ON ETHNOGRAPHICAL PHILOLOGY. 
155 
dej^ments has done more than ten years’ work in others: so that the philo¬ 
logical progress is sometimes rapid; whilst, at times, there has been no pro¬ 
gress at all. With this view I allow myself the following amount of latitude. 
I take the date of the last standard system of researches in each particular 
class of languages, and, dealing with this as the exhibition of the current 
(Joctrines concerning the division in questiou, consider all that has been done 
sina to constitute the recent progress in that particular department. I'hus, 
whifet I date the recent progress of one laogtmge from a period of only five 
OT six years, I go back, for another, to one of ten, fifteen, twenty, or five- 
aad-twenty. 
PerhajBl might have avoided this apparent inconsistency, and have calcu¬ 
lated the recent progress in all departments of ethnographical philology from 
one fixed period, by taking a work so accurate, so comprehensive, and so 
systematic, as Dr. PHcbard’s Pliysical History of Mankind, and by making 
it the basis of my reckoning. Had my choice been detemuned by the 
taerits of the work, this would certainly have been the case. Nevertheless, 
niy reason against doing so was conclusive—Dr. Priebard's classification 
h foonded npou a mixture of the philological and physiological characters of 
our race; and, although ethnographical, is not philologicaliy ethnographical; 
at least, not exclusively so. 
The recent progress of African ethnographical philology is best calculated 
from year 1817. In that year was published tlie fourth volume of the 
-ujthridates, completing the work, and confining the views of Vater upon 
the facts and classifications of Adelung. The volume by Adclung himself, 
^ which Africa was contained, was given to the world five years previously, 
Wien we eonaider tho great amount of geognxphical knowledge which has 
^cumulated within tlie last thirty years, wc take a measure of tho philological 
toeo\^ries as well: since the progress of the two studies, natiiraDy, coincide. 
' flon Adelung and Vater wrote the great inland countries of Dornu and 
JOffssa were unexplored ; the AsUanteo country was known only by name ; 
/ijee was almost the only authority for* Abyssinia ; Burckhardt’s work on 
ubia was uiipubliahed; whilst the languages of Zanzibar and Mozambique 
known only through a few fragiuentury vocabularies. On the other 
d, moat of the leading farU, such as tho great geographical extent of the 
rwraud Cafli'e languages, the peculiaritips of the Caffre grammar, niid the 
• of tho languages of .lithiopia make part and parcel of the 
cuntained in tlie Mithridates. The chief work published between 
181"» was the Abyssinia of Salt. In moat other points Vater’s 
®Mwials were the same as Adclung’s. 
to tlic principle of his olajsification, Adelung's views were both 
and safe. He never aimed at any thing prematurely general. Lan- 
whereof the mutual affinities lay on the surface were placed in the 
groups. Nothing, however, equivalent to the biglicr divisions denoted 
f ^ Iu(ly-Euroj)can, Semitic, &c. was attempted. This absti- 
uf..!. L ® " ^ nothing more ihau what the scanty character 
.“'J imperatively demanded. 
iJH published the /Wrw Ethnologitjuc, and the Intrudiiction d 
mmhgujm of lialbi—works essentially systematic. The Africa 
dialects tabulated in tlie first are a hundred and twelve in 
ofwl * ("■***■*“ possible) the numerals and a few other 
evickn f® ^be author the most fundamental words eligible. The 
selveiL^^n^y classification appears to be contained within the tables them- 
balbis system is a safe one. Where the affinities lie below the 
