ON THE JAPODES AND GEPIDÆ

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
JANUARY 15TH 1857.

Of the nations whose movements are connected with the decline and fall of the Roman empire, though several are more important than the Gepidæ, few are of a greater interest. This is because the question of their ethnological relations is more obscure than that of any other similar population of equal historical prominence. How far they were Goths rather than Vandals, or Vandals rather than Goths, how far they were neither one nor the other, has scarcely been investigated. Neither has their origin been determined. Nor have the details of their movements been ascertained. That the current account, as it stands in the pages of Jornandes Diaconus, is anything but unexceptionable, will be shown in the present paper. It is this account, however, which has been adopted by the majority of inquirers.

The results to which the present writer commits himself are widely different from those of his predecessors; he believes them, however, to be of the most ordinary and commonplace character. Why, then, have they not been attained long ago? Because certain statements, to a contrary effect, being taken up without a due amount of preliminary criticism, have directed the views of historians and ethnologists towards a wrong point.

These, however, for the present will be ignored, and nothing, in the first instance, will be attended to but the primary facts upon which the argument, in its simplest form, depends. These being adduced, the ordinary interpretation of them will be suggested; after which, the extent to which it is modified by the statements upon which the current doctrines are founded will be investigated.

If we turn to Strabo's account of the parts on the north-eastern side of the Adriatic, the occupancies of the numerous tribes of the Roman province of Illyricum, we shall find that no slight prominence is given to the population called [a]Ἰάποδες]. They join the Carni. The Culpa ([a]Κολαπις]) flows through their land. They stretch along the coast to the river Tedanius; Senia is their chief town. The Moentini, the Avendeatæ, the Auripini, are their chief tribes. Vendos (Avendo) is one of their occupancies. Such are the notices of Strabo, Ptolemy, Appian, and Pliny; Pliny's form of the word being Japydes.

The Iapodes, then, or Japydes, of the authors in question, are neither an obscure nor an inconsiderable nation. They extend along the sea-coast of the Adriatic. They occupy the valley of the Culpa. They are Illyrian, but conterminous with Pannonia.

As Pliny seems to have taken his name from Strabo, the authors just quoted may all be called Greek. With the latest of them we lose the forms [a]Ἰάποδες] or Japydes.

As the Roman empire declines and its writers become less and less classical, their geographical records become less systematic and more fragmentary; and it is not till we get to the times of Probus and Maximian that we find any name approaching [a]Ἰάποδες]. Probus, however, plants a colony of Gepidæ within the empire (Vopiscus, Vit. Pub. c. 18). The Tervings also fight against the Vandals and Gipedes (Mamertinus in Genethl. Max. c. 17). Sidonius makes the fierce Gepida (Gepida trux) a portion of the army of Attila. Finally, we have the Gepidæ, the Lombards, and the Avars, as the three most prominent populations of the sixth century.

The Gepid locality in the fifth century is the parts about Sirmium and Singidunum—Alt Schabacz and Belgrade—within the limits of Pannonia, and beyond those of Illyricum, i. e. a little to the north of the occupancy of the Iapodes and Japydes of Strabo and Pliny.

There is, then, a little difference in name between Japydes and Gepidæ, and a little difference in locality between the Gepids and Iapodes. I ask, however, whether this is sufficient to raise any doubt as to the identity of the two words? Whether the populations they denoted were the same is another matter. I only submit that, word for word, Japyd and Gepid are one. Yet they have never been considered so. On the contrary, the obscure history of the Japydes is generally made to end with Ptolemy; the more brilliant one of the Gepidæ to begin with Vopiscus. This may be seen in Gibbon, in Zeuss, or in any author whatever who notices either, or both, of the two populations.

There is a reason for this; it does not, however, lie in the difference of name. Wider ones than this are overlooked by even the most cautious of investigators. Indeed, the acknowledged and known varieties of the word Gepidæ itself, are far more divergent from each other than Gepidæ is from Japydes. Thus Gypides, [a]Γήπαιδες], [a]Γετίπαιδες], are all admitted varieties,—varieties that no one has objected to.

Nor yet does the reason for thus ignoring the connexion between Gepidæ and Japydes lie in the difference of their respective localities. For a period of conquests and invasions, the intrusion of a population from the north of Illyricum to the south of Pannonia is a mere trifle in the eye of the ordinary historian, who generally moves large nations from one extremity of Europe to another as freely as a chess-player moves a queen or castle on a chess-board. In fact, some change, both of name and place, is to be expected. The name that Strabo, for instance, would get through an Illyrian, Vopiscus or Sidonius would get through a Gothic, and Procopius through (probably) an Avar, authority—directly or indirectly.

The true reason for the agreement in question having been ignored, lies in the great change which had taken place in the political relations of the populations, not only of Illyricum and Pannonia, but of all parts of the Roman empire. The Japydes are merely details in the conquest of Illyricum and Dalmatia; the Gepid history, on the contrary, is connected with that of two populations eminently foreign and intrusive on the soil of Pannonia,—the Avars and the Lombards. How easy, then, to make the Gepidæ foreign and intrusive also. Rarely mentioned, except in connexion with the exotic Goth, the exotic Vandal, the exotic Avar, and the still more exotic Lombard, the Gepid becomes, in the eyes of the historian, exotic also.

This error is by no means modern. It dates from the reign of Justinian; and occurs in the writings of such seeming authorities as Procopius and Jornandes. With many scholars this may appear conclusive against our doctrine; since Procopius and Jornandes may reasonably be considered as competent and sufficient witnesses, not only of their foreign origin, but also of their Gothic affinities. Let us, however, examine their statements. Procopius writes, that "the Gothic nations are many, the greatest being the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaides. They were originally called the Sauromatæ and Melanchlæni. Some call them the Getic nations. They differ in name, but in nothing else. They are all whiteskinned and yellow-haired, tall and good-looking, of the same creed, for they are all Arians. Their language is one, called Gothic." This, though clear, is far from unexceptionable (B. Vand. i. 2). Their common language may have been no older than their common Arianism.

Again, the Sciri and Alani are especially stated to be Goths, which neither of them were,—the Alans, not even in the eyes of such claimants for Germany as Grimm and Zeuss.

Jornandes writes: "Quomodo vero Getæ Gepidæque sint parentes si quæris, paucis absolvam. Meminisse debes, me initio de Scanziæ insulæ gremio Gothos dixisse egressos cum Berich suo rege, tribus tantum navibus vectos ad citerioris Oceani ripam; quarum trium una navis, ut assolet, tardius vecta, nomen genti fertur dedisse; nam lingua eorum pigra Gepanta dicitur. Hinc factum est, ut paullatim et corrupte nomen eis ex convitio nasceretur. Gepidæ namque sine dubio ex Gothorum prosapia ducunt originem: sed quia, ut dixi, Gepanta pigrum aliquid tardumque signat, pro gratuito convitio Gepidarum nomen exortum est, quod nec ipsum, credo, falsissinum. Sunt enim tardioris ingenii, graviores corporum velocitate. Hi ergo Gepidæ tacti invidia, dudum spreta provincia, commanebant in insula Visclæ amnis vadis circumacta, quam pro patrio sermone dicebant Gepidojos. Nunc eam, ut fertur, insulam gens Vividaria incolit, ipsis ad meliores terras meantibus. Qui Vividarii ex diversis nationibus acsi in unum asylum collecti sunt, et gentem fecisse noscuntur."

I submit that this account is anything but historical. Be it so. It may, however, be the expression of a real Gothic affinity on the part of the Gepids, though wrong in its details. Even this is doubtful. That it may indicate a political alliance, that it may indicate a partial assumption of a Gothic nationality, I, by no means, deny. I only deny that it vitiates the doctrine that Japydes and Gepidæ are, according to the common-sense interpretation of them, the same word.

The present is no place for exhibiting in full the reasons for considering Jornandes to be a very worthless writer, a writer whose legends (if we may call them so) concerning the Goths, are only Gothic in the way that the fables of Geoffrey of Monmouth are English, i. e. tales belonging to a country which the Goths took possession of, rather than tales concerning the invaders themselves.

It is suggested then, that the statements of Procopius and Jornandes being ignored, the common-sense interpretation of the geographical and etymological relations of the Iapodes and Gepidæ—word for word, and place for place—be allowed to take its course; the Gepidæ being looked upon as Illyrians, whatever may be the import of that word; occupants, at least, of the country of the Iapodes, and probably their descendants.

Thus far the criticism of the present paper goes towards separating the Gepidæ from the stock with which they are generally connected, viz. the German,—also from any emigrants from the parts north of the Danube, e. g. Poland, Prussia, Scandinavia, and the like. So far from doing anything of this kind, it makes them indigenous to the parts to the north-east of the head of the Adriatic. As such, what were they? Strabo makes them a mixed nation—Kelt and Illyrian.

What is Illyrian? Either Albanian or Slavonic; it being Illyria where the populations represented by the Dalmatians of Dalmatia come in contact with the populations represented by the Skipetar of Albania.

The remaining object of the present paper is to raise two fresh questions:—

1. The first connects itself with the early history of Italy, and asks how far migrations from the eastern side of the Adriatic may have modified the original population of Italy. Something—perhaps much—in this way is suggested by Niebuhr; suggested, if not absolutely stated. The Chaonian name, as well as other geographical and ethnological relations, is shown to be common to both sides of the Gulf. Can the class of facts indicated hereby be enlarged? The name, which is, perhaps, the most important, is that of the Galabri. These are, writes Strabo, a "people of the Dardaniatæ, in whose land is an ancient city" (p. 316). Word for word this is Calabri—whatever the geographical and ethnological relations may be. Without being exactly Iapodes, these Calabri are in the Iapod neighbourhood.

Without being identical, the name of the Italian Iapyges (which was to all intents and purposes another name for Calabri) is closely akin to Iapodes; so that, in Italy, we have Calabri called also Iapyges, and, in Illyria, Iapodes near a population called Galabri.

More than this, Niebuhr (see Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, v. Japygia) suggests that Apulia may be Iapygia, word for word. The writer of the article just quoted demurs to his. At the same time the change from l to d is, at the present moment, a South Italian characteristic. The Sicilian for bello was beddo. On the other hand, this is a change in the wrong direction; still it is a change of the kind required.

The evidence that there was a foreign population in Calabria is satisfactory—the most definite fact being the statement that the Sallentines were partly Cretans, associated with Locrians and Illyrians. (See Calabria.)

Again, this district, wherein the legends concerning Diomed prevailed, was also the district of the Daunii, whom Festus (v. Daunia) connects with Illyria.

I suggest that, if the Calabri were Galabri, the Iapyges were Iapodes. Without enlarging upon the views that the definite recognition of Illyrian elements in Southern Italy suggests, we proceed to the next division of our subject.

2. Is there any connexion between the names Iapod-es and Iapet-us? The answer to this is to be found in the exposition of the criticism requisite for such problems. Special evidence there is none.

The first doctrine that presents itself to either the ethnologist or the historian of fiction, in connexion with the name Iapetus, is that it is the name of some eponymus—a name like Hellen, or Æolus, Ion, or Dorus. But this is opposed by the fact that no nation of any great historical prominence bears such a designation. Doubtless, if the Thracians, the Indians, the Ægyptians, &c. had been named Iapeti, the doctrine in question would have taken firm root, and that at once. But such is not the case.

May it not, however, have been borne by an obscure population? The name Greek was so born. So, at first, was the name Hellen. So, probably, the names to which we owe the wide and comprehensive terms Europe, Asia, Africa, and others. Admit then that it may have belonged to an obscure population;—next, admitting this, what name so like as that of the Iapodes? Of all known names (unless an exception be made in favour of the -gypt in Æ-gypt) it must be this or none. No other has any resemblance at all.

Who were on the confines of the non-Hellenic area? Iapyges on the west; Iapodes on the north-west. The suggested area was not beyond the limits of the Greek mythos. It was the area of the tales about Diomed. It was the area of the tales about Antenor. It was but a little to the north of the land of the Lapithæ, whose name, in its latter two-thirds, is I-apod. It ran in the direction of Orphic and Bacchic Thrace to the north. It ran in the direction of Cyclopæan and Lestrygonian Sicily to the west. It was on the borders of that terra incognita which so often supplies eponymi to unknown and mysterious generations.

Say that this suggestion prove true, and we have the first of the term Iapodes in Homer and Hesiod, the last in the German genealogies of the geography of Jornandes and in the Traveller's Song—unless, indeed, the modern name Schabacz be word for word, Gepid. In the Traveller's Song we get the word in a German form, Gifþe or Gifþas. The Gifþas are mentioned in conjunction with the Wends.

In Jornandes we get Gapt as the head of the Gothic genealogies:—Horum ergo (ut ipsi suis fabulis ferunt) primus fuit Gapt, qui genuit Halmal; Halmal vero genuit Augis, &c. Now Gapt here may stand for the eponymus of the Gepidæ, or it may stand for Japhet, the son of Noah. More than one of the old German pedigrees begins with what is called a Gothic legend, and ends with the book of Genesis.

To conclude: the bearing of the criticism upon the ethnology of the populations which took part in the destruction of the Roman empire, is suggestive. There are several of them in the same category with the Gepidæ.

Mutatis mutandis: every point in the previous criticism, which applies to the Gepidæ and Iapydes, applies to the Rugi and Rhæti. Up to a certain period we have, in writers more or less classical, notices of a country called Rhætia, and a population called Rhæti. For a shorter period subsequent to this, we hear nothing, or next to nothing, of any one.

Thirdly, in the writers of the 5th and 6th centuries, when the creed begins to be Christian and the authorities German, we find the Rugi of a Rugi-land,—Rugi-land, or the land of the Rugi, being neither more nor less than the ancient province of Rhætia.

Name, then, for name, and place for place, the agreement is sufficiently close to engender the expectation that the Rhæti will be treated as the Rugi, under a classical, the Rugi as the Rhæti, under a German, designation. Yet this is not the case. And why? Because when the Rugi become prominent in history, it is the recent, foreign, and intrusive Goths and Huns with whom they are chiefly associated. Add to this, that there existed in Northern Germany a population actually called Rugii.

For all this, however, Rugiland is Rhætia, and Rhætia is Rugiland,—name for name and place for place. So, probably, is the modern Slavonic term Raczy.

[VIII.]
ETHNOLOGICA.

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 Newton, a Dane said Newby. 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.

Along, however, with this form go others: e. g.

The EnglishShipbecomes in DanishSkipas inSkipton
——Fish——Fisk——Fiskerton
——Worm——Orm——Ormsby
——Church——Kirk——Ormskirk

&c. &c.

In like manner the Roman castra becomes—

In English chester or cester, in Danish caster and caistor. Contrast the forms Tadcaster, Lancaster &c. with Chester, or Bicester and this difference becomes apparent.

Now the river Ouse in the parts about Wansford separates the counties of Huntingdon and Northampton—in the former of which no place ending in -by is to be found, and all the castra are chester; as Godmanchester. In Northamptonshire, on the other hand, the Danish forms in -by are common, and the castra are caistor, or caster. All the Danish is on one side. Nothing is Danish on the other. The river has every appearance of having formed a frontier. On it lay the Roman station of Durobrivis—with, probably, castra on each side. At any rate, there are, at the present moment, two villages wherein that term appears. On the Huntingdon side is the village of Chesterton (English). On the Northampton side is that of Caistor (Danish).

ON THE ETHNOLOGICAL POSITION OF CERTAIN TRIBES ON THE GARROW HILLS.

READ AT THE
MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE HELD AT YORK 1844.

The affinities of the Garrow language, a language which Klaproth in his Asia Polyglotta leaves unplaced, are with the Tibetan.

The bearings of this will be found in the next notice.

NOTE (1859).

This was written before I had seen Brown's Tables—wherein the affinity is virtually, though not directly affirmed.

ON THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TIBETAN AND INDIAN FAMILIES IN RESPECT TO CONFORMATION.

BRITISH ASSOCIATION—BIRMINGHAM 1849.

The remarks of Mr. Hodgson on the Kooch, Bodo, and Dhimal, along with some of Dr. Bird's on the monosyllabic affinities of the Tamulian languages have an important bearing on this question. So have the accounts of the Chepang and Garo tribes. The phenomena are those of transition.

We have a practical instance of this in the doctrine laid down by Mr. Hodgson in his valuable monograph. In this, he makes the Bodo a Tamulian i. e. a member of the same family with the hill-tribes of India and the Dekhan; meaning thereby the aborigines of India, contrasted with the populations to which he ascribes the Sanskrit language and the Hindu physiognomy. In the Tamulian form there is "a somewhat lozenge contour, caused by the large cheek-bones"—"a broader flatter face"—"eyes less evenly crossing the face in their line of picture"—"beard deficient"—"with regard to the peculiar races of the latter" (i. e. the Tamulians) "it can only be safely said that the mountaineers exhibit the Mongolian type of mankind more distinctly than the lowlanders, and that they have, in general, a paler yellower hue than the latter, amongst whom there are some (individuals at least) who are nearly as black as negroes.—The Bodo are scarcely darker than the mountaineers above them—whom they resemble—only with all the physiognomical characteristics softened down.—The Kols have a similar cast of face."

This is the evidence of a competent observer to the fact of the Bodo &c. being, more or less, what is called Mongol; all the more valuable because he had not, then, recognized their language as monosyllabic. Meanwhile he never separates them from the Kols &c. but always connects the two. In other words, he gives us so much evidence to the fact of the Kols &c. being, more or less, Mongol also. But the Kols are the aborigines of India; whilst the Bodo are Tibetan.

NOTE (1859).

Recent researches have a tendency to make the Kols less Tamul and more Tibetan than they were held to be in 1849.

ON THE AFFINITIES OF THE LANGUAGES OF CAUCASUS WITH THE MONOSYLLABIC LANGUAGES.

READ AT THE
MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION AT
CAMBRIDGE 1845.

Taking the samples of the Georgian, Lesgian, Mizhdzhedzhi, and Circassian classes as we find them in the Asia Polyglotta and comparing them with the specimens of the monosyllabic languages in the same work, in Brown's Tables, and in Leyden's paper on the Indo-Chinese Languages, we find the following coincidences.[7]

ADDENDA (1859).

The limited amount of the data must be borne in mind. As has been stated, no vocabularies beyond those of the four works enumerated were used. Had the comparison been more extended, the evidence of the Tibetan affinities of the languages under notice would have been stronger. That this would have been the case has since been proved.

In 1849, just before the publication of my Varieties of Man, I found from my friend Mr. Norris that, upon grammatical grounds, he had come to the same conclusion. A reference to the, then, recently published contributions of Rosen satisfied me that this was the case. The following is an abstract of his exposition of the structure of (1) the Iron, and (2) the Circassian.

(1)
IRON.

The Declension of Substantives is as follows;

Singular.Plural.
Nom.fid (father)fid-t`-a
Gen.fid-ifid-t`-i
Dat.fid-énfid-t`-am
Abl.fid-éifid-t`-éi
Nom.moi (husband)moi-t`-a
Gen.moi-imoi-t`-i
Dat.moi-énmoi-t`-am
Abl.moi-éimoi-t`-éi.

The Comparative Degree is formed by the addition of -dar; as chorz=good, chorz-dar=better.

The pronouns of the two first persons are as follows;

1. Az=I. Defective in the oblique cases. Man or ma, defective.

2. Di=Thou. Defective in the nominative singular.

Sing.Plural.
Nom.—mach
Gen.man-imach-i
Dat.man-anmach-én
Accus.manmach
Abl.man-éimach-éi.
Nom.disi-mach
Gen.daw-i[9]si-mach-i
Dat.daw-onsi-mach-én
Accus.dawsi-mach
Abl.daw-éisi-mach-éi.

The signs of the persons of the verbs are -in, -is, -i; -am -ut`, -inc`; e. g.

qus-in=aud-ioqus-am=aud-imus
qus-is=aud-isqus-ut`=aud-itis
qus-i=aud-itqus-inc`=aud-iunt.

The addition of the sound of t helps to form the Irôn preterite. I say helps, because if we compare the form s-ko-t-on=I made, with the root kan, or the form fé-qus-t-on=I heard, with the root qus, we see, at once, that the addition of t is only a part of an inflection.

Beyond this, the tenses become complicated; and that because they are evidently formed by the agglutination of separate words; the so-called imperfect being undoubtedly formed by affixing the preterite form of the word to make. The perfect and future seem to be similarly formed, dele from the auxiliary=be; as may be collected from the following paradigms.

1.
Plural—Present,st-am, st-ut, i-st-i=sumus, estis, sunt.
Singular—Preterite,u-t-an, u-t-as, u-d-i=fui, fuisti, fuit.
Singular—Future,u-gín-an, u-gín-as, u-gén-i=ero, eris, erit.
Imperativefau=esto.
2.

Root, k`an=make.
Preterite,=s-k`o-t-on,[10] s-k`o-t-ai, s-k`o-t-a=feci, fecisti, fecit.

3.

Root, kus=hear.

INDICATIVE.
Sing.Plural.
Present,1. qus-inqus-am.
2. qus-isqus-ut`
3. qus-iqus-inc`.
Imperfect,1. qus-ga-k`o-t-onqus-ga-k`o-t-am
2. qus-ga-k`o-t-aiqus-ga-k`o-t-al`
3. qus-ga-k`o-t-aqus-ga-k`o-t-oi
Perfect,1. fé-qus-t-onfé-qus-t-am
2. fé-qus-t-aifé-qus-t-al`
3. fé-qus-t-afé-qus-t-oi
Future,1. bai-qus-g'in-anbai-qus-g'i-stam
2. bai-qus-g'in-asbai-qus-g'i-stut`
3. bai-qus-g'én-ibai-qus-g'i-sti

CONJUNCTIVE.
Sing.Plural.
Present,1. qus-onqus-am
2. qus-aiqus-at`
3. qus-aiqus-oi
Imperfect,1. qus-ga-k`an-onqus-ga-k`an-am
2. qus-ga-k`an-aiqus-ga-k`an-ai`
3. qus-ga-k`an-aqus-ga-k`an-oi
IMPERATIVE.
1. ——bai-qus-am
2. bai-qusbai-qus-ut`
3. bai-qus-abai-qus-oi
Infinitive, qus-in.

Participles, qus-ag, qus-gond, qus-in-ag.

(2)
CIRCASSIAN.

In the Absné dialect ab=father, ácĕ=horse; ab ácĕ=father's horse, (verbally, father horse). Here position does the work of an inflection.

The use of prepositions is as limited as that of inflections, sara s-ab ácĕ ist`ap I my-father horse give, or giving am; abna amus`w izbt=wood bear see-did=I saw a bear in the wood; awinĕ wi as`wkĕ=(in) house two doors; ácĕ sis`lit=(on) horse mount I-did.

Hence, declension begins with the formation of the plural number. This consists in the addition of the syllable k`wa.

Acĕ=horse;ácĕ-k`wa=horses.
Atsla=tree;astla-k`wa=trees.
Awinĕ=house;awinĕ-k`wa=houses.

In the pronouns there is as little inflection as in the substantives and adjectives, i. e. there are no forms corresponding to mihi, nobis, &c.

1. When the pronoun signifies possession, it takes an inseparable form, is incorporated with the substantive that agrees with it, and is s- for the first, w- for the second, and i- for the third, person singular. Then for the plural it is h- for the first person, s`- for the second, r- for the third: ab=father;

S-ab=my father;h-ab=our father.
W-ab=thy father;s`-ab=your father.
T-ab=his (her) father;r-ab=their father.

2. When the pronoun is governed by a verb, it is similarly incorporated.

3. Hence, the only inseparable form of the personal pronoun is to be found when it governs the verb. In this case the forms are:

Sa-ra=IHa-ra=we
Wa-ra=thouS`a-ru=ye
Ui=heU-bart`=they.

In sa-ra, wa-ra, ha-ra, s`a-ra, the -ra is non radical. The word u-bart` is a compound.

The ordinal=first is achani. This seems formed from aka=one.

The ordinal=second is agi. This seems unconnected with the word wi-=two; just as in English, second has no etymological connection with two.

The remaining ordinals are formed, by affixing -nto, and (in some case) prefixing -a; as

Cardinals.Ordinals.
3,Chi-ba[11]A-chi-nto
4,P`s`i-baA-p`s`i-nto
5,Chu-baA-chu-nto
6,F-baF-into
7,Bis`-baBs-into
8,Aa-baA-a-nto
9,S`-baS`b-into
10,S`wa-baSw-ento.

In the Absné verbs the distinction of time is the only distinction denoted by any approach to the character of an inflection; and here the change has so thoroughly the appearance of having been effected by the addition of some separate and independent words, that it is doubtful whether any of the following forms can be considered as true inflections.

Root, C'wis`l=ride

1.Present,C'wis`l-ap=I ride[12]=equito.
2.Present,C'wis`l-oit=I am riding.
Imperfect,C'wis`l-an=equitabam.
Perfect,C'wis`l-it=equitavi.
Plusquamperfect,C'wis`l-chén=equitaveram.
Future,C'wis`l-as`t=equitabo.

The person and number is shown by the pronoun. And here must be noticed a complication. The pronoun appears in two forms:—

1st. In full, sara, wara &c.

2nd. As an inseparable prefix; the radical letter being prefixed and incorporated with the verb. It cannot, however, be said that this is a true inflexion.

1.
Sing.1. sara s-c'wisl-oit=I ride
2. wara u-c'wisl-oit=thou ridest
3. ui i-c'wisl-oit=he rides.
2.
Plur.1. hara ha-c'wisl-oit=we ride
2. s`ara s`-c'wisl-oit=ye ride
3. ubart r-c'wisl-oit=they ride

In respect to the name of the class under notice I suggested in 1850 the term Dioscurian from the ancient Dioscurias. There it was that the chief commerce between the Greeks and Romans, and the natives of the Caucasian range took place. According to Pliny, it was carried on by thirty interpreters, so numerous were the languages. The great multiplicity of mutually unintelligible tongues is still one of the characteristics of the parts in question. To have used the word Caucasian would have been correct, but inconvenient. It is already mis-applied in another sense, i. e., for the sake of denoting the so-called Caucasian race, consisting, or said to consist, of Jews, Greeks, Circassians, Scotchmen, ancient Romans, and other heterogeneous elements.

In his paper on the Mongolian Affinities of the Caucasians, published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1853) Mr. Hodgson has both confirmed and developed the doctrine here indicated—his data on the side of Caucasus being those of the Asia Polyglotta, but those on the side of Tibet and China being vastly augmented; and that, to a great extent, through his own efforts and researches.

Upon the evidence of Mr. Hodgson I lay more than ordinary value; not merely on the strength of his acumen and acquirements in general, but from the fact of his ex-professo studies as a naturalist leading him to over-value rather than under-value those differences of physical conformation that (to take extreme forms) contrast the Georgian and Circassian noble with the Chinese; or Tibetan labourer. Nevertheless, his evidence is decided.