286 
REPORT—1847. 
mous German work, and therefore is an aJmost indispensable introduetioiiK 
the study and understanding of tliat gigantic concentration ofle^ingol 
reflection. As to the general speculative grounds for such a view, in opp 
tiou to the materialist theories of French and English philosophers of 4 
earlier part of the eighteenth centurr, they have been established mcs li* 
cumtfly by Kant, and devdopt^d by his illustrious successors. To repralw 
Munboddn'« theory in our daya, alter Kant and his iollowcrs, is asorryi- 
ciirotiMm ; and I therefore regret that 80 low a view should bare beenWs 
of the subject lately, in an English work of much correct and comprebe^'' 
rellectloii and research ree|>ecting natural science. I deplore that s ot’' 
so much thought should have been carried away by a narrow philowpli- 
theory, and perhaps besides by a violent reaction against dead ilop»;v 
and formalism. But its counterpart, the spiritoulUt system of philo^i 
has not been able either to give a tot;dJy satisfactory explanation rft 
plicnometia, and ui particular of the origin of language, and therefore 
been able to tlrive the other theory from the field ; for as the one caoDuiW' 
the step from matter to thought, so the other cannot take that from ibtxt' 
to matter. Absolute spiritualism contradicts nature, as materialism 
diets mind : it has retdity and liistory against it as much as its oppo»i» ^ 
conling to its one*si(led notions all dovclupiucnt In language desceii»»^ 
the height of consciotisness to a state of decline. It justly dbc|w'^|'‘ 
savage as the prototype of natural, original man : for linguistic 
that the languages of savnges arc degraded, dcicaying fragtneu®**' 
formations. The language of the Huabmaii, aa we have obK-rved 
degraded Hottentot language, and this language is likely 
pravation of tJio noble Kafre tongue. But, on the other side, wn®" 
school pretends, as Frederic Sclilegel does, that in the noblest lacpi^ 
those tj| organic structure, as he calls them, the spiritual and abstraejnp^ 
cation of roots is thn original, such an assumption is conlradicteo 'I 
history of every language of the world. Nay, his whole tlistiucfimi b««^ 
organic and atomistic languages is decidedly unbistorical. ^ - 
languages in particular protest against sucli an unholv divorce in „ 
race. As to ourselves, we believe with Kant, that the formation of 
notions, embodied In words, presupposes the action of the senses *** 
on which hi. npinion hmi .liffcrtd or still difTmd with Ihe views dcvelope** M?!; 
y>e fllMlI quote here two paw.gps, p. 55. ftpeakii.R of the origin of ihe 
guogc,. the niiUior je no crobpw qu’il iWle Bup{.o«rthM le» nation/ 
Ml ry.tKyatile de laiiguca adinirahlM dr» facbltes pins qu'lmniBines. ou*att«“«^ 
noiu point .ulvi U marclie progreasite, a iBqueUe 1 m nations sont 
If »e f»«t pas mcconnaitre cette force vrniment dj/'J,'1 • 
er^ateur dc. nniions, surtont dana 
id^cB « mi'me ftcultd, rime cmprunlci.t tin* forre plu. viv* do la 
preaiioii*. oill homme pent prewntlr <l«s eomhlnaiaong ouaquelUs il ne *««« . . 
par l» tnarche lent* et progreoiive de l’exi>&-jfme. Cc «*me ci^ateur .• 
Imutci qul aembleiu pr^.crit« a., reatedes mUek.ei ^’il esi inipossiblederctracc;;.-, . 
uC. . maiiilMte. Phuotoiie de renoncer, dans I r 
de 1 origtne dc< lineuM, a I’intlUeiiP.. 1)1.1.*,,* ...aJI..*. nr^nii^re. eldeI?-'L 
f “ « line ruvtsiation tnimeiliate tie la uunmi- . ^ 
moint 
liUrL^’’ "if'" die notion that the Chinese language represenO ’jJ-V 
iildrvn. 1.1. wm.vVBM-.__ irDUvrr* 
