Tongues, Confusion of
Tongues, Confusion of The Biblical account of this is given in the usual anthropomorphic style of Scripture in Ge 11:1-9, and has been the occasion of much discussion and speculation. To inquire into the date of this part of Genesis would lead us into a long discussion it may be sufficient to express an opinion that the indications of 10:12 perhaps (strangely ignored by most writers), and ver. 18 certainly, seem to point to an age mulch before that of Moses. See below. We propose under the present head to treat the subject under two aspects, the historical and the linguistic, referring the reader to other and kindred articles for further details on this disputed question.
I. The Event. —The part of the narrative relating to the present subject thus commences: "And the whole earth [or land, אֶרֵוֹ ] was of one language [or lip, שָׂפָה] and of one speech [or words, דּבָרַים]." The journey and the building of the tower are then related and the divine determination to "confound their language that they may not understand one another's speech." The scattering of the builders and the discontinuance of the building of the city having been narrated, it is added, "Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth, and [or for] from: thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Ge 11:1-9).
1. Character of the Infliction. — An orderly and peaceful distribution and migration of the families descended from Noah had been directed by divine authority and carried into general effect. But there was a part of mankind who would not conform themselves to this wise and benevolent arrangement. This rebellious party, having discovered a region to their taste, determined to remain in it. They built their houses in contiguity, and proceeded to the other method described for guarding against any further division of their company. This was an act of rebellion against the divine government. The omniscient and righteous God therefore frustrated it by inflicting upon them a remarkable affection of the organs of speech, which produced discord and separation.
At the same time, we cannot dogmatically affirm that this infliction was absolutely and visibly miraculous. It is an undeniable character of the scriptural idiom, especially in the Old Test., that verbs denoting direct efficiency are used when only mediate action is to be understood, or permission, or declaration. Instances are numerous, e.g.:" God caused me to wander" (Ge 20:13); "I have made-given-sustained" (Ge 27:37); the "hardening of wicked men's hearts" (Exodus 7; - Isaiah 6:etc.); 'I will come up into the midst of them" (Ex 33:5). All such declarations are perfectly true. The Infinitely Wise and Holy and Powerful worketh all things according to the counsel: of his own will, as much when his operation is through the instrumentality of rational creatures and the free exercise of their own faculties as when there is a miraculous intervention. Shuckford inclines at least to the opinion that the whole was the result of natural and moral second causes, fulfilling the purposes of the Most High (Connect. of Hist. 1, 133-135). This view, however, does not seem to meet adequately the judicial character of the passage.
Still it is unnecessary to assume that the judgment inflicted on the builders of Babel amounted to a loss, or even a suspension, of articulate speech. The desired object would be equally attained by a miraculous forestallment of those dialectical differences of language which are constantly in process of production, but which, under ordinary circumstances, require time and variations of place and habits to reach such a point of maturity that people are unable to understand one another's speech. The elements 'of the one original language may have remained, but so disguised by variations of pronunciation, and by the introduction of new combinations, as to be practically obliterated. Each section of the, human family may have spoken a tongue unintelligible to the remainder, and yet containing a substratum which was common to all. Our own experience suffices to show how completely even dialectical differences render strangers unintelligible to one another; and if we further take into consideration the differences of habits and associations, of which dialectical differences are the exponents, we shall have no difficulty in accounting for the result described by the sacred historian.
2. Date of the Incident. —This is not definitely given in the sacred narratives. By many interpreters it is thought that we cannot satisfactorily place it so early as at one hundred years after the Flood, as it is in the commonly received chronology, and hence they are inclined to one of the larger systems-that of the Septuagint, which gives five hundred and thirty years, or that of Josephus, adopted, with a little emendation, by Dr. Hales, which gives six hundred years; and thus we have at least five centuries for the intervening period. Prof Wallace, in his elaborate work, makes 'it more than eight centuries (Dissertation on the True Age of the World and the Chronology to the Christian Era , p. 29.8). We see no reason to depart from the usual view, countenanced by the position of the incident in the context and the express indication in Ge 11:2 ("as they journeyed from the east" ), that it took place not very long after the Deluge.
3. Extent of the Catastrophe. —Upon the question whether all of mankind were engaged in this act of concerted disobedience, or only a part, we confess ourselves unable to adduce irrefragable evidence on either side, but we think that there is a great preponderance of argument on the part of the latter supposition. The simple phraseology of the text wears an appearance of favoring the former; but the extreme brevity and insulated character of these primeval fragments forbid our arguing from the mere juxtaposition of the first and the second sentence. It is a common idiom in Hebrew that a pronoun, whether separate or suffixed, stands at the introduction of a new subject, even when that subject may be different and remote from the nearest preceding, and requires to be supplied by the intelligence of the reader (see. e.g., Ps 9:13 ; 18:15 ; 44:3 ; 65:10 ;
105:37). So far as the grammatical structure is concerned, we may regard the two sentences as mutually independent, and that, therefore, the question is open to considerations of reason and probability. It is difficult to suppose that Noah and Shem, and all others of the descendants of Noah, were confederates in this proceeding. Hence the opinion has been maintained, more or less definitely, by many critics and expositors that it was perpetrated by only a part of mankind, chiefly, if not solely, the posterity of Ham, and upon the instigation and under the guidance of Nimrod, who (Ge 10:10) is declared to have had Babel for the head place of his empire. The latter part of this position is asserted by Josephus, and the whole by Augustine and other ancients. Of modern writers who have maintained this opinion, we may specify Luther, Calvin (by apparent implication), Cornelius Lapide, Bonfrere, Poole (in his English Annotations), Patrick, Wells, Samuel Clarke (the annotator), Henry (by implication); narratives derived from Arabian and Hindu sources, in Charles Taylor's Illustrations of Calmet, frag. 528; and the late Jacob Bryant, who, though too imaginative and sanguine a theorist, and defective in his knowledge of the Oriental tongues, often gives us valuable collections of facts, and sound reasonings from them. A considerable part of his celebrated work, the Analysis of Ancient Mythology, is occupied with tracing the historical vestiges of the builders of Babel, whom, on grounds of high probability at least, he regards as Cuthites (assumed to be a dialectic variety for Cushites), the descendants of Cush, the son of Ham, but with whom were united many dissatisfied and apostate individuals of the branches of Japheth. Dr. Doig, in the article "Philology," in the Encyclop. Britannica (7th ed. 1842), has entered at some length into this question, and arrives at the following conclusion" From these circumstances, we hope it appears that the whole mass of mankind was not engaged in building the tower of Babel; that the language of all the human race was not confounded upon that occasion, and that the dispersion reached only to a combination of Hamites, and of the most profligate part of the two other families who had joined their wicked confederacy." Nevertheless, as this was the first occurrence of any dialectical variety, it is properly given by the sacred writer as the initial point of that wide ethnic diversity of tongues which has since gradually spread over the earth.
4. Traces of the Event. —
(1.) Monumental. —The history of the confusion of languages was preserved at Babylon, as we learn by the testimonies of classical and Babbylonian authorities (Abydenus, Fragm. Hist. Graec. [ed. Didot], vol. 4). Only the Chaldaeans themselves did not admit the Hebrew etymology of the name of their metropolis; they derived it from Babel, the door of El (Kronos, or Saturnus), whom Diodorus Siculus states to have been the planet most adored by the Babylonians.
The Talmudists say that the true site of the tower of Babel was at Borsif, the Greek Borsippa, the Birs Nimrfid, seven miles and a half from Hillah, S.W., and nearly eleven miles from the northern ruins of Babylon. Several passages state that the air of Borsippa makes forgetful (אויר משכח, avir mashkach); and one rabbi says that Borsif is Bulsif, the confusion of tongues (Bereshith Rabba, fol. 42, p. 1). The Babylonian name of this locality is Barsip, or Barzipa, which we explain by "Tower of Tongues." The French expedition to Mesopotamia found at the Birs Nimruid a clay cake, dated from Barsip the 30th day of the 6th month of the 16th year of Nabonid, and the discovery confirmed the hypothesis of several travellers, who had supposed the Birs Nimrtid to contain the remains of Borsippa.
Borsippa (the Tongue Tower) was formerly a suburb of Babylon, when the old'Babel was merely restricted to the northern ruins, before the great extension of the city, which, according to ancient writers, was the greatest that the sun ever warmed with its beams. 'Nebuchadnezzar included it in the great circumvallation of 480 stades, but left it out of the second wall of 360 stades; and when the exterior wall was destroyed by Darius, Borsippa became independent of Babylon. The historical writers respecting Alexander state that Borsippa had a great sanctuary dedicated to Apollo and Artemis (Strabo, 16:739; Stephanus Byz. s.v. (Βόρσιππα), and the former is the building elevated in modern times on the very basement of the old tower of Babel.
This building, erected by Nebuchadnezzar, is the same that Herodotus describes as the tower of Jupiter Belus. In the Expedition en Messopotamie, 1, 208, there is given a description of this ruin, proving the identity. This tower of Herodotus has nothing to do with the pyramid described by Strabo, which is certainly to be seen in the remains called now Babil (the Mujellibeh of Rich). The temple of Borsippa is written with an ideogram (bit-zi-da), composed of the signs for house and spirit (anima), the real pronunciation of which was probably sarakh, tower. The temple consisted of a large substructure, a stade (six hundred Babylonian feet) in breadth and seventy-five feet in height, over which were built seven other stages of twenty-five feet each. Nebuchadnezzar gives notice of this building in the Borsippa inscription. He named it the temple of the Seven Lights of the Earth, i.e. the planets. The top was the temple of Nebo, and in the substructure (igar) was a temple consecrated to the god Sin, god of the month. This building, mentioned in the East India House inscription (col. 4:l. 61), is spoken of by Herodotus (1, 181, etc.).
Here follows the Borsippa inscription: "Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, shepherd of peoples, who attests the immutable affection of Merodach, the mighty ruler-exalting Nebo; the savior, the wise man who lends his ears to the orders of the highest god; the lieutenant without reproach, the repairer of the Pyramid and the Tower, eldest son of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
"We say Merodach, the great master, has created me: he has imposed on me to reconstruct his building. Nebo, the guardian over the legions of the heaven and the earth, has charged my hands with the scepter of justice.
"The Pyramid is the temple of the heaven and the earth, the seat of Merodach, the chief of the gods; the place of the oracles, the spot of his rest, I have adorned in the form of a cupola, with shining gold.
"The Tower, the eternal house, which I founded and built; I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir, and pine.
"The first, which is the house of the earth's base, the most ancient monument of Babylon, I built and finished it; I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper.
"We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the Seven Lights of the Earth, the most ancient monument of Borsippa: A former king built it (they reckon forty-two ages), but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time, the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed its sun-dried clay; the bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps.'' Merodach, the great lord, excited my mind to repair this building. 'I did not change the site, nor did I
take away the foundation-stone. In a fortunate month, an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticos around the crude brick Inasses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the circuits. I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the porticos.
"I set my hand to finish it, and to exalt its head. As it had been in former times, so I founded, I made it; as it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit.
"Nebo, son of himself, ruler who exaltest Merobach, be propitious to my works to maintain my authority. Grant me a life until the remotest time, a sevenfold progeny, the stability of my throne, the victory of my sword, the pacification of foes, the triumph over the lands! In the columns of thy eternal table, that fixes the destinies of the heaven and of the earth, bless the course of my days, inscribe the fecundity of my race.
"Imitate, O Merodach, king of heaven and earth, the father who begot thee; bless my buildings, strengthen my authority. May Nebuchadnezzar, the king-repairer, remain before thy face!" This allusion to the Tower of the Tongues is the only one that has as yet been discovered in the cuneiform inscriptions (see Expedition en Mesopotamie, 1, 208). The story is a Shemitic and not merely a Hebrew one, and we have no reason whatever to doubt of the existence of the same story at Babylon. The ruins of the building elevated on the spot 'where the story placed the tower of the dispersion of tongues have therefore a more modern origin, but interest, nevertheless, by their stupendous appearance. SEE BABEL.
(2.) Historical. —The following are the principal passages of ancient authors, resciued from the wreck of time by the quotations of Josephus and Eusebius. It scarcely need be said that we do not adduce these fragments as authorities in any other sense than that they repeat the traditional narratives which had descended from the remotest antiquity among the people to whom they relate. The "Sibyl" cited by-Josephus is the fictitious appellation of some unknown author, probably about the 2nd century B.C. Alexander Cornelius Polyblistor flourished about one hundred years before Christ. Eupolemus was probably an Asiatic Greek, two or three centuries earlier. Abydenus (if he was Palaephatils) lived in the middle of the 4th century B.C.
"Concerning this tower, and the discordance of language; among men, the Sibyl also makes mention, saying thus: All men having one language, some of them built a very high tower, as if they proposed by means of it to climb to heaven; but the gods, by sending storms of wind, overthrew the tower, and gave to each person a peculiar language: and on this account the city came to be called Babylon'" (Josephus, Ant. 1, 4, 3).
The Sibyl here quoted may be that very ancient anonymous authority to which we have obscure references (in the discourse of Theophilus to Autolycus) in Plutarch's Morals, in Virgil's Pollio, and 2 the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus.
"Alexander Polyhistor a man of the highest celebrity for talents and attainmlents, in the estimation of those Greeks who are the nmost profoundly and accurately learned has the following passage: Eupolems, in his book concerning the Jews of Assyrial, says that the city of Babylon was first) built by those who had been preserved from the Deluge; that they were giants [the Greeks used this word to signify, not so much men of enormous stature as their mythological heroes, of great prowess, and defying the gods]; that they also erected the tower of which history gives account; but that it was overthrown -by the mighty power from God, and consequently the giants were scattered abroad over the whole earth'" (Eusebius, Praepar. Evang . col. 16SS).
"Further, with respect to the narrative of Moses concerning the building of the tower and how, from one tongue, they were confounded so as to be brought into the use of many dialects, the author before mentioned [Abydenus], in his book concerning the Assyrians, gives his confirmation in these words: 'There are some who say that the first men sprang out of the earth; that they boasted of their strength and size; that they contemptuously maintained themselves 'to be superior to the gods that they erected a lofty tower where now is Babylon; then, when it had been carried on almost up to heaven, the very winds came to assist the gods, and overthrew the vast structure upon its builders. Its ruins were called Babylon. The men, who before had possessed one tongue, were brought by the gods to a many sounding voice; and afterwards war arose between Kronos [Saturn] and Titan. Moreover, the place in which they built the tower is now called Babylon, on account of the con fusing of the prior clearness with respect to speech; for the Hebrews call confusion Babel'" (Eusebius, Praepar. Evang. 9:14).
Abydenus, the Grecian historian of Assyria, is known to us only by citations in Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Syncellus, but they confirm his respectability as a writer.
On the event under discussion, see. the Latin monographs by Linck (Vitemb. 1656), Zobell (ibid. 1664), Schroeder (Groning. 1752), Kanne (Norimb. 1819), and in English by. Wetton (Lond. 1732); also the literature cited by Darling, Cyclop. Bibliog. col. 179,180.
II. Philological and Ethnological Considerations. The unity of the human race is most clearly implied, if not positively asserted, in the Mosaic writings. The general declaration "So God created man in his own image ... male and female created he them" (Ge 1; Ge 27) is limited as to the mode in which the act was carried out by the subsequent narrative of the creation of the protoplast Adam, who stood alone on the earth amid the beasts of the field until it pleased Jehovah to create "an help meet for him" out of the very substance of his body (2, 22). From this original pair sprang the whole antediluvian population of the world; and hence the author of the book of Genesis conceived the unity of the human race to be of the most rigid. nature-not simply a generic unity nor, again, simply a specific unity (for unity of species may not be inconsistent with. a plurality of original centers), but a specific based upon a numerical unity, the species being nothing else than the enlargement of the individual. Such appears to be the natural meaning of the first chapters of Genesis when taken by themselves:; much more so when read under the flected light of the New Test.; for not only do we meet with references to the historical fact of such an origin of the human race — e.g. in Paul's declaration that God "hath made of one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Ac 17:26)-but the same is evidently implied in the numerous passages which represent Jesus Christ as the counterpart of Adam in regard to the universality of his connection with the human race. Attempts have indeed been made to show that the idea of a plurality of original pairs is not inconsistent with the Mosaic writings; but there is a wide distinction between a view not inconsistent with and a view drawn from, the words of the author the latter is founded upon the facts i.e. relates, as well as his mode of relating them; the former takes advantage of the weaknesses arising out of a concise or unmethodical style of composition. Even if such a view could be sustained in reference to the narrative of the original creation of man, it must inevitably fail in reference to the history of the repopulation of the world in the postcriluvian age; for, whatever objections may be made to the historical accuracy of the history of the Flood it is at all events clear that the historian believed in the universal destruction of the human race, with the exception of Noah and his family, and consequently that the unity of the human race was once more reduced to one of a numerical character. To Noah the historian traces up the whole postdiluvian population of the world: "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread" (Ge 9:19).
Unity of language is assumed by the sacred historian apparently as a corollary of the unity of, race. No explanation is given of the origin of speech, but its exercise is evidently regarded as coeval with the creation of man. No. support can be obtained in behalf of any theory on, this subject from the first recorded instance of its exercise ("Adam gave names to all cattle"), for the simple reason that this notice is introductory to what follows: "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" (Ge 2; Ge 20). It was not so much the intention of the writer to state the fact of man's power of speech as the fact of the inferiority of all other animals to him, and the consequent necessity for the creation of woman. The proof of that inferiority is, indeed, most appropriately made to consist in the authoritative assignment of names, implying an act of reflection on their several natures and capacities, and a recognition of the offices which they were designed to fill in the economy of the world. The exercise of speech is thus most happily connected with the exercise of reflection, and the relationship between the inner act of the mind (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and the outward expression (λόγος προφορικός) is fully recognized. Speech, being thus inherent in man as a reflecting being, was regarded as handed down from father to son by the same process of imitation by which it is still perpetuated. Whatever divergences may have arisen in the antediluvian period, no notice is taken of them, inasmuch as their effects were obliterated by the universal catastrophe of the Flood. The original unity of speech was restored in Noah, and would naturally be retained by his descendants as long as they were held together by social and local bonds.
The confusion of tongues and the dispersion of nations are spoken of in the Bible as contemporaneous events. "So the Lord scattered them abroad" is stated as the execution of the divine counsel "Let us confound their language." The divergence of the various families into distinct tribes and nations ran parallel with the divergence of speech into-dialects and languages, and thus the tenth chapter of Genesis is posterior in historical sequence to the events recorded in the eleventh chapter. Both passages must be taken into consideration in any disquisition on the early fortunes of the human race. We propose, therefore, to inquire, in the first place, how far modern researches into the phenomena of language favor the idea that- there was once a time when "the whole earth was of one speech and language; and, in the second place, whether the ethnological views exhibited in the Mosaic table accord with the evidence furnished by history and language, both in regard to the special facts recorded in it and in the general scriptural view of a historical, or, more properly, a gentilic unity of the human race. These questions, though independent, yet exercise a reflexive influence on each other's results. Unity of speech does not necessarily involve unity of race, nor yet vice versa; but each enhances the probability of the other, and therefore the arguments derived from language, physiology, and history may ultimately furnish a cumulative amount of probability which will fall but little below demonstration.
(A.) The advocate of the historical unity of language has to encounter two classes of opposing, arguments: one arising out of the differences, the other out of the resemblances, of existing languages. On the one hand, it is urged that the differences are of so decisive and specific a character as to place the possibility of, a common origin wholly out of the question; on the other hand, that the resemblances do not necessitate the theory of a historical unity, but may be satisfactorily accounted for on psychological principles. It will be our object to discuss the amount, the value, and the probable origin of the varieties exhibited by languages, with a view to meet the first-class of objections. But, before proceeding to this, we will make a few remarks on the second class, inasmuch as these, if established, would nullify any conclusion that might be drawn from the other.
A psychological unity is not necessarily opposed to a gentilic unity. It is perfectly open to any theorist to combine the two by assuming that the language of the one protoplast was founded on strictly psychological principles. But, on the other hand, a. psychological unity does not necessitate a gentilic unity. It permits of the theory of a plurality of protoplasts, who, under the influence of the same psychological laws, arrived at similar independent results. Whether the phenomena of language are consistent with such a theory, we think extremely doubtful; certainly they cannot furnish the basis of it. The whole question of the origin of language lies beyond the pale of historical proof, and any theory connected with it admits neither of being proved nor disproved. We know, as a matter of fact, that language is communicated from one generation to another solely by force of imitation, and that there is no play whatever for the inventive faculty in reference to it. But in what manner the substance of language was originally produced we do not know. No argument can be derived against the common origin from analogies drawn from the animal world; and when Prof. Agassiz compares similarities of language with those of the cries of animals (Voan Bohlen, Introd. to Genesis 2, 278), he leaves out of consideration the important fact that language is not identical with sound, and that the words of a rational being, however originally produced, are perpetuated in a manner wholly distinct from that whereby animals learn to utter their cries. Nor does the internal evidence of language itself reveal the mystery of its origin; for, though a very large number of words may be referred either directly or mediately to the principle of onomatopoeia, there are others as, for instance, the first and second personal pronouns which do not admit of such an explanation. In short, this and other similar theories cannot be reconciled with the intimate connection evidently existing between reason and speech, which is so well expressed in the Greek language by the application of the term λόγος to each, reason being nothing else than inward speech, and speech nothing else than outward reason, neither of them possessing an independent existence without the other. As we conceive that the psychological as opposed to the gentilic unity involves questions connected with the origin of language, we can only say that in this respect it falls outside the range of our inquiry.
Reverting to the other class of objections, we proceed to review the extent of the differences observable in the languages of the world in order to ascertain whether they are such as to preclude the possibility of a common origin. Such a review must necessarily be imperfect, both from the magnitude of the subject and also from the position of the linguistic science itself, which as yet has hardly advanced beyond the stage of infancy. On the latter point we would observe that the most important links between the 'various language families may yet be discovered in languages that are either unexplored or, at all events, unplaced. Meanwhile, no one can doubt that the tendency of all linguistic research is in the direction of unity. Already it has brought within the bonds of a well-established relationship languages so remote from each other in external guise, in age, and in geographical position as Sanskrit and English, Celtic and Greek. It has done the same for other groups of languages equally widely extended, but presenting less opportunities of investigation. It has recognized affinities between languages which the ancient Greek ethnologist would have classed under the head of "barbarian" in reference to each other, and even in many instances where the modern philologist has anticipated no relationship. The lines of discovery, therefore, point in one direction, and favor the expectation that the various; families may be combined by the discovery of connecting links into a single family, comprehending in its capacious bosom all the languages of-the world. But should such a result never be attained, the probability of a common origin would still remain unshaken; for the failure would probably be due to the absence, in many classes and families, of that chain of historical evidence which in the case of the Indo- European and Shemitic families enables us to trace their progress for above three thousand years. In many languages no literature at all, in many others no ancient literature, exists to supply the philologist with materials for comparative study: in these cases it can only be by laborious research into existing dialects that the original forms of words can be detected amid the incrustations and transmutations with which time has obscured them.
In dealing with the phenomena of language, we should duly consider the plastic nature of the material out of which it is formed, and the numerous influences to which it is subject. Variety in unity is a general law of nature, to which even the most stubborn physical substances yield a ready obedience. In the case of language it would be difficult to set any bounds to the variety which we might a priori expect it to assume. For, in the first place, it is brought into close contact with the spirit of man, and reflects with amazing fidelity its endless variations, adapting itself to the expression of each feeling, the designation of each object, the working of each cast of thought or stage of reasoning power. Secondly, its sounds are subject to external influences, such as peculiarities of the organ of speech, the result either of natural conformation, of geographical position, or of habits of life and associations of an accidental character. In the third place, it is generally affected by the state of intellectual and social culture of a people, as manifested more especially in the presence or absence of a standard literary dialect, and in the processes of verbal and syntactical structure, which again react on the very core of the word and produce a variety of sound mutations. Lastly, it is subjected to the wear and tear of time and use, obliterating, as in an old coin, the original impress of the word, reducing it in bulk, producing new combinations, and occasionally leading to singular interchanges of sound and idea. The varieties resulting from the modifying influences above enumerated may be reduced to two classes, according as they affect the formal or the radical elements of language.
(I.) Widely as languages now differ from each other in external form, the raw material (if we may use the expression) out of which they have sprung appears to have been in all cases the same. A substratum of significant monosyllabic roots underlies the whole structure, supplying the materials necessary, not only for ordinary predication, but also for what is usually termed the "growth" of language out of its primary into its more complicated forms. It is necessary to point this out clearly in order that we may not be led to suppose that the elements of one language are in themselves endued with any greater vitality than those of another. Such a distinction, if it existed, would go far to prove a specific difference between languages, which could hardly be reconciled with the idea of their common origin. The appearance of vitality arises out of the manipulation of the roots by the human mind, and is not inherent in the roots themselves.
1. The proofs of this original equality are furnished by the languages themselves. Adopting for the present the threefold morphological classification into isolating, agglutinative, and inflecting languages, we shall find that no original element exists in the one, which does not also exist in the other. With regard to the isolating class, the terms "monosyllabic" and "radical," by which it is otherwise described, are decisive as to its character. Languages of this class are wholly unsusceptible of grammatical mutations; there is no formal distinction between verb and noun, substantive and adjective, preposition and conjunction; there are no inflections, no case or person terminations of any kind; the bare root forms the sole and whole substance of the language. In regard to the other two classes, it is necessary to establish the two distinct points (l).that the formal elements represent roots, and (2) that the roots both of the formal and the radical elements of the word are monosyllabic. Now it may be satisfactorily proved by analysis that all the component parts of both inflecting and agglutinative languages are reducible to two kinds of roots, predicable and pronominal-the former supplying the material element of verbs, substantives, and adjectives; the latter that of conjunctions, prepositions, and particles; while each kind, but more particularly the pronominal, supplies the formal element, or, in other words, the terminations of verbs, substantives, and adjectives. Whether the two classes of roots, predicable and pronominal, are further reducible to one class is a point that has been discussed, but has not as yet been established (Bopp, Compar. Gram. § 105; Müller, Lectures, p. 269). We have further to show that the roots of agglutinative and inflecting languages are monosyllabic. This is an acknowledged characteristic of the Indo-European family; monosyllabism is, indeed, the only feature which its roots have in common; in other respects they exhibit every kind of variation, from a unilateral root, such as i (ire), up to combinations of five letters, such as scand (scandere), the total number of admissible forms of root amounting to no less than eight (Schleicher, § 206). In-the Shemitic family monosyllabism is not a prima facie characteristic of the root; on the contrary, the verbal stems exhibit bisymbalism with such remarkable uniformity that it would lead to the impression that the roots also must have been bisyllabic. The bisymbolism, however, of the Shemitic stem is in reality triconsonantalism, the vowels not forming any part of the essence of the root, but being wholly subordinate to the consonants. It. is at once apparent that a triconsonantal and even a quadriconsonantal root may be in certain combinations unisyllabic. But, further, it is more than probable that the triconsonantal has been evolved out of a biconsonantal root, which must necessarily be unisyllabic if the consonants stand. as they invariably do in Shemitic roots, at the beginning and end of the word. With regard to the agglutinative class, it may be assumed that the same law which we have seen to prevail in the isolating and inflecting classes prevails also in this holding as it does an intermediate place between those opposite poles in the world of language.
2. From the consideration of the crude materials of language, we pass on to the varieties exhibited in its structure, with a view to ascertain whether in these there exists any bar to the idea of an original unity.
(1.) Reverting to the classification already noticed, we have to observe, in the first place, that the principle on which it is based is the nature of the connection existing between the predicable and the relational or inflectional elements of a word. In the isolating class these two are kept wholly distinct; relational ideas are expressed by juxtaposition or by syntactical arrangement, and not by any combination of the roots. In the aggluti, native class the relational elements are attached to the principal or predicable theme by a mechanical kind of junction, the individuality of each being preserved even in the combined state. In the inflecting class the junction is of a more perfect character, and may be compared to a chemical combination, the predicable and relational elements being so fused together as to present the appearance of a single and indivisible word. It is clear that there exists no insuperable barrier to original unity in these differences, from the simple fact that every inflecting language must once have been agglutinative, and every agglutinative language once isolating. If the predicable and relational elements of an isolating language be linked together, either to the eve or the ear, it is rendered agglutinative; if the material and formal parts are pronounced as one word, eliminating, if necessary, the sounds that resist incorporation, the language becomes inflecting.
(2.) In the second place, it should be noted that these three classes are not separated from each other by any sharp line of demarcation. Not only does each possess, in a measure, the quality predominant in each other, but, moreover, each graduates into its neighbor through its bordering members. The isolating languages are not wholly isolating: they avail themselves of certain words as relational particles, though these still retain elsewhere their independent character; they also use composite, though not strictly compound, words. The agglutinative are not wholly agglutinative; the Finnish and Turkish classes of the Ural-Altaian family are in certain instances inflectional, the relational adjunct being fully incorporated with the predicable stem, and having undergone a large amount of attrition for that purpose. Nor, again, are the inflectional languages wholly inflectional; Hebrew, for instance, abounds with agglutinative forms, and also avails itself largely of separate particles for the expression of relational ideas; our own language, though classed as inflectional, retains nothing more than the vestiges of inflection, and is in many respects as isolating and juxtapositional as any language of that class. While, therefore the classification holds good with regard to the predominant characters of the classes, it does not imply differences of a specific nature.
(3.) But, further, the morphological varieties of language are not confined to the exhibition of the single principle hitherto described. A comparison between the westerly branches of the Ural-Altaian, on the one hand, and the Indo-European, on the other, belonging respectively to the agglutinative and inflectional classes, will show that the quantitative amount of synthesis is fully as prominent a point of contrast as the qualitative. The combination of primary and subordinate terms may be more perfect in the Indo-European, but it is more extensively employed in the Ural-Altaian family. The former, for instance, appends to its verbal stems the notions of time, number, person, and occasionally of interrogation; the latter further adds suffixes indicative of negation, hypothesis, causativeness, reflexiveness, and other similar ideas, whereby the word is built up tier on tier to a marvelous extent. The former appends to its substantial stems suffixes of case and number; the latter adds governing particles, rendering them post-positional instead of prepositional, and combining them synthetically with the predicable stem. If, again, we compare the Shemitic with the Indo-European languages, we shall find a morphological distinction of an equally diverse character. In the former the grammatical category is expressed by internal vowel-changes, in the latter by external suffixes. So marked a distinction has not unnaturally been constituted the basis of a classification, wherein the languages that adopt this system of internal flection stand by themselves as a separate class, in contradistinction to those which either use terminational additions for the same purpose, or which dispense wholly with inflectional forms (Bopp, Compar. Gram. 1, 102). The singular use of preformatives in the Coptic language is, again, a morphological peculiarity of a very decided character. Even within the same family, say the Indo-European, each language exhibits an idiosyncrasy in its morphological character whereby it stands out apart from the other members with a decided impress of individuality The inference to be drawn from the number and character of the differences we have noticed is favorable, rather than otherwise, to the theory of an original unity. Starting from the same common ground of monosyllabic roots, each language-family has carried out its own special line of development, following an original impulse, the causes and nature. of which must remain probably forever a matter of conjecture. We can perceive, indeed, in a general way, the adaptation of certain forms of speech to certain states of society. The agglutinative languages, for instance, seem to be specially adapted to the nomadic state by the prominence and distinctness with which they enunciate the leading idea in each word, an arrangement whereby communication would be facilitated between tribes or families that associate only at intervals. We might almost imagine that these languages derived their impress of uniformity and solidity from the monotonous steppes of Central Asia, which have in all ages formed their proper habitat. So, again, the inflectional class reflects cultivated thought and social 'organization, and its languages have hence been termed "state or political." Monosyllabism, on the other hand, is pronounced to be suited to the most primitive stage of thought and society, wherein the family or the individual is the standard by which things are regulated (Miller, Philos. of list. 1, 285). We should hesitate, however, to press this theory as furnishing an adequate explanation of the differences observable in language families. The Indo-European languages attained their high organization amid the same scenes and in the same nomad state as those wherein the agglutinative languages were nurtured, and we should rather be disposed to regard both the language and the higher social status of the former as the concurrent results of a higher mental organization.
3. If from words we pass onto the varieties of syntactical arrangement, the same degree of analogy will be found to exist between class and class, or between family and family in the same class; in other words, no peculiarity exists in one which does not admit of explanation by a comparison with others. The absence of all grammatical forms in an isolating language necessitates a rigid collocation of the words in a sentence according to logical principles. The same law prevails to a very great extent in our own language, wherein the subject, verb, and object, or the subject, copula, and predicate, generally hold their relative positions in the order exhibited, the exceptions to such an arrangement being easily brought into harmony with that general law. In the agglutinative languages the law of arrangement is that the principal word should come last in the sentence, every qualifying clause or word preceding it, and being, as it were, sustained by it. The syntactical is thus the reverse of the verbal structure, the principal notion taking the precedence in the latter (Ewald, Sprachw. Abhandl. 2, 29). There is in this nothing peculiar to this class of languages, beyond the greater uniformity with which the arrangement is adhered to; it is the general rule in the classical, and the occasional rule in certain of the Teutonic, languages. In the Shemitic family the reverse arrangement prevails; the qualifying adjectives follow the noun to which they belong, and the verb generally stands first; short sentences are necessitated by such a collocation, and hence more room is allowed for the influence of emphasis in deciding the order of the sentence. In illustration of grammatical peculiarities, we may notice that in the agglutinative class adjectives qualifying substantives, or substantives placed in apposition with substantives, remain undeclined; in this case the process may be compared with the formation of compound words in the Indo-European languages, where the final member alone is inflected. So, again, the omission of a plural termination in nouns following a numeral may "be paralleled with a similar usage in our own language, where the terms "pound" and "head" are used collectively after a numeral. We may again cite the peculiar manner of expressing the genitive in Hebrew. This is effected by one of the two following methods — placing the governing noun in the status constructus, or using the relative pronoun with a preposition before the governed case. The first of these processes appears a strange inversion of the laws of language; but an examination into the origin of the adjuncts, whether prefixes or affixes, used in other languages for the indication of the genitive will show that they have a more intimate connection with the governing than with the governed word, and that they are generally resolvable into either relative or personal pronouns, which serve the simple purpose of connecting the two words together (Garnett, Essays, p. 214- 227). The same end may be gained by connecting the words in pronunciation, which would lead to a rapid utterance of the first, and consequently to the changes which are witnessed in the status constructus. The second or periphrastic process is in accordance with the general method of expressing the genitive; for the expression "the Song which is to Solomon" strictly answers to "Solomon's Song," the s representing (according to Bopp's explanation) a combination of the demonstrative sa and the relative ya. It is thus that the varieties of construction may be shown to be consistent with unity of law, and that they therefore furnish no argument against a common origin.
4. Lastly, it may be shown that the varieties of language do not arise from any constitutional inequality of vital energy. Nothing is more remarkable than the compensating power apparently inherent in all language, whereby it finds the means of reaching the level of the human spirit through a faithful adherence to its own guiding principle. The isolating languages, being shut out from the manifold advantages of verbal composition, attain their object by multiplied combinations of radical sounds, assisted by an elaborate system of accentuation and intonation. In this manner the Chinese language has framed a vocabulary fully equal to the demands made upon it; and though this mode of development may not commend itself to our notions as the most effective that can be devised yet it plainly evinces a high susceptibility on the part of the linguistic faculty, and a keen perception of the correspondence between sound and sense. Nor does the absence of inflection interfere with the expression even of the most delicate shades of meaning in a sentence; a compensating resource is found partly in a multiplicity of subsidiary terms expressive of plurality, motion, action, etc., and partly in strict attention to syntactical arrangement. The agglutinative languages, again, are deficient in compound words, and in this respect lack the elasticity and expansiveness of the Indo-European family; but they are eminently synthetic, and no one can fail to admire the regularity and solidity with which its words are built up, suffix on suffix, and. when built up, are suffused with a uniformity of tint by the law of vowel harmony. The Shemitic languages have worked out a different principle of growth, evolved, not improbably, in the midst of a conflict between the systems of prefix and suffix, whereby the stem, being, as it were, enclosed at both extremities, was precluded from all external increment, and was forced back into such changes as could be effected by a modification of its vowel sounds. But whatever may be the origin of the system of internal inflection, it must be conceded that the results are very effective, as regards both economy of material and simplicity and dignity of style.
The result of the foregoing observations is to show that the formal varieties of language present no obstacle to the theory of a common origin. Amid these varieties there may be discerned manifest tokens of unity in the original material out of which language was formed, in the stages of formation through which it has passed, in the general principle of grammatical expression, and, lastly, in the spirit and power displayed in the development of these various formations. Such a: result, though it does not prove the unity of language in respect to its radical elements, nevertheless tends to establish the a priori probability of this unity; for if all connected with the forms of language may be referred to certain general laws, if nothing in that department owes its origin to chance or arbitrary appointment, it surely favors the presumption that the same principle would extend to the formation of the roots, which are the very core and kernel of language. Here, too, we might expect to find the operation of fixed laws of some kind or other, producing results of a uniform character; here, too, actual variety may not be inconsistent with original unity.
(II.) Before entering on the subject of the radical identity of languages, we must express our conviction that the time has not yet arrived for a decisive opinion as to the possibility of establishing it by proof. Let us briefly review the difficulties that beset the question. Every word as it appears in an organic language, whether written or spoken, is resolvable into two distinct elements, which we have termed predicable and formal, the first being what is commonly called the root, the second the grammatical termination. In point of fact, both of these elements consist of independent roots; and in order to prove the radical identity of two languages, it must be shown that they agree in both respects, that is, in regard both to the predicable and the formal roots. As a matter of experience, it is found that the formal elements (consisting, for the most part, of pronominal bases) exhibit a greater tenacity of life than the others; and hence agreement of inflectional forms is justly regarded as furnishing a strong presumption of general radical identity. Even foreign elements are forced into the formal mould of the language into which they are adopted, and thus bear testimony to the original character of that language. But though such a formal agreement supplies the philologist with a most valuable instrument of investigation, it cannot be accepted as a substitute for complete radical agreement: this would still remain to be proved by an independent examination of the predicable elements. The difficulties connected with these latter are many and varied. Assuming that two languages or language-families are under comparison, the phonological laws of each must be investigated in order to arrive, in the first place, at the primary forms of words in the language in which they occur, and, in the second place, at the corresponding forms in the language which constitutes the other member of comparison, as has been done by Grimm for the Teutonic as compared with the Sanskrit and the classical languages. The genealogy of sound, as we may term it, must be followed up by a genealogy of signification, a mere outward accordance of sound and sense in two terms being of no value whatever, unless a radical affinity be proved by an independent examination of the cognate words in each case. It still remains to be inquired how far the ultimate accordance of sense and sound may be the result of onomatopoeia, of mere borrowing, or of a possible mixture of languages on equal terms. The final stage in etymological inquiry is to decide the limit to which comparison may be carried in the primitive strata of language-in other words, how far roots, as ascertained-from groups of words, may be compared with roots, and reduced to yet simpler elementary forms. Any flaw in the processes above described will, of course, invalidate the whole result. Even where the philologist is provided with ample materials for inquiry in stores of literature ranging over long periods of time, much difficulty is experienced in making good each link in the chain of agreement; and yet in such cases the dialectic varieties have been kept within some degree of restraint by the existence of a literary language, which, by impressing its authoritative stamp on certain terms, has secured both their general use and their external integrity. Where no literature exists, as is the case with the general mass of languages in the world, the difficulties are infinitely increased by the combined effects of a prolific growth of dialectic forms, and an absence of all means of tracing out their progress. Whether, under these circumstances, we may reasonably expect to establish a radical unity of language is a question, which each person must decide for himself. Much may yet be done by a larger induction and a scientific analysis of languages that are yet comparatively unknown. The tendency hitherto has been to enlarge the limits of a "family" according as the elements of affinity have been recognized in outlying members. These limits may perchance be still more enlarged by the discovery of connecting-links between the language- families, whereby the criteria of relationship will be modified, and new elements of internal unity be discovered amid the manifold appearances of external diversity.
Meanwhile we must content ourselves with stating the present position of the linguistic science in reference to this important topic. In the first place, the Indo-European languages have been reduced to an acknowledged and well-defined relationship: they form one of the two families included under the head of "inflectional" in the morphological classification. The other family in this class is the (so-called) Shemitic, the limits of which are not equally well defined, inasmuch as it may be extended over what are termed the sub-Shemitic languages, including the Egyptian or Coptic. The criteria: of the proper Shemitic family (i.e. the Aramsean, Hebrew, Arabic, and Ethiopic languages) are distinctive enough; but the connection between the Shemitic and the Egyptian is not definitely established. Some philologists are inclined to claim for the latter an independent position, intermediate between the Indo-European and Shemitic families (Bunsen, Philippians of- Hist. 1, 185 sq.). The agglutinative languages of Europe and Asia are combined by Prof. M. Muller in one family named "Turanian." It is conceded that the family bond in this case is a loose one, and that the agreement in roots is very partial (Lectures, p. 290-292). Many philologists of high standing, and more particularly Pott (Ungleich. d. mensch. Rassen, p. 232), deny the family relationship altogether, and break up the agglutinative languages into a great number of families. Certain it is that within the Turanian circle there are languages such, for instance, as the Ural-Altaian which show so close an affinity to one another as to be entitled to form a separate division, either as a family, or a subdivision of a family; and, this being the case, we should hesitate to put them on a parity of footing with the remainder of the Turanian languages. The Caucasian group, again, differs so widely from the other members of the family as to make the relationship very dubious. The monosyllabic languages of South- eastern Asia are not included in the Turanian family by Prof M. Muller (Lectures, p. 290, 326), apparently on the ground that they are not agglutinative; -but as the Chinese appears to be connected radically with the Burmese. (Humboldt, Verschied. p. 368), with the Thibetan (Philippians of Hist. 1, 393-395), and with the Ural-Altaian languages (Schott, in Abh. Ab. Berl. 1861, p. 172), it seems to have a good title to be placed in the Turanian family. With regard to the American and the bulk of the African languages, we are unable to say whether they can be brought under any of the heads already mentioned, or whether they stand by themselves as distinct families. The former are referred by writers of high eminence to an Asiatic or Turanian origin (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist. 2, 111; Latham, Man and his Migrat. p. 186); the latter to the Shemitic family (Latham, p. 148).
The problem that awaits solution is whether the several families above specified can be reduced to a single family by demonstrating their radical identity. It would be unreasonable to expect that this identity should be coextensive with the vocabularies of the various languages; it would naturally be confined to such ideas and objects as are common to mankind generally. Even within this circle the difficulty of proving the identity may be infinitely enhanced by the absence of materials. There are, indeed, but two families in which these materials are found in anything like sufficiency, viz. the Indo-European and the Shemitic, and even these furnish us with no historical evidence as to the earlier stages of their growth. We find each, at the most remote literary period, already exhibiting its distinctive character of stem and word-formation, leaving us to infer, as we best may, from these phenomena the processes, by which they had reached that point. Hence there arises abundance of room for difference of opinion, and the extent of the radical identity will depend very much on the view adopted as to these earlier processes. If we could accept in its entirety the system of etymology propounded by the analytical school of Hebrew scholars, it would not be difficult to establish a very large amount of radical identity; but we cannot regard as established the prepositional force of the initial letters, as stated by Delitzsch in his Jeshurun (p. 166,173, note), still less the correspondence between these and the initial letters of Greek and Latin words (p. 170-172). The striking uniformity of bisyllabism in the verbal stems is explicable only on the assumption that a single principle underlies the whole; and the existence of groups of words differing slightly in form, and having the same radical sense, leads to the presumption that this principle was one not of composition, but of euphonisri and practical convenience. This presumption is still further favored by an analysis of the letters forming the stems, showing that the third-letter is in many instances a reduplication, and in others a liquid, a nasal, or a sibilant, introduced either as the initial, the medial, or the final letter. The Hebrew alphabet admits of a classification based on the radical character of the letter according to its position in the stem. The effect of composition would have been to produce, in the first place, a greater inequality in the length of the words, and, in the second place, a greater equality in the use of the various organic sounds.
Many supposed instances of etymological correspondence have been falsely based on the analytical tenets; but there still exists a considerable amount of radical identity, which appears to be above suspicion. Under SEE PHILOLOGY, SEE COMPARATIVE, we have given a list of terms in which that identity is manifested. After deducting whatever may be due to fanciful or accidental agreement, there still remain many instances which cannot possibly be explained on the principle of onomatopoeia and which would therefore seem to be the common inheritance of the Indo-European and Shemitic families. Whether this agreement is, as Renan suggests, the result of a keen susceptibility of the onomatopoetic faculty in the original framers of the words (Hist. Genesis 1, 465) is a point that can neither be proved nor disproved. But even if it were so, it does not follow that the words. were not framed before the separation of the families. Our list of comparative words might have been much enlarged if we had included comparisons based on the reduction of Shemitic roots to a bisyllabic form. A list of such words may be found in Delitzsch, Jeshurun, p. 177-180. In regard to pronouns and numerals, the identity is but partial. We may detect the t sound, which forms the distinctive sound of the second personal pronoun in the Indo-European languages, in the Hebrew attah, and in the personal terminations of the perfect tense; but the m7, which is the prevailing -sound of the first personal pronoun in the former, is supplanted by an n in the latter. The numerals shesh and sheba, for "six" and '"seven," accord with the Indo-European forms: those representing the numbers from "one" to "five" are possibly, though not evidently, identical. With regard to the other language families, it will not be expected, after the observations already made, that we should attempt the proof of their radical identity. The Ural-Altaian languages have been extensively studied, but are hardly ripe for comparison. Occasional resemblances have been detected in grammatical forms and in the vocabularies; but the value of these remains to be proved, and we must await the results of a more extended research into this and other regions of the world of language.
(B.) We pass on to the second, point proposed for consideration, viz. the ethnological views expressed in the Bible, and more particularly in ch. 10 of Genesis, which records the dispersion of nations consequent on the confusion of tongues.
(I.) The Mosaic table does not profess to describe the process of the dispersion; but, assuming that dispersion as a fait accompli, it records the ethnic relations existing between the various nations affected by it. These relations, are expressed under the guise of a genealogy; the ethnological character of the document is, however, clear both from the names, some of which are gentilic in form, as Ludim, Jebusite, etc., others geographical or local, as Mizraim, Sidon, etc., and, again, from the formulary which concludes each section of the subject, "after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations" (ver. 5, 20, 31). Incidentally, the table is geographical as well as ethnological; but this arises out of the practice of designating nations by the countries they occupy. It has, indeed, been frequently surmised that the arrangement of the table is purely geographical, and this idea is, to a certain extent, favored by the possibility of explaining the names Shem, Ham, and Japheth on this principle, the first signifying the "high" lands, the second the "hot" or "low" lands, and the third the "broad," undefined regions of the north. The three families may have been so located, and such a circumstance could not have been unknown to the writer of the table. But neither internal: nor external evidence satisfactorily proves such to have been the leading idea or principle embodied in it, for the Japhethites are mainly assigned to the "isles" or maritime districts of the west and north-west, while the Shemites press down into the plain of Mesopotamia, and the Hamites, on the other hand, occupy the high lands of Canaan and Lebanon. We hold, therefore, the geographical as subordinate to the ethnographical element, and avail ourselves of the former only as an instrument for the discovery of the latter.
The general arrangement of the table is as follows: The whole human race is referred back to Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The Shemites are described last, apparently that the continuity of the narrative may not be further disturbed; and the Hamites stand next to the Shemites, in order to show that these were more closely related to each other than to the Japhethites. The comparative degrees of affinity are expressed, partly by coupling the names together, as in the cases of Elishah and Tarshish. Kittim and Dodanim (ver. 4), and partly by representing a genealogical descent, as when the nations just mentioned are said to be "sons of Javan." An inequality may be observed in the length of the genealogical lines, which, in the case of Japheth, extends only to one, in Ham to two, in Shem to three, and even four degrees. This inequality clearly arises out of the varying interest taken in the several lines by the author of the table, and by those for whose use it was designed. We may lastly observe that the occurrence of the same name in two of the lists, as in the cases of Lud (ver. 13, 22) and Sheba (ver. 7, 28), possibly indicates a fusion of the races.
a. The identification of the Biblical with the historical or classical names of nations is by no means an easy task, particularly where the names are not subsequently noticed in the Bible. In these cases, comparisons with ancient or modern designations are the only resource, and where the designation is one of a purely geographical character, as in the case of Riphath compared with Ripaei Montes, or Mash compared with Masius Mons, great doubt must exist as to the ethnic force of the title, inasmuch as several nations may have successively, occupied the same district. Equal doubt arises where names admit of being treated as appellatives, and so of being transferred from one district to another. Recent research into Assyrian and Egyptian records has, in many instances, thrown light on the Biblical titles. In the former we find Meshech and Tubal noticed under the forms Juskaiand Tuplai, while Javan appears as the appellation of Cyprus, where the Assyrians first met with Greek civilization. In the latter the name Phut appears under the form of Pount, Hittite as Khita, Cush as Keesh, Canaan as Kannaa, etc.
1. The list of Japhethites contains fourteen names, of which seven represent independent and the remainder affiliated nations, as follows:
(i.) Gomer, connected ethnically with the Cimmerii, Cimbri (?), and Cymrn; and geographically with Crinlea. Associated with Gomer are the three following:
(a.) Ashkenaz, generally compared with Lamke Ascanius Bithynia, but by Knobel with the tribe Asci, As, or Ossetes in the Caucasian district. On the whole, we prefer, Hasse's suggestion of a connection between this name and that of the Axenus, later the Euxinus Pontus.
(b.) Riphath, the lipcei Mointes, which Knobel connects etymologically and geographically with Carpates Mons.
(c.) Togarmah, undoubtedly Armenia, or a portion of it.
(ii.) Magog, the Scythians.
(iii.) Madai, Media.
(iv.) Javan, the Ionians, as a general appellation for the Hellenic race, with whom are associated the four following:
(a.) Elishah, the Eolians, less probably identified with the district Elis.
(b.) Tarshish, at a later period of Biblical history certainly identical with Tartessts in Spain, to which, however, there are objections as regards the table, partly from the too extended area thus given to the Mosaic world, and partly because Tartessus was a Phoenician, and consequently not a Japhetic, settlement. Knobel compares the Tyrseni, Tyrrhe-ni, and Tusci-of Italy; but this is precarious.
(c.) Kittim, the town Citium in Cylrus. (d.) Dodanim, the Dardani of Illyria and Mysia; Dodona is sometimes compared.
(v.) Tubal, the Tibareni in Pontus.
(vi.) Meshech, the Moschi in the north-western part of Armenia.
(vii.) Tiras, perhaps Thracia.
2. The Hamitic list contains thirty names, of which three represent independent and the remainder affiliated nations, as follows:
(i.) Cush, in two branches, the western or African representing Ethiopia, the Keesh of the old Egyptian, and the eastern or Asiatic being connected with the unamles of the tribe Cosscei, the district Cissia, and the province Susiana or Khuzistanl. With Cnuh are associated:
(a.) Seba, the Sabcei of Yemen in South Arabia.
(b.) Havilah, the district Khauldn in the same part of the peninsula.
(c.) Sabtah, the town Sabatha in Hadramaurt.
(d.) Ramah, the town Rhegma on the south-eastern coast of Arabia, with whom are associated:
(a.) Sheba, a tribe probably connected ethnically or commercially with the one of the same name already mentioned, but located on the west coast of the Persian Gulf.
(b.) Dedanm, also on the west coast of the Persian Gulf, where the name perhaps still survives in the island Dadan.
(e.) Sabtechah, perhaps the town Samydace on the coast of the Indian Ocean eastward of the Persian Gulf.
(f.) Nimrod, a personal and not a geographical name, the representative of the Eastern Cushites.
(ii.) Mizraim, the two Misrs, ie. Upper and Lower Egypt, with whom the following seven are connected:
(a.) Ludim, according to Knobel, a tribe allied to the Shemitic Lud, but settled in Egypt; others compare the river Laud (Pliny, 5, 2), and the Lewdtah, a Berber tribe on the Syrtes.
(b.) Anamim, according to Knobel, the inhabitants of the Delta, which would be described in Egyptian by the term sanemhit or tsanemhit, "northern district," converted by the Hebrews into Anamiim.
(c.) Naphtuhim, variously explained as the people of Nephthys, i.e. the northern coast 'district (Bochalt), and as the worshippers of Phthah, meaning the inhabitants of Memphis.
(d.) Pathrusim, Uppler Ezypt, the name being exsplained as nmeanilng in the Egyptian "the south" (Knlobel).;
(e.) Casluhim, Casius Mons, Cassiotis, and Cassium, eastward of the Delta (Knobel) the Colchians, according to Bochart, but this is unlikely.
(f.) Caphtorim, most probably the district about Coptos in Upper Egypt SEE CAPHTOR; the island of Crete according to many modern critics, Cappadocia according to the older interpreters.
(g.) Phut, the Pûnt of the Egyptian inscriptions, meaning the Libyans.
(3.) Canaan, the geographical position of which calls for no remark in this place. The name has been variously explained as meaning the "low" land of the coast district, or the "subjection" threatened to Canaan personally (Ge 9:25). To Canaan belong the following eleven:
(a.) Sidon, the well-known town of that name in Phoenicia.
(b.) Heth, or the Hittites of Biblical history.
(c.) The Jebusite, of Jebus or Jerusalem.
(d.) The Amorite, frequently mentioned in Biblical history.
(e.) The Girgasite, the same as the Girgashites.
(f.) The Hivite, variously explained to mean the occupants of the "interior" (Ewald), or the dwellers in "villages" (Geselnius).
(g.) The Atkite, of Area, north of Tripolis, at the foot of Lebanon.
(h.) The Sinite, of Sin or Sinna, places in the Lebanon district.
(i.) The Arvadite, of Aradus on the coast of Phoenicia.
(j.) The Zemarite, of Simyra on the Eleutherus.
(k.) The Hamathite, of Hamath, the classical Epiphania, on the Orontes.
3. The Shemitic list contains twenty-six names, of which five refer to independent and the remainder to affiliated tribes, as follows: (i.) Elam, the tribe Elyncei and the district Elyntais in Susiana.: (ii.) Asshur, Assyria between the Tigris and the range of Zagtrus. (iii.) Arphaxad, Arrapachitis, in Northern Assyria, with whom are associated:
(a.) Salah, a personal and also a geographical title, indicating a migration of the people represented by him; Salah's son.
(b.) Eber, representing geographically the district across (i.e. eastward of) the Euphrates; and Eber's two sons.
(c.) Peleg, a personal name indicating a "division" of this branch of the She mi tic family, and
(d.) Joktan, representing generally the inhabitants of Arabia, with the following thirteen sons of Joktan, viz.:
(a.) Almodad, probably representing the tribe of Juirhum near Mecca, whose leader was named Modad.
(b.) Sheleph, the Salapeni in Yemen.
(c.) Hazarmaveth, Hadramaut in Southern Arabia.
(e.) Hadoram, the Adramitae on the southern coast, in a-district of Hadrama-it.
(f.) Uzal, supposed to represent the town Sanaa in South Arabia, as having been founded by Asal.
(h.) Obal, or, as in 1Ch 1:22, Ebal, which latter is identified by Knobel with the Gebanitoe in the south-west.
(i.) Abimael, doubtfully connected with the district Mahra, eastward of Hadramauot, and with the towns Mara and Mali.
(j.) Sheba, the Saboei of South-western Arabia, about Mariaba. (k.) Ophir, probably Adane, on the southern const, but see article. (1.) Havilah, the district Khaucldn in the northwest of Yemen. (m.) Jobab, possibly the Jobaritae of Ptolemy (6, 7, 24), for which Jobabitae may originally have stood.
(iv.) Lud, generally compared with Lydia, but explained by Knobel as referring to the various aboriginal tribes in and about Palestine, such as the Amalekites, Rephaites, Emim, etc. We cannot consider either of these views as well established. Lydia itself lay beyond the horizon of the Mosaic table; as to the Shemitic origin of its population, conflicting opinions are entertained, to which we shall have occasion to advert hereafter. Knobel's view has in its favor the probability that the tribes referred to would be represented in the table; it is, however, wholly devoid of historical confirmation, with the exception of an Arabian tradition that Amlik was one of the sons of Laud or Lawad, the son of Shem.
(5.) Aram, the general name for Syria and Northern Mesopotamia, with whom the following fare associated:
(a.) Uz, probably the Esitce of Ptolemy.
(b.) Hul, doubtful, but best connected with the name Huleth, attaching to a district north of Lake Meroli.
(c.) Gether, not identified.
(d.) Mash, Masius Mons, in the north of Mesopotamia.
There is yet one name noticed in the table, viz. Philistim, which occurs in the Hamitic division, but without any direct assertion of Harnitic descent. The terms used in the A. V.," out of whom (Casluhim) came Philistim" (ver. 14), would naturally imply descent, but the Hebrew text only warrants the conclusion that the Philistines sojourned in the land of the Casluhim. Notwithstanding this, we believe the intention of the author of the table to have been to affirm the Hamitic origin of the Philistines, leaving undecided the particular branch whether Casluhim or Caphtorim, with which it was more immediately connected.
The total number of names noticed in the table, including Philistim, would thus amount to seventy-one, which was raised by patristic writers to seventy-two. These totals afforded scope for numerical comparisons, and also for an estimate of the number of nations and languages to be found on the earth's surface. It is needless to say that the Bible itself furnishes no ground for such calculations, inasmuch as it does not, in any case; specify the numbers.
b. Before proceeding further, it would be well to discuss a question materially affecting the historical value of the Mosaic table, viz. the period to which it refers. On this point very various opinions are entertained; Knobel, conceiving it to represent the commercial geography of the Phoenicians, assigns it to about B.C. 1200 (Volkert. p. 4-9), and Renan supports this view (Hist. Genesis 1, 40), while others allow it no higher an antiquity than the period of the Babylonian captivity (Von Bohlen, Genesis 2, 207; Winer, Realw. 2, 665). Internal evidence leads us to refer it back to the age of Abraham on the following grounds;
(1.) The Canaanites were as yet in undisputed possession of Palestine.
(2.) The Philistines had not concluded their migration.
(3.) Tyre is wholly unnoticed, an omission which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for on the ground that it is included under the name either of Heth (Knobel, p. 323) or of Sidon (Von Bohlen, 2, 241).
(4.) Various places, such as Simyra, Sinna, and Area, are noticed which had fallen into insignificance in later times.
(5.) Kittim, which in the age of Solomon was under Phoenician dominion, is assigned to Japheth, and the same may be said of Tarshish, which in that age undoubtedly referred to the Phoenician emporium of Tartessus, whatever may have been its earlier significance.
The chief objection to so early a date as we have ventured to propose is the notice of the Medes under the name Madai. The Aryan nation which bears this name in history appears not to have reached its final settlement until about B.C. 900 (Rawlinson, Herod. 1, 404). But, on the other hand, the name Media may well have belonged to the district before the arrival of the Aryan Medes, whether it were occupied by a tribe of kindred origin to them or by Turanians; and this probability is, to a certain extent, confirmed by the notice of a Median dynasty in Babylon, as reported by Berosus, so early as the 25th century B.C. (ibid. 1, 434). Little difficulty would be found in assigning so early a date to the Medes if the Aryan origin of the allied kings mentioned in Ge 14:1 were thoroughly established, in accordance with Renan's view (Hist. Gén. 1, 61): on this point, however, we have our doubts. SEE GENESIS.
c. The Mosaic table is supplemented by ethnological notices relating to the various divisions of the Terachite family. These belonged to the Shemitic division, being descended from Arphaxad through Peleg, with whom the line terminates in the table. Reu, Serug, and Nahor form the intermediate links between Peleg and Terah (Ge 11:18-25), with whom began the movement that terminated in the occupation of Canaan and the adjacent districts by certain branches of the family. The original seat of Terah was Ur of the Chaldees (ver. 28); thence he migrated to Haran (ver. 31), where a section of his descendants, the representatives of Nahor, remained (24; 10; 27:43; 29; 4 sq.), while the two branches, represented by Abraham and Lot, the son of Haran, crossed the Euphrates and settled in Canaan and the adjacent districts (Ge 12:5). From Lot sprang the Moabites and Ammonites (Ge 19:30-38); from Abraham the Ishmaelites through his son Ishmael (Ge 25:12), the Israelites through Isaac and Jacob, the Edomites through Isaac and Esau (ch. 36), and certain Arab tribes, of whom the Midianites are the most conspicuous, through the sons of his concubine Keturah (Ge 20:1,1-4).
The most important geographical question in connection with the Terachites concerns their original settlement. The presence of the, Chaldees in Babylonia at a subsequent period of scriptural history has led. to a supposition that they were a Hamitic people, originally belonging to Babylonia, and thence transplanted in the 7th and 8th centuries to Northern Assyria (Rawlinson, Herod. 1, 319). Others think it more consistent with the general direction of the Terachite movement to look for Ur in Northern Mesopotamia, to the east of Haran. That the Chaldees, or, according to the Hebrew nomenclature, the Kasdim, were found in that neighborhood is indicated by the name Chesed as one of the sons of Nahor (Ge 22:22), and possibly by the name Arphaxad itself, which, according to Ewald (Gesch. 1, 378), means "fortress of the Chaldees." In classical times we find the Kasdim still occupying the mountains adjacent to Arrapachitis, the Biblical Arpachsad, under the names Chaldaei (Xenoph. Anab. 4:3, 1- 4) and Gordymei or Carduchi (Strabo, 16:747), and here the name still has a vital existence under the form of Kurd. The name Kasdim is explained by Oppert as meaning" "two rivers," 'and thus as equivalent to the Hebrew Naharain and the classical Mesopotamia (Zeit. d. morg. Ges. 11:137). We receive this explanation with reserve; but, so far as it goes, it favors the northern locality. The evidence for the antiquity of the southern settlement is lessened if the term Kaldai does not occur in the Assyrian inscriptions until the 9th century B.C. (Rawlinson, 1, 449). But whether we conceive the original seat of the Chaldees to have been in the north or in the south, they moved along the course of the Tigris until they reached Babylon, where we find them dominant in the 7th century B.C. Whether they first entered this country as mercenaries, and then conquered their employers, as suggested by Renan (Hist. Genesis 1, 68), must remain uncertain, but we think the suggestion supported by the circumstance that the name was afterwards transferred to the whole Babylonian population. The sacerdotal character of the Chaldees is certainly difficult to reconcile with this or any other hypothesis on the subject.
Returning to the Terachites, we find it impossible to define the geographical limits of their settlements with precision. They intermingled with the previously existing inhabitants of the countries intervening between the Red Sea and the Euphrates, and hence we find an Aram, an Uz, and a Chesed among the descendants of Nahor (Ge 22:21-22), a Dedan and a Sheba among those of Abraham by Ketlirah (Ge 25:3), and an Amalek among the descendants of Esau (Ge 36:12). Few of the numerous tribes which sprang from this stock attained historical celebrity. The Israelites must of course be excepted from this description; so, also, the Nabathaeans, if they are to be regarded as represented by the Nebaioth of the Bible, as to which there is some doubt (Quatremere, Mélanges, p. 59). Of the rest, the Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, and Edomites are chiefly known for their hostilities with the Israelites, to whom they were close neighbors. The memory of the westerly migration of the Israelites was perpetuated in the name Hebrew, as referring to their residence beyond the river Euphrates (Jos 24:3).
d. Besides the nations whose origin is accounted for in the Bible, we find other early populations" mentioned in the course of the history without any notice of their ethnology. In this category we may place the Horim, who occupied Edom before the descendants of Esau (De 2:12,22); the Amalekites of the Sinaitic peninsula; the Zuzim and Zamzummim of Perea (Ge 14:5; De 2; De 20); the Rephaim of Bashan, and of the valley near Jerusalem named after them (Ge 14:5; 2Sa 5; 2Sa 18); the Emim eastward of the Dead Sea (Ge 14:5) 1 the Avim of the southern Philistine plain (De 2:23); and the Anakim of Southern Palestine (Jos 11:21). The question arises whether these tribes were Hamites, or whether they represented an earlier population which preceded the entrance of the Hamites. The latter view is supported by Knobel, who regards the majority of these tribes as Shemites; who preceded the Canaanites, and communicated to them the Shemitic tongue (Völkert. p. 204, 315). No evidence can be adduced in support of this theory, which was probably suggested by the double difficulty of accounting for the name of Lud and of explaining the apparent anomaly of the Hamites and Terachites speaking the same language. Still less evidence is there in favor of the Turanian origin, which would, we presume, be assigned to these tribes in common with the Canaanites proper, in accordance with a current theory that the first wave of population which overspread Western Asia belonged to that branch of the human race (Rawlinson, Herod. 1, 645, note). To this theory we shall presently advert; meanwhile, we can only observe, in reference to these fragmentary populations, that, as they intermingled with the Canaanites, they probably belonged to the same stock (comp. Nu 13:22; Jg 1:10). They may, perchance, have belonged to an earlier migration than the Canaanitish, and may have been subdued by the later comers; but this would not necessitate a different origin. The names of these tribes and of their abodes, as instanced in Ge 14:5; De 2; De 23; Nu 13:22, bear a Shemitic character (Ewald. Gesch. 1, 311), and the only objection to their Canaanitish origin arising out of these names would be in connection with Zamzummim, which, according to Renan (Hist. Gén. p. 35, note), is formed on the same principle as the Greek βάρβαρος, and in this case implies, at all events, a dialectical difference.
(II.) Having thus surveyed the ethnological statements contained in the Bible, it remains for ins to inquire how far they are based on, or accord with, physiological or linguistic principles. Knobel maintains that the threefold division of the Mosaic table is founded on the physiological principle of color, Shem, Ham, and Japheth representing respectively the red, black, and white complexions prevalent in the different regions of the then known world (Völkert. p. 11-13). He claims etymological support for this view in respect to Ham (="dark") and Japheth (="fair"), but not in respect to Shem; and he adduces testimony to the fact that such differences of color were noted in ancient times. . The etymological argument weakens rather than sustains his view; for it is difficult to conceive that the principle of classification would be embodied in two of the names, and not also in the third, the force of such evidence is wholly dependent upon its uniformity. With regard to the actual prevalence of the hues, it is quite consistent with the physical character of the districts that the Hamites of the south should be dark, and the Japhethites of the north fair, and, further, that the Shemites should hold an intermediate place in color as in geographical position. But we have no evidence that this distinction was strongly marked, The "redness" expressed in the name Edom probably referred to the soil (Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 87) the Erythrcum Mare was so called from a peculiarity in its own tint, arising from the presence of some vegetable substance, and not because the red Shemites bordered on it, the black Cushites being equally numerous on its shores; the name Adam, as applied to the Shemitic man, is ambiguous, from its reference to soil as-well as color. On the other hand, the Phoenicians (assuming them to have reached the Mediterranean seaboard before the table was compiled) were so called from their red hue, and yet are placed in the table among the Hamites. The argument drawn from the red hue of the Egyptian deity Typhon is of little value until it can be decisively proved that the deity in question represented the Shemites. This is asserted by Renan (Hist. Gén. 1, 38), who endorses Knobel's view so far as the Shemites are concerned, though he does not accept his general theory.
The linguistic difficulties connected with the Mosaic table are very considerable, and we cannot pretend to unravel the tangled skein of conflicting opinions on the subject. The primary difficulty arises out of the Biblical narrative itself, and is consequently of old standing the difficulty, namely, of accounting for the evident identity of language spoken by the Shemitic Terachites and the Hamitic Canaanites. Modern linguistic research has rather enhanced than removed this difficulty. The alternatives hitherto offered as satisfactory solutions namely, that the Terachites adopted their language of the Canaanites, or the Canaanites that of the Terachites are both inconsistent with the enlarged area which the language is found to cover on each side. Setting aside the question of the high improbability that a wandering nomadic tribe, such as the Terachites, would be able to impose its language on a settled and powerful nation like the Canaanites, it would still remain to be explained how the Cushites and other Hamitic tribes, who did not come into contact with the Terachites, acquired the same general type of language. On, the other hand, assuming that what are called Shemitic languages were really Hamitic, we have to explain the extension of the Hamitic, area over. Mesopotamia and Assyria, which, according to the table and the general opinion of ethnologists, belonged wholly to a non-Hamitic population. A further question, moreover, arises out of this explanation, viz., What was the language of the Terachites before they assumed this Hamitic tongue? This question is answered by J. Miller, in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. 14:238, to the effect that the Shemites originally spoke an Indo-European language — a view which we do not expect to see generally adopted.
Restricting ourselves, for the present, to the linguistic question, we must draw attention to the fact that there is a well-defined Hamitic as well as a Shemitic class of languages, and that any theory which obliterates this distinction must fall to the ground. The Hamitic type is most highly developed, as we might expect, in the country which was, par excellence, the land of Ham, viz. Egypt; and whatever elements of original unity with the Shemitic type may be detected by philologists, practically the two were as distinct from each other in historical times as any two languages could possibly. be. We are not therefore prepared at once to throw overboard the linguistic element of the Mosaic table. At the same time, we recognize the extreme difficulty of explaining the anomaly of Hamitic tribes speaking a Shemitic tongue. It will lot suffice to say, in answer to this, that these tribes were Shemites; for again the correctness of the Mosaic table is vindicated by the differences of social and artistic culture which distinguish the Shemites proper from the Phoenicians and Cushites using a Shemitic tongue. The former are characterized by habits of simplicity, isolation, and adherence to patriarchal ways of living and thinking; the Phoenicians, on the other hand, were eminently a commercial people; and the Cushites are identified with the massive architectural erections of Babylonia and South Arabia, and with equally extended ideas of empire and social progress.
The real question at issue concerns the language, not of the whole Hamitic family, but of the Canaanites and Cushites. With regard to the former, various explanations have been offered such as Knobel's, that they acquired a Shemitic language from a prior population, represented by the Rephaim, Zulzim, Zamzummim, etc. (Völkert-t. p. 315); or Bunsen's, that they were a Shemitic race who had long sojourned in Egypt (Philippians of list. 1, 191) -neither of which is satisfactory. With regard to the latter, the only explanation to be offered is that a Joktanid immigration supervened on the original Hamitic population, the result being a combination of Cushitic civilization with a Shemitic language (Renan, Hist. Géneralé 1, 322). Nor is it unimportant to mention that peculiarities have been discovered in the Cushite-Shemitic of Southern Arabia which suggest a close affinity with the Phoenician forms (ibid. 1,318). We are not, however, without expectation that time and research will clear up much of the mystery that now enwraps the subject. There are two directions to which we may hopefully turn for light, namely, Egypt and Babylonia, with regard to each of which we make a few remarks.
1. That the Egyptian language exhibits many striking points of resemblance to the Shemitic type is acknowledged on all sides. It is also allowed that the resemblances are of a valuable character, being observable in the pronouns, numerals, in agglutinative forms, in the treatment of vowels, and other such points (Renan, Hist. Géneralé 1, 84, 85). There is not, however, an equal degree of agreement among scholars as to the deductions to be drawn from these resemblances. While many recognize in them the proofs of a substantial identity, and hence regard Hamitism as an early stage of Shemitism, others deny, either on general or on special grounds, the probability of such a connection. When we find such high authorities as Bunsen on the former side (Philippians of Hist. 1, 186-189; 2, 3), and Renan (Hist. Gén. 1, 86) on the other, not to mention a long array of scholars who have adopted each view, it would be presumption dogmatically to assert the correctness or incorrectness of either. We can only point to the possibility of the identity being established, and to the further possibility that connecting links may be discovered between the two extremes, which may serve to bridge over the gulf, and to render the use of a Shemitic language by a Hamitic race less of an anomaly than it at present appears to be.
2. Turning eastward to the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, and the adjacent countries, we find ample materials for research in the inscriptions recently discovered, the examination of which has not yet yielded undisputed results. The Mosaic table places a Shemitic population in Assyria and Elam, and a Cushitic one in Babylon. The probability of this being ethnically (as opposed to geographically) true depends partly on the age assigned to the table. There can be no question that at a late period Assyria and Elam were held by non-Shemitic, probably Aryan, conquerors. But if we carry the table back to the age of Abraham, the case may have been different; for though Elam is regarded as etymologically identical with Iran (Renan, Hist. Géneralé 1, 41), this is not conclusive as to the Iranian character of the language in early times. Sufficient evidence is afforded by language that the basis of the population in Assyria was Shemitic (ibid. 1, 70; Knobel, p. 154-156); and it is by no means improbable that the inscriptions belonging more especially to the neighborhood of Susa may ultimately establish the fact of a Shemitic population in Elam. The presence of a Cushitic population in Babylon is an opinion very generally held on linguistic grounds; and a close identity is said to exist between the old Babylonian and the Mahri language, a Shemitic tongue of an ancient type still living in a district of Hadramaut, in Southern Arabia (Renan, Hist. Genesis 1, 60). In addition to the Cushitic and Shermitic elements in the population of Babylonia and the adjacent districts, the presence of a Turanian element has been inferred from the linguistic character of the early inscriptions. We must here express our conviction that the ethnology of the countries in question is considerably clouded by the undefined use of the terms Turanian, Scythic, and the like. It is frequently difficult to decide whether these terms are used in a linguistic sense, as equivalent to agglutinative, or in an ethnic sense. The presence of a certain amount of. Turanianism in the former does not involve; its presence in the latter sense.
The old Babylonian and Susianian inscriptions maybe more agglutinative than the later ones, but this is only a proof of their belonging to an earlier stage of the language, and does not of itself indicate a foreign population; and if these early Babylonian inscriptions graduate into the Shemitic, as is asserted even by the advocates of the Turanian theory (Rawlinson, Herod. 1, 442, 445), the presence of an ethnic Turanianism cannot possibly be inferred. Added to this, it is inexplicable how the presence of a large Scythic population in the Achaemenian period, to which many of the Susianian inscriptions belong, could escape the notice of historians. The only Scythic tribes noticed by Herodotus in his review of the Persian empire are the Parthians and the Sacoe, the former of whom are known to have lived in the north, while the latter probably lived in the extreme east, where a memorial of them is still supposed to exist in the name Seistcan, representing the ancient Sacastene. Even with regard to these, Scythic may not mean Turanian: for they may have belonged to the Scythians of history (the Skolots), for whom an Indo-European origin is claimed (ibid. 3, 197). The impression conveyed by the supposed detection of so many heterogeneous elements in the old Babylonian tongue (ibid. 1, 442, 444, 646, notes) is not favorable to the general results of the researches.
With regard to Arabia, it may safely be asserted that the Mosaic table is confirmed by modern research. The Cushitic element has left memorials of its presence in the south in the vast ruins of Mareh and Sana (Renan, Hist. Gén. 1, 318), as well as in the influence it has exercised on the Himyaritic and Mahri languages, as compared with the Hebrew. The Joktanid element forms the basis of the Arabian population, the Shemitic character of whose language needs no proof. With regard to the Ishmaelite element in the north, we are not aware of any linguistic proof of its existence, but it is confirmed by the traditions of the Arabians themselves.
It remains to be inquired how far the Japhetic stock represents the linguistic characteristics of the Indo-European and Turanian families. Adopting the twofold division of the former, suggested by the name itself, into the eastern and western; and subdividing the eastern into the Indian and Iranian, and the western into the Celtic, Hellenic, Illyrian, Italian, Teutonic; Slavonian, and Lithuanian classes, we are able to assign Madai (Media) and Togarmah (Armenia) to the Iranian class; Javan (Ionian) and Elishah (Eolian) to the Hellenic; Gomer conjecturally to the Celtic; and Dodanim, also conjecturally, to the Illyrian. According to the old interpreters, Ashkenaz represents the Teutonic class, while, according to Knobel, the Italian would be represented by Tarshish, whom he identifies with the Etruscans; the Slavonian by Magog; and the Lithuanian possibly by Tiras (Völkert. p. 68, 90. 130). The same writer also identifies Riphath with the Gauls, as distinct from the Cymry or Gomer (p. 45); while Kittim is referred by him not improbably to the Carians, who at; one period were predominant on the islands adjacent to Asia Minor (p. 98). The evidence for these identifications varies in strength, but: in no instance approaches to demonstration. Beyond the general probability that the main branches of the human family would be represented in the Mosaic table, we regard much that has been advanced on this subject as highly precarious. At the same time, it must be conceded that the subject is an open one; and that as there is no possibility of proving, so, also, there is none of disproving, the correctness of these conjectures, Whether the Turanian family is fairly represented in the Mosaic table may be doubted. Those who advocate the Mongolian origin of the Scythians would naturally regard Magog as the representative of this family; and even those who dissent from the Mongolian theory may still not unreasonably conceive that the title Magog applied broadly to all the nomad tribes of Northern Asia, whether Indo- European or Turanian. Tubal and Meshech remain to be considered; Knobel identifies these respectively with the Iberians and the Ligurians (p. 111, 119); and if the Finnish character of the Basque language were established, he would regard the Iberians as certainly, and the Ligurians as probably, Turanians the relics of the first wave of population which is supposed to have once overspread the whole of the European continent, and of which the Finns in the north, and the Basques in the south, are the sole surviving representatives. The Turanian character of the two Biblical races above mentioned has been otherwise maintained on the ground of the identity of the names Meshech and Muscovite (Rawlinson, Herod. 1, 652).
(III.) Having thus reviewed the ethnic relations of the nations who fell within the circle of the Mosaic table, we propose to cast a glance beyond its limits, and inquire how far the present results of ethnological science support the general idea of the unity of the human race, which underlies the Mosaic system. The chief and in many instances the only instrument at our command for ascertaining the relationship of nations is language. In its general results this instrument is thoroughly trustworthy, and in each individual case to which it is applied it furnishes a strong prima facie evidence; but its evidence, if unsupported by collateral proofs is not unimpeachable, in consequence of the numerous instances of adopted languages which have occurred within historical times. This drawback to the value of the evidence of language will not materially affect our present inquiry, inasmuch as we shall confine ourselves as much as possible to the general results.
The nomenclature of modern ethnology is not identical with that of the Bible, partly from the enlargement of the area, and partly from the general adoption of language as the basis of classification. The term Shemitic is indeed retained, not, however, to indicate a descent from Shem, but the use of languages allied to that which was current among the Israelites in historical times. Hamitic also finds a place in modern ethnology; but as subordinate to, or coordinate with, Shemitic. Japhetic is superseded mainly by, Indo-European or Aryan. The various nations, or families of nations, which find no place under the Biblical titles are classed by certain ethnologists under the broad title of Turanian, while by others they are broken up into divisions more or less numerous.
1. The first branch of our subject will be to trace the extension of the Shemitic family beyond the limits assigned to it in the Bible. The most marked characteristic of this family, as compared with the Indo-European or Turanian, is its inelasticity. Hemmed in both by natural barriers and by the superior energy and expansiveness of the Aryan and Turanian races, it retains to the present day the status quo of early times. The only direction in which it has exhibited; any tendency to expand has been about the shores of the Mediterranean, and even here its activity was of a sporadic character, limited to a single branch of the family, viz. the Phoenicians, and to a single phase of expansion, viz. commercial colonies. In Asia Minor we find tokens of Shemitic presence in Cilicia, which was connected with Phoenicia both by tradition (Herod. 8, 91) and by language, as attested by existing coins (Gesenius, Mon. Phon. 3, 2); in Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycia, parts of which were occupied by the Solymi (Pliny, 5, 24; Herod. 1, 173), whose name bears a Shemitic character, and who are reported to have spoken a Shemitic tongue (Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9:9), a statement confirmed by the occurrence of other Shemitic names, such as Phoenix and Cabalia, though the subsequent predominance of an Aryan population in these same districts is attested by the existing Lycian inscriptions again in Caria, though the evidence arising out of the supposed identity of the names of the gods Osogo ani Chrysaoreus with the Οὔσωος and Χρυσώρ of Sanchoniathon is called in question (Renan, Hist. Genesis 1, 49); and, lastly, in Lydia, where the descendants of Lud are located by many authorities, and where the prevalence of a Shemitic language is asserted by scholars of the highest standing, among whom we may specify Bunsen and Lasen, in spite of tokens of the contemporaneous presence of the Aryan element, as instanced in the name Sardis, and in spite, also, of the historical notices of an ethnical connection with Mysia (Herod. 1, 171). Whether the Shemites ever occupied any portion of the plateau of Asia Minor may be doubted. In the opinion of the ancients the later occupants of Cappadocia were Syrians, distinguished from the mass of their race by a lighter hue, and hence termed Leucosyri (Strabo, 12:542); but this statement is traversed by the evidences of Aryanism afforded by the names of the kings and deities, as well as by the Persian character of the religion (ibid. 15:733). If, therefore, the Shemites ever occupied this district, they must soon have been brought under the dominion of Aryan conquerors (Diefenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 44). The Phoenicians were ubiquitous on the islands and shores of the Mediterranean: in Cyprus, where they have left tokens of their presence at Citium and other places; in Crete; in Malta, where they were the original settlers (Diod. Sic. 5, 12); on the mainland of Greece, where their presence is betokened by the name Cadmus; in Samos, Same, and Samothrace, which bear Shemitic names; in Ios and Tenedos, once known by the name of Phoenice; in Sicily, where Panormus, Motya, and Soloeis were Shemitic settlements; in Sardinia (ibid. 5, 35); on the eastern and southern coasts of Spain; and on the north coast of Africa, which was lined with Phoenician colonies from the Syrtis Major to the Pillars of Hercules. They, must also have penetrated deeply into the interior, to judge from Strabo's statement of the destruction of three hundred towns by the Pharusians and Nigritians (Strabo, 17, 826). Still, in none of the countries we have mentioned did they supplant the original population; they were conquerors and settlers, but no more than this.
The bulk of the North African languages, both in ancient and modern times, though not Shemitic in the proper sense of the term, so far resemble that type as to have obtained the title of sub-Shemitic. In the north the old Numidian language appears, from the prevalence of the syllable Mas in the name Massylii, etc., to be allied to the modern Berber; and the same conclusion has been drawn with regard to the Libyan tongue. The Berber, in turn, together with the Touarick and the great body of the North African dialects, is closely allied to the Coptic of Egypt, and therefore falls under the title of Hamitic, or, according to the more usual nomenclature, sub- Shemitic (Renan, Hist. Gén. 1, 201, 202). Southward of Egypt the Shemitic type is reproduced in the majority of the Abyssinian languages, particularly in the Gheez, and in a less marked degree in the Amharic, the Saho, and the Galla; and Shemitic influence may be traced along the whole east coast of Africa as far as Mozambique (ibid. 1, 336-340). As to the languages of the interior and of the south, there appears to be a conflict of opinions, the writer from whom we have just quoted denying any trace of resemblance to the Shemitic type, while Dr. Latham asserts very confidently that connecting-links exist between the sub-Shemitic languages of the north, the Negro languages in the center, and the Caffre languages of the south; and that even the Hottentot language is not so isolated as has generally been supposed (Man and his Migrat. p. 134-148). Bunsen supports this view so far as the languages north of the equator are concerned, but regards the southern as rather approximating to the Turanian type (Philippians of Hist. 1, 178; 2, 20). It is impossible as yet to form a decided opinion on this large subject.
A question of considerable interest remains yet to be noticed, namely, whether we can trace the Shemitic family back to its original cradle. In. the case of the Indo-European family this can be done with a high degree of probability; and if an original unity existed between these stocks, the domicile of the one would necessarily be that of the other. A certain community of ideas and traditions favors this assumption, and possibly the frequent allusions to the east in the early chapters of Genesis may contain a reminiscence of the direction in which the primeval abodelay (Renan, Hist. Gen. 1, 476). The position of this abode we shall describe presently.
2. The Indo-European family of languages, as at present constituted, consists of the following nine classes: Indian, Iranian, Celtic, Italian, Albanian, Greek, Teutonic, Lithuanian, and Slavonian. Geographically, these classes may be grouped together in two divisions, Eastern and Western; the former comprising the first two, the latter the seven remaining classes. Schleicher divides what we have termed the Western into two, the South-west European and the North European; in the former of which he places the Greek, Albanian, Italian, and Celtic; in the latter, the Slavonian, Lithuanian, and Teutonic (Compend. 1, 5). Prof. M. Muller combines the Slavonian and Lithuanian classes in the Windic, thus reducing the number to eight. These classes exhibit various degrees of affinity to each other, which are described by Schleicher in the following manner: The earliest deviation from the common language of the family was effected by the Slavono-Teutonic branch. After another interval a second bifurcation occurred, which separated what we may term the Graeco-Italo-Celtic branch from the Aryan. The former held together for a while, and then threw off the Greek (including probably the Albanian), leaving the Celtic and Italian still connected: the final division of the latter two took place after another considerable interval. The first mentioned branch the Slavono Teutonic remained intact for a period somewhat longer than that which witnessed the second bifurcation of the original stock, and then divided into the Teutonic and Slavono-Lithuanian, which latter finally broke up into its two component elements. The Aryan branch similarly held together for a lengthened period, and then bifurcated into the Indian and Iranian. The conclusion Schleicher draws from these linguistic affinities is that the more easterly of the European nations, the Slavonians and Teutons, were the first to leave the common home of the Indo-European race; that they were followed by the Celts, Italians, and Greeks; and that the Indian and Iranian branches were the last to commence their migrations. We feel unable to accept this conclusion, which appears to us to be based on the assumption that the antiquity of a language is to be measured by its approximation to Sanskrit. Looking at the geographical position of the representatives of the different language classes, we should infer that the most westerly were the earliest immigrants into Europe, and therefore probably the earliest emigrants from the primeval seat of the race; and we believe this to be confirmed by linguistic proofs of the high antiquity of the Celtic as compared with the other branches of the Indo-European family (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist. 1, 168).
The original seat of the Indo-European race was on the plateau of Central Asia, probably to the westward of the Bolor and Mustagh ranges. The Indian branch can be traced back to the slopes of Himalaya by the geographical allusions in the Vedic hymns (Miller, Lectures, p. 201); in confirmation of which we may adduce the circumstance that the sole tree for which the Indians have an appellation in common with the western nations is one which in India is found only on the southern slope of that range (Pott, Etym. Forsch. 1, 110). The westward progress of the Iranian tribes is a matter of history, and though we cannot trace this progress back to its fountain-head, the locality above mentioned best accords with the traditional belief of the Asiatic Aryans and with the physical and geographical requirements of the case (Renan, Hist. Géneralé 1, 481).
The routes by which the various western branches reached their respective localities can only be conjectured. We may suppose them to have successively crossed the plateau of Iran until they reached Armenia, whence they might follow either a northerly course across Caucasus, and by the shore of the Black Sea, or a direct westerly one along the plateau of Asia Minor, which seems destined by nature to be the bridge between the two continents of Europe and Asia. A third route has been surmised for a portion of the Celtic stock, viz. along the north coast of Africa, and across the Straits of Gibraltar into Spain (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist., 1, 148); but we see little confirmation of this opinion beyond the fact of the early presence of the Celtae in that peninsula, which is certainly difficult to account for.
The eras of the several migrations are again very much a matter of conjecture. The original movements belong, for the most part, to the ante- historical age, and we can do no more than note the period at which we first encounter the several nations.; That the Indian Aryans had reached the mouth of the Indus at all events before B.C. 1000 appears from the Sanskrit names of the articles which Solomon imported from that country. SEE INDIA. The presence of Aryans on the Shemitic frontier is as old as the composition of the Mosaic table; and, according to some authorities, is proved by the names of the confederate kings in the age of Abraham (Ge 14; Ge 1; Renan, Hist. Gen. 1, 61). The Aryan Medes are mentioned in the Assyrian annals about B.C. 900. The Greeks were settled on the peninsula named after them, as well as on the islands of the 2Egean, long before the dawn of history, and the Italians had reached their quarters at a yet earlier period. The Celtae had reached the west of Europe at all events before, probably very long before, the age of Hecataeus (B.C. 500); the latest branch of this stock arrived there about that period, according to Bunsen's conjecture (Philippians of Hist. 1, 152). The Teutonic migration followed at a long interval after the Celtic: Pytheas found them already seated on the shores of the Baltic in the age of Alexander the Great (Pliny,'37:11), and the term glesum itself, by which amber was described in that district, belongs to them (Diefenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 359). The earliest historical notice of them depends on the view taken of the nationality of the Teutones, who accompanied the Cimbri on their southern expedition in B.C. 113-102. If these were Celtic, as is not uncommonly thought, then we must look to Cassar and Tacitus for the earliest definite notices of the Teutonic tribes. The Slavonian immigration was nearly contemporaneous with the Teutonic (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist. 1, 72): this stock can be traced back to the Veneti or Venedae of Northern Germany, first mentioned by. Tacitus (Germ. 46), from whom the name Wend is probably descended. The designation of Slavi or Sclavi is of comparatively late date, and applied specially to the western branch of the Slavonian stock. The Lithuanians are probably represented by the Galindae and Sudeni of Ptolemy (3, 5, 21), the names of which tribes have been preserved in all ages in the Lithuanian district (Diefenbach, p. 202). They are frequently identified with the AEstui, and it is not impossible that they may have adopted the title, which was a geographical one (the east men) the-Estui of Tacitus, however, were Germans. In the above statements we have omitted the problematical identifications of the Northern stocks with the earlier nations of history; we may here mention that the Slavanians are not infrequently regarded as the representatives of the Scythians (Skolots) and the Sarmatians (Knobel Vgilkert. p. 69). The writer whom we have just cited also endeavors to conllect the Lithuanians with the Agathyrisi (p. 130). So, again, Grimm traced the Teutonic stock to the Getae, whom he identified with the Goths (Gesch. d. deutsch. Spr. 1, 178).
It may be asked whether the Aryan race were the first-comers in the lands which they occupied ill historical times, or whether they superseded an earlier population. With regard to the Indian branch this question, can be answered decisively; the vestiges of an aboriginal population, which once covered the plains of Hindostan, still exist in the southern extremity of the peninsula, as well as in isolated localities elsewhere, as instanced in the case of the Brahus of the North. Not only this, but the Indian class of languages possesses a peculiarity of sound (the lingual or cerebral consonants), which is supposed to have been derived from this population and to betoken a fusion of the conquerors and the conquered (Schleicher, Compenad. 1, 141). The languages of this early population are classed as Turanian (Miller, Lect. p. 399). We are unable to find decided traces of Turanians on the plateau of Iran. The Sacoe, of whom we have already spoken, were Scythians, and so were the Parthians, both by reputed descent (Justin, 41, 1) and by habits of life (Strabo, 11:515); but we cannot positively assert that they were Turanians, inasmuch as the term Scythian was also applied, as in the case of the Skolots, to Indo-Europeans. In the Caucasian district the Iberians and others may have been Turanian in early as in later times; but it is difficult to unravel the entanglement of races and languages in that district. In Europe there exists in the present day an undoubted Turanian population eastward of the Baltic, viz. the Finns, who have been located there certainly since the time of Tacitus (Germ. 46), and who probably at an earlier period had spread more to the southward, but had been gradually thrust back by the advance of the Teutonic and Slavonian nations (Diefenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 209). There exists, again, in the South a population whose language (the Basque, or, as it is entitled in its own land, the Euskara) presents numerous points of affinity to the Finnish in grammar, though its vocabulary is wholly distinct. We cannot consider the Turanian character of this language as fully established, and we are therefore unable to divine the ethnic affinities of the early Iberians, who are generally regarded as the progenitors of the Basques. We have already adverted to the theory that the Finns in the North and the Basques in the South are the surviving monuments of a Turanian population, which overspread the whole of Europe before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. This is a mere theory which can neither be proved nor disproved.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to assign to the various subdivisions of the Indo European stock their respective areas, or, where admixture has taken place, their relative proportions. Language and race are, as already observed, by no means coextensive. The Celtic race, for instance, which occupied Gaul, Northern Italy, large portions of Spain and Germany, and- even penetrated across the Hellespont into Asia Minor, where it gave name to the province of Galatia, is now represented linguistically by the insignificant populations among whom the Welsh and the Gaelic or Erse languages retain a lingering existence. The Italian race, on the other hand, which must have been well nigh annihilated by or absorbed in, the overwhelming masses of the Northern hordes, has imposed its language outside the bounds of Italy over the peninsula of Spain, France, and Wallachia. But, while the races have so intermingled as in many instances to lose all trace of, their original individuality, the broad fact of their descent from one or other of the branches of the Indo-European family remains unaffected. It is, indeed, impossible to affiliate all the nations whose names appear on the roll of history to the existing divisions of that family, in consequence of the absence or the obscurity of ethnological criteria. Where, for instance, shall we place the languages of Asia Minor and the adjacent districts? The Phrygian approximates perhaps to the Greek, and yet it differs from it materially both in form and vocabulary (Rawlinson, Herod. 1, 666); still more is this the case with the Lycian, which appears to possess a vocabulary wholly distinct from its kindred languages (ibid. 1, 669,677-679). The Armenian is ranged under the Iranian division; yet this, as well as the language of the Caucasian Ossetes, whose indigenous name of Ir or Iron seems to vindicate for them the same relationship, is so distinctive in its features as to render the connection dubious. The languages prevalent in the mountainous district answering to the ancient Pontus are equally peculiar (Diefenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 51). Passing to the westward, we encounter the Thracians, reputed by Herodotus (5, 3) the most powerful nation in the world, tie Indians excepted; yet but one word of their language (bria ="town" ) has survived, and all historical traces of the people have been obliterated. It is true that they are represented in later times by the Getae, and these in turn by the Daci; but neither of these can be tracked either by history or language, unless we accept Grimm's more than doubtful identification which would connect them with the Teutonic branch. The remains of the Scythian language are sufficient to establish the Indo-European affinities of that nation (Rawlinson, Herod. 3, 196-203), but insufficient to assign to it a definite place in: the family, The Scythians, as well as most of the nomad tribes associated with them, are lost to the eye of the ethnologist, having been either absorbed into other nationalities or swept away by the ravages of war. The Sarmatae can be traced down to the Iazyges of Hungary and Podlachia, in which latter district they survived until the 10th century of our era (Smith, Dict. of Geog. 2, 8), and then they also vanish. The Allanian language presents a problem of a different kind: materials for research are not wanting in this case, but no definite conclusions have as yet been drawn from them. The people who use this tongue (the Skipetares, as they call themselves) are generally regarded as the representatives of the old Illyrians, who in turn appear to have been closely connected with the Thracians (Strabo, 7:315; Justin, 11:1), the name Dardani being, found both in Illyria and on the shores of the Hellespont; it is not, therefore, improbable that the Albanian may contain whatever vestiges of the old Thracian tongue still survive (Diefenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 68). In the Italic peninsula the Etruscan tongue remains as great an enigma as ever its Indo-European character is supposed to be established, together with the probability of its being a mixed language (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist. 1, 85-88). The result of researches into the Umbrian language, as represented in the Eugubine tablets, the earliest of which date from about B.C. 400; into the Sabellian, as represented in the tablets of Velletri and Antino; and into the Oscan, of which the remains are numerous, have decided their position as members of the Italic class (ibid. 1, 90-94). The same cannot be asserted of the Mesapian or Iapygian language, which stands apart from all neighboring dialects. Its Indo-
European character is affirmed, but no ethnological conclusion can as yet be drawn from the scanty information afforded us (ibid. 1, 94). Lastly, within the Celtic area there are ethnological problems which we cannot pretend to solve. The Ligurians, for instance, present one of these problems: were they Celts, but belonging to an earlier migration than the Celts of history? Their name has been referred to a Welsh original, but on. this no great reliance can be placed, as it would be in this case a local (coast men) and not an ethnical title, and might have been imposed on them by the Celts. They evidently hold a posterior place to the Iberians, inasmuch as they are said to have driven a section of this people across the Alps into Italy. That they were distinct from the Celts is asserted by Strabo (2, 128), but the distinction may have been no greater than exists between the British and the Gaelic branches of that race. The admixture of the Celts and Iberians in the Spanish peninsula is again a somewhat intricate question, which Dr. Latham attempts to explain on the ground that the term Celt (Κέλται) really meant Iberian (Ethn. of Eur. p. 35). That such questions as these should arise: on a subject which carries us back to times of hoar antiquity forms no ground for doubting the general conclusion that we can account ethnologically for the population of the European continent.
3. The Shemitic and Indo-European families cover, after all, but an insignificant portion of the earth's surface the large areas of Northern and Eastern Asia, the numerous groups of islands that line its coast and stud the Pacific in the direction of South America, and, again, the immense continent of America itself, stretching well nigh from pole to pole, remain to be accounted for. Historical aid is almost wholly denied to the ethnologist in his researches in these quarters; physiology and language are his only guides. It can hardly, therefore, be matter of surprise if we are unable to obtain certainty, or even a reasonable degree of probability, on this part of our subject. Much has been done; but far more remains to be done before the data for forming a conclusive opinion can be obtained. In Asia the languages fall into two large classes the monosyllabic and the agglutinative. The former are represented ethnologically by the Chinese, the latter by the various nations classed together by Prof. M. Muller under the common head of Turanian. It is unnecessary for us to discuss the correctness of his view in regarding all these nations as members of one and the same family. Whether we accept or reject his theory, the fact of a gradation of linguistic types and of connecting links between the various branches remains unaffected, and for our present purpose the question is of comparatively little moment. The monosyllabic type apparently betokens the earliest movement from the common home of the human race, and we should therefore assign a chronological priority to the settlement of the Chinese in the east and southeast of the continent. The agglutinative languages fall geographically into two divisions, a Northern and Southern. The Northern consists of a well-defined group, or family, designated by German ethnologists the Ural-Altaian. It consists of the following five branches:
(1.) The Tungusian, covering large area east of the river Yenisei, between Lake Baikal and the Tunguska.
(2.) The Mongolian, which prevails over the Great Desert of Gobi, and among the Kalmucks, wherever their nomad habits lead them on the steppes either of Asia or Europe, in the latter of which they are found about the lower course of the Volga.
(3.) The Turkish, covering an immense area from the Mediterranean in the south-west to the river Lena in the north-east; in Europe spoken by the Osmanli, who form the governing class in Turkey; by the Nogai, between the Caspian and the Sea of Azof; and by various Caucasian tribes.
(4.) The Samoiedic, on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, between the White Sea in the west and the river Anabara in the east.
(5.) The Finnish, which is spoken by the Finns and Lapps; by the inhabitants of Esthonia and Livonia to the south of the Gulf of Finland; by various tribes about the Volga (the Tcheremissians and Mordvinians) and the Kama (the Votiakes and Permians); and, lastly, by the Magyars of Hungary.
The Southern branch is subdivided into the following four classes: —
(1.) The Tamulian, of the south of Ilindostan.
(2.) The Bhotlya, of Thibet, the sub-Himalayan district (Nepaul and Bhotan), and the Lohitic languages east of the Brahmapootra.
(3.) The Tai, in Siam, Laos, Anam, and Pegu.
(4.) The Malay, of the Malay peninsula, and the adjacent islands; the latter being the original settlement of the Malay race, whence they spread in comparatively modern times to the mainland.
The early movements of the races representing these several divisions can only be: divined by linguistic tokens. Prof. M. Miller assigns to the Northern tribes the following chronological order: Tungusian, Mongolian, Turkish, and Finnish; and to the Southern division the following: Tai, Malay, Bhotiya, and Tamulian (Philippians of Hist. 1, 481). Geographically it appears more likely that the Malay preceded the Tai, inasmuch as they occupied a more southerly district. The later movements of the European branches of the Northern division can be traced historically. The Turkish race commenced their Westerly migration from the neighborhood of the Altai range in the 1st century of our era; in the 6th they had reached the Caspian 'and the Volga; in the 11th and 12th the Turcomans took possession of their present quarters south of Caucasus; in the 13th the Osmanli made their first appearance in Western Asia; about the middle of the 14th they crossed from Asia Minor into Europe; and in the middle of the 15th they had established themselves at Constantinople. The Finnish race is supposed to have been originally settled about the Ural range, and thence to have migrated westward to the shores of the Baltic, which they had reached at a period anterior to the Christian era; in the 7th century a branch pressed southward to the Danube, and founded the kingdom of Bulgaria, where, however, they have long ceased to-have any national existence. The Ugrian tribes, who are the early representatives of the Hungarian Magyars, approached Europe from Asia in the 5th and settled in Hungary in the 9th century of our era. The central point from which the various branches of the Turaniania family radiated would appear to be about Lake Baikal. With regard to the ethnology of Oceania and America we can say but little. The languages of the former are generally supposed to be connected with the Malay class (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist. 2, 114); but the relations, both linguistic and ethnological, existing between the Malay and the black or Negrito, population, which is found on many of the groups of islands, are not well defined. The approximation in language is far greater than in physiology (Latham, Essays, p. 213, 218; Garnett, Essays, p. 310), and in certain cases amounts to identity (Kennedy, Essays, p. 85); but the whole subject is at present involved in obscurity.: The polysynthetic languages of North America are regarded as emanating from the Mongolian stock (Bunsen, Philippians of Hist. 2, 111), and a close affinity is said to exist between the North American and the Kamtchadale and Corean languages on the opposite coast of Asia (Latham, Man and his Migrat. p. 185). The conclusion drawn from this would be that the population of America entered by way of Behring's Strait. Other theories have, however, been broached on this subject. It has been conjectured that the chain of islands which stretches across the Pacific may have conducted a Malay population to South America; and, again, an African origin has been claimed for the Caribs of Central America (Kennedy-, Essays, p. 100-123). In conclusion, we may safely assert the tendency of all ethnological and linguistic researches to discover the elements of unity amid the most striking external varieties. Already the myriads of the human race are massed together into a few large groups. Whether it will ever be possible to go beyond this, and to show the historical unity of these groups, is more than we can undertake to say. But we entertain the firm persuasion that in their broad results these sciences will yield an increasing testimony to the truth of the Bible.
III. The authorities referred to in the foregoing article are, Miller, Lectures on the Science of Language (1862); Bunsen, Philosophy of History (1854, 2 vols.); Renan, Histoire Géneralé des Langues Semitiques (3rd ed. 1863); Knobel, Volkertafel der Genesis (1850); Humboldt [W. von], Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen SpTachba.ues (1836); Delitzsch, Jeshurun (1858); Transactions of the Philological Society; Rawlinson, lierodotus (1858, 4 vols.); Pott, Etymologische Forschungen (1833); Garnett, Essays (1859); Schleicher, Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik (i861); Diefenbach, Origines Europae (eod.); Ewald, Sprachwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (1862). SEE ETHNOLOGY.