Volume 4 / Part 2 — Part II. ON CURTIUS’ CHRONOLOGY OF THE INDO-GERMANIC LANGUAGES. (continued 8)

EPITHETA ORNANTIA.

Professor Whitney’s ideas of what is real criticism, and what is mere banter, personal abuse, or rudeness are indeed strange. He does not seem to be aware that his name has become a by-word, at least in Europe, and he defends himself against the charge of abusiveness with so much ardor that one sometimes feels doubtful whether it is all the mere rhetoric of a bad conscience, or a case of the most extraordinary self-deception. He declares in so many words that he was never personal (Ich bestreite durchaus, dass was ich schrieb, im geringsten persönlich war), and he immediately goes on to say that “Steinthal burst a two from anger and rancor, and his answer was a mere outpouring of abuse against his personality.”

Now I am the last person or personality in the world to approve of the tone of Steinthal’s answer, and if Professor Whitney asks why I had quoted it several times in public, it was because I thought it ought to be a warning to others. I think that all who are interested in maintaining certain civilized usages even in the midst of war, ought to protest against such a return to primitive savagery, and I am glad to find that my friend, Mr. Matthew Arnold, one of the highest authorities on the rules of literary warfare, entertains the same opinion, and has quoted what I had quoted from Professor Steinthal’s pamphlet, together with other specimens of theological rancor, as extreme cases of bad taste.

I frankly admit, however, that, when I said that Steinthal had defended himself with the same weapons with which his American antagonist attacked him, I said too much. Professor Whitney does not proceed to such extremities as Professor Steinthal. But giving him full credit so far, I still cannot help thinking that it was a fight with poisoned arrows on one side, with clubs on the other. As Professor Whitney calls for proofs, here they are:—

Page 332. Why does he call Professor Steinthal, Hajjim Steinthal? Is that personal or not?

Page 335. “Professor Steinthal startles and rebuffs a commonsense inquirer with a reply from a wholly different and unexpected point of view; as when you ask a physician, ‘Well, Doctor, how does your patient promise this morning?’ and he answers, with a wise look and an oracular shake of the head, ‘It is not given to humanity to look into futurity.’ The effect is not destitute of the element of bathos.” Is that personal?

Page 337. Steinthal’s mode of arguing is “more easy and convenient than fair and ingenuous.” Is that personal?

Page 338. “A mere verbal quibble.”

Page 346. “The eminent psychologist may show himself a mere blunderer.”

Page 356. “To our unpsychological apprehension, there is something monstrous in the very suggestion that a word is an act of the mind.”

Page 357. “Prodigious . . . . Chaotic nebulosity . . . . We should not have supposed any man, at this age of the world, capable of penning the sentences we have quoted.”

Page 359. “We are heartily tired of these comparisons that go limping along on one foot, or even on hardly the decent stump of a foot.”

Page 363. “Can there be more utter mockery than this? We ask for bread, and a stone is thrown us.”

Page 365. “He does not take the slightest notice of the living and aggressive views of others.”

Page 366. “All this, again, is in our opinion very verbiage, mere turbid talk.”

Page. 367. “The statement is either a truism or falsity.”

Page 372. “We must pronounce Professor Steinthal’s attempt . . . . a complete failure, a mere continuation of the same delusive reasonings by which he originally arrived at it.”

Page 374. “We have found in his book nothing but mistaken facts and erroneous deductions.”

If that is the language in which Professor Whitney speaks of one whom he calls—

“An eminent master in linguistic science, from whom he has derived great instruction and enlightenment,” and “whose books he has constantly had upon his table,”

what can other poor mortals like myself expect? It is true he has avoided actionable expressions, while Professor Steinthal has not, at least, according to German and English law. But suppose that hereafter, when certain small animals have crossed what he calls “the impervious distance,” and acquired the power of language, they were to say, “We have only stung you, and you have killed us,” would they obtain much commiseration?

I had collected a number of epitheta ornantia which I had gathered at random from Mr. Whitney’s writings, such as worthless, futile, absurd, ridiculous, superficial, unsound, high-flown, pretentious, disingenuous, false, and I claimed the honor of every one of them having been presented to me as well as to other scholars by our American assailant. Here, for the first time, Professor Whitney seems staggered at his own vocabulary. However, he is never at a loss how to escape. “As the epithets are translated into German,” he says, “he is quite unable to find the passages to which I may refer.” This is feeble. However, without taxing his memory further, he says that he feels certain it must be a mistake, because he never could have used such language. He never in his life said anything personal, but criticised opinions only. This is “the language of simple-minded consciousness of rectitude.”

What can I do? Professor Whitney ought to know his own writings better than I do, and nothing remains to me, in order to repel the gravest of all accusations, but to publish in the smallest type the following Spicilegium. I must add that in order to do this work once for all, I have complied with Professor Whitney’s request, and read nearly all the articles with which he has honored every one of my writings, and in doing so I believe I have at last found the key to much that seemed to me before almost inexplicable.

Formerly I had simply acquiesced in the statement made by one of his best friends, Professor Weber,6 who, some ten years ago, when reproving Professor Whitney for the acrimony of his language, said:—

“I believe I am not wrong when I trace it to two causes: first, Professor Whitney found himself forced to acknowledge as erroneous and to withdraw several of his former views and assertions, which he had defended with great assurance, and this disturbed his equanimity; secondly, and still more, there were the miserable political circumstances of North America, which could not but exercise an irritating and galling effect on so warm a patriot as Whitney, an effect which was transferred unconsciously to his literary criticisms and polemics, whenever he felt inclined to it.”

These two scholars were then discussing the question, whether the Nakshatras or the Lunar Zodiac of the Hindus, should be considered as the natural discovery of the Brahmans, or as derived by them, one knows not how, from China, from Chaldæa, or from some other unknown country. They both made great efforts, Professor Weber chiefly in Sanskrit, Professor Whitney in astronomy, in order to substantiate their respective opinions. Professor Weber showed that Professor Whitney was not very strong in Sanskrit, Professor Whitney retaliated by showing that Professor Weber, as a philologue, had attempted to prove that the precession of the equinox was from West to East, and not from East to West. All this, at the time, was amusing to bystanders, but by this time both combatants have probably found out, that the hypothesis of a foreign origin of the Nakshatras, whether Chinese or Babylonian, was uncalled for, or, at all events, is as uncertain to-day as it was ten years ago. I myself, not being an astronomer, had been content to place the evidence from Sanskrit sources before a friend of mine, an excellent astronomer at Oxford, and after discussing the question again and again with him, had arrived at the conviction that there was no excuse for so violent a theory as postulating a foreign origin of the simple triseinadic division of the Nakshatra Zodiac. I quite admit that my practical knowledge of astronomy is very small,7 but I do believe that my astronomical ignorance was an advantage rather than a disadvantage to me in rightly understanding the first glimmerings of astronomical ideas among the Hindus. Be that as it may, I believe that at the present moment few scholars of repute doubt the native origin of the Nakshatras, and hardly one admits an early influence of Babylonian or Chinese science on India. I stated my case in the preface to the fourth volume of my edition of the Rig-Veda, and if anybody wishes to see what can be done by misrepresentation, let him read what is written there, and what Professor Whitney made of it in his articles in the “Journal of the American Oriental Society.” His misunderstandings are so desperate, that he himself at times feels uneasy, and admits that a more charitable interpretation of what I wanted to say would be possible. When I saw this style of arguing, the utter absence of any regard for what was, or what might charitably be supposed to have been, my meaning, I made up my mind once for all, that that American gentleman should never have an answer from me, and in spite of strong temptation I kept my resolve till now. A man who could say of Lassen that his statements were “wholly and reprehensibly incorrect,” because he said that Colebrooke had shown that the Arabs received their lunar mansions from the Hindus, was not likely to show mercy to any other German professor.

I find, however, by reading one of his Essays, that there is a more special reason why, in his repeated onslaughts on me, both before and after the Rebellion, “he thinks he may dispense with the ordinary courtesies of literary warfare.” I may tell it in his own words:—

“Some one (I may add the name, now, it was the late Professor Goldstücker) falls fiercely upon the work of a company of collaborators; they unite in its defense; thereupon the aggressor reviles them as a mutual admiration society; and Müller repeats the accusation, giving it his own indorsement, and volunteering in addition that of another scholar.”

I might possibly represent the case in a different light, but I am willing to accept the acte d’accusation as it comes from the hand of my accuser; nay more, I am quite ready to plead guilty to it. Only let me explain how I came to commit this great offense. What is here referred to must have happened more than ten years ago. Professor Goldstücker had criticised the Sanskrit Dictionary published by Professors Boehtlingk and Roth, and “the company of collaborators” had united in its defense, only, as Professor Whitney is authorized to assure us, “without any apparent or known concert.” Professor Goldstücker was an old friend of mine, to whom in the beginning of my literary career at Berlin and in Paris, I was indebted for much personal kindness. He helped me when no one else did, and many a day, and many a night too, we had worked together at the same table, he encouraging me to persevere when I was on the point of giving up the study of Sanskrit altogether. When Professor Goldstücker came to England, he undertook a new edition of Wilson’s “Sanskrit Dictionary,” and he very soon became entangled in a controversy with “the company of collaborators” of another Sanskrit dictionary, published at the expense of the Russian Academy. I do not defend him, far from it. He had a weakness very common among scholars;—he could not bear to see a work praised beyond its real merits, and he thought it was his duty to set everything right that seemed to him wrong. He was very angry with me, because I would not join in his condemnation of the St. Petersburg dictionary. I could not do that, because, without being blind to its defects, I considered it a most valuable performance, highly creditable to all its collaborators; nay, I felt bound to say so publicly in England, because it was in England that this excellent work had been unduly condemned. This embittered my relations with Professor Goldstücker, and when the attacks by the company of collaborators on him grew thicker and thicker, while I was treated by them with the greatest civility, he persuaded himself that I had taken part against him, that I had in fact become a sleeping partner in what was then called the “International Praise Insurance Society.” To show him once for all that this was not the case, and that I was perfectly independent of any company of collaborators, I wrote what I wrote at the time. Nor did I do so without having had placed before me several reviews, which certainly seemed to give to the old saying laudari a viro laudato a novel meaning. Having done what I thought I was bound to do for an old friend, I was perfectly prepared to take the consequences of what might seem a rash act, and when I was twitted with having done so anonymously, I, of course, thought it my duty to reprint the article, at the first opportunity, with my name. Now let it be borne in mind that one of the chief culprits, nay, as appeared afterwards, the most eager mischief-maker, was Professor Whitney himself, and let us now hear what he has to say. As if he himself were entirely unconcerned in the matter, instead of having been the chief culprit, he speaks of “cool effrontery;” “magisterial assumption, towards a parcel of naughty boys caught in their naughtiness;” “most discreditable;” “the epithet outrageous is hardly too strong.” Here his breath fails him, and, fortunately for me, the climax ends. And this, we are asked to believe, is not loud and boisterous but gentle and calm: it is in fact “the language of simple-minded consciousness of rectitude!”

These gentle onslaughts were written and published by Professor Whitney ten years ago. I happen to know that a kind of colportage was established to send his articles to gentlemen whom they would not otherwise have reached. I was told again and again, that I ought to put an end to these maneuvers, and yet, during all these years, I thought I could perfectly well afford to take no notice of them. But when after such proceedings Professor Whitney turns round, and challenges me before a public which is not acquainted with these matters, to produce any of the epitheta ornantia I had mentioned as having been applied by him to me, to Renan, to Schleicher, to Oppert, to Bleek, nay, even to Bopp and Burnouf and Lassen, when with all “the simple-minded consciousness of rectitude” he declares, that he was never personal, then I ask, Could I remain silent any longer?

How hard Professor Whitney is driven in order to fix any real blame on me, may be seen from what follows. The article in which the obnoxious passage which, I was told, deprived me of any claim to the amenities of literary intercourse occurs, had been reprinted in the “Indische Studien,” before I reprinted it in the first volume of “Chips.” In reprinting it myself, I had rewritten parts of it, and had also made a few additions. In the “Indische Studien,” on the contrary, it had been reprinted in its original form, and had besides been disfigured by several inaccuracies or misprints. Referring to these, I had said that it had been, as usual, very incorrectly reprinted. Let us hear what an American pleader can make out of this:—

“In this he was too little mindful of the requirements of fair dealing; for he leaves any one who may take the trouble to turn to the ‘Indische Studien,’ and compare the version there given with that found among the ‘Chips,’ to infer that all the discordances he shall discover are attributable to Weber’s incorrectness, whereas they are in fact mainly alterations which Müller has made in his own reprint; and the real inaccuracies are perfectly trivial in character and few in number—such printer’s blunders as are rarely avoided by Germans who print English, or by English who print German. We should doubtless be doing Müller injustice if we maintained that he deliberately meant Weber to bear the odium of all the discrepancies which a comparer might find; but he is equally responsible for the result, if it is owing only to carelessness on his part.”

What will the intelligent gentlemen of the jury say to this? Because I complained of such blunders as altars being “construed,” instead of “constructed,” “enlightoned” instead of “enlightened,” “gratulate” instead of “congratulate,” and similar inaccuracies, occurring in an unauthorized reprint of my article, therefore I really wanted to throw the odium of what I had myself written in the original article, and what was, as far as the language was concerned, perfectly correct, on Professor Weber. Can forensic ingenuity go further? If America possesses many such powerful pleaders, we wonder how life can be secure.

Having thus ascertained whence illæ lacrumæ, I must now produce a small bottle at least of the tears themselves which Professor Whitney has shed over me, and over men far better than myself, all of which, he says, were never meant to be personal, and most of which have evidently been quite dried up in his memory.

I begin with Bopp. “Although his mode of working is wonderfully genial, his vision of great acuteness, and his instinct a generally trustworthy guide, he is liable to wander far from the safe track, and has done not a little labor over which a broad and heavy mantle of charity needs to be drawn” (I. 208).

M. Renan and myself have “committed the very serious error of inverting the mutual relation of dialectic variety and uniformity of speech, thus turning topsy-turvy the whole history of linguistic development. . . . . It may seem hardly worth while to spend any effort in refuting an opinion of which the falsity will have been made apparent by the exposition already given” (p. 177).

In another place (p. 284) M. Renan is told that his objection to the doctrine of a primitive Indo-European monosyllabism is noticed, not for any cogency which it possesses, but only on account of the respectability of M. Renan.

Lassen and Burnouf, who thought that the geographical reminiscences in the first chapter of the Vendidad had a historical foundation, are told that their “claim is baseless, and even preposterous” (p. 201). Yet what Professor Whitney’s knowledge of Zend must be, we may judge from what he says of Burnouf’s literary productions. “It is well known,” he says, “that the great French scholar produced two or three bulky volumes upon the Avesta.” I know of one bulky volume only, “Commentaire sur la Yaçna,” tome i., Paris, 1833, but that may be due to my lamentable ignorance.

“Professor Oppert simply exposes himself in the somewhat ridiculous attitude of one who knocks down, with gestures of awe and fright, a tremendous man of straw of his own erecting (I. 218). His erroneous assumptions will be received with most derisive incredulity (I. 221); the incoherence and aimlessness of his reasonings (I. 223); an ill-considered tirade, a tissue of misrepresentations of linguistic science (I. 237). He cannot impose upon us by his authority, nor attract us by his eloquence: his present essay is as heavy in style, as loose and vague in expression, unsound in argument, arrogant in tone” (I. 238). The motive imputed to Professor Oppert in writing his Essay is that “he is a Jew, and wanted to stand up for the Shemites.”

If Professor Oppert is put down as a Shemite, Dr. Bleek is sneered at as a German. “His work is written with much apparent profundity, one of a class, not quite unknown in Germany, in which a minimum of valuable truth is wrapped up in a maximum of sonating phraseology” (I. 292). Poor Germany catches it again on page 315. “Even, or especially in Germany,” we are told, “many an able and acute scholar seems minded to indemnify himself for dry and tedious grubbings among the roots and forms of Comparative Philology by the most airy ventures in the way of constructing Spanish castles of linguistic science.”

In his last work Professor Whitney takes credit for having at last rescued the Science of Language from the incongruities and absurdities of European scholars.

Now on page 119 Professor Whitney very properly reproves another scholar, Professor Goldstücker, for having laughed at the German school of Vedic interpretation. “He emphasizes it,” he says, “dwells upon it, reiterates it three or four times in a paragraph, as if there lay in the words themselves some potent argument. Any uninformed person would say, we are confident, that he was making an unworthy appeal to English prejudice against foreign men and foreign ways.” Professor Whitney finishes up with charging Professor Goldstücker, who was himself a German—I beg my reader’s pardon, but I am only quoting from a North American Review—with “fouling his own nest.” Professor Whitney, I believe, studied in a German university. Did he never hear of a ’cute little bird, who does to the nest in which he was reared, what he says Professor Goldstücker did to his own?

Haeckel is called a headlong Darwinian (I. 293), Schleicher is infected with Darwinism (I. 294), “he represents a false and hurtful tendency (I. 298), he is blind to the plainest truths, and employs a mode of reasoning in which there is neither logic nor common sense (I. 323). His essays are unsound, illogical, untrue; but there are still incautious sciolists by whom every error that has a great name attached to it is liable to be received as pure truth, and who are ever specially attracted by good hearty paradoxes” (I. 330).

I add a few more references to the epitheta ornantia which I was charged with having invented. “Utter futility” (p. 36); “meaningless and futile” (p. 152); “headlong materialist” (p. 153); “better humble and true (Whitney) than high-flown, pretentious, and false” (not-Whitney, p. 434); “simply and solely nonsense” (I. 255); “darkening of counsel by words without knowledge” (I. 255); “rhetorical talk” (I. 723); “flourish of trumpets, lamentable (not to say) ridiculous failure” (I. 277).

What a contrast between the rattling discharges of these mitrailleuses at the beginning of the war, and the whining and whimpering assurance now made by the American professor, that he never in his life said anything personal or offensive!

WHY I OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ANSWERED.

Having taken the trouble of collecting these spent balls from the various battlefields of the American general, I hope that even Professor Whitney will no longer charge me with having spoken without book. As long as he cited me before the tribunal of scholars only, I should have considered it an insult to them to suppose that they could not, if they liked, form their own judgment. For fifteen years have I kept my fire, till, like a Chinese juggler, Professor Whitney must have imagined he had nearly finished my outline on the wall with the knives so skillfully aimed to miss me. But when he dragged me before a tribunal where my name was hardly known, when he thought that by catching the aura popularis of Darwinism, he could discredit me in the eyes of the leaders of that powerful army, when he actually got possession of the pen of the son, fondly trusting it would carry with it the weight of the father, then I thought I owed it to myself, and to the cause of truth and its progress, to meet his reckless charges by clear rebutting evidence. I did this in my “Answer to Mr. Darwin,” and as I did it, I did it thoroughly, leaving no single charge unanswered, however trifling. At the same time, while showing the unreasonableness of his denunciations, I could not help pointing out some serious errors into which Professor Whitney had fallen. Some thrusts can only be parried by a-tempo thrusts.

Professor Whitney, like an experienced advocate, passes over in silence the most serious faults which I had pointed out in his “Lectures,” and after he has attempted—with what success, let others judge—to clear himself from a few, he turns round, and thinks it best once for all to deny my competency to judge him. And why?

“I do not consider Professor Müller capable of judging me justly,” he says. And why? “Because I have felt moved, on account of his extraordinary popularity and the exceptional importance attached to his utterances, to criticise him more frequently than anybody else.”

Is not this the height of forensic ingenuity? Because A has criticised B, therefore B cannot criticise A justly. In that case A has indeed nothing to do but to criticise B C D to Z, and then no one in the world can criticise him justly. I have watched many controversies, I have observed many stratagems and bold movements to cover a retreat, but nothing to equal this. Professor Pott was very hard on Professor Curtius, but he did not screen himself by denying to his adversary the competency to criticise him in turn. What would Newman have said, if Kingsley had tried to shut him up with such a remark, a remark really worthy of one literary combatant only, the famous Pastor Goeze, the critic of Lessing?

What would even Professor Whitney think, if I were to say that, because I have criticised his “Lectures,” he could not justly criticise my “Sanskrit Grammar?” He might not think it good taste to publish an advertisement to dissuade students in America from using my grammar; he might think it unworthy of himself and dishonorable to institute comparisons, the object of which would be too transparent in the eyes even of his best friends in Germany. Mr. Whitney has lived too long in Germany not to know the saying, Man merkt die Absicht und man wird verstimmt. But should I ever say that he was incompetent to criticise my “Sanskrit Grammar” justly? Certainly not. All that I might possibly venture to say is, that before Professor Whitney undertakes to criticise my own or any other Sanskrit grammar, he should look at § 84 of my grammar, and practice that very simple rule, that if Visarga is preceded by a, and followed by a, the Visarga is dropt, a changed to o, and the initial vowel elided. If with this rule clearly impressed on his memory, he will look at his edition of the Atharva-Veda Prâtiśâkhya, I. 33, then perhaps, instead of charging Hindu grammarians in his usual style with “opinions obviously and grossly incorrect and hardly worth quoting,” he might discover that eke spṛshṭam could only have been meant in the MSS. for eke ’spṛshṭam, and that the proper translation was not that vowels are formed by contact, but that they are formed without contact. Instead of saying that none of the other Prâtiśâkhyas favors this opinion, he would find the same statement in the Rig-Veda Prâtiśâkhya, Sûtra 719, page cclxi of my edition, and he might perhaps say to himself, that before criticising Sanskrit grammars, it would be useful to learn at least the phonetic rules. I had pointed out this slip before, in the second edition of my “Sanskrit Grammar;” but, as to judge from an article of his on the accent, Professor Whitney has not seen that second edition (1870), which contains the Appendix on the accent in Sanskrit, I beg leave to call his attention to it again.

WHY I OUGHT TO BE GRATEFUL.

I am glad to say that we now come to a more amusing part of this controversy. After I had been told that because I was attacked first, therefore I was not able to criticise Professor Whitney’s writings justly, I am next told that I ought to be very grateful for having been attacked, nay, I am told that, in my heart of hearts, I am really very grateful indeed. I must quote this passage in full:—

“During the last eight years I have repeatedly taken the opportunity accurately to examine and frankly to criticise the views of others and the arguments by which they were supported. I have done this more particularly against eminent and famous men whom the public has accustomed itself to regard as guides in matters referring to the Science of Language. What unknown and uncared for people say, is of no consequence whatever; but if Schleicher and Steinthal, Renan and Müller, teach what to me seems an error, and try to support it by proofs, then surely I am not only justified, but called upon to refute them, if I can. Among these students the last-named seems to be of different opinion. In his article, ‘My Reply to Mr. Darwin,’ published in the March number of the ‘Deutsche Rundschau,’ he thinks it necessary to read me a severe lecture on my presumption, although he also flatters me by the hint that my custom of criticising the most eminent men only is appreciated, and those whom I criticise feel honored by it.”

I confess when I read this, I wished I had really paid such a pretty compliment to my kind critic, but looking through my article from beginning to end, I find no hint anywhere that could bear so favorable an interpretation, unless it is where I speak of “the noble army of his martyrs,” and of the untranslated remark of Phocion, which he may have taken for a compliment. In saying that it was acknowledged to be an honor to be attacked by him, Professor Whitney was, no doubt, thinking of the words of Ovid, Summa petunt dextra fulmina missa Jovis, and I am not going in future to deny him the title of the Jovial and Olympian critic, nor should I suggest to him to read the line in Ovid immediately preceding the one quoted. Against one thing only I must protest. Though the last named, I am surely not, as he boldly asserts, the only one of the four sommités struck by his Olympian thunderbolts, who have humbly declined too frequent a repetition of his celestial favors. Schleicher, no doubt, was safe, for alas, he is dead! But Steinthal surely has uttered rather Promethean protests against the Olympian,—

and as to M. Renan, does his silence mean more than—

I confess, then, frankly that, in my heart of hearts, I am not grateful for these cruel kindnesses, and if he says that the other Serene Highnesses have been less ungrateful than I am, I fear this is again one of his over-confident assertions. My publishers in America may be grateful to him, for I am told that, owing to Professor Whitney’s articles, much more interest in my works has been excited in America than I could ever have expected. But I cannot help thinking that by the line of action he has followed, he has done infinite harm to the science which we both have at heart. In order to account somehow or other for his promiscuous onslaughts, he now tells Mr. Darwin and his friends that in the Science of Language all is chaos. That is not so, unless Mr. Whitney is here using chaos in a purely subjective sense. There are differences of opinion, as there are in every living and progressive science, but even those who differ most widely, perfectly understand and respect each other, because they know that, from the days of Plato and Aristotle, men who start from different points, arrive at different conclusions, particularly when the highest problems in every science are under consideration. I do not agree with Professor Steinthal, but I understand him; I do not agree with Dr. Bleek, but I respect him; I differ most of all from Schleicher, but I think that an hour or two of private conversation, if it were possible still, would have brought us much nearer together. At all events, in reading any of their books, I feel interested, I breathe a new atmosphere, I get new ideas, I feel animated and invigorated. I have now read nearly all that Professor Whitney has written on the Science of Language, and I have not found one single new fact, one single result of independent research, nay, not even one single new etymology, that I could have added to my Collectanea. If I am wrong, let it be proved. That language is an institution, that language is an instrument, that we learn our language from our mothers, as they learned it from their mothers and so on till we come to Adam and Eve, that language is meant for communication, all this surely had been argued out before, and with arguments, when necessary, as strong as any adduced by Professor Whitney.

Professor Whitney may not be aware of this, or have forgotten it; but a fertile writer like him ought at all events to have a good memory. In his reply, p. 262, he tells us, for instance, as one of his latest discoveries, that in studying language, we ought to begin with modern languages, and that when we come to more ancient periods, we should always infer similar causes from similar effects, and never admit new forces or new processes, except when those which we know prove totally inefficient. In my own Lectures I had laid it down as one of the fundamental principles of the Science of Language that “what is real in modern formations must be admitted as possible in ancient formations, and that what has been found true on a small scale may be true on a larger scale.” I had devoted considerable space to the elucidation of this principle, and what did Professor Whitney write at that time (1865)?

“The conclusion sounds almost like a bathos; we should have called these, not fundamental principles, but obvious considerations, which hardly required any illustration” (p. 243).

Here is another instance of failure of memory. He assures us:—

“That he would never venture to charge anybody with being influenced in his literary labors by personal vanity and a desire of notoriety, except perhaps after giving a long string of proofs—nay, not even then” (p. 274).

Yet it was he who said of (I. 131) the late Professor Goldstücker that—

“Mere denunciation of one’s fellows and worship of Hindu predecessors do not make one a Vedic scholar,”

and that, after he had himself admitted that “no one would be found to question his (Professor Goldstücker’s) immense learning, his minute accuracy, and the sincerity and intensity of his convictions.”

By misunderstanding and sometimes, unless I am greatly mistaken, willfully closing his eyes to the real views of other scholars, Professor Whitney has created for himself a rich material for the display of his forensic talents. Like the poor Hindu grammarian, we are first made to say the opposite of what we said, and are then brow-beaten as holding opinions “obviously and grossly incorrect and hardly worth quoting.” All this is clever, but is it right? Is it even wise?

Much of what I have here written sounds very harsh, I know; but what is one to do? I have that respect for language and for my friends, and, may I add, for myself, to avoid harsh and abusive words, as much as possible. I do not believe in the German saying, Auf einen groben Klotz gehört ein grober Keil. I have tried hard, throughout the whole of my literary career, and even in this “Defense,” not to use the weapons that have been used against me during so many years of almost uninterrupted attacks. Much is allowed, however, in self-defense that would be blamable in an unprovoked attack, and if I have used here and there the cool steel, I trust that clean wounds, inflicted by a sharp sword, will heal sooner than gashes made with rude stones and unpolished flints.

Professor Whitney might still, I feel convinced, do some very useful work, as the apostle of the Science of Language in America, if only, instead of dealing in general theories, he would apply himself to a critical study of scientific facts, and if he would not consider it his peculiar calling to attack the personal character of other scholars. If he must needs criticise, would it be quite impossible for him, even in his character of Censor, to believe that other scholars are as honest as himself, as independent, as outspoken, as devoted at all hazards to the cause of truth? Does he really believe in his haste that all men who differ from him, or who tell him that he has misapprehended their teaching, are humbugs, pharisees, or liars? Professor Steinthal was a great friend of his, does he imagine that his violent resentment was entirely unprovoked? I have had hundreds of reviews of my books, some written by men who knew more, some by men who knew less than myself. Both classes of reviews proved very useful, but, beyond correcting matters of fact, I never felt called upon to answer, or to enter into personal recriminations with any one of my reviewers. We should not forget that, after all, reviews are written by men, and that there are often very tangible reasons why the same book is fiercely praised and fiercely abused. No doubt, every writer who believes in the truth of his opinions, wishes to see them accepted as widely as possible; but reviews have never been the most powerful engines for the propaganda of truth, and no one who has once known what it is to feel one’s self face to face with Truth, would for one moment compare the applause of the many with the silent approval of the still small voice of conscience within. Why do we write? Chiefly, I believe, because we think we have discovered facts unknown to others, or arrived at opinions opposed to those hitherto held. Knowing the effort one has made one’s self in shaking off old opinions or accepting new facts, no student would expect that everybody else would at once follow his lead. Indeed, we wish to differ from certain authorities, we wish to be criticised by them; their opposition is far more important, far more useful, far more welcome to us, than their approval could ever be. It would be an impossible task were we to attempt to convert personally every writer who still differs from us. Besides, there is no wheat without bran, and nothing is more instructive than to watch how the millstones of public opinion slowly and noiselessly separate the one from the other. I have brought my harvest, such as it was, to the mill: I do not cry out when I see it ground. From my peers I have received the highest rewards which a scholar can receive, rewards far, far above my deserts; the public at large has treated me no worse than others; and, if I have made some enemies, all I can say is, I do not envy the man who in his passage through life has made none.

Even now, though I am sorry for what Professor Whitney has done, I am not angry with him. He has great opportunities in America, but also great temptations. There is no part of the civilized world where a scholar might do more useful work than in America, by the bold and patient exploration of languages but little known, and rapidly disappearing. Professor Whitney may still do for the philology of his country what Dr. Bleek has done for the languages of Africa at the sacrifice of a lifelong expatriation, alas! I have just time to add, at the sacrifice of his life.

But I admit that America has also its temptations. There are but few scholars there who could or would check Professor Whitney, even in his wildest moods of asseveration, and by his command of a number of American papers, he can easily secure to himself a temporary triumph. Yet, I believe, he would find a work, such as Bancroft’s “On the Native Races of the Pacific States of North America,” a far more useful contribution to our science, and a far more permanent monument of his life, than reviews and criticisms, however brilliant and popular.

It was because I thought Professor Whitney capable of rendering useful service to the Science of Language in America that I forbore so long, that I never for years noticed his intentional rudeness and arrogance, that I received him, when he called on me at Oxford, with perfect civility, that I assisted him when he wanted my help in procuring copies of MSS. at Oxford. I could well afford to forget what had happened, and I tried for many years to give him credit for honorable, though mistaken, motives in making himself the mouthpiece of what he calls the company of collaborators.

In fact, if he had arraigned me again and again before a tribunal of competent judges, I should gladly have left my peers to decide between me and my American traducer. But when he cleverly changed the venue and brought his case before a tribunal where forensic skill was far more likely to carry the day than complicated evidence that could be appreciated by a special jury only, then, at last, I had to break through my reserve. It was not exactly cowardice that had kept me so long from encountering the most skillful of American swordsmen, but when the duel was forced upon me, I determined it should be fought out once for all.

I might have said much more; in fact, I had written much more than what I here publish in self-defense, but I wished to confine my reply as much as possible to bare facts. Professor Whitney has still to learn, it seems, that in a duel, whether military or literary, it is the bullets which hit, not the smoke, or the report, however loud. I do not flatter myself that with regard to theories on the nature of language or the relation between language and thought there ever will be perfect unanimity among scholars, but as to my bullets or my facts, I believe the case is different. I claim no infallibility, however, and would not accept the papal tiara among comparative philologists, even though it was offered me in such tempting terms by the hands of Professor Whitney. In order, therefore, to satisfy Mr. Darwin, Professor Haeckel, and others whose good opinion I highly value, because I know that they care for truth far more than for victory, I now appeal to Professor Whitney to choose from among his best friends three who are Professores ordinarii in any university of England, France, Germany, or Italy, and by their verdict I promise to abide. Let them decide the following points as to simple matters of fact, the principal bones of contention between Professor Whitney and myself:—

1. Whether the Latin of the inscription on the Duilian Column represents the Latin as spoken in 263 B.C. (p. 430);

2. Whether Ahura-Mazda can be rendered by “the mighty spirit” (p. 430);

3. Whether sarvanâman in Sanskrit means “name for everything” (p. 430);

4. Whether Professor Whitney knew that the Phenician alphabet had by Rougé and others been traced back to an Egyptian source (pp. 430, 450, 468);

5. Whether Professor Whitney thought that the words light, alight, and delight could be traced to the same source (p. 467);

6. Whether in the passages pointed out on p. 434, Professor Whitney contradicts himself or not;

7. Whether he has been able to produce any passage from my writings to substantiate the charge that in my Lectures I was impelled by an overmastering fear lest man should lose his proud position in the creation (p. 435);

8. Whether there are verbatim coincidences between my Lectures and those of Professor Whitney (pp. 425, 470–474);

9. Whether I ever denied that language was made through the instrumentality of man (p. 470);

10. Whether I had or had not fully explained under what restrictions the Science of Language might be treated as one of the physical sciences, and whether Professor Whitney has added any new restrictions (pp. 422 seq., 475 seq.);

11. Whether Professor Whitney apprehended in what sense some of the greatest philosophers declared conceptual thought impossible without language (p. 484);

12. Whether the grammatical blunder, with regard to the Sanskrit pari tasthushas as a nominative plur., was mine or his (p. 490);

13. Whether I had not clearly defined the difference between hard and soft consonants long before Professor Whitney, and whether he has not misrepresented what I had written on the subject (p. 490);

14. Whether in saying that the soft consonants can be intonated, I could have meant that they may or may not be intonated (p. 497);

15. Whether I invented the terms vivârasvâśâghoshâḥ and saṃvâra­nâda­ghoshâḥ, and whether they are to be found in no Sanskrit grammarian (p. 498);

16. Whether I was right in saying that Professor Whitney had complained about myself and others not noticing his attacks, and whether his remarks on my chapter on Fir, Oak, and Beech required being noticed (p. 500);

17. Whether I had invented the Epitheta ornantia applied by Professor Whitney to myself and other scholars, or whether they occur in his own writings (p. 504);

18. Whether E. Burnouf has written two or three bulky volumes on the Avesta, or only one (p. 515);

19. Whether Professor Whitney made a grammatical blunder in translating a passage of the Atharva-Veda Prâtiśâkhya, and on the strength of it charged the Hindu grammarian with holding opinions “obviously and grossly incorrect, and hardly worth quoting” (p. 519);

20. Whether Professor Whitney has occasionally been forgetful (p. 523).

Surely there are among Professor Whitney’s personal friends scholars who could say Yes or No to any of these twenty questions, and whose verdict would be accepted, and not by scholars only, as beyond suspicion. Anyhow, I can do no more for the sake of peace, and to put an end to the supposed state of chaos in the Science of Language, and I am willing to appear in person or by deputy before any such tribunal of competent judges.

I hope I have thus at last given Professor Whitney that satisfaction which he has claimed from me for so many years; and let me assure him that I part with him without any personal feeling of bitterness or hostility. I have grudged him no praise in former days, and whatever useful work we may receive from him in future, whether on the languages of India or of America, his books shall always receive at my hands the same justice as if they had been written by my best friend. I have never belonged to any company of collaborators, and never shall; but whosoever serves in the noble army for the conquest of truth, be he private or general, will always find in me a faithful friend, and, if need be, a fearless defender. I gladly conclude with the words of old Fairfax (Bulk and Selvedge, 1674): “I believe no man wishes with more earnestness than I do, that all men of learning and knowledge were men of kindness and sweetness, and that such as can outdo others would outlove them too; especially while self bewhispers us, that it stands us all in need to be forgiven as well as to forgive.”

The Mumbles, near Swansea, Wales, September, 1875.

INDEX Chapters V-IX only

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

A

Adverbs, Aryan, 415.

Agriculture of Bengal, 369.

Agriologists, 453.

Ahura-Mazda, name of, 430.

Alexandria ad Caucasum, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration, from the Sanskrit of Brahmagupta and Bhâskara, 391.

Alight, to, its etymology, 467.

Alphabet, origin of the Phenician, 450, 468.

And, Aryan words for, 412.

Anglo-Saxon grammar, by March, 447.

Animals are automata, the hypothesis that, 448.

—— their mind, terra incognita, 442.

—— nearest to man, have very imperfect phonetic organs, 440.

—— have sensuous images, but no words, 487.

Antiquary, the, 335.

Arabian Algebra, likeness to Indian, 391.

Arabic, difficulty of, 368.

Archæological survey of India, 346.

Aristotle, 327.

Arnold, Matthew, 505.

Arnyia dialects, 349.

Aryan religions, three historical, 240.

—— words for father, mother, brother, etc, 401. seq.

As, root, to be, Aryan words for, 414.

Asiatic literature, catalogue raisonné of, 385.

—— Researches, 370.

—— Society of Calcutta, Colebrooke, President of, 385.

Aspirates, the, 495.

Ass, Aryan words for, 408.

Astori dialects of Shinâ, 349.

Astrological terms borrowed by Hindus from Greeks, 367.

Astronomical Society, Colebrooke, President of, 391.

Astronomy, antiquity of Hindu, 387.

Avadhûta, sect of the, 257.

Avesta, two or three bulky volumes on the, 515.

B

Bactria, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

Bancroft, “On the Native Races of America,” 526.

Barahut, Buddhist remains at, 346.

Bathybios, 457.

Bear, Aryan words for, 410.

Beget, to, root, Jan, Aryan words for, 415.

Benfey, his history of the Science of Language, 325.

Bengal, agriculture of, 370.

—— Colebrooke, on the husbandry of, 373.

Bentley, on the antiquity of Hindu astronomy, 387.

Besmah, Rajah of, Giriprasâdasinha, 335.

Bhagvat Geeta, i.e. Bhagavad-Gîtâ, 368.

Bhaiami, maker or cutter out, 342, 343.

Bhaṇḍarkar, Prof., 335.

Bhao Daji, Dr., 334.

Bhâskara, Brahmagupta, Âryabhaṭṭa, 392.

Birma, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

Blackbird, 503.

Bleek, Dr., 343, 522.

—— Whitney on, 515.

Boar, Aryan words for, 410.

Boehtlingk and Roth, Sanskrit Dictionary published by, 511.

Bombay, Parsis of, 305.

Bone, Aryan words for, 405.

Book-religions, 301.

Bopp, his Comparative Grammar, 319.

—— Whitney on, 515.

Bow-wow, Pooh-pooh theories, 469.

Brahma, as the Supreme Spirit, 315.

Brahma-Dharma, the, 269.

Brahma-Samaj, 258, 259, 335.

Brahma-Samaj, schism in, 260, 269.

—— of India, 269 note.

Brahmanism, its vitality, 296, 308.

Brahmans, their sacred cord, 260.

—— do not proselytize, 242.

—— sent to Benares to copy Vedas, 357.

Breast, Aryan words for, 406.

Bribu, leader of the Rathakaras, 307.

Broad, Aryan words for, 411.

Broad degrees of heat, light, and sound, 437.

Brockhaus, Professor, 351.

Brother, Aryan words for, 402.

Buddha, his disciples, 267.

—— his interview with Mâra, 268.

Buddhism, its history, 242 seq.

Buddhism, countries professing it, 252.

Buddhist Missionaries, sent to Cashmere, etc., 243.

Bühler, Dr., 345.

Building of altars, 330.

Bunsen, 318.

—— his “Christianity and Mankind,” 320.

Burgess, Mr., 335.

Burnell, Dr., 345.

Burning of widows, 303.

Burnouf, Eugène, 318, 515.

Bushmen, their traditional literature, 344.

—— their language, 344.

Butler’s Analogy, 287.

By night, Aryan words for, 404.

C

Cabul, Buddhist priests sent to, 243.

Calcutta, city of Kali, 251.

—— its goddess, 309.

—— Colebrooke goes to, 365.

—— Colebrooke at, 381.

Camel, Aryan words for, 408.

Campbell, Sir George, on the Hindu religion, 297.

Carriere, Professor, 451.

Carrosse, 425.

Cashmere, Buddhist priests sent to, 243.

Caste, 374 note.

—— Colebrooke on, 376, 377.

Catalogue raisonné of Asiatic literature, 385.

Catalogues of MSS. still existing in India, 345.

Catechism of the Adi Brahma-Samâj, 275.

Ceylon, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

Chaldea, Nakshatras derived from, 508.

Channing, 313.

Chaos, in the Science of Language, 522.

Chemistry of language, 449.

Chief Rabbi in London, 304.

China, Nakshatras supposed to be derived from, 508.

Christianity, countries professing, 252.

Classical reproduction of Sakuntala, by Sir W. Jones, 323.

Classification applied to religions, 241.

Cloud, Aryan words for, 405.

Clovis, his conversion, 287.

Code of Gentoo Laws, 374.

Coincidences, 472.

Colebrooke, on the Vedas, 350.

—— Life of, 359.

—— started for India, 364.

—— arrived at Madras, 364.

—— goes to Calcutta, 365.

—— becomes Collector of Tribute in Tirhut, 365.

—— on Indian Weights and Measures, 367.

—— goes to Purneah, 369.

—— goes to Nattore, 370.

—— on the duties of Hindu Widows, 372.

—— on the Husbandry and Commerce of Bengal, 373.

—— goes to Mirzapur, 374.

—— translates Digest of Hindu and Mohammedan Laws, 375.

—— on Caste, 376, 378.

—— at Nagpur, 380.

—— his supplementary Digest of Laws, 380.

—— Essays on Sanskrit and Prakrit poetry, 380.

—— Essays on the Vedas, 380.

—— Essays on Indian Theogonies, 380.

—— Essays on Indian Plants, 380.

—— returns to Mirzapur, 381.

—— goes to Calcutta, 381.

—— member of the Court of Appeal, 381.

—— Professor of Sanskrit, 381.

—— attention to Comparative Philology, 381.

—— his Sanskrit Grammar, 381.

—— President of the Court of Appeal, 385.

—— President of the Asiatic Society, 385.

—— promoted to a Seat in Council, 390.

—— leaves India, 390.

—— the Legislator of India, 390.

—— President of the Astronomical Society, 391.

—— his translation of the Algebra of Brahmagupta and Bhâskara, 391.

—— presents his Sanskrit MSS. to the East India Company, 392.

—— founds the Royal Asiatic Society, 392.

—— his treatises on Hindu philosophy, 394.

—— his death, 395.

—— testimony to Sir W. Jones, 397.

—— Comparative View of Sanskrit and other Languages, 400.

Colonial Office, reports on native races, 339.

Colonies and colonial governments, Oriental studies have a claim on, 339.

Color-blindness, 444.

Commandments of Kabir, 257.

Comparative Mythology, first glimmerings of, in 1793, 371.

Comparative Philology, Colebrooke’s attention to, 381.

Comparative spirit, the truly scientific spirit, 327.

Comparative view of Sanskrit and other languages by Colebrooke, 400.

Concepts, founded on the spontaneity of thought, 447.

Congress of Oriental sts, the International, 317.

Constantine’s vision, 288.

Controversial missions, small success of, 316.

Controversy on the authority of the traditional interpretation of the Vedas, 386.

Conway’s “Sacred Anthology,” 329.

Cotton, Bishop of Calcutta, 258, 263.

Council, Colebrooke promoted to a seat in, 390.

—— of Pâṭaliputra, 246 B.C., 243.

Court of Appeal, Colebrooke member of, 381.

—— Colebrooke President of the, 385.

Cousin, Victor, 394.

Crab, Aryan words for, 410.

Creed of the Brahma Samâj, 260.

“Critique Philosophique,” edited by Renouvier, 420.

Cuckoo, Aryan words for, 410.

Cucumber, Aryan words for, 410.

Cunningham, General, 346.

Curses, terrible effects produced by, 432.

Curtius, Pott on, 518.

Cyrus, religion of, 249.

Czartoryski, Prince, letter to, 323.

D

Daimonion, 455.

Dalton, Colonel, “Ethnology of Bengal,” 346.

Daltonism, 444.

Dardistan, Dr. Leitner’s labors in, 348.

Dardus, the, their customs, 349.

Darius, religion of, 249.

Darwin, Mr., my reply to, 417.

—— his belief in a personal Creator, 459.

Darwinism tested by the Science of Language, essay, by Schleicher, 480.

Daughter, Aryan words for, 420.

Daughter-in-law, Aryan words for, 403.

Daughter’s son, Aryan words for, 402.

Day, Aryan words for, 404.

Dead and dying religions, 249.

Deaf and dumb, 446.

Dean of St. Paul’s Lectures, 352.

Debendranath Tagore, 312.

—— had the Vedas copied, 357.

Delight, to, root TṚP, Aryan words for, 415. Body text TRĬP

Dialectic growth, 422.

Dialects of the Mundas or the Koles, 347.

—— of languages and religions must be studied, 301.

Die, to, root MṚ, Aryan word for, 415. Body text MRĬ

Digest of Hindu and Mohammedan laws, 373, 374.

Dingdongism, 452.

Disciples of Buddha, 267.

Divine origin claimed for the Vedas, 259.

Döllinger, Dr., 313.

Double procession, question of the, 313.

Dravidian languages, 347.

Drink, to, root PA or PI, Aryan words for, 414.

Dry, Aryan words for, 411.

Duilian column, the, 430.

Duties of a faithful Hindu widow, 372.

Dvarka Náth Tagore, 357.

—— his visit to Eugène Burnouf, 357.

E

Ear, Aryan words for, 406.

East India Company, Directors of the, 350.

Eat, to, root AD, Aryan words for, 414.

Eight, Aryan words for, 412.

Elbow, Aryan words for, 407.

Elgin, Lord, 345.

Emperors Tiberius and Sigismund, anecdotes of the, 424.

English universities, 337.

Epitheta ornantia, 421.

Equinox, precession of the, 508.

Ethelbert, his conversion, 287.

Ethnological Survey of India, 346.

Etruscan grammar, 340.

Evolution, 444.

Evolutionism, 444, 457.

Ewe, Aryan words for, 409.

Excluded middle, law of the, 434.

Ex nihilo nihil fit, 454.

Ex Oriente Lux, 325.

F

F, its hieroglyphic prototype, 450.

Father, Aryan words for, 401.

Father-in-law, Aryan words for, 402.

Feature, 461.

Fergusson, Mr., 346.

Festus and Agrippa and St. Paul, 277.

Fir, Oak, Beech, 500.

Fire, Aryan words for, 404.

Fire worshippers as disciples of Buddha, 267.

Five, Aryan words for, 412.

Fool, Aryan words for, 411.

Foot, Aryan words for, 406.

Four, Aryan words for, 412.

G

Gaṇeśa, god of success, 251, 309.

Gentoo, 374 note.

—— laws, code of, 374.

Geology of speech, 449.

Geometric Science, first impulse given to, 330.

Ghási Dás, the prophet, 314.

Jhilghiti dialect of Shinâ, 349.

Gibbon, on the Roman Religion of the second Century, 310.

Giriprasâda-sinha, Rajah of Besmah, 335.

Give, to, root DA, Aryan words for, 414.

Glottology and Evolutionism, 459.

Go, to, root I, Aryan words for, 414.

Go, to, root SṚP, Aryan words for, 415. Body text SRĬP

Goa, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

Goat, Aryan words for, 409.

God, Aryan words for, 404.

Goeze, Pastor, the critic of Lessing, 518.

Goldstücker, Professor, 344, 511.

—— Whitney on, 516, 524.

Gonds, language of the, 347.

Graduation, insensible, 438.

Grammar, Indian and Greek systems of, 381.

Grammatical blunders, 488.

Grand-daughter, Aryan words for, 402.

Grandson, Aryan words for, 402.

Great, Aryan words for, 411.

Greek Algebra, 391.

—— scholarship, revival of, 361.

Greek or Macedonian workmen in India, 349.

Greenway, Rev. C., 342.

Grey, Sir George, 343.

Griffith, Mr., 335.

H

H, Hieroglyphic prototype of, 450.

Haeckel, 459.

—— Whitney on, 516.

Hair of the body, Aryan words for, 409.

—— of the head, Aryan words for, 409.

Hand, Aryan words for, 405.

Hard and soft, 490.

Hartmann, von, 459.

Heat, broad degrees of, 437.

Hegel, 446.

Helmholtz, Professor, 514.

Hindu astronomers, four ways of reckoning time among, 367.

—— astronomy, antiquity of, 387.

—— Bentley on, 387.

—— and Mohammedan Law, digest of, 373.

—— philosophy, Colebrooke’s treatises on, 394.

—— schools of law, 374.

—— widow, Colebrooke on the duties of, 372.

Hindus, Lunar Zodiac of the, 508.

Hindustani or Moors, 365.

Historical religions, 239.

—— —— number of, 239.

“History of the Science of Language,” Benfey’s, 325.

—— of philosophy, study of the, 444.

Hog, Aryan words for, 409.

Homoousia, the, 313.

Horâ, 367.

Horse, Aryan words for, 408.

Hottentot language, 344.

Hour, horâ, 367.

House, Aryan words for, 407.

Human beings without language, 341.

Human sacrifices in India, 370.

Humaniores, 362.

Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 446.

Husbandry and commerce of Bengal, Colebrooke on the, 373.

Husband’s brother, Aryan words for, 403.

Huxley, 445, 446, 448.

Hyder Ali and the missionary Schwarz, 285.

—— death of, 365.

Hypsibios, 457.

I

Idolatry and the Brahmos, 270.

Illustrations, importance of, 474.

India, Colebrooke starts for, 364.

—— Colebrooke the legislator of, 390.

—— Mathematicians, dates of, 392.

—— snake-charmers, 370.

—— human sacrifices, 370.

Indian Algebra, like Arabian, not like Greek, 391.

—— Government, their readiness to help students, 344.

—— and Greek systems of grammar, 382.

—— Mirror, the, 355.

—— Museum in London, 349.

—— Plants, Colebrooke’s Essay on, 380.

—— Theogonies, Colebrooke’s Essay on, 380.

Infallibility of traditional interpretation of Veda, 386.

Insect, Aryan words for, 410.

Insensible graduation, 437.

Institutes of Calvin, 287.

Intelligent, inter-ligent, inter-twining, 327.

International Congress of Orientalists, 317.

Inverted Fugue, an, 470.

Islâm, the, 245.

J

Jagannâtha, 374.

Jean Paul, 446.

Jellinghaus, Mr., 348.

Jews do not proselytize, 241.

—— the most proselytizing of people, 304.

Join, to, root YUJ, Aryan words for, 414.

Jones, Sir William, his translations from Sanskrit, 322, 361.

—— on the resemblance between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, 324.

—— the only rival of Colebrooke, 396.

—— Colebrooke’s testimony to, 397.

—— his merits not appreciated, 398.

Justin, his interview with the philosopher, 287.

K

Kabir, founder of the sect of the Avadhûta, 257.

—— commandments of, 257.

—— his reforms, 257.

—— poetry of, 311.

Kalâsha-Mânder dialects, 349.

Kali, the goddess, 251.

—— goddess of Calcutta, 309.

Kalidasa’s play of Sakuntala, 323.

Kamilarois, religious ideas of the, 341.

Kant, 447.

—— his writings, 426.

Kârtikêya, god of war, 251, 309.

Keshub Chunder Sen, 260, 312.

—— his Lecture on Christ, 272.

Khasia language and the Munda dialects, 348.

Khayuna dialects, 349.

Kielhorn, Dr., 332, 345.

King, Aryan words for, 407.

Kingdom, Aryan words for, 407.

Knee, Aryan words for, 406.

Know, to, root JÑA, Aryan words for, 415. Body text JNYA

—— root VID, Aryan words for, 415.

Knowledge for its own sake, danger of, 320.

Koles, the, 347.

—— language of, Dravidian, 347.

Koran, spirit of the, 245.

L

Language, human beings without, 341.

—— Veddahs said to have none, 342.

—— of the Koles and Gonds, 347.

—— natural growth or historical change in, 422.

—— the specific difference of man, 441.

—— none without roots, 460.

—— and thought inseparable, 484.

Lardner’s “Credibilia,” 287.

Lassen, 510.

—— and Burnouf, Whitney on, 515.

Laudari a viro laudato, 512.

Law of the Excluded Middle, 434.

Laws of Manu., 323.

—— of Nature, unsuspected, 426.

Laymen, work of, 293.

—— assistance of, 293.

Lecture on Christ by Keshub Chunder Sen, 272.

“Lectures on the English Language,” Marsh’s, 431.

Leitner, Dr., his labors in Dardistan, 348.

Lepsius, Pastor Goeze the critic of, 518.

Light, broad degrees of, 437.

—— lucere, 467.

Lines and limits in nature, 437.

Linguistic survey of India, 346.

Literary survey of India, the, 346.

Locatives, old, 208.

Locke, 446.

Loewe, Dr., 487.

Logic, Prantl on reform of, 486.

Logical statement, skeleton of, 434.

Logos, the, 455.

Lunar Zodiac of the Hindus, 508.

M

Macaulay, Lord, on Christian differences, 290.

Madras, Colebrooke’s arrival at, 364.

Mahâbhâshya, new edition of, 335.

—— photo-lithograph of, 344.

Mahrattas, the, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

Mamânsaka philosophers, 386.

Man, Aryan words for, 405.

—— an amphibious creature, 477.

Mansel, 446.

Mâra, his interview with Buddha, 268.

March, his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, 421.

Marriages in India between those of different rank, 377.

Marsh’s “Lectures on the English Language,” 431.

Mill, John Stuart, 318.

Mill, Dr., 336.

Mind, Aryan words for, 405.

—— what is meant by, 436.

—— of animals, a terra incognita, 442.

Mirzapur, Colebrooke at, 374.

—— Colebrooke returns to, 381.

Missionary and Non-missionary religions, 241.

Missionary religions, 241, 303.

—— religion what constitutes a, 306.

—— societies, 290.

—— societies, claim on, for Oriental studies, 337.

Missions, 238.

—— Stanley’s Sermon on, 276.

—— should be more helped by the universities, 338.

Modern languages, their importance, 523.

Mohammedanism, countries professing, 252.

Month, Aryan words for, 404.

Moon, Aryan words for, 403.

Moors, or Hindustani, 365.

More, Sir Thomas, 293.

Moslim, 245.

Mother, Aryan words for, 401.

Mother-in-law, Aryan words for, 403.

Mountain, Aryan words for, 424.

Mouse, Aryan words for, 410.

Mouth, Aryan words for, 406.

Mule, Aryan words for, 408.

Munda dialects and the Khasian language, 348.

—— and the Talaing of Pegu, 348.

Mundas or Koles, dialects of, 347.

Musket, 503.

Mysore, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

Mythology, 328.

N

Naaman, 278.

Nagpur, Colebrooke at, 380.

Nakshatras, the, 508.

—— derived from China or Chaldea, 508.

Name, Aryan words for, 407.

Nânak, founder of the Sikh religion, 257.

—— wisdom of, 311.

—— reforms of, 257.

Napoleon at the Red Sea, 291.

Nattore, Colebrooke at, 370.

Natural growth, or historical change in language, 422.

Nature, lines and limits in, 437.

Navel, Aryan words for, 406.

Nepal, Buddhist priests sent to, 244.

New, Aryan words for, 411.

Night, Aryan words for, 404.

Nine, Aryan words for, 413.

Nirvâṇa (dying), 268.

Non-missionary religions, 241.

Nose, Aryan words for, 406.

O

Old, Aryan words for, 411.

One, Aryan words for, 412.

ὄνομα and nomen, in Persian nâm, 324.

Oppert, Whitney on, 515.

Oriental studies, their claims on support, 336 seq.

Origen, 293.

Oscan grammar, 340.

Other, Aryan words for, 411.

Ox, cow, bull, Aryan words for, 408.

Oxford, University of, claim of Oriental studies on, 337.

—— what it might do for Missions, 338.

P

Palaitiological sciences, 427.

Pandit, the, 335.

Pâṇini, 332.

Pantænus, 293.

Para-Brahma, the, 256.

Parental and controversial work of missionaries, 253.

Parsis do not proselytize, 242.

—— in Bombay, 305.

—— their wish to increase their sect, 305.

Pat, the root, 461.

πατήρ and μήτηρ in Persian, 323.

Paternal missionary, the, 316.

Patteson, Bishop, 254.

—— on missions, 262.

—— as an Oxford man, 338.

Pausilipo, Virgil’s tomb at, 284.

Peat deposits, 501.

Phenician alphabet, the ultimate source of the world’s alphabets, 430, 468.

Phlogiston, 444.

Phocion, 431.

Phonetic organs very imperfect in animals nearest to man, 440.

Photolithograph of the Mahâbhâshya, 344.

Plumbum, 461.

Plunge, to, 461.

Pomegranate, Aryan words for, 408.

Pott on Curtius, 518.

Prantl on the Reform of Logic, 485.

Precession of the Equinox, 508.

Prepositions, Aryan words for, 413.

Princes, disciples of Buddha, 267.

“Principes de la Nature,” by Renouvier, 420.

Procreate, to, root SU, Aryan words for, 415.

Pronouns, Aryan words for, 413.

Proselyte, meaning of, 303.

Proselytes among the Jews, 241.

Proselytizing, etymological sense of, 306.

Protagoras, 424.

Protoplasm, 458.

Psalms and Vedic hymns contrasted, 352.

Psylli, of Egypt, the, 370.

Ptolemaic system, 444.

Purneah, Colebrooke at, 369.

Puteoli, St. Paul at, 284.

Q

“Quarterly Review,” article in the, 418.

R

Races without any religious ideas, 341.

Rajanîkânta’s “Life of Jajadeva,” 335.

Rajendra Lal Mitra, 334, 345.

Rajmahal Koles, 347.

Rajnarain Bose, on the Brahma-Sanâj, 269.

Râmânanda, 14th century, the reformer, 256.

—— sect of, 311.

Râmânuja, 12th century, the reformer, 256.

—— sect of, 311.

Ram Dass Sen, 335.

Ram Mohun Roy and the Brahma-Samâj, 258, 311, 312, 356.

—— unable to read his own sacred books, 356.

Ranchi, Missionaries at, 347.

Rathakaras, the, 307.

Religions, historical, Semitic and Aryan, 239.

—— as shown in their Scriptures, 299.

—— Missionary, 303.

—— inferences as to, drawn from their Scriptures qualified by actual observation, 299.

—— all Oriental, 328.

Religious ideas, races without, 341.

Renan, 451.

—— Whitney on, 515.

Renouvier, author of “Les Principes de la Nature,” 420.

Reports sent to the Colonial Office on native races, 340.

Resemblance between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, Sir W. Jones on the, 323.

Ribhus, the Vedic gods, 307.

Right of private judgment, 386.

Rig-Veda, the Commentary of Sayâṇâcârya, 350.

Robin, 503.

Robinson, Sir Hercules, 341.

Rock or Stone, Aryan words for, 408.

Roman religion in the second century, Gibbon on the, 310.

Roots, 463.

Roots, none without concepts, 477.

Rosen, 336, 356.

Rougé, 468.

Roxburgh’s “Flora Indica,” 384.

Royal Asiatic Society, 392.

S

“Sacred Anthology,” Conway’s, 329.

Sacred Books of Mankind, translation of, 321.

Sacred cord of the Brahmans, 260.

“Sakuntala,” Kâlidâsa’s play of, 323.

Salâm, peace, 245 note.

Saṃvâranâdaghosâḥ, 498.

Sanskrit Dictionary by Târânâtha, 335.

—— scholars, old school of, 334.

—— discovery of, 363.

—— Colebrooke professor of, 381.

—— and Prakrit poetry, Colebrooke’s essay on, 381.

—— Grammar by Colebrooke, 381.

—— MSS. of Colebrooke, presented to the East India Company, 392.

—— Dictionary published by Professors Boehtlingk and Roth, 511.

—— Grammar, Max Müller’s, 519.

Sarvanâman, pronoun, 430.

Satnâmis, sect of the, 314.

Savaṇa’s Commentary, 386.

Schelling, 446.

Schlegel, 393.

Schleicher, 521.

—— his Essay, “Darwinism tested by the Science of Language,” 480.

—— Whitney on, 516.

Schlüter, Dr. C. B., 330 note.

Scholars, two classes of, 395.

Schopenhauer, 446.

Schwarz the missionary, and Hyder Ali, 285.

Science, the term, 482.

—— —— Benfey’s History of the, 325.

—— —— a physical science, 429, 475.

—— —— an historical science, 429.

—— —— all is chaos in, 522.

—— of Man, 322.

Secretary of State for India in Council, 350.

See, to, root Dṛś, Aryan words for, 415. Body text DRĬS

Self-defense in, 456.

Semitic religions, true historical, 239.

Serpent, Aryan words for, 410.

Services of scholars in India, 355.

Seven, Aryan words, for, 412.

Shinâ dialects, 349.

Ship or Boat, Aryan words for, 407.

Shradh, ancestral sacrifices, 270.

Sikh religion, 257.

Sikhs, 370.

Sin, Aryan words for, 412.

Singhalese, corruption of Sanskrit, 342.

Sister, Aryan words for, 402.

Sit, to, root SAD, Aryan words for, 414.

Śiva, worship of, 309.

Six, Aryan words for, 412.

Skeleton of logical statement, 434.

Sky, Heaven, Aryan words for, 404.

Sleep, Aryan words for, 411.

Small boat, Aryan words for, 407.

Snake charmers of India, 370.

Son, Aryan words for, 401.

Son-in-law, Aryan words for, 403.

Son’s son, Aryan words for, 402.

Sound, Aryan words for, 411.

Sound, broad degrees of, 437.

Species, a thing of human workmanship, 438.

—— Darwin’s book an attempt to repeal the term, 439.

Specific differences, two classes of, 441.

Speech, geology and chemistry of, 449.

Spencer’s “First Principles,” 341.

Spencerian savages, 341.

Sprachwissenschaft, 482.

St. Antony, 293.

St. Francis of Assisi, 293.

St. Paul, Festus, and Agrippa, 277.

—— at Virgil’s tomb, 284.

Stanley’s Sermon of Missions, 276.

Star, Aryan words for, 403.

Steinthal, 431, 521, 522.

—— his answer to Whitney, 505.

Stevenson, 336.

Stokes, Whitley, 345.

Storm gods, invocations of the, 352.

Strew, to, root STṚ, Aryan words for, 415. Body text STRĬ

Subdue, to, root DAM, Aryan words for, 414.

“Summa Theologiæ” of Aquinas, 287.

Sun, Aryan words for, 403.

“Supplementary Digest,” Colebrooke’s, 380, 384, 388.

Surd and sonant, 498.

T

Tacitus, 333.

Tagore, Debendranâth, 259.

Takht-i-bahai hills, the, 349.

Talaing of Pegu, and the Munda dialects, 348.

Talleyrand, 435.

Târanâthâ’s Sanskrit Dictionary, 335.

Tasthushas, 490.

Tathâgata, 268.

Technical terms, introduction of new, 348.

Telemachus, the hermit, 293.

Ten, Aryan words for, 413.

Tenuis, the, 495.

Terminations, Aryan, 412.

Theological bias, 428.

θέσει, not φύσει, 433.

Thibaut, Dr., 330.

Thin, Aryan words for, 411.

Thing, wealth, Aryan words for, 407.

Three, Aryan words for, 412.

θυγάτηρ, in Persian dockter, 323.

Timbre, 449.

Time reckoned by the Hindu astronomers in four ways, 367.

Tippoo, defeat of, 365.

Tirhut, Colebrooke made collector of revenue at, 365.

Tooth, Aryan words for, 406.

Town, Aryan words for, 407.

Traditional interpretation of the Veda, 386.

Tree, Aryan words for, 408.

Turrumûlan, the one-legged, 341.

Twenty-fourth generation of Jewish proselytes, 242.

Two, Aryan words for, 412.

U

Ulfilas and Athanasius, 261.

—— his teaching, 287.

Umbrian grammar, 340.

Universities, English, 337.

Unsuspected laws of nature, 426.

Up, 474.

Upanayana, spiritual apprenticing, 270.

Upanishads, the, 315, 356.

Uraon Koles, 347.

V

Vâhyaprayatna, the, 498.

Veda, traditional interpretation of the, 386.

Vedas, copied in 1845 for Debendra Náth Tagore, 357.

—— Colebrooke’s essay on the, 380.

Vedic hymns and the Psalms contrasted, 352.

Veddah language, like Singhalese, mere corruption of Sanskrit, 342.

Veddahs have no language, 342.

Veddhâ, vyâdha, hunter, 342.

Verbal agreement between Whitney and Max Müller, 425.

Vidushas, 491.

Virgil’s tomb at Pausilipo, 284.

—— St. Paul at, 284.

Vishṇu, worship of, 309.

Viśvâmitra, 303.

Vitality of Brahmanism, 296.

Vivâraśvâsâghoshâḥ, 498.

Vladimir of Russia, 288.

Voice, Aryan words for, 407.

Voysey, Rev. C., 304.

Vulcanism, 444.

W

Waldmann, my dog, 444.

Warren Hastings, 374.

Water, Aryan words for, 405.

Wedgwood’s Dictionary, 460.

Westminster Lecture, 238.

Whewell’s “History of the Inductive Sciences,” 427, 479.

—— Letter to Max Müller, 427 note.

Whiff away, 509 note.

Whitney, William Dwight:

—— his attacks on various scholars, 422, 429, 430–435, 464, 483, 490, 502, 504–508, 513, 515–520.

—— his misrepresentations, 424, 433–435, 445, 467, 469, 470, 476–479, 481, 487, 492, 494, 497, 509, 510, 514, 521, 522, 523, 524.

—— his mistakes, 430, 431, 467, 491, 498, 518, 519.

Widow, Aryan words for, 403.

Widow-burning, 303.

Wife’s brother, Aryan words for, 403.

Wilkins, 368, 398.

Wilson, Professor, 336, 393.

Wissenschaft, 482.

Withering contempt, 509 note.

Wolf, Aryan words for, 410.

Wool, Aryan words for, 409.

X

Xerxes, religion of, 249.

Y

Yasa son of Sujatá, 267, 268.

Young, Aryan words for, 411.

Z

Zoroaster, religion of, 249.

Zoroastrians, their wish to augment their sect, 305.

INDEX

The Index of the published book covered Volumes III and IV. For this e-text it is given in two separate forms. The first contains only references to Volume IV; the second is complete as published. In addition, each separate file has an index for that file only. All links lead to the top of the page, except that references to footnotes (“note”) in Volume IV lead to the individual note.

Because of the author’s transliteration system, many Sanskrit words in c (च) and j (ज) will be alphabetized as k and g.

Spelling and capitalization of verb roots from the Colebrooke appendix has been regularized. The original forms are noted like this or this, depending on whether the printed text is wrong or simply different.