Atlantic to the Mississippi, may be too great for the European demand; and that we shall meet with a disadvantageous competition from India, and from the South American colonies. Yet this fear seems unfounded for the following reasons, which at once occur. Cotton will bear to be sent to China, when it costs here but ten cents per pound. With good management, it is supposed the planter might afford it even at eight cents. The voyage from the United States to China being much longer than from Bengal thither, we may safely presume, that if we are able to come into competition with India in the cotton market, at this rate of cost here, the price in India must be at least as great, and therefore that the India cotton cannot interfere with ours in Europe, when the price is thus low, because the freight for a longer voyage than we have to perform must also be paid. The importance of this branch of commerce to the United States is seen in the fact, that more than half of all the cotton manufactured in England is from the United States; the quantity from India however is not small. In 1810, there were received seventy-nine thousand bales from that country: and from this, two hundred and forty thousand. In 1811, from India, fourteen thousand six hundred bales; from this country, one hundred and twenty-eight thousand five hundred. The causes, whatever they were, which produced this diminution in one year, evidently affected the India trade, more than the American trade, in this article. If we have indeed any thing to fear, it is from the Brazils. From that country the importation into England is less than from ours, in the proportion as three to eight, and from all other places, as three to ten. Uncertainty always attends commerce, but the wants of mankind are ever reviving. Our own country will consume a great quantity of cotton, new uses of it will be devised, and the demands of an increasing population, probably equal the progressive extent of its cultivation. When, however, the gross quantity becomes too great, improvements in the quality will be attempted. The use of gypsum as a manure has the same effect on this, as on other plants. Skill in this branch of husbandry will be exerted. The labor of the white population will be found, as it already is in the western districts of the Carolinas, not only practicable, but productive of cotton of better quality. In contemplating the immense resources of our country, we New Series, No. 7. 20 are perhaps too prone to exult in its advantages. We shall not, however, fear to cherish a sentiment of national pride in them. And although it be not a new thing that a territory, extending through various climes, should reciprocate from its extremities the benefits of trade, yet it is a circumstance equally remarkable and satisfactory, that these United States should be so bound together by diversity of habits and interests; a diversity once supposed to be an ultimate cause of disunion, but which operates essentially as a cement of the national struc ture. In closing the report it is stated, that from the progress made there is reason to believe that nearly all the improvements contemplated by the legislature, opening an inland navigation of more than fifteen hundred miles, will be completed in the year 1822, and within the sum pledged and set apart for internal improvements.' ART. VIII.-An Anniversary Discourse delivered before the OUR former volumes have borne testimony to the value of the anniversary discourses before the New York Historical Society, and the public judgment has anticipated ours in placing this of Mr Wheaton in the most honorable rank of its predecessors. We cannot allow it, however, to take its station among the most respectable of the occasional productions which our literature has furnished, without recording our tribute to the learning and sound philosophy which it displays, and dwelling a moment on one or two of the important topics which it treats. Mr Wheaton, in choosing a theme for his discourse, was led to wander a little from the usual path, and to select a topic not immediately connected with the history and antiquities of America. The science of public or international law is the subject to which his discourse is devoted, and the design of presenting a concise history of this great science is happily executed within its limits. Mr Wheaton correctly observes, in the outset, that the ancient nations had very imperfect notions of international justice, and that foreigner, barbarian, and enemy were synony 1821.] mous terms. it can be show of Greece and is a word app more reasonabl See Golius; and also defended by Ro entitled Bemerkung Barbar. He adduc mous terms. No proof of the truth intended in this proposition is needed by those who are at all versed in antiquity. With respect to the word barbarian, however, we would observe, that we are perhaps too ready to transfer to it, as applied by the Greeks and Romans respectively to all nations besides their own, some of the associations of ferocity and cruelty, which enter into the modern idea of barbarous. We believe it can be shown that barbarian was in the classic ages both of Greece and Rome simply synonymous with foreigner. It is a word apparently not of the original Greek stock; not being found so much as once, in its simple form, and but once in a compound form, in all the poems of Homer. This was early observed by the ancients themselves, and made a matter of difficulty, among others, by Strabo, who says, Tou TоINTOU δ ̓ εἰρηκότος οὐτωσί Μνασέλης δ' αν Καρῶν ἡγήσατο βαρβαροφώνων οὐκ ἔχει λόγον πῶς τοσαῦτα εἰδῶς ἔθνη βάρβαρα μονος εἴρηκε Κάρας βαρβαροφώνους, βαρβάρους δ' ουδένας. Str. xiv. 2. 28. The same intelligent geographer advances the opinion that the word CapCapos was a sort of imitation of the rough and unmusical utterance of foreign languages. This opinion we think far more reasonable than that of the modern etymologists, a part of whom deduce this word for the Arabic brbr, to murmur, and others from the Syriac br, extra, a root also common to the Arabic and Chaldee in the same sense.* H. Stephens gives the preference to Strabo's derivation, and Heumann, in an ingenious dissertation on the Barbaric philosophy, in the Acta Philosophorum, viii, defends it with considerable ingenuity. Heumann, however, appears to be mistaken in ascribing an Egyptian origin to the word barbarian, on the strength of the following passage of Herodotus. Νεκὼς μέν νυν μεταξὺ ὀρύσσων ἐπαύσατο, μαντηίου ἐμποδίου γενομένου τοῦδε “ τῷ βαρβάρῳ αὐτὸν προεργάζεσθαι ”βαρβάρους δὲ πάντας οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι καλέουσι τοὺς μή σφι ὁμογλώσσους, ii. 158. Here we do not understand Herodotus to assert that the Egyptians actually applied the identical word Capapos to those, who spoke languages different from their own, but that they used some corresponding term. For we believe it is the invariable practice of the father of history, in making use of See Golius; and Schleusner in the word CapCapos. This opinion is also defended by Roth, in a memoir before the Royal Society of Munich, entitled Bemerkungen ueber den Sinn und den Gebrauch des Wortes Barbar. He adduces however no new arguments in favor of it. Egyptian and Persian words, expressly to say that they are such as Σπακώ, i. 10, where he adds τὴν γὰρ κύνα καλέουσι σπανά Mador, and ii. 2, the memorable word Bézes, on which Goropius Becanus foundeth his proof that the Flamands are the oldest nation, and the Flemish the oldest language on earth, spons Φρίγας καλέοντας τὸν ̓Αρτον. See also Herod. ii. 46. Whatever may be thought of this point, the passage first quoted from Herodotus affords strong confirmation that the adical idea of barbarian is, one who speaks a foreign tongue, or as Stephens expresses it, 'Sermone blæso, imperfecto, incompto utens.' There is a characteristic proof of this in Aristophanes, Aves 200, where the birds are said to be barbarians, till they had learned Greek; a passage which is finely illustrated in the account given by Herodotus of the origin of the oracle of Dodona, where he uses the expression “ws d'è ¿Capβάριζε, ὄρνιθος τρόπον ἐδόκεέ σφι φθέγγεσθαι. ii. 57. We have already seen, in the line of Homer, the only line in which the word Capapos occurs in any form in that poet, that its application rests upon the corrupt dialect of the Carians, Kapar CapCapopávav. Thucydides, i. 3, attempts to give an answer to the same question, which Strabo also discusses, why Homer called no nation barbarous; and finds that reason in the fact that the name of "Eaanves for Greeks not being known in the time of Homer, that of Capapos, as opposed to it, could not have been used. But this appears not remarkably close in point of argument nor correct in point of fact, and there is another passage in the same historian, ii. 68, where the true meaning of Sapagos, viz. speaking a foreign tongue, is very forcibly though unintentionally illustrated, καὶ ἐλληνίσθησαν τὴν νῦν γλῶσσαν τότε πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῶν ̓Αμπρακτιωτῶν ξυνοικησάντων· οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι ̓Αμφίλοχοι CágCapos sign. We observed that Thucydides errs in point of βάρβαροι εἰσιν. fact in saying that Homer makes no use of Capapos, because he had no distinctive name for Greeks; for though he does not use "Exas as afterwards employed, he uses Aavaci and 'Axaroi, and there is no doubt but that Agamemnon or Achilles looked down with as much disdain on the Phrygians, as the later Greeks did. But if we consider the radical meaning of the word CapCapes to be, speaking a foreign tongue, the history of that early period suggests ample reason why this word should be sparingly used by Homer, since the Greek language could not, in the Trojan times, have attained any thing like its subsequent fixed character; and instead of wondering that Homer uses the word b 11. but we content to the purpose, cited, in this co Οὐδ ̓ ἔστ "Ατις οὐ Such, no do It was by degr foreign tongue, which was ascr ever, the origin mans did not s by simply not C Italy barbaria, passage says, Barbart At what perio the African coas it has acquired t from its being by Abulfeda, A We would on passages in Es calling themselv term was used w uses the word but once, we are strongly inclined to question the authenticity of Il. ii. 867. It is actually rejected, as Roth observes, by an ancient scholiast; though we cannot approve the latitude with which the Bipont Editor of Thucydides remarks, that neither Eustathius, the Minor Scholia, nor any one else comments on this line. It is certainly commented upon by authors far more important than any Scholia, by Thucydides and Strabo, by Apollonius and according to Heyne, Il. iv. 434, by two scholiasts in the Leyden manuscript. This idea of the radical meaning of barbarian in the profane Greek writers is confirmed by its use in the New Testament, as in the well known passage of St Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 10, 11. Τοσαῦτα, εἰ τύχοι, γένη φωνῶν ἔστιν ἐν κόσμῳ, καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἄφωνον. Ἐὰν οὖν μὴ εἰδῶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς φωνῆς ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι βάρβαρος καὶ ὁ λαλῶν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος. We might multiply passages both from profane and ecclesiastical writers to the same effect, but we content ourselves with one from Pindar, which is much to the purpose, and which we do not remember to have seen cited, in this connexion. Οὐδ ̓ ἔστιν οὕτω βάρβαρος οὔτε παλιγγλωσσος πόλις, ̓́Ατις οὐ Πηλέος άξει κλέος ἥρωος. Such, no doubt, was the primitive signification of the word. It was by degrees used to express not only one who spoke a foreign tongue, but one who was characterised by the ferocity which was ascribed to remote and foreign nations. Still, however, the original meaning was so firmly fixed, that the Romans did not scruple to use it of themselves, meaning thereby simply not Greek. Plautus calls the Romans barbari and Italy barbaria, Pœn. iii. 2, 21; and Ovid in a well known passage says, Barbarus ego hic sum, quia non intelligor ulli. Trist. v. 10, 37. At what period the name of Barbary began to be applied to the African coasts of the Mediterranean we do not know; that it has acquired the force of a simple proper name is apparent from its being so used by the Arabian writers themselves, as by Abulfeda, Africa, p. 4. We would only remark further, that there are ten or twelve passages in Eschylus, in which he introduces the Persians calling themselves barbarians, in such a way as shows that the term was used wholly without opprobrious association. We in |