ON THE ARCH. 



To the Editor of the Analyst, 



Sir, — In resuming the subject of my last communication, I will, 

 in the first place, observe, that language is the medium through 

 which ideas are conveyed, and that there is no civilized country 

 in which the means of expressing subjects of internal reflection, 

 or objects of external observation, are not to be found. Modern 

 languages, it is true, are unstable and fluctuating, and it is clear 

 to the observer of these matters that the English language of 

 four hundred years back is not the language of the present day, 

 and the names of places and things are ill understood through 

 the appellatives of years gone by. Chaucer requires a glossary, 

 and even Shakspeare endless annotations. Not so with some of 

 the more ancient languages, whose sources are more pure, nor 

 equally impregnated with tributary streams. The Chinese, we 

 are informed, preserved its integrity for 2000 years; this, indeed, 

 should be taken more upon credit than proof, for w^e know little 

 of the history of that extraordinary people. Of the Greek 

 language we have more conclusive evidence that it preserved its 

 purity for at least one thousand years, and although it received 

 during that period a more ornamental colouring and added 

 graces, yet its essential character remained unimpaired from the 

 time of Homer until that of Plutarch, and the works of the most 

 illustrious of epic poets were read and understood by that great 

 biographer. These observations are made in relation to the 

 enquiry upon which I last addressed you, and they lead to this 

 inference — that the early Greeks had a full and copious language, 

 which preserved its purity for a long period of time, and had the 

 arch been known to them, a word expressive of that order would 

 have been found in their early writers, and would have been 

 generally in use in the time of Aristotle. 



In my last communication I endeavoured to show that the 

 early Greeks were ignorant of the arch, having no word expressive 

 of that order, but that Mons. Dutens considered -^xXts, as used by 

 Aristotle, signified an arch. Now if this vigilant inquirer found 

 no word anterior to such author which would suit his views, w^e 

 may fairly conclude that none could be found. Mons. Dutens 

 is supported in his opinion by Batteax, the translator of Aristotle, 

 that the philosopher being acquainted with the keystone, must 

 have known the properties of the arch ; and although H. Stephens 

 in his derivative of -^^xXis does not confine its meaning to the 

 construction of Mons. Dutens, yet he does not negative his view ; 

 and although that word may originally mean a forceps, yet it 

 may be applied to architectural principles, as the nearest de- 

 scription of the sides of an arch. The balance of authority 



