ON ETHNOLOGY. 
239 
the cultivation of ethnology than any other part of what may bo termed 
Jiistorical research. The history of languages and their comparison and 
classification, termed by German writers “ Sprachenkunde,” ims no other 
iwognised English name than “ Philology," which has likewise another 
signification. “ Glottology,” though an uncouth word, would be a better 
expression. This may be cousidereil aUno«t as a new dei)artment of know¬ 
ledge, since although loug ago sketched out and pursued to a certain 
cxtCDt, it has been wonderfully augmented in rucont times, and it is only 
through its later developement that it comes to have any extensive relations 
with ethnolt^. Leibnitz is generally considered to have been its originator. 
The .Wdungs, Vater, Klaproth, Frederick Schlegel, Bopp and Jacob Grimm 
have been among Its most successful cultivators; and lastly, to William von 
Humboldt it owes its greatert extension, and the character of a profound 
philosophical investigation. But it is not in thb light that we have now to 
<mider the results of philological researches. It is as an atixiliarj' to 
liBlory and as serving in niauy instances to e.xteiiU, combine and confirm 
hhwricai evidence respecting origin and afRuities of particular nations, 
that the compatisou of languages contributes to the advancement of eth¬ 
nology. If ever wc venture to rely on tliu testimony of such relationship 
between languages as giving proof of ancient kindred between nations, it 
must be when historical considerations rentier the conclusion in itself pro- 
bable, or indicate that it affords the most natural explanation of the phaeno* 
mm observed. Great caution is requisite in drawing inferences of this 
W, since we cannot always conclude that nations belong to the same race 
jrom resemblance or identity in their speech. W’e know that conquests fol¬ 
lowed by permanent subjugation have caused tlic iteople of some countries 
to lose their own iauguagos and adopt those of their conquerors. The 
iDtercourse of ti’affic betwimu differtait countries, the introduction of a new 
religion and nevv habits of life, cspccinlly when rude and barbarous tribes 
have been brought into noar connexion with civilized ones, have given rise 
tt* great modifications in many languages. It is only when wo have good 
reason to believe that the resemblances between the idioms of any particular 
xatJOTis have arisen from no similar causes, that wo aro justificil in founding 
Oh Buch phccnoiiuma mi argument of tluiir affinity in descent. The reasons 
^bich may determine us to entertain this opinion may be of two kinds ; they 
way either arise from a consideration of the local position and previous 
history of the tribes of people who are the subjects of our inquiry, or they 
turn on the particular sort of resemblance or analogy discovered in 
tlirir languages. 
In the first place, if we learn from history that any two nations have been 
l^oteiy separated from eacii other from a very distant age, and have never 
hw'n brought into intercourse, we may heiieu argue that the marks of re- 
wmblance discovered iu their laugoagcs can bear no other explanation than 
that of unity of descent. On this ground w’o infer without doubt the com- 
origin of the Polynesian Islanders and that of the Greeks and Germans 
and the Ariau race of Hindust'vn. 
SeccmdJy, j)h®nomena are discoverable in languages themsclvc-s which 
wabic us to determine w’hether traits of resemblance detected in their com¬ 
parison Were produced by intercourse between nations, or arose in the gradual 
oevplopetnent of their languages and thns prove a conunoii origin in the tribes 
people to which these languages belong. Analogitf* from which this last 
jnference may be fairly drawn have in many instances been detected between 
Iir>goagcB which have acquired in the lapse of time such diflerences, that 
oae direct was unintelligible to people who spoke another idiom of the 
