could not have existed, had it continued with unvaried purity to the time of that impostor. A number of coexistent dialects necessarily implies a variation from the language in its aboriginal state.

The same inference may be deduced from its boasted copiousness. Arabic abounds in synonyms, or various appellations of one single thing, to an extent unexampled in other languages. As for instance; it has five hundred names for a lion, two hundred for a serpent, eighty for honey, and above a thousand for a sword.* Parkhurst's remark upon this fact is correct and important: "It may be safely left to the determination of any considerate man, who is at all acquainted with the nature of language, whether this could possibly be the case in any one dialect or language upon earth; or whether it is possible to imagine a stronger internal proof, that a language answering this character must, in fact, be made up of several various languages or dialects."+ If Arabic be so compounded, we are warranted to conclude that it must have varied, in a great degree,

* Walton's Prolegom. c. 14, § 6. Kromayer, de Usu Ling. Arab. 1. i. c. 1, 8. Pococke, Specimen Hist. Arab. p. 158.

+ Preface to Hebrew Lexicon.

from its original state. All these circumstances are of sufficient weight to overthrow the extraordinary assertions of the Arabizing critics as to the unvaried purity of the language of Arabia.

But, however it may be accounted for, a great difference does actually at present exist between Hebrew and Arabic. Schultens even does not deny it, though he attempts to evade the force of the objection, by attributing much of this discrepancy to the fault of lexicographers in not rightly establishing the primary meaning, and to the metaphorical and secondary senses, which, however various, when traced to their source are found to harmonize.* But the difference above stated, make what abatements you please, is a fact, confirmed by the most satisfactory evidence. Let any one examine a number of roots in Schindler or Castell, and he must be immediately convinced, that the same words in the two languages not only very often diverge, but not unfrequently exhibit totally opposite senses.† Nor

Origines Hebrææ, par. 2, cap. 6, § 7, p. 269.

+ In comparing a root in the kindred languages, care is to be taken to distinguish the literal metathesis which it may have undergone. This subject is treated by Kromayer, de Usu Ling. Arab. lib. i. c. 1, §6; Bauer, Hermeneut, § 23, p. 123; but most fully by Schultens, Clavis Dialect. cap. 1.

is this difference limited to a small number of words; it prevails to such an extent, that I cannot but doubt whether the examples of variation, if compared with those in which they coincide, would not greatly preponderate. In syntax and idiom, likewise, they, in many instances, widely vary; though the profoundly learned Albert Schultens was so deeply impressed with the notion of a grammatical analogy between Hebrew and Arabic, that he endeavoured to improve our grammatical knowledge of the sacred language by the aid of the Arabic grammar, in which he has been followed by Schroeder, Robertson, and other Hebraists. A general relationship between the two languages is acknowledged; but, in the signification of very many similar words, in the number and variety of conjugations, in the dual of verbs, in the use of the article, and in the declension of nouns, the Arabic differs widely from the Hebrew.

These observations may be illustrated by an example. You affix a particular meaning to a Hebrew word, and for proof appeal to the same root in Arabic. But it is clear, that many words in the two languages have varied from each other; I, therefore, require a proof that this is not the case with the words in question. If they have varied from their primitive

similarity, they cannot possibly illustrate each other; but whether they have or have not, is a point utterly impossible to be determined; for, as no records of the Arabic language, coeval with the Jewish writers, exist, there is no medium of proof to show either their identity or discrepancy. The conclusion is unavoidable, that a sense attributed to a Hebrew word from the Arabic must be very doubtful and uncertain.

The advocates of Arabian learning are aware, that this inference can no otherwise be evaded than by denying the premises; and they have, accordingly, strenuously exerted themselves in maintaining the close affinity of the two dialects.* But their efforts are in vain: Hebrew and Arabic do often vary from each other, as well in grammatical inflection as in the signification of similar roots: this is a fact that may be disguised, that may be denied, but cannot be refuted; it meets the student at every step he advances in his researches into the Oriental tongues. Now the difference actually subsisting between them, though opinions may be divided as to its extent, is,

• Schultens, Origines Hebrææ, par. 2, c. 5, § 7, p. 258, and c. 6, $2, p. 266. Arivilljus, Diss. ad Sac. Lit. pertinentes, p. 11, et seq. Hunt, de Antiquitate Ling. Arab, p. 48, 52. Robertson, de Ling. Arab. p. 42, 49, 54, et seq.

at least, of sufficient magnitude to disprove the existence of that intimate analogy and resemblance, upon the assumption of which an appeal to Arabic is founded.

Enough has been said, in my apprehension, to evince, that the Arabic language constitutes a very dubious source of Hebrew criticism; but other reasons afford a collateral proof, that it is a fallacious guide in elucidating the sacred Oracles. And,

First: Our knowledge of Arabic is derived from sources too modern to diffuse a steady light upon the Hebrew tongue. It is very doubtful whether any Arabic writings are much older than the time of Mohammed. A very high antiquity is claimed by Schultens for some specimens which he has pub·lished; but our great Orientalist, Sir William Jones, suspects them "to be modern compositions on the instability of human greatness, and the consequences of irreligion, illustrated by the example of the Himyarick princes.'

Among the most ancient

* Schultens, Monumenta Vetustiora Arabiæ, Lug. Bat. 1740. Sir William Jones's Discourse on the Arabs, Works, vol. i. p. 44, Lond. 1799, 4to.