516 



PHILOLOGY. 



within this century. It will afford considerable aid 

 to Uiose who apply themselves to the study of that 

 science. We only regret that he did not follow the 

 nirihoil of his predecessors, which we think infinitely 

 better adapted to the subject. 



The progress of philology since the publication of 

 tin- empress Catharine's vocabulary and of the Mithri- 

 dnttt, and particularly since the general pacification 

 of 1814, is hardly to be conceived. We wish we 

 could mention here alt the valuable and impor- 

 tant works that have appeared in the present century, 

 in K iissia, Germany, France, and elsewhere in Europe 

 ami in the United States of America, either on the gen- 

 eral subject of languages, or on particular idioms till 

 then little known, and some of which were even entire- 

 ly unknown to the learned. The shortest notices that 

 we could take of all those publications would fill 

 more than the remainder of the space allotted to this 

 article. It would give us infinite pleasure to expa- 

 tiate ii the labours of Adelung, Klaproth, the two 

 Humboldts, De Sacy, Remusat, Jomard, St Martin, 

 Pougens, Burnouf, Akerblad, Young, Colebrooke, 

 Champollion, Heeren, Eichhorn, Stewart, Murray, 

 Barton, Hodgson, Pickering, Webster, and so many 

 others, whose names crowd so fast upon our pen, that 

 we find ourselves obliged to stop, and proceed to an- 

 other part of our subject.* From the aggregate of 

 the labours of these men and their illustrious pre- 

 decessors, has resulted the science which we call 

 philology a science as vast in its extent as interest- 

 ing in its details. Like all other sciences, it requires 

 to be subjected to some methodical order, in order 

 that a comprehensive view may be taken of its whole 

 extent, and a regular system pursued in the study of its 

 component parts. We adopt, as the only attempt that 

 has been made to give to philology a definite form, 

 by delineating its constituent members, that we are 

 acquainted with, the division which Mr Duponceau 

 has made of it, into three principal parts, which he 

 calls phonology, etymology, and ideology, and which he 

 defines as follows : 



Phonology is the knowledge of the sounds produc- 

 ed by the human voice. It teaches us to distinguish 

 Vhose sounds, with their various tones, accents, and 

 inflections ; to analyze, class, and compare them with 

 each other, and represent them as much as possible 

 by visible signs. Etymology is the knowledge of 

 those constituent parts of speech that we call words. 

 By means of it we are enabled to trace the affinities of 

 the different idioms of the earth, and the filiation of 

 the numerous races and families of men who inhabit 

 it ; and, lastly, ideology is the comparative study of 

 the grammatical forms and idiomatic structure of lan- 

 guages, by which we are taught to distinguish the 

 different shapes in which ideas combine themselves, 

 in order to fix perceptions in our minds, and transmit 

 them to those of others. (See the Preface to the 

 translation of Zeisberger's Grammar of the Leni- 

 Lenape, or Delaware Language, in the Transactions 

 of the American Philosophical Society, vol. Hi., new 

 series, p. 75.) Having adopted this division of our 

 general subject, we shall, as briefly as possible, con- 

 sider separately each of the three parts of which it is 

 composed. 



1. Phonology. This we have defined to be " the 

 knowledge of the sounds produced by the human 

 voice." According to this definition, it seems to 

 include music, and it does, in fact, comprehend it ; 

 for music is a language, and the only one that may 

 be called universal. It is true that its sphere is 



* Wo cannot, however, refrain from referring to a series of 

 articles which appeared in Leigh Hunt's London Journal, by 

 Mr K^erton Webbe, on the subjects of language and philo- 

 logy, and which displayed much learning aud profundity of 

 thought. 



limited ; still it conveys the impression of passions 

 and feelings from mind to mind by means of audible 

 sounds, and, coupled with the language of signs, 

 which we call pantomime, there is hardly any thing 

 that it cannot communicate. When we speak of 

 the language of signs, we exclude those that are 

 merely conventional, such as are taught to the deaf 

 and dumb, or which they agree upon among them 

 selves : we mean those alone proceeding from natu- 

 ral impulse, and which every one will understand 

 without previous teaching. Music and pantomime, 

 therefore, considered as means of communication 

 between men, by awakening ideas, perceptions, and 

 feelings, by means of audible sounds and visible 

 signs, are parts of the general science of philology ; 

 and music, which speaks to the ear, comes properly 

 within that division of it which we call phonology. 

 The sounds of which music is composed have an 

 immense advantage over all other sounds produced 

 by the human voice. They are susceptible of being 

 divided into parts, as minute and as nearly accurate 

 as the ear can discriminate ; so that their almost 

 infinite combinations may, by a few conventional 

 signs, be presented through the eye to the mental 

 ear, in a uniform manner, from one end of the world 

 to the other. And this is not all : the duration of 

 each sound, and of the intervals of silence, are as 

 accurately marked by those signs as the sounds 

 themselves ; so that the most complicated piece of 

 music is sung or executed at St Petersburg in the 

 same manner as it is at Canton or at London : as far 

 as it extends, therefore, music may be called a uni- 

 versal language. 



It has been frequently asked whether the oratorical 

 sounds or tones could not be described by signs, in 

 the same manner as those of music. Various at- 

 tempts have been made to that effect, and Dr James 

 Rush, of Philadelphia, has written a very learned 

 and ingenious treatise on the subject. But all such 

 attempts have failed, and, from the nature of the 

 thing, must always fail. We shall endeavour to 

 explain the reason of this opinion. The musical 

 sounds or tones proceeding from the grave to the 

 acute, and vice versa, form, as it were, an ascending 

 and descending line, easily divisible into parts, which 

 the ear can appreciate. This effect is produced by 

 certain organs, which operate by pressure, letting 

 out of the mouth of the singer a greater or lesser 

 quantity of air, and striking the external air vari- 

 ously, according to the manner in which they act, 

 which it would be difficult, and it is not necessary 

 here to describe. Those organs, in speaking, are 

 not called in the same manner into action ; the tones 

 of the speaker differ more from each other in strength 

 than in acuteness or gravity ; in short, speech is 

 monotonous, when not modified by strong passion or 

 feeling; and, in that case, it modulates within a 

 very narrow compass, which is not susceptible of 

 division, like the musical scale ; and, indeed, the 

 word modulation would be here improperly applied, 

 for the rising and falling of the orator's voice, in 

 speaking, is no more than what, in music, is called 

 expression, and it is not more susceptible of notation 

 in the one than in the other. The musician has his 

 F. and FF., and P. and PP., for forte, fortissimo, and 

 piano, pianissimo, and his marks > and <C, to swell 

 or diminish gradually the sound of a particular note : 

 beyond that, he has no guide but his feeling and taste, 

 and the instruction of a good master, aided by exer- 

 cise and practice. This musicians call method. A 

 man may read and write music in perfection, but, 

 without method, he will not be a good singer ; so 

 one may read and write his language with perfect 

 correctness ; without method he will not be an ora- 

 tor : and that method cannot be learned from notes 



