Count Xavier de Maistre (Vol. iii., p. 227.).
—I notice a slight inaccuracy in MR. SINGER'S reference to the author of Voyage autour de ma Chambre. He gives the name as "Jean Xavier Maitre;" whereas the correct designation is "Count Xavier de Maistre;" the s in the patronymic being distinctly pronounced. Such trifling errors are only worth noticing because they appear in a work, one of the main features of which is the correctness of its references to authors and books. No doubt it is his extensive acquaintance with both that induced MR. SINGER, on this occasion, to trust to his memory, rather than turn to a biographical dictionary.
HENRY H. BREEN.
St. Lucia, April, 1851.
Amicus Plato (Vol. iii., p. 389.).
—The origin of the sentiment, "Amicus Plato," &c., seems to be Aristot. Eth. Nicom. c. iv., where he disputes against Plato, and says: "Both being dear to me, it is right to prefer truth:
"Ἀμφοῖν φίλοιν ὄντοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν."
C. B.
The Coptic Language (Vol. ii., pp. 376. 499.).
—The reply of HERMAPION to the questions put by J. E. is scarcely satisfactory. I will endeavour to answer then more directly. The Coptic language is not an inflected one; and it has very few affixes. There are many prefixes to its nouns and verbs, which before the former are articles or demonstrative pronouns. Between these prefixes and the noun or verb, pronominal infixes are introduced, by which possession is denoted in the case of a noun, and the subject in that of a verb. Thus, ran is "a name;" pi-ran, "the name;" pe-v-ran, "his name;" i, is the verbal root, "come;" a, the prefix of the past tense; and a-v-i, "he came." Some nouns take affixes, as jo-v, "his head." Pronominal affixes are also joined to verbs to express their objects, and to prepositions. In the old Egyptian language, from which the Coptic is derived, there were more affixes. I am not aware that infixes have been met with in inscriptions prior to the eighteenth dynasty; and those which are in use are the same as the affixes which annexed to nouns denote possession, and to verbs the subject. The old Egyptian affixes which denoted the object of the verb, are in general different. En-v-tu would be "he bringeth thee;" and en-ka-su, "thou bringest him." In Coptic, the former would be e-o-en-k; the latter, e-k-en-v. Probably the Coptic prefixes were originally auxiliary verbs, or prepositions. The old Egyptian affixes greatly resemble the Hebrew ones, especially if s be substituted for the Hebrew h; and it is very remarkable that the Assyrio-Babylonian affixes differ from the Hebrew principally in this same respect. In like manner, the causative conjugation is formed from the simple one by prefixing h in Hebrew, but by prefixing s in both Assyrio-Babylonian and Egyptian. No doubt can then exist as to the old Egyptian language being Semitic; but the opposition between the Semitic languages and the Indo-European ones is by no means so great as was formerly supposed. Relations between them are now clearly to be traced, which prove that they had a common origin, and that at no distant period.