The confusion of tongues and the dispersion of na- tions are spoken of in the Bible as contemporaneous events. "So the Lord scattered them abroad" is stated as the execution of the divine counsel " Let us con- found their language." The divergence of the various families into distinct tribes and nations ran parallel with the divergence of speech into dialects and languages, and thus the tenth chapter of (Jenesis is posterior in liistorical sequence to the events recorded in the elev- enth cliapter. Both passages nmst be taken into con- sideration in any disquisition on the early fortunes of the human race. We propose, therefore, to inquire, in the first place, how far modern researches into the phe- nomena of language favor the idea that there was once a time when " tiie whole earth was of one speech and language: and, in the second place, whether the ethno- logical views exhibited in the Mosaic table accord with the evidence furnished b\' history and language, both in regard to tlie special facts recorded in it and in the general scriptural view of a historical, or, more properlv, a gentilic, unity of the human race. These questions, though independent, yet exercise a rertexive influence on each other's results. Unity of speech does not nec- essarily involve unity of race, nor yet vice versa ; but each enhances the pr<)bai)ility of the other, and there- fore the arguments derived from language, physiology, and history may ultimately furnish a cumidative amount of probability which will fall but little below demon- j titration.
(A.) The advocate of the historical miity of language lias to encounter two classes of opposing arguments: \
one arising out of the differences, the other out of the resemblances, of existing languages. On the one hand, it is urged that the differences are of so decisive and specific- a character as to place Xlie possibility of a com- mon origin wholly out of the question; on the other hand, that the resemblances do not necessitate the the- ory of a historical unity, but may be satisfactorilv ac- counted for on psychological principles. It will be our object to discuss the amount, the value, and the proba- ble origin of the varieties exhibited by languages, with a view to meet the first class of objections. But, before proceeding to this, we will make a few remarks on the second class, inasmuch as these, if established, would nul- lify any conclusion that might be drawn frotn the other.
A psychological unity is not necessarily opposed to a gentilic unit_y. It is perfectly open to any theorist to combine the two by assuming that the language of the one protoplast was founded on strictly psychological principles. But, on the other hand, a psychological unity does not necessitate a gentilic unity. It permits of the theory of a pluralitj' of protoplasts, who, under the influence of the same psychological laws, arrived at similar independent results. Whether the phenome- na of language are consistent with such a theory, we think extremely doubtful; certainly they camiot fur- nish the basis of it. The whole question of the origin of language lies beyond the pale of historical proof, and any theor\' connected with it admits neither of being proved nor disproved. We know, as a matter of fact, that language is communicated from one generation to another solely by force of imitation, and that there is no play whatever for the inventive faculty in reference to it. But in what manner the substance of language was originally produced we do not know. No argu- ment can be derived against the common origin from analogies drawn from the animal world; and when Prof. Agassiz compares similarities of language with those of the cries of animals (Von Bohlen, Inirod. to Gen. ii, 278), he leaves out of consideration the important fact that language is not identical with sound, and that the worxis of a rational being, however originally produced, are ])erpetuated in a manner wholly distinct from that whereby animals learn to utter their cries. Nor does the internal evidence of language itself reveal the mys- tery of its origin ; for, though a very large number of words may be referred either directly or mediately to the principle of onomatopoeia, there are others — as, for instance, the first and second personal pronouns — which do not admit of such an explanation. In sliort, this and otlier similar tlieories cannot be reconciled with the intimate connection evidenth' existing between reason and speech, which is so well expressed in the Greek language by the application of the term Xo- yof to each, reason being nothing else than inward speech, and speech nothing else than outward reason, neither of them possessing an independent existence without the other. As we conceive that the psjxho- logical as opposed to the gentilic unity involves ques- tions comiected with the origin of language, we can only say that in this respect it falls outside the range of our inquiry.
Reverting to the other class of objections, we proceed to review the extent of the differences observable in the languages of tiie world in order to ascertain wheth- er they are such as to preclude the possibility of a com- mon origin. Such a review must necessarily be im- perfect, both from the magnitude of the sid)ject and also from the position of the linguistic science itself, which as yet has hardly advanced beyond the stage of infancy. On the latter point we would observe that the most important links between the various language families may yet be discovered in languages that are either unexplored or, at all events, unplaced. ]\Iean- while, no one can doubt that the tendency of all lin- guistic research is in the direction of unity. Already it has brought within the bonds of a well-established relationship languages so remote from each other in