ox ETHNOLOGY. 
265 
sound, and thoroughly digested materials, constitutes, in my opinion,the lasting 
value of a work, which besides claims an eminent rank as the concentration 
of the thoughts and researches of a man of excellent judgement and profound 
learning, who bad dedicated a great part of his active life partly to specula¬ 
tions on languj^e in general, partly to a critical and detailed analysis of a 
variety of tongues. As to its bearing upon the great historical problem before 
us, although, as we have already obse rved, the author purposely refrains from 
entering into the pneral question of the original unity or diversity of races 
and languages, his work will nevcrtlKdcss be found to point out the most 
valuable Juudmarks for all who atv bold enough to sail on this wide and dan¬ 
gerous ocean. Its researches belong to the Calculus suhUmis of linguistic 
theory. It places Wilhelm von Humboldt’s name in universal comparative 
ethnologic philology by the side of that of XjeibniU. 
We have hitherto coii>jderc<l the development of modem philological 
research without the admixture of the physiological ilement first applied to the 
inquiry into races by Haller and Bluraenbacb. But I cannot conclude 
this rapid sketch without a particular mention of the two works whicB have 
lately treated the question of races and languages in general, and which both 
combine admirably the physiological with the ethnologic and historical ele¬ 
ments, I mean Dr. Prichard’s ‘ Kest-arches info the Physical History of Man¬ 
kind,’ now complete before tlie world in five volumes (and already reproduced 
in more than one translation), and the great work of our age, Alexander von 
Humboldt's ‘ Kosmos.’ It must be gratifying and encouraging to see how 
an impartial appreciation of the physiological inquiriM carried on from the 
time of Camper and Blunieiibacfi down to Cuvier and Johannes Muller, in 
their combination with ethnologic philology and history, has led these two 
eminent authors to conclusions, M'hich, for the purpose of our investigation, 
way be comprehended umier the two following heads 
First, that although physiological inquiry by itself can never lead to any 
conclusive result, still it decidedly inelinea, on tlie whole, towimls the theory 
of the unity of the human race : 
Sccotuili/,^ that philological inquiry, as far as it has hitherto been conducted 
in a scientific manner, rejecting therefore, on the one side, loose comparisons 
oi single words, and, ou the other, hasty conclusions drawn from a few isolated 
Martliug facts, tends more and moj’e to the same result. 
But philological inquiry has not been able to justify such a conclusion 
scientifically. Ihe last great philological work on the subject appears, 
on the contrary, as wo have just seen, rather as a warning against the problem 
which we have ventured to place at the head of our iiitjuiry. 
In the introductory part of this lecture 1 have nut hesitated to ascribe 
to the resul^ of Egyptian etlmologic philology a great importance with 
t^ard to this problem, and in particular to the relation of Asiatic and 
African Immajitly. Before I proceed therefore to state the general results 
which 1 believe we are already enabled to draw from the radical affinities of 
idioms tor the clasbification of languages, and for the universal history of 
maukind, it will be necessary lu point out the bearing of those philological 
Egyptian researches upon comparative ethnologic philology in general. 
Champollion establUlied satisfactorily, and demonstrated by monuments 
what the Berlin Coptic srhool of the last century had made more than highly 
probable,—the general identity of the old and modern Egvptian languages. 
He proved the language of ancient Egypt to bo a genuine organic structure, 
and nut a conlused corruption and mixture, as some theologians had shown 
a great^ tendency to assunje. In exhibiting the system of ancient Egyptian 
declensions and conjugations, and even of the syntax, he was not entirely un- 
