faith before the time of Christianity, and most of them refused the latter religion. They are called by the Abyssinians Falasha or dissenters, persons who have declined to embrace Christianity, and have retired from those who profess it.

7. Another original race, as appears by their language, are the Agows. They were settled in their present territory at the head of the Abawi, in the time of the emperor Justin. How long they had occupied that district before his time is unknown. Their language is peculiar to themselves. They are divided into the Agows of Lasta and of Saccala. They are not negroes, but are of a coarse, tawny, red colour.

8. The Galla, who but lately emerged from the heart of Africa, and came by the coast, or from Adel into Abyssinia. They speak a peculiar language, are very numerous, and are not negroes.

The above enumeration shews the extreme impropriety of confounding races naturally different, and allied in nothing except vicinity. Most of these races were nomadic, or in the shepherd state; many of them remain in it; and yet they have no affinity to one another. The sole means of obtaining a rational knowledge of the approximation of these races, and indeed of the early history of mankind,

are:

1. To obtain adequate specimens of the languages, and particularly of those spoken by the tribes in mountainous and insulated regions.

2. To compare these specimens with languages already known, or with one another, and to examine the grammatical structure, as well as single

terms.

3. To fix by these inquiries the proximate or remote affinity, and so determine how many races have existed in any continent, how many varieties appear of each race, and whether it be true, which has been

so absurdly taken for certain, that all languages have a radical resemblance in terms.

This process, applied to the Coptic and Arabic, or Hebrew, gives a result which declares, that the Arabs, or Assyrians, and the Egyptians, are not of the same race. And that the ordinary reader, if he choose, may satisfy himself on a subject which has been considered, with far too little attention, by the most erudite inquirers, I shall subjoin three transla tions of a well-known form of prayer, and make some remarks on the prin cipal words. The first specimen is Hebrew, the dialect of Moses and Job; the version is modern, but as to words it is unexceptionable. The second is Geez, or Axumite, made soon after the year 330, in Habbesh; and as the Arabic of the north is known only by a few poems, not much older than 550, this dialect of Hamyar and Habesh deserves a preference to it. The third is probably of the second century; it is in the language of the Pharaohs, which may be traced in Egypt from the age of Abraham.

The affinity between these dialects appears in many of the principal words, but particularly in the grammatical structure and the inflections. In fact the Hebrew, Arabic, and Geez, are one language, which possesses a great variety of dialects and opulence of terms; and these leading dialects bear to one another the very same relation which German or Dutch

bears to English or Swedish. All the words belong to the common original, but they are varied by pronunciation, and restricted to different shades of meaning in each dialect.

The Coptic.

Except a slight resemblance in the pronouns, which is not greater between Coptic and Hebrew than between Coptic and some other lanthe affinity of these two anguages, cient tongues is not perceptible. Their grammar is totally different, Hebrew and Arabic verbs and nouns follow a similar method. The Coptic pursues one which is simple enough, but peculiar to itself. It ger uses compounds, which is not the nius of the Arabic or Hebrew. The demonstrative articles are phi, phe, pi or pha for masculines, and ti, ta, the or te for feminines singular; ne or ni is prefixed to plurals. The sense of these words is "the :" when the sense is partial or restricted to ouai one is used. So pha-ourô the one or to some, on a contraction of king; ni-ourd the kings, but ou-our a king. As in all original languages, ticles, demonstratives, and relatives: so in Coptic, the same words are arPi-rômi the man, phai pi-rômi this man, Thai is this, feminine: phe is who, masc. singular, and né is who, plural, Nouns are often preceded

by

the will thy let it be done in manner hen etphê nemhi djen pi-câhi,

in the heaven also on the earth.

Some of the version given above is pro bably not so accurate as might be wished, as I have not a dictionary nor other assistance at hand. I crave the indulgence that

willing to do that service under obvious. disadvantages, which others ought to perform that are surrounded by every oppor tunity.

by n-ge, or endjé, as it is pronouneed, so nje-sem grass, by the LXX. written Gesèm, and by the Jews (who corrupted the Coptic names) Geshen or Goshen *. The genitive is made by nte, or n, and if certain letters follow, n becomes m: So pi-kàhi nte Chêmi, the land of the low country or north of Egypt; the land of Ham as called by the Jews: Ma-n-Amoun, the place of the God of light, or Juor Jupiter Ammon; Ma-n-nouphi, the city or place of the good God; names of Thebes and Memphis. Other cases are made by propositions, of which are all the words of relation used in Coptic. The prefix nte, therefore, often serves as a dative and accusative, as well as a genitive. The personal pronouns are anoc I, anon we; entoc thou, masc. entho thou, fem. enthôten you; entof he, entòs she, enthôou they, which, in a contracted form, are singularly inserted between the article and the noun so as to become possessives, and before the verb, which is frequently a short and almost immutable word, that they may express persons. So in the specimen above, p-en-iôt is the our father, pe-ten-iôt your father, pek-iot thy father, pa-iot for pe-ai-iot my father, pe-f-iot his father: ni-iot the fathers, naiot my fathers, ne-c-iot thy fathers, ne-n-iot our fathers, nefiot his fathers, nesiot her fathers, ne ten-iot your fathers, nou-iot their fathers: phe-ran the name, pe-c-ran thy name; ti-met

ouro the kingdom, te-c-metouro thy kingdom; ôïk bread, pe-n-oik our bread; and so on.

The verb saji, say or speak, is inflected in this manner. Present tense?

Ei-saji I speak, ec-saji, ef-saji, es-saji (she speaks) en-saji we speak, tetensaji you speak, eu-saji they speak. Preterite ai saji, ac-saji, af-saji, in the plural an-saji, areten-saji, and au-saji I, thou, he, we, you, they spoke. There are in each tense second and third persons feminine singular.

Future, sing. eie-saji, eke-saji, efesaji; plur. nen-saji, ereten-saji, euesaji. There are seven or eight other tenses, mostly of a conditional or subjunctive sense, which are made by joining the words E that, na when or after, sha because, ete who, and the like to the pronouns which precede any of the above tenses; so shai-saji because I have spoken. The most curious of these secondaries is the imperative, which is often found in the specimen given above. So mari-saji let me speak, marec-saji speak thou, mare-saji, speak thou woman; marefsaji let him speak, mares-saji let her speak, maren-saji, maretensaji marousajii, let us, you, them speak.

As this language was native to the inhabitants of Upper and Lower Egypt in the times of Abraham and Moses, nothing requires to be added to the conclusion already drawn, that the Egyptians were a very ancient race, not of Arabic extraction, except a recommendation to the learned, that they cultivate the study of this venerable tongue, and illustrate by its assistance, united with other philological and historical resources, the progressive state of that nation, which has given its opinions and science to every quarter of the globe.

It has been said by Sir William Jones, that the Egyptians were a kindred race of the Hindoos, Greeks, and Goths. I have not as yet been able to confirm or disprove this important opinion, If it should happen,

on

on examination, to be just, it will lead to some inferences of great consequence that have not yet occurred to the learned; and whatever direct result may attend the progress of this inquiry, it cannot fail to produce memorable notices respecting the history of language and the origin of mankind.

No. X.

Letter from Walter Scott, Esq. Advocate, and one of the Principal Clerks of Session, to Principal Baird.

Edinburgh, June 25. 1812. Reverend Sir, I am honoured with your note requesting my opinion of the Reverend Mr Murray's attainments and qualifications for the Chair of the Professor of Oriental Languages in our University.

It would be the height of arrogance in me to state my own opinion of Mr Murray's acquisitions in a path of learning which I have never myself pursued; but I feel on the other hand, that it would be doing him injustice to suppress the splendid testimony which I have heard paid to his talents, by those in every respect qualified to judge of them. The late Dr Leyden, whose extensive researches into Oriental Languages and Antiquities, exceeded that of any man, (Sir William Jones not excepted,) who ever made them his study, introduced Mr Murray to me sometime before his departure for India, as one of the most profound Oriental scholars in Britain, of which he shortly after gave the public convincing proofs in one of the most laborious and learned books of this period. I mean his edition of Bruce's Travels, in which the several Arabic, Coptic, and Abyssinian MSS. brought from the East, by that celebrated traveller, are described and analysed. I understand Mr Murray to be perfect master of the Hebrew in all its dialects, and particularly of that used by the inspired writers, and

In a word, if the most extensive and profound knowledge of Oriental Languages be deemed the best qualification for the vacant Chair, I am confident Mr Murray's acquirements will add the highest credit to the well-deserved fame of our University; and I do not believe, were it possible to bring the question to a trial of skill, that there is a man in the island who would be fit to contend with him.

I might perhaps stop here, but I cannot help adding, that Mr Murray's manners and habits, so far as I have had an opportunity of knowing them, are such as in every respect do credit to his character and his learning. I have the honour to be, Reverend Sir, Your very obedient servant,

WALTER SCOTT.

No. XI.

Letter, Lord Woodhouselee, one of the Senators of the College of Justice, and Emeritus Professor of Civil History in the University of Edinburgh, to Principal Baird.

Edinburgh, June 25. 1812. Dear Sir,-Immediately on my hearing of the canvass for the vacant Professorship, though I was then confined to bed, I wrote to the Lord Provost, recommending, in strong terms, the Reverend Mr Murray, who I had the best reason to believe was one of the greatest Oriental

Scholars in Europe, and in whom our University would make anfacquisition that would reflect on it the highest honour. I added, that unless Lord Melville, (whose wishes I could never oppose,) should have espoused warm ly the interest of another candidate, it would give me most sincere satis faction, that Mr Murray should obtain this situation, to which he was highly entitled by his merits.

My knowledge of Mr Murray proceeds from the proofs I have seen of his distingished talents as an Orientalist, in his publication, and likewise from personal acquaintance, while he gave lessons to my son Alexander, (now in India, and himself an able linguist,) in the Persic and Hindostanee languages.

More I cannot say in Mr Murray's favour than I have already expressed. I earnestly wish his success, because I wish well to the University, and I trust the magistrates will, on this occasion, by his election, honourably discharge that great duty which they owe to the public. I have the honour to be, with great regard, Dear Sir, your most obedient and faithful servant,

ALEX. FRASER TYTLER.

necessary,) to collect any more of them.

I may mention, however, that Mr Murray, (as Mr Jeffrey informs me,) wrote in the Edinburgh Review the two following articles: Article XIII. p. 116, in No. 3. (April 1803,) on Vallancey's Prospectus of an Irish Dictionary, and Article XV. p. 422, No. 6. (January 1804,) on Clarke's Progress of Maritime Discovery.— He wrote also Article II. p. 286, in No. 10. (January 1805) on Maurice's History of Hindostan.

I refer your Lordship to these articles, with great pleasure, because they contain not only most favourable specimens of his powers of thought and style, but because they prove, by very honourable and unequivocal evidence, that his habits of study have been long formed, and most successfully cultivated, in the very line of literature appropriate to the office for which he is a candidate. I have the honour to be, &c.

No. XIII.

Letter, Henry Salt, Esq. to the Right Hon. Wm. Creech, Lord Provost. London, June 23. 1812.

My Lord, As I have been informed that the Professorship of Oriental Languages in the University of Edinburgh has become vacant, and that the Rev. A. Murray has been proposed as a candidate for it, I do myself the honour of addressing you in his favour.

My acquaintance with Mr Murray originated in my admiration of the deep erudition and extensive research displayed in his edition of Mt Bruce's travels in Abyssinia. Hav ing twice visited that country, I was led to pay particular attention to its history and literature; and in these pursuits I received so much assistance from Mr Murray's labours, that I took an early opportunity on my return to England, in February 1811,

from