the connexion between words and ideas, that no learning whatever can be obtained without their aid and interposition. In proportion as the former are studied and examined, the latter become clear and complete; and according as words convey our meaning in a full and adequate manner, we avoid the inconvenience of being misunderstood, and are secure from the perplexity of doubt, the errors of misconception, and the cavils of dispute. It must always be remembered, that words are merely the arbitrary signs of ideas, connected with them by custom, not allied to them by nature; and that each idea, like a ray of light, is liable to be tinged by the medium of the word through which it passes. The volumes of controversy which fill the libraries of the learned would have been comparatively very small, if the disputants who wrote them had given a clear definition of their principal terms. Accurate definition is one of the most useful parts of logic; and we shall find, when we come to the examination of that subject, that it is the only solid ground upon which reason can build her arguments, and proceed to just conclusions.

In order that the true sense of words may be ascertained, and that they may strike with their whole force, derivation must lend its aid to definition. It is this which points out the source from whence a word springs, and the various streams of signification that flow from it. The student, while employed in tracing the origin of Language, and ascertaining its signification, will reap great advantage from calling history to his assistance; and he will find that allusions, idioms, and figures of speech are illustrated by particular facts, opinions, and institutions. The customs of the Greeks throw light upon the expressions of their au

thors; without some acquaintance with the Roman laws, many forms of expression in the Orations of Cicero are unintelligible; and many descriptions in the Old and New Testament are obscure, unless they are illustrated by a knowledge of eastern manners. Furnished with such aids, the scholar acquires complete, not partial information; throws upon Language all the light that can be reflected from his general studies; and imbibes, as far as a modern can imbibe it, the true and original spirit of ancient authors.

As long as any one confines his studies solely to his native tongue, he cannot understand it perfectly, or ascertain with accuracy its poverty or richness, its beauties or defects. He who cultivates other languages as well as his own, gains new instruments to increase the stock of his ideas, and opens new roads to the temple of knowledge. He draws his learning from pure sources, converses with the natives of other countries without the assistance of an interpreter, and surveys the contents of books without the dim and unsteady light of translations. He may unite the speculations of a philosopher with the acquirements of a linguist; he may compare different tongues, and form just conclusions with respect to their defects and beauties, and their correspondence with the temper, genius, and manners of a people. He may trace the progress of national refinement, and discover by a comparison of arts and improvements with their correspondent terms, that the history of Language, inasmuch as it developes the efforts of human genius, and the rise and advancement of its inventions, constitutes an important part of the history of Man.

I. THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE.

Various theories have been formed to account for the origin of language, which, however ingenious, are far from being satisfactory. The celebrated author of the Wealth of Nations supposes "two savages, who had never been taught to speak, and who had been bred up remote from the societies of men, would naturally begin to form that language, by which they would endeavour to make their sentiments intelligible to each other, by uttering certain sounds, whenever they meant to denote objects." Thus they would begin to give names to things, to class individual objects under a species, which they denoted by a common name, and proceed gradually to the formation of all the parts of speech.*

The condition of these two savages is wholly imaginary, as it cannot apply to any persons, who have ever been known to exist. It may fairly be asked, how they came into such a state? Was it in consequence of their own previous determination? If it was, then they must have conversed, in order to make such an agreement. If it was not the result of such a measure, they must have been placed there by other rational and talking beings, and must consequently have acquired from them the names, which in their recluse condition they applied to the surrounding objects. If they borrowed the terms from others, then of course the hypothesis of a language, considered as an invention of the savages themselves, falls at once to the ground.

Considerations concerning the first formation of languages, in Smith's Theory of moral Sentiments, vol. ii, p. 403.

Some instances, it may be granted, have been reported of persons, who have been found in a wild state, without education or the use of speech: but no accurate and well-authenticated account is given of the exact time of life, when they were first placed in such a state, or of their manner of living. Upon such weak principles, therefore, no argument can be established to confirm the truth of the hypothesis.

The theory of Lord Monboddo, embellished as it is by quotations from ancient authors, and supported by plausible arguments, is liable to similar objections. (Origin of Language, vol. i, p. 514, 545, 626, vol. iv, p. 50.) He supposes, that language was not originally natural to man, and that the political state of society was necessary for its invention. This principle forms the basis of his elaborate work on the origin and progress of language. He asserts that man in his natural state is a wild animal, without language or arts of any kind. To prove this point, he cites the opinions of Lucretius and Horace, who describe the human race as first rising from the earth, mute and savage, and living for some time in a state of war, before the invention of arts and the establishment of laws introduced the improvement of manners. He quotes descriptions from the works of Diodorus Siculus, Leo Africanus, and other writers. But in the whole detail of his authorities, there is not one strong and well attested fact, that is strictly and indisputably to his purpose. The and fanciful descriptions of poets vague cannot be admitted as proper evidence in such a case. The accounts of Diodorus Siculus, and the other writers whom he presses into his service, are taken from the reports of credulous travellers. Some of them are not to the purpose; in many of the others

are circumstances highly improbable, or evidently false. Some of the descriptions are not sufficiently accurate to enable us to ascertain, whether the beings, that were observed by travellers to live in a wild state, were really men, or inferior animals. Lord Monboddo is aware that the arguments of Rousseau, founded upon the principle that there could be no society without language, press with great force against his whole system. To what instances then has he recourse to extricate himself from the difficulty? Not to an example taken from a race of men possessing the faculty of reason, and the organs of speech; but from the beavers of Canada, and the foxes of the river Danastris! When he ought to adduce instances of men, he produces those of inferior animals; and his descriptions of them are so extraordinary, that they are entitled to very little credit. When he speaks of society, he certainly must be understood to mean cnly the state of such creatures, as, destitute of the organs of speech, herd together merely as they are impelled by the force of instinct. Such a state is more properly to be called gregarious, than sociable; because to the latter term is always applied some idea of a disposition to converse, and to communicate thought, which is totally inconsistent with the nature of any beings, not endowed with the faculty of speech.

How the original societies of men could have been formed without the aid of language, or language invented without society, are points which the disquisitions of these writers, however ingenious, are far from enabling us to settle. The only rational and satisfactory method of solving the difficulty is to refer the origin of speech to the great Creator himself. Not that it is