However, the Mithridates, for America at least, wants translation as well as revision. It is a work in which many weak points may be (and have been) discovered. Klaproth, himself a man who (though he has saved many an enquirer much trouble) has but few friends, has virulently attacked it. Its higher classifications are, undoubtedly, but low. Nevertheless, it is not only a great work, but the basis of all others. Should any one doubt its acumen let him read the part which, treating on the Chikkasah, demurrs to the identification of the Natchez with that and other forms of speech. Since it was written a specimen of the Natchez language has shewn its validity.
I think that the Natchez has yet to take its full importance. If the language of the Taensas it was, probably, the chief language of Tennessee. But the Creek, or Muscogulge, broke it up. Meanwhile the fragmentary Catawba, with which I believe that the Caddo was connected had its congeners far to westward.
I also think that the Uche represents the old language of Florida—the Cherokee being conterminous with the Catawba. If so, the doctrine of the fundamental affinity between the Pawni, Caddo, Catawba, and Cherokee gains ground.
The Uche demands special investigation. The Tinquin and Timuacana should be compared with it. Then why are they not? Few works are more inaccessible than a Spanish Arte, Diccionario, or Catecismo. The data for these enquiries, little known, are still less attainable. Without these, and without a minute study, of the first-hand authorities we can do but little but suggest. All that is suggested here is that the details of Florida (in its widest sense) and Louisiana must be treated under the doctrine that the aborigines are represented by the congeners of the Woccon, Catawba, Uche, Natchez, Tinquin, and Timuacana, inordinately displaced by the Cherokees and Creeks; who (for a great extent of their present area) must be considered as intrusive.
[CONTENTS.]
| I. Pædeutica | Page. |
| Inaugural Lecture | [1] |
| On the study of Medicine | [15] |
| On the study of Language | [27] |
| II. Logica | |
| On the word Distributed | [39] |
| III. Grammatica | |
| On the reciprocal Pronouns, and the reflective Verb | [45] |
| On the connexion between the Ideas of Association and Pluralityas an influence in the Evolution of Inflection | [57] |
| On the word cujum | [60] |
| On the Aorists in KA | [64] |
| IV. Metrica | |
| On the Doctrine of the Cæsura in the Greek senarius | [68] |
| On the use of the signs of Accent and Quantity as guidesto the pronunciation of words derived from the classicalLanguages | [74] |
| V. Chronologica | |
| On the Meaning of the word [a]ΣΑΡΟΣ] | [81] |
| VI. Bibliographica | |
| Notice of works on the Provincialisms of Holland | [85] |
| VII. Geographica | |
| On the Existence of a nation bearing the name of Seres | [89] |
| On the evidence of a connection between the Cimbri andthe Chersonesus Cimbrica | [93] |
| On the original extent of the Slavonic area | [108] |
| On the terms Gothi and Getae | [129] |
| On the Japodes and Gepidae | [131] |
| VIII. Ethnologica | |
| On the subjectivity of certain classes in Ethnology | [138] |
| General principles of philological classification and the valueof groups, with particular reference to the Languagesof the Indo-European Class | [143] |
| Traces of a bilingual town in England | [152] |
| On the Ethnological position of certain tribes on the Garrowhills | [153] |
| On the transition between the Tibetan and Indian Familiesin respect to conformation | [154] |
| On the Affinities of the Languages of Caucasus with themonosyllabic Languages | [156] |
| On the Tushi Language | [168] |
| On the Name and Nation of the Dacian king Decebalus,with notices of the Agathyrsi and Alani | [175] |
| On the Language of Lancashire under the Romans | [180] |
| On the Negrito Languages | [191] |
| On the general affinities of the Languages of the oceanicBlacks | [217] |
| Remarks on the Vocabularies of the Voyage of the Rattlesnake | [223] |
| On a Zaza Vocabulary | [242] |
| On the Personal Pronouns and Numerals of the Mallicolloand Erromango Languages, by the Rev. C. Abraham | [245] |
| On the Languages of the Oregon Territory | [249] |
| On the Ethnography of Russian America | [266] |
| Miscellaneous contributions to the Ethnography of NorthAmerica | [275] |
| On a short Vocabulary of the Loucheux Language, by J.A. Isbister | [298] |
| On the Languages of New California | [300] |
| On certain Additions to the ethnographical philology ofCentral America, with remarks on the so-called AstekConquest of Mexico | [317] |
| Note upon a paper of the Hon. Captain Fitzroy on the Isthmusof Panama | [323] |
| On the Languages of Northern, Western and Central America | [326] |