The essays in the present volume are chiefly upon philological and
ethnographical subjects: though not exclusively. The earliest was
published in 1840, the latest in 1856. In some cases they have formed
separate treatises and in some Appendices to larger works. The greater
part, however, consists of papers read before the Philological Society
of London; a society which has materially promoted the growth of
Comparative Philology in Great Britain, and which, if it had merely
given to the world the valuable researches of the late Mr. Garnett,
would have done more than enough to justify its existence and to prove
its usefulness.
As a general rule these papers address themselves to some definite
and special question, which commanded the attention of the author
either because it was obscure, or because there was something in the
current opinions concerning it which, in his eyes, required correction.
Researches conducted on this principle can scarcely be invested with
any very general interest. Those who take them up are supposed to have
their general knowledge beforehand. A wide field and a clear view, they
have already taken. At the same time there are, in the distant horizon,
imperfect outlines, and in the parts nearer to the eye dim spots where
the light is uncertain, dark spots where it is wholly wanting, and,
oftener still, spots illumined by a false and artificial light. Some
of the details of the following investigations may be uninteresting
from their minuteness; some from their obscurity; the minuteness
however, and the obscurity which deprive them of general interest
make it all the more incumbent on some one to take them up: and it is
needless to add that for a full and complete system of ethnographical
or philological knowledge all the details that are discoverable should
be discovered. This is my excuse (if excuse be needed) for having
spent some valuable time upon obscure points of minute interest. Upon
the whole, they have not been superfluous. This means that I have
rarely, or never, found from any subsequent reading that they had
been anticipated. Where this has been the case, the article has been
omitted--being treated as a _non scriptum_. An elaborate train of
reasoning submitted to the Ethnographical Society has on this principle
been ignored. It was upon the line of migration by which the Polynesian
portion of the Pacific islands was peopled. It deduced Polynesia
from the Navigator's Islands; the Navigator's Islands, or Samoan
Archipelago, from the Ralik and Radak chains; the Ralik and Radak
chains from Micronesia; Micronesia from the Philippines, viâ Sonsoral
and the Pelews. Some time after the paper was read I found that Forster
has promulgated the same doctrine. I ought to have known it before.
Hence the paper is omitted: indeed it was (though read) never published.
In respect to the others the chief writers who have worked in the same
field are Dr. Scouler, Professor Turner, and Professor Buschmann,--not
to mention the bibliographical labours of Dr. Ludwig, and the second
paper of Gallatin. I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that
where they agree with me they do so as independent investigators;
claiming for myself, where I agree with them, the same consideration.
Of Hodgson and Logan, Windsor Earle, and other investigators I should
have much to say in the way of both acknowledgement and criticism,
had India and the Indian Archipelago taken as large a portion of the
present volume as is taken by North America. As it is, it is only in a
few points that I touch their domain.
The hypothesis that the Asteks (so-called) reached Mexico by sea I
retract. Again--the fundamental affinity of the Australian language
was a doctrine to which both Teichelmann and Sir G. Grey had committed
themselves when the paper on the Negrito languages was written. The
papers, however, stand as they stood: partly because they are worth
something in the way of independent evidence, and partly because they
illustrate allied subjects.