to bear exaggerated; that, instead of costing £5. 4s. Id. per ton, coals may be obtained in India at thirty shillings per ton, and the assumption of this price is stated to be based upon actual mercantile transactions; the cost in the Red Sea will not, it is represented, be more than double that in India, and considerable reduction is made in the charge for landing, warehousing, and reshipping. Thirdly, the number of vessels supposed to be actually employed is in the judgment of the committee greater than necessary, and a further source of saving is here suggested. The final result is, a reduction of the estimate from £107,200 to £50,935, being less than half the original amount. This sum gives the gross expense. Against it is to be placed the returns from letters, newspapers, and parcels, estimated at £16,000, and those from passengers, the net profit from which is calculated at £12,000. These sums deducted from the former result will leave the net charge below £23,000 per annum! This estimate is framed with reference to Bombay only. A letter subsequently addressed by the Madras committee to Captain Grindlay shews that this very favourable view may be rendered still more favourable by extending it so as to include all the presidencies. By such extension, it is calculated that the net charge might be reduced to £20,084 only! Surely these statements are worth examination,-surely, if India and England can enjoy a well-regulated system of steam-communication for a yearly outlay divided between the two countries of twenty thousand pounds,-or of three times that amount, the apathy would be altogether inexcusable which, to save such an expenditure, would sacrifice so great a benefit.

But it cannot be believed that any such minute economy can be suffered to mar the fair hopes of those who discover, in the improvement called for, the means of effecting the consolidation of the interests of Britain and India, of confirming the power of the former country, and of diffusing industry, wealth, and knowledge throughout the latter. The East-India Company are called upon by the splendid records of their triumphs,-by the recollections of all the benefits that in the course of centuries they have laboured to bestow on India, to add this to the catalogue of their worthy deeds. His Majesty's Government are bound to aid in the work, as it is their duty to uphold the honour of their country, and to defend the dominions of their sovereign from the risk of diminution by Russian invasion or intrigue. The people of England will be inexcusable if they do not support the authorities by their petitions, and animate them by their approbation. The people of India,— but of them we say nothing-they have well discharged their duty; and most sincerely do we hope that they may forthwith reap the reward which they deserve.

We have just seen a notice in a newspaper, which leads to an expectation that the wish just expressed is about to be fulfilled. The paragraph to which we refer, after announcing that a deputation from the committee in England, appointed by the steam committees in Calcutta and Madras, had waited upon the President of the Board of Control, continues: "It is understood that the result of the interview was highly gratifying to the friends of the desired communication, and that its speedy and permanent establishment, by the best route and in the most satisfactory manner, is placed beyond all

doubt." We trust that this intimation is to be received in the unqualified manner in which it is conveyed. By "the best route," of course, is meant that by the Red Sea, as it is the only good one, though our statesmen have hitherto shunned it as carefully as if they were afraid of disturbing the ghosts that are laid there. It is gratifying to be able to believe their fears at an end. Col. Chesney avowed, that "if the considerations were limited to those of a mere packet line," even he should almost be ready to give the preference to the Red Sea. A packet line is the thing wanted-and one of the ablest, most intelligent, and most zealous advocates of the rival scheme having thus admitted the superiority of the Red Sea route for the purpose, there can be no ground for hesitation. Government can carry the point if they will, and if they once take it up in earnest, all difficulty will disappear. Any serious opposition in Parliament is out of the question. Still the friends of the cause should not be supine, but, though assured of victory, should exert themselves as much as if apprehensive of defeat.

In dismissing Captain Grindlay's pamphlet, we must avow our conviction that the people of Calcutta and Madras have committed their interests to one whose ability and zeal do credit to their judgment. K. M.

CHINESE TSZE, OR MOTTOS.

TO THE EDITOR.

SIR-Enclosed are two specimens of the species of quotations, or compositions, called tsze, which precede the chapters of novels. They are written in a style at once elegant and natural, and distinguished from the ordinary cast of Oriental fine writing, by a turn of thought and expression almost European. S. B.

Enquire of the stream, whether it will return, as, like the mysterious veil of night, it rolls its turbid torrent to the east incessantly. like the past and present!

By the side of its sullen waves, the flowers lie, pale as the drifted snow, while the new moon glitters like a silver hook.

"I thought within myself, this year I will spread the sail for Shang-chow, for, standing upon the Palin bridge, and gazing towards Sze-chow, all was motionless far as the eye could see. Numberless verdant hills and fleecy clouds-the future, like a dream in spring-the past, like an autumn vision. I sighed as I thought that men have so few opportunities-that they so seldom meet, and are so often separated: for to raise the wine-cup during the breeze of spring, and beneath the moon of night to strike the three-stringed kin, is as rare as the union of the past and present, or like searching for the dreamer's pool of gold."-Urh-too-mei, 3d Ch.

"The heat approaches as the cold recedes; again it is Spring; the four seasons incessantly revolve like the wheels of a car. How all teems with life! it is but a moment, and desolation smiles with plenty.

"The youthful year, by degrees, has its manhood, and old age in their turn; the willows shoot, and the peach-blossoms blush; nothing long remains, but all fades away, like the misty vision of a dream in spring,* from the awakening slumberer, as he gazes on the azure cloud."-Te-shih-tsae tsze, 1st Ch.

A spring-dream,' Chungmun, is a poetical idiom for a pleasant or agreeable dream; as its antithesis, 1sew-mun, autumn-dream,' or 'vision,' is for a sad or unpleasant dream.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE,

REMARKS ON THE REVIEW OF DR. PRICHARD'S WORK, ON THE EASTERN ORIGIN OF THE CELTIC NATIONS," IN NO. CXIII. OF THE QUARTERLY REVIEW.

THERE can be no greater proof of the imperfect state of a science, than to find its votaries differing among themselves respecting its most essential principles, and delivering their opinions in ambiguous language. Wherever this is the case, it may be safely concluded that much is yet wanting to the discovery of truth.

We have been led to these reflections by the perusal of an article in the September number (CXIII) of the Quarterly Review, on Dr. Prichard's late work, on "the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations;" in the course of which, a number of observations on grammatical science are brought forward by the Reviewer, in illustration of his ideas respecting the connexion between the nations of the East and West. Many of his remarks are highly valuable and just; but with some of them we find it extremely difficult to agree, and as the subject is of considerable interest, not only to Oriental students-as tending to exhibit a comprehensive and connected view of the languages which are the object of their studies-but to the philologist, the historian, and the general speculator on human nature, we trust it may not be thought useless to give some notice of the theories thus brought forward in the review, together with our reasons for assent or dissent.

Dr. Prichard's object is to prove a resemblance between the Celtic languages of the West of Europe and the ancient tongues of India, and from thence to deduce, as a corollary, the origin of the Celtic nations from those of the East. We shall not enter into a discussion of this point. Theories on the affinities of nations, founded on supposed resemblances in their languages, are known to be peculiarly fallacious; and though they have occupied the time and attention of philologists of all ages, and a great, perhaps even disproportionate, degree of talent has been employed upon them, they can scarcely be said to have proved satisfactory in any one instance; and national genealogies are still involved in almost inscrutable darkness. We shall, therefore, content ourselves on this subject with the following remark.

From the Sacred Records, we are certainly informed, that the origin of mankind was from the East; every theory, therefore, which traces a connection between the Oriental and European nations must, necessarily, have a portion of truth for its basis, independent of all etymological speculations. But when, laying this aside, we are called upon to admit the connexion as an inference from the resemblance of languages, we suspect that here, as in other cases, knowledge has been impeded by the want of exact definitions of terms and discrimination of cases. When it is said that one language has a resemblance or affinity to, or is connected with, another, what is meant by these expressions? Such a resemblance may exist in three ways. It may be a resemblance between the vocables,-between the systems of inflection,—or between the rules of syntax. If it be shewn that a resemblance exists in all these cases, then, undoubtedly, there is a high probability of an affinity between the nations to whom the languages belong; but if the resemblance exist only in one case, and not in the other two, then, by all the rules of philosophizing, which forbid the adoption of a theory till every phenomenon be explained, we are not entitled to draw any conclusion from the resemAsiat Journ.N.S.VOL.22.No.86. P

blance, till we have accounted for the difference: in other words, the theorist is required to show, not only why the languages are like in some particulars, but why they are unlike in others. We shall take, as an example, what the Reviewer says of the "affinity between Sanscrit and Persian, which," he informs us, "Sir William Jones and Professor Bopp have made as clear as the noon-day sun." Upon this subject some remarks were made by a correspondent in our October* number; and to these remarks we may here add, that, to give his readers accurate ideas, the Reviewer should have stated in what these languages resemble each other, and in what they differ. Of the resemblance between many Sanscrit and Persian vocables, there can be no doubt. By turning over a few leaves of a dictionary of each language, it would be easy to make a long catalogue of similarities. But if from thence we proceed to examine their systems of inflection and syntax, it is hardly possible to imagine differences more complete and irreconcileable. For instance, the complication of the declensions of Sanscrit nouns, their distinction of gender, the laboured system of compound words, all of which are absolutely unknown to Persian ; add to this, the total discrepancy of the verbs,-in Sanscrit, inflected by postfixed terminations, and divided into ten conjugations;-in Persian, by a combination with auxiliaries, having but one conjugation, with about as many irregulars as there are in English or German, and much more that might be mentioned. What, then, is the theory that will at once account for the similarity and the discrepancy; that will shew how the nations were so connected as to have common vocables, and how they were so estranged as to have so different a syntax? How, in short, they should speak the same language, and yet be mutually unintelligible? We confess we know but one, and that is the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel. This, in spite of all the systems of fanciful philologists, is the only rational account that has ever been given of the origin of the innumerable languages existing among mankind, of their wonderful resemblances and equally wonderful differences.

The account there delivered is, that the primitive language common to all mankind was confounded, or mixed; from which it is reasonable to infer, that it was not absolutely destroyed. It is easy, therefore, to suppose that its vocables, or at least many of them, might be allowed to remain in the minds of mankind generally, or common to many nations, while, at the same time, the different human races were, by supernatural interference, compelled to change their systems of inflection and rules of syntax. By this process, languages would, as experience shews, be most effectually confounded, while yet traces of similarity would remain throughout them all.

Will it be thought extravagant to say, that this supposition seems in some degree countenanced by the words of the Sacred Record? We are informed by the inspired historian (Gen. xI. 1), that the whole earth was of one lip (shafah) and of the same words (dabareem ahadeem). Is it too fanciful to suppose that by lip is here meant the syntactical and constructive part of language, and by the words the mere vocables? Admitting this, Moses goes on to state that the Almighty determined to confound this lip, that none might hear or understand the lip of his neighbour. In this, it will be seen, nothing is said of changing the words or radical vocables, which we may, therefore, suppose to have been allowed to continue the common property of mankind. But we shall quit this subject, as the Reviewer seems disposed to reject the parallelism between the Indo-European and the Shemitic languages; and in this we are well disposed to agree with him generally. There seems, indeed,

Last vol. p. 215.

to have been a violent disruption of these two families of speech, their vocables, their inflections, and their syntax, being all very different. At the same time, we think there is a little inaccuracy in the following statement. The Reviewer says: "In the Shemitic tongues, the great bulk of the roots are triliteral, independently of the vowels necessary for articulating them. They must, in many cases, be at least dissyllables; and may, for aught we know, have been originally trisyllabic. The Sanscrit roots, on the other hand, are uniformly monosyllables,-frequently, a single consonant followed or preceded by a vowel, and rarely comprising more than a vowel and two consonants." p. 87. The Sanscrit roots are not invariably monosyllables: some, as chakās, ‘to shine,' didhee, to shine,' oornoo, 'to cover,' are dissyllables, and at least one, duridra, 'to be poor,' is a trisyllable. Very many others, as jwuł, ‘to burn,' lusj, 'to be ashamed,' santw, 'to pacify,' chitr, to paint,' though written as one syllable, can scarcely be supposed to have been pronounced otherwise than as two. In the Shemitic tongues, all the roots called concave, as koul, 'speech,' zouk, 'taste,' are certainly monosyllables, and still more of others yet shorter, as jee, 'coming.' And so are also innumerable others, consisting of three consonants, as burd, to be cold,' jidd, to labour,' karb, 'to grieve.'

We are not, therefore, inclined to lay much stress on the Reviewer's objection, and the less so when we consider that its whole strength lies in an ambiguous use of the English word "root," which grammarians employ arbitrarily, as the translation of the names of two totally different parts of speech, one existing in the Shemitic, the other in the brahminical languages.

The Shemitic maddah, literally implying "matter," and grammatically translated "root," is the assemblage of three radical letters, which either appear in all the inflections, or are changed by strict etymological rules. Any of these letters being otherwise taken away, destroys the sense of the word. Thus, in the English vocables, bring, write, the letters brg and wrt are the maddah, or root existing in all the inflections, bringing, brought; writing, wrote, &c. The Sanscrit dhatoo, literally 'element,' is merely a technical abbreviation of each word, something like our viz. for videlicet, or mem. for memorandum; directing the student to that part of the lexicon in which the explanation of the inflection is to be found. Although, to assist the memory, this abbreviation consists of the letters of most frequent occurrence in the inflections, yet it is by no means necessary that all the letters of the root should occur in every inflection. Thus, in the common roots, gum, 'to go,' and kri, 'to do,' the m and vowel ri disappear from more than half the inflections, and letters altogether new are introduced.

We now proceed to the Reviewer's speculations on general grammar. These he prefaces with a principle of the highest value: "Most of those who have undertaken to investigate its principles, have gone the wrong way to work, and instead of carefully analyzing language, to discover what it actually is, they set about demonstrating, à priori, what it ought to be." p. 88.

This, no doubt, is the radical mistake of grammarians; instead of making themselves acquainted with a variety of languages, of diversified structure, and from thence cautiously deducing general principles, they have rested content. with a knowledge of one or two tongues only, and, ignorant of all beyond, have mistaken the arbitrary peculiarities of those for the general laws of speech, attempting to trace out whatever was wanting, by an à priori reasoning from preconceived theories of logic and metaphysics. This is the error of the old schoolmen, who, instead of founding their systems of natural philo