All people, when they become very numerous, will employ themselves in some great national work. By a rude and barbarous people, magnitude is considered necessary to excellence, and is most likely to excite admiration. Where architecture is in an imperfect state, the pyramidal form is most natural and easy of construction. It is to be remembered, also, that the pyramids of Egypt were constructed with recesses or rooms; while those in Mexico and other parts of America are solid masses, designed generally, for sites for their temples and idols. In their system of astronomy, (so far as it can be said they had a system) and in their calculations of time, the Mexicans and their predecessors, the Toltecs, differed widely from the Egyptians; but agreed more with the Tartars and Calmucs.

We have already noticed the supposition, that America might have been originally settled by the Phenicians. In the actual occurrence of such an event, it is probable some distinct evidence of it would have been found among the people of this continent, or some recollection of it preserved in the traditions or annals of the parent country. Their nautical wanderings must have been very long and hazardous, if they ever reached America; especially, as there is no reason to suppose they had, in early times, any other than small open boats, in navigating which, safety required them to keep near to

the coast.

There remains one other source of evidence, which may be made the basis of a theory, as to the origin of the American Indians; and that is language. But no satisfactory argument has yet been afforded, by the knowledge obtained of the languages, and idioms, which prevail among the aboriginal inhabitants, in proof of their descent from any particular nation or people in the old continent. As other considerations go to show the great probability of an entire Asiatic origin, and that from a Tartar tribe in the northeast, it is necessary only to remove any objections offered against it, arising from this quarter.

The great principles or outlines of all languages are very similar. There are certain principles common to the language of man, universally Yet the idioms and dialects of different nations, far removed from one another, whose separation has existed for twenty or thirty centuries, and whose pursuits, population, and civilization have thus become very diverse, are found to have, in a few respects, what some philologists call radical peculiarities.

It is not difficult to suppose, that the language of a nation, which was highly civilized and to which alphabetic writing had been long known, would, after many centuries be so changed, as to retain very little analogy or affinity to that spoken by a rude and wandering tribe, which originally descended from the same stock or family. In the most ancient languages, although, by some writers, considered dis

tinct, there is a great similarity in their respective grammatical construction. But the analogies become less and less, as the nations and families of men extended, and settled distant regions, and after many centuries had rolled away. There are affinities, and there are many varieties, also, apparent, on a comparison of the Chaldean, the Hebrew, the Armenian, the Syriac, the Arabic, the Egyptian and the Coptic. The respective nations of Europe had, also, some idioms peculiar to each; at the same time, it is evident there was an affinity among them all.

Adelung, one of the diligent and learned Editors of a very able philological work, with the title of Mithridates says, "That some words pervade almost all languages; which, in their forms are nearly identical." He observes also, "That the ancient languages, with all their varieties, suggest, at least, the possibility of a common origin; as they all exhibit some traces or features of resemblances." Vater, another writer in this learned work, says, "It is not at all improbable, that the several languages of the earth had a common origin; but that they soon varied, as mankind separated from one another and settled in distant regions." Adelung remarks further," that the languages of the primitive nations were scanty and limited; probably consisting of monosyllables, and perhaps, of nouns only; but, as men increased, language became varied and copious, and great varieties are, therefore, found in different nations, after several centuries.

To the two primitive languages, by philologists, usually distinguished as the Shemetic, and the Japhetic, or Indo-European, all the other languages and dialects long known and spoken in Asia, Europe and the north of Africa, are referred for their origin and derivation; while the African tribes, except those in the northern parts of that quarter of the globe, are said to have languages or dialects widely different; which are supposed to have been formed during many centuries, by the posterity of Ham, some of whom early settled in the interior of that country.

The Shemetic language is considered the parent stock of the Chaldean, Hebrew, Armenian, Egyptian, Syriac, Arabic, Phenecian and Ethiopian. The Japhetic, or Indo-European, formerly called the Indo-Germanic, the primitive language of the Sanscrit, Persian, Greek, Latin, German, Sclavonian and Celtic. The Caffre, on the east coast of Africa, bears an affinity to the Arabian, and that of Madagascar, to the Caffre. Again, that of Malay and of most Islanders in the Pacific, are similar, in some respects, to that of the Caffre and of the people of Madagascar. All the languages in the central, eastern and northeastern parts of Asia are generally allowed to be from a common stock. In the north and east, we find the Turcoman, Tartar, Mongol, and others: And the Japanese has a great resemblance to the Mongol.

What then, it may be asked, does a reference to the various languages of the nations, in the old continent, serve to prove, as to the origin of the American Indians. Nothing-positively and decisively, nothing. For the languages and idioms of the latter, are not so radically diverse from all those known in Asia or Europe as to justify one, on this account, to assert, that they were originally a distinct race: Nor has it yet been made to appear, that the analogies between the most extensive dialect in America and that of any particular nation, on the eastern continent, are so numerous and striking, as to authorize the conclusion, that the first inhabitants of this country descended from any such nation. So far, however, as any analogies of language have been found to exist, they support the theory of an Asiatic origin. Some affinities have been detected between the languages of the central and northern tribes of this continent, and that of the Mongols, a Tartar race in the north of Asia. Vater mentions several strong analogies between the Esquimaux and Algonquins of America, and the Tchouktchese, in the eastern part of Asia, who are only a tribe of the Tartar race. It may be more difficult to discover analogies between the languages of the Esquimaux and the Mexicans; but some resemblances have been pointed out between the former and the tribes once inhabiting the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Missouri, the Delaware and the more northeastern parts of Canada and the United States.

In a discourse on the ancient languages of America, Vater points out many analogies and resemblances between them and the languages of some tribes of the old continent, particularly of the Japanese, the Sanscrit, and the Caucasian: and he insists that there are resemblances also of the Esquimaux, in the northeast of North America, to the Tchouktchese in the east of Tartary. M. Brun says affinities exist between the Mexican languages and those of the Ostiacs, and Calmucs, in northeast of Asia. And yet, strange to relate, this learned writer asserts that there are twenty different languages! Surely, these can be only different dialects, like those of the separate states of ancient Greece. We cannot but observe, that such an extravagant opinion goes to shew, that no satisfactory theory can be deduced, as to the descent of one nation from another, merely on account of some supposed resemblances of language.

Additional remarks on this subject might be made; but the article must not be extended. It is a satisfaction to learn, that some learned philologists, both in Europe and America, are directing their inquiries as to the connexion between written languages in the old continent, and those spoken by the Aborigines of America. If, as has been assumed, and as the most ancient and authentic history authorizes us to believe, the human race was early dispersed (nearly 4000 years ago) and settled in places far distant from the location of the prime

val family, we cannot suppose that much improvement had been made in language, or in the common arts of life; excepting such as necessity led them to invent, before the time of their dispersion. Those who thus wandered from the primitive family might lose something of the knowledge, which their early ancestors possessed; and would also gradually adopt new phrases and forms of speech; and thus, eventually, introduce various dialects and idioms in different parts of the earth. The languages of the Americans do not differ more, perhaps, from those of the eastern continent, than do those of distant and unconnected parts of Europe or Asia; especially, if the differences occasioned by civilization and a savage life be taken into the account.

The learned Vater says, "there are 3000 languages in the world; 1200 in America, 1000 in Asia, 600 in Europe, and 200 in Africa." He does not pretend, however, that these languages are radically different; nor that those usually called primitive are totally distinct in their rudiments or elements. We may justly conclude, then, that the hypothesis, which supposes originally distinct races of men, and assumes that the Americans are strictly an indigenous people, is not supported by any facts furnished by the numerous dialects or idioms which exist, nor by the anomalies which have been discovered in the different languages of mankind.

B.

SKETCH OF A SCHOOLFELLOW.

He sat by me at school. His face is now
Vividly in my mind, as if he went
From me but yesterday-its pleasant smile
And the rich, joyous laughter of his eye,
And the free play of his unhaughty lip,
So redolent of his heart! He was not fair,
Nor singular, nor over-fond of books,
And never melancholy when alone.

He was the heartiest in the ring, the last

Home from the summer's wanderings, and the first
Over the threshold when the school was done.

All of us loved him. We shall speak his name
In the far years to come, and think of him
When we have lost life's simplest passages,
And pray for him-forgetting he is dead-
Life was in him so passing beautiful!

His childhood had been wasted in the close
And airless city. He had never thought
That the blue sky was ample, or the stars

Many in heaven, or the chainless wind
Of a medicinal freshness. He had learn'd
Perilous tricks of manhood, and his hand
Was ready, and his confidence in himself
Bold as a quarreler's. Then he came away
To the unshelter'd hills, and brought an eye
New as a babe's to nature, and an ear

As ignorant of its music. He was sad.
The broad hill sides seem'd desolate, and the woods
Gloomy and dim, and the perpetual sound
Of wind and waters and unquiet leaves
Like the monotony of a dirge. He pined
For the familiar things until his heart
Sicken'd for home !-and so he stole away
To the most silent places, and lay down
To weep upon the mosses of the slopes,
And follow'd listlessly the silver streams
Till he found out the unsunn'd shadowings,
And the green openings to the sky, and grew
Fond of them all insensibly. He found
Sweet company in the brooks, and loved to sit
And bathe his fingers wantonly, and feel
The wind upon his forehead; and the leaves
Took a beguiling whisper to his ear,
And the bird-voices music, and the blast
Swept like an instrument the sounding trees.
His heart went back to its simplicity

As the stirr'd waters in the night grow pure-
Sadness and silence and the dim-lit woods
Won on his love so well-and he forgot
His pride, and his assumingness, and lost
The mimicry of the man, and so unlearn'd
His very character till he became

As diffident as a girl.

'Tis very strange

How nature sometimes wins upon a child
Th' experience of the world is not on him,

And poetry has not upon his brain

Left a mock thirst for solitude, nor love

Writ on his forehead the effeminate shame

Which hideth from men's eyes. He has a full,

Shadowless heart, and it is always toned

More merrily than the chastened voice of winds
And waters-yet he often, in his mirth,
Stops by the running brooks, and suddenly
Loiters, he knows not why, and at the sight
Of the spread meadows and the lifted hills
Feels an unquiet pleasure, and forgets
To listen for his fellows. He will grow