LANG 
Sally the fame the former highly improved and enlarged; 
the latter, in appearance, retaining its original fimplicity 
and rude afpedt, fpoken by a people of a genius by no 
means inventive. There feems to be authentic hiltorical 
evidence that they were pofitively one and the fame, at a 
period when the one as well as the other appeared in its 
infant unadorned fimplicity. 
“Unto Eber (lays the Scripture) were born two fons. 
The name of one was Peleg, becaufe in his days the earth 
was divided 5 and his brother’s name was Joktan ,” or ra¬ 
ther Yoktan. This laft, fays the facred hiltorian, “ had 
thirteen fons ; and their dwelling reached from Mefha 
(Mocha) to Sephar, a mount of the ealt.” Gen. x. 25-30. 
According to this account, the defcenda'nts of Yoktan 
pofTefTed all the maritime coaft of Arabia from Mocha to 
Mount Sephar, towards the ealt of that peninfula. Mofes, 
defcribing the rivers of paradife, tells us, that one of the 
branches of that river “ encompaffed the whole land of 
Havilah, where there was gold.” Gen. ii. 11. Havilah was 
the twelfth fon of Yoktan, whom the Arabians call Kob- 
tan ; and confequently his territory was fituated towards 
the ealtern limit of the poffefiions of the pofterity of the 
youngeft fon of Eber. Yoktan, or Kobtan, was too young 
t» be concerned in building the tower of Babel; and con¬ 
fequently retained the language of his family, which was 
undoubtedly the Hebrew. His defcendants muft have 
carried the fame language into their refpedlive fettlemencs, 
where it muft have been tranfmitted to fucceeding genera¬ 
tions. The original language of all the tribes of the Ara¬ 
bians who inhabit a vaft traft of country along the fouth- 
ern ftiore, according to this deduction, was that of their 
father Kobtan, that is, the Hebrew. Indeed the moll 
learned Arabians of modern times unanimoufly acknow¬ 
ledge this patriarch as the founder of their language as 
well as of their nation. 
The other diftricts of Arabia were peopled by the off- 
fpring of Abraham. The Ifhmaelites, the pofterity of 
that patriarch by Hagar, penetrated into the very centre 
of the peninfula; incorporated, and in procefs of time be¬ 
came one people, with the Kobtanites. Another region 
was polfelTed by the children of the fame holy man by 
Keturah his fecond wife. The Moabites, Ammonites, 
Edomites, Amalekites, &c. who fettled in the various re¬ 
gions of Arabia Petrtea, were all branches of Abraham’s 
family, and ufed the fame language with their great pro¬ 
genitor. The Scripture indeed fpeaks of people who in¬ 
habited the country laft mentioned prior to the branch of 
Abraham’s family ; but thele, according to the fame hif- 
tory, were extirpated by the former. The conclufion then 
is, if we credit the Mofaic account, that all the inhabi¬ 
tants of the three divifions of Arabia did, in the earlieft 
periods, univerfally ufe the Hebrew tongue. 
There was, we are fenfible, a region of Arabia inhabit¬ 
ed by the Culhim, or defcendants of Culh. This diftridt 
was fituated on the confines of Babylonia. Our tranfla- 
tors have confounded this country with the modern 
Ethiopia; and have confequently afcribed the exploits of 
the Arabian Culhim to the Ethiopians. The Arabian 
kings of Babylon were thofe of Culhim. Thefe were con¬ 
quered and expelled Babylonia by the Chafidim. Thefe 
fpoke the Chaldean dialed ; and here the candid reader 
is defired to bear in mind, that the Hebrew and Chaldaic 
are cognate dialedls. 
The Arabic tongue, originally pure Hebrew, was in 
procefs of time greatly transformed and altered from its 
Ample unfophifticated (fate. The Arabians were divided 
into many different tribes; a circumftance which natu¬ 
rally produced many different dialedls. Thefe, however, 
were not of foreign growth. No foreign enemy ever con¬ 
quered thofe independent hords. The Perfians, Greeks, 
and Romans, fometimes attempted to invade their terri¬ 
tories; but the roughnefs of the ground, the fcarcity of 
forage, the penury of water, and their natural bravery, 
always protected them. They were indeed once invaded 
by the Abyffinians, or Ethiopians, with fotne (how of fuc- 
•efs; but thefe invaders were in a (lrort time expelled the 
U A G E. 163 
country. Their language, of confequence, was never 
adulterated with foreign words or exotic phrafes and 
idioms. Whatever augmentations or improvements it 
received were derived from the genius and induftry of the 
natives, and not from adventitious or imported acquifi- 
tions. From this circumftance we may ju 111 y infer, thaC 
the Arabian tongue was a long time ftationary, and 
of courle differed in no confiderable degree from its He¬ 
brew archetype. The learned Schultens, in his Commen¬ 
tary on Job, hath fhown, to the conviction of every can¬ 
did inquirer, that it is impoffible to underftand that fu- 
blime compofition without having recourfe to the Arabic 
idioms. That patriarch was a Chuzite. His country 
might be reckoned a part of Arabia. His three friends 
were actually Arabians, being the defcendants of Khmael 
and Eiau. His country bordered upon that of the pre¬ 
datory Chaldeans, who were an Arabian banditti. When 
we confider all thefe circumftances, we are Itrongly in¬ 
clined to believe that the book of Job was adtually writ¬ 
ten in Arabic, as the language ltood at that period ; 
which, according to the moll probable opinion, could not 
have been later than the age of Moles. The learned are 
generally agreed that this whole book, the three firft chap¬ 
ters excepted, is a poetical compofition, replete with the 
molt brilliant and moll magnificent imagery, the boldelt,. 
the jufteft, and mod gorgeous, tropes and alftifions, and a 
grandeur of fentiment wholly divine. Whoever has read 
the poetical compofitions of the modern Arabians, on di¬ 
vine lubjedts, with any degree of talle, will, we flatter our- 
felves, difcover a ltriking (imilarity both of dillion and 
fentiment. Be this as it may, we think there is no rea- 
fon to conclude that the Arabic dialed! deviated much 
from the Hebrew llandard prior to the Chriftian era. 
There were two principal dialedls of the original Ara¬ 
bic : the Hamyarite, fpoken by the genuine Arabs; and 
the Koreijhite, or pure Arabic, which at laft became the 
general language of that people. The former of thefe in¬ 
clined towards the Syriac or Chaldean ; the latter being, 
according to them, the language of Khmael, was deeply 
tinctured with the Hebrew idiom. The oriental writers 
tells us that Terah, the grandfather of Hamyar, was the firft 
whofe language deviated from the Syriac to the Arabic. 
Hence, fay they, the Hamyaritic dialed! muft have ap¬ 
proached nearer to the purity of the Syriac, and of con/e- 
quence muft have been more remote from the true genius 
of the Arabic than that of any of the other tribes. The 
fadt feems to (land thus : The Hamyarites were neigh¬ 
bours to the Chaldeans and Syrians, and confequently 
were connedled with thofe people by commerce, wars, al¬ 
liances, &c. This circumftance introduced into their 
language many phrafes and idioms from both thefe nations. 
That Terah was concerned in adulterating the dialed! of 
the Hamyarites, is a mere oriental legend, fabricated by 
the Arabs after they began to perufe the Hebrew Scrip¬ 
tures. The Koreiih, being fituated in the centre of Ara¬ 
bia, were lefs expofed to intercourfe with foreigners, and 
therefore preferved their language more pure and untainted. 
The learned well know, that the Koran was written in 
the dialect of the Koreifh ; a circumftance which com¬ 
municated additional fplendour to that branch of the Ara¬ 
bian tongue. It has been proved, that the language of 
the original inhabitants of Arabia was genuine Hebrew ; 
but upon this fuppofition a queltion will arife, namely, 
whether the Arabians adtually preferved their original 
tongue pure and unfophifticated during a fpace of 3000 
years, which elapfed between the deluge and birth of Ma¬ 
homet? or whether, during that period, according to the 
ordinary courfe of human affairs, it underwent many 
changes and deviations from the original ftandard ? The 
admirers of that language ftrenuoufiy maintain the former 
pofition ; others, who are more moderate in their attach¬ 
ment, are difpofed to admit the latter. Chardin obferves, 
of the oriental languages in general, that they do not vary 
and fluctuate with time like the European tongues : “Ce 
qu’il y a de plus'admirable, dit il, et de plus remarquable-, 
dans ces langues, e’eft, qu’eiles ne changent point, et 
3 " n’ont 
