ON THE SUBJECTIVITY OF CERTAIN
CLASSES IN ETHNOLOGY.
FROM
THE PHILOSOPHICAL MAGAZINE FOR MAY 1853.
To the investigator who believes in the unity of the human species,
whether he be a proper ethnologist, or a zoologist in the more current
signification of the term, the phænomena exhibited by the numerous
families of mankind supply ninetenths of the _data_ for that part
of natural history which deals with _varieties_ as subordinate to,
and as different from, _species_. The history of domestic animals
in comprehensiveness and complexity yields to the history of the
domesticator. Compare upon this point such a work as G. Cuvier's on the
Races of Dogs, with Dr. Prichard's Natural History of Man. The mere
difference in bulk of volume is a rough measure of the difference in
the magnitude of the subjects. Even if the dog were as ubiquitous as
man, and consequently as much exposed to the influence of latitude,
and altitude, there would still be wanting to the evolution of canine
varieties the manifold and multiform influences of civilization. The
name of these is _legion_; whilst the extent to which they rival the
more material agencies of climate and nutrition is getting, day by
day, more generally admitted by the best and most competent inquirers.
Forms as extreme as any that can be found within the pale of the same
species are to be found within that of the species _Homo_. Transitions
as gradual as those between any varieties elsewhere are also to be
found. In summing up the value of the _data_ supplied by man towards
the _natural history of varieties_, it may be said that they are those
of a species which has its geographical distribution everywhere and a
moral as well as a physical series of characteristics. Surely, if the
question under notice be a question that must be studied inductively,
Man gives us the field for our induction.
Before I come to the special point of the present notice and to the
explanation of its somewhat enigmatical heading, I must further define
the sort of doctrine embodied in what I have called the belief of the
unity of our species. I do not call the upholder of the developmental
doctrine a believer of this kind. His views--whether right or
wrong--are at variance with the current ideas attached to the word
species. Neither do I identify with the recognition of single species
the hypothesis of a multiplicity of protoplasts, _so long as they are
distributed over several geographical centres_. The essential element
to the idea of a single species is a single geographical centre. For
this, the simplest form of the protoplast community is a single pair.
All this is mere definition and illustration. The doctrine itself may
be either right or wrong. I pass no opinion upon it. I assume it for
the present; since I wish to criticize certain terms and doctrines
which have grown up under the belief in it, and to show, that, from one
point of view, they are faulty, from another, legitimate.
It will simplify the question if we lay out of our account altogether
the _islands_ of the earth's surface, limiting ourselves to the
populations of the continent. Here the area is _continuous_, and we
cannot but suppose the stream of population by which its several
portions were occupied to have been _continuous_ also. In this case
a population spreads from a centre like circles on a still piece
of water. Now, if so, _all changes must have been gradual, and all
extreme forms must have passed into each other by means of a series of
transitional ones_.
It is clear that such forms, when submitted to arrangement and
classification, will not come out in any definite and wellmarked
groups, like the groups that constitute what is currently called
species. On the contrary, they will run into each other, with
equivocal points of contact, and indistinct lines of demarcation;
so that discrimination will be difficult, if not impracticable. If
practicable, however, it will be effected by having recourse to certain
typical forms, around which such as approximate most closely can most
accurately and conveniently be grouped. When this is done, the more
distant outliers will be distributed over the debateable ground of an
equivocal frontier. To recapitulate: varieties as opposed to species
imply transitional forms, whilst transitional forms preclude definite
lines of demarcation.
Yet what is the actual classification of the varieties of mankind, and
what is the current nomenclature? To say the least, it is very like
that of the species of a genus. Blumenbach's Mongolians, Blumenbach's
Caucasians, Blumenbach's Æthiopians,--where do we find the patent
evidence that these are the names of varieties rather than species?
Nowhere. The practical proof of a clear consciousness on the part of
a writer that he is classifying _varieties_ rather than _species_, is
the care he takes to guard his reader against mistaking the one for the
other, and the attention he bestows on the transition from one type to
another. Who has ever spent much ethnology on this? So far from learned
men having done so, they have introduced a new and lax term--_race_.
This means something which is neither a variety nor yet a species--a
_tertium quid_. In what way it differs from the other denomination has
yet to be shown.
Now if it be believed (and this belief is assumed) that the varieties
of mankind are _varieties of a species_ only, and if it cannot be
denied that the nomenclature and classification of ethnologists is
the nomenclature and classification of men investigating the _species
of a genus_, what is to be done? Are species to be admitted, or is
the nomenclature to be abandoned? The present remarks are made with
the view of showing that the adoption of either alternative would be
inconsiderate, and that the existing nomenclature, even when founded
upon the assumption of broad and trenchant lines of demarcation between
varieties which (_ex vi termini_) ought to graduate into each other, is
far from being indefensible.
Man conquers man, and occupant displaces occupant on the earth's
surface. By this means forms and varieties which once existed become
extinct. The more this extinction takes place, the greater is the
obliteration of those transitional and intermediate forms which connect
extreme types; and the greater this obliteration, the stronger the
lines of demarcation between geographically contiguous families. Hence
a variational modification of a group of individuals simulates a
difference of species; forms which were once wide apart being brought
into juxtaposition by means of the annihilation of the intervening
transitions. Hence what we of the nineteenth century,--ethnologists,
politicians, naturalists, and the like--behold in the way of groups,
classes, tribes, families, or what not, is beholden to a great extent
under the guise of _species_; although it may not be so in reality,
and although it might not have been so had we been witnesses to that
earlier condition of things when one variety graduated into another
and the integrity of the chain of likeness was intact. This explains
the term _subjectivity_. A group is sharply defined simply because we
know it in its state of definitude; a state of definitude which has
been brought about by the displacement and obliteration of transitional
forms.
The geographical distribution of the different ethnological divisions
supplies a full and sufficient confirmation of this view. I say "full
and sufficient," because it cannot be said that _all_ our groups are
subjective, _all_ brought about by displacement and obliteration. Some
are due to simple isolation; and this is the reason why the question
was simplified by the omission of all the _insular_ populations. As
a general rule, however, the _more definite the class, the greater
the displacement_; displacement which we sometimes know to have taken
place on historical evidence, and displacement which we sometimes
have to infer. In thus inferring it, the language is the chief test.
The greater the area over which it is spoken with but little or no
variation of dialect, the more recent the extension of the population
that speaks it. Such, at least, is the _primâ facie_ view.
A brief sketch of the chief details that thus verify the position of
the text is all that can now be given.
1. The populations of South-eastern Asia, Mongol in physiognomy and
monosyllabic in speech, have always been considered to form a large
and natural, though not always a primary, group. Two-thirds of its
area, and the whole of its frontier north of the Himalayas, is formed
by the Chinese and Tibetans alone. These differ considerably from each
other, but more from the Turks, Mongols, and Tongusians around. In the
mountainous parts of the Assam frontier and the Burmese empire, each
valley has its separate dialect. Yet these graduate into each other.
2. Central Asia and Siberia are occupied by four great groups, the
populations allied to the Turk, the populations allied to the Mongol,
the populations allied to the Mantshu, and the populations allied to
the Finns. These are pretty definitely distinguished from each other,
as well as from the Chinese and Tibetans. They cover a vast area, an
area, which, either from history or inference, we are certain is far
wider at present than it was originally. They have encroached on each
and all of the populations around, till they meet with families equally
encroaching in the direction of China and Tibet. This it is that makes
the families which are called _Turanian_ and _Monosyllabic_ natural
groups. They are cut off, more or less, from each other and from other
populations by the displacement of groups originally more or less
transitional. The typical populations of the centre spread themselves
at the expense of the sub-typicals of the periphery until the extremes
meet.
3. The circumpolar populations supply similar illustrations. Beginning
with Scandinavia, the Lap stands in remarkable contrast with the
Norwegian of Norway, and the Swede of Sweden. Why is this? Because
the Northman represents a population originally German,--a population
which, however much it may have graduated into the type of the most
southern congeners of the Lap, is now brought into contact with a very
different member of that stock.
4. This phænomenon repeats itself in the arctic portions of America,
where the Algonkin and Loucheux Indians (Indians of the true American
type) come in geographical contact, and in physiological contrast, with
the Eskimo. Consequently along the Loucheux and Algonkin frontiers the
line of demarcation between the Eskimo and the Red Indian (currently
so-called) is abrupt and trenchant. Elsewhere, as along the coast of
the Pacific, the two classes of population graduate into each other.
5. The African family is eminently isolated. It is, however, just along
the point of contact between Africa and Asia that the displacements
have been at a _maximum_. The three vast families of the Berbers, the
Arabs and the Persians, cannot but have obliterated something (perhaps
_much_) in the way of transition.
6. The Bushmen and Hottentots are other instances of extreme contrast,
_i. e._ when compared with the Amakosah Caffres. Yet the contrast
is only at its height in those parts where the proof of Caffre
encroachment is clearest. In the parts east of Wallfisch Bay--traversed
by Mr. Galton--the lines of difference are much less striking.
Such are some of the instances that illustrate what may be called the
"subjectivity of ethnological groups,"--a term which greatly helps to
reconcile two apparently conflicting habits, viz. that of thinking with
the advocates of the unity of the human species, and employing the
nomenclature of their opponents.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF PHILOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATION AND THE VALUE
OF GROUPS,
WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE LANGUAGES OF
THE INDO-EUROPEAN CLASS.
READ BEFORE THE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
28TH FEBRUARY 1849.
In respect to the languages of the Indo-European class, it is
considered that the most important questions connected with their
systematic arrangement, and viewed with reference to the extent to
which they engage the attention of the present writers of philology,
are the three following:--
1. _The question of the Fundamental Elements of certain
Languages._--The particular example of an investigation of this kind is
to be found in the discussion concerning the extent to which it is a
language akin to the Sanskrit, or a language akin to the Tamul, which
forms the basis of certain dialects of _middle_ and even _northern_
India. In this is involved the question as to the relative value of
grammatical and glossarial coincidences.
2. _The question of the Independent or Subordinate Character of certain
Groups._--Under this head comes the investigation, as to whether the
Slavonic and Lithuanic tongues form separate groups, in the way that
the Slavonic and Gothic tongues form separate groups, or whether they
are each members of some higher group. The same inquiry applies to the
languages (real or supposed) derived from the Zend, and the languages
(real or supposed) derived from the Sanskrit.
3. _The question of Extension and Addition._--It is to this that the
forthcoming observations are limited.
Taking as the centre of a group, those forms of speech which have
been recognised as Indo-European (or Indo-Germanic), from the first
recognition of the group itself, we find the languages derived from the
ancient Sanskrit, the languages derived from the ancient Persian, the
languages of Greece and Rome, the Slavonic and Lithuanic languages, and
the languages of the Gothic stock; Scandinavian, as well as Germanic.
The affinity between any two of these groups has currently been
considered to represent the affinity between them all at large.
The way in which the class under which these divisions were contained,
as subordinate groups, has received either _addition_ or _extension_,
is a point of philological history, which can only be briefly noticed;
previous to which a difference of meaning between the words _addition_
and _extension_ should be explained.
To draw an illustration from the common ties of relationship, as
between man and man, it is clear that a family may be enlarged in two
ways.
_a._ A brother, or a cousin, may be discovered, of which the existence
was previously unknown. Herein the family is enlarged, or increased,
by the _real_ addition of a new member, in a recognised degree of
relationship.
_b._ A degree of relationship previously unrecognised may be
recognised, _i. e._, a family wherein it was previously considered that
a second-cousinship was as much as could be admitted within its pale,
may incorporate third, fourth, or fifth cousins. Here the family is
enlarged, or increased, by a _verbal_ extension of the term.
Now it is believed that the distinction between increase by the way of
real addition, and increase by the way of verbal extension, has not
been sufficiently attended to. Yet, that it should be more closely
attended to, is evident; since, in mistaking a verbal increase for a
real one, the whole end and aim of classification is overlooked.
I. _The Celtic._--The publication of Dr. Prichard's Eastern Origin
of the Celtic Nations, in 1831, supplied philologists with the most
definite addition that has, perhaps, yet been made to ethnographical
philology.
Ever since then, the Celtic has been considered to be Indo-European.
Indeed its position in the same group with the Iranian, Classical,
Slavono-Lithuanic, and Gothic tongues, supplied the reason for
substituting the term Indo-_European_ for the previous one
Indo-_Germanic_.
2. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
Armenian is Indo-European. Perhaps the wellknown affinity between the
Armenian and Phrygian languages directed philologists to a comparison
between the Armenian and Greek. Müller, in his Dorians, points out the
inflexion of the Armenian verb-substantive.
3. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
old Etruscan is Indo-European.
4. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
Albanian is Indo-European.
5. Since the fixation of the Celtic, Indo-European elements have been
indicated in the Malay.
6. Since the fixation of the Celtic, Indo-European elements have been
indicated in the Laplandic.
7. Since the fixation of the Celtic, it has been considered that the
Ossetic is Indo-European.
8. Since the consideration of the Ossetic as Indo-European, the
Georgian has been considered as Indo-European likewise.
Now the criticism of the theory which makes the Georgian to be
Indo-European, is closely connected with the criticism of the theory
which makes the Ossetic and the Malay to be Polynesian; and this the
writer reserves for a separate paper. All that he does at present is to
express his opinion, that if any of the seven last-named languages are
Indo-European, they are Indo-European not by real addition, in the way
of recognised relationship, but by a verbal extension of the power of
the term Indo-European. He also believes that this is the view which
is taken, more or less consciously or unconsciously, by the different
authors of the different classifications themselves. If he be wrong in
this notion, he is at issue with them as to a matter of fact; since,
admitting _some_ affinity on the part of the languages in question, he
denies that it is that affinity which connects the Greek and German,
the Latin and Lithuanian.
On the other hand, if he rightly imagine that they are considered as
Indo-European on the strength of some other affinity, wider and more
distant than that which connects the Greek with the German, or the
Latin with the Lithuanic, he regrets that such an extension of a term
should have been made without an exposition of the principles that
suggested it, or the facts by which it is supported; principles and
facts which, when examined by himself, have convinced him that most of
the later movements in this department of ethnographical philology,
have been movements in the wrong direction.
There are two principles upon which languages may be classified.
According to the first, we take two or more languages as we find them,
ascertain certain of their characteristics, and then inquire how far
these characteristics coincide.
Two or more languages thus taken agree in having a large per-centage
of words in common, or a large per-centage of grammatical inflexions;
in which case they would agree in certain _positive_ characters. On
the other hand, two or more such languages agree in the _negative_
fact of having a small and scanty vocabulary, and an inflexional
system equally limited; whilst, again, the scantiness of inflexion
may arise from one of two causes. It may arise from the fact of
inflexions having never been developed at all, or it may arise from
inflexions having been lost subsequent to a full development of the
same. In all such cases as these, the principle of classification would
be founded upon the extent to which languages agreed or differed in
certain external characteristics; and it would be the principle upon
which the mineralogist classifies minerals. It is not worth while to
recommend the adoption of the particular term _mineralogical_, although
mineralogy is the science that best illustrates the distinction. It is
sufficient to state, that in the principle here indicated, there is no
notion of _descent_.
It is well known that in ethnographical philology (indeed in ethnology
at large) the mineralogical principle is not recognised; and that the
principle that _is_ recognised is what may be called the _historical_
principle. Languages are arranged in the same class, not because they
agree in having a copious grammar or scanty grammar, but because they
are descended (or are supposed to be descended) from some common
stock; whilst similarity of grammatical structure, and glossarial
identity are recognised as elements of classification only so far as
they are _evidence_ of such community of origin. Just as two brothers
will always be two brothers, notwithstanding differences of stature,
feature, and disposition, so will two languages which have parted
from the common stock within the same decennium, be more closely
allied to each other, at any time and at all times, than two languages
separated within the same century; and two languages separated within
the same century, will always be more cognate than two within the
same millennium. This will be the case irrespective of any amount of
subsequent similarity or dissimilarity.
Indeed, for the purposes of ethnology, the phenomena of subsequent
similarity or dissimilarity are of subordinate importance. Why they are
so, is involved in the question as to the rate of change in language.
Of two tongues separated at the same time from a common stock, one may
change rapidly, the other slowly; and, hence, a dissimilar physiognomy
at the end of a given period. If the English of Australia were to
change rapidly in one direction, and the English of America in another,
great as would be the difference resulting from such changes, their
ethnological relation would be the same. They would still have the same
affiliation with the same mother-tongue, dating from nearly the same
epoch.
In ethnological philology, as in natural history, _descent_ is the
paramount fact; and without asking how far the value thus given to it
is liable to be refined on, we leave it, in each science, as we find
it, until some future investigator shall have shewn that either for
a pair of animals _not_ descended from a common stock, or for a pair
of languages _not_ originating from the same mother-tongue, a greater
number of general propositions can be predicated than is the case with
the two most dissimilar instances of either an animal or a language
derived from a common origin.
_Languages are allied just in proportion as they were separated from
the same language at the same epoch._
_The same epoch._--The word _epoch_ is an equivocal word, and it is
used designedly because it is so. Its two meanings require to be
indicated, and, then, it will be necessary to ask which of them is to
be adopted here.
The _epoch_, as a period in the duration of a language, may be simply
_chronological_, or it may be _philological_, properly so called.
The space of ten, twenty, a hundred, or a thousand years, is a strictly
chronological epoch. The first fifty years after the Norman conquest
is an epoch in the history of the English language; so is the reign of
Henry the Third, or the Protectorship of Oliver Cromwell. A definite
period of this sort is an epoch in language, just as the term of twenty
or thirty years is an epoch in the life of a man.
On the other hand, a period that, chronologically speaking, is
indefinite, may be an epoch. The interval between one change and an
other, whether long or short, is an epoch. The duration of English
like the English of Chaucer, is an epoch in the history of the English
language; and so is the duration of English like the English of the
Bible translation. For such epochs there are no fixed periods. With
a language that changes rapidly they are short; with a language that
changes slowly they are long.
Now, in which of these two meanings should the word be used in
ethnographical philology? The answer to the question is supplied by
the circumstances of the case, rather than by any abstract propriety.
We cannot give it the first meaning, even if we wish to do so. To
say in what year of the duration of a common mother-tongue the Greek
separated from the stock that was common to it and to the Latin is an
impossibility; indeed, if it could be answered at once, it would be
a question of simple history, not an inference from ethnology: since
ethnology, with its palæontological reasoning from effect to cause,
speaks only where history, with its direct testimony, is silent.
We cannot, then, in ethnological reasoning, get at the precise year in
which any one or two languages separated from a common stock, so as to
say that _this separated so long before the other_.
The _order_, however, of separation we _can_ get at; since we can
_infer_ it from the condition of the mother-tongue at the time of
such separation; this condition being denoted by the condition of the
derived language.
Hence the philological epoch is an approximation to the chronological
epoch, and as it is the nearest approximation that can possibly be
attained, it is practically identical with it, so that the enunciation
of the principle at which we wish to arrive may change its wording, and
now stand as follows,--_Languages are allied, just in proportion as
they were separated from the same language in the same stage_.
Now, if there be a certain number of well-marked forms (say _three_)
of development, and if the one of these coincide with an early period
in the history of language, another with a later one, and the third
with a period later still, we have three epochs wherein we may fix the
date of the separation of the different languages from their different
parent-stocks; and these epochs are natural, just in proportion as the
forms that characterise them are natural.
Again, if each epoch fall into minor and subordinate periods,
characterised by the changes and modifications of the then generally
characteristic forms, we have the basis for subordinate groups and a
more minute classification.
It is not saying too much to say that all this is no hypothesis, but
a reality. There _are_ real distinctions of characteristic forms
corresponding with real stages of development; and the number of these
is three; besides which, one, at least, of the three great stages falls
into divisions and subdivisions.
1. The stage anterior to the evolution of inflexion.--Here each word
has but one form, and relation is expressed by mere juxtaposition, with
or without the superaddition of a change of accent. The tendencies of
this stage are to combine words in the way of composition, but not to
go further. Every word retains, throughout, its separate substantive
character, and has a meaning independent of its juxtaposition with the
words with which it combines.
2. The stage wherein inflexions are developed.--Here, words originally
separate, and afterwards placed in juxtaposition with others, as
elements of a compound term, so far change in form, or so far lose
their separate signification, as to pass for adjuncts, either prefixed
or postfixed to the main word. What was once a word is now the part of
a word, and what was once Composition is now Derivation, certain sorts
of Derivation being called Inflexions, and certain Inflexions being
called Declensions or Conjugations, as the case may be.
3. The stage wherein inflexions become lost, and are replaced by
separate words.--Here case-endings, like the _i_ in _patr-i_, are
replaced by prepositions (in some cases by postpositions), like the
_to_ in _to father_; and personal endings, like the _o_ in _voc-o_, are
replaced by pronouns, like the _I_ in _I call_.
Of the _first_ of these stages, the Chinese is the language which
affords the most typical specimen that can be found in the present
_late_ date of languages--_late_, considering that we are looking for a
sample of its earliest forms.
Of the _last_ of these stages the English of the year 1849 affords the
most typical specimen that can be found in the present _early_ date of
language--_early_, considering that we are looking for a sample of its
latest forms.
Of the second of these stages we must take two languages as the samples.
1. _The Greek._--Here we have the inflexional character in its most
perfect form; _i. e._, the existence, as separate words, of those
sounds and syllables that form inflexions is at its maximum of
concealment; _i. e._, their amalgamation with the primary word (the
essence of inflexion) is most perfect.
2. _The Circassian, Coptic, or Turkish._--In one of these (it is
difficult to say which) the existence as separate words of those
sounds and syllables which form inflexions, is at its _minimum_ of
concealment; _i. e._, their amalgamation with the primary word (the
essence of inflexion) being most imperfect.
This classification is, necessarily, liable to an element of confusion
common to all classifications where the evidence is not exactly of the
sort required by the nature of the question. The nature of the question
here dealt with requires the evidence of the historical kind, _i. e._,
direct testimony. The only evidence, however, we can get at is indirect
and inferential. This engenders the following difficulty. The newest
language of (say) the languages of the secondary formation may be
nearer in chronology, to the oldest language of the third, than to the
first formed language of its own class. Indeed, unless we assume the
suspension of all change for long epochs, and that those coincide with
the periods at which certain languages are given off from their parent
stocks, such _must_ be the case.
Now, although this is a difficulty, it is no greater difficulty than
the geologists must put up with. With them also there are the phenomena
of transition, and such phenomena engender unavoidable complications.
They do so, however, without overthrowing the principles of their
classification.
The position of a language in respect to its stage of development is
one thing,--the position in respect to its allied tongues another.
Two languages may be in the same stage (and, _as such_, agree), yet be
very distant from each other in respect to affiliation or affinity.
Stage for stage the French is more closely connected with the English,
than the English with the Mœso-Gothic. In the way of affiliation,
the converse is the case.
Languages are allied (or, what is the same thing, bear evidence of
their alliance), according to the number of forms that they have in
common; since (subject to one exception) these common forms must have
been taken from the common mother-tongue.
Two languages separated from the common mother-tongue, subsequent to
the evolution of (_say_) a form for the dative case, are more allied
than two languages similarly separated anterior to such an evolution.
_Subject to one exception._ This means, that it is possible that two
languages may appear under certain circumstances more allied than they
really are, and _vice versâ_.
They may appear more allied than they really are, when, after
separating from the common mother-tongue during the ante-inflexional
stage, they develop their inflexions on the same principle, although
_independently_. This case is more possible than proved.
They may appear less allied than they really are, when, although
separated from the common mother-tongue after the evolution of a
considerable amount of inflexion, each taking with it those inflexions,
the one may retain them, whilst the other loses them _in toto_. This
case also is more possible than proved.
Each of these cases involves a complex question in philology:--the
one the phenomena connected with the _rate of change_; the other the
_uniformity of independent processes_.
These questions are likely to affect future researches more than they
have affected the researches hitherto established. Another question has
affected the researches hitherto established more than it is likely to
affect future ones. This is the question as to the _fundamental unity,
or non-unity of language_. Upon this the present writer has expressed
an opinion elsewhere. At present he suggests that the more the general
unity of the human language is admitted, the clearer will be the way
for those who work at the details of the different affiliations.
As long as it is an open question, whether one class of languages
be _wholly_ unconnected with others, _any_ connection engenders an
inclination to arrange it under the group previously recognised.
I believe that this determined the position of the Celtic in the
Indo-European group. I have great doubts whether if _some_ affinity had
been recognised from the beginning, it would even have stood where it
now does. The question, when Dr. Prichard undertook his investigations,
was not so much whether the Celtic was in the exact ratio to any or all
of the then recognised European languages in which they were to each
other, but whether it was in any relation at all. This being proved, it
fell into the class at once.
The present writer believes that the Celtic tongues were separated
from their mother-tongue at a comparatively early period of the second
stage; _i. e._, when but few inflexions had been evolved; whilst the
Classic, Gothic, Lithuano-Slavonic (Sarmatian), and Indo-Persian
(Iranian) were separated at comparatively late periods of the same
stage, _i. e._, when many inflexions had been evolved.
Hence he believes that, in order to admit the Celtic, the meaning of
the term Indo-European was extended.
Regretting this (at the same time admitting that the Celtic tongue is
more Indo-European than any thing else), he believes that it is too
late to go back to the older and more restricted use of the term; and
suggests (as the next best change), the propriety of considering the
Indo-European class as divided into two divisions, the older containing
the Celtic, the newer containing the Iranian, Classical, Sarmatian,
and Gothic tongues. All further extensions of the term he believes to
be prejudicial to future philology; believing also that all supposed
additions to the Indo-European class _have_ (with the exception,
perhaps, of the Armenian) involved such farther extension.
TRACES OF A BILINGUAL TOWN IN
ENGLAND.
READ AT THE
MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE
ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE 1853.
It is well-known that the termination _-by_ as the name of a village
or town is a sign of Danish occupancy. At the present time it means
_town_ in Scandinavia; and Christiania or Copenhagen is called _By_,
or _Byen_, = _the town_, _capital_, or metropolis. The English
form is _-ton_. When an Angle said New_ton_, a Dane said New_by_.
The distribution of the forms in _-by_ has already commanded much
attention; so that it is not the intention of the present writer to say
much about it.