great capabilities of this untried field of speculation. The esta blishment of Sanscrit scholarship as a branch of philology is due to Francis Bopp and Augustus William Schlegel. By the exertions of these two scholars, seconded in no slight degree by the illustrious William Humboldt, a sound and accurate knowledge of the Sanscrit language has been introduced into Germany; and Schlegel, in particular, has brought to the study of the old Indian poems the truly literary spirit and the highly-finished taste, which are so conspicuous in his celebrated lectures on the drama and in his inimitable translation of Shakspere. The interest which the study of Sanscrit has created in Germany results entirely from the greater diffusion of philology in that country; and a wonderful impulse to the study of comparative grammar had been given by the publication of James Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik*, by far the most important book of the kind which has made its appearance since the revival of letters. William Humboldt's posthumous work on the Kawi dialect applies the results of a truly comprehensive survey of human speech to the solution of the most important problems respecting the origin of language. And at an earlier period, Raynouard had shown, in his scientific examination of the Romance languages, the causes which lead to the disorganization of grammatical structures. By means of these masterpieces of philological criticism, and of Bopp's numerous writings, to the efficacy of which the subsidiary or subsequent researches of Arndt, Chézy, Rask, Abel-Rémusat, Ritter, the Schlegels, Dorn, Pott, Bunsen, Lepsius, C. Meyer, Eugène Burnouf, and Lassen, each working diligently in his own field, have in no slight degree contributed, comparative philology has been raised to the rank of a science, the mechanism of the different branches of the Indo-Germanic family has been investigated and explained, the pedigree of the various dialects included in it has been enrolled, and their written monuments have been rendered accessible and intelligible by the application of the sound criticism created and fostered by the classical studies of Europe.

* Grimm's last work (Gesch. der deutschen Sprache, Leipsig, 1848) contains in its ethnographical department some very ingenious and learned combinations. But the purely philological chapters appear to us singularly deficient in critical discrimination.

37 In the first beginnings of this new branch of inductive science, England, we are sorry to say, did little that will bear comparison with the performances of our continental neighbours, in regard either to comparative philology in general, or to Indian scholarship in particular. Indeed, with the exception of the great Colebrooke and Sir Graves Haughton, no one of our Sanscrit scholars can be called a philologer in the higher sense of the word, and even these eminent orientalists have confined their attention to the languages of Asia. Accordingly, as we borrowed our philology in its literary spirit from the Germans, we were compelled to import also the raw materials at least of their comparative grammar. But when the good work had once commenced amongst us, our philology made very rapid progress, and we can point to conceptions more original, and to results more important, than any which have signalized the efforts of the learned elsewhere. It is not to be denied that we had great advantages at starting, and that it would have been very disgraceful if we had not learned to profit by them. Bopp's System was first published in an English journal*, and one of his most able and distinguished pupils, the late Dr Rosen, became naturalized among us, as Professor of Sanscrit in the University of London, more than twenty years ago, and so consecrated his learning and abilities to the service of our philology. It is diffi cult to estimate the loss which learning in general sustained in the too early death of this admirable person: but we must not forget that we really owe to him the first application of comparative philology to the public teaching of the classical languages, a merit which has been too eagerly claimed for and too readily conceded to the Greek and Latin lecturers at the London University. That institution is entitled to grateful commemoration from all those who received any part of their philological training there during the life of Dr Rosen; but we must not bestow the whole of our acknowledgments on the Professors, who merely transmitted to their pupils the ideas and information which they had derived from their German colleaguet. The same influence

* Annals of Oriental Literature, Vol. I. London, 1820.

†The author considers it incumbent on him to make these remarks, because, in the former edition of this work, he was led by a youthful feeling of regard for one of his tutors to admit the extravagant claims

was soon conspicuous in the pages of the Penny Cylopædia, to which Dr Rosen was himself a frequent contributor, and which owes its decidedly philological character to writers more or less connected with the London University. Independently, however, of this immediate relation to Bopp's philological school, there appeared, about the same time, two writers whose services to philology have been of the utmost value. Dr Prichard, who may be regarded as almost the founder of the Science of Ethnography, was not long in perceiving the important aid which his favourite speculations might derive from a consideration of the affinities of language. He made no insignificant contribution to pure philology in his vindication of the claim of the Celtic languages to a place in the great Indo-Germanic family*; and in

set up for the first Professors of Greek and Latin at University College. He has since then become aware that these gentlemen were entirely indebted to Dr Rosen for their first acquaintance with the principles of comparative philology, and that they filtered into their class-rooms the knowledge which they had picked up at the ill-attended lectures or in the instructive society of the editor of the Rig-Veda. At the time no doubt the Classical Professors did not attempt to conceal their obligations to Dr Rosen; but in the eagerness, which they have subsequently shown, to gain a character for originality, they have made no mention of the fact that comparative philology was first taught at the London University because Dr Rosen was there. To those of the students who could profit by it, the result was much the same as if these hints had reached them directly, and not through the intervention of middle-men; and the University itself may fairly claim the credit of the improved philology of which it was the first nursery in this Island. But very little praise is due to the individuals, who were invited and induced by the very circumstances of their position to adopt any novelties opposed to the conventional teaching of our classical schools; and some of the instances quoted in the following pages will convince the reader that they do not possess the philological faculty in any great measure, and that they are alike deficient in geniality of conception and comprehensiveness of erudition.

*The Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, London, 1831. Although we think that Dr Prichard has on the whole proved his point, we must take the liberty of saying, that his little book shows a great want of philological exactitude. He has not attempted to distinguish between those words which the ancient Britons might have derived from the Roman conquerors, or from the Anglo-Saxons who subsequently established themselves in the island, and those which must have belonged to the Celtic dialect from the first. Accordingly, many of his instances, where

his Natural History of Man, and other works, he has done a great deal towards classifying and grouping the varieties of human speech. Mr Garnett, whose comprehensive and truly philosophical analysis of the constituent elements of language was first made known in a notice of Dr Prichard's Celtic work*, has since then developed his views in various contributions to the records of the London Philological Society; and we do not know where to look for sounder or more instructive examples of linguistic research. In regard to palæography also, English scholarship may claim the honour of having made the first and most important, or the last and most complete discoveries. Young guided Champollion to that systematic examination of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, which in the hands of Bunsen and Lepsius has produced, and is still producing such important results for chronology and historical criticism†. Major Rawlinson, with the intelligent aid of Mr Norris, has decyphered and translated the contemporaneous records of the first Darius, and the same industry and acuteness will probably extract historical truth from the cuneiform chronicles which the enterprise and indefatigable zeal of Mr Layard have brought from the ruins of Nineveh. To come nearer home, Mr Kemble and Mr Thorpe have prosecuted the study of Anglo-Saxon philology with no less devotion than Grimm. Mr Kemble, in particular, formally enounced the leading principles of comparative philology in his lectures on the history of the English language, delivered before the University of Cambridge in 1834; and has since published more than one original work indicating the depth and extent of his acquaintance with Teutonic lore. Dr Bosworth also has connected his Anglo

they are merely comparisons of Celtic with the Latin, or with the German dialects, prove nothing; his strong point is the comparison with Greek and Sanscrit, and his analysis of the pronouns and inflexions; but in this there is still room for a further and more accurate examination.

Quarterly Review, Vol. LVII.

Many English writers have made valuable contributions to the details of the important subject of Egyptology; e. g. Mr Osborn, Dr Hincks, Sir G. Wilkinson, Mr Birch, and Mr Sharpe. Nor must we omit to mention the labours of Mr G. R. Gliddon, who has made the wonders of ancient Egypt familiar to our brethren in the United States of America: see Otia Egyptiaca: Discourses on Egyptian Archæology and Hieroglyphical Discoveries. London, 1849.

Saxon researches with comprehensive investigations in general philology, and Dr Latham, who had first distinguished himself in this field, especially by the publication of a treatise on the English language, has since become very generally known as a collector of philological facts, mainly with reference to the languages of Africa. When we look to the activity of the Asiatic, Geographical, Philological, and Syro-Arabian societies in this country, to various publications which appear from time to time*, and to the effects which may be expected from the adoption of ethnographic philology by the British Association, we cannot allow ourselves to entertain any fears respecting the successful cultivation of linguistic science in this country.

38 From this survey it will easily be seen what is the condition of scholarship in reference to the higher objects and more extensive applications of which we have spoken in the preceding chapter. To these we need not return: but it is desirable that we should inquire, whether the knowledge which we have recently gained with regard to language in general, and the Indo-Germanic family of languages in particular, may not now be applied by the classical scholar in gaining a more correct insight into the structure of the Greek language, in classifying more accurately its grammatical forms, and in interpreting more satisfactorily the authors who have written in it. To this inquiry we may add another whether the general study of comparative grammar as applied to the Indo-Germanic languages would not gain by such an examination of the most perfect member of the family.

The advantages which classical scholarship would derive from a more intimate union with comparative philology may easily be enumerated. The true scholar is of course not merely a student of the Greek and Latin languages and an interpreter of the authors who have written in them. It is his business to lift the

* We ought particularly to mention the late Mr Winning's Manual of Comparative Philology, London, 1838. The first and second parts of this work, which are composed, in a great measure, of well-selected extracts and translations from other writers, with intelligent criticisms on their opinions, are worthy of almost unqualified approbation. The third part is rather at variance with the other two, and is deformed by references to Rabbinical authorities, on which we do not set the slightest value.