so that they mutually determine each other, (and from this process arise more concrete and higher determinations of thought).

c. These must be, again, brought together in the unity of the consciousness. Thus: to say that God thinks, or takes into his thought, the already existent creation, is to affirm

1. That He separates, in His consciousness, the elements contained in the thought, but which are not yet distinguished from each other. He relates these to each other; and from this process a new course, of more perfect and concrete single thoughts of creation, arise. This is the analytic process.

2. He does not let these newly born thoughts stand separate, but combines them into ideas. Thus the product of the new thoughts is the product of new and higher ideas combined to unity, i. e. of new and higher grades of creative existence.

So far, we have merely been engaged with the thought of God. But what is thought must be brought into being, for the divine creation is both thinking and realizing, and the described theoretic process must have a corresponding practical reality. Thus every higher grade of creation recedes from mere matter, and, until creation is raised to that point which corresponds to the creative idea, i. e. to spirit, the creative work of God cannot cease.

We have traced to this point an outline of Dr. Rothe's theory of the existence of God and his relation to the universe, because so far new principles and new applications of old principles are constantly brought to light, and to grasp them is essential to any clear view of his method. To comprehend this method, in its most fundamental features, is the necessary prerequisite to a full understanding of the doctrine of ethics, which is based upon the results, theological and cosmical, achieved by it, and to parts of which we may, in some future Numbers of this periodical, call attention. were interesting to proceed further, and trace the ingenious. and philosophical course of thought which seeks to explain the whole sphere of Physics to that point where Ethics

It

properly begins. But to do so would be to attempt, in a language foreign to the author, a condensation of what is not too easily comprehended in the full statement of the original. It is not essential, either, to the comprehension of the ethical treatise, save in certain particulars, which may be singled out when needed.

In regard to the general features of the Book, it may be sufficient to state, as a reply to objections which may be made to its highly abstract character, that it attempts the same problem which Dr. Hickok considers in his Rational Cosmology, and is the most ripened product of the specu lative method as applied to theology. What Hegel attempted to do for Philosophy, Rothe has tried to accomplish for Theology, though he is far more in harmony and sympathy with Schelling, especially so far as we can judge as yet concerning his later Philosophy of Revelation. The whole subject of the legitimacy of this mode of thought, has occupied the attention of reading men, to a very great extent, since Sir William Hamilton's Essays have been published, and Mr. Mansel, in his recently published Bampton Lectures on the Limits of Religious Thought, has brought the question prominently before us. We may not shirk an investigation as to its value; and a glance at its results may aid us in forming an opinion. Should any agree with Mr. Mansel, in his adoption of the Kantian philosophy, so ably applied by him to the problems of theology, and regard the structure which Rothe has reared, as a "castle in the air," without solid foundation, and untenable as a refuge from unbelief, still it is interesting and profitable to see what may be done, in the pantheist's chosen province, to refute his chilling and morally disastrous creed. We may war against pantheism by seeking to remove the ground on which it rests, as Kant, Hamilton, and Mansel have done; or we may meet it on its own caosen arena, and contend for victory with its own weapons. Rothe has chosen the latter course; and, though we may consign him and his opponent, alike, to the region of the unconditioned, as to a place intangible by reason of the darkness which, alone, may be felt, yet, let us rejoice that even there, VOL. XVII No. 66.

23

a vigorous intellect and an earnest soul is contending for the Christian faith. Not that the work before us is a polemic against pantheism, or any heresy. It is the product of positive and independent thought; its negative results are not, however, on that account, the less valuable.

That this delineation of so peculiar and original a course of thought has been, in all respects, successful, is too much to hope. If, however, it does not correctly express the leading features of the system examined, to those used to the peculiar phraseology and mode of thought of modern German philosophical writers, it is not because a conscientious and painstaking endeavor has not been made.

ARTICLE II.

COMPARATIVE PHONOLOGY; OR THE PHONETIC SYSTEM OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.

BY BENJAMIN W. DWIGHT, CLINTON, N. y.

[Continued from Vol. XVI., p. 722.]

A Brief View of the Sanskrit Consonants, in their relations to the Other Classical Languages.

THE different classes of consonants, in the Sanskrit, are as follows:

(1) Gutturals. These are k, kh, g, gh, and n pronounced like our nasal n in ng and nk, as in sing and sink. This nasal n is found only before gutturals: as in the middle of a word, or at the end of a word in place of m, if that word is succeeded immediately by one beginning with a guttural. K is represented, in Greek, by K, and in Latin by c (k) and q: as in Sansk. kapâlas, the skull; Greek, κepaλý; and Lat. caput. Kh is represented, in Greek, by x: as in Sansk. nakhas, a nail; Gr. övvğ stem övvy (the o being euphonic); and

Gh, as in Sansk.

so khan, to dig, Gr. xalvev, pure stem xav. G is equiva lent to the same sound in Greek and Latin: as in Sansk. sthag, to cover; Gr. σréyw; Lat. tego. gharma; Gr. Depuós; Lat. formus; Eng. warmth; is represented by the aspirates of different organs in other languages. In the case of laghu, light, it is represented, in Latin, by the labial v, in the word levis, light; while yet in the German leicht and English light, the original guttural form is preserved.

(2) Palatals. These are ch, chh, j, jh, and n. This class of consonants may be viewed as derivative from the preced ing, and but as a mere softened form of it. They occur only before vowels and weak consonants, as semivowels and nasals; while before strong consonants they fall back at once into the class of gutturals from which they came. In the various cognate languages, we find this class of letters represented oftenest by gutturals; next, by labials, on account of the mutual etymological sympathy so apparent in various languages between gutturals and labials; next in frequency, by some t-sound, as this is the initial element of the palatal sounds generally; and, last of all, by the sibilants. Thus compare

jribh, to open or draw apart. ypúpew, to scratch, to write.

Chh finds its equivalent, in Greek and Latin, in σk and sc: as in chhâyâ, a shadow, and σkiά; and also in chhinadmi, I cleave; and Lat. scindo (for scindami); chhauna, a covering, and σkŋvý, a tent, as well as chhali and σkúλos, the hide of an animal. When terminal in a root, it appears as g: as in Sansk. prachh, to ask; Lat. rogo for progo, stem prog (cf. also Lat. precor, Eng. pray); and German, fragen.

(3) Linguals of a special sort, peculiar to the Sanskrit.

These are written as t, th, d, dh, n, each with a dot underneath, to distinguish them from the ordinary dentals having the same symbols in their natural form.

(4) Dentals. This class embraces the common linguals of other languages, both simple and compound: as d, dh, t, th, and n. D is sometimes interchanged with 1 in Greek and Latin as in Sáкρνμа, a tear, and lacryma for dacryma; Sanp (for da Fip), a brother-in-law, and levir (Sansk, dêvaras); and lingua, the tongue, archaic, dingua; and sápvn, a laurel, with its parallel form Xúovn. Bopp regards similarly, and with good reason therefore, λaμñás as representing the Sanskrit dîpa, a lamp, in a strengthened form; and so, -λικος in ἥλικος he compares with drisa Prakrit disa, like. Compare also, in the same way, licet and dikŋ, custom, right; and lorum, a thong, with Sopá, a skin. The Sanskrit d, besides being represented by its own simple equivalent in Greek and Latin, is, like dh, often represented by 9 (th); while dh itself, in addition to such an equivalent in Greek, is represented, also, by f and b in Latin. Thus compare :

Th, in Sanskrit, is never represented by 9 in the Greek, but always by 7: as, in Sansk., stha, to stand, in the present, from tishthami, I stand, compared with onμi for olornμ (root, ora), Lat. sto, stare, stem, sta. So, compare Sansk. asthi, a bone, with doréov, Lat. os, stem, oss for ost; and also rath, a carriage, Lat. rota, a wheel.

(5) Labials. These are p, ph, b, bh, and m. Ph occurs rarely, while bh is, like dh, of frequent occurrence. In Greek, , and in Latin, f, represents, commonly, this aspirate, as in