414 LAJ^GUAGE AND EACE. 



K5''inric type being that of the original Aryan-speaking 

 race. 



The mistake of jumping to conclusions, and of generalising 

 from insufficient data, is well illustrated by the complete 

 collapse of the theory, formerly held by all students of man- 

 kind, that language was an unerring guide to racial affinity. 



Much of what 1 have already brought to your notice this 

 evening has tended to negative this theory ; but I think it 

 well to furnish more evidence, taken from a paper published 

 in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute^ by Professor 

 A. H. Sayce, of Oxford : — " The assertion that language is a 

 sure and certain test of race is one than which there is none 

 more readily to be confronted with history ; and, when so 

 confronted, more clearly proved to be false. Language is no 

 physiological necessity ; it is not one of those physical marks, 

 such as colour of skin or shape of skull, which are in- 

 separable from an individual. But though language is no 

 mark of race, it is a mark of social contact or society. The 

 language we speak is not implanted in us at our birth. 

 The child has painfully and slowly to learn his native 

 tongue, though doubtless he inherits a certain aptitude for 

 doing so. If he is born in England, it is English he learns ; 

 if in France, Erench. If two or more languages are spoken 

 by those about him, he is likely to acquire these languages 

 more or less perfectly, according to the degree in which he 

 comes into social contact with those who speak them. 



"Languages once known can be entirely forgotten, and 

 foreign ones become as familiar as though they were native. 

 Children whose language was Hindustani have forgotten 

 it utterly after a short residence in England, and it is often 

 difficult to reproduce a sound which was constantly on the 

 lips in childhood." What holds good of the individual, 

 holds equally good of the community ; but we must not fall 



