^{page 334 note 1} The proofs to establish this opinion are briefly and ably set forth by Bochart; and as arguments are here adduced to show their insufficiency, the following passage may not prove uninteresting:—

“Linguam Hebraicam omnium esse antiquissimam docent etymologiæ nominum, quotquot extant in historiâ Mosis, a mundi creatione, usque ad dispersionem gentium. Sic Hortus Eden Hebræis est ‘Hortus voluptatis, sive deliciarum.’ Terra Nod, ‘Terra exilii,’ quia ibi exulavit Cain, ‘Confusio,’ quia linguæ inibi confusse sunt. Adam, primus homo, dictus est quia ex Adama, seu terrâ, factus est. Eve, a vitâ, prima mulier, quia mater omnium viventium. Cain, unus e filiis, ab acquirendo, quia dixit mater, Acquisivi virum a Domino. Alius Seth, a ponendo, quia dixit, posuit mihi Deus semen alterum. Enoch, a dedicando, quia natus in ipsâ dedicatione urbis quam ædificavit Cain. Alterius Enochi filius Methuselah anno diluvii mortuus, id significat ipso nomine, quod illi a patre inditum prophetico spiritu. Phaleg est a dividendo quia in diebus ejus divisa est terra. Taceo allusiones ex Hebræâ linguâ petitas, ut cum de Noâ dictum est ‘Consolabitur nos,’ et de Japheto Deus dilatet Japhetum.”

The arguments against the Chaldees, who have the same claims as the above, are founded by Bochart on the expression used in Genesis ii. 23, which is intelligible only in the Hebrew: “Vocabitur vira, quia ex viro sumpta est. Hebraice, ut Is pro viro, ita Issa Pro muliere vox est usitatissima.”

It will be observed that the objections, which are confined in our text to the example of Noah, are equally applicable in all the above cases.

^{page 335 note 1} Joseph, . Antiq. 1. i. c. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 2} The reasoning which gives most weight to this assertion is drawn from the argument, that Abraham and his forefathers, in a direct line up to Noah, must he looked on as heirs of the covenant, which God established with Noah and with Adam (Gen. ix. 9Google Scholar, and iii. 15); that consequently we have no reason to suppose that they joined in the work of impiety which was punished at Babel, and that their language consequently remained unaffected. This argument is ably set forth by Bochart, Phaleg. lib. i. c. x. To this, however, it may be answered, that a mere supposition founded on human reasoning and opinion, on mere mortal ideas of what would be most advisable and expedient, is, when applied to the acts of God, one of the most fertile sources of error which the history of religion or of philosophy has recorded. The natural and probable course of events is a far safer guide to the way of truth in a case so obscure as the one in question. Now if it be allowed, as I think it must, that it is natural to suppose that Noah did not wander to any great distance from the mountains of Ararat, and that the original language, if preserved at all, was preserved to him; it must also be allowed that it is most probable, as being most conformable to the natural course of events, that the original language was preserved in Armenia, and that, therefore, in this part of the argument at least, the probability is in favour of the claims of the Armenians.

^{page 336 note 1} Ur and Haran, in Mesopotamia, are the places in which we first find the Chaldees established. Bochart takes a considerable liberty with geography in asserting that these early seats of the Chaldees, were “haud procul a Corduenâ in qua constiterat area Noæ.”

^{page 336 note 2} That Noah and those who remained with him were not intended by this expression, “the children of men,” is thus ably argued by Bochart:

“Sed neque Noam aut Semum aut Arphaxadam aut Heberum, ad quos pertinebat fœdus, conspirasse verisimile est, in tarn insanæ substructions fabriciam, quia videntur excipi, cum versu 5° descendisse dicitur Deus, ut videat civitatem et turrim, quam ædificabant filii hominum. Nam Genesis vi. verso 2° filiabus hominum apponuntur filii Dei, ut fideles infidelibus; sic igitur insinuat Moses, solos filios hominum, id est solos infideles isti operi se mancipasse.”— Phaleg. lib. i. c. 10.

^{page 338 note 1} Speaking of Mount Ararat, Tavernier, who travelled through Armenia in the seventeenth century, says, “Mont Ararat, que les Arméniens appellent Mesezonsar, e'est à dire Montagne de l'Arche. Aussitôt les Arméniens la découvrcnt, ils baisent la terre.”—Voy. de Taver. v. i. c. 2.

Also Bochart: “Communis sententia hæe est, Ararat esse Armeniam.”— Phaleg. lib. iii. c. 3; in which he has expressed himself at length on this point.

Bryant also in like manner; he derives Ararat from Harirad, which signifies ⋯ποβατ⋯ριον, the Mountain of Descent.—Vol. iii. p. 4.

^{page 339 note 1} Strabo bears witness to the fertility of Armenia, and, which is singular, accidentally meets the objections of those, who contend that the ark did not rest in Armenia, because it is said in Scripture that Noah, from the place on which the ark rested sent forth a dove: “And the dove came to him in the evening, and lo in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off;” whereas the olive is not to be found in Armenia. But Strabo, at the end of a short passage on the fertility of a district in the north of Armenia, has these words, Φ⋯ρει δ⋯ κα⋯ ἔλαιαν “it also produces the olive.”—Geog. lib. xi. p. 528.

^{page 339 note 2} Nakhijivan. Frequent mention of this place is found among the writers of Europe.

Ptolemy calls it Naxuana, Ναξουανα. Tab. As. iii. and page 135. William de Rubruquis, who travelled into Tartary, A. D. 1253, makes this mention of it: “Araxi et Naxuanæ duo imminent montes Massis nomine, in quibus area resedit.”

Galanus also, a Roman presbyter, who wrote on the reconciliation of the Armenian Church with that of Rome, tells us that, according to the natives of Armenia, the true name of the place is Nakhidsevan, by which they say is signified “the first place of descent,”

Tavernier calls it Naksivan, and says of it, “Naksivan est, selon eux, la plus ancienne ville du monde; elle a été bâtie à trois lieues de la montagne sur laquelle s'arrêta l'arche de Noé. C'est ce qu'indique le nom Arménien, forme de Nak, ‘navire,’ et de Sivan, ‘arrêté, ou demeuré’.”—Voy. de Taver., tom. i. c. 2.

The learned translators of Moses Chorenensis thus make mention of it: “Josephus (Lib. i. c. 3.) de Noachi ex areâ egressu agens, hæ scribit, ⋯ποβατηριον μεν τοι τ⋯ν τ⋯πον τοτον ᾽Αρμ⋯νιοι καλο⋯σιν. Hunc autem locum Armenii exscentionis locum appellant. Jam vero non longe a campo Araratensi sita est, urbs Armenise celeberrima, quam Armenii uno ore vetustissimum mundi esse oppidum tradunt ut statim post diluvium, a Noacho conditum, nomine Nakhidshevan, quod vocabulam Armeniacum, primum descentionis locum sonat.”—Gul. et Georg. Whiston. in Præfat. ad Mosis Choren. Hist. Armen., p. iv.

^{page 340 note 1} Maranta. “Les Arméniens prétendent, que ce fut le lieu où Noé vint habiter en sortant de l'arche; ils ajoutent qu'il y fut enterré, et que sa femme eut son tombeau à Marante sur le chemin de Tauris.”—Voy. de Taver., torn. i. c. 2.

^{page 341 note 1} This is attested by Cirbied, Professeur Royale de la Langue Arménienne à l'Eeole Royale: “Du temps des Empereurs d'Assyrie lors des conquêtes des Macedoniens et des Romains, à l'époque des règnes des Arsacidæ en Arménie, la langue de cette contrée empninta des mots étrangers, jnais elle n'éprouva aucun changement essentiel.”

^{page 342 note 1} The Armenian language is a subject which appears to have been very much neglected and misrepresented. The accounts of the writers of antiquity regarding it, are very imperfect. Strabo, who from writing so soon after the occupation of Armenia by the Romans, may be supposed to have had as good an opportunity as any other writer of antiquity for gaining some information regarding the language of Armenia, evidently knew but little on the subject; for he tells us, in one place, “that the Armenians and Medes were a cognate people with the Thessalians,” (Geog. lib. xi. p. 531), and in another he says, “that the Armenians appear to be nearly allied to the Syrians and Arabs.” (Geog. lib. i. p. 41.) And to these he adds the Assyrians, the Arians, and the Erembi, as being considered a cognate people. It is not unlikely that he was led into this error by mistaking the language of the Armenian merchants, interpreters, &c, who probably attended the armies of Home iu the Armenian campaigns, for the genuine and ancient language of Armenia. And even Sir William Jones appears to have been no less uninformed on the subject, for he says “that he is convinced from the best information procurable in Bengal, that its basis was ancient Persian, of the same Indian stock with the Zand, and that it has been gradually changed since the time when Armenia ceased to be a province of Iran.” We have fortunately the testimony of several writers, whose knowledge of Armenian cannot be called in question, to show how erroneous are these opinions, and to corroborate the assertions contained in our text. Thus the two Whistons declare, “Cæterum linguæ Armenise antiquitas inde etiam comprobari potest, quod ab ullâ aliâ recenti linguâ nullo modo perfluxisse videtur.” So also Cirbied: “Malgré certains rapports et certaines similitudes d'un rang primordial, la langue Arménienne est toujours une langue isolée, sans mélange avec aucune autre langue.”—Page 6.

With regard to the power of the Armenian language, for which our author contends, as a proof of its having been the original language of the earth, he is fully borne out by the most able writers on the language of Armenia. Thus the Whistons above quoted: “Quod si linguæ Haicanæ naturam hoc e genere prospicere libet, tantaest ejus copia atque ubertas, sibi maximam partem propria, non ab aliis gentibus adscita, quantum ex studiis nostris cognoscere potuimus, ut vetustissimis temporibus primordia sua cepisse videatur.” So likewise Aucher, (in Præfat. ad Euseb. Pamph. Chron. Sect. ii. p. 11.) “Id vero turn Haicanæ linguæ ubertati ac felicitati tribuendum quod in omnes prorsus dicendi modos insuetos etiam et peregrinos facile inflectitur,” &c. And again: “Sæpe fit, ut in quibus e Grœco transferendis, Latini maxime laborant, ea Armenii majore nescio facilitate, an felicitate convertunt.” As to Armenian having been the original language, the following philosophical observation of Cirbied contains perhaps all that will be allowed on the subject: “Des historiens,” says the Professor, “et des commentateurs de la Bible, ont soutenus que la langue Arménienne etait celle que parlait Noé, et qu'elle fut conservée en Arménie depuis le temps de ce patriarche jusqu'à nos jours. Nous croyons qu'en admettant les traditions de certains auteurs profanes, avec l'autorité de l'Ecriture Sainte, cette opinion serait la plus probable dans cette question purement conjecturale.”

A general objection may be raised against the proposition maintained in this paper, on the grounds of the Armenian not having been a written language till the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era, when Mesropes, about a. d. 406, organized an alphabet of the Armenian language; after which it is allowed, that a wonderful degree of alacrity was displayed by the literati of Armenia, who before a. d. 450 had translated above six hundred works of foreign literature into the language of their native country; and this objection, it may be contended, is an argument against not only the authenticity of the ancient traditions and histories of Armenia, but also against the antiquity of the language itself; but the objection, in my opinion, is not of much force. For the history of Armenia is drawn from traditions and written sources of the highest antiquity. Of the traditions, it is recorded by Moses of Chorene that the ancient Armenians had preserved in verses, which they sang to music, records which extended as far back as the time of the deluge, and historical traditions of Semiramis and the early princes of Assyria. And, as regards the histories, that of Moses of Chorene was taken in great measure, as he himself declares, from a famous book of Maribas Catenensis, who about the year before Christ 130, was sent by Valarsaces, king of Armenia, to examine the royal archives of the Parthian kings, among which he found a book which showed in the title page that it had been translated from the Chaldee by order of Alexander the Great, from which Maribas collected the materials for his own history of Armenia, which we are told he wrote in Greek and Syriac. Moreover the Armenians, although for many centuries they had no alphabet of their own, made use of those of the neighbouring nations, using chiefly the Greek and the Persian characters, of which it is recorded by Moses of Chorene, “that there were preserved amongst the Armenians, innumerable volumes of histories, &c. written in these characters.” The Syriac also was occasionally used, as we read in Diodorua Siculus, lib. xix. Neither is the want of an Armenian alphabet, till so late a period as the fifth century after Christ, any argument against the originality of the language. For the Arabic, at least the language of the Koreish, had no written character till a period later than that assigned to the alphabet of the Armenians; and although, as the Arabs pretend to assert, the greater part of the words of their language may be lost, we have reason to believe that the structure of that exquisitely beautiful language has never been materially affected; words and phrases, and accent and idiom, those modes of language which depend upon the memory or caprice of men, may have changed perhaps as much among the Arabs, as we see they have in the nations of Europe; but their language bears about it, in the matchless simplicity and uniformity of its structure, that which must ever preserve it from corruption. The language of the most ancient writings of the Arabs, is the same as would be employed for a similar purpose by the learned of the present day, saving only some words and expressions which have fallen out of use in the course of 1300 years. And if in the structure of the language of Armenia, there is any thing of a similar preservative nature, it is, I think, certain, that the circumstance of there not having been for so many centuries any written character or organized alphabet, is not a good argument that the language of the country has therefore, of necessity, been materially changed, or that it is not essentially the same language as was spoken in the early ages of the world, by the first settlers on the hills of Armenia.