ON ETHNOLOGY, 
243 
Turkish empire. 8. An eighth groupe of languages are the Celtic, formerly- 
spread over a great part of Europe, but now confined to some limited di¬ 
stricts in France and the British Islands. The Celtic languages were at one 
time supposed to be entirely distinct from the Indo-European stock, their 
affinity to which is now generally admitted, though some are of opinitm that 
tkir descent is not genuine, and that the remains of an aboriginal language 
are combined with a peculiar Iiid«>Europcan dialect in tla- formation of the 
Celtic. 
Such is the extension of the Indo-European family of languages, reaching 
iu one continued line from the mouth of ilie Gauges to tlje British Isles, and 
the coast of Scandinavia and of Iceland, without taking notice of the later 
colonizations of this race in various ports of the world, wliere they seem des¬ 
tined to supplant the aboriginal inhabitants. Before proceeding further, I 
*l»ll now stop to inquire what infereuces, strictly ethnological, can safely be 
derived from the phaenomena connected with this extensive dispersion of the 
Indo-European languages. 
It is well know n from history that the nations which have been men¬ 
tioned have been spread from a remote age over the regions which they 
now ialiabit- The Teutonic and Scandinavian tribes of the German race 
ffere known to Pytheas, who sailed on the Baltic in the time of Aristotle; 
Mid the Brahmans probably spoke Sanskrit at the court cd' Pulibothra, 
when they were vUited by Megastheues in the ago of the first Se- 
leucuii. All ancient Germany, Sttandiuaviu, Samiatia, Gaul, and Britain, 
Italy, Greece, Persia, and a great part of India, were then inhabited by 
TOlions separate and independent of each other, speaking difibrent languages, 
hut liuiguages analogous and palpably derived from the same original. The 
question which now occurs to lii- solved is, whether the natious themselves 
were kindred tribes of some primitive stock and derived the analogies of 
their speech from some cominou language which hud gradimlly deviated 
li'ouj original identity by variations, at first merely dialectic, but gradually 
'ucreased, or whether the facts admit any other explanation. The only alter¬ 
native is tlie hypothesis that some single nation, to which the Indo-European 
language originally belonged, conquered the indigenous races of Europe 
Mid imposed upon them all its own language. But it is liartl to conceive 
howsuclian hypothesis can be applicable to Uic facts under consideration. 
Ji we suppose an Asiatic tribe, for example, speaking any one idiom belong- 
•ng to this dyn^oty of lauguogtis, to have made conquests ever so extensive in 
tnrope and Asia, without leaving traces in history', which is almost incredible, 
shall still be far from a ^olution of tl»e problem. Ilow could one nation in- 
boduce German languages among the Geminn nations; Celtic dialects, 
they are, among the Celts; the Slavonic language among the 
widely-spread nations of Sarumtia; Greek ninoiig the Greeks; the old Italic 
dweets among the nations of Italy ? The supposition is nbi^urd. Moreover, 
there U interoal evidence in the Indo-European languages themselves suffi¬ 
cient to prove that they grew by gradual dialuctic developement out of one 
common matrix. Any person who considers, with competent knowledge of 
languages, the naturi; of thrir relations to each oilier, the fact that their 
onginal roots are for the most part common, and that in the great system of 
grammatical infiectiun pervading all these iaiiguagcu there is nothing else than 
the varied dcvclopeuicnt of common principles, must be convioctHl tliat the 
otffercnccs between tiiein are but the result of the gradual deviation of one com- 
itjon language into a nmliitude of diverging dialects; and the ultimate con¬ 
clusion that is forced opon us is, tliat the Indo-European naiioiis are the 
descendants of one original people, and, consequently, that the varieties of 
R 2 
