can be obliterated only by a considerable lapse of time attended with increasing approaches to ruin. Now all these varied features of language can be clearly traced in connexion with the received history of various nations; with respect to some of which it may be observed, that their political existence or importance has perished, and their whole career is thus laid at once before our view. And may we not adopt the converse side of the proposition, and argue in a similar way respecting those tribes of whose annals we have no authentic remains, but whose language may of itself furnish some clue to their former condition amongst the nations of the earth? In order to explain this more clearly, we shall take some illustrations from the principal dialects of antiquity, as well as from those of a later date; and then show how we wish the subject to be applied, by referring to the condition of a few of those tribes that have more recently been discovered.

We begin with the Hebrew, though some linguists are disposed to assert the greater antiquity of the Arabic. The sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament are the only writings extant in this language. But though some of the books composing this volume were written at periods very far remote from each other, we perceive few variations of style and expression that are not demanded by the special subject of the discourse or the species of composition in which it is penned; and we shall presently find that the principal exception to this rule is an additional confirmation of the theory already stated. Perhaps no language has ever existed that bears so much uniformity of idiom during so long a succession of ages. And this exactly corresponds with the written and traditional history of the Israelites, whose manners, customs, and laws always remained the same, being inseparably connected with the principles of their religion. They do not appear to have been ever attached to general literature, or to have had any great variety of writings, whilst they continued a separate kingdom.

Moses, who wrote the early history of this distinguished people, seems to have first introduced letters amongst them, or at least to have fixed the standard of a written language; and he probably did so from his skill in "all the learning of Egypt." The study of his writings and of those of the succeeding Prophets satisfied all the literary desires of the early Jews; and even this attainment was evidently confined to a few. The "schools of the Prophets" kept alive the knowledge of the sacred books; and, had it not been for such institutions, the law itself might have become a sealed volume. The majority of the Israelites were engaged in war, in repairing the ruins caused by warfare, or in agricultural pursuits, and had little leisure or opportunity to attend to letters. The zenith of their political glory was in the days of David and Solomon, which short period is distinguished for a considerable advancement in language. The former Monarch, being passionately attached to music and song, introduced a new species of literature, that of pastoral and devotional poesy. A few hymns of praise and elegy, with fragments of prophetic verse, are to be found in the books of Moses; but King David formed a regular system of psalmody and sacred song. He appears to have instituted schools for the cultivation of these subjects; and thus the language was considerably enriched in its varieties of expression, though still retaining its original forms of structure, and conciseness, and energy of style. A great portion of Solomon's works have perished, but those parts which remain exhibit a still farther enlargement of the Jewish literature. The example of the Kings was followed by their subjects; and we now read of the existence of epistolary correspondence, which shows a more general spread of learning. The first specimen is David's letter to Joab; but subsequently we read of several others being written by the Kings to their Captains, or the chief men of the cities. The Prophets delivered their messages in the sub

limest strains of divine poetry. But though their language possesses the sublimity of inspiration, as well as the energy of heroic minds, it is neither restrained nor modulated by any prescribed measures of versification. Their writings are the magnificent and wonderful effusions of prophetic influence, which, though destitute of that melody of verse for which other poems are distinguished, have yet no equals in the literature of any nation whatever. During the Babylonish captivity a great change took place in Jewish letters. The ancient Hebrew fell into disuse, and its study was afterwards cultivated only by the learned. The common people spoke the Chaldee, or ancient Syriac, the language of their conquerors; and even when Hebrew was written, the more ele. gant letters of the Chaldeans were employed. Of this dialect we have two specimens in parts of Daniel and Ezra; which forms a strong proof of that epoch of Jewish history, since these writers use Hebrew whilst detailing Jewish affairs, but Chaldee when they quote epistles and records in connexion with the people in whose country they resided. A similar evidence is afforded by the Samaritan version. The copy, termed "Hebrew-Samaritan," is supposed to be the ancient Hebrew, and to have been the character in general use before the captivity. This differs from the common version only in the form of the letters, and was therefore written before the removal of the ten tribes. For we find another copy, the Chaldee-Samaritan, of a later date, the ground-work of which is Chaldee, with a large admixture of Hebrew and foreign words. This exactly corresponds with the account that we have of the origin of the Samaritans, and of their being instructed in religion by one of the Israelitish Priests. (2 Kings xvii.) Shortly after wards the pure Chaldee itself became changed, as we find it in the principal Jewish Talmuds, or paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures. These were necessary in order that the common people might under

stand the sacred volume, inasmuch as they had now lost all knowledge of the old Hebrew. They were composed perhaps forty years before the advent of our Saviour, though some of the Jews would give them an earlier date, regarding Rabbi Onkelos and Rabbi Jonathan Ben Uzziel to be the scholars of the minor Prophets. They are supposed to have been fellow-students of the learned Gamaliel, and of the venerable Stmeon, who embraced the infant Jesus. The common language spoken by the Jews in the time of our Saviour was a Syro-Chaldaic, (though still termed by them Hebrew,) and the form of its letters, as used by Rabbinical writers, differs a little from that of the Bible and the Targums. The Syro-Chaldaic is a much more extensive language than either of the originals; for since the Jews were now mixed with other nations, especially being under the power of the Romans, they had borrowed many words from different languages, particularly the Greek, which was then much spoken in the Roman provinces. Here, again, this altered language affords another proof of the authenticity of the annals of those times and nations. The Rabbies now also applied themselves to learning of all kinds, which constantly enriched the common phraseology. Meanwhile, in order to aid the Jews who were dispersed into other countries, a translation of the Scriptures had been made in the Greek tongue; and thus the place of the old Hebrew was entirely supplied. Still farther changes took place in eastern languages; and though the Jewish Rabbies still adhered to the SyroChaldaic, (in which, however, the depravations of age are manifest,) the Syriac became the usual speech of that region. Consequently a version of the Old and New Testaments was made into that language during the second century of the Christian era. The Syriac again differs in dialect from all its predecessors, and adopts a smaller and more commodious form of letter. Since, therefore, we are now in possession of the sacred writings

in all these languages in regular succession, what becomes of the bold and mendacious assertions of modern Infidels and Mahometans respecting a recent forgery? For, if we could for a moment suppose that the greater part of the Hebrew Bible was written even so late as a little before the Babylonish captivity, we should still retain almost untouched the whole argument of prophecy, which alone is sufficient to prove the divine origin of the sacred volume, and consequently its still greater antiquity. Such assertions only show the impudent folly of those who make them, in prating about things of which they know nothing. A dialect of the Chaldee is still found in the East, spoken in the mountainous regions of Armenia, which also much resembles that of former years, though the letters are again slightly changed from the Syriac.

We now turn to the Arabic, with the ancient history of which we are indeed unacquainted. It is a cognate of the Hebrew, and probably once resembled it more than it does at present. But a very different fate attended these two languages. The one was swallowed up by a conquering nation; the other became by conquest the most polished language of the East. The Arabic dates its settled form of grammatical construction from the period of Mahomet. That bold impostor, not satisfied with declaring himself the vicegerent of heaven, proc'aimed his literary compositions to be supernatural, and had the hardihood to defy the world to produce their equal. Overcome by the forcible arguments of the sword, and daunted by the boldness of his assertions, his deluded followers immediately joined in the cry of the "miracle of the Koran," and waged war upon every one who denied its divine origin; though it is really far from meriting such an honour. It is easily equalled by even the mediocral compositions of other countries, and cannot for a moment stand in competition with the epic poetry of western nations, much less with the sublime strains of

Scripture. Even some of the Arabs have dared to assert the superiority of their own productions. The Koran has nothing either of the numbers or of the spirit of poetry, though it is distinguished by a doggerel rhyme terminating the couplets. Its tautology and incoherence seem to be regarded by Mahometans as proofs of a celestial origin; but its vapidity, vulgarity, and contradictions are almost beneath contempt. The comparatively low state of Arabic letters at Mahomet's time is thus apparent; yet when the splendid conquests of Islamism had been achieved, the polite Saracens pursued different branches of art and science to a considerable extent. The language was soon raised to a high pitch of refinement; and by concentrating the phraseology of many nations by whom it was spoken, it attained to a copiousness of expression surpassing all precedent. Whilst the rest of the world was involved in mental darkness, the East sent forth its grammarians, historians, and philosophers, and kept alive the knowledge which had been accumulating through the generations of mankind. But when the barbarous Turks made their savage inroads, desolating the finest parts of the world, and filling them with war and misery, learning took her flight from such scenes of confusion, and again shed her benign influence upon the rising nations of the West. To these we shall hereafter advert. the Mahometan empire was gradually broken in pieces, ten various dialects of the Arabic arose, differing in many respects according to the circumstances of the people. Were it not for the Koran, which is still studied by all the scattered Chiefs of Islamism, some tribes would possess little knowledge of their original tongue. For instance, in Egypt, whence learning has been long banished, the vulgar dialect is so very depraved, that none but the Chief Priests can understand the language of the Koran. In this respect the nobles differ not from the vulgar; for they have had no education in order to obtain a men

As

tal superiority. The words are curtailed of their final vowels, the syllables are run together, the pronunciation is considerably altered, new words have been introduced, and debased forms of expression are adopted. Hence the Egyptians could not understand an individual speaking their own language grammatically. In Syria, we find an alteration of dialect. Civilization and letters were here retained till a later period, and indeed have never entirely left the country. The remains of the Christian church, though degraded by many superstitions, have tended to keep alive the letters of their ancestors. The Syriac style of Arabic is therefore more grammatical and elegant. It is concise, and better adapted for conversation than the language of the Koran; but it possesses most of the beauties of the original tongue, and has even softened down some of its asperities. Of course, we allude chiefly to the better ranks of society, and to their written compositions. Another dialect of Arabic is that spoken by the states of Barbary and the Maltese, though they may slightly differ from each other. We here find the Arabic mixed up with foreign tongues, probably those of the Berbers, and other people of northern Africa. It is a rough, barbarous dialect, at a still farther remove from the original language. Again: amongst those tribes of Western Africa, where the Moors have introduced a profession of Mahometanism, the religious expressions borrowed from them by the Heathen are usually the simple words of the Koran; but as the general structure of the language remains unchanged, the superinduced influence is shown to be confined to religion, which is in accordance with the facts of the case.

It would be superfluous for us to trace the progress of the Greek and Latin, as they are so familiar to the public; but they form other illustrations of the truths which we have advanced. A few observations may be made concerning their downfal, and the influence which they have had upon modern languages. When the Grecian dominion was

superseded by that of the Roman, and the literary glory of the former nation began to fade, the latter shone more illustriously by borrowing the light of its vanquished rival. It is allowed by the Romans themselves, that the conquest of Greece formed a new epoch in the letters of their own country. The language was refined, Grecisms were adopted, and new forms of composition in poetry and prose were instituted; which works necessarily required a wider range of expression, and a purer order of style. The genius of the Latin was exalted, whilst that of the Greek became auxiliary to its glory. And this is precisely in accordance with the civil history of those two nations at that epoch. Greek thus became the literary language of some of the Roman provinces, though not adopted by the Latins to the exclusion of their own, but rather as being a help to the promotion of science and learning. Yet it had passed its zenith, and was used in order to glean, not to rival, its former riches. Having finally languished in the East, its place was there supplied by the more fortunate Arabic. A dialect of Greek for some time survived in Upper Egypt, spoken by the Copts, who are supposed to be descendants of the ancient Egyptians. The Coptic resembles Greek in many of its words and principal terminations, though written in a different character. But what relationship exists between this language and that of ancient Egypt, whence Greece borrowed her letters, is a matter that it would be extremely interesting to ascertain. It has become a dead language, and is understood by few of the present generation, and even then in a very imperfect manner. Modern Greek or Romaic is a degenerate form of the original, curtailed of its beauties, destitute of its delicacy of style, and repugnant to its harmony of numbers and enunciation. It is a mere shred of the old language; and we need not show how this corresponds with the altered condition and character of the people.

In tracing the downfal of the