In the genealogical record of the race of Ham (CJen. x) reference is made to the ^'■tongues" (or dialctt-s) which they spoke (ver. 20). Comparative philology, which is so rich in illustrations of the unity of the Indo- Germanic languages, h^s done next to nothing to eluci- date the lingiustic relations of the families of Ham. PhUologers are not agreed as to a Hamitic class of lan- guages. Eecently Bunsen has apphed the term " Ham- itism," or, as he writes it, Chamitism, to the Egyptian language, or, rather, family. He places it at the head of the " Shemitic stock," to which he considers it as but
HAM
42
HAM
partially iK-longins, and thus describes it : " Chamitism, or aiite-historical JShemitism; the Chamitic deposit iii E;,'ypt; it^ dau};hter, the Uemotic Egyptian; and its cnii the Coptic" (Otitlines, i, 1S:>). Sir 1 1. Kawlinson has applied the term Cushite to the ])rimitive language of Habylonia, and the same term has been used for the an- cient language of the southern coast of .Vrabia. This terminobgv dei)cnds in every instance upon the race of the nation" speaking the language, and not upon any theory of a llamitic class. There is evi.lence which, at the first view, would incline us to consider that the term Slieniitic, as aitplied to the Syro- Arabic class, should be changed to llamitic; but, on a more carefid examina- tion, U becomes evident that any absolute classification of languages into groups corresponding to the three great Noachian families is not tenable. The Bibhcal evidence seems, at first sight, in favor of Hebrew being classed as a Hamitic rather than a Shemitic form of speech. It is called in the Bible " the language of Ca- naan," '("33 rS'J (fsa. xix, 18), although those speak- ing it are elsewhere said to speak n'^'lliT', Judaice (2 Kings xviii, 2G, 28: Isa. xxxvi, 11, 13; Neh. xiii, 24). But the one term, as Gesenius remarks {Gramm. Introd.), indicates the country Avhere the language was spoken ; the other as evidently indicates a people by whom it was spoken : thus the question of its being a Hamitic or a Shemitic language is not touched ; for the circum- stance that it was the language of Canaan is agreeable with its being either indigenous (and therefore cither Canaanite or lieiiliaite), or adopted (and therefore per- haps Shemitic). The names of Canaanitish persons and jilaces, as (iesenius has observed (/. c), conclusively show that the Canaanites spoke what we call Hebrew. Elsewhere we miglit find evidence of the use of a so- calii'd Sliomitic language by nations either partly or will illy of Hamitic origin. This evidence woidd favor the tlieory that Hebrew was Hamitic ; but, on the other liand, we should he unable to dissociite Shemitic lan- guages from Shemitic peoples. Tiie Rg\'])tian language would also offer great dilliclilties. unless it were held to he but partly of Hainiiic origin, since it is mainly of an entirely different class from the Slicmific. It is mainly Nigritian, imt it also contains Shemitic elements. It is the opinion of the latest philologers that the ground- work is Nigritian, and that the Shemitic part is a layer added to a complete Nigritian language. The two ele- ments are mixed, liut not fused. Some Iranian schol- ars hold that the two elements are mixed, and that the ancient Egyptian represents the transition from Tura- nian to Shemitic. Tlie only solution of the difficulty seems to be that what we call Shemitic is early Noachi- an. (See l{awlinson. Fire Great ^fnnarchie.% First Mon. cli. iv; Lenormant, Introduction h thistoire de VAsie oc- riihntule, \" Appeiidice; Jleier, Jlcb. Wurzd. w. b. 3'^ Aiihang; Gesenius, Sketch of the Ilebr. Lmvj. (prefixed to liis Grammar) ; IJunsen, JJ/z/pt's I'lace, etc., vol. i, Ajipeud. 1 ; Wiseman, Lectures on Science and Revealed liilifwn, y. 445, 2d cd. ; Jlax MiUler, Science of Lan- fjuiif/e, p. 2G0.) See Shemitic Languages.
Theories more or less specious have been formed to nccouiit for these affinities to the Hebrew from so many points of tiie llamilic nations. None of these theories rise above the .iegree of precarious hvi.othesis, nor could it be exiiected that they should in the imperfection of our i)resent knowledge. It is, indeed, satisfactory to observe that the tendency of linguistic intpiiries is to establish the fact avouched in the Pentateuch of the ongmal unity of human speech. The most conspicu- ous achievement of comparative ],hil„l„gv hitherto has been to prove the affinity of the membiTs of that lar-e clas,s of languages which extend from tlie Eastern San- scrit (o tlie Western Welsh; i-aralhl with this is the conipar--;..!, among themselves of the various members of the .Shemitic cla-ss of languages, which has demonstra- ted their essential identity; but greater still will l)e the work of estabUshiiig, on certain principles, the natural
relationship of tongues o^ different classes. Among these, divergences must needs be wider; but when occasional affinities croj} out they will be proportionately valuable as evidences of a more ancient and profound agreement, It seems to us that the facts, which have thus far trans- pired, indicative of affinity between the languages of the Hamitic and Shemitic races, go some way to show the probability of the historical and genealogical record of which we have been treating, that the tribes to whom the said languages were vernacular were really of near kindred and often associated in abode, either by con- quest or amicable settlement, with one another.