Introduction to the Study of the Chinese Characters

transcriptions may throw much useful light on the history of the Chinese language.

MM. Sarazin and de Rosny do not appear to have seen the new account given by Dr. Hepburn when they discussed the Japanese transcriptions at the Congress of Orientalists at Paris in 1873, as reported in the "Compte Rendu."

I am obliged to M. de Rosny for pointing out in the "Actes de la Société d'Ethnographie," 1871 to 1873, vol. vii., an error on the subject of the Japanese passive into which I had fallen in my "China's Place in Philology." It was an inadvertence, as was his when he represented me as seeking to trace a path for the Chinese of the old ages to go in a pleasure train to admire the Tower of Babel. An amusing idea this, but it is not mine, for I was careful in my book to express the opinion that the Chinese must have gone away from western Asia before the time of the separation of languages to which the Hebrew and Babylonian document speaking of the Tower of Babel refers.

After reading M. de Rosny's opinion of etymology and of the comparison of words, I still think these comparisons may and ought to be made, and become eminently useful when under the guidance of a good philological method. Speaking of my book he says, "Les indianistes, les sémitistes et surtout les hellénistes n'auront qu'à ouvrir son livre pour se former une idée de la solidité de ses comparaisons." I know well that this habit of merely opening a book may lead to a strong condemnation of it. It is not, however, safe to form an unfavourable judgment after so brief an examination. These identities of Greek words, for example, and Greek formative syllables with those belonging to some Turanian languages, are too numerous to be accounted for as accidental. The

Mongol language has been so little studied by European savans that there is till the present time no Mongol dictionary or grammar of that language in English or French. The modern Hellenist believes that the Greeks came from the neighbourhood of the Caspian Sea, where they were near the Mongols, and that the languages of the two races are not connected. He would perhaps modify his view if he first examined the Mongol carefully in regard to roots and grammar and formed an unprejudiced decision, making fair allowance for the effect of geographical contiguity.

Probably M. de Rosny is one of those ethnologists who are opposed to comparisons of words because they seem to cast a doubt on the widely accepted opinion that the various families of human speech grew up separately like trees from the soil. But however appropriate this way of speaking may be, it should be remembered that each tree comes from a seed dropped from a similar tree. Whenever the metaphor of a tree is used of languages, of laws, of grammatical forms or of roots, their derivation in each case from a pre-existing tree of the same kind should be kept in view as a possibility.

Among the new methods in philology that are now coming into vogue is the use of the laws of position in determining the family relationship of languages. I rejoice to see that M. de Rosny has himself used this method in his "Affinités des Langues Finno-Japonaises." Professor Boller's method of proving the connexion of the Japanese and Tartar languages by comparison of words only, falls much short in force because he omits reference to the laws of position. Both these eminent philologists seem to me to limit their subject needlessly by passing over in silence the Dravidian languages. Nor does M. de Rosny notice in the Finnish the

circumstance that its geographical contiguity to Sclavonic and Teutonic peoples has caused a rough shaking in its syntactical system. It is indeed so free from that rigidity in the laws of position that marks the other languages of the group, that the combination Mongol-Japanese would be better as a name than that which M. de Rosny has chosen. But better still is the word Turanian. This may be made to include the Dravidian races, which it appears to me essential not to omit. I would keep the word Turanian, but not extend it to the monosyllabic languages. M. de Rosny has praised parts of "China's Place in Philology," and strongly condemned others. In a few years it will be seen whether he is right in lending encouragement to the hypothesis of mutual isolation between the families.

In giving prominence to the laws of position as valid proof of connexion or disconnexion in language, he cannot claim to be fighting under the "Sanscritist" banner. His studies lie in a more eastern region, and his intelligence compels him to the admission that a careful consideration of those laws is essential to complete the linguistic process which proves consanguinity. Let him carry the process a step further, and he will perhaps find himself driven to the conclusion, that Tartar processes of grammar and Tartar laws of position may be applied to elucidate the peculiarities of languages nearer home. His present position, as at the same time the writer of the Affinités and of the critique on my book, is not very tenable. Words are more easily borrowed by contiguous languages than grammatical features. If the close resemblance of grammatical features between Arian and Turanian languages can be proved by extending the method which M. de Rosny himself employs, then à fortiori the identity

of similar words in the two systems may be hopefully discussed.

It is a matter of great satisfaction to me, that in this book I respond to his challenge in Actes, p. 186, to bring forward the proofs of my readings of old Chinese sounds. I wish they were more complete, but hope that the citations from native authorities such as the Kwang yün' will inspire confidence in the correctness of my renderings.

The Appendices have been separately printed at Geneva, under the kind care of M. François Turrettini.

Here will be found specimens of old forms of the characters, and among them the radicals of the Shwo wen in the Siau chwen, or small Seal character. Also rules for the pronunciation of words given with the syllabic spelling in K'ang hi. The right use of the tables of sound in K'ang hi is very important in the search for the old sounds. Students who have been familiar only with the Mandarin or Canton pronunciations, and who may not be accustomed to make use of the initials b, d, g, dj, dz, will find in K'ang hi's tables proof of their existence.

A kind friend in China, interested in the progress of Chinese philology, has assisted in the publication of this work.

1 A copy of the Kwang yün, with the initials and finals marked in the margin, may now be consulted in the British Museum.

LONDON,

December, 1875.

J. E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

THE RADICALS.

Origin of Chinese Writing. Its Three Founders.

Distinction between

Wen and Tsi. What are Radicals? What are Phonetics? List of Radicals

as now used.