use of speech, which of course every philosopher will do, I must think that both Mr. Whiter and Mr. Gilchrist go to causes far too scientific to account for it. Speech would be very much the effect of circumstance—there would not be any thing like system in its first formation.
4. Mr. Gilchrist’s idea that the first letters arose from curved lines, seems to me not only not to be so probable as that of right lines, which I have unfolded above, but it seems to me to be actually against all the early and, what is more, well-founded historical facts which we possess. For the fact of the oldest letters and figures which we possess consisting of right lines does not depend, alone, on the relations of writers, but upon their existing at this day on old coins and stones: in which latter fact, therefore, we cannot be deceived. I think my theory as rational as Mr. Gilchrist’s; in addition to which, I have the evidence of the oldest inscriptions, and, as I have shewn, analogy also, on my side; for the higher we ascend the more right-lined the alphabets become.
5. As I have just now said, if I understand Mr. Gilchrist aright,[1] he maintains that hieroglyphics were invented before letter-writing. We know of only one nation, the Egyptians, among whom hieroglyphics ever existed, and I think I have proved that they were not invented by that nation till after letters were in use. I make no account of the Mexican paintings, for our information respecting them is too scanty to draw any conclusions from them; and that part of our information which we do possess, namely, the painting of Cortes’s ships and horses, is against hieroglyphics being the origin of letters, rather than in favour of it; because, as I have observed above, these drawings were not to convey ideas of known things, but ideas of unknown things—new things, and new ideas.
6. The plan or theory proposed by Mr. Whiter and Mr. Gilchrist, of resolving all words into one, or nearly into one, seems to me to be not only contrary to the analogy of nature, but to clog their philological researches with insuperable and unnecessary difficulties. Let us for a moment consider man to have newly started into existence, by what means does not signify, and to exist alone. I will suppose this to have happened in a beautiful valley in upper Tibet, about latitude 35, at the vernal equinox, a fig-tree growing near him, bearing its early crop of fruit. The olfactory nerves, I think, would speedily draw him to the tree; he would take of the fruit, and what is vulgarly called instinct would teach him to put it into his mouth and to eat it. Before he ate the fig, he would have become master of several ideas; but as he would have had no occasion to communicate them, he probably would not have made any effort at speech.
7. We will now suppose this being, in the state of about twenty years of age, to awake and find a beautiful young woman close to him and touching him. Instinct would again begin to move him; love would ensue and its consequences, and very speedily afterward the wish to communicate happiness; for it is all a mistake that man is born to evil as the smoke flies upwards. He is born to good, and all his natural tendencies are to good, though he possesses passions and is a fallible being, from which circumstances partial evil has naturally arisen. Much time would not elapse before he would, in order to communicate happiness, wish to call the attention of his mate to something—perhaps to partake with him of some fruit—and, to awaken this attention, an attempt to speak or make a sound would be made; after this, another and another attempt; and thus a few monosyllabic words would be formed, such as were easiest made by the organs of speech, and thus from this kind of process the first language would arise. It would probably consist of arbitrary sounds, not formed in any way from one another or from one word; and had Mr. Gilchrist tried to trace all language to these primitive words, he would, I think, have perfectly succeeded.
8. But after some time a second race of original words would have arisen, which would a little increase the first language, and which must not be neglected. The voice of love would have been heard, and would not have been heard in vain. A child would make its appearance, and would have a little language of its own, which would never be lost, which would grow with its growth, strengthen with its strength, and which we actually find yet existing in every language on earth—exemplified in the words Ma, Mater, Moder, Muder, Pa, Pater, Fater, Fader, &c., &c.; and thus from these two sources came to be formed the first original language. It would probably consist of monosyllabic roots, which would be very simple: and to these, I think, all language may be reduced.[2]
9. It is necessary to guard myself from being misunderstood in what I have said above, that the language of the eyes was not the first language, because I believe that it was; but what I mean is, that this language would last but for a very short time—a very few hours, perhaps only a few minutes. The first man and his mate, surrounded as M. Cuvier has shewn that they probably were, by animals, formed long before, young and old, in every state, and, like these animals, possessing animal sensations, and being, in addition, imitative creatures, would in a very few hours, perhaps minutes, perform all the animal functions, exercise all the animal powers, do as other animals did: and until they
- ↑ Philosophic Etymol. p. 33.
- ↑ I wish Mr. Gilchrist had undertaken the task of so reducing them, for no man is better qualified. Had he and Mr. Whiter attempted to re-form or re-discover the ancient first language or collection of words, and their systems had been left unfinished, other learned men would have continued them, perhaps, till they had been completed.
