of thought. If the precision of mathematical expression seem to contradict this important truth, the semblance is nothing more than a real independence upon language, properly so called. It is, further, possibly the fact that philosophy, from its very nature, is incapable of that conciseness which belongs to the exact sciences; and, at all events, it cannot be denied that it is very far indeed from now possessing such conciseness in Europe, whether from comparative defect of knowledge on our part, or from more intrinsical peculiarities. Indeed, the signal failure of those great men who have again and again. attempted to subject moral discussions to mathematical restraints would seem to prove that both the above conjectures are sound.

Hence, not less than because of the necessary connection of philosophy with our ordinary thoughts and feelings, the difficulty-perhaps impossibility-of creating such a language as our philosophers deplore the want of. Whether Mackintosh's anticipation that some future Bacon will raise our philosophical language to the level of our scientific be better grounded than Malthus's idea of the vanity of such a hope, I shall not presume further to indicate. But I assert without fear of contradiction, that the existing extreme inaccuracy of all European languages, as instruments of thought, in reference to the principles of every department of that portion of human lore coming home to the business and bosoms of mankind at large, is notorious and undenied; and that it is precisely in this view that our own language, no way distinguished from the rest, has nevertheless been assumed to possess such wonderful efficiency! So far, however, is it from the truth that it does possess such efficiency that the fact is, it is solely by means of ample definition, of much circumlocution, that the English language at present represents the English knowledge on these subjects.

And, whoever will advert to the nature and extent of this circuitous communication of ideas in our tongue (whether its

"A system of names may be imagined, indicating the objects of knowledge, and showing the relation of the parts to each other-an order and a language somewhat resembling those by which the objects of Botany and Chemistry have, in the 18th century, been denoted. But so great an undertaking must be reserved for a second Bacon and a future generation."-Mackintosh's Eth. Phi. pp. 5, 6.

cause be the nature of language and the dependence of philosophy upon it, or, the nature of philosophy, or, our imperfect knowledge of the latter), can have no further room to doubt that the same ideas may be conveyed to Indian minds, in their own languages, without much further circumlocution.

To put two minds in the same train of thought is all that it is ever given to language to accomplish: to effect this by the cumbrous expedient of definitions, amounting almost to dissertation upon the most ordinary and necessary vocables, is all that it has yet been given to philosophic language to achieve in Europe. Such being the case, is it possible to advert to that universal consciousness, or almost universal experience, which form the basis and evidence of all the truths of philosophy, in connection with the long-sustained and literary character of Indian civilisation, without reaching the conviction that the alleged incapacity of the Indian vernacular languages cannot relate to the ordinary topics and functions of language, but must respect that peculiar function and those special topics in reference to which the feebleness of our own language is confessed; or, that the cure of this particular defect of the oriental vernaculars need excite the despair of those only who are hopeless about its cure in reference to their own?

We must exaggerate the perfection of our own language as much as we do the imperfection of those of India-we must further shut our eyes to the essential nature and function of speech, to the connection of philosophy with life, and to the high date of Indian civilisation, before we can admit the assertion that the Indian languages neither are, nor can readily be made, competent to express our knowledge. Their present competency is great, in most ordinary views; and if a very moderate degree of public patronage continue to be bestowed on the learned languages whence they are derived, the efficient lexicographical and grammatical labours of the past upon the vulgar tongues may be completed so as, without extraordinary pains, delay, or expense, to render the latter as much more

It may be as well, once for all, to say that by this term I mean to express all knowledge beyond the limits of mathematics and strict physics. The latter I indicate by the word science.

effective as can be required, or can be expected by those who either understand the real state of the English language at present, or the nature of language in general.

Any number of new terms, as clear to the mind and as little startling to the ear, as the oldest words in the languages, may be introduced into Hindee and Bengalee from Sanskrit, owing to the peculiar genius of the latter,* with much more facility than we can introduce new terms into English: nor does the task of introducing such new terms into the Indian vernaculars imply or exact more than the most ordinary skill or labour on the part of the conductors of education, so long as they disconnect not themselves wholly from Indian literature. With such views of the nature of language in general, and of the existing comparative value of the languages of Europe and of India, I foresee that I may be set down for a lingual sceptic, or, may be, perchance, enlisted under the banners of that party which, without substituting English for the living tongues of India, would improve the latter by directly grafting English terms upon them, in preference to resorting to Sanskrit and Arabic. So far, however, from the truth is it, that my views of the general question are sceptical, that I am thoroughly convinced there is such a thing as idiosyncracy and genius in every cognate group of languages, and that this genius is of so rigid and commanding a nature that it is indispensably necessary humbly to bow to it, in all schemes for the improvement of any given tongue: for, if not, how happened it that those wonderful men who flourished in England between the Reformation and the Revolution, placed as they were close to the sources of our language, and endowed as they were with the highest faculties, yet failed utterly in becoming models of style? and how happened it that the wits of Queen Anne, much remoter as they were placed from the sources of our language, and incomparably inferior as were their mental powers, became so at once and for ever? The sole reason is that the former opposed, and the latter yielded to, the genius of our tongue, both in their terms and in their sentences.

⚫ I borrow this idea, in his words, from Mackintosh, who applies it to German. Every scholar knows, and knows why, it is singularly applicable to the Indian Prakrita, through Sanskrit.

If, again, it be not necessary to consult idiomatic law, the usage of society, and vernacular euphony, whence arises a great part of that difficulty in respect to the introduction of a more copious and precise phraseology into English, which as we have seen, Malthus deemed it impossible to conquer; and Mackintosh but faintly hoped some future Bacon might subdue? And how, yet again, are we to account for the steady and successful resistance which our language has made, for the last fifty years, against incorporation with either the peculiar nomenclature of science, or that of fashion? In that period, to go no further, a thousand modish ephemeral phrases have striven in vain to mix themselves with the great stream of our language; nor has the unusual popularity of the physical sciences, in the same era, enabled them, dignified and valuable as they are, to wed their phraseology to our common speech?

Facts like the above will satisfy all those who are capable of appreciating them, that the people of India would never endure such an olla podrida as Anglo-Hindee or Anglo-Hindoosthanee; and that if the vernacular languages of this country are to be preserved, their improvement, so far as it is requisite to convey European ideas, must be effected in the manner exacted by the genius of these languages.

The vague declamation, with which we are overwhelmed upon the subject of the feebleness and inefficiency of the native languages, is partly caused by the unfairness of that controversial spirit, which has laid hold of this question of the best vehicle for communicating our knowledge to India, and partly also by the difficulty of procuring and applying a measure of the value of languages. Standard works, dictionaries and grammars, certainly furnish a relative measure; yet is it one which few persons can, and many fewer will, apply, even when there is room to apply it. If, however, we look back to the state of our own language three centuries ago, nobody, I presume, will be found hardy enough to assert its superiority, as an organ for the communication of knowledge, to the Bengalee, Hindee, or Hindoostanee of the present day. Now should we be able to adduce express evidence, that the most competent of judges deemed the English of 1530 entirely capable of performing that very function which the Indian vernaculars of 1835 are alleged

to be incapable of performing, such an evidence, it might be hoped, would convince many who cannot, or will not, examine the question more deeply. It is thus then that Sir Thomas More expresses himself in 1530:-" For as for that our tongue is called barbarouse, is but a fantasye, for so is, as every learned man knoweth, every strange language to other: And if they would call it barren of wordes, there is no doubt but it is plenteouse enough to express our myndes in any thinge wherefore one man hath used to speke with another." May we not, after this, say, for that the Indian vernaculars are called barbarouse and barren of wordes, it is but a fantasye? No one, at least, can pretend to assert that the English language of 1530 had, or that the vernaculars of India at present, have not, dictionaries and grammars; and he must be lost to all sense of impartiality who would maintain that the English chronicles and romances of the Middle Ages are superior in matter or style to such works as are now extant in Bengalee, Hindee and Hindoostanee. And as for capacity of rapid and facile improvement, who shall venture to deny it to the Indian vernaculars who considers with what a giant's pace his own tongue advanced to almost all the power it yet possesses, when the impulse to improvement had once been given?

The English works of the age immediately following that of Sir T. More yet excite our wonder, and despair of rivalling their characteristic excellences. No one has confessed this more freely than that very writer, himself a master of our language (Mackintosh), whose complaints of its poverty and inefficiency, in other respects, were exhibited in the preceding part of this letter. Should not contrasted facts such as these warn us to forbear from dogmatic opinions upon the prospective or latent power of foreign languages? Should they not teach us to examine the question modestly and carefully? Let us awake the popular mind in India, and assuredly the natives, with our aid and example, will soon demonstrate that their languages possess capabilities equal to any demand. The history, not only of our own language, but of every vulgar tongue in Europe, justifies the presumption that, so soon as effort is directed towards their improvement, the Indian vernaculars will almost immediately and spontaneously put forth the ordinary strength of language;