and Ethiopic, every Noun Substantive possesses a distinct gender, as well as in Greek and Latin. The preceding lists of Shemitic words, therefore, present too narrow and unsafe a foundation to raise any considerable superstructure on, and by directing our attention to another quarter, we must draw a wider induction from a more varied and ample collection of facts.

7. From the Shemitic languages let us turn to the Sanskrit, the generally acknowledged mother of most of the dialects in the vast continent of India, and the oldest of the large family of languages denominated Indo-European, of the existence of which, seventy years ago, hardly any inhabitant of Europe was aware; and first of its Noun Substantives, the following list of which presents some of the closest analogies with the Greek and Latin. I shall give the words in Sanskrit characters, and also in English, so far as it is possible to render them.

अदिति

Airvai-os, son of Prometheus.

fafa Aditi, the mother of Ayior-ig, a name of Cybele.

आर

उडु

the gods....

Αγδισταις,

Ara, the planet Mars ... Ap-ns, Mars.

Udu, water..................................... Yo-oc, water.

Ulva, the womb......... Alv-us.

उल्व ओक

देव

fu Trikona, a triangle...... Tptywv-ofत्रिकीण

Diva, a deity, a god.... Div-us.

फेनः

Phinah, froth, foam ..... Venus, born from the foam of the sea.

राज्ञो

Rajni, a queen............................. Regin-a.

लेख

Loka, a letter, an epistle Aoy-oc, a word.

वात

Vata, air, wind........... Vat-es, a prophet, a poet.

संहति Sanhati, an assemblage Senat-us

समायोग Samayoga, an assem- - Συναγωγη.

blage

8. Here we may remark that although the Sanskrit is the undoubted mother of the Greek and Latin, and although more roots of Nouns and Verbs are to be traced to that language than perhaps to all the other languages of Asia put together, when adopted from the original into the two derivative languages they have been subject to precisely the same treatment as the roots borrowed from the Shemitic languages. We are now quite certain, that some cause for

these changes, so systematically produced, must exist deep in the very genius and nature of the Greek and Latin languages, which, if we can discover, it cannot fail to throw much light, not merely on the two languages in question, but on the structure and formation of language in general. The labourers in the vast field of language may be divided into two great classes, the practical and popular, and the speculative and philosophical. The object of the former is simply to give an accurate account of the actual state of every language, with a view of facilitating its acquisition, and rendering it perfectly intelligible when acquired. The Lexicographer collects all the words of which it is composed, arranges them according to their initial letters, or their roots, explains their various meanings, and illustrates the application of each by apposite passages, collected from the works of authors of the highest authority in the languages of which he treats; while the Grammarian arranges these words into classes, describes the mode in which the meaning of Nouns Substantive and Nouns Adjective is modified by declension, and of Verbs and Participles by conjugation, together with the laws agreeably to which all these words are arranged in a sentence, which is Syntax, or in metrical composition, which is Prosody. The exertions of the Grammarian are, for the most part, limited to an account of that which actually is, and the mode in which it exists; while the philosophical Philologist endeavours to ascend to the fountain head of the different languages he investigates, to trace their gradual changes, to reproduce that which has become obsolete, to ascertain not merely the meanings of words but the successive steps of their formation, and the cause of their various shades of signification; to note the peculiarities of each language, and observe how, in one, high excellencies are counterbalanced by corresponding defects, while in others, apparent deficiencies are atoned for by unexpected compensations; with a view of deducing from the whole general conclusions as to the nature and structure of language itself. It is no doubt true that these various labours have been in a considerable degree united in such works as the Latin grammars of Zumpt and Scheller, and

the Greek of Thiersch and Matthiæ; and it is quite certain that any great improvement in the metaphysics, or philosophy of language, will react on its practice and acquirement; and that, thanks to the invention of printing, any advance of esoterical knowledge in the innermost shrine of the temple will be soon felt by the crowd of exoterics who are thronging the vestibule, or painfully and slowly ascending the long flight of steps of the portico.

9. A publication which has done essential service to the cause of knowledge, remarks, in connexion with my subject, a Sanskrit Noun, in its first formation from the general root, exists equally independent of case, as of gender. It is neither Nominative, nor Genitive, nor Accusative, nor is impressed with any of those modifications which mark the relation and connexion between the several members of a sentence. IN THIS STATE IT IS CALLED AN IMPERFECT, or crude, NouN. To make a Nominative of any Noun, the termination must be changed, and a new form supplied. Thus we see that, in the Sanskrit at least, the Nominative has an equal right with any other inflexion to be called a case. (Rees's Cyclopædia, in voce Shanskrit.) As Raphael, the greatest of artists, in his ardent pursuit of excellence, and exquisite sensibility to every species of beauty, with a clear perception of the invariable dependence of beauty on truth and nature, sometimes took the pains to draw the naked figure and invest it with drapery; and sometimes even previously to draw the skeleton and clothe it with flesh, that he might be quite certain as to the outline and proportions of his figure in the same way the philologist may be sure, that, if he has been successful in discovering the genuine roots of speech, or words in an uncompounded state, reasons of a very especial nature must exist for the additions made to that root, which are discoverable by the exercise of patient attention and careful reflection. The Sanskrit Noun in a crude state, or destitute of gender, case, and number, may be compared to the skeleton; when prepared for declension, to the skeleton invested with flesh; and this is the state in which we find Nouns existing in the Shemitic languages,

and in Persic, of which a short list has been given in the preceding pages; and, as to almost all of these the Greeks and Romans still made an addition, they may be said to have attached drapery to the naked figure, which latter the English and most of the languages of modern Europe have dropped again, and we find words existing in precisely the same state as they had been in the respective Shemitic lan guages from which they were borrowed.

10. If we turn from Sanskrit to the Greek and Latin grammars, with the advantage of knowing what is essential and what extraneous, what is radical and what adscititious, the words will soon assume a totally new character, and divide themselves into two parts, a root which never varies, and exhibits the meaning of the term in a general way, and a set of terminations equally applicable to all roots, and by the changes of which all the modifications of that meaning are effected. For instance the Sanskrit word for a house is Oka, or rather Ok, a biliteral word, since the A is not written but understood. If we insert the vowel I between these two letters, write Oik, and add the termination Os, we shall have the Greek word Oikos (Oikos), house, a Noun of the masculine gender and third declension. If again we take the Sanskrit word Lok, a letter or epistle, substitute for the final Kappa, a letter of the same organ, Gamma, and add the termination Os, we shall have the Greek word Logos (Aoyos), word, also a Noun masculine of the same declension, which is given in the Eton Grammar; and if we follow it through all its cases, we shall observe not only that the Sanskrit root never varies, but that all the terminations in the Singular, Dual, and Plural Numbers are formed by what grammarians denominate the Personal Pronoun ós. If we take the Sanskrit word Samayog, an assemblage, write it in Greek characters and add a final Eta, we shall have Evvaywyn, a synagogue, a Noun feminine of the second declension; and if we follow it through all its cases, we shall observe in the same way that the Sanskrit root never changes, and that all the terminations in the Singular, Dual, and Plural Numbers are formed by the Article n. The