ON ETHNOLOGY. 
257 
on my own attempts and speculations. I slmll, on the contrary, endeavour to 
prove, by way of introduction to the exposition of niv particular method, tliat 
etbuoiogical science has arrived in the course of this century at results, if less 
know in some parts of the world, certainly not less important, tlian those of 
which aay branch of science represented in this illustrious body can boast; 
Mil that moreover it has arrived at these results by a legitimate and metho- 
^caJ process, not by chance or by accidental ingenuity. If man is the apex 
o| the creation, it seems right on the one side, that a historical inquiry into 
hifongin and development should never be allowed to sever iUolf from the 
pneralbody of natural science, and in particular from physiology. Hut on 
lie other IiMd, if man is the apex of the creation, if he is*the end to which 
organic lorraations lend Irom tlie very beginnitig ; if man is at once the 
■jstery and the key of natural science; if iJiat is the only view of naturar 
weoce worthy of our age, then etJmologio philology, once wtalilished on 
(nnciples as clear os the physiological are, is the highest branch of that sci- 
fwe tor the advanceineat of which this Association is itistitutcd. It is not 
“appendix to physiology or to anything else; but its object is, on the con- 
J, capable of becoming the end and goal of thy labours and transactions 
waicientific association. 
A rapid sketch of the history of the philosophy of language, and of its 
W ation to comparative ethnology, showing its scientific, method and the 
onuaiDg results at which it has already arrived, is sufficient to bear out this 
*0 justify this claim. 
inn ^ i^pid sketch I tlnnk it right to open the course of the 
Of r? I wi^h to invite you. I believe that no philosophical 
k ought to be approached by any one who docs not know 
j. 1 ” before him for that purpose, and M-liat are the problems 
> or brought nearer to their solution. And here it secius to me to 
whether such luicarcbes have been instituted and such 
iliffer country or elsewhere; for science knows no 
ence of nations and countries, and acknowledges no proleiicc of pa- 
tsi cloak fur ignorance or partiality. Its glory is in its universality 
Ti object ought to be truth. 
Wopv ^1/k general ethnological results of comparative phi- 
jtut^ favoured with this day by Dr. Prichard, will 
importk^^ *r *”5 historical sketch to the two points of imnitdiate 
WiDhi of tliis lecture. These leading points are tJie phi- 
biiil language, aud the results obtained by their application 
' less than the classifi 
their languages, as t 
fl/tLpTnV'ir of fheir origin, and as the grouiidvvork for 
Idiall^ development and civilization of inaukiml. 
witi, j I ^erefore this historical sketch of philological researches 
bdr«wf'^ Indication of the conclusions which they allow ne, in uiy opinion, 
o^hehiim*^ philological results already obtained, for the general history 
ftmilies ftf njind, and for the connexion and relative place of the leading 
tnankmd in the different epochs of their development. 
points in the History of the Phihsojthif of Language, and of its 
Ilato 
remits for General Ethnology 
Aristotle In his ‘Organon,* have laid tlie founda- 
*dl UDdpi!( j ianguage. The speculations of tho first bear, when 
highest problems of the philosophy of language; 
•cateeori mio mgoest problems ot ttic pniiosopuy or laugua^i-, 
1847'“™* definitions of the second give the logical foundations of 
