Did Science originate in India ? 57 



of roots are common to the former and the latter. Had a colony 

 come from India to Egypt, we should find roots of all the Eu- 

 ropean languages in the Coptic as well as in the Sanscrit ; but 

 none are found in the former, excepting such as are obviously 

 derived from the Greek alone, and for the introduction of which 

 into Egypt, the long possession of that country by the Macedo- 

 nians sufficiently accounts. The proof, therefore, of any colo- 

 nization of Egypt from India not only fails, but the results of 

 our inquiry, in most of its branches, lead to the conclusion that 

 no such colonization took place. 



But failing the proof of the derivation of science from India, 

 to the western part of the Old Continent through the road of 

 Egypt, another path is pointed out by which it may have come 

 to us from that country. We have already quoted the passage 

 stating that the Sanscrit contains the roots of the European lan- 

 guages, and that it would seem we must go to India to find the 

 first instrument of science language. We find, in a somewhat 

 similar strain, at page 345, " The Pelasgi were originally from 

 India, of which the Sanscrit roots that occur abundantly in their 

 language, do not permit us to doubt.*" But why should this be 

 predicated of the Pelasgi alone here, when we find the Greek, 

 Latin, German, and Sclavonic, having Sanscrit roots ? We are 

 happily enabled, on sure grounds, to give a more satisfactory 

 account of the origin of the relation between the Sanscrit and 

 European tongues, than by conjecturing the arrival of a colony 

 of Indians in Europe. 



The " History of the European Languages,"" by the late Dr 

 Alexander Murray, and the discovery of the Zend-avesta in the 

 hands of the Parsees, have placed the whole question in a very 

 simple and natural point of view. Dr Murray^s book is, taken as a 

 whole, unfortunately imperfect, not having been completed or 

 arranged at the time of the author'*s death ; and the learned 

 editor having judiciously determined to present it as much as 

 possible in the form in which it was left by so great a master of 

 languages as the author, the more valuable parts of it consist of 

 only disjointed notes, and it has not therefore attracted that no- 

 tice which it deserves. Another circumstance which has proved 

 unfavourable to a just public estimate of it is, that the author 

 has attempted to establish a theory of the origin of the Euro- 



