from each patriarch of the Caucasian nations. They are all
sons of Thargamos, who is thus common progenitor ,of^|he'
Georgians, Armenians, and the Caucasian tribes«. The
country of Hhaos or Haig, the Armenian patriarch,' is- then
afterwards invaded by the Khazars from, the north, and the
Khartlosian territory by Aphridun-j-y-Feridun—with an
army of Persians from the South, This Aphridan is said
to have been of the race of Neb rod.”s ;
This Georgian chronicle is a mere jumble of. stories,
founded partly on the book of Genesis, with „scraps Of
almost modern .history, and. with the Mirkhondian story
of Persia. To found any historical conclusion on such
evidence would be absurd. Yet it sterns tQ;he held in great
esteem by the learned French students of »Georgian and
Armenian literature, as it probably was by Klaproth, whqj
reserved his literary scepticism and contempt for the
contents of our Sacred Scriptures. \
In this chronicle of Vahktang we are told, that aïlther
eight tribes descended from Thargamos,- the^Qgorgians ,of
course included^ spoke originally one. language, in all thff
country between the Caspian, called the Sea of Gargani,
and the Eüxine. This language was the Somkhpuri, that is
thé Armenian. M. Brosset observes, “ Cela dût étj?0,^puisque
ces peoples sont fils de dèux5-frères, Karthfosjet HaïJ^||
M. Brosset has examined with great care the Georgian
grammar. He is the first writer who has entertained the
idea of referring this idiom to the Indo-European family
of languages. He says, “ On croit voir que si, par l’ensemble
de sa méthode il rentre dans la grande famille
Ïndo-Germaniqué, il s’est implanté avec ses radicaux sur
l’antique réjeton Mède c. à. d. Persan et Arménien, en-
adoptant en partie les formes grammaticales du Zend.
Quant à la syntaxe je ne lui connois aucune analogie.” M.
Brosset seems rather to have inferred from the testimony of
the chronicle that, proved by facts the relation of the
Georgian to the Indo-German languages, and the only
member of this groupe between which and the Georgian
be has attempted to institute a comparison is the Armenian,
one of remote and but lately admitted claint to affinity
The observation with which the comparison is ushered in
is^rathe^fn the manner, of an à priori statement’of thé case*,
and indicates- greater^rélian'ce on ihistôriéal tradition than
some pèEsbiis^rotild be disposed to allow! He says,<e Si les
deux langues Arménienne et'Géorgienne sont soeurs, elles né
doiventMsfö.dtdif’énlaëTOifiêht rompu leurs liens dè famille ;
voici dole les rapports que F%n observe entre ê$ès.” The
analogies pointed-out are first- in îthfe elements of articulation,
which howeweï“Vie not|jépmplete. .^hé vowels and
consonants are neafily thf%amerbuf fföé Georgians substitute
guttural's’ for Armenian sibilants, and pronounce Bagrat
when the- Armenians write andbptënouncë Passarad. With
respect ocab’ulary of the two languages M. Brosset
says, that Vbdre is a great numbéhtöf ’ words common to
both languages. In^lboking^ hastily bver the Armenian
dictionary of Augei^tfe Vdiscovered at' the first cursory
inspection two hundred and fifty Georgian words. Whether
thebe’ are a- part of an original stock of wordsdominon to
both languages or have been subsequently borrowed by one
language Trom thédtber we arelhbt informed. ' The resemblances
' Iw-tgrammatical structure: appear tö-be few and by
fi;|> means conclusive. After all that has been urged”and
said it is evident that thi$-$hbject requires a more careful
investigation before we can venture to conclude the'Armenian
and Georgian to be kindred languages. At present
this assertion rests on no better authority than the tradition
already cited, and the opinion of Klaproth, who considered
the Georgian, notwithstanding its* possessing Some resemblance
t-o the Indo-European, and Still m-ore to the Northern
Asiatic idioms, as a separate and distinct language,' is still
the conclusion to which we are lbd by facts. The following
are the Georgian numerals, most of which differ from the
Armenian and from all the Indo-EurOpean words of number,
while the latter are all plainly similar among themselves*:—
1, Ert’i ; 2 , Ori; 3, Sami; 4, Ot’chi; 5, Chat’i ;
6 , Ekwsi ; 7, Schwidi; Ö, Rwa ; 9, Zchna ; 10, At’i ;
lOOyAsi.
The physical characters of the Georgian race are similar
to those of the most beautiful of European races. The