LANGUAGE. 
preiTes in his own idiom. We may therefore read the Chi¬ 
nefe writing, or tranflate it, without knowing a word of 
the Chinefe language. It is however this language which 
ferved in a certain degree as a model for the writing, 
as we muft now proceed to prove. Five or fix vowels 
perform the principal part in the fpoken language. Of 
thefe vowels, differently articulated according to the con- 
fonants which precede them, are formed the 328 or 350 
radical words. In like manner, withffix lines, either ftraight 
or varioufly curved, are formed 214 elementary characters 
called keys-, and thefe ferve to form all the other charac¬ 
ters, amounting to not more than 80,000. Thefe keys, 
engraved, are to be met with in the Mufeum Sinicum of 
Bayer, and, ftill better engraved, in the Grammatica Sinica 
of Fourmont, and in the Encyclopedic Eleme/itaire, or the 
Bibliotheque des Amateurs, Paris, 1766. 
If this writing were the fyftematical work of one or 
more-men of talent, the 214 keys would become the figns 
of 214 of the molt effential ideas; the other characters 
would be merely diftinct and well-claffed combinations of 
the elementary figns. But this is not the cafe: the Chi¬ 
nefe characters form a confufed mafs, wherein the figns 
of the molt heterogeneous objeCts are mingled together, as 
if the firlt inventors had been directed in their labour by 
mere caprice. 
The characters had at firlt fome refemblance to the thing 
reprefented; there ftill fubfilts traces of this primitive re¬ 
femblance. They feem therefore to have been the firlt ef- 
fay at writing, coarfely executed, at a time when civili¬ 
zation was but little advanced, when men had but few 
wants, confequently but few ideas to exprefs. Nothing 
can more Itrongly prove the lliort-fightednefs and littlenel's 
of mind of the more modern literati, than their not hav¬ 
ing entirely laid alide thefe characters, proper only for a 
nation in its infancy, but to have continued ever to walk 
in this inconvenient path, the firlt opened. For they have 
at length, by repeated additions, by fucceflive combina¬ 
tions of the keys and their parts, formed fo formidable a 
quantity of characters, that to know them well would re¬ 
quire more than the whole life, not only of a Chinefe, 
but of a Leibnitz or a Newton; and, with all this unfor¬ 
tunate abundance of marks, it is ftill impoflible for a Chi¬ 
nefe to exprefs, though but imperfectly, all that the Eu¬ 
ropeans, with about twenty letters, can render with fo 
much exaCtnefs and rapidity. See the article China, vol. 
ix. p.463, 4. 
The Chinefe require a character for every idea; and of¬ 
ten one word, by reafon of the different ideas it expreffes, 
•is connected with more than 240 characters. And it is 
very lingular that, notwithftanding this, a great number 
of limple ideas are expreffed by figns very much com¬ 
pounded. Thus, the word which fignifies night is ye-, 
but the character which expreffes this idea is compoled of 
three keys, which exprefs the ideas, darknejs, to cover , and 
man, to mark the darknefs which covers man, or in which 
the man conceals or covers himfelf; for we find in the 
written language the fame want of perfpicuity as in the 
vocal. To write the word which will fay to complain, re¬ 
quires the key deg and the key voice-, for the word which 
fignifies king , there wants the key Jceptre, the key eye, the 
key dignity. One may eafily conceive how much all this 
difplays the infancy and poverty of mind. And yet this 
miferable writing, as well as the Chinefe tongue, has found 
panegyrifts in Europe. Here, they fay, is an univerfal 
tongue and an univerfal charaCler. Can there be any 
thing more childifh than this? If an univerfal tongue 
or an univerfal character were either pofiible, furely better 
might be invented than thefe wretched efforts of the in¬ 
fancy of human nature. To fearch now in China for mo¬ 
dels of language and writing, is at the age of virility to 
return to one’s nurfe. 
If, down to the prefent time, the Chinefe have made fo 
little progrefs in the fciences ; if with regard to the cul¬ 
ture of the mind they feem for ever condemned to a nul¬ 
lity, or at lead to great mediocrity ; the caufe is princi¬ 
pally in the imperfection of their language, and in the ex- 
Vox. XII. No, S20, 
173 
ceffive inconvenience of their writing. He who, to learn 
to read and write a little, confumes the moil: adive half of 
his life, will never be more than a great boy. The im- 
menle number of figns exhaufts the intellectual faculties. 
When, in thirty or forty years, by long and painful efforts, 
a Chinefe fucceeds in acquiring 10,000 characters, he is 
in his country a diftinguiffied lcholar. Does he with at 
a ripe age to apply his mind to real fcience ? He cannot 
do it but with extreme difficulty. His judgment is be¬ 
come too weak, becaufe it has not been exercifed. No¬ 
thing is more common than to hear thefe men alking of 
the Europeans, by what means they may ftrengthen their 
memory. The examinations, fo much fpoken of, and 
which muff be fubmitted to, in order to fucceed to the 
mandarinate, that is to fay, to be, as men of letters, qua¬ 
lified for public employments, confift in a long and te¬ 
dious trial whether the candidate is fufficiently expert to 
read and write two thoufand characters ; this is all that is 
required. Thus the Chinefe, who are called learned, can 
read and write juff as much as is abfolutely neceffary; but, 
properly fpeaking, they know neither art nor fcience. Add 
to this, the obltacles which oppolethe culture of the mind, 
from the circumftance of their unformed language being 
incapable of expreffing abftraCl ideas, which are the be¬ 
ginning of all fcience. It is a diverting thing, fays one 
of our learned European writers, to witnefs a fcientific 
converfation between two Chinefe. They difpute without 
underffanding each other; they accumulate fynonymous 
terms, which perplex them more and more; when they 
have exhaufted the terms of their language, they have re- 
courfe to their fans, with which they reprefent characters 
in the air, and Iketch the figure of what they would ex¬ 
prefs ; at length they feparate as far advanced as when 
they began the difcullion. 
Thefe obfervations apply, with little exception, to the 
writing of the court, and the language of diltinguiffied 
perfons, which is called in China houan-hoa, and, in Eu¬ 
rope, the language of the mandarins, becaufe it is the 
cultomary language of the learned, and of the officers of 
raiik. It is the dialed of the province of Kiang-nan,, 
where the ancient emperors, natives of'China, held their 
refidence. It is fpoken to this day in that province and 
its environs. When the Manchoos, after having fubdued 
China, fixed the capital nearer the frontiers, they pre- 
ferved among themfelves the language of their country; but 
retained for all public affairs the language of Kiang-nan, 
which was that of the court, and is lb ftill. Hence it is, 
that in the modern capital, Pekin, this language is fpoken 
with much corrednefs and elegance, among perfons of the 
fuperior daffies. The Kouan-hca, and the language of the 
ancient books of religion, or the Five Kings, called ef- 
pecially kou-ouan, and even the common language of the 
Chinefe books, called ouan-tfekang, are really one and the 
fame language. The only difference between them, is, 
that the ftyle is more lofty and foleinn in the Kings; more 
pure and elegant in the books; lefs ftudied, and morefiin- 
ple, in ordinary converfation. 
A country io extenfive as China muft have a number 
of dialeds. It is to be regretted that we have fo littie 
information on this fubjed. The miffionaries and ambaf- 
fadors are the only perfons from whom we might exped 
elucidation; but they always aimed at keeping near the 
centre of power: thus they learn the language of the 
court, and trouble themfelves very little about the popu¬ 
lar dialeds called kiang-tan in the country. It appears 
however that thefe dialeds are all monol'yllabic; which an¬ 
nounces a common origin. China coniiits of fifteen large 
provinces, fubdivided into different diltrids. Every pro¬ 
vince, and almolt every principal city, has its own proper 
dialed. Kannpfer, in his Voyage to Japan, fpeaking of 
the three eaftern provinces Kiang-nan, Tfe-kiang, and 
Fo-kien, attributes to each a different tongue. Du Ilalde 
alfo difeovered the dialect of Fo-kien, of which there is, 
in the Berlin library, a grammar and didionary ; this is 
monofyllabical, and very analogous to the mandarin 
tongue. Neverthelefs the words are pronounced differ- 
Yy e ntly. 
