amid the involution of his words, we truft that we have caught his real meaning, and expreffed it accurately. In purfuance of this notion, the whole of the prefent volume is em ploved to develope the various effects of the combination, or, as he terms it, element CB, in alt the languages examined by him, which, as the title-page fets forth, are a confiderable number. In his Introduction he extends, and perhaps with reafon and propriety, the number of confonants which are ordinarily interchanged, and which therefore are termed cognate confonants. Thefe are enumerated by the generality of grammarians thus ; 'P. B. F or Ph.

K. G. Ch.

T. D. Th.

}

which are confidered as refpectively inter

changeable in the three lines; that is, P. B. and F. for each other, K. G. and Ch. and, in like manner, T. D. Th. These changes are chiefly noticed by the Greek grammarians, and illuftrated by the mutations and inflexions of that language; but the letters being really related, in the organs of enunciation, muft preferve the fame affinity in all languages. To the first three confonants, P. B. F. Mr. W. adds M. and Mh. and brings fome proofs, from the Greek and Welsh languages, that the latter are alfo cognate to and interchangeable with the former. The fecond and third fet of confonants he joins together, and pronounces that T. D. Th. Z. K C. G. are all cognate letters, and accordingly are perpetually paffing into each other. It is not neceffary to examine, at prefent, whether this latter extenfion be not rather too bold; it is fufficient at this time to ftate the theory as it ftands. To the former lift of confonants he alfo adds, in practice, V. though it is not exprefsly mentioned in his Introduction. His cognate, or interchangeable confonan's, therefore ftand thus:

P. B. F. Ph. M. V. in the first list.

C. G. D. T. Th. K. Z. in the fecond lift.

By thefe fteps his element CB. the fubject of this volume, takes all the following form:

CB, CF, CP, CV, GB, GF, GP, GV, KB, KF, KP, K which are arranged at the head of the book, thus:

CB, CF, CP, CV.

They might perhaps be more conveniently arranged, thus:

C, G,K. joined with

P

respectively.

V

But

But it is evident, from his two lines of interchangeable confo. nants, that the mutations may be in fact much more numerous, If the position be right; and the table might ftand thus ;

making a very much larger number of combinations. Thús it will eafily be feen how, from fo contracted a fubject as the element CB, fo large a book may be formed,

This then is the general doctrine of the new etymologist ; that all words, in every language, of which any two of thefe various confonants form a principal part, may be confidered as derived, not from each other, but from the general, or ratheruniverfal, idea attached to thofe letters in combination. It must be owned alfo, that the author brings together, with a skill and readiness perfectly aftonishing, a prodigious number of fuch coincidences, fufficient to confound, if not to convince, the moft incredulous. But may it not be afked in turn (and would not the experiment, if tried, be fatal to the fyftem?) "could not an equal number of words be collected from the fame languages, in which thefe fuppofed elements bore an equal fway, and which are yet in no degree connected with the fignifications afligned?"

But without going into this procefs, almoft as operofe as the work itfelf, is not this implied by the doctrine, that fuch general fignification is, fome how, fo naturally attached to those combinations, that if children were now turned adrift to form a language for themfelves, without any teaching, they would unavoidably fall into the fame track? The author certainly means to affert, that the fame combinations will be found to produce the fame effects in all exifting languages. But if this be the cafe, his collection, extenfive as it is, and much as we may admire his facility in making fuch a progrefs, is by no means fufficient; and he has many fteps to make before he can establish his poficion. For, if any language thall be found which totally refifts his doctrine, there is an end of the princi ple. If a fingle people have ever deviated wholly from it, there is no foundation for his theory in nature. For this reason, the Chinefe language, and thofe fragments of languages of the natives of the South Sea iilands, and other new-found countries, which have been produced by Cook and other voyagers, fhould certainly have been brought into view; for if they do not, fo far as they apply, fupport the author's theory, they muft excite a strong ful

picion against it. It must be observed also, that the lift of languages given in the title-page, though numerous, is in part fallacious; for many of them, being derived directly from others in the fame lift, give no extenfion of authority. The author, though he contends for his general principle of etymology, certainly will not deny that languages are alfo derived from each other; and, in that cafe, the Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, &c. muft, in many refpects, be confidered as only one; fince a certain word exifts, in all the derivative languages, only because it had been established in the original. Thus the various families of languages, as they have been called, fhrink refpectively into fo many individuals, the Northern, the Celtic, the Eastern languages, &c. and thus his difplay of numerous languages anfwers no end but to surprise and confound, being reducible in truth and propriety to three or four. For this reafon it is that, as foon as we understood the plan of this work, we wifked particularly to fee illustrations of its principle, drawn from thofe languages which have the beft chance of being independent; from the fpeech of those remote and obfcure tribes, fituated in folitary islands, whose connection with any known people is difficult and almoft impoffible to be traced. The Gipfey language, of which Mr. Whiter makes great ufe (if it be in truth a language, and not a collection of terms, invented by a very different procefs from any complete language) muft probably be nearly connected with fome of the Oriental dialects. But the fpeech of New Zealand, or the Friendly Iflands, is fo remote from any traceable genealogy, that coincidences there difcovered would have much more weight than any here adduced, towards eftablishing a general and pervading principle,

But it may be afked with reafon, though this etymologift ftudiously eludes the question, what general or natural connec tion can poffibly be conceived between two confonants, fuch as CB. and any particular idea, fuch as cavity, height, &c.? To this he will be ready to reply, that at present he feeks only the fact, whether fuch a fecret connection (on whatever depending) may not actually be traced. He deals, as he often tells us," in facts alone, not in conjectures." To account for the facts will be a fubfequent bufinefs. But to this it may be rejoined, on the other hand, that if the fuppofition itself is impoffible or abfurd, the feeking to fupport it by an induction, which muft infallibly be very imperfect, is a dreadful loss of

time.

Let us enquire then why the letters CV (or CB, which he confiders as equivalent) fhould be naturally connected with the idea of hollownefs, as in cave, cove, cover, &c.? On this quef

tion, the author has attempted to throw fome light, in the only paffage directed to this fundamental and indifpenfable enquiry, which we find in his whole book.

"It is, in my opinion," he fays, "one of the most extraordinary facts in the whole compafs of literary history. We fhall difcover in every language the term for a hollow expreffed by the fimple breathing of C or K^; and perhaps thofe readers who amuse themselves with conjectures refp cting the origin of primaval jpeech, may be difpofed to imagine that the inarticulate and unmeaning found Haw-Hau, or when hardened into a guttural, Caw-au, might have at nrft exprefled that which was most important to attain, the bollow or den which should The Iter the naked favage from the inclemency of the elem nts, and the attacks of wild beatts. The mouth cannot be clofed in the enunciation of Can, without the expretion of the confonant found Cauv Cav; and this might be the first progenitor of that great race of words Cave-Kavv-Roff-Kaer-Cavus, &c. &c. which are now the objects of our difcuffion. But thefe fpeculations belong to theory and not to facts, which alone I have undertaken wo explam and establish." P.105.

We may perceive that this paffage is at once very guarded, and very artful. The author difcourages fuch enquiries, and throws a flur upon these who fhould make them, by saying "thofe leaders who amufe themselves with conjectures;" and he pretends that he is converfant only in facts. But are not all thefe facts fought out to fupport the theory, that fimple confonant elements are the origin of air languages? And is it not fair to ask whether this theory (which he compares for fimplicity to the general principle of Algebra*, the propofition on

which

• We may obferve, in this place, a remarkable inftance of the propenfity this author has to confider his own opinions as original difcoveries, and beyond the reach of others. Of Algebra he fays, "the datum on which algebra has been establifhed is fimply this, that equals added to-fubtracted from-divided or multiplied by-equals, are still equal to each other. On this principle alone is the doctrine of algebra founded the reft is nothing but the adoption of a new and concife language expreffing this fact; and in all the various changes and operations of the equation, with which its wonders are performed, this principle and this only is applied." P. ii.

This is certainly a truth, and a curious and useful truth; but is it fo unfu pected by mathematicians in general as Mr. Wh. fuppofes, when he adds this fneer against them? "The ordinary mathematician, who has confounded others and himself by attaching to the calculations of algebra the idea of fomething myfterious or profound, will be aftonished perhaps to understand, that in the highest exertion of his faculties, in the mott perplexing moments of his deep ft cogitation, it was his duty only to remember and apply this fimple principle, and that

all

which equations depend) be in its own nature abfurd or not? Guarded as he is, therefore, and careful not to offer the fup pofition as his own, but to beftow it upon thofe who amufe themjetves with conjectures, we can plainly fee in the paflage how he fuppoles both language and fociety to have originated; namely, from the naked Javage, who fift formed inarticulate founds, like a beaft, to exprefs his wants, and then by degrees modelled them into language. But, against this, is there not the strongest of all arguments, the authority of the only genuine hiftory of man, which declares that he never was a helpless and beaftly savage*; but was formed for fociety at the firit, and gifted by the Almighty himself with the power of fpeech, and the ufe of fome original language? We fay nothing about the probability of the conjecture, as the author lays fo little trefs upon it, but we defire it to be fully noticed that this account, flight as it is, and almost difavowed as it is, by the manner of giving it, is the only attempt made to thow that his fyftem has any foundation in the nature of thingst. He thows indeed abundantly that fimilarities exift, which may, if this origin be reasonable, be referred to it, but which may also be accounted for in other ways.

We cannot, at this time, give further space to our account of this curious volume; but we fhall be able probably to show, in a future article, how the author might have given to his system a more stable tourdation, and on what foundation it must ultimately reft, fhould it be found, which is very doubtful, to have some connection with the truth.

(To be continued.}.

all his involutions-evolutions-fubftitutions, &c. &c. were employed for the fole purpofe of profiting by this fingle maxim; and of bringing his various operations within the sphere of its action." Do any fuch ordinary mathematicians exist at this day, as to be aftonished at this information? We believe not; and we are rather astonished how the author fhould fuppofe it new; as we were in the cafe of his imaginary difcovery about the afficiation of ideas.

Where he has fubfitted as a favage it has been accidentally.

Were we to difcufs the probability of this conjecture, we might afk, whether it can be fuppofed that children yet unable to speak, and left in a defolate place, where they would find and want the cave for the purpofes here mentioned, would infallibly come to the car-car, and thence to the cave, or fome equivalent modification of their original cry? In our opinion, the fuppofition is ridiculous. The car Car would be more likely to be uttered for want of food, as it is by the young ravens, than for want of lodging.

ART.