.\n ---- his death, iv. 395.\n ---- testimony to Sir W. Jones, iv. 397.\n ---- Comparative View of Sanskrit and other Languages, iv. 400.\n Colenso, Bishop, iii. 248.\n Cologne Choir, the, iii. 421.\n Colonial Office, reports on native races, iv. 339.\n Colonies and colonial governments, Oriental studies have\n a claim on, iv. 339.\n Color-blindness, iv. 444.\n Combination traced to juxta-position, iv. 111.\n Combinatory stage, iv. 116.\n Come-to-good, iii. 292.\n Commandments of Kabir, iv. 257.\n Common origin of the Aryan and Semitic languages, iv. 96.\n Comparative Jurisprudence, Bunsen and, iii. 348.\n Comparative Mythology, first glimmerings of, in 1793, iv. 371.\n Comparative Philology, chair of, iv. 13.\n ---- Isolating period, iv. 18.\n ---- Syncretistic period, iv. 17.\n ---- Sanskrit the only sound foundation of, iv. 19.\n ---- Colebrooke\u2019s attention to, iv. 381.\n Comparative spirit, the truly scientific spirit, iv. 327.\n Comparative Theology, first attempt at, iv. 170.\n Comparative view of Sanskrit and other languages by Colebrooke,\n iv. 400.\n Comparetti, on the book of Sindbad, iv. 166.\n Competition-wallah, iv. 90.\n Comte, iii. 475.\n Comte de Bretagne and Louis IX., iii. 180.\n Concepts, founded on the spontaneity of thought, iv. 447.\n \u201cConde Lucanor,\u201d by Don Juan Manuel, iv. 164.\n Congress of Oriental sts, the International, iv. 317.\n Constance, Council of, iii. 65.\n Constantine Lascaris, iii. 63.\n Constantine\u2019s vision, iv. 288.\n Constitution granted in Prussia, 1847, iii. 377.\n Controversial missions, small success of, iv. 316.\n Controversy on the authority of the traditional interpretation\n of the Vedas, iv. 386.\n Convention, language made by, iv. 73.\n Conway\u2019s \u201cSacred Anthology,\u201d iv. 329.\n Copper, iii. 256.\n Coptic roots, iii. 403.\n _Coquina_, _Keghin_, iii. 261.\n Cornelius, iii. 368.\n Cornish antiquities, iii. 238.\n ---- language, iii. 239.\n ---- language, loses ground, iii. 244.\n ---- used for sermons till 1678, iii. 245.\n ---- as spoken in 1707, iii. 245.\n ---- as written, 1776, iii. 246.\n ---- its vitality, iii. 247.\n ---- a Celtic language, iii. 239.\n ---- Antiquities:\n ---- ---- M\u00ean Scrifa, iii. 271.\n ---- ---- Boscawen circle, iii. 272.\n ---- ---- Castle an Dinas, iii. 274.\n ---- ---- huts at Chysauster, iii. 275.\n ---- ---- Mincamber, the, iii. 277.\n ---- ---- injuries to, iii. 277, etc.\n ---- ---- Castallack Round, iii. 281.\n ---- proverbs, iii. 254.\n ---- Latin and English words in, iii. 256.\n ---- Dictionary, iii. 256.\n ---- Poems, \u201cMount Calvary,\u201d iii. 257.\n ---- Plays, iii. 258.\n ---- MSS. in the Bodleian, iii. 258.\n ---- Guirrimears, iii. 259.\n ---- books extant in, iii. 260.\n ---- Latin words in, iii. 260.\n ---- ---- through French, iii. 261.\n ---- Saxon words in, iii. 262.\n ---- huts, iii. 275.\n Cornwall, its air of antiquity, iii. 238.\n ---- Jews in, iii. 287.\n ---- Jews\u2019 houses in, iii. 287.\n ---- Saracens in, iii. 306.\n Corssen, his studies in Latin, iv. 18.\n Cosmas, an Italian monk, iv. 167.\n Cotswold Hills, the, iii. 305.\n Cottier, his translation of fables into French from Tuscan,\n iv. 159 _note_.\n Cotton, Bishop of Calcutta, iv. 258, 263.\n _Couard_, iv. 90.\n Council, Colebrooke promoted to a seat in, iv. 390.\n ---- of P\u00e2\u1e6daliputra, 246 B.C., iv. 243.\n Court of Appeal, Colebrooke member of, iv. 381.\n ---- Colebrooke President of the, iv. 385.\n Cousin, Victor, iv. 394.\n _Coward_, iv. 90.\n Crab, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n _Credo_, Lord Ashburnham\u2019s MS. of the, iii. 165.\n Creed of the Brahma Sam\u00e2j, iv. 260.\n _Criard_, a crier, iv. 90.\n Cribrum, iv. 217.\n Crimean War, the, iii. 381.\n _Crimen_, iv. 218.\n \u201cCritique Philosophique,\u201d edited by Renouvier, iv. 420.\n Cromlechs, Roman coins in, iii. 264.\n ---- the, iii. 264.\n Croml\u00eah, or Cromlech, iii. 264.\n Crowther, Bishop, iii. 254.\n Crudus, crudelis, iv. 235.\n Crusaders, Persian and Arabic stories brought back by the, iv. 148.\n \u201cCrusades, History of,\u201d by Guillaume, Archbishop of Tyre, iii. 159.\n ---- interchange of eastern and western ideas during the, iv. 166.\n _Crusta_, iv. 235.\n \u00c7taman, Zend = \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1, iv. 237.\n Cuckoo, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n Cucumber, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n Culina, iii. 261.\n Cunningham, General, iv. 346.\n Cupid and Sanskrit _Dipuc_, iv. 21.\n Cureton, Dr., and the Epistles of Ignatius, iii. 372.\n Curses, terrible effects produced by, iv. 432.\n Curthose, Robert, iii. 289.\n Curtius, E., iii. 457.\n ---- Professor G., iv. 118.\n ---- his Greek studies, iv. 18.\n ---- on Lautverschiebung, iv. 101 _note_.\n ---- on the Chronology of the Indo-Germanic Languages, iv. 111, 118.\n ---- Pott on, iv. 518.\n ---- Syndicus, iii. 201.\n Curtus, Robertus, iii. 289.\n Cvant, Zend, quantus, iv. 236.\n Cymric, iii. 239.\n Cyrus, religion of, iv. 249.\n Czartoryski, Prince, letter to, iv. 323.\n\n D, of the ablative, iv. 225.\n -da, Zend, = \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd-\u03b4\u03b5, iv. 236.\n Dabshelim, King, iv. 153.\n Dach, Simon, iii. 37.\n \u03b4\u1fb6\u03b5\u03c1, vocative, iv. 232.\n _Daigs_, dough, iv. 22.\n Daimonion, iv. 455.\n Daiti, Zend, \u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, d\u00f4s, iv. 236.\n _Dala_, meaning of, iv. 74 _note_.\n ---- Bengali, same as Dravidian ta\u1e37a or da\u1e37a, iv. 74 _note_.\n Dalberg, iii. 86, 87.\n Dalton, Colonel, \u201cEthnology of Bengal,\u201d iv. 346.\n Daltonism, iv. 444.\n _D\u1ea5-mane_, to give, iv. 33.\n D\u00e2mi, Zend, creation, \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, iv. 236.\n _Damnare_, iv. 104.\n Danes in Cornwall, iii. 274.\n ---- negotiations with, iii. 400.\n Danis-m\u00ean, iii. 273.\n Danube, the, iii. 435.\n Daphne, same as Ahan\u00e2, iv. 148.\n Dardistan, Dr. Leitner\u2019s labors in, iv. 348.\n Dardus, the, their customs, iv. 349.\n Darius, religion of, iv. 249.\n Darwin, Mr., my reply to, iv. 417.\n ---- his belief in a personal Creator, iv. 459.\n Darwinism tested by the Science of Language, essay,\n by Schleicher, iv. 480.\n D\u00e2s\u00e1pati, g\u1ea5spati, d\u00e1mpati, iv. 232.\n _D\u00e2t\u1ea5 v\u00e1s\u00fbn\u00e2m_, iv. 234.\n Dative in _e_, as infinitive, iv. 50.\n ---- in ai, as infinitive, iv. 50.\n ---- in _se_, as infinitive, iv. 51.\n ---- in _tv\u00e2ya_, as infinitive, iv. 55.\n ---- in _\u00e2ya_, as infinitive, iv. 51.\n ---- in _\u00e2yai_, as infinitive, iv. 52.\n ---- in _aye_, as infinitive, iv. 52.\n ---- in _taye_, as infinitive, iv. 53.\n ---- in _tyai_, as infinitive, iv. 53.\n ---- in _dhai_ and _dhyai_, as infinitive, iv. 55.\n ---- in _ase_, Latin ere, as infinitive, iv. 53.\n ---- in _mane_, Greek \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, as infinitive, iv. 53.\n ---- in _vane_, as infinitive, iv. 54.\n ---- in _ane_, as infinitive, iv. 54.\n ---- in _tave_ and _tavai_, iv. 55.\n Daughter, Aryan words for, iv. 420.\n Daughter-in-law, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Daughter\u2019s son, Aryan words for, iv. 402.\n Daunou, on the MS. of Joinville, iii. 162.\n D\u00e2-v\u00e1ne, to give, iv. 34.\n David Sahid of Ispahan, his Livre des Lumi\u00e8res, iv. 159.\n Davy, Sir Humphrey, iii. 248.\n Dawns-m\u00ean or dancing stones, iii. 272.\n Day, Aryan words for, iv. 404.\n \u03b4\u03b5, in \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5, iv. 236.\n Dead and dying religions, iv. 249.\n Dead and live words (ss\u00e8-ts\u00e9 and sing-ts\u00e9) in Chinese, iv. 77 _note_.\n Deaf and dumb, iv. 446.\n Dean of St. Paul\u2019s Lectures, iv. 352.\n Debendranath Tagore, iv. 312.\n ---- had the Vedas copied, iv. 357.\n Declensions in Old French, iii. 167, 170.\n _Deha_, body, iv. 23.\n _Deh\u00ee_, wall, iv. 22.\n _Deich_, iv. 22.\n _Deig-an_, to knead, iv. 22.\n Dekhan, so-called Celtic or Druidical or Scythian monument in,\n iii. 269.\n Del governo dei regni, iv. 157.\n Delight, to, root T\u1e5aP, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n [[Index t{r}ip, Colebrooke TR\u012cP]]\n \u0394\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, vocative, iv. 232.\n Demokritos, iv. 65.\n Demonstrative roots, iv. 121.\n Denmark, Bunsen\u2019s journey to, iii. 352.\n Der ez Z\u00e1fer\u00e2n, Jacobite Cloister of, iv. 186.\n De Rieux, first editor of Joinville, iii. 160.\n Derivative roots, second period of Aryan Language, iv. 124.\n \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1, vocative, iv. 232.\n Des Cartes, iii. 221.\n Dessau, W. M\u00fcller\u2019s life there, iii. 107.\n Determinatives, iv. 123.\n Deus, Greek \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, iv. 210.\n Deutsch, E., iv. 191.\n Devadatta or Theudas, iv. 176.\n Devrient, iii. 427.\n Dharma, law, iv. 220.\n _Dhava_, man, iv. 229.\n _Dhi_, to twinkle or to shine, iv. 229.\n Dh\u00fbrv-a\u1e47e, in order to hurt, iv. 34.\n Diadochi, reigns of the, iv. 149.\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, iv. 131.\n Dialectic growth, iv. 422.\n Dialects, Low and High German, iii. 121.\n ---- English, iv. 68.\n ---- Chinese, iv. 102.\n ---- of the Mundas or the Koles, iv. 347.\n ---- of languages and religions must be studied, iv. 301.\n Dialogus Creaturarum, the, iv. 163, 164 _note_.\n _Dick-ard_, a thick fellow, iv. 89.\n Dictionary, Ost-Friesian, iii. 123 _note_.\n ---- Bremen, iii. 123 _note_.\n Dic-se, iv. 51.\n Die, to, root M\u1e5a, Aryan word for, iv. 415.\n [[Index Mr\u012d, Colebrooke MR\u012c]]\n Dieppe, Dipa, iii. 233.\n Dietmar von Eist, iii. 57.\n _Dig_, plural suffix, iv. 74 _note_.\n Digamma in Homer, Bekker on the, iv. 225.\n Digest of Hindu and Mohammedan laws, iv. 373, 374.\n Dih, the root, iv. 23.\n _Dilli-v\u00e1l\u00e1_, man of Delhi, iv. 90.\n Dinas, or castle, iii. 274.\n Dingdongism, iv. 452.\n Diodorus Siculus, on St. Michael\u2019s Mont, iii. 318.\n \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 = divya, iv. 227.\n Dipa, for Dieppe, iii. 233.\n Dipuc, and Cupid, iv. 21.\n \u201cDirectorium Human\u00e6 Vit\u00e6,\u201d iv. 158.\n Disciples of Buddha, iv. 267.\n \u201cDiscourses on Religion,\u201d Schleiermacher\u2019s, iii. 398.\n Discrimen, iv. 218.\n Dithmarschen, iii. 119.\n ---- republic of, iii. 129.\n Divina Satira, iii. 68.\n Divine origin claimed for the Vedas, iv. 259.\n _Div-y\u00e1-s_, divinus, iv. 94 _note_.\n _Divy\u00e1s_, iv. 227, 229.\n D\u00f6llinger, Dr., iv. 313.\n \u201cDogmatics,\u201d Schleiermacher\u2019s, iii. 398.\n \u03b4\u03bf\u03b9\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2 or \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03dd\u03cc\u03c2 = deva, iv. 228.\n Dolichocephalic grammar, iv. 212.\n Dolly Pentreath, died 1778, iii. 245.\n Dol-m\u00ean or tolm\u00ean, iii. 271.\n Dominicans, iii. 20.\n ---- and Realists, iii. 64.\n Dom in kingdom, iv. 75.\n Don Carlos, Schiller\u2019s, iii. 95.\n Doni, his Italian translation of fables, iv. 158.\n _Doom_, not from damnare, iv. 104.\n D\u00f4s, d\u00f4tis, \u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, iv. 236.\n \u03b4\u03ce-\u03c3\u03c9, iv. 94.\n Double procession, question of the, iv. 313.\n _Dough_, iv. 22.\n \u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, iv. 34.\n Dover, iii. 237.\n Drake, Sir Francis, iii. 235.\n Dramas or mystery plays, in Cornish, iii. 258.\n Dravidian family, iv. 70.\n ---- languages, iv. 347.\n Drink, to, root PA or PI, Aryan words for, iv. 414. [[Index pa, pi]]\n _Dronk-ard_, drunkard, iv. 89.\n Druidical, so-called monuments in the Dekhan, iii. 269.\n Druids, the, iii. 240.\n ---- mentioned by C\u00e6sar, iii. 240.\n ---- among the Celts, iii. 241.\n ---- mentioned by Pliny, iii. 241.\n Dry, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Du Cange, edition of Joinville, iii. 161.\n Due de Maine, iii. 195.\n D\u00fcsig, dizzy, iii. 131.\n Duhit\u00e2, duhit\u00e1ram, iv. 232.\n Duilian column, the, iv. 430.\n Duke of Wurtemberg and Schiller\u2019s father, iii. 80, 81.\n Dun, iii. 293.\n Dun-bar-ton, iii. 306.\n Dutch language, iii. 122.\n Duties of a faithful Hindu widow, iv. 372.\n Dvarka N\u00e1th Tagore, iv. 357.\n ---- his visit to Eug\u00e8ne Burnouf, iv. 357.\n Dyaus, \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, Jupiter, Zio, Tyr, iv. 210.\n Dyu-gat, going to the sky, iv. 133.\n Dyu-ksha, dwelling in the sky, iv. 133.\n\n \u1f10\u03ac = vasav\u00ee or vasavy\u00e2, iv. 234.\n _E\u00e1ge_, A.S., iv. 26.\n \u1f10\u03ac\u03c9\u03bd = vas\u00fbn\u00e2m, iv. 234.\n Ear, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Eastern Church, feast days of SS. Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 177.\n Easter plays, iii. 18.\n East India Company, Directors of the, iv. 350.\n Eastphalia, iii. 117.\n Eastwick, iii. 402.\n Eat, to, root Ad, Aryan words for, iv. 414. [[Index Ad]]\n Eberhard, the great Duke of Wurtemberg, orders the German\n translation of fables, iv. 158.\n _Eburhart_, boar-minded, iv. 89.\n Eckhart, iii. 18, 487.\n Edda, the, iii. 56.\n Edkins, on Chinese dialects, iv. 105.\n Egalit\u00e9, Duke of Orleans, iii. 156.\n Eginhard, iii. 159.\n _Egin-hart_, fierce-minded, iv. 89.\n \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce, iv. 98.\n Egyptian forms, compared with Semitic and Iranian forms, iii. 411.\n \u201cEgypt\u2019s Place in History,\u201d finished, iii. 473.\n Eight, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n -\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, infinitive, iv. 34.\n \u03b5\u1f34\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, vocative, iv. 232.\n Elaine, legends about, iii. 328.\n Elbow, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Eleanor of Poitou, iii. 60.\n Elgin, Lord, iv. 345.\n Elizabeth, English spoken in Cornwall in her reign, iii. 243.\n Elkosh near Mossul, iv. 184.\n Emperors Tiberius and Sigismund, anecdotes of the, iv. 424.\n \u1f14\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, iv. 31.\n Empirical knowledge of grammar, iv. 29.\n Empson, iii. 406.\n Empty word in Chinese (hiu-ts\u00e9), iv. 77.\n -\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, infinitive, iv. 33.\n Engern, iii. 117.\n _Engil-hart_, angel-minded, iv. 89.\n Englaland, iii. 118.\n English, dialect of Low German, iii. 121.\n ---- dialects, iv. 68.\n ---- language, number of words in, iv. 68.\n ---- and Latin words in Cornish, iii. 256.\n ---- philosophy, iii. 220.\n ---- universities, iv. 337.\n Engra, state of, iii. 118.\n \u1f14\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1, \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b6\u03c9 = Zend varez, iv. 237.\n Epic poetry, its importance, iii. 412.\n \u201cEpistol\u00e6 Obscurorum Vivorum,\u201d the, iii. 67.\n Epitheta ornantia, iv. 421.\n Equinox, precession of the, iv. 508.\n Erdmann, iii. 399.\n Erezata\u00eana, Zend = argentinus, iv. 235.\n Esther, Queen, iii. 417, 418.\n Estre, to stand, to be, iii. 167.\n Ethelbert, his conversion, iv. 287.\n Ethnological Survey of India, iv. 346.\n Eton, iii. 236.\n Etruscan grammar, iv. 340.\n Etruscan-Tyrol, or Inca-Peruvian skull, iii. 252.\n \u1f10\u03b0\u03c2, = vasus, iv. 234.\n Evolution, iv. 444.\n Evolutionism, iv. 444, 457.\n Ewald, iii. 444; iv. 104.\n Ewe, Aryan words for, iv. 409.\n Excluded middle, law of the, iv. 434.\n \u201cExemplario contra los enga\u00f1os,\u201d iv. 158 _note_.\n _Ex-im-i-us_, to be taken out, iv. 94.\n Ex nihilo nihil fit, iv. 454.\n Ex Oriente Lux, iv. 325.\n Extracts, illustrating history of German literature, iii. 44.\n\n F, its hieroglyphic prototype, iv. 450.\n Fables, migration of, iv. 139.\n ---- La Fontaine\u2019s, iv. 139.\n ---- \u00c6sop\u2019s, iv. 139.\n ---- of Ph\u00e6drus and Horace, iv. 140.\n ---- in Sanskrit, iv. 140.\n ---- animal, iv. 140.\n ---- Buddhist, iv. 141.\n ---- the Pa\u00f1catantra, iv. 141.\n ---- the Hitopade\u015ba, iv. 141.\n ---- common Aryan, iv. 145.\n ---- Arabic translation, iv. 155.\n ---- Greek translation, iv. 156.\n ---- Italian and Latin translation, iv. 157.\n ---- Hebrew translation, iv. 158.\n ---- German translation, iv. 158.\n ---- Italian, by Firenzuola and Doni, iv. 159.\n ---- Syriac translation of, found by Professor Benfey, iv. 181.\n _Fac-se_, iv. 51.\n _Facso_, iv. 94 _note_.\n Fade, preserving its _d_, iii. 167.\n Fallmerayer, on the Greek race, iii. 250.\n Families of languages, iv. 70.\n Father, Aryan words for, iv. 401.\n Father-in-law, Aryan words for, iv. 402.\n Fatuus, changed to fade, iii. 167.\n Feature, iv. 461.\n Fellowships, how to restore them to their original purpose, iv. 6.\n ---- made into a career for life, iv. 9.\n ---- prize, iv. 8.\n ---- and celibacy, iv. 9.\n Fellows of Colleges, work for, iv. 5.\n Felton\u2019s \u201cLectures on Greece,\u201d iii. 250.\n Feminine bases in _\u00e2_, iv. 45.\n _Feram_, instead of ferem, iv. 93.\n _Ferem_, in the sense of a future, iv. 92.\n Fergusson, Mr., iv. 346.\n Ferre = fer-se, iv. 51.\n Festivals, regulated bv the sun, iii. 284.\n Festus and Agrippa and St. Paul, iv. 277.\n Fichte, iii. 42.\n Fick, on gutturals, iv. 61.\n _Fides_, trust, iv. 39.\n _F\u00eedo_, I trust, iv. 39.\n _F\u00eedus_, trusty, iv. 39.\n \u201cFiesco,\u201d Schiller\u2019s, iii. 84.\n _Figulus_, potter, iv. 22.\n _Figura_, shape, iv. 22.\n Final dental of _tad_, iv. 43.\n _Fingere_, iv. 22.\n Fir, Oak, Beech, iv. 500.\n _Firdaus_, iv. 23.\n Firenzuola, his Italian edition of fables, iv. 158.\n Fire, Aryan words for, iv. 404.\n Fire worshippers as disciples of Buddha, iv. 267.\n Fischer, Kuno, iii. 217.\n ---- on Bacon, iii. 455.\n Five, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n Fl\u00e4msch, sulky, iii. 131.\n _Fl\u00e9chier_, fletcher, iv. 87.\n Fleming, Paul, iii. 37.\n _Fletcher_, fl\u00e9chier, iv. 87.\n Flimwolt, iii. 234.\n _F\u0153dus_, a truce, iv. 39.\n Fool, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Foot, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Formal things once material, iv. 95.\n Formation of themes, iv. 128.\n Four, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n Four drives of Buddha, the, iv. 172.\n Fourth period of the Aryan language, iv. 129.\n Fox and the Bear, stories of, iii. 7.\n ---- old name for, iv. 88.\n Fra\u00easta, Zend \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 236.\n Franciscans, iii. 20.\n Franciscans and Nominalists, iii. 65.\n Franke, iii. 38.\n Frankfort, its message to Stratford-on-Avon, iii. 214.\n Frankish dialect, iii. 122.\n Fr\u00e4nksch, strange, iii. 131.\n Fratelmo, iv. 117.\n Fratri-c\u012bda, not fratrem-c\u012bda, iv. 133.\n Frauenlob, Heinrich, iii. 16.\n Frederick the Great, iii. 81, 201.\n ---- at Rheinsberg, iii. 202.\n ---- studies Wolff, iii. 203.\n ---- his opinion of Wolff, iii. 204.\n Frederick I. of Prussia, iii. 32.\n Frederick II., 1215-50, iii. 14.\n Frederick William, the Great Elector, iii. 32.\n ---- III., iii. 359.\n ---- IV., iii. 359.\n ---- ---- and Niebuhr, iii. 129.\n Free towns of Germany, iii. 16.\n \u201cFreidank\u2019s Bescheidenheit,\u201d iii. 15.\n French, ancient system of declension in, iii. 169.\n Friedrich I. Barbarossa, iii. 51, 52.\n Frisian dialect, the, iii. 122.\n Fritsche Closener\u2019s \u201cChronicle,\u201d iii. 17.\n Froissart, iii. 173.\n Frons, Zend brvat, iv. 236.\n Fronde\u2019s \u201cNemesis of Faith,\u201d iii. 374, 397.\n Fry, Mrs., and Bunsen, iii. 363, 370.\n Fulda, monastery of, iii. 6.\n Full words in Chinese (shi-ts\u00e9), iv. 77, 119.\n _Fulvus_ (harit), red, iv. 100.\n Future, terminations of, iv. 93.\n ---- so-called Attic, iv. 94 _note_.\n\n G in Sanskrit, labialized and unlabialized, iv. 62.\n Gaelic, iii. 239.\n Gagern, Henry von, iii. 396, 400.\n _Ga\u1e47a_, plural suffix, iv. 74 _note_.\n Ga\u1e47e\u015ba, god of success, iv. 251, 309.\n ---- and Janus, iv. 21.\n Ganymedes and Ka\u1e47vamedh\u00e2tithi, or Ka\u1e47vamesha, iv. 21.\n Gara\u1e47h, \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, iv. 236.\n \u201cGargantua,\u201d Rabelais\u2019, iv. 161.\n Garganus, Mount, iii. 332, 341.\n J\u00e2spati\u1e25, iv. 46 _note_.\n J\u00e2spatyam, iv. 46 _note_.\n _J\u00e2ti_, plural suffix, iv. 74 _note_.\n _Gaud-i-um_, iv. 95.\n Gautama Sakyamuni, or Buddha, story of, iv. 179.\n Gautier d\u2019Autr\u00e8che, death of, iii. 152.\n G\u0229, Old Norse, cold, snow, iv. 236.\n Geibel, iii. 402.\n Geiler von Kaiserberg, iii. 67.\n Gelzer\u2019s Lectures, iii. 414.\n General expressions, in languages not highly developed, iv. 122.\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (\u1fe5\u1fc6\u03bc\u03b1), iv. 30.\n Genitive in _as_, as infinitive, iv. 50.\n ---- to\u1e25, as infinitive, iv. 55.\n _Gentoo_, iv. 374 _note_.\n ---- laws, code of, iv. 374.\n Geoffroy de Beaulieu, iii. 160.\n Geology of speech, iv. 449.\n Geometric Science, first impulse given to, iv. 330.\n _G\u00earard_, a miser, iv. 89, 90.\n \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 = gara\u1e47h, iv. 236.\n Gerhard, Paul, iii. 32.\n German history, first period of, iii. 41.\n ---- second period of, iii. 41.\n German Institute for Science and Art, iii. 214.\n German most closely united with Celtic (Ebel, Lottner), iv. 214.\n ---- literature, iii. 1.\n ---- literature, Hillebrand\u2019s history of, iii. 414.\n ---- literature, Villmar\u2019s history of, iii. 414.\n ---- people and their princes, iii. 412.\n ---- professor\u2019s life, Niebuhr and Bunsen\u2019s views of, iv. 204.\n ---- Theology, the author of the, iii. 21.\n ---- translation of fables, iv. 158.\n ---- traveller in England, iii. 232.\n Germans and Celts, first distinguished by C\u00e6sar, iii. 240.\n _Ger-men_, growing, iv. 100.\n Gerson, iii. 65.\n Gerundive participle in Sanskrit, iv. 95.\n Gesetz, meaning of, iv. 220.\n Gessner, iii. 40.\n \u201cGesta Romanorum,\u201d the, iii. 70.\n Gh\u00e1si D\u00e1s, the prophet, iv. 314.\n Jhilghiti dialect of Shin\u00e2, iv. 349.\n _Gh\u1e5bta-prat\u00eeka_, iv. 229.\n Gibbon, on the Roman Religion of the second Century, iv. 310.\n _Gignere_, locative from gigno, iv. 36.\n Gilles Mallet, his inventory of the royal library, iii. 158.\n _Gilvus_, _flavus_, yellow, iv. 100.\n Giornale de\u2019 Letterati, iii. 194.\n Giripras\u00e2da-sinha, Rajah of Besmah, iv. 335.\n Jishe, jeshe, infinitive, iv. 51.\n _J\u00eev\u00e1se_, in order to live, iv. 36.\n Give, to, root DA, Aryan words for, iv. 414. [[Index Da]]\n Gj\u00f6, Norw., nix autumni recens, iv. 236.\n Glacies, gelacies, iv. 235.\n Gladstone, iii. 364, 368, 416.\n Gleim, iii. 40.\n Glottology and Evolutionism, iv. 459.\n _Gnaivod_, iv. 45.\n Gn\u00e2-s, the Vedic, iv. 45.\n _Gn\u00e2spati\u1e25_, iv. 46 _note_.\n \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, iv. 32.\n Go, to, root I, Aryan words for, iv. 414.\n Go, to, root SRIP, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n [[Index SRIP, Colebrooke SR\u012cP]]\n Goa, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n Goat, Aryan words for, iv. 409.\n God, Aryan words for, iv. 404.\n _God-h\u00e2d_, iv. 88.\n Godhead, iv. 75.\n \u201cGod in History,\u201d Bunsen\u2019s, iii. 382.\n _Go-duh_, cow-milking, iv. 81.\n Goethe, iii. 36-40, 82.\n ---- idea of a World-literature, iii. 2.\n ---- his influence, iii. 84.\n ---- his friendship with Schiller, iii. 92.\n ---- his \u201cHermann and Dorothea,\u201d iii. 93.\n ---- as Schiller\u2019s rival, iii. 96.\n Goethe\u2019s house, iii. 214.\n Goeze, Pastor, the critic of Lessing, iv. 518.\n Goldst\u00fccker, Professor, iv. 344, 511.\n ---- Whitney on, iv. 516, 524.\n Gonds, language of the, iv. 347.\n Gospels, harmony of the, iii. 6.\n _Gothart_, God-minded, iv. 89.\n Gothic language, iii. 122.\n Gottfried von Strassburg, iii. 10, 13.\n Gottsched, iii. 39.\n Go-v\u00e1l\u00e1, cowherd, iv. 90.\n Graduation, insensible, iv. 438.\n Grammar dolichocephalic, iv. 212.\n ---- empirical knowledge of, iv. 29.\n ---- rational knowledge of, iv. 29.\n ---- Indian and Greek systems of, iv. 381.\n \u201cGrammatica Celtica\u201d of Zeuss, iv. 17.\n Grammatical blunders, iv. 488.\n Grand-daughter, Aryan words for, iv. 402.\n Granpr\u00e9, Alix de, wife of Joinville, iii. 153.\n Grandson, Aryan words for, iv. 402.\n Grantbridge, Cambridge, iii. 236.\n Great, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Great Exhibition, the, iii. 410.\n Greaves, Professor of Arabic, iv. 12.\n Greece, Felton\u2019s lectures on, iii. 250.\n ---- history of, iii. 249.\n Greek Algebra, iv. 391.\n ---- The Augment in, iv. 114.\n ---- form of the \u201cPot au Lait,\u201d iv. 156.\n ---- most closely united with Sanskrit (Grassman, Sonne, Kern,)\n iv. 215.\n ---- Oxford chair of, iv. 11.\n ---- scholarship, revival of, iv. 361.\n ---- songs, iii. 402.\n ---- stories carried to India by Alexander\u2019s conquests, iv. 149.\n ---- studies of Curtius in, iv. 17.\n Greek or Macedonian workmen in India, iv. 349.\n Greeks, admixture of blood in the, iii. 251.\n ---- Professor Fallmerayer on, iii. 250.\n ---- Manouses on, iii. 251.\n _Green_ (Sk. hari), iv. 100.\n Greenway, Rev. C., iv. 342.\n Greenwich, time of Elizabeth, iii. 235.\n Gregory of Tours, iii. 159.\n Gregory von Heimburg, iii. 65.\n Grey, Sir George, iv. 343.\n \u201cGriechen Lieder,\u201d W. M\u00fcller\u2019s, iii. 108.\n Griffith, Mr., iv. 335.\n Grimm, the brothers, iii. 113.\n ---- Jacob, German Grammar, iii. 122.\n ---- Jacob, iii. 74.\n ---- his Teutonic studies, iv. 17.\n Grimm\u2019s Law, iv. 101 _note_.\n G\u1e5b\u1e47\u00eesh\u00e1\u1e47i, iv. 52.\n Gryphius, Andreas, iii. 38.\n Guary miracles, iii. 259.\n \u201cGudrun,\u201d iii. 12.\n Guildhall, iii. 234.\n Guillaume, Archbishop of Tyre, his \u201cHistory of the Crusades,\u201d\n iii. 159.\n Guillaume de Chartres, iii. 160.\n Guillaume de Nangis, iii. 159.\n Guirrimears, or Great plays, iii. 259.\n \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, vocative, iv. 232.\n G\u00fcnther, iii. 40.\n Gustavus Adolphus, iii. 30.\n Gutturals, labialized and unlabialized, iv. 61.\n Gv\u00e1l\u00e1, cowherd, iv. 90.\n\n H, Hieroglyphic prototype of, iv. 450.\n _H\u00e2d_, A.S. state, iv. 88.\n Haeckel, iv. 459.\n ---- Whitney on, iv. 516.\n Hagedorn, iii. 40.\n Hagen, von der, iii. 113.\n \u1f05\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, holy, iv. 94.\n \u201cHainbund,\u201d the, iii. 127.\n Hair of the body, Aryan words for, iv. 409.\n ---- of the head, Aryan words for, iv. 409.\n Halbsuter, poems of, iii. 17.\n Haller, iii. 40.\n Hampton Court, iii. 236.\n Hand, Aryan words for, iv. 405.\n Hansa league, iii. 16, 31.\n Hans Sachs, iii. 31.\n _Hard_, _hardy_, iv. 88.\n Hard and soft, iv. 490.\n Hardouin, iii. 196.\n ---- discredits Joinville\u2019s history, iii. 189.\n _Hari_, green, iv. 100.\n _Harit_, fulvus, red, iv. 100.\n Harold Blatand, iii. 266.\n Harold Harfagr, iii. 266.\n _Hart_, strong, iv. 88.\n Hartmann, von, iv. 459.\n Hartmann, von Aue, iii. 10, 13.\n Harun al Raschid, iv. 155.\n _Haubida_, caput, iv. 26.\n Haug, iii. 491.\n Haupt, iii. 417.\n Hausschein, iii. 29.\n Havet, M., his translation of the Rede Lecture, iv. 63 _note_.\n Hayle-river, iii. 305.\n Head in Godhead, iv. 75.\n Heat, broad degrees of, iv. 437.\n Heben, heaven, iii. 131.\n \u1f15\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f11\u03c0\u03c4\u03ac, iv. 230.\n Hebrew lectureship proposed, iv. 11.\n ---- Oxford chair of, iv. 11.\n ---- Pard\u00e9s, iv. 22.\n \u1f25\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and \u1f21\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, iv. 231.\n Hegel, iv. 446.\n Heidelberg, Bunsen settles at, iii. 440.\n Heine, Heinrich, iii. 402.\n Heinrich von Veldecke\u2019s \u00c6neid, iii. 10.\n ---- his description of festival at Mayence, iii. 12.\n Helfer, Frau von, on the Karens, iii. 435.\n Heliand, poem of, iii. 5, 122.\n Helmholtz, Professor, iv. 514.\n Helstone, iii. 292.\n Henley, iii. 236.\n Henry II. and Eleanor of Poitou, iii. 12.\n ---- king of England, iii. 51.\n Henry III., iii. 152.\n ---- his oppression of the Jews, iii. 307.\n Henry VIII., iii. 73.\n ---- and the Oxford chairs of Greek and Hebrew, iv. 11.\n ---- did nothing for Arabic, iv. 12.\n Henry the Lion, of Saxony, iii. 12.\n Hentzner, his travels, iii. 232.\n Herakleitos, iv. 65.\n \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c2, vocative, iv. 232.\n Herba nicotiana, iii. 234.\n Herbelot\u2019s \u201cBiblioth\u00e8que Orientale,\u201d iii. 415.\n Herder, iii. 40.\n ---- his influence, iii. 84.\n \u201cHermann and Dorothea,\u201d influence of Schiller on Goethe\u2019s, iii. 93.\n Hermann, Landgrave of Thuringia, iii. 13.\n Hermann, Gottfried, iv. 32, 209.\n Hessius, Eoban, iii. 29.\n Heynlin a Lapide, Johannes, iii. 66.\n High German, iii. 121.\n ---- dialects, iii. 122.\n Hillebrand\u2019s \u201cHistory of German Literature,\u201d iii. 414.\n Himil, A.S. vault, sky, iv. 236.\n Hindu astronomers, four ways of reckoning time among, iv. 367.\n ---- astronomy, antiquity of, iv. 387.\n ---- Bentley on, iv. 387.\n ---- and Mohammedan Law, digest of, iv. 373.\n ---- philosophy, Colebrooke\u2019s treatises on, iv. 394.\n ---- schools of law, iv. 374.\n ---- skulls, iii. 252.\n ---- widow, Colebrooke on the duties of, iv. 372.\n Hindus, Lunar Zodiac of the, iv. 508.\n Hindustani or Moors, iv. 365.\n \u201cHippolytus,\u201d Bunsen\u2019s, iii. 382, 416.\n ---- Taylor\u2019s article on, iii. 418.\n \u201cHistoire des Ouvrages des Savants,\u201d iii. 194.\n Historical monuments should be under protection, iii. 270.\n ---- religions, iv. 239.\n ---- ---- number of, iv. 239.\n \u201cHistory of the Science of Language,\u201d Benfey\u2019s, iv. 325.\n ---- of philosophy, study of the, iv. 444.\n Hitopade\u015ba, the, iv. 141.\n ---- fable of the Br\u00e2hman and the rice, iv. 143.\n Hliumunt, and \u015bromata, iv. 218.\n _Hl\u00fad_, A.S. loud, iv. 219.\n Hoar rock in the wood, the, iii. 317.\n Hobbes\u2019 view of man, iv. 222.\n Hodgson, iii. 443.\n Hoftmannswaldau, iii. 38.\n Hog, Aryan words for, iv. 409.\n _Hogarth_, meaning of, iv. 89.\n Hohenfriedberg, battle of, iii. 213.\n Hohenstaufen dynasty, iii. 8.\n Holcet\u00e6, the, iii. 119.\n Holed stones, iii. 270.\n Holtseten or Holsten, iii. 119.\n H\u00f6lty, Count, iii. 127.\n \u201cHoly Graal,\u201d Wolfram\u2019s, iii. 54.\n Holzmann, iii. 446.\n Homer, digamma in, iv. 225.\n \u201cHomerische Vorschule,\u201d by Wilhelm M\u00fcller, iii. 113.\n Homoousia, the, iv. 313.\n _Hor\u00e2_, iv. 367.\n Horace\u2019s fables, iv. 140.\n Horse, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n Hottentot language, iv. 344.\n _Hour_, hor\u00e2, iv. 367.\n House, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Hrabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, iii. 6.\n Hr\u00eem, rime, iv. 235.\n Hrosvitha, Latin plays of, iii. 7.\n _Hruom_, Old High German, iv. 218.\n H\u00fcckup, sigh, iii. 131.\n Huet, friend of La Fontaine, iv. 151.\n _Hugihart_, wise-minded, iv. 89.\n Hugo, iii. 64.\n Hugo von Montfort, iii. 17.\n Huir, or hoer, Cornish, iii. 263.\n Human beings without language, iv. 341.\n Human sacrifices in India, iv. 370.\n Humaniores, iv. 362.\n Humboldt, Alexander von, iii. 354.\n ---- letter to Bunsen, iii. 446.\n Humboldt, Wilhelm von, iv. 446.\n Hume, iii. 218.\n Hundius, iii. 64.\n Hunnblaff, iii. 131.\n Hunt, Professor of Arabic, iv. 12.\n Husain ben Ali, his \u201cAnv\u00e1ri Suhaili,\u201d iv. 159.\n Husbandry and commerce of Bengal, Colebrooke on the, iv. 373.\n Husband\u2019s brother, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Huschke on skulls, iii. 252.\n \u1f51\u03c3\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd and \u1f51\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03bd\u03b7, iv. 121.\n Huss, iii. 65.\n Hutten, his works, iii. 62.\n Huxley on skulls, iii. 253.\n Huxley, iv. 445, 446, 448.\n Hyde, Professor of Arabic, iv. 12.\n Hyder Ali and the missionary Schwarz, iv. 285.\n ---- death of, iv. 365.\n Hymn- and Prayer-book by Bunsen, iii. 361, 413.\n Hymns, Latin ancient, iii. 5.\n Hypsibios, iv. 457.\n\n Ice, names for, iv. 235, 236.\n I\u00e7i, Zend, ice, iv. 235, 236.\n Ictis, island of, iii. 318.\n Idealism and Realism, iii. 220.\n Idola, iii. 222.\n Idolatry and the Brahmos, iv. 270.\n Ignatius, Epistles of, iii. 372.\n Illustrations, importance of, iv. 474.\n Immaculate Conception, the, iii. 66.\n Incapsulating languages, iv. 85.\n In-cre-p-are, iv. 219.\n India, Colebrooke starts for, iv. 364.\n ---- Colebrooke the legislator of, iv. 390.\n ---- Mathematicians, dates of, iv. 392.\n ---- Primitive languages in, iii. 422.\n ---- snake-charmers, iv. 370.\n ---- human sacrifices, iv. 370.\n Indian Algebra, like Arabian, not like Greek, iv. 391.\n ---- Government, their readiness to help students, iv. 344.\n ---- and Greek systems of grammar, iv. 382.\n ---- Mirror, the, iv. 355.\n ---- Museum in London, iv. 349.\n ---- Plants, Colebrooke\u2019s Essay on, iv. 380.\n ---- Theogonies, Colebrooke\u2019s Essay on, iv. 380.\n Indo-Chinese family, iv. 70.\n Indo-European migrations from the Upper Indus, towards Bactria,\n iii. 405.\n _In-ed-i-a_, iv. 95.\n Infallibility of traditional interpretation of Veda, iv. 386.\n Infinitive, the, iv. 30.\n ---- as an adverb, iv. 31.\n ---- in Greek, iv. 36.\n ---- as substantive, iv. 37.\n ---- in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, iv. 47.\n ---- Dative in _e_, iv. 50.\n ---- Dative in _ai_, iv. 50.\n ---- Dative in _ane_, iv. 54.\n ---- Dative in _tave_ and _tavai_, iv. 55.\n ---- Dative in _\u00e2ya_, iv. 51.\n ---- Dative in _s-e_, iv. 51.\n ---- Dative in _\u00e2yai_, iv. 52.\n ---- Dative in _aye_, iv. 52.\n ---- Dative in _taye_, iv. 53.\n ---- Dative in _tyai_, iv. 53.\n ---- Dative in _ase_, iv. 53.\n ---- Dative in _mane_, iv. 54.\n ---- Dative in _vane_, iv. 54.\n ---- Accusative in _am_, iv. 50.\n ---- Genitive in _as_, iv. 50.\n ---- Ablative in _as_, iv. 50.\n ---- Locative in _i_, iv. 50.\n ---- Locative in _sani_, iv. 54.\n ---- in _um_, _om_ (_u_, _o_) in Oscan and Umbrian, iv. 50.\n ---- in English, iv. 58.\n ---- in Anglo-Saxon, iv. 58.\n ---- in Bengali, iv. 59.\n ---- in Dravidian Languages, iv. 60.\n Infinitives, iv. 31.\n Infixing or incapsulating languages, iv. 85.\n Inflectional languages, iv. 79.\n Inflectional stage, iv. 116.\n Inflection, the results of combination, iv. 111.\n _Innoca_ from _innocua_, iv. 131.\n _Innox_ from _innoca_, iv. 131.\n Insect, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n Insensible graduation, iv. 437.\n Institutes of Calvin, iv. 287.\n Instrumental in tv\u00e2, as infinitive, iv. 55.\n _Intelligent_, inter-ligent, inter-twining, iv. 327.\n International Congress of Orientalists, iv. 317.\n Inverted Fugue, an, iv. 470.\n Ionians, as Asiatics, iii. 457.\n Ipse, iv. 236.\n Iranian, iii. 429, 441.\n Isaiah, the last 27 chapters, iii. 484.\n Isis, iii. 289.\n Isl\u00e2m, the, iv. 245.\n Isolating languages, iv. 79.\n Isolating spirit in the science of language, iv. 18.\n Is-tud, Latin, iv. 43.\n \u201cItalian Guest,\u201d by Thomasin von Zerclar, iii. 15.\n Italian sonnet, iii. 58.\n Italian translation of the \u201cStephanites and Ichnelates,\u201d iv. 157.\n \u201cItinerarium,\u201d the, of William of Worcester, iii. 324.\n\n Jackman, his use of Cornish, iii. 244.\n Jagann\u00e2tha, iv. 374.\n Janus and Ga\u1e47e\u015ba, iv. 21.\n Jeanne of Navarre and Joinville, iii. 154.\n Jean Paul, iv. 446.\n Jellinghaus, Mr., iv. 348.\n Jeremiah, author of last part of Isaiah, iii. 484.\n Jerusalem Bishopric, the, iii. 129, 367.\n Jesuits, as scientific investigators, iii. 196.\n ---- found the \u201cJournal de Tr\u00e9voux,\u201d iii. 194.\n Jews in Cornwall, iii. 287.\n ---- houses of, iii. 287, 298.\n ---- oppressed by Henry III., iii. 309.\n ---- tin raised by, iii. 311.\n ---- do not proselytize, iv. 241.\n ---- the most proselytizing of people, iv. 304.\n Joannes Damascenus, iv. 167.\n Joasaph or Josaphat or Bodhisattva, iv. 180.\n Jocelin, his work on St. Patrick, iii. 300.\n Joel, translator of fables from Arabic into Hebrew, iv. 158.\n Johannes of Capua, author of Latin translation of fables, iv. 158.\n Join, to, root YUG, Aryan words for, iv. 414. [[Colebrooke YUJ]]\n Joinville, iii. 151.\n ---- his wife, iii. 153.\n ---- his burial place, iii. 155.\n ---- his estate possessed and sold by Egalit\u00e9, iii. 156.\n ---- writes his book for Jeanne of Navarre, iii. 157.\n ---- first edition of, iii. 158.\n ---- Menard\u2019s edition of, iii. 160.\n ---- Ducange\u2019s edition, iii. 161.\n ---- Charters of, iii. 165.\n ---- Capperonnier\u2019s edition of, iii. 161.\n ---- Daunou on, iii. 164.\n ---- Paulin Paris on, iii. 161.\n ---- MS. found at Brussels, iii. 161.\n ---- MS. found at Lucca, iii. 163.\n ---- MS. found at Rheims, iii. 163.\n ---- letter to Louis X., iii. 164.\n ---- his language, iii. 165 and _note_.\n ---- Sir J. Stephen on, iii. 173.\n ---- his truth to his king, iii. 178.\n ---- relates few miracles, iii. 184.\n ---- Hardouin on, iii. 189.\n Jones, Sir William, his translations from Sanskrit, iv. 322, 361.\n ---- on the resemblance between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, iv. 324.\n ---- the only rival of Colebrooke, iv. 396.\n ---- Colebrooke\u2019s testimony to, iv. 397.\n ---- his merits not appreciated, iv. 398.\n Josaphat, his early life the same as Buddha\u2019s, iv. 174.\n Joseph II., iii. 35, 81.\n \u201cJournal des Savants,\u201d iii. 192.\n ---- and Voltaire, iii. 193.\n ---- translated into Latin, iii. 194.\n \u201cJournal de Tr\u00e9voux,\u201d iii. 194.\n ---- Index by Sommervogel, iii. 195.\n Journalism, power of, iii. 199.\n Jovius, Paulus, iii. 234.\n Julien, Stanislas, iv. 107 _note_.\n Jumi\u00e8ges, William of, iii. 159.\n Jupiter, \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, Dyaus, Zio, and Tyr, iv. 210.\n Justin, his interview with the philosopher, iv. 287.\n Juts, iii. 118.\n Juxtaposition produces combination, iv. 111.\n Juxtapositional stage, iv. 116.\n Juxtapositional, combinatory, and inflectional strata in the\n formation of the Aryan language, iv. 138.\n\n Ca, Sanskrit particle, iv. 26.\n Kabir, founder of the sect of the Avadh\u00fbta, iv. 257.\n ---- commandments of, iv. 257.\n ---- his reforms, iv. 257.\n ---- poetry of, iv. 311.\n Kad-v\u00e2n, iv. 44.\n Kafir or B\u00e2-ntu family, iv. 70.\n Ka\u1e37, iv. 82.\n Kala or Gala in Tamil, iv. 74 note.\n Kal\u00e2sha-M\u00e2nder dialects, iv. 349.\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, not calare, or to call, iv. 104.\n _Kalevara_, body, iv. 24.\n Kali, the goddess, iv. 251.\n ---- goddess of Calcutta, iv. 309.\n Kalidasa\u2019s play of Sakuntala, iv. 323.\n Kalila and Dimnah, Mongolian translation of, iv. 149 _note_.\n ---- when written, iv. 151.\n ---- Persian translation of by Nasr Allah, iv. 159.\n ---- Spanish translation of, iv. 161.\n ---- in Latin verse, iv. 161.\n Kalilag and Damnag, Renan on, iv. 181.\n Kamara, Zend, girdle, \u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1, iv. 236.\n Kameredhe, Zend, skull; cf. \u03ba\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, iv. 236.\n Kamilarois, religious ideas of the, iv. 341.\n Kant, iv. 447.\n ---- his influence on Schiller, iii. 94.\n ---- his writings, iv. 426.\n Ka\u1e47va-medhatithi or Ka\u1e47va-mesha and Ganymedes, iv. 21.\n Karens, the, iii. 435.\n Kareta, Zend, knife, culter, iv. 236.\n Karl August, Duke of Weimar, iii. 85, 88.\n K\u00e2rtik\u00eaya, god of war, iv. 251, 309.\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 219.\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 or \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1, iv. 31.\n Katolsch, angry, iii. 131.\n Kehrp or k\u1e5bp, iv. 235.\n Keigwyn, his translations from Cornish, iii. 258.\n Kellermann, iii. 419.\n Keshub Chunder Sen, iv. 260, 312.\n ---- his Lecture on Christ, iv. 272.\n Khalif Almansur, iv. 151.\n ---- his court, iv. 167.\n Khasia language and the Munda dialects, iv. 348.\n Khayuna dialects, iv. 349.\n Khosru Nushirvan, iv. 183.\n ---- his physician, iv. 152.\n Khr\u00fbma, Zend = Sk. kr\u00fbra, crudus, iv. 235.\n Khr\u00fbta, Zend, adj. of zim, winter, iv. 235.\n Kielhorn, Dr., iv. 332, 345.\n King, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Kingdom, iv. 75.\n ---- Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Kingsley, iii. 489.\n ---- and the Saturday Review, iii. 480.\n Kistvaen, or cistvaen, iii. 267, 269.\n Kitt\u2019s Cotty House, iii. 267.\n Klaus Groth, on Friesian, iii. 123 _note_.\n ---- his poems, iii. 126, 132.\n ---- political poems, iii. 133.\n ---- Vertellen, iii. 146.\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 = \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 (clu), iv. 219.\n \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c2 = hruom, iv. 219.\n Klinger, iii. 82.\n Klopstock, iii. 40-42, 82, 84.\n Knee, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Know, to, root J\u00d1A, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n [[Index and Colebrooke JNYA]]\n ---- root VID, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n Knowledge for its own sake, danger of, iv. 320.\n Koelle\u2019s sixty-seven African languages, iii. 427.\n K\u00f6rner, iii. 85, 86, 402.\n ---- Theodore, iii. 86.\n Koles, the, iv. 347.\n ---- language of, Dravidian, iv. 347.\n K\u00f6nigsberg School, the, iii. 37.\n Konrad\u2019s Roland, iii. 9.\n Konrad von W\u00fcrzburg, iii. 15.\n Kontablacos, iii. 67.\n Koran, spirit of the, iv. 245.\n Kosmos of language, iii. 450.\n -\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 = hard, iv. 88.\n _Kratu_, intellectual strength, iv. 88.\n Kratylos, Plato\u2019s, iv. 65.\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 = \u03ba\u03bb\u03ac\u03b6\u03c9 (clu ?), iv. 219.\n \u03ba\u03c1\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1 = crimen, Gr\u00e6co-Italic, according to Mommsen, iv. 218, 219.\n \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 235.\n \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac, iv. 150.\n _K\u00fbm\u00e2r\u00e2-ya te_, he behaves like a girl, iv. 91.\n\n Laboulaye, iii. 446.\n ---- on Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 177.\n Lachmann, iii. 350, 408.\n Ladyship, iv. 75.\n La Fontaine\u2019s fables, iv. 139.\n ---- published 1668, iv. 140.\n ---- 2d and 3d editions, 1678, 1694, iv. 140.\n ---- fable of Perrette borrowed from the Pa\u00f1catantra, iv. 142.\n ---- and David Sahid of Ispahan\u2019s translation of Pilpay\u2019s fables,\n iv. 159.\n _Lagu_, law, iv. 220.\n Lalita Vistara, the, iv. 171.\n Lamprecht\u2019s \u201cAlexander,\u201d iii. 9.\n Language of the Swabian court, iii. 8.\n ---- of Luther, iii. 24.\n ---- of Joinville, iii. 166.\n ---- the Kosmos of, iii. 450.\n ---- stratification of, iv. 63.\n ---- origin of, iv. 67.\n ---- universal, iv. 67.\n ---- English, 100,000 words in, iv. 68.\n ---- classification of, iv. 72.\n ---- made by convention, iv. 73.\n ---- three conditions of, iv. 78.\n ---- RR for 1st stage, iv. 79.\n ---- R + \u03c1 +r+ for 2d stage, iv. 79.\n ---- \u03c1 +r+ for 3d stage, iv. 79.\n ---- not highly developed, rich in words, poor in general\n expressions, iv. 122.\n ---- Science of, is it a natural or historical science, iv. 222.\n ---- human beings without, iv. 341.\n ---- Veddahs said to have none, iv. 342.\n ---- of the Koles and Gonds, iv. 347.\n ---- natural growth or historical change in, iv. 422.\n ---- the specific difference of man, iv. 441.\n ---- none without roots, iv. 460.\n ---- and thought inseparable, iv. 484.\n Languages in India, the primitive, iii. 422.\n ---- families of, iv. 70.\n ---- isolating, combinatory, and inflectional, iv. 79.\n ---- suffixing, prefixing, affixing, and infixing, iv. 85.\n Lardner\u2019s \u201cCredibilia,\u201d iv. 287.\n La Rivey, his translations of fables, iv. 159 _note_.\n Lassen, iii. 404; iv. 510.\n ---- and Burnouf, Whitney on, iv. 515.\n Latin, use of, iii. 29.\n ---- and English words in Cornish, iii. 256.\n ---- words in Cornish, iii. 261.\n ---- inscriptions, iii. 419.\n ---- chair of, iv. 13.\n ---- Corssens studies in, iv. 17.\n ---- text of the Milkmaid, iv. 164 _note_.\n ---- Church, first day of SS. Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 177.\n ---- a language made up of Italic, Greek, and Pelasgic, iv. 206.\n ---- derived from Greek, iv. 206.\n ---- most closely united with Greek (Mommsen, Curtius), iv. 215.\n Laud, Archbishop, his support of Arabic, iv. 12.\n ---- his collection of Arabic MSS., iv. 12.\n _Laudari a viro laudato_, iv. 512.\n Lautverschiebung, iv. 101 _note_, 102.\n Law, no settled word for, in the Aryan languages, iv. 220.\n ---- of the Excluded Middle, iv. 434.\n Laws of Manu., iv. 323.\n ---- of Nature, unsuspected, iv. 426.\n Laymen, work of, iv. 293.\n ---- assistance of, iv. 293.\n Leader, the, iii. 401.\n _Leccardo_, a gourmand, iv. 90.\n Lecture on Christ by Keshub Chunder Sen, iv. 272.\n \u201cLectures on the English Language,\u201d Marsh\u2019s, iv. 431.\n Lectureships for Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldaic proposed in 1311,\n iv. 11.\n Leibnitz, iii. 39.\n ---- his views on language, iv. 65.\n ---- shows that Greek and Latin are not derived from Hebrew, iv. 207.\n _Leiche_, body, iv. 23.\n _Leik_, body, iv. 23.\n Leitner, Dr., his labors in Dardistan, iv. 348.\n \u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0-\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, iv. 34.\n Lengthening of the vowel in the subjunctive, iv. 114.\n Leo Allatius and the story of Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 178.\n Leo the Isaurian, iv. 161.\n Leofric, Bishop of Exeter, iii. 324.\n Leopardi, iii. 362.\n Leopold, Duke of Austria, iii. 12.\n Leprosy, iii. 237.\n Lepsius, iii. 362, 439; iv. 2.\n ---- on Egyptian chronology, iii. 396.\n Lessing, iii. 40, 82.\n ---- his \u201cMinna von Barnhelm,\u201d iii. 42.\n ---- his \u201cEmilia Galotti,\u201d iii. 42.\n ---- his \u201cNathan,\u201d iii. 42.\n ---- his influence, iii. 84.\n ---- and forgotten books, iii. 232.\n ---- Pastor Goeze the critic of, iv. 518.\n \u039b\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6, vocative, iv. 233.\n _Leumund_, iv. 218.\n Lewis, Sir G. C., iii. 239.\n Lex and law, iv. 219, 220.\n Lhuyd, Mr. Ed., d. 1709, and his Cornish Grammar, iii. 245.\n _Lich_, lichgate, iv. 23.\n _Liebhart_, mignon, iv. 89 _note_.\n Liebrecht, Dr. Felix, iv. 165 _note_.\n Liebrecht, on Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 177.\n Ligare, to bind, iv. 220.\n Light, broad degrees of, iv. 437.\n ---- lucere, iv. 467.\n Lines and limits in nature, iv. 437.\n _Linguardo_, a talker, iv. 90.\n Linguistic survey of India, iv. 346.\n Lionesse, the countrie of, iii. 322.\n Lion\u2019s skin, the, in Plato\u2019s \u201cKratylos,\u201d iv. 150 _note_.\n \u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, iv. 229.\n Liscow, iii. 40.\n Literary survey of India, the, iv. 346.\n Lives of saints, the, interest of, iii. 300.\n \u201cLivre des Lumi\u00e8res\u201d by David Sahid of Ispahan, iv. 160.\n Local adverbs, as terminations of cases, iv. 96.\n Locative in i, as infinitive, iv. 50.\n ---- in sani, as infinitive, iv. 55.\n Locatives, old, iv. 208.\n Locher, iii. 68.\n Locke, iv. 446.\n ---- philosophy of, iii. 218.\n Lockhart, iii. 402.\n Loewe, Dr., iv. 487.\n Loftus, iii. 433.\n Logan stones, iii. 278.\n Logau, Friedrich von, iii. 38.\n Logic, Prantl on reform of, iv. 486.\n Logical statement, skeleton of, iv. 434.\n \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, not lex, iv. 219.\n Logos, the, iv. 455.\n Lohenstein, iii. 38.\n London in the 16th century, iii. 234.\n Loss of MS. of the Veda, iii. 401.\n Lother and Maler, iii. 70.\n Louis le Hutin, his library, iii. 157.\n Louis III., lay on his victory over the Normans, iii. 6.\n Louis IX., iii. 177, and the Bishop of Paris, iii. 182.\n Louis XIV., iii. 32.\n ---- court of, iii. 33.\n _Lourdement_, heavily, iv. 112.\n Love songs, Old German, iii. 51.\n Low German, iii. 121.\n ---- dialects, iii. 122.\n _Lu_ in Telugu, iv. 82.\n L\u00fcbeck, home of Chasot, iii. 210.\n Lucien Buonaparte, iii. 423.\n Ludwig, King, iii. 5.\n Lunar Zodiac of the Hindus, iv. 508.\n \u03bb\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, infinitive, iv. 51, 57.\n Luther, iii. 24, 26, 67.\n ---- his language, iii. 24.\n ---- his Table Talk, iii. 62.\n Lycians, the true Pelasgians, iii. 396.\n\n Ma, _tva_, _ta_, iv. 113.\n M\u00e2 and \u03bc\u03ae prohibitivum, iv. 213.\n Macaulay, iii. 363, 407.\n ---- Lord, on Christian differences, iv. 290.\n ---- ---- on Bacon, iii. 227.\n Madenhood, iii. 236.\n Madh, Zend, to cure, mederi, iv. 236.\n Madras, Colebrooke\u2019s arrival at, iv. 364.\n Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya, new edition of, iv. 335.\n ---- photo-lithograph of, iv. 344.\n Mahon, iii. 407.\n Mahrattas, the, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n \u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, for m\u00e2ma, iv. 125.\n \u201cMaid of Orleans,\u201d Schiller\u2019s, iii. 92, 97.\n Mam\u00e2nsaka philosophers, iv. 386.\n Malayo-Polynesian family, iv. 70.\n Mallet, Gilles, iii. 158.\n Mammoth, age of the, iii. 319.\n _Man_, a suffix, iv. 33.\n Man, Zend, manere, iv. 236.\n ---- Aryan words for, iv. 405.\n ---- an amphibious creature, iv. 477.\n ---- pursued by a unicorn, parable of, iv. 170.\n _Mane_, Sanskrit termination, iv. 32.\n Manere, iv. 236.\n _Man-h\u00e2d_, iv. 88.\n Manouses, Professor, his lectures on the Greeks, iii. 251.\n Mansel, iv. 446.\n Manuel, Don Juan, his \u201cConde Lucanor,\u201d iv. 164.\n Mar, mard, mardh, marg, mark, marp, \u015bmar, iv. 122.\n M\u00e2ra, his interview with Buddha, iv. 268.\n M\u00e2r\u00e2h, Zion, iii. 293.\n Marazion, iii. 287, 293.\n March, Dr., on Infinitive, iv. 58.\n ---- his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, iv. 421.\n Marchadion, iii. 297.\n Marchadyon, iii. 294.\n Mard\u00een, library of, iv. 186.\n Margravine of Baireuth, the, iii. 203.\n Maria Theresa, iii. 124.\n \u201cMark Bozzari,\u201d M\u00fcller\u2019s \u201cGriechen Lieder,\u201d iii. 108.\n Market Jew, iii. 293, 297.\n Marriages in India between those of different rank, iv. 377.\n Marsh\u2019s \u201cLectures on the English Language,\u201d iv. 431.\n Martin, Theodore, his translation of the \u201cGriechen Lieder,\u201d\n iii. 108, 111.\n \u201cMartyrologium Romanum,\u201d the, iv. 169 _note_.\n \u201cMary Stuart,\u201d Schiller\u2019s, iii. 92, 96.\n Masi, from ma-tvi, iv. 125.\n Master Eckhardt, iii. 419.\n Mastersingers, iii. 16.\n M\u00e2t\u1ea5, m\u00e2t\u00e1ram, iv. 232.\n Mathilde, daughter of Henry II., iii. 12.\n ---- of Saxony, iii. 60.\n Matthias of Beheim translates the Bible, iii. 21.\n Maximilian the Emperor, iii. 17.\n Max M\u00fcller, letters from Bunsen to, iii. 393.\n Mayas, delight, iv. 55.\n Meco, iv. 117.\n Mederi, Zend, madh, iv. 236.\n Meissel, Celtes, iii. 29.\n Meisters\u00e4nger, the, iii. 31.\n ---- their poetry, iii. 69.\n Melanchthon, iii. 29.\n ---- his letters, iii. 62.\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, iv. 236.\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 = m\u1e5b\u1e37ata, iv. 234.\n Meldorf, home of K. Niebuhr, iii. 127.\n Melidunum, Moulton, iii. 293.\n Melusina, iii. 70.\n \u201cM\u00e9moire sur la Langue de Joinville,\u201d par De Wailly, iii. 165 _note_.\n \u201cM\u00e9moires de Tr\u00e9voux,\u201d iii. 192.\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 and \u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, iv. 40.\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, infinitive in, iv. 33.\n M\u00ean-an-tol, or holed stones, iii. 271, 283.\n ---- their origin, iii. 284.\n Menard, his edition of Joinville, iii. 160.\n M\u00ean-rock, iii. 306.\n M\u00ean Scrifa, the, iii. 271.\n Mendelssohn, iii. 362.\n \u201cMerchant of Venice,\u201d story of the caskets, iv. 170 _note_.\n \u201cMerigarto,\u201d hybrid style of, iii. 8.\n Merivale, Herman, and Jews in Cornwall, iii. 310.\n Metaphysique, Bacon\u2019s, iii. 223.\n \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 = mat\u1ea5, m\u00e2t\u00e1ram, iv. 232.\n Method of Induction, Bacon\u2019s, iii. 225.\n Meyer, Martin, iii. 63.\n _Mi_, _si_, _ti_, iv. 113.\n Michelstow, iii. 336.\n Middle High German, iii. 9.\n Migration of Fables, iv. 139.\n Miklosich, his Slavonic studies, iv. 17.\n Milkmaid, the fable of the, first appearance in English, iv. 164.\n ---- instead of the Brahman, iv. 165.\n Mill, John Stuart, iv. 318.\n Mill, Dr., iv. 336.\n Min Jehann, iii. 137.\n Mincamber or M\u00e2namber, iii. 277.\n Mind, Aryan words for, iv. 405.\n ---- what is meant by, iv. 436.\n ---- of animals, a terra incognita, iv. 442.\n Minne, meaning, of, iii. 56.\n Minnes\u00e4nger, the, iii. 9.\n \u201cMinnesangs Fr\u00fchling,\u201d iii. 53, 61.\n Minute differences, many words for, in languages not highly\n developed, iv. 122.\n Miracles, related by Joinville, iii. 185.\n Mirzapur, Colebrooke at, iv. 374.\n ---- Colebrooke returns to, iv. 381.\n Missionaries, Irish and English, iii. 4.\n Missionary and Non-missionary religions, iv. 241.\n Missionary religions, iv. 241, 303.\n ---- religion what constitutes a, iv. 306.\n ---- societies, iv. 290.\n ---- societies, claim on, for Oriental studies, iv. 337.\n Missions, iv. 238.\n ---- Stanley\u2019s Sermon on, iv. 276.\n ---- should be more helped by the universities, iv. 338.\n Misteries, the, iii. 69.\n \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, Goth. mizd\u00f4, iv. 236.\n M\u00eezdha, Zend, \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, iv. 236.\n \u03bc\u03cc\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5, vocative, iv. 232.\n Modern languages, their importance, iv. 523.\n Modus infinitus, iv. 31.\n Mohammedanism, countries professing, iv. 252.\n Mollwitz, battle of, iii. 206.\n Mommsen, Theodore, iii. 129.\n \u201cMonatliche Unterredungen,\u201d iii. 194.\n Mongol words from Chinese, iv. 105.\n Mongolian and Chinese, iv. 106.\n ---- conquerors carry Buddhist fables to Russia, iv. 149.\n ---- translation of Kalila and Dimnah, iv. 149 _note_.\n Monosyllabic form of roots, iv. 121.\n _Monstra_, iv. 72.\n Montaigne on the French language, iii. 164.\n Month, Aryan words for, iv. 404.\n Mont St. Michel in Normandy, iii. 326.\n Moon, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Moors, or Hindustani, iv. 365.\n More, Sir Thomas, iv. 293.\n Moreman, teaches English in Cornwall, iii. 244.\n Morgenstunde hat Gold im Munde, iv. 144.\n Morier, iii. 408.\n Morris, Dr., on Infinitive, iv. 58.\n Moscherosch, iii. 38.\n Moslim, iv. 245.\n Mother, Aryan words for, iv. 401.\n Mother-in-law, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Moulton, Melidunum, iii. 293.\n Mountain, Aryan words for, iv. 424.\n Mount Calvary, Cornish poem, iii. 257.\n Mount Garganus in Apulia, iii. 326, 332.\n Mouse, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n Mouth, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Mule, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n M\u00fcller, Dr. Friedrich, iv. 74 _note_.\n M\u00fcller, O., iii. 400, 431.\n M\u00fcller, Ottfried, and Comparative Philology, iv. 209.\n M\u00fcller, Wilhelm, iii. 100.\n ---- his enjoyment of nature, iii. 103.\n ---- his life at Dessau, iii. 107.\n ---- his \u201cGriechen Lieder,\u201d iii. 107.\n ---- pupil of Wolf, iii. 113.\n ---- his \u201cHomerische Vorschule,\u201d iii. 113.\n Munda dialects and the Khasian language, iv. 348.\n ---- and the Talaing of Pegu, iv. 348.\n Mundas or Koles, dialects of, iv. 347.\n Mure, iii. 419.\n _Musket_, iv. 503.\n Mysore, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n Mystery plays in Cornish, iii. 258, 259.\n Mystics, iii. 18.\n Mythology, iv. 210, 328.\n\n Naaman, iv. 278.\n Nacheinander, iv. 33.\n Na\u00e7u, Zend, corpse, \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03c2, iv. 236.\n Nagpur, Colebrooke at, iv. 380.\n _Nak_, night, iv. 91.\n Nakshatras, the, iv. 508.\n ---- derived from China or Chaldea, iv. 508.\n Name, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n N\u00e2nak, founder of the Sikh religion, iv. 257.\n ---- wisdom of, iv. 311.\n ---- reforms of, iv. 257.\n _Naples_, inflectional, iv. 82.\n Naples, Neapolis, iv. 117.\n Napo, Zend, A.S. nefa, iv. 236.\n Napoleon, iii. 492.\n ---- at the Red Sea, iv. 291.\n \u201cNarrenschiff,\u201d \u201cShip of Fools,\u201d iii. 68, 71.\n ---- Zarneke\u2019s edition of, iii. 71.\n ---- Alexander Barclay\u2019s translation of, iii. 72.\n _Nas-a-ti_, he perishes, iv. 91.\n _N\u00e2sa-ya-ti_, he sends to destruction, iv. 91.\n Nas-i-da, iv. 117.\n _Nas-y\u00e1-te_, he is destroyed, iv. 91.\n _Nas-ya-ti_, he perishes, iv. 91, 92.\n Nasr Allah, his Persian translation of \u201cKahla and Dimnah,\u201d iv. 159.\n National character, iii. 254.\n ---- protection for historical monuments, iii. 276.\n Nattore, Colebrooke at, iv. 370.\n Natural growth, or historical change in language, iv. 422.\n Nature, lines and limits in, iv. 437.\n Nausea, iii. 171.\n Navel, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Neanderthal skull, the, iii. 253.\n Neapolis, iv. 82.\n N\u00e9a-p\u00f3lis, New Town, Ne\u00e1polis, iv. 117.\n _N\u00eacare_, iv. 91.\n Nefa, A.S. nephew, iv. 236.\n Negro skull, iii. 252.\n \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba-\u03c5\u03c2, \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba-\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, iv. 91.\n \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03c2, Goth. naus, iv. 236.\n Nemesis, iv. 220.\n ---- of Faith, Froude\u2019s, iii. 374, 397.\n Nepal, Buddhist priests sent to, iv. 244.\n _Nesh\u00e1\u1e47i_, to lead, iv. 34.\n Neukomm, iii. 411, 473.\n New, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Newman, J. H., and the Jerusalem bishopric, iii. 128.\n ---- and Bunsen, iii. 363, 364.\n ---- his \u201cApologia,\u201d iii. 367.\n New Oxford, iii. 403.\n _Newton_, combinatory, iv. 82.\n _New-town_, combinatory, iv. 82.\n \u201cNibelunge,\u201d the, iii. 7, 12, 54-56.\n Nicholas of Basle, iii. 419.\n Niclas von Weyl, iii. 17.\n Niebuhr, Karsten, the traveller, iii. 126.\n ---- his home at Meldorf, iii. 127.\n Niebuhr, Barthold, the historian, iii. 128, 130, 353, 404.\n ---- his political character, Bunsen on, iii. 416.\n ---- his views of the German professor\u2019s life, iv. 203.\n ---- on truthfulness, iv. 225.\n Night, Aryan words for, iv. 404.\n Nigidius Figulus, iv. 231.\n Nine, Aryan words for, iv. 413.\n Maidens, the Nine, iii. 273.\n \u03bd\u03af\u03c6-\u03b1, acc., iv. 236.\n Nirv\u00e2\u1e47a, iii. 486.\n Nirv\u00e2\u1e47a (dying), iv. 268.\n Nithard, iii. 159.\n Nitzschius, his translation of the \u201cJournal des Savants,\u201d iii. 194.\n Nix, Goth, snaiv-s, iv. 236.\n Noise, iii. 171.\n Nominalists and Realists, iii. 64, 66.\n \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 from \u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, iv. 220.\n Non-missionary religions, iv. 241.\n Nonsuch, palace of, iii. 236.\n Norden, his description of Cornwall, iii. 244.\n Nordleudt, the, iii. 119.\n Norman blood, iii. 249.\n ---- words in Cornish, iii. 260.\n North Turanian Class, iv. 105.\n Northalbingi, the, iii. 119.\n Nose, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Notker Teutonicus, iii. 6.\n Nouns (\u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), iv. 30.\n _Nox_, from nak, iv. 91.\n Numa, iv. 220.\n Nuti, author of \u201cDel Governo de\u2019 regni,\u201d iv. 157.\n \u03bd\u03cd\u03be = nox, iv. 91.\n\n Obligatio, binding, iv. 220.\n Ockham, the Franciscan, iii. 66.\n _Oc-ulus_, iv. 25.\n _Oculus_, iv. 28.\n \u1f44\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03ce, iv. 230.\n Oecolampadius, iii. 29.\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u03b1 and \u1f34\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, iv. 40.\n \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf-\u03c2, in the house, iv. 94.\n \u03bf\u1f36\u03bf\u03c2, one, iv. 236.\n Old, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n ---- ablatives, termination of, iv. 44.\n ---- age extraordinary, iii. 246 _note_.\n ---- B\u00fcsum, iii. 138.\n ---- German Love Songs, iii. 51.\n Olm\u00fctz, iii. 381.\n \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1, iv. 25.\n One, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 and nomen, in Persian n\u00e2m, iv. 324.\n \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, iv. 25.\n Opitz, iii. 33, 34, 36.\n \u1f44\u03c0-\u03c9\u03c0-\u03b1, iv. 25.\n Oppert, Whitney on, iv. 515.\n Orare de Bayard, iii. 205.\n Orichalcum, iii. 290.\n Oriental studies, their claims on support, iv. 336 _seq._\n Origen, iv. 293.\n Origin of language, iv. 67.\n \u201cOrigin of Chinese,\u201d Chalmers\u2019, iv. 105.\n \u201cOrigine des Romans, Trait\u00e9 de l\u2019,\u201d Huet, iv. 151.\n Orl\u00e9ans, Duke of, Egalit\u00e9, iii. 156.\n Oscan grammar, iv. 340.\n Osney, iii. 289.\n \u1f44\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5, iv. 28.\n \u1f44\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5 for \u1f44\u03ba\u03b9\u03b5, iv. 25.\n Ostfalia, the tribe of, iii. 117.\n Oswald von Wolkenstein, iii. 17.\n Otfried, iii. 6.\n Other, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Otho I., and Denmark, iii. 119.\n Overweg, iii. 419.\n Ox, cow, bull, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n Oxenford, iii. 236.\n Oxford chair of Greek, iv. 11.\n ---- ---- Hebrew, iv. 11.\n ---- ---- Arabic, iv. 12.\n ---- ---- Anglo-Saxon, iv. 12.\n ---- ---- Sanskrit, iv. 13.\n Oxford chair of Latin, iv. 13.\n ---- ---- Comparative Philology, iv. 13.\n ---- Realists at, iii. 65.\n ---- King of Prussia\u2019s remark on, iii. 238.\n ---- name of, iii. 289.\n ---- Ryt-ychen, Welsh name for, iii. 290.\n ---- Bunsen at, iii. 365.\n ---- Lectures at, iii. 407.\n ---- University of, claim of Oriental studies on, iv. 337.\n ---- what it might do for Missions, iv. 338.\n Oyez, iii. 262.\n\n Pada-cases, iv. 133.\n Pairida\u00eaza in Zend, iv. 22.\n Paithya, Zend, sua-pte, iv. 236.\n Palaitiological sciences, iv. 427.\n Palleske\u2019s \u201cLife of Schiller,\u201d iii. 76.\n Palmerston, iii. 475, 492.\n Pandit, the, iv. 335.\n Pandoo Coolies, in Malabar, iii. 269.\n P\u00e2\u1e47ini, iv. 20, 332.\n Pa\u00f1catantra, the, or Pentateuch, or Pentamerone, iv. 141.\n ---- Perrette borrowed from, iv. 142.\n Pant\u00e6nus, iv. 293.\n Pantschatantra, the, iv. 183.\n Parable of the man pursued by the unicorn, iv. 170.\n Para-Brahma, the, iv. 256.\n Paradise and Sanskrit paradesa, iv. 22.\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, iv. 31.\n Paraschematic growth of early themes, iv. 129.\n \u201cParcival,\u201d Wolfram\u2019s, iii. 54.\n Pard\u00e8s in Hebrew, iv. 22.\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, iv. 31.\n Parental and controversial work of missionaries, iv. 253.\n Paribhv\u00ea from paribh\u00fbs, iv. 233.\n Paris, university of, iv. 11.\n Paris, Paulin, on Joinville, iii. 161.\n Parker, Abp., his collection of Anglo-Saxon MSS., iv. 12.\n Parlerai, je, iv. 75.\n _Parsh\u00e1\u1e47i_, infinitive, to cross, iv. 34.\n Parsis do not proselytize, iv. 242.\n ---- in Bombay, iv. 305.\n ---- their wish to increase their sect, iv. 305.\n Pat, the root, iv. 461.\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 and \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 in Persian, iv. 323.\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 = pit\u1ea5, pit\u00e1ram, iv. 232.\n Paternal missionary, the, iv. 316.\n P\u00e2tram, from p\u00e2, iv. 228.\n Patteson, Bishop, iv. 254.\n ---- on missions, iv. 262.\n ---- as an Oxford man, iv. 338.\n ---- on the \u201cTheologia Germanica,\u201d iii. 480.\n Paul Gerhard, iii. 31.\n Pauli, iii. 395, 403.\n Pausilipo, Virgil\u2019s tomb at, iv. 284.\n Payer, in the sense of pacifying, iii. 171.\n Peat deposits, iv. 501.\n Peel, Sir Robert, iii. 368, 377.\n ---- his feeling for Bunsen, iii. 347.\n Pehlevi translation of fables, iv. 152.\n \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03c9, f\u0153dus, iv. 39.\n Pelasgians, are Lycians, iii. 396.\n \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, vocative, iv. 233.\n Penel-tun, iii. 301.\n Pengelly, Mr., on the Insulation of St. Michael\u2019s Mount, iii. 316.\n Penguaul, iii. 301.\n Penhow, iii. 300.\n Penny come quick, iii. 292.\n Peretu, Zend, bridge, _portus_, iv. 236.\n _Perfidus_, faithless, iv. 39.\n Period of Adverbs, in the Aryan language, iv. 135.\n Period of the formation of cases, in the Aryan language, iv. 135.\n _Per-nic-i-es_, iv. 95.\n Perrette and the Pot au Lait, iv. 139.\n ---- story of, in Italian by Giulio Nuti, iv. 190.\n ---- in Latin, by Petrus Possinus, from Greek, iv. 191.\n ---- in Latin, by Johannes of Capua, from Hebrew, iv. 192.\n ---- in German, in \u201cBuch der alten Weisheit,\u201d translated from the\n \u201cDirectorium,\u201d iv. 193.\n ---- in Spanish from Arabic (1289), iv. 194.\n ---- in Latin verse by Balbo from Arabic, iv. 195.\n ---- in Latin verse by Regnerius, iv. 195.\n ---- in Latin sermons, iv. 196.\n ---- in Spanish \u201cEl Conde Lucanor,\u201d iv. 197.\n ---- in French, by Bonaventure des Periers, iv. 197.\n Persian and Arab stories brought back by the Crusaders, iv. 148.\n Pertsch, iii. 440.\n Pertz, iii. 397, 401.\n _Pessum dare_, iv. 132.\n Petrus de Alliaco, iii. 65.\n Ph\u00e6drus\u2019 fables, iv. 140.\n \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, a quiver, iv. 129.\n \u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, not faul, iv. 104.\n Phenician alphabet, the ultimate source of the world\u2019s alphabets,\n iv. 430, 468.\n \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, a bier, iv. 129.\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 = \u03c0\u03b9\u03dd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, iv. 228.\n \u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 = p\u00eevara, iv. 228.\n ---- adjective of cream, iv. 228.\n Philip Augustus, King of France, iii. 51.\n Philip le Bel, iii. 175.\n Philippe de Comines, iii. 173.\n Phlogiston, iv. 444.\n Phocion, iv. 431.\n Ph\u0153nix, father of Europa, iii. 249.\n Phonetic organs very imperfect in animals nearest to man, iv. 440.\n \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2, tribute, iv. 129.\n Photolithograph of the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya, iv. 344.\n Phrygians, Greek words formed from the, iv. 66.\n \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03be, iv. 131.\n Physique, Bacon\u2019s, iii. 223.\n Pierre le Baud, refers to Joinville, iii. 157.\n Pilpay, the Indian sage, iv. 140, 159.\n Pit\u00e1, pit\u00e1ram, iv. 232.\n P\u00eevaras, fat, iv. 228.\n P\u00eevar\u00ee, young girl, iv. 228.\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6, vocative, iv. 233.\n Platen, iii. 402.\n Platner\u2019s \u201cDescription of Rome,\u201d Bunsen\u2019s part, in, iii. 362.\n Plato, his views on language, iv. 64.\n ---- his \u201cKratylos,\u201d iv. 65.\n Platt Deutsch, iii. 123.\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 236.\n Pliny on Druids, iii. 241.\n Plumbum, iv. 461.\n Plunge, to, iv. 461.\n Plural in Bengali, iv. 74.\n ---- of the pronoun I, iv. 126.\n Pococke, Professor of Arabic, iv. 12.\n Poem on Anno, iii. 9.\n _P\u0153na_, punishment, iv. 217.\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9-\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd, iv. 32.\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae, p\u0153na, Gr\u00e6co-Italic, according to Mommsen, iv. 216.\n Polsch, wild, iii. 131.\n Polysynthetic dialects of America, iv. 70, 85.\n Pomegranate, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n \u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5, vocative, iv. 232.\n _Pontifex_, iv. 134.\n Pontus and Sidonia, iii. 70.\n Pope Pius II. (\u00c6neas Sylvius), iii. 63.\n Portsmouth, iii. 305.\n Portus = Zend peretu, iv. 236.\n \u03a0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd, vocative, iv. 232.\n Possinus, author of Latin translation of \u201cStephanites and\n Ichnelates,\u201d iv. 157.\n Pott\u2019s article on Max M\u00fcller, iv. 80 _note_.\n Pott on Curtius, iv. 518.\n Pourchasser, iii. 172.\n Power of combination, iv. 117.\n Prague, University of, iii. 65.\n Prantl on the Reform of Logic, iv. 485.\n Precession of the Equinox, iv. 508.\n Predicative roots, iv. 121.\n Prefixing languages, iv. 85.\n Prepositions, Aryan words for, iv. 413.\n Present, aorist, and reduplicated perfect, as forming a skeleton\n conjugation, iv. 128.\n Prichard, Dr., iii. 363.\n Primary verbal period of the Aryan language, iv. 125.\n Primitive languages in India, iii. 422.\n Prince Eugene, iii. 32, 33.\n Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, iii. 410.\n Prince and Princess of Prussia in England, 1851, iii. 410.\n Princes and the German people, iii. 412.\n Princes, disciples of Buddha, iv. 267.\n Princeps juventutis, the, iii. 413.\n \u201cPrincipes de la Nature,\u201d by Renouvier, iv. 420.\n \u201cPrinciples of Comparative Philology,\u201d Sayce\u2019s, iv. 122.\n Printing, invention of, iii. 21, 23.\n Prize fellowships, iv. 8.\n Procreate, to, root SU, Aryan words for, iv. 415. [[Index su]]\n Professorial knight-errantry, iii. 28.\n Pronoun I, plural of, iv. 126.\n Pronouns, Aryan words for, iv. 413.\n Proselyte, meaning of, iv. 303.\n Proselytes among the Jews, iv. 241.\n Proselytizing, etymological sense of, iv. 306.\n Protagoras, iv. 424.\n Protoplasm, iv. 458.\n Proverbs, Schleswig-Holstein, iii. 131.\n Prussia, King of, his remark on Oxford, iii. 238.\n ---- Constitution granted, 1847, iii. 377.\n Psalms and Vedic hymns contrasted, iv. 352.\n Psylli, of Egypt, the, iv. 370.\n Ptolemaic system, iv. 444.\n Ptolemy, mention of the Saxons by, iii. 117.\n Public schools in Rome, iii. 21.\n Pufendorf, iii. 38.\n Purchase, to, iii. 172.\n Purgare, for purigare, iv. 217.\n Purneah, Colebrooke at, iv. 369.\n P\u016brus and p\u016dtus, iv. 217.\n Pusey, Philip, iii. 421.\n ---- his illness, iii. 442.\n Puteoli, St. Paul at, iv. 284.\n\n \u201cQalilag and Damnag,\u201d iv. 183.\n ---- finding the MS. of, iv. 186.\n Quantus = y\u00e2vat, iv. 236.\n \u201cQuarterly Review,\u201d iii. 401.\n ---- ---- article in the, iv. 418.\n _Que_, Latin, iv. 26.\n Queen Elizabeth, iii. 234.\n ---- at Greenwich, iii. 235.\n Queen Victoria, opening Parliament, iii. 371.\n \u201cQuickborn,\u201d by Klaus Groth, iii. 132.\n Quin\u00f4, \u03b2\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1, Zend, geni, iv. 62.\n Quoife Dieu, la, iii. 190.\n\n _R_\u03c1 or \u03c1r or \u03c1r\u03c1, third stage of language, iv. 79.\n \u03c1 + _R_, second stage of language, iv. 79.\n \u03c1 + _R_ + \u03c1, second stage of language, iv. 79.\n _R_ + \u03c1, second stage of language, iv. 79.\n _R. R._ first stage of language, iv. 79.\n Rabelais, his \u201cGargantua,\u201d iv. 161.\n Rabener, iii. 40.\n \u201cRaces of the World, the,\u201d Brace\u2019s Manual, iii. 252.\n Races without any religious ideas, iv. 341.\n R\u00e2\u00e7ta, Zend, rectus, iv. 236.\n Radowitz, iii. 401, 407.\n Raffles, Lady, iii. 432.\n Rajatam, iv. 235.\n _R\u00e2ja-ya-te_, he behaves like a king, iv. 91.\n Raimond de Beziers, his transl. of \u201cKalila and Dimnah\u201d into Latin\n verse, iv. 161.\n Rajan\u00eek\u00e2nta\u2019s \u201cLife of Jajadeva,\u201d iv. 335.\n Rajendra Lal Mitra, iv. 334, 345.\n Rajmahal Koles, iv. 347.\n Rajnarain Bose, on the Brahma-San\u00e2j, iv. 269.\n R\u00e2m\u00e2nanda, 14th century, the reformer, iv. 256.\n ---- sect of, iv. 311.\n R\u00e2m\u00e2nuja, 12th century, the reformer, iv. 256.\n ---- sect of, iv. 311.\n Ram Dass Sen, iv. 335.\n Ram Mohun Roy and the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j, iv. 258, 311, 312, 356.\n ---- unable to read his own sacred books, iv. 356.\n Ranchi, Missionaries at, iv. 347.\n Rap, Zend, = repere, iv. 237.\n Rastell\u2019s translation of the \u201cDialogus Creaturarum,\u201d iv. 162.\n Rathakaras, the, iv. 307.\n Rational knowledge of Grammar, iv. 29.\n Raumer, studies of, iv. 104.\n Raw, = hr\u00e2o, iv. 235.\n Rawlinson, Sir H., iv. 2.\n Rawlinson, founder of the Oxford Chair of Anglo-Saxon, iv. 13.\n Realists and Nominalists, iii. 64, 65.\n Realists at Oxford, iii. 65.\n Recall of Bunsen, iii. 409.\n Rectus Zend, r\u00e2\u00e7ta, iv. 236.\n _Red_ (Sk. harit, fulvus), iv. 100.\n Reformation, iii. 41.\n R\u0113g\u012d-fugium, not regis-fugium, iv. 134.\n _Regin_, cunning, iv. 88.\n _Regin-hart_, fox, iv. 88.\n Regniers\u2019 Life of Schiller, iii. 76.\n Reichsverweser, the, iii. 396.\n _Reinaert_, fox, Low German, iv. 89.\n \u201cReinhard the Fox,\u201d iii. 9.\n Reinmar, iii. 59.\n Religions, historical, Semitic and Aryan, iv. 239.\n ---- as shown in their Scriptures, iv. 299.\n ---- Missionary, iv. 303.\n ---- inferences as to, drawn from their Scriptures qualified by\n actual observation, iv. 299.\n ---- all Oriental, iv. 328.\n Religious doubts in Louis IX.\u2019s time, iii. 182.\n Religious ideas, races without, iv. 341.\n Renan, iii. 456; iv. 451.\n ---- on \u201cKalilag and Damnag,\u201d iv. 181.\n ---- Whitney on, iv. 515.\n \u201cRenner,\u201d by Hugo von Trimberg, iii. 16.\n Renouvier, author of \u201cLes Principes de la Nature,\u201d iv. 420.\n Repere, = Zend rap, iv. 237.\n Reports sent to the Colonial Office on native races, iv. 340.\n Resemblance between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, Sir W. Jones on the,\n iv. 323.\n Reuchlin, iii. 67.\n Revolt of the Netherlands, Schiller\u2019s History of, iii. 89.\n Rheinsberg, Frederick the Great at, iii. 202.\n Ribhus, the Vedic gods, iv. 307.\n _Richard_, iv. 90.\n Richard, C\u0153ur de Lion, iii. 154.\n Richard, King of Romans, iii. 307.\n Right, Goth. raiht, iv. 236.\n Right of private judgment, iv. 386.\n Rigord, iii. 159.\n Rig-Veda, the Commentary of Say\u00e2\u1e47\u00e2c\u00e2rya, iv. 350.\n _Rik-ard_, a rich fellow, iv. 89.\n \u201cRobbers,\u201d Schiller\u2019s, iii. 82.\n _Robin_, iv. 503.\n Robinson, Sir Hercules, iv. 341.\n Rock or Stone, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n R\u00f6diger, iii. 411.\n \u201cRoland,\u201d by Konrad, iii. 9.\n Roman influence in Cornwall, iii. 238.\n Roman religion in the second century, Gibbon on the, iv. 310.\n Romantic School, iii. 60.\n Rome, Bunsen\u2019s life at, iii. 356.\n ---- Platner\u2019s Description of, iii. 362.\n Root Period, of the undivided Aryan language, iv. 119.\n Root vis, to settle down, iv. 112.\n Roots, iv. 463.\n Roots, Semitic, investigations on, iii. 427.\n ---- triliteral, iii. 422.\n ---- _Ak_, iv. 28.\n ---- Uh, iv. 28.\n ---- predicative and demonstrative, iv. 121.\n ---- as postulates, or as actual words, iv. 120.\n ---- not mere abstractions, iv. 119.\n ---- monosyllabic forms of, iv. 121.\n ---- none without concepts, iv. 477.\n Rosen, iv. 336, 356.\n Ross, or vale, iii. 292.\n Rothe, R., iii. 399.\n Roug\u00e9, iv. 468.\n Roxburgh\u2019s \u201cFlora Indica,\u201d iv. 384.\n Royal Exchange or Bursa, iii. 234.\n Royal power, in Germany, France, England, iii. 34.\n Royal Asiatic Society, iv. 392.\n Rudolf von Ems, iii. 15.\n Rudolph von Hapsburg, iii. 17.\n \u201cRuodlieb,\u201d poem on, iii. 7.\n Russell, Lord John, iii. 378.\n Russians, the, efforts at Berlin, iii. 436.\n Ryswick, treaty of, iii. 32.\n Ryt-ychen, iii. 290.\n\n S, as original termination of feminine bases in \u00e2, iv. 45.\n \u201cSacred Anthology,\u201d Conway\u2019s, iv. 329.\n Sacred Books of Mankind, translation of, iv. 321.\n Sacred cord of the Brahmans, iv. 260.\n Sai from tva-tvi, iv. 125.\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, termination of infinitive, iv. 51.\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, termination of 2d pers. sing. imper. 1 aor. middle, iv. 51.\n \u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c3-\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 133.\n \u201cSakuntala,\u201d K\u00e2lid\u00e2sa\u2019s play of, iv. 323.\n Sal\u00e2m, peace, 245 _note_.\n Salamanca, University of, iv. 11.\n Samprad\u00e2na, dative, iv. 49.\n ---- its meaning, iv. 49.\n ---- its use, iv. 49.\n Sa\u1e43v\u00e2ran\u00e2daghos\u00e2\u1e25, iv. 498.\n Sani, san\u00e1ye, sanim, iv. 52.\n Sanna, or Chandaka, Buddha\u2019s driver, iv. 175.\n Sanskrit, chair of, iv. 13.\n ---- studied by Sassetti, iv. 14.\n ---- studied by C\u0153urdoux, le P\u00e8re, iv. 14.\n ---- studied by Frederic Schlegel, iv. 15.\n ---- only sound foundation of Comparative Philology, iv. 19.\n ---- gerundive participle in, iv. 95.\n ---- the augment in, iv. 114.\n ---- fables in, iv. 140.\n ---- and Zend, close union of, iv. 212, 215.\n ---- most closely united with Zend (Burnouf), iv. 215.\n ---- Dictionary by T\u00e2r\u00e2n\u00e2tha, iv. 335.\n ---- scholars, old school of, iv. 334.\n ---- discovery of, iv. 363.\n ---- Colebrooke professor of, iv. 381.\n ---- and Prakrit poetry, Colebrooke\u2019s essay on, iv. 381.\n ---- Grammar by Colebrooke, iv. 381.\n ---- MSS. of Colebrooke, presented to the East India Company, iv. 392.\n ---- Dictionary published by Professors Boehtlingk and Roth, iv. 511.\n ---- Grammar, Max M\u00fcller\u2019s, iv. 519.\n Saracens, iii. 300.\n ---- in Cornwall, iii. 308.\n Sarti, on Latin Inscriptions, iii. 419.\n _Sarvan\u00e2man_, pronoun, iv. 430.\n Sassetti, Filippo, iv. 14.\n Satn\u00e2mis, sect of the, iv. 314.\n \u201cSaturday Review,\u201d iii. 480.\n Saw, Sage, and S\u00e4ge, iv. 220.\n Saxon, dialect, iii. 122.\n ---- influence in Cornwall, iii. 238.\n ---- words in Cornish, iii. 260.\n Saxons, mentioned by Ptolemy, iii. 116.\n Sava\u1e47a\u2019s Commentary, iv. 386.\n Sayce, \u201cPrinciples of Comparative Philology,\u201d iv. 122.\n \u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c2, not jas, iv. 62.\n Scawen on use of Cornish, iii. 245.\n Schaaffhausen on skulls, iii. 253.\n Scharnhorst, iii. 416.\n Schelling, iii. 432; iv. 446.\n Schenkendorf, iii. 402.\n Scherer, Dr., \u201cHistory of the German Language,\u201d iv. 101 _note_.\n Schiller, iii. 40-43, 75.\n ---- Carlyle\u2019s Life of, iii. 76.\n ---- Palleske\u2019s Life of, iii. 76.\n ---- Regnier\u2019s Life of, iii. 76.\n ---- his childhood, iii. 78.\n ---- his boyhood, iii. 80.\n ---- his studies, iii. 81.\n ---- his \u201cRobbers,\u201d iii. 82.\n ---- his \u201cFiesco,\u201d iii. 84.\n ---- his \u201cCabale and Liebe,\u201d iii. 84.\n ---- his wife, iii. 85.\n ---- his \u201cHistory of the Revolt of the Netherlands,\u201d iii. 89.\n ---- his \u201cHistory of the Thirty Years\u2019 War,\u201d iii. 90.\n ---- his friendship with Goethe, iii. 92.\n ---- his \u201cWallenstein,\u201d iii. 92.\n ---- his \u201cSong of the Bell,\u201d iii. 92.\n ---- his \u201cMary Stuart,\u201d iii. 92.\n ---- his \u201cMaid of Orleans,\u201d iii. 92, 97.\n ---- his \u201cBride of Messina,\u201d iii. 92, 97.\n ---- his \u201cWilliam Tell,\u201d iii. 92, 97.\n ---- his study of Kant, iii. 94.\n ---- his \u201cDon Carlos,\u201d iii. 95.\n Schimmelmann, iii. 88.\n Schism in the Brahma-Sam\u00e2j, iv. 200, 209.\n Schlegel, iv. 393.\n ---- Frederic, his interest in Indian subjects, iii. 300.\n ---- his knowledge of Sanskrit, iv. 15.\n Schleicher, iv. 521.\n ---- his Slavonic studies, iv. 17.\n ---- his Essay, \u201cDarwinism tested by the Science of Language,\u201d\n iv. 480.\n ---- Whitney on, iv. 516.\n Schleiermacher\u2019s \u201cDiscourses on Religion,\u201d iii. 398.\n ---- \u201cDogmatics,\u201d iii. 398.\n Schleswig, iii. 436.\n Schleswig-Holstein, its language and poetry, iii. 116.\n ---- question, the, iii. 380, 401.\n Schlettstadt, schools at, iii. 64.\n Schl\u00f6zer, von, his sketch of Chasot, iii. 200.\n Schl\u00fcter, Dr. C. B., iv. 330 _note_.\n Schnitter, Agricola, iii. 29.\n Scholars, two classes of, iv. 395.\n Schools, in Germany, first, iii. 22.\n Schopenhauer, iv. 446.\n Schott, Peter, iii. 64.\n Schubart, iii. 84.\n Schubert, Franz, iii. 102.\n Schupp, iii. 38.\n Sch\u00fctz, iii. 433.\n Schwabe, Madame, iii. 458.\n Schwarz the missionary, and Hyder Ali, iv. 285.\n Schwarzerd, Melancthon, iii. 29.\n \u201cSchyppe of Fooles,\u201d iii. 62.\n Science, the term, iv. 482.\n ---- of Language, a natural or historical science, iv. 222.\n ---- ---- Benfey\u2019s History of the, iv. 325.\n ---- ---- a physical science, iv. 429, 475.\n ---- ---- an historical science, iv. 429.\n ---- ---- all is chaos in, iv. 522.\n ---- of Man, iv. 322.\n Scott, Sir Walter, iii. 362.\n Scrir-u-m\u00eas, we cry, iv. 219.\n Scythian monuments in the Dekhan, iii. 269.\n Sebastian Brant, iii. 64, 67.\n ---- his \u201cShip of Fools,\u201d iii. 24, 29.\n ---- at Strassburg, iii. 67.\n ---- his \u201cNarrenschiff,\u201d iii. 68.\n Second period of Aryan language, derivative roots, iv. 124.\n Secretary of State for India in Council, iv. 350.\n See, to, root D\u1e5a\u015a, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n [[Index Dris, Colebrooke DR\u012cS]]\n Self-defense in, iv. 456.\n Semitic and Iranian forms, compared with Egyptian forms, iii. 411.\n ---- roots, investigations on, iii. 427.\n ---- family, iv. 70, 71.\n ---- religions, true historical, iv. 239.\n Semnones, iii. 224.\n Sendebar, or Bidpay, iv. 158.\n Sereur for s\u0153ur, iii. 166.\n Sergius, a Christian, at Khalif Al-mansur\u2019s court, iv. 167.\n Serpent, Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n Services of scholars in India, iv. 355.\n Seven, Aryan words, for, iv. 412.\n \u201cSeven Wise Masters,\u201d the, iii. 18; iv. 166.\n Seven stages of the undivided Aryan language, iv. 118.\n Seventh period of the Aryan language, iv. 135.\n Shakespeare, iii. 214.\n ---- compared with Bacon, iii. 225.\n Shamefast, iii. 289.\n _Shamefast_, shamefaced, iv. 90.\n Shepherds of the Pegnitz, iii. 38.\n Shin\u00e2 dialects, iv. 349.\n Ship or Boat, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n \u201cShip of Fools,\u201d the, iii. 24, 29, 67, 70, 72.\n _Ship_, in ladyship, iv. 75.\n _Shradh_, ancestral sacrifices, iv. 270.\n \u201cSigns of the Times,\u201d Bunsen\u2019s, iii. 382, 459.\n Sikh religion, iv. 257.\n Sikhs, iv. 370.\n Silbury Hill, iii. 285.\n Silesian School, First, iii. 33.\n Silesian School, Second, iii. 38.\n ---- ---- defeated, iii. 39.\n Simple roots, first period of Aryan language, iv. 124.\n \u201cSimplicissimus, the,\u201d iii. 38.\n Sin, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n Sinc\u00e8rement, sincerely, iv. 111.\n Singhalese, corruption of Sanskrit, iv. 342.\n Sister, Aryan words for, iv. 402.\n Sit, to, root SAD, Aryan words for, iv. 414.\n \u015aiva, worship of, iv. 309.\n Six, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n Sixth period of the Aryan language, iv. 135.\n Skeleton of logical statement, iv. 434.\n Skulls, iii. 252.\n ---- Negro, iii. 252.\n ---- Bachmann on, iii. 252.\n ---- Huschke on, iii. 252.\n ---- Huxley on, iii. 253.\n ---- Hindu, iii. 253.\n Sky, Heaven, Aryan words for, iv. 404.\n Slavonic, studied by Miklosich and Schleicher, iv. 7.\n ---- is most closely united with German (Grimm, Schleicher), iv. 215.\n Sleep, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Small boat, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Snake charmers of India, iv. 370.\n Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Linguistique, iv. 67.\n Socin, Dr. Albert, iv. 185.\n Sokrates and \u00c6sop\u2019s fables, iv. 139.\n Sommervogel, his Index to the \u201cJournal de Tr\u00e9voux,\u201d iii. 195.\n Son, Aryan words for, iv. 401.\n \u201cSong of the Bell,\u201d the, Schiller\u2019s, iii. 92.\n Son-in-law, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Son\u2019s son, Aryan words for, iv. 402.\n Soror, huir, hoer, iii. 263.\n \u03c3\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, vocative, iv. 232.\n Sound, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Sound, broad degrees of, iv. 437.\n South Turanian class, iv. 105.\n Southern division of the Aryans, iv. 212.\n Spanish translation of fables, called \u201cCalila \u00e9 Dymna,\u201d iv. 161.\n Species, a thing of human workmanship, iv. 438.\n ---- Darwin\u2019s book an attempt to repeal the term, iv. 439.\n Specific differences, two classes of, iv. 441.\n Speech, geology and chemistry of, iv. 449.\n Spencer\u2019s \u201cFirst Principles,\u201d iv. 341.\n Spencerian savages, iv. 341.\n Spener, iii. 38.\n Spinoza, his opinion of Bacon, iii. 218.\n Sprachwissenschaft, iv. 482.\n Sprenger, iii. 486.\n \u015ar\u00e2v-ay\u00e2mas, we make hear, iv. 219.\n \u015aromata, from root \u015bru, iv. 219.\n St. Antony, iv. 293.\n Sts. Barlaam and Josaphat, iv. 177.\n ---- their feast-days in the Eastern and Latin Churches, iv. 177.\n St. Boniface, \u2020 755, iii. 4.\n St. Denis, monks of, as chroniclers, iii. 155.\n St. Francis of Assisi, iv. 293.\n St. John of Damascus, iv. 167.\n St. Josaphat is Buddha, iv. 180.\n St. Gall, monks of, iii. 19.\n St. Gall, \u2020 638, iii. 4, 6.\n St. Kilian, \u2020 681, iii. 4.\n St. Kiran, iii. 301.\n St. Louis, iii. 151.\n St. Michael, apparitions of, iii. 325.\n St. Michael\u2019s Mount, iii. 316.\n ---- ---- Mr. Pengelly on, iii. 316.\n ---- ---- Diodorus Siculus on, iii. 318.\n ---- ---- William of Worcester on, iii. 323-325.\n ---- ---- called Tumba, iii. 326.\n St. Patrick, his life by Jocelin, iii. 300.\n St. Paul, Festus, and Agrippa, iv. 277.\n ---- at Virgil\u2019s tomb, iv. 284.\n St. Perran, iii. 299.\n St. Piran, iii. 301-304.\n St. Thomas, Christians of, iv. 184.\n Stanley\u2019s Sermon of Missions, iv. 276.\n Star, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Stein, Baron von, iii. 362.\n Steinschneider, iii. 413.\n Steinthal, iv. 431, 521, 522.\n ---- his answer to Whitney, iv. 505.\n Stephen, Sir James, iii. 173.\n \u201cStephanites and Ichnelates,\u201d iv. 156.\n ---- ---- Italian translation of, iv. 157.\n ---- ---- Latin translation of, iv. 157.\n Sterling, its meaning, iii. 117.\n Stevenson, iv. 336.\n _Sth\u00e2_, to reveal by gestures, iv. 49.\n Stockmar, Baron, iii. 378, 401.\n Stokes, Whitley, iv. 345.\n ---- ---- his edition of \u201cMount Calvary,\u201d iii. 257 _note_.\n ---- ---- his edition of \u201cThe Creation,\u201d iii. 258 _note_.\n Stolberg, the Counts, iii. 127.\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1 = Zend \u00e7taman, iv. 237.\n Stonehenge, iii. 265.\n Storm gods, invocations of the, iv. 352.\n Stomarn, iii. 119.\n Strangford, Lord, iv. 2.\n Strassburg, Lecture at, iv. 199.\n Stratford-on-Avon, iii. 214.\n Stratification of Language, iv. 63.\n Strew, to, root ST\u1e5a, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n [[Index Str\u012d, Colebrooke STR\u012c]]\n Stricker, Der, iii. 15.\n _Stud-i-um_, iv. 95.\n \u03c3\u03c4\u03cd\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, hateful, iv. 94.\n St\u00fcremburg\u2019s so-called Old-Friesian Dictionary, iii. 123 _note_.\n Sturmarii, the, iii. 119.\n Stush\u00e9 and stushe, iv. 51, 57.\n Suapte, iv. 236.\n Subdue, to, root DAM, Aryan words for, iv. 414.\n Subjunctive, lengthening of vowel in, iv. 114.\n Suchenwirt, poems of, iii. 17.\n Suffixes, Aryan, iv. 33.\n Suffixing languages, iv. 85.\n Suger, Abbot, iii. 159.\n \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, iv. 31.\n \u201cSumma Theologi\u00e6\u201d of Aquinas, iv. 287.\n Sun, the, as regulating festivals, iii. 284.\n ---- Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n \u201cSupplementary Digest,\u201d Colebrooke\u2019s, iv. 380, 384, 388.\n Surd and sonant, iv. 498.\n Surgeons and physicians in the French army, iii. 152.\n Svas\u1e5b, sister, iv. 110 _note_.\n Sweetard, iv. 89 _note_.\n Sweet-ard, sweet-heart, iv. 89.\n Sweetheart, from sweet-ard, iv. 89.\n Sweetheart, iii. 289.\n _Sweeting_, iv. 89 _note_.\n Symeon, son of Seth, his Greek translation of fables, iv. 156.\n Syncretistic period in Comparative Philology, iv. 17.\n Synod of Trier, 1231, iii. 20.\n Syriac translation of the fables, discovered by Benfey, iv. 181.\n System of declension in ancient French, iii. 167.\n\n T, changed into Latin _d_, iv. 44.\n Table turning, iii. 420.\n Tacitus, iv. 333.\n _Tad_, final dental of, iv. 43.\n _Tad-\u00eeya_, iv. 44.\n Tad-v\u00e2n, iv. 44.\n Tagore, Debendran\u00e2th, iv. 259.\n Takht-i-bahai hills, the, iv. 349.\n Ta\u1e37a or Da\u1e37a, a host, iv. 74 _note_.\n Talaing of Pegu, and the Munda dialects, iv. 348.\n \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c9, \u03c4\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, = talio, Gr\u00e6co-Italic, according to Mommsen, iv. 216.\n Talio, Gr\u00e6co-Italic, iv. 216.\n Talkig, talkative, iii. 131.\n Talleyrand, iv. 435.\n Tar, tra, tram, tras, trak, trap, iv. 123.\n Tara and \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf, iv. 213.\n T\u00e2ran\u00e2th\u00e2\u2019s Sanskrit Dictionary, iv. 335.\n Tasthushas, iv. 490.\n _Tat_, Sanskrit, iv. 43.\n Tath\u00e2gata, iv. 268.\n Tauler, iii. 18, 419.\n Taylorian Professorship, iii. 436.\n Taylor\u2019s article on Hippolytus, iii. 418.\n Technical terms, introduction of new, iv. 348.\n Tedmarsgoi, the, iii. 119.\n Telemachus, the hermit, iv. 293.\n Ten, Aryan words for, iv. 413.\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c9, iv. 94.\n Tenuis, the, iv. 495.\n Terminations of the future, iv. 93.\n ---- of cases, were local adverbs, iv. 96.\n ---- of the medium, iv. 126.\n Terminations, Aryan, iv. 412.\n \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03b1 and \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, iv. 40.\n Teutonic languages, Jacob Grimm\u2019s study of, iv. 17.\n Thas, from tva-tvi, iv. 125.\n _Thata_, Gothic, iv. 43.\n \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, law, iv. 236.\n Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, iii. 412.\n Theodoric, the Visigoth, iii. 412.\n \u201cTheologia Germanica,\u201d iii. 419.\n ---- Pattison on, iii. 480.\n Theological bias, iv. 428.\n Theology, comparative, first attempt at, iv. 170.\n \u0398\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2, same as Deus, iv. 210, 227.\n ---- from \u03b8\u03ad\u03c9 (Plato and Schleicher), iv. 229.\n ---- from dhava (Hoffmann), iv. 229.\n ---- from dhi (B\u00fchler), iv. 229.\n ---- from \u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 (Herodotus, Goebel, and Curtius), iv. 229.\n ---- from divya (Ascoli), iv. 229.\n \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, not \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, iv. 433.\n \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._ \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, iv. 229.\n Theudas and Devadatta, iv. 176.\n Thibaut, Dr., iv. 330.\n Thin, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n Thing, wealth, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Third period of the Aryan language, iv. 124.\n Thirlwall, iii. 362.\n Thirty Years\u2019 War, the, iii. 30.\n ---- period since the, iii. 41.\n ---- Schiller\u2019s history of, iii. 90.\n Tholuck, iii. 399.\n Thomas \u00e0 Becket, iii. 51.\n Thomas Aquinas, iii. 18.\n Thomasin von Zerclar, iii. 15.\n Thomasius, iii. 39.\n Thomson, Dr., and the \u201cTheologia Germanica,\u201d iii. 420, 439.\n Thorismund, son of Theodoric, iii. 412.\n Thorwaldsen, iii. 362.\n Thr\u00e2fa\u1e47h = \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2, iv. 236.\n Three, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n Three men\u2019s songs, iii. 258.\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, in Persian dockter, iv. 323.\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 = duhit\u1ea5, duhit\u00e1ram, iv. 232.\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 = duhit\u00e2, iv. 228.\n \u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1 = dv\u00e2r, iv. 228.\n Thuringian dialect, iii. 122.\n Thursday, Market, iii. 295.\n Tibetan and Chinese, iv. 105.\n ---- tones in, iv. 106.\n Tieck, iii. 53.\n Timbre, iv. 449.\n Time reckoned by the Hindu astronomers in four ways, iv. 367.\n Tin, iii. 256.\n ---- raised by Jews, iii. 311.\n Tippoo, defeat of, iv. 365.\n Tirhut, Colebrooke made collector of revenue at, iv. 365.\n \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, iv. 34.\n Tobaca, iii. 234.\n _To-come_, Low German adjective, iv. 38.\n _Tokum Jahr, de_, a to-come year, iv. 38.\n Tol-m\u00ean or d\u00f4l-men, iii. 271.\n Tones in Tibetan, iv. 106.\n Tooth, Aryan words for, iv. 406.\n Torg, market, iii. 310.\n Torrentinus, iii. 64.\n Tournemine, iii. 196.\n Tower of London, iii. 234.\n Towle Sarasin, iii. 307.\n Town, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Traditional interpretation of the Veda, iv. 386.\n Trait\u00e9 de l\u2019Origine des Romans, Huet, iv. 151.\n Transalbiani, the, iii. 119.\n Transliteration, system of, iii. 403.\n ---- alphabet, iii. 427.\n Treaty of London, iii. 116.\n Tree, Aryan words for, iv. 408.\n -\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b5\u03c2 = thr\u00e2fa\u1e47h, iv. 236.\n Trevelyan, iii. 489.\n Tr\u00e9voux, town of, iii. 195.\n Tri, tru, trup, trib, iv. 123.\n Triliteral roots, iii. 422.\n Trimberg, Hugo von, iii. 16.\n Trithemius, iii. 67, 68.\n Trithen, Mr., iii. 396.\n Trojan horse, the story of, iv. 149.\n Troubadours or Trouv\u00e8res, iii. 9.\n Trouv\u00e8res or Troubadours, iii. 9.\n Trou-ville, iii. 305.\n Tr\u00fcbner, iii. 482.\n Truhana, Dona, in the Conde Lucanor, iv. 165.\n Truthfulness, Niebuhr on, iv. 225.\n _Tsi_ (Bohemian), for daughter, iv. 110.\n Tu, tave, tavai, toh, tum, iv. 55.\n _Tum_, infinitive, its meaning, iv. 47.\n Tumba Helen\u00e6, iii. 328.\n ---- for St. Michael\u2019s Mount, iii. 326.\n ---- for tomb, iii. 337.\n Tumbridge, iii. 234.\n Turanian, iii. 443.\n ---- languages, combinatory, iv. 79.\n Turci, a Baltic tribe, iii. 310.\n Turku, for Abo, iii. 310.\n Turpin, Archbishop, iii. 159.\n Turrum\u00fblan, the one-legged, iv. 341.\n Twenty-fourth generation of Jewish proselytes, iv. 242.\n Twinger\u2019s \u201cChronicle,\u201d iii. 17.\n Two, Aryan words for, iv. 412.\n Tyr, Dyaus, \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, Jupiter, Zio, iv. 210.\n\n _Uda\u015bvit-van_, iv. 44.\n _Uh_, iv. 27.\n _\u00dbh_, Sanskrit root, iv. 28.\n Ulfilas, Bishop of the Goths, iii. 4.\n ---- and Athanasius, iv. 261.\n ---- his teaching, iv. 287.\n Umbrian grammar, iv. 340.\n Universal language, iv. 67.\n Universities of Germany, foundation of, iii. 21, 27.\n Universities founded, iii. 21-28.\n ---- English, iv. 337.\n Unsuspected laws of nature, iv. 426.\n Up, iv. 474.\n _Upanayana_, spiritual apprenticing, iv. 270.\n Upanishads, the, iv. 315, 356.\n Ural-Altaic family, iv. 70.\n Uraon Koles, iv. 347.\n Usedom, iii. 401.\n Uxbridge, iii. 289.\n Uz, iii. 40.\n\n Va\u00eati, Zend, willow, iv. 237.\n V\u00e2hyaprayatna, the, iv. 498.\n _Vala_ for _vana_, iv. 74 _note_.\n _V\u00e1l\u00e1_, Hindustani, iv. 90.\n Vale, ross, iii. 292.\n _Van_, a suffix, iv. 33.\n _Vana_ or _vala_, iv. 74 _note_.\n Vandalism in Cornwall, iii. 283 _note_.\n Varez, Zend, \u1fe5\u03ad\u03b6\u03c9, iv. 237.\n _Varga_, iv. 74 _note_.\n Vasiv\u00ee or vasavy\u00e2, iv. 234.\n Vasu, general name of the bright gods, iv. 234.\n Vaurkjan, Gothic, to work, iv. 237.\n Vaya\u1e25, life, vigor, iv. 55.\n Vayodhai, infinitive, iv. 56.\n _V\u00e9da_, iv. 40.\n Veda, loss of MS. of the, iii. 401.\n ---- traditional interpretation of the, iv. 386.\n Vedas, copied in 1845 for Debendra N\u00e1th Tagore, iv. 357.\n ---- Colebrooke\u2019s essay on the, iv. 380.\n Vedic hymns and the Psalms contrasted, iv. 352.\n Veddah language, like Singhalese, mere corruption of Sanskrit,\n iv. 342.\n Veddahs have no language, iv. 342.\n Veddh\u00e2, vy\u00e2dha, hunter, iv. 342.\n Velle = velse, iv. 51.\n Venn, iii. 439.\n Venum ire, iv. 132.\n Verbal agreement between Whitney and Max M\u00fcller, iv. 425.\n Verbs (\u1fe5\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1), iv. 30.\n Vergilius, Polydorus, iii. 234.\n Verleumdung, calumny, iv. 218.\n \u201cVertellen,\u201d Klaus Groth\u2019s, iii. 146.\n Vestigia nulla retrorsum, iv. 147.\n Viande la, for victuals, iii. 170.\n Vibhv-\u00e1ne, in order to conquer, iv. 34.\n Victuals, la viande, for, iii. 170.\n _Vidm\u00e1s_, iv. 40.\n Vidushas, iv. 491.\n _Vidyut-v\u00e2n_, iv. 44.\n Vienne, Council of, 1311, iv. 11.\n Vikings, iii. 289.\n Vilmar\u2019s \u201cHistory of German literature,\u201d iii. 414.\n Vineta, Wilhelm M\u00fcller, iii. 139.\n V\u00edrgili, Valeri, iv. 231.\n Virgil\u2019s tomb at Pausilipo, iv. 284.\n ---- St. Paul at, iv. 284.\n Vis, root, to settle down, iv. 112.\n Vi\u015ba-s, \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3-, v\u00eecu-s, iv. 112.\n Vish\u1e47u, worship of, iv. 309.\n Vi\u015bv\u00e2mitra, iv. 303.\n Vitality of Brahmanism, iv. 296.\n Vitis, = Zend va\u00eati, iv. 237.\n Viv\u00e2ra\u015bv\u00e2s\u00e2ghosh\u00e2\u1e25, iv. 498.\n Vladimir of Russia, iv. 288.\n Vocative of \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 has the circumflex, iv. 210.\n ---- of Dya\u00fas and \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, iv. 230.\n Vogel, Dr., iii. 418, 419.\n Voice, Aryan words for, iv. 407.\n Voltaire and the \u201cJournal des Savants,\u201d iii. 193.\n ---- on journals, iii. 198.\n ---- called to Berlin, iii. 205.\n V\u00f6luspa, the, iii. 352.\n Voss, iii. 127.\n Vowels, why long or short, iv. 39.\n Voysey, Rev. C., iv. 304.\n Vulcanism, iv. 444.\n\n Waddington, Miss, Bunsen\u2019s marriage to, iii. 357.\n Wailly, de, translation of Joinville, iii. 152.\n ---- last edition of 1868, iii. 165 _note_.\n Waldmann, my dog, iv. 444.\n \u201cWallenstein,\u201d Schiller\u2019s, iii. 89, 92.\n Wallis, Professor of Arabic, iv. 12.\n Walther of Aquitaine, poem of, iii. 7.\n Walther von der Vogelweide, iii. 13-15.\n Ware, A. S., iii. 117.\n Warren Hastings, iv. 374.\n Water, Aryan words for, iv. 405.\n Weckherlin, iii. 37.\n Wedgwood\u2019s Dictionary, iv. 460.\n Weimar, Karl August, Duke of, iii. 85, 88.\n Weinhold\u2019s Grammars of High and Low German, iii. 122.\n _Weiss, ich_, I know, iv. 40.\n Wessel, iii. 67.\n Westfalai, tribe of, iii. 117.\n Westminster, iii. 234.\n ---- Lecture, iv. 238.\n Westphalia, iii. 117.\n Whewell\u2019s \u201cHistory of the Inductive Sciences,\u201d iv. 427, 479.\n ---- Letter to Max M\u00fcller, iv. 427 _note_.\n _Whiff away_, iv. 509 _note_.\n Whiskey, iii. 289.\n Whitehall, iii. 234.\n Whitney, William Dwight:\n ---- his attacks on various scholars, iv. 422, 429, 430-435, 464,\n 483, 490, 502, 504-508, 513, 515-520.\n ---- his misrepresentations, iv. 424, 433-435, 445, 467, 469, 470,\n 476-479, 481, 487, 492, 494, 497, 509, 510, 514, 521, 522,\n 523, 524.\n ---- his mistakes, iv. 430, 431, 467, 491, 498, 518, 519.\n Widow, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Widow-burning, iv. 303.\n Wieland, iii. 40, 82.\n Wiese\u2019s book on Schools, iii. 420.\n Wife\u2019s brother, Aryan words for, iv. 403.\n Wilhelm, \u201cDe Infinitivo,\u201d iv. 59.\n \u201cWilhelm Tell,\u201d Schiller\u2019s, iii. 92, 97.\n Wilkins, iv. 368, 398.\n ---- Bishop, his philosophical language, iv. 65.\n William of Worcester, iii. 324.\n ---- his \u201cItinerarium,\u201d iii. 324.\n Williams, Rowland, iii. 480, 484.\n Williram\u2019s language, iii. 8.\n Wilson, Professor, iv. 336, 393.\n Wimpheling, iii. 64, 67.\n Windsor, iii. 236.\n Winkworth, Miss, iii. 416.\n _Wir wissen_, we know, iv. 40.\n Wissenschaft, iv. 482.\n _Withering contempt_, iv. 509 _note_.\n Wolf, iii. 113.\n ---- Aryan words for, iv. 410.\n Wolfram von Eschenbach, iii. 10, 13.\n ---- his \u201cParcival\u201d and \u201cHoly Graal,\u201d iii. 54-56.\n Wolff\u2019s \u201cMetaphysics,\u201d studied by Frederick the Great, iii. 203.\n ---- opinion of Frederick on, iii. 204.\n Wolzogen, Frau von, iii. 85.\n Woodstock, iii. 236.\n Wool, Aryan words for, iv. 409.\n Words, Latin or English, in Cornish, iii. 256.\n World-literature, iii. 2.\n ---- idea of a, iii. 43.\n Writing merely accidental, iv. 71.\n\n Xenophon, iv. 23.\n Xerxes, religion of, iv. 249.\n\n Yama, iii. 483.\n Y\u00e2o\u1e47h, Zend, girdle, iv. 236.\n Y\u00e2re, Zend, Goth. jer, iv. 236.\n Yasa son of Sujat\u00e1, iv. 267, 268.\n Year, Zend, y\u00e2re, iv. 236.\n _Yellow_ (gilvus, flavus), iv. 100.\n Youdasf, Youasaf, and Bodhisattva, iv. 176.\n Young, Aryan words for, iv. 411.\n _Yu_, _yudh_, _yug_, _yaut_, iv. 123.\n _Yudh_, to fight, iv. 120.\n\n Zardan, friend of Barlaam, iv. 175.\n Zarncke, his edition of the \u201cNarrenschiff,\u201d iii. 71.\n Zeitwort, iv. 31.\n Zend and Sanskrit, close union of, iv. 213.\n ---- not in Sanskrit, Aryan words in, iv. 235.\n ---- Pairida\u00eaza, iv. 22.\n Zeune, iii. 113.\n \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 = Dyaus, iv. 227.\n \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, Jupiter, Dyaus, Zio, Tyr, iv. 210.\n ---- vocative of, has the circumflex, iv. 210.\n Zeuss, his \u201cGrammatica Celtica,\u201d iv. 17.\n Zio, Dyaus, \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, Jupiter, Tyr, iv. 210.\n Zion, M\u00e2r\u00e2h Zion, iii. 293.\n \u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9, Zend, y\u00e2onh, iv. 236.\n Zoroaster, when he lived, iii. 462.\n ---- religion of, iv. 249.\n Zoroastrians, their wish to augment their sect, iv. 305.\n _Zukunft_, the future, iv. 37.\n Zulu language, 20,000 words in, iv. 122.\n Zwingli\u2019s Sermons, iii. 62.\n Zy\u00e2o, Zend, frost, iv. 235.\n\n\n * * * * *\n * * * *\n * * * * *\n\n\nTransliteration:\n\nIn the book as printed, transliterations of Zend (Avestan), Sanskrit\nand other Indian languages used italics to convey phonetic information.\nThis has been changed to the standard transliteration:\n\n {t}, {d}, {n}, {l} \u1e6d, \u1e0d, \u1e47, \u1e37 [retroflex consonants]\n [\u1e37 is used only in some Dravidian words; vocalic \u1e37 does not occur]\n {m}, {h} \u1e43, \u1e25 [anusvara, visarga]\n {s} \u015b [palatal sibilant]\n {ri} \u1e5b [vocalic r]\n {k}, {g} c, j\n\nM\u00fcller uses c and j in some quoted material and personal names, but\nitalic k, g (or de-italicized k, g within italic words) in his own\ntext.\n\nThe retroflex sibilant \u1e63 is transliterated sh; this was unchanged.\n\nSome typographical errors have been noted, but the Sanskrit--\nespecially longer passages-- should be read with extrame caution.\n\nThe Colebrooke appendix at the end of Chapter VII uses a different\ntransliteration system. This has been left as printed, except for one\ncharacter that would not display reliably; details are at the beginning\nof that section.\n\n\nNote on Names:\n\n\u201cMr. Darwin\u201d is generally Charles\u2019s son George; Charles Darwin is \u201cthe\nfather\u201d or \u201cMr. Darwin, senior\u201d. Dwarka Nath Tagore was Rabindranath\n(both transliterations are variable) Tagore\u2019s grandfather. The evil\nProfessor Whitney is William Dwight Whitney, author of the standard\nSanskrit grammar (1879 and later).\n\n\nErrors and Inconsistencies (noted by transcriber):\n\nIn the Errata, {braces} represent single italic letters, or non-italized\nletters where the overall text is italic. As noted at the beginning,\nitalics were used in place of diacritics in Sanskrit transliteration:\n\n {t}, {d}, {n}, {l} = \u1e6d, \u1e0d, \u1e47, \u1e37 [retroflex, including Dravidian \u1e37];\n {s}, {ri} = \u015b; \u1e5b; [the sibilant \u1e63 is written as sh]\n {h}, {m} = \u1e25, \u1e43 [visarga and anusvara]\n\nUnless otherwise noted, circumflex was used for long vowels; this has\nnot been changed.\n\nChapter I\n\n in every branch of human knowledge [knowlege]\n the Sanskrit enclitic particle _ca_, Latin _que_\n [_printed \u201c{ga}\u201d for \u201c{g}a\u201d_]\n \u03c6\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b5 [\u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9]\n in \u00ee\u015bvaro vilikha\u1e25 [vilik{h}a{h}]\n we have not met with other cases of +d\u1e5b\u015bi-s+. [d{ri}si-s]\n Of datives in +v\u00e1ne+ I only know +d\u0101v\u00e2ne+\n [_printed as shown, with macron_]\n From +dh\u00e2+ we can frame two substantival frame\n [_text unchanged: error for \u201cforms\u201d?_]\n ancient and modern languages. Some scholars have objected\n [_\u201clanguages. in Some\u201d with extra word at line-beginning_]\n of most Tamil infinitives is in any manner [in, any manner]\n Footnote 4: ... quibus religio erat graece scire [_unchanged_]\n Footnote 20: ... \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 [\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1]\n Footnote 30: ... Yadv\u00e2 gacchati yaj\u00f1eshu\n [_printed \u201cyag\u00f1eshu\u201d for \u201cya{g}\u00f1eshu\u201d_]\n ... v\u00e2gr\u00fbpatv\u00e2d gn\u00e2vyapade\u015ba\u1e25.\u201d [_close quote missing_]\n ... In V. 43, 13, we must either read +gn\u0306\u0101\u1e25+ or +\u014dsh\u0103dh\u012b\u0306\u1e25.+\n [_The beginning of V.43.13c is also given as \u201cghn\u0101 vas\u0101na o\u1e63adh\u012br\u201d_]\n [_Printed text (breve over n, combined breve and macron over i)\n may be intended to read \u201cgn\u0103\u00e2\u1e25\u201d or \u201cg\u0103n\u00e2\u1e25\u201c and \u201co\u1e63adh\u012d\u00ee\u1e25\u201d_]\n\nChapter II\n\n Sanskrit _k_ may in Sinhalese be represented by _v_\n [_{k} italicized, but actual k (not c) appears to be intended_]\n in Sanskrit +yu-mi-na-j+, instead of +yu-na-j-mi+\n [_printed +yu-mi-na-g+ for ++yu-mi-na-{g}+_]\n _Kin_ means gold, _tsiang_, maker; hence _kin-tsiang_, a\u00a0goldsmith.\n [kin-stiang]\n iyam, is, it, ima, ita, iyus.\n [iyam, is, it ima, ita, iyus]\n We have for instance, Sk. +ve\u015ba-s+, [_final comma missing_]\n it has been said, that \u201cthe simple idea [\u2019the]\n the actual forms of the Aryan roots [Ayran]\n consonants as modificatory letters. [letters?]\n compounds like _calefacio_ [cafleacio]\n Footnote 5: Stanislas Julien [Stanilas]\n Footnote 27: ... les mandchous \u00e9crivent _tche_. [_tche_,]\n\nChapter III\n\n [Table] compos\u00e9 par le sage Pilpay, Indien\u201d [_close quote missing_]\n [Table] Les Contes et Fables Indiennes de Bibpa\u00ef [_text unchanged_]\n but resolves to give up all his earthly riches\n [_\u201cgive up / up\u201d at line break_]\n \u2018are creatures ... with pleasure?\u2019 [_double for single quotes_]\n both in the Eastern and in the Western churches [chuches]\n the recognized story of Gautama \u015a\u00e2kyamuni [S{\u00e2}kyamuni]\n G\u00d6TTINGEN, _July 6, 1871_. [GOTTINGEN]\n it is very difficult to get sight of anything\n [_invisible hyphen at line break \u201cany-/thing\u201d_]\n [Note F]\n \u00e9 miel e otras cosas ... E \u00e9l deciendo esto\n [_text unchanged: probably errors for \u201c\u00e9 otras\u201d and \u201c\u00c9 \u00e9l\u201d_]\n [Note G]\n (bone vir, tibi dicam) [tihi dicam]\n page 32, pars\u00a0I. fab. xxv. [fab. xxv.) _with mismatched parenthesis_]\n Footnote 11: ... he sees a\u00a0female donkey [he see]\n Footnote 37: ... \u201d [_close quote missing_]\n Footnote 39: ... See Leo Allatius, Prolegomena, p. L. [p L.]\n Footnote 41: ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6 \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 [\u1f40\u03c6\u03b8 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2]\n Footnote 47: ... the true doctrine. [_close quote missing_]\n\nChapter IV\n\n the circumflexed vocative in Sanskrit, +Dya\u00fbs+\n [_printed with a Greek-style circumflex that looks like a tilde_]\n Footnote 9: ... G\u00f6ttingen, 1872, p.\u00a035. [G\u00f6tingen]\n corresponding to a Sk. +vasav\u00ee+ or +vasavy\u00e2+. [+vasavy\u00e2+,]\n phonetically the nearest approach to +m\u1e5blata+ [+m{ri}{l}ata+]\n Zend +\u00e7taman+, mouth; Gr. \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1. [Gr \u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1]\n Footnote 5: ... \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c9 [\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03ac\u03c9]\n\nChapter V\n\n ask the heathen; \u2018Are you Moslim?\u2018 [_double for single close quote_]\n an integral portion of the Brahmanic law. [law,]\n back to idolworship [_printed as shown_]\n discard \u201cdogmatic extremes,\u201d [_single for double open quote_]\n are referred for sanction.\u201d [_single for double close quote_]\n Footnote 2: ... pp. 122-143. [_final . missing_]\n Footnote 9: \u201c_Isl\u00e2m_ is the verbal noun [_open quote missing_]\n Footnote 21 ... they co\u00f6perate heartily together. [together,]\n\nChapter VI (\u201cVII\u201d)\n\n to clear, and intensify the intellectual atmosphere [itensify]\n\nChapter VII (\u201cVIII\u201d)\n\n what castes of Hindus are altogether forbid cultivating\n [_text unchanged: \u201caltogether forbid\u201d or \u201care altogether\n forbidden (to cultivate)\u201d_]\n obscure allegory and puerile fable.\u201d [_close quote missing_]\n we find Colebrooke on January 3, 1797 [Jannary]\n caste was not artificial or conventional [artifical]\n had gained an ascendency over the people [_spelling unchanged_]\n their own appointed occupations. [_final . missing_]\n Sanskrit, Bengali, Hindustani, and Persian. [Persian,]\n the traditional interpretation of the Veda [intrepretation]\n [Colebrooke Appendix]\n _Hind._ Mai. _Ir._ Me. _Wal._ _Corn._ Mi. [_Ir_]\n _Sans._ Carcata. _Beng._ C\u00e1nc\u0155\u00e1, C\u00e9nc\u0155\u00e1. _Hind._ C\u00e9ncr\u00e1, C\u00e9cr\u00e1.\n [_Bengali forms printed as shown._]\n\nChapter VIII (\u201cIX\u201d)\n\n to find time to look [io look]\n in Theile f\u00fcr das Bewusstein aufl\u00f6sete.\u201d [_close quote missing_]\n\nChapter IX (\u201cX\u201d)\n\n \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9, I fly [\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1]\n But what was my surprise when I found [surpise]\n the relation of language to thought is impossible [imposible]\n as he does others who differ from him [as be]\n the contempt which a Brahman feels for a Mleccha. [Mle{kkh}a]\n the following passage (ii.\u00a0p.\u00a0156):-- [_closing parenthesis missing_]\n secondary qualities of _tenues medi\u00e6_\n [_\u201cquali-/ities\u201d at line break_]\n as if unworthy of serious consideration.\u201d [_close quote missing_]\n consciousness of rectitude.\u201d [_. invisible_]\n volunteering in addition that of another scholar.\u201d\n [_close quote missing_]\n M. Renan and myself [M Renan]\n seems minded to indemnify himself [himslef]\n\nIndex\n\nMissing or incorrect punctuation in the Index has been silently\nsupplied.\n\n Bidpai, mentioned by Ali, iv. 153; see _Pilpay_. [Bilpay]\n Black, in the Schleswig-Holstein dialect, iii. 130 [Hollstein]\n Cornish ... Saxon words in, iii. 262. [_\u201ci\u201d in \u201cin\u201d invisible_]\n Curtius ... Pott on, iv. 518. [536]\n Daughter-in-law, Aryan words for, iv. 403. [Ayran]\n _Deig-an_, to knead, iv. 22. [{D}eig-an]\n Die, to, root M\u1e5a, Aryan word for, iv. 415. [Aryans]\n _Facso_, iv. 94 _note_. [Fasco _but alphabetized as \u201cFacso\u201d_]\n Frederick ... IV., iii. 359. [iii. _missing_]\n Future, terminations of, iv. 93. [iv. _missing_]\n ---- so-called Attic, iv. 94 _note_. [iv. _missing_]\n _Ga\u1e47a_, plural suffix, iv. 74 _note_. [iv. _missing_]\n Ga\u1e47e\u015ba, god of success, iv. 251, 309.\n [_\u201cGa{n}esa\u201d for \u201cGa{n}e{s}a\u201d_]\n _J\u00e2ti_, plural suffix, iv. 74 _note_. [iv. 73]\n _J\u00eev\u00e1se_, in order to live, iv. 36. [_\u201cG\u00eev\u00e1se\u201d for \u201c{G}\u00eev\u00e1se\u201d_]\n Husband\u2019s brother, Aryan words for, iv. 403. [words, for]\n Ka\u1e47va-medhatithi or Ka\u1e47va-mesha and Ganymedes, iv. 21.\n [_first \u201ci\u201d in \u201cmedhatithi\u201d invisible_]\n Locatives, old, iv. 208. [iv. _missing_]\n Nakshatras ... derived from China or Chaldea, iv. 508.\n [iv. _missing_]\n \u03a0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6, vocative, iv. 233. [_\u03b7 invisible_]\n Ranchi, Missionaries at, iv. 347. [iv. _missing_]\n \u201cSakuntala,\u201d K\u00e2lid\u00e2sa\u2019s play of, iv. 323.\n [_text unchanged: error for \u201c\u015aakuntal\u00e2\u201d_]\n Sanskrit ... Grammar by Colebrooke, iv. 381. [Colebroooke]\n See, to, root D\u1e5b\u015b, Aryan words for, iv. 415.\n [_\u201cDris\u201d for \u201cD{ri}{s}\u201d_]\n Self-defense in, iv. 456. [iv. _missing_]\n Svas\u1e5b, sister, iv. 110 _note_. [_\u201cSva{rsi}\u201d for \u201cSvas{ri}\u201d_]\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 = duhit\u1ea5, duhit\u00e1ram, iv. 232.\n [_\u03c5 in \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 invisible_]\n ---- tones in, iv. 106. [iv. _missing_]\n Vibhv-\u00e1ne, in order to conquer, iv. 34. [Vibhv-{\u00e1}ne]","title":"Chips from a German Workshop, Volume 4: Essays Chiefly on the Science of Language","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":180781}