Greek is, Latin ovis, Gothic awi, Anglo-Saxon eophe, English ewe, Lithuanian awis, Russian owen, Gaelic uan, Cymric oen. The native country of this animal, therefore, is Central Asia, and the knowledge of it was brought into Europe by branches of one and the same great race. In like manner the cock is proved to be of Indian origin; in Sanscrit kukkutas, in German gockel, in Russian koczet, in Cymric cok.

The same principles are equally applicable to botany, and the results are equally interesting. The cocoa is known from Madagascar to Easter Island, that is to say, over almost twothirds of the circumference of the globe, and among so many nations differing widely in language and degree of civilization, by its Javanese names of Kalapa and Nyor, because this useful plant appears to have been propagated, in the first instance, by a people speaking the language of Java. On the other hand, the Indian fig (musa paradisiaca,) the bread fruit, the banana-tree, the sago-palm, and many other plants, have each different names among the different tribes and communities where they grow, because they are here indigenous. The most remarkable instance, however, is in the case of the tobacco plant. This receives in America, where it is indigenous, a hundred different names, throughout the various languages spoken by the Aborigines, whereas, in every part of the old world and of Western Oceanica, it is only known by appellations derived from the tabaco of the Spaniards and Portuguese, which is itself a derivative from the Haitian tamaku or tambaku.

But to return to the more immediate object of linguistic science, the affiliation of languages; we have said that this affiliation exists in a very striking degree among the languages composing what is called the Indo-Germanic chain, and that it proves conclusively the Asiatic origin of the earlier tongues of Europe. To enter minutely into these points of resemblance, would be out of place on the present occasion, and would serve rather to repel than invite attention. We must be excused, however, for stating some few particulars, since they will be found to have a direct bearing on what immediately succeeds. The enumeration which we are about to make, will be confined to some of the more important roots in Sanscrit, and to a tracing of analogies in the Indo-Germanic languages. One circumstance cannot fail to excite surprise, and we request for it the particular attention of the reader; that, independently of the Indo-Germanic chain, a number of roots will be found in the Sanscrit, which have been preserved in the Finnish and Samoiede dialects of the north of Europe.-The Sanscrit words are ranged in the second column.

* No idea is at the same time more simple in itself, and more productive of expressions, than that of Deity. Each nation, being unable either to understand the nature of the divine essence, or to express its perfection, has proceeded by a species of approximation, and indicated the characteristic which has struck it most forcibly. Thus, among the people of the south, God is splendor, light. The Sanscrit term for deity is derived, like the names for "heaven" and "day," from the verb div, "to be brilliant." Among the people of the north, on the other hand, God is purity, virtue. Thus, in Gothic, Guth; in German, Gott; in English, God, (analogous to "good," the German, "gut,") and traceable to the Sanscrit cuddhas, "pure," ," "virtuous," which is itself derived from the verb cudh, "to purify." Among the people of the east, God is prosperity, happiness: in Slavonic and Russian, Bog, traceable to the Sanscrit bhagas, "fortune," "lot," from bhag, " to distribute."

Zemin, Persian.

River,

Dhouni,

Zemlia, Slavonic.

Don, doun,* Ossetes of Caucasus.

We have here given only a very small number of affinities. The list might easily be extended to several hundred, all equally striking, and all openly militating against the absurd theory of Dugald Stewart, that the Sanscrit is derived from the Greek. This celebrated writer, in his last volume of the philosophy of the human mind, supposes, that the conquests of Alexander in India, and the subsequent founding of a Greek empire in Bactria, diffused among the native inhabitants a knowledge of the Greek language,and that the Brahmins availed themselves of this circumstance to invent a sacred dialect, now known by the name of the Sanscrit. It is surprising that so acute a reasoner as Mr. Stewart, should not have perceived at once the utter fallacy of this singular position. A sacred dialect means of course one not understood by the mass of the people, and such a one could only have been formed by adapting Greek terminations to the vernacular tongue, or by framing it entirely from the Greek. Now, in the one case, the sacred language would, with very little trouble, have been learnt by the people in general; while, in the latter, it must of course have been understood by the Greeks themselves. In neither point of view then is the opinion a tenable one.

Besides, if the theory of Stewart be true, what becomes of the numerous affinities that exist, not only in roots but in grammatical structure also, between the Sanscrit on the one hand, and the Zend, Persian, Celtic, Gothic, and Slavonic languages on the other? The idea of these tongues being employed as auxiliaries in forming the sacred dialect of India, would be supremely ridiculous. What becomes, too, of the remarkable fact, that a language closely resembling in some respects the Sanscrit tongue is still found among the mountaineer-tribes in the great range of the Himmala? In what light moreover are we to regard the singular circumstance, that nine-tenths of the Hindoo, which, with a mixture of Persic, forms the modern Hindostanee, may be traced back to the parent Sanscrit, that there are few words in the Bengalee which are not evidently of the same origin, and that all the principal languages of India contain much pure as well as corrupt Sanscrit? Even the dialect of the Gipsey race, who are now clearly proved to

The same root is found in the names of several rivers of the West, such as Don, Dan-ubius, Dan-asteris, Dan-aperis, Eri-dan-us, Rho-dan-us, Dun-a, Tan-ais (Don), &c.

be of Hindoo origin, shows many traces of Sanscrit roots,* and if the opinion of some writers be correct, that these wandering tribes formed originally part of the lowest caste in India, or what are denominated Parias, a most conclusive argument is obtained, to show that the Sanscrit must at one time have been spoken by all classes, and not been confined, like a dead language, to the writings of the Brahmins.

If any thing be needed, on this side of the question, in addition to what has already been advanced by us, it will be found in the fact, that the five rivers of the Panjeab, which fall into the Indus, bore Sanscrit names in the time of Alexander, the same as they at present do. The Hydaspes of Nearchus, for example, is the Bydasta of the Sanscrit, and the connecting link between the Macedonian and Sanscrit orthography is found in Ptolemy's Bidaspes. The Hydraotes is the Irawutti; the Hyphasis, the Baypasha, with Ptolemy's Bipasis for the link; while in the Sandabala (Acesines) we easily recognise the Sanscrit Chandar-Bahka, and in the Zadadrus (Saranges) the Shatooder or Sutledj.+

Our readers will pardon the dry detail into which we have led them, for the sake of its importance in settling a question, on which many of our own literati appear to entertain, at best, very vague and indefinite ideas, while others of them again have adopted, without any hesitation, the absurd conclusions of Mr. Stewart. An opinion has also gone abroad, that the advocates for the Sanscrit make that language to have been the parent of the Indo-Germanic tongues. Nothing can be more erroneous than such a charge. The principles of sound linguistic recognise no such process as the generation or production of one language by another. If striking affinities be discovered between different tongues, the latter are regarded as sister languages, proceeding from one common source, and the term affiliation is employed to indicate this degree of mutual relationship. The Indo-Germanic chain, therefore, is to be regarded as composed of sister-tongues, but it is by no means to be

A few instances may be here cited: Eye, in the Gipsey dialect Jakh, in Sanscrit Aksehi. Thief, Tschor, in Sanscrit Tschora. Thou, tu, in Sanserit tuam. Flesh, Mas, in Sanscrit Amisza. Man, Manusch, in Sanscrit Manoussya. Milk, Tud, in Sanscrit Dudha. Black, Kalo, in Sanscrit Kala. Silver, Rup, in Sanscrit Rupya. Day, Dives, in Sanscrit Devasi, in Malay Diw. Water, Pani, in Sanscrit Panir, &c.

+ A professed etymologist might carry this geographical argument still farther, and detect in the name of the Him-mala chain of mountains, the same root which forms the basis of the Thracian Ham-us, the Attic Hym-ettus, the Greek yara (snow,) and the German him mel (heaven.) The connecting link would be the idea of a lofty mountain range, rearing its snowy summits

to the skies.