scriptions at New Grange1 are written from right to left, and left to right alternately, as are several old Irish manuscripts. This manner was called by the Greeks boustrophedon, because it resembled the course of the plough; and we are told by General Vallancey, that it is called by the Irish, the path of the reapers.2

One other circumstance (according to these theorists) is worthy of attention; that the Irish, like the Egyptians, had a sacred character, as well as the popular or profane. The sacred character is called Ogham, and (it is said) to resemble much the characters at Persepolis. From a correspondence which took place between General Vallancey and Sir William Jones, it appears that this word ogham, or agam, denotes mysterious knowledge in the Sanscrit language; and, with respect to the word Sanscrit itself, it has been confidently stated, on the autho

1 New Grange, near Drogheda, county of Meath, where the most ancient inscriptions in Ireland are to be found.Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis, vol. ii. p. 210.

2 Ibid. p. 326.

Les caractères Irlandois appelés Ogham ont beaucoup de rapport avec ceux de Persepolis."-Bailly, Lettres sur L'Atlantide, p. 458.

4 With all due deference to so illus

trious a name, I must be permitted here to observe, that the countenance given by Sir William Jones to the speculations of General Vallancey, together with the endless Memoirs on the Sacred Isles of the West, by his ingenious friend the credulous and indefatigable Major Wilford, contributed much to procure to the dreams of the learned Irishman, the very general attention which they once drew in this island.

The following extracts from Sir William Jones's Discourses to the Society at Calcutta, will explain and justify the above remark::

"It has been observed, that the writing at Persepolis bears a strong resem

blance to that which the Irish call ogham: the word agam, in Sanscrit, means mysterious knowledge; but I dare not affirm that the two words had a common origin, and only mean to suggest, that, if the characters in question be really alphabetical, they were probably secret and sacerdotal, or a mere cipher, perhaps, of which the priests only had the key."-Works of Sir William Jones, vol. i. p. 86.

"Colonel Vallancey, whose learned inquiries into the ancient literature of Ireland are highly interesting, assures me that Crishna in Irish means the sun; and we find Apollo and Sol considered by the Roman poets as the same deity. I am inclined, indeed, to believe, that not only Crishna and Vishnu, but even Brahma and Siva, when united, and expressed by the mystical word o'м, were designed by the first idolaters to represent the solar fire," &c. &c. &c.Ibid. p. 268. "This mystical word," we are told in another part of the same discourse, never escapes the lips of a pious Hindu, who meditates on it in silence."

rity of Celtic scholars, that it denotes ancient writing in the Gaelic tongue.1

The magnificent bequest of the late Mr. Henry Flood (the celebrated orator in the Irish Parliament) to Trinity College, Dublin, was intended more particularly to promote the elucidation of these problematical and interesting facts.2 Sir Laurence Parsons mentions it as a circumstance "which he had often heard Mr. Flood notice with regret, that while in the East ingenious men were collecting and translating, with such laudable industry, the ancient writings of the inhabitants of the region between Indus and the Ganges, no attempt was made to connect their researches with those of our Celtic antiquaries. He thought that many of the truths of ancient history were to be found at these two extremities of the world; that they would reflect light and knowledge upon each other, and lead to a more certain acquaintance with the early history of man."3

Nearly twenty years have elapsed since this publication of Sir Laurence Parsons, during which time I do not hear that any progress has been made in those inquiries which the bequest of Mr. Flood was intended to encourage. From this it seems reasonable to conclude, that the discoveries which he so sanguinely anticipated have not answered his expectations; or rather, that the facts which he assumed as his data, have not been verified by a more accurate scrutiny. That such a scrutiny has taken place can scarcely be doubted, when it is considered how many Celtic scholars (both Irish and Scotch) have visited India in the course of this interval.

After the issue of this very promising enterprise, it is not surprising that the scepticism of many should be rather increased than diminished, concerning the speculations of our present race of Polyglots.

In consequence of the profound silence which has been so long maintained on this subject, the noise which it once made would probably, in the course of a few years more, have sunk

1 Ancient Metaphysics, vol. iv. p. 348. 2 The estate which Mr. Flood bequeathed for this purpose is worth £5000

a year. Sir Laurence Parsons' Observations on the Bequest of Mr. Flood, p. 70. * Ibid. pp. 55, 56.

into total oblivion, had not the patriotic bequest of Mr. Flood perpetuated the memory of General Vallancey's writings. To the rising generation, it may not be altogether useless to have alluded here to the history of this philological misadventure.

SECTION V.-MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS ON LANGUAGE,

CONTINUED.

Among the other speculations which have found favour with our modern philologers, I must not omit to mention an opinion which appears, from a dialogue of Plato, to have been also. maintained in some of the philosophical schools of ancient Greece. According to this theory, we are taught that, as nothing exists without a cause, or, as Leibnitz expresses it, without a sufficient reason, we must conclude, that the savages who first imposed names on surrounding objects, were decided in their choice of the various sounds which they employed for this purpose, by some fancied resemblance or analogy between the sound and the thing which it was to denote. In the case of sonorous objects this is easily conceivable; and, in point of fact, many examples of it may be produced from all languages. Thus, in our own, a serpent is said to hiss; a fly to buzz; a lion to roar; an ass to bray; a cock to crow. In these, and other cases of the same kind, the theory in question may be safely admitted.

In the case, however, of objects perceived by the eye alone, and, still more, of things intellectual and moral, the application of the theory becomes much more difficult. But, even in such instances, it has been imagined, that some analogy, however obscure and distant, has been fancied between the thing and its original name. In proof of this, a pretty long list has been produced of articulate sounds which have the same signification in a great variety of languages, although the things which these sounds denote seem to have no relation to any object of hearing. The mechanism of the organs by which these names are pronounced, is supposed to have some analogy

to the qualities by which the objects they denote are more peculiarly distinguished; and this trifling circumstance has been presumed sufficient to decide the choice, where all other things were equal.1 Thus the President de Brosses conceives, that, in most languages, st is significant of stability or rest; f of fluency; cl of a gentle descent, &c. A similar fancy was indulged long before by the cool mathematical head of Dr. Wallis, who, in his Grammar of the English Language, represents it as one of the distinguishing excellencies of our tongue, that it abounds with words beginning with combinations of letters expressive of the things they signify. "Notandum autem est, in vocibus linguæ nostræ nativis, magnam ut plurimum literarum reique significatæ consensum reperiri.

Adeoque literarum soni tenuiores, acutiores, crassiores, obtusiores, molliores, fortiores, clariores, obscuriores, magisque striduli, &c. pares non raro in rebus significatis affectus innuunt, et quidem plures nonnunquam in eadem voce licet

In the following passage of Aulus Gellius, an attempt is made to point out a relation between the configuration of the organs and emission of the voice in the pronunciation of the monosyllables vos (you) and nos (we,) and the respective meanings of these words. His reasonings bear a remarkable resemblance to those of some ingenious French writers.

"It is a question which has been much agitated among philosophers, whether names are natural signs of things, or imposed by chance. On this subject P. Nigidius, in his Literary Commentaries, has maintained that words, both proper names and appellatives, have been assigned to objects not by accidental appropriation, but by some instinctive impulse of nature. To prove that words are thus natural rather than arbitrary signs, he adduces various arguments. From these I' have selected the following as ingenious and curious. When we say vos," he ob

serves, we make use of a certain motion of the organs of speech corresponding with the signification of the word; that is, we gradually protrude the lips, and impel the breath towards the persons whom we address. But, on the contrary, when we pronounce the word nos, there neither occurs any forward impulse of the breath, nor any protrusion of the lips, but we direct the movement both of lips and breath inwards, as it were, to ourselves. The same circumstances may be remarked when we say ego and tu, or mihi and tibi. For, in like manner, as when by signs we reject or assent to a request, the motion of the head and of the eyes bears some analogy to the thing signified, so in the words of which we have been speaking, we may observe, if I may so express it, the instinctive gesticulation of the mouth and the breath. The same remarks apply to the corresponding words in the Greek language." A. Gellius, Noctes Atticæ, lib. x. cap. 4.

monosyllaba.1 Et hoc quidem tam frequenter, ut vix ulla, quam scio, lingua hac in re huic nostræ æquiparanda videatur: Adeo ut in una nonnunquam voce monosyllaba (quales sunt nostræ fere omnes, si flectionem demas) illud sig

1 This combination of letters has struck our most eminent etymologists, more, perhaps, than any other; not only Wallis, but the President Des Brosses and Court de Gebelin. "Nous ne citerons ici," says the last of these writers, "qu'un seul exemple de cette nature; mais il vaut lui seul une légion : c'est st. Ce mot désigne la propriété d'être fixé, arrêté, de rester en place; c'est le mouvement ou le cri de ceux qui désirent qu'on s'arrête, qu'on reste en place; d'où vient cela, si ce n'est parce qu'en prononçant s, on produit un espèce de siflement qui excite l'attention de celui qui va devant ; et que l'intonation t qui venant à la suite, est séche, briève, et fixe, indique naturellement la fixité dans laquelle on désire que soit cette personne."

Quoi qu'il en soit, aucune langue d'Europe, dans laquelle st ne soit la racine d'une multitude de mots, regardés eux-mêmes comme des mots radicaux.”—Monde Primitif, tom. iii. p. 353.