Note 15 — Chapter XI

Thirdly, the position of the Hungarian tongue in reference to the Finnish, the Ugric, and the Turko-tatar dialects is far from being settled yet by the philologists. Moreover, Csoma’s studies and labours moved in an entirely different philological and ethnographical sphere from that to which these several dialects belong. No critic who was not able to pay due attention to a field of research on which Csoma laboured, namely, the Indian, the Sanskrit, and the Tibetan languages, could be expected to understand and to appreciate his ideas, motives, and conclusions as they deserve, nor yet claim the right to pronounce final judgment upon his merits. Nevertheless, an opinion stands on record that Csoma’s philological views are not considered by his countrymen as “deserving serious consideration.”15 But this is only in the Finnish and Turko-tatar direction, in which the special studies of these critics lay, being quite distinct from those of Csoma, which, by the way, have not as yet been inquired into by them. It is not fair towards a thoroughgoing student such as Csoma was to treat his labours in an off-hand manner, and to misinterpret the tendency of his thoughtful conclusions.