Part 6

[42-*] “In ethnology however one troubles oneself little with the detail of linguistic structure. It is held quite sufficient to gather from different peoples and collate a couple of hundred vocables, into whose actual nature all insight is lacking, and then upon dubious, often purely superficial and apparent similarities, to deduce linguistic affinities. Or else, as is now most in fashion, the claims of linguistic research towards the solution of ethnological questions are reduced to a ‘most modest share’ in comparison with other fields ‘somewhat more in line with natural sciences’--meanwhile pointing for justification to the absurdities set forth as the results of too far-fetched linguistic deductions.... The errors and sophistries charged against ethnological linguistics are rather an accidental result of the individuality of single investigators, than essential to the subject. They are at least scarcely greater than those to the credit of recent Anthropometry. A brief glance at the strange changes of opinion in the latter field during the last three decades, in spite of all its boasted figures, shows how little ground it has to throw stones. Serious students, such as Wallace and Dall, whose critical ability in Zoomorphology no one can deny, and who do not rest content with a few skulls of doubtful _provenance_, gathered à la Hagenbeck, have come to a wholly negative view of the value of Craniometry.”--Dr. Otto Stoll, _Maya-Sprachen der Pokom-Gruppe_, I, vii, ix.

[43-*] Our present day speculators never seem to think for a moment that these things may conceal, _and thereby preserve_, some real meaning, or be more than nonsense. The theory of mythological interpretation pushed to such extremes as in the “animistic” _explanations_ of Weber, Keightley, and others, and not absent from the writings of some Americanists (namely, that it was all nothing but ridiculous or concocted fancy, taken soberly) is bad enough, and argues little breadth or insight, when applied to the myths of a single people, considered alone. Applied to comparative mythology, in the state of things today, it is simply impossible. The plain fact is, that such identities as these must indicate one of two things: a common tradition, locally modified by circumstances; or a _fact in nature_ or _history_, symbolically expressed in different ways according to the times and modes. And it most probably indicates both of these. It is indeed hard to account for the extent, and the weight given to some of these “myths,” now that we are coming to a better appreciation of the scope and greatness of ancient civilizations--everywhere--except they do correspond to actual _facts_ in nature and history. And it might be worth our while to get at some of these.

[45-*] We might just as well acknowledge, once for all, that in spite of its present-day currency in England and America, and its pre-emption of the field of “science for the people,” the theory of man’s physical and mental descent from the anthropoids, is not only _not proved_, but is vehemently denied by an equally able and scientific, and withal more logical, body of researchers than those who form its supporters. To _fabricate_ a missing link in a chain (or even, as with Haeckel, several links), whose only authority is acknowledged to be its necessity in order to complete the evidence for the theory, and then to declare the theory proved because the fabricated link fits perfectly the gap it was created for, is equally vicious scientifically whether the fabrication be the work of a physicist of renown or a linguistic theorizer. Let it simply be agreed, as it now is by all science, that the _evolution of form_ is a universal and well evidenced principle, working out through the various well established and comprehensible incidents, such as natural selection, adaptation to environment, and so on--yet this statement of the fact is not an explanation of its cause. And every scientific and logical requirement will be equally, and better, met by regarding all forms, whether physical, linguistic, or of any kind, as coming, or rather brought, into being by the force of a consciousness which needs them as the vehicles of its expanding activity. That this is absolutely true in language, anybody can see. That it is true in every department of daily life about us, everybody _does_ see. That it should be equally true in biology and physics, would not affect the standing or verity of a single _observed_ fact.

There was, along about the beginning of the Christian era, and for some time before and after, a very curious movement, which seemed to spread itself over nearly the entire world, east and west. It is told of the early Aztecs that “they destroyed the records of their predecessors, in order to increase their own prestige.” It is related that writing once existed in Peru, but was entirely wiped out, and the Inca records committed to quipus alone. The “burning of the books” under Tsin Chi Hwangti in B. C. 213 sought to do the same for China. The times of Akbar witnessed much of the same in India. And in Europe almost nothing was left to tell the tale of the great pre-Christian eastern empires and systems of thought; so that from the establishment of State Christianity under Constantine, and the final settlement of the Canon at the Council of Nicaea, an impenetrable veil was drawn over the achievements and greatness of the Past, and all connexion therewith broken off. It was some time after this that we find the heliocentric theory, as well as that of other habitable worlds, denied (in Europe), because “it would deprive the Earth of its unique and central eminence.” Just as we also today are served up with prehistoric savage and animal ancestors, to the greater glory of our own present-day magnificence. But it really is in sober truth only a question of mental perspective which does not affect the facts of history, biology, archaeology or language in the least. It is only a question of which end of the telescope we look through.

[49-*] It is exceedingly interesting to trace the course of criticism since the appearance of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s great work, _Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts_ (Berlin, 1836). Dr. Brinton gave it most unqualified approval; (see especially his monograph read before the American Philosophical Society in 1885, and printed the same year). Prof. H. Steinthal (_Grammatik, Logik und Psychologie_, 1855) calls the subject of “inner form” the most important one in linguistic science, and von Humboldt’s treatment of it his greatest contribution to that science. And so on. But the work has nevertheless received little attention from a large number of writers, most of them declaring it “unclear.” These two views, when one studies the various writers, seem to follow closely upon the standpoints from which each approaches the study. Those who study language (perhaps one should here say, languages) as a phenomenon, a set of external forms, an act, a thing done, get little use out of von Humboldt’s work. Those who see it as a human “activity,” an energy, get much. This is quite apparent in one of the clearest and ablest linguistic works which has recently appeared, Dr. Adolf Noreen’s _Vårt Språk_ (in 9 vols., still in course of publication, Lund, 1903 and later), a work of far wider linguistic value than appears from its title. Dr. Noreen, however, dismisses von Humboldt’s work, and the subject of “inner form,” with a few pages, and the results are apparent in several interesting points. In the first place, in the course of an acute and critical analysis, wherein he shows that the purpose of speech is not simply _expression_ of thoughts or ideas, but the communication to some other person of the _knowledge_ of the ideas so held by the speaker, he goes on to say: “the same knowledge of A’s wishes could be as well communicated by his saying ‘I want you to come’ as by his saying just ‘Come.’” This is quite true; but the _energic_ effect is quite different. Language is the bridge from man to man, and it is also a _creative activity_ of man. Of course Dr. Noreen, in a later volume, where he most lucidly analyses the terms ‘words,’ ‘forms,’ and ‘concepts,’ etc. (_ord_, _morfem_, _semem_, etc.), and corrects many errors of definition made by his predecessors, acknowledges the difference between the two forms; still his whole admirable work, analytical and critical as it is, is devoted to this phase of language as a mere phenomenon, a set of forms which serve as a medium of communication. From this standpoint, we know all there is to know about language when we have classified its forms. But from the other, the study is ever leading us into the regions and depths of man’s consciousness, his creative activity as it goes out to the world; and the true definition of language, from this position, “can hence only be a genetic one.” (von Humboldt, _Gesammelte Werke_, VI, 42)

It is further not unworthy of note that, except where directly required in treating of verbal categories, nearly all of the enormous number of illustrations which Dr. Noreen chooses for his points, are _nouns_, names of _things_, and vary rarely verbal forms, words of action and _doing_. But it is simply a fact that all the _potency_ of language is in the verb, and almost all there is of language, in a philosophic sense, lies there. The verb is the bridge of communication and action _upon_ external things, just as is language itself, going out of man. And it is also noteworthy that the recognition of this position of the verb, together with these other matters of which we are speaking, seems nearer at hand and clearer to those students who are led beyond Aryan languages to the study of American and Asiatic, especially Central and Northern Asiatic. For instance, G. v. d. Gabelentz, _Die Sprachwissenschaft_, and other works.

[53-*] It was not until after this paper was already in type that my attention was directed to the complete agreement of this and the succeeding sentences with the following passage in _The Secret Doctrine_, by H. P. Blavatsky, London, 1888, vol. II, page 199. After saying that some of the Atlantean races spoke the agglutinative languages, the passage continues: “While the ‘cream’ of the Fourth Race _gravitated_ more and more toward the apex of physical and intellectual evolution, _thus_ leaving as an heirloom to the nascent Fifth (the Aryan) Race the inflectional, highly developed languages, the agglutinative decayed and remained as a fragmentary fossil idiom, scattered now, and nearly limited to the aboriginal tribes of America.” Note the words I have italicized, marking the evolution of the “inflectional” languages as an attendant phenomenon on physico-intellectual evolution, compare the passage with von Humboldt’s thesis, already quoted, that the incorporative quality denotes an exaltation of the imaginative over the ratiocinative processes of mind in its users, and further with the surviving genius of Chinese, the type of monosyllabic languages, and the agreement is evident. Von Humboldt, however, did not carry out so fully the archaeological results, for which indeed the materials were in his day still lacking. See also other passages in _The Secret Doctrine_.

[61-*] _Traité de l’Astronomie Indienne et Orientale_, Disc. Prél. et seq.

[62-*] The suggestion above is linguistic, and in that phase is given as a corollary to the foregoing discussion; but, as stated, it is at the same time in accord with the “Aryan” theory in its essentials (though not in its hypothetical and ultra-historical speculations), and it also finds confirmation by various passages in _The Secret Doctrine_, by H. P. Blavatsky, as already quoted. “The traces of an immense civilization, even in Central Asia, are still to be found. This civilization is undeniably _prehistoric_.... The Eastern and Central portions of those regions--the Nan-Shan and the Altyn-Tagh--were once upon a time covered with cities that could well vie with Babylon. A whole geological period has swept over the land, since those cities breathed their last, as the mounds of shifting sand, and the sterile and now dead soil of the immense central plains of the basin of Tarim testify.... In the oasis of Cherchen some 300 human beings represent the relics of about a hundred extinct nations and races--the very names of which are now unknown to our ethnologists.” (Vol. I, page xxxii et seq.) See also Col. Prjevalsky’s _Travels_. Why should it not be so? The above was written in 1888, but the evidences are growing every day, and it will be against all archaeological precedent if far-reaching results do not follow from Dr. Stein’s _small_ find, and from Capt. d’Ollone’s recent researches among the Lolos, and the securing by him, as we are informed, of the long-sought knowledge of their hieroglyphic system.

[63-*] The study of Tibetan has so far been approached almost exclusively from the south, that is by those already familiar with Sanskrit and Pâli. To this fact, as well as to the overwhelming influence exercised on literary Tibetan by the Buddhist propaganda, is due the difficulty one meets in any study of its origins. The traces, however, do nevertheless exist. Some interesting facts concerning both Chinese and Tibetan, which seem to be entirely omitted in such later standard works as those of Summers, Wade, and Giles, are to be found in the almost forgotten _Chinese Grammar_ of Dr. Marshman, Serampore, 1814.

Transcriber’s Note

Page Error TN-1 20 two glyphs [Hieroglyph] and [Hieroglyph] should have a . at the end TN-2 25 above the the should read above the TN-3 34 Muluc Ix, Cauac should read Muluc, Ix, Cauac TN-4 38 Cimi forms: [Hieroglyphs] should have a . at the end TN-5 51 relationtionship should read relationship