My dear Sir,

I beg your pardon for troubling you again, but after a serious consideration I think it my duty to let you know my doubts. On two places you quote the Bible, first (p 316) to prove that the Semitic races do blush, and then (p 322) to give an instance of the movements which accompany the blushing   In this latter place the term “blush” occurs again   Of course I was about to give these two places in Luther’s words, but I was struck that he did not mention the “blushing”, i.e the reddening of the face.¹ On turning to the original hebrew text I saw that it did not know any more this blushing   In both places the same verb is used (kalam), which means ferire, vulnerare, also morally used: verbis perforare and struck with shame, but there is not the slightest hint to colour in it.² Then I found out that in the whole Bible there is not one place, where the “blushing” is mentioned, nor does exist a word in Hebrew, which means blushing or reddening of the face, whilst the Arabs know it; they possess a verb absolutely synonymous with our blushing and “Erröthen”. Now I think you cannot prove the blushing of the old Hebrews by quoting a wrong translation (p 316). That it occurs in Esra³ (s. p 322), is irrelevant in this respect.

My second doubt is about note 28 on p 307. You say, that the movements which are performed in feeling horror lead to sounds which may be expressed by words like “uh” or “ugh”. Of course these sounds must be the same in all men with similarly organized throats, whenever the same movements occur. Now Mr Wedgwood ‘shows (as you quote in the note) by intermediate forms that the sounds here referred to have probably given rise to many words, such as “ugly”, “huge” etc.’ Why then, I ask, have not these same movements led to similar words with the other Arian nations?⁴ There are still some words in our modern languages, which have originated from such interjections or which are onomatopoetic, but extremely few. But with regard to “ugly”, it has its definite etymology and is the result of an organic development as are most of our modern words. You will find in Max Müller’s Lectures on the Science of Language, 6. edit. 1871. Vol. I. p 426, a short notice of the etymology of ugly.⁵ I am not of Müller’s opinion that language will remain “our Rubicon”; but in cases like this, where the history of the word can be traced, we are not allowed to neglect the intermediate stages of the development of the word and to take the quite accidental similarity of it with an interjection as a proof of their genealogical identity. Therefore I think you better leave out the last two lines of the note 28.⁶

In a second print, will you kindly notice the following mistakes or misprints:

p. 243, you mention the Kafirs of South America   of course you mean Africa (l. 14 from top

p 245 you spell Dr Brown without the e (l. 11, fr. t.)⁷

p 79. you spell Spencer, p 262 Spenser, the old English poet. For ought I know Spencer is correct.⁸

p 295. l. 5 from top: “Kafir, Gaika says”, dele the stop.⁹

p 285. R. Brough Smith (l. 6 from bottom); in other places the name is spelt Smyth, also in the Index.¹⁰

Pray don’t be angry about my remarks. The places, which induced me to make them, struck me too much. If you will kindly ask a better Hebrew scholar than I am, I dare say he will give you still better information. Ask Will Wright in Cambridge, a most obliging man and dear friend of mine.¹¹

Three sheets of the translation are printed and it goes on rapidly. With respect of the above mentioned places, I don’t know what to do. The deepest heartfelt reverence and the scientific conscience comes to a sad conflict.

Believe me, | My dear Sir, | Yours most sincerely, | J. Victor Carus