Ijami
governed the idioms spoken by such supposititious emigrants./ Similitude
between the two groups shows us merely, that the native aborigines
of Africa and of America possessed an analogous faculty of
language; and that neither could rise above a certain level, which, at
first sight, may have been taken for a common characteristic, and as
a sign of filiation.
SECTION- m .
The sketch we have just given of the families of tongues spread
over the globe’s surface has led us to observe, that the linguistic
families coincide (with tolerable exactitude) with the more trenched
divisions of mankind.
Each superior race of man is represented by two families of languages
corresponding to their largest branches, viz : the W h i t e race,
or Caucasie, by the Indo-European and Semitic tongues the Y e l l o w
race by the monosyllabic and the Ougro-Tartar tongues, otherwise
called “Finno-Japonic.” To the B l a c k race correspond the tongues
of Africa ;— to the R e d race, the tongues of America ;— to the M a la y o -
P o l y n e s i a n races, the tongues of that name ;■— to the A u s t r a l i a n
race, the idioms of Australasia. No more of homogeneity is beheld,
however, amongst the languages spoken by those inferior racés inhabiting
Africa, America, Oceanica, or Australia.
The multifarious crossings of these primitive raees,— crossings
that may be called those of the secondary race-floor—are represented
by families that possess characteristics less demarcated, and which
participate generally of the two families of idioms spoken by the
races whose intermixture gave birth to them.
The Dravidian languages partake of the Ougro-Tartar and the
monosyllabic tongues. The Hamitic languages are intermediate
between the Semitic and the African tongues. The Hottentot languages
hold to the African and the Polynesian tongues certain languages
of the Soodàn offering, also, the same character, but with a
predominance of Polynesian elements ; whereas it is the African
element that preponderates in Hottentot idioms.
The apparition of these grand linguistical formations is, therefore,
as ancient as that of the races themselves. And, in fact, speech is
with man as spontaneous as locomotion,—as the instinct of clothing
and of arming oneself. This is what the Bible shows us in the
abridged recital it gives of Creation. God causes to pass before
A-DaM, the-Mdn, all the animals and all the objects of the earth (as
it were, in a cosmorama), and the-Man gives to each a name.31 It is
impossible to declare more manifestly that speech (language) is
an innate and primitive gift. From the instant that man was created,
be must have' spoken, by virtue of the faculty he had received from
God. I
The use of this faculty has also been as different among the
diverse races of mankind as that of all other faculties. And, in the
same manner that there have been races pastoral, agricultural, piscatory
and hunting,—that there are populations grave, and populations
volatile ; adroit a,nd cunning tribes, as well as tribes stupid and shallow—
so there have been raees with language developed and powerful
populations that have attained a high degree of perfection in speech ;
whereas others have very quickly found their development arrested’
just, indeed, as there have been, and ever will be, races progressive
and races stationary.
We are unable to pierce the mystery of the origins of humanity.
We are ignorant as to a process by which God formed man, and the
Bible itself is mute in this respect. It neither resolves, nor indicates
the difficulties inherent in, the first advent of our species. But, it is
very evident that, in speaking of mankind in general,—that is to
say, of A-DaM; for such is the sense of the word—it designates,
according to Oriental habits, the race by an individual : in precisely
the same method that, in the ethnic geography of the children of
N o a h (Genesis x), it represents an entire people by a single name.
Thus, Genesis speaks to us only of the genus homo, which it personifies
in an individual to whom it attributes the supposed instincts of the
first men. This being at present settled, it cànnot be concluded
from biblical testimony that all human beings spoke one and the
same tongue at the beginning, — any more than we nan conclude
that there had been but one primitive couple.
From the origin there were different languages, as there were likewise
different tribes; and from out of these primitive families issued
all the idioms subsequently spread over the earth. Because, the
taculty of speech was, at its origin, coetaneous with the birth of mankind
; and linguistic types are not now formed, any more than new
races of men, or new animals, are being created. Existing types be-
ecome altered, modified. They cross'amongst each other within
C0 ain and with the more facility according they may
Ê È ÊiÊ È m 1 9 ; - “ J ^ o t a h -E l o h im f o rm a d e t e r r e t e a s l e s a n im a u x d e s c h am p s , to u s
l'h om me n om m e ’ * T em r Ü l l 'h om m e P o u r T« ’11 v î t à l e s n o m m e r ; e t c om m e
h p . 8 .) 'm e C r é a tu r e a n im é e > ‘ e l d e v a i t ê t r e s o n n o m .”— ( C a h e s ’s H e b r e w t e x t ,