ixxix 



almost as much mystery as the hieroglyphic system of ancient Egypt. Not agree- 

 ing with those who held the opinion, that the Chinese language is ideographic, that 

 is, that the written characters denote ideas of things, and do not represent spoken 

 words, — so that different nations of the East could understand each other by the 

 writing, when they could not by speaking, — just as the Arabic numerals are 

 understood alike, for example, by a Frenchman and Englishman, when written, 

 though not when spoken, — contesting this opinion, we say, Mr. Du Ponceau boldly 

 assumes the position, that the Chinese must be like other languages, and that the 

 written characters, or words, represent spoken words or sounds, as in all the lan- 

 guages of Europe. The sinologists of the Old World are acquainted with his 

 book, but are not prepared to adopt his views, though some of them are silently 

 making use of his terminology, and so far give countenance to his results. Yet, if 

 he is wrong, and if the language of the Chinese is not like other languages of the 

 human race in the particular in question, the fact will present a more extraordi- 

 nary phenomenon than any of the extraordinary characteristics hitherto known of 

 that singular people." 



Having reviewed this important work immediately after its publication, with the 

 profoundest attention to the subject, Mr. Pickering naturally felt much curiosity to 

 observe in what manner Mr. Du Ponceau's new and striking views of the Chinese 

 language would be received by European scholars. " Knowing the force of the 

 opinions which have been maintained by them for more than two centuries, re- 

 specting the language of the singular people of the ' Celestial empire,' we were 

 prepared," say the North American Eeviewers, in their article on the Cochin- 

 Chinese language, " for a total dissent from the doctrines of our learned author, 

 if not a positive and direct attempt to refute them." " When we saw announced 

 in the contents of that long-established and able journal, the London Monthly Re- 

 view, for December, 1840, an article expressly upon this work, we felt no little 

 impatience to see the article itself, which we had understood to be highly commen- 

 datory of Mr. Du Ponceau's work, and in perfect coincidence with his views. 

 Upon opening the London journal, what was our astonishment to find, at the first 

 glance, that the review was taken from our own article ; and, upon a closer com- 

 parison, to discover, that, with the exception of a few paragraphs (which in their 

 original form had American badges attached to them), the entire London article 

 was a reprint, without any acknowledgment, from our own pages ! " 



