which migrate from one region to another, is a question only to be determined by accurate research.

SECTION 2.-Distribution of the Nations of Europe and Asia into Groupes and Families.

The different nations of Europe and Asia distribute themselves into groupes of greater or less extent, the members of which are in some instances bound together by ties closer than in others. Several of these groupes are composed of tribes, who, though spread through different and often remote regions, display, when their languages, their history, and moral peculiarities are investigated, such proofs of affinity, as to leave no doubt that they sprang originally from the same stems. In some instances, which we shall have occasion to point out, philological evidence seems to be alone sufficient to establish this conclusion, though it be one which previously to inquiry would appear very improbable. Who, for example, would expect to find any marks of affinity between the barbarous Siah-pôsh, on the heights of the Hindu-Khu, near the sources of the Oxus, and the natives of Lettland, Lithuania and East Prussia? Yet nobody who considers the remarkable affinity discovered between the idiom of the Siah-pôsh and the Sanskrit, and again between the same language and the Lettish, Lithuanian, and Old Prussian, can entertain a doubt that the nations above mentioned sprang from a common origin. Groupes composed of tribes thus associated are commonly termed families of nations; but that expression may not be adopted in examples in which the marks of affinity are less decided. It can hardly be applied to nations which, though associated by local proximity, as well as by resemblance in manners and physical characters, display in their languages no sufficient evidence of original connexion. We should not venture to term the Koriaks, the Kamtschadales and the Yukagiri, a family of nations, though they are similar in their habits and whole manner of existence, as well as in their physical characters, and inhabit neighbouring countries, in a remote extremity of the old

continent. We are not aware of any analogy in their languages sufficient to afford proof of kindred origin, and the observed traits of resemblance may be otherwise explained. The term groupe or that of class will best denote such aggregates of nations, and as a general expression, will serve to include assortments of both kinds.

I shall now enumerate the principal groupes into which I propose to distribute the tribes who collectively form the population of this great continent.

Paragraph 2.-First Groupe.-Syro-Arabian Race.

The first groupe, or that which merits distinction in the first place, as having exercised the greatest influence over the destinies of mankind, is a comparatively limited class of nations, all of them speaking cognate dialects of one language. To these, modern writers, after Eichhorn, have given the designation of the Semitic Race. The term is a most improper one, since a remarkable division of these tribes, forming by themselves one of the most celebrated nations of the ancient world, are by the genealogies preserved in the book of Genesis, declared to have descended from a different family, namely, from that of Canaan and of Ham. It seems that the Canaanites, or the Phoenicians, as these nations were termed by the Greeks, including the Sidonians, Tyrians, and other colonies of the same race, reported to have come originally from the Erythræan or Indian ocean, a people devoted from the earliest times to maritime commerce, though they were the offspring of a different stock from the pastoral Shemite tribes, were brought at an early period into relations so intimate with people of that race, as to partake with them one common speech, and to form with them, in an ethnological sense, one groupe of nations. We have likewise reason to

believe that some of the Arabian tribes, namely, the Hhimyarites and their colonies on the coast of Africa, were of the race of Cush, and, therefore, of a stock originally distinct from that of Shem. Now it is evidently improper to apply

to a whole groupe of nations an epithet which, derived from the patriarch of one division, excludes all the rest. The name of Syro-Arabians, formed on the same principle as the now generally admitted term of Indo-Europeans, would be a much more suitable expression. The limits of Syria and Arabia, in their most extensive sense, jointly comprise nearly all the countries inhabited by people who spoke the idiom of these nations.

To races who spoke kindred dialects of the Syro-Arabian language mankind in general are indebted, even more than to those nations who, in later periods, acquired and imparted a higher culture in the arts of life. While the adventurous spirit and inventive genius of one of these races explored all the coasts and havens of the ancient world, and first taught remote nations the use of letters and of iron tools, to search their soil for metals, and to till it for the bearing of grain, other tribes cultivated the rich plains of Upper Asia and reared the magnificent seats of the earliest monarchies, Nineveh and Babylon, where the pomp and luxury of the East were first displayed, and the royal city of Solomon, the only seat of the pure worship of God, where a sublime literature was cultivated, superior in its simple majesty to the finest productions of the classical age, and preserving a portrait of the human mind in the infancy of our race.

The Syro-Arabian tribes lost, at an early period, their ascendency among the civilized nations of the world. Five centuries before the Christian era the Japetic nations began to dwell in the tents of Shem, and from that time Medes and Persians, Greeks and Romans, and lastly Turks, have sucessively domineered over the native inhabitants of Western Asia. The original tribes, cooped up within narrow limits, or expelled, spread themselves in colonies through distant lands. North Africa and Spain, and nearly all the islands of the Mediterranean received colonies from the Phoenician coast.

Paragraph 3.-Second Groupe.-Indo-European or Iranian

Nations.

A second groupe of nations, more widely spread and consisting of more numerous tribes than the preceding, has received the epithet of the Indo-European race.* Against the use of this name no objection exists, except that it is too long for very frequent repetition. I shall often substitute for it the term Iranian, taken from the country, which, as it is scarcely possible to doubt, was the original abode of the race.

I shall survey the history of particular nations belonging to this groupe, and shall endeavour to give an account of their relations to each other, when I proceed to describe the population of each country, which derived from this source its principal stock of inhabitants. In this place I shall observe, that the Indo-European nations have been divided by the affinities of their languages into two principal classes, which might be termed the Indian and the Median, or the southern and northern stems. The former class have languages of which either the forms have been better preserved, or they were originally more elaborate and refined in grammatical structure than the idioms of the latter, owing, perhaps, to an earlier cultivation of poetry, and in part to an earlier acquaintance with the art of writing. Among the more obvious traits of distinction between them, and those which require, in order to be perceived, the least studied examination, is the peculiarity that, in the interchange of consonants, discoverable when the words of one idiom are compared with those of another, the Median, and all its branches, frequently substitute hard gutturals or aspirates for the soft and sibilant letters of the Indian. To the Median or northern branch belong more especially all the Persian and the Germanic languages; to the southern, the Sanskrit, and the classical languages of Greece and Italy. The other languages of Europe belonging

races.

Schloezer, and some other German writers, term these nations the Japetic

to this great family, have much that is common with the Median or the Germanic branch, yet we cannot, without hesitation, set them down as strictly belonging to this division. Of the two great Celtic idioms, one, namely, the Erse or Gaelic, approaches in some particulars to the southern or classical department of this groupe of languages. The same remark may be applied to the Slavic idioms, and, perhaps, still more obviously to the Lettish and Lithuanian, which of all extant European dialects appear most nearly to resemble the Sanskrit. These observations are of manifest importance to ethnography; but we must not draw inferences from them without adverting to an observable fact, that each member of the Indo-European class of languages bears, individually, traits of particular affinity, or at least, of peculiar resemblance, to nearly every other member. Thus the Celtic and the Greek have some words in common, which are wanting to all the other languages; and a similar remark applies to the Latin and the Sanskrit. Such facts are difficult of explanation, but, perhaps, the greatest difficulty connected with the history of the Iranian languages, relates to the origin of the barbaric or foreign element which they severally contain, but which, in some instances, is in much greater proportion than it is in others.

Paragraph 4.-Of the Allophylian Races.

When we inquire more particularly into the history of the Indo-European races, many traits present themselves by which they are brought into contrast with all the nations who are aliens to their stock and lineage. For all these tribes of foreign blood we want a term which may serve to designate them collectively, and at the same time to distinguish them from nations of the Iranian family. Some late writers have termed all these tribes in the aggregate, Scythians, maintaining that they all belong, not less than the Iranian nations, to a particular race. As this opinion rests, as yet at least, on no sufficient evidence, I shall avoid using the term suggested by it, and for the present I shall distinguish the whole collective