cation that flow from it. The ftudent, while employed in tracing the origin of Language, and afcertaining its fignification, will alfo reap great advantage from calling history to his affiftance; and he will find that allufions, idioms, and figures of speech are illuftrated by particular facts, opinions, and inftitutions. The cuftoms of the Greeks throw light upon the expreffions of their authors; without fome acquaintance with the Roman laws, many forms of expreffion in the Orations of Cicero are unintelligible and many defcriptions in the Old and New Teftament are obfcure, unlefs they are illuftrated by a knowledge of eaftern manners. Furnished with fuch aids, the fcholar acquires complete, not partial information; throws upon Language all the light that can be reflected from his general ftudies; and imbibes, as far as a modern can imbibe it, the original spirit of ancient authors. As long as any one confines his ftudies folely to his native tongue, he cannot understand it perfectly, or afcertain with accuracy its poverty or richness, its beauties or defects. He who cultivates other languages as well as his own, gains new inftruments to increafe the ftock of his ideas, and opens new roads to the temple of knowledge. He draws his learning from pure fources, converfes with the natives of other countries without the affiftance of an interpreter, and furveys the contents of books without being under the neceffity of an implicit reliance on translations. He may unite the G 3 the fpeculations of a philofopher with the acquirements of a linguift; he may compare different languages and form juft conclufions with refpect to their defects and beauties, and their conformity with manners and inftitutions. He may trace the progrefs of national refinement, and difcover, by a comparifon of arts and improvements with their correfpondent terms, that the hiftory of Language, inafmuch as it developes the efforts of human genius, and the rife and advancement of its inventions, conftitutes an important part of the hiftory of Man. How the focieties of men could have been originally formed without the aid of language, or language invented without fociety, are points which the inquiries of feveral writers, particularly Lord Monboddo and Adam Smith, however ingenious, are far from enabling us to fettle". The only rational and fatisfactory method of folving the difficulty is to refer the origin of speech to the great Creator himfelf. Not that it is neceffary to fuppofe, that he infpired the firft parents of mankind with any particular original or primitive language; but that he made them fully fenfible of the power with which they were endued of forming articulate founds, gave them an impulfe to exert it, and left the arbitrary impofition of words to their own choice. n See Lord Monboddo's Origin of Language, Vol. I. p. 514, &c. Vol. IV. p. 50. Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Vol. II, p. 403. Their ingenuity was left to itself to multiply names, as new objects occurred to their obfervation; and thus language was gradually advanced by their de fcendants in process of time to the different degrees of copioufnefs and refinement, which it has reached among various nations. This theory is conformable to the description given in the Sacred Writings, and agrees very remarkably with the opinions to be collected from prophane hiftory. Plato maintains that the original language of man was a divine gift; and when he divides words into two claffes, the primitive and the derivative, he attributes the former to the immediate communication of the Supreme Being, and the latter to the ingenuity of man. The Egyptians, from whom this opinion was probably derived, maintained that by Theuth, the god of eloquence, their ancestors were at firft taught to speak". There • Dr. Johnson talking of the origin of language faid, "It must have come by inspiration: a thoufand, nay a million of children could not invent a language. While the organs are pliable, there is not understanding enough to form a language; by the time that there is understanding enough, the organs are become stiff. We know that after a certain age we cannot learn to pronounce a new language. No foreigner, who comes to England, when advanced in life, ever pronounces English tolerably well; at least such inftances are very rare. When I maintain that language muft have come by infpiration, I do not mean that infpiration is required for rhetoric, and all the beauties of language; for when once man has language, we can conceive that he may gradually form modifications of it. I There is fufficient reafon to fuppofe that in the early ages of the world, the difference of language in Europe, Afia, and Africa was no more than a difference of dialects; and that the people of Greece, Phenicia, and Egypt, mutually understood each other. The Greek and Latin are of acknowledged oriental origin; the Teutonic dialects have an affinity to Greek and Latin; the Celtic refembles the Hebrew, and other oriental tongues : In the Welsh there are many remarkable analogies to Hebrew P. From thefe confiderations which might be extended to a particular detail of proofs, it feems highly probable, that one original fountain, and one only, has produced not only thofe very antient ftreams of language that have been long dried up, but fupplied thofe likewife which, ftill continue to flow. And it is as probable, that this original or parent language was the Hebrew, if we confider the mode of its derivation from its radicals, and the fimplicity of its ftructure. Hence the accounts recorded by Mofes of the primeval race of men fpeaking one language, and their fubfequent difperfion in confequence of the confufion of tongues which took place at Babel, receives ftrong confirmation. mean only that inspiration feems to me to be neceffary to give man the faculty of fpeech; to inform him that he may have fpeech; which I think he could no more find out without infpiration, than cows or hogs would think of fuch a faculty." Bofwell's Life of Johnfon, vol. iii. p. 460. Mitford's Greece, C. ii. Sect. 2. Language Language kept pace with the progress of ideas, and the cultivation of the mind urged mankind to the increafe and improvement of the founds, by which its dictates were communicated. From de noting the perceptions of fenfe, they proceeded to reprefent by words the inftruments and operations of art, the refults of, obfervation and experience, the flights of fancy, and the deductions of reafon. Hence may be traced the progrefs of poetry, hiftory, and philofophy. Thus language, from being in its early age the child of neceffity, became the parent of ornament; and words, originally the rude and uncouth dreffes of ideas, have been improved, as fociety has advanced to higher degrees of refinement, into their moft fplendid and moft beautiful decorations,, ... II. The Origin and Progress of Literature. Next to fpeech, writing is without doubt the most ufeful of human arts. Written characters are of two kinds, they are either figns for things, or figns for words: of the former kind are pictures and hieroglyphics; of the latter, are the characters of the alphabet now employed by the nations of Europe'. To fix the founds of the voice as foon as they are breathed from the lips, and to reprefent ideas 9 Blair, Lecture VII. faithfully |