we have stated nothing except upon personal knowledge, or upon such evidence as we believed to be true-and upon that belief acted under circumstances of great difficulty. And our conviction is, that though we may have fallen into mistakes, which we shall be glad to correct, there are no important facts stated by us, which will not be perpetually confirmed by time and scrutiny.

ART. II.-The Unity of the Human Race.

THE doctrine of the Bible is, that all mankind have descended from a single pair created immediately by God. But this doctrine has been assailed by men of no mean pretensions to learning and science. The grounds of their assaults are the differences of organic structure, including all the varieties of external appearance, the physiological and psychological varieties, and the numerous languages, that obtain among the human family. These organic, physiological, and psychological differences and varieties have been fully considered by Dr. Prichard, in his elaborate work entitled "The Natural History of Man," and shown to be perfectly compatible with unity of species. So minute has the Doctor been in his observation, and so extensive is his induction of facts, that little can be added by way of strengthening his conclusions. An impartial reader of his work must be led to acknowledge that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth."

The objection against the unity of the human family, drawn from the variety of human languages existing in the world, has not, perhaps, from the circumstances of the case, been so fully met as that drawn from the natural history of the various races of mankind; yet enough has been done, by the classification of all the most important languages into distinct families, and by establishing points of connection between these families themselves, to convince any reasonable mind that all the languages of the world have been derived from

one common source.

To exhibit as briefly as possible the principles that have guided philologists in their investigations, the results at which they have arrived, and the bearing of these results upon the question of the Unity of the Human Race, is the object of the present article.

Languages are subject to laws like all other manifestations of the human mind. They have their history, which may be traced through their periods of growth and decline. To investigate these laws, "and to trace the history of languages through their various stages, is the main purpose of Comparative Philology. To accomplish this end, we follow language to the earliest times. We view it as in constant and direct connection with the ever-active mind of man; and we find that the plan of making it and the progress in forming it, are not in the hand of man alone, but, like his own fate, subject to the will of the Most High. We consider, moreover, a language not merely as given and ready at a certain time, nor as standing by itself, subject to laws of its own, but we trace all idioms back to the period when their oldest forms are still apparent, and then compare these with one another. For only when we have found these primitive forms, which alone are objects of comparison, and by comparison afford valuable results, a systematic science of language can be said to begin. It will then receive aid from the three branches, which, for such purposes, are indispensable to each other. Lexicography, or the mere knowledge of words; Comparative Grammar, which investigates their structure and inflexions; and a Comparative History of all the various idioms which belong to the same great family." Thus has a popular writer on Comparative Philology indicated its main purpose, and its method.

The history of Comparative Philology is one of deep interest. In the words of Cardinal Wiseman, " it presents the same features in the moral sciences, which Chemistry does among the natural. While the latter was engaged in a fruitless chase of the philosopher's stone, or of a remedy for every disease, the linguists were occupied in the equally fruitless search after a primary language. In the course of both inquiries many important and unexpected discoveries were doubtless made;

De Vere's Comparative Philology.

but it was not till a principle of analytical investigation was introduced in both, that the real nature of their objects was ascertained, and results obtained far more valuable than had first caused and encouraged so much toilsome application."

Its history commences with the attempts to arrive at the knowledge of the primitive language. Curiosity, or national vanity, if we may credit the statement of Herodotus, prompted these attempts at a very early period. But in later times it was argued, if it can only be shown that there exists some language, which contains the germ of all the rest, and forms a center whence they all diverge, then the confusion of Babel receives a striking confirmation; for that language must have been, at one time, the common original speech of mankind. For this primitive language a host of claimants arose. The Celtic, Chinese, Dutch, Biscayan, Abyssinian, Syriac, and Hebrew had each their respective advocates.

The prosecution of their claims was conducted on principles, the subversion of which by more rational has raised Comparative Philology to the eminence which it occupies at the present day. The only affinity admitted between languages was that of filiation. Parallel descent from a common origin was hardly ever imagined. As soon as two languages were found to bear a resemblance to each other, it was concluded that one must be the offspring of the other. This erroneous principle led to many errors, as, for example, the derivation of the German from the Persian, and of the Latin from the Greek.

There was another error in prosecuting philological studies. It consisted in conducting researches by imaginary and forced etymologies, instead of an extended comparison of all the members of the same family. This was indeed the natural result of the object proposed-to prove the derivation of all other languages from the one assumed as the primitive. The investigator preferred to find, in his favorite language, a supposed original word, which contained in itself the germ, or meaning of the term examined, rather than to trace its affinities through sister languages, or to derive it from obvious elements in the language to which it belonged. Goropius Becanus, for instance, explains from Dutch the names found in Genesis; and concludes that these names were given in that tongue. It would argue, in his opinion, the most invincible

stubbornness to deny that Adam and Eve spoke the language of Holland, when the name of the first man can be resolved into Hat (hate) and dam, because he was a dam opposed to the serpent's hatred; and that of the first woman into E (oath) and vat (receptacle), because she was the receptacle of the oath, or promise of the Redeemer.

This method of guessing at etymologies, as has been already remarked, was the necessary result of the objects pursued. As soon as any one language was assumed as the primary, then such a course was natural and unavoidable. Resemblance of forms was all that was sought for, with little, if any, reference to signification.* Before any advance could be made in Philology it was necessary to gain a more extensive acquaintance with languages than was usually attained, and to adopt a method of investigation very different from the one pursued. Travelers and missionaries were the first who gathered materials which have been constructed into the noble edifice of

modern philology. The former, through mere curiosity, brought lists of words from the countries which they visited: the latter, from higher motives, learned the languages of the nations, to which they bore the message of love, and wrote elementary books for their instruction. To mention the individuals, by whose labors these materials have been collected, would be tedious and unnecessary. We will, therefore, proceed to speak of the method of philology, by which is meant the mode of conducting philological investigations.

No words can be more appropriate on this point than those of Cardinal Wiseman, in reference to the immortal Leibnitz, whose comprehensive genius laid the foundation of a scientific study of the languages. "However," says Cardinal W., "he might occasionally indulge in trifling etymologies for a pastime, Leibnitz well saw that to extend the sphere of usefulness which he wished to give this science, a comparison must be instituted between idioms most separated in geographical position. He complains that travelers were not sufficiently diligent in collecting specimens of languages, and his sagacity led

* An Irishman is said to have concluded that his countrymen are of Phoenician origin, from the resemblance of an Irish word, signifying glory, to Cadiz, a city in Spain, founded by the Phoenicians. The Hibernian philologist did not stop to inquire the meaning of Cadiz.

him to suggest that they should be formed upon a uniform list, containing the most elementary and simple objects. He exhorted his friends to collect words into comparative tables, to investigate the Georgian, and to confront the Armenian with the Coptic, and the Albanese with the German and Latin. His attention to these pursuits, and the peculiar sagacity of his mind led him to conjectures, which have been curiously verified by modern research."

Nothing could be of more importance for the obtaining of correct results than a comparison of the most simple and elementary terms of each language, for as it is by these that the objects of nature, the family and social relations, the members of the body, existence, feeling, time, and place are expressed, they must be coeval with language and descend to each succeeding generation. Unusual words, technical terms, or such as are continually arising by the progress of the arts and sciences, may easily be imported from languages belonging to entirely distinct families.

In regard to the method just described philologists are all agreed; but they are divided in opinion as to whether the lexical, grammatical, or historical connection of languages is the most important point to be considered in their investigations. Out of this difference of opinion have arisen three Schools known as the Lexical, Historical, and Critical. The first "bestows its attention principally upon words and forms." The second "endeavors to show the different use which a language has made, at various times, of certain elements, and, if possible, the very period of transition, when one use has been given up, and another substituted for it. Upon this historical basis it then establishes the analogies of the secondary language with others of the same epoch." The Critical School "attaches much less value to the number of resembling words than to their kind, and makes grammatical analogies and affinities the principal standard by which to judge of the connection between different idioms. Here no claim to historical affinity is admitted, until the whole material and the original texture of a language have been carefully examined, according to distinctly traceable and generally acknowledged rules of analogy. The strictest proof is demanded that resemblances thus discovered are neither merely ideal nor accidental, but