March 24, 1870 | 
NATURE 
529 
perfectly in a position to show that the rudest forms cf 
the most developed language have sprung, by insensible 
derivation, from phonetic signs as vague, simple, and 
monosyllabic as those of Chinese itself. These signs left 
the mutual ve/ations of ideas unexpressed. There were at 
first no special vocal expressions, no organs for the fulfil- 
ment of grammatical functions, or the interdistinction of 
nouns and verbs, much less of conjugation or declension. 
Such words as That, gethan, Thuer, Thiter, thitig, all 
point back to a root dha, which contained in itself the un- 
developed germ of all sorts of verbal, nominal, and ad- 
verbial modifications. And in this respect the ultimate 
roots of the Aryan languages closely resemble in 
character the actual words of those languages which 
have remained to this day as nearly as possible in their 
primitive condition. Such roots may without fancy be 
called speech-cells, in which the rudiments of all special 
organs are implicitly zzvo/ved, but in which they are as 
little developed as in the germinal vesicles which represent 
the earliest forms of animal and vegetable life. There 
may have been multitudes of such sound-cells, as it were, 
from which different families of language have sprung by 
special lines of development, just as, according to the 
Darwinian hypothesis, many primordial cells, presenting 
a close similarity, may have been the earliest rudiments 
of all living organisms. 
In speaking of the extinction of species and the 
struggle for existence, Mr. Darwin uses language which 
may be literally applicd—applied without even verbal 
modification—to the phenomena of languages. Here, no 
less than in the animal and vegetable kingdom, the 
dominant forms of the prevailing groups tend to leave 
many modified descendants, while the imperfection of the 
weaker groups leads to their gradual disappearance. But 
the complete extinction of a linguistic type is a slow pro- 
cess, and just as extinct animal forms may leave behind 
them a few decaying representatives in inaccessible or 
solitary places, so in the mountain-valleys of the Pyrenees 
and the Caucasus, we find isolated dialects which may be 
the fragmentary relics of tongues once spoken in immense 
districts. But a language once extinct, like an extinct 
species, can never under any circumstances reappear ; 
and its place is occupied by the nearly related but 
greatly modified groups of predominant families, 
which are precisely those which undergo the com- 
pletest differentiation in the course of their gradual 
victory over less happily constituted forms. And 
in consequence of the extinction of languages many 
intermediate forms have perished ; the primitive relation- 
ships of languages have been disturbed by all sorts of 
external influences, and consequently languages radically 
different are now found existing side by side. All this, as 
every naturalist is well aware, represents a condition of 
things precisely similar to that which prevails in animated 
nature. 
Mr. Darwin, in his great work, devotes a few words to 
the classification of languages as affording a confirmation 
of his theories. It does so to an extent of which probably 
he was not at first aware. In two capital points, viz., (1), 
the immense changes which can be effected by infini- 
tesimally gradual modification ; and (2) the preservation 
of the best and strongest form in the struggle for life, 
Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis may be confirmed and verified 
by the entirely independent researches of the comparative 
philologist. These are the two points to which Prof. 
Schleicher wished to draw attention in the pamphlet 
which I have here epitomised. They do not indeed 
represent the whole of the linguistic facts which might be 
adduced on this side of the question, and they leave out 
of sight others which might be alleged with great force in 
favour of an opposite view. Some of these I have endea- 
voured to set forth elsewhere,* and possibly there may be 
some future opportunity of again bringing this subject 
before the reader. My present object was to make 
the views of Prof. Schleicher more widely known than 
they have yet become among English naturalists and 
scholars. F, W. FARRAR. 
THE PRIVATE LIFE OF GALILEO 
The Private Life of Galileo. Compiled principally from 
his correspondence and that of his eldest daughter, 
Sister Maria Celeste, nun in the Franciscan convent 
of S. Matthew at Arcetri. 307 pp. (London: Mac- 
millan and Co. 1870.) 
qh numerous works which have appeared with 
Galileo for their theme may be divided into three 
classes: Firstly, those which relate more particularly to 
his persecution by the Church, the position and influence 
of the Sacred College in his day, and its attitude towards 
science. Secondly, those which treat of his scientific 
labours apart from himself, their nature and character, and 
their influence on the propagation of truth, the advance- 
ment of modern philosophy, and the downfall of Aristote- 
lianism. Thirdly, those which discuss his private life. The 
first and last of these are often blended, more or less, and 
of necessity, but we know too little of his scientific labours. 
M. Parechappe has well remarked, “ Le savant s’est effacé 
dans le martyr.” The works of Galileo, if much talked 
of, are certainly little read—“ Il Saggiatore” and the 
‘“‘Dialoghi” are even less read than the “ De Augmentis 
Scientiar'um” and the “ Novum Organum;” while the 
“Principia” of Descartes occupies a position of notoriety 
midway, perhaps, between “Il Saggiatore” and the 
“Novum Organum,” and we have a little difficulty in 
placing the writings of Hobbes. Yet it is undeniable 
that the works of these four men have produced a more 
profound and permanent influence upon human thought 
than any which preceded them. There is but one epoch 
in the history of the world to be compared with their 
epoch ; it is that of Aristotle. 
The work before us belongs both to the first and third 
of the above divisions, it relates mainly to the private 
life of Galileo, and resembles Arduini’s “ Primogenita 
di Galileo Galilei,’ more than any other work on the 
subject. The account of the private life of Galileo, 
unlike many such accounts, does not give us much insight 
into the manners and customs and conditions of society 
at the time of which it treats, both because Galileo had 
so little real domestic life, and because the main corre- 
spondence which furnishes these private details took place 
between a nun (who of all persons can know least of the 
external world) and Galileo himself, and her letters to 
him have been preserved, while his answers to them have 
perished, Your great philoscpher as a rule is exceedingly 
* See a paper on “‘ The Growth and Development of Language” in the 
Cambridge Fournal of Philology. 
