are not of one origin; and that they are not so, is quite in accordance with ancient history and the natural course of events. I have already observed that I considered the Celts as the aborigines of our Islands as well as all Gaul. In the course of time, these Celts in Gaul were invaded by the Belgæ and other tribes from Germany, who took possession of the north-east quarter of the country. The Belgæ being thus established on the opposite coast, in sight of Britain, would very soon carry their victorious arms thither; and in Cæsar's time they had established themselves in the southern portion of the Island, having driven the Celts into the interior. The descendants of these Belgian invaders were the Britons that opposed Cæsar; and the ancestors of the Welsh people of this day. Some centuries after Cæsar, a superior race of men invaded Britain-the Saxons, who drove the Belgian Britons of the south into the western mountains, just as these same Britons had previously forced the aboriginal Celts to seek shelter in Ireland and the mountains of Scotland. By the time of the Saxon invasion, a branch of the then South-British race had even gained possession of the eastern coast of Scotland, where they flourished for several centuries under the name of Picts, till at last the Celts, driven to extremities, like the stag at bay, turned upon their pursuers and expelled them from the country.

At the same time there must undoubtedly have been a considerable intercourse between the Belgian and Celtic Britons before their final separation through the Saxon invaders; and this easily accounts for such words as are common to both languages. Again, the two languages are so different upon the whole, as I have endeavoured to shew, that we have no grounds to infer that the two nations ever amalgamated; nor was it natural that they should unite, as long as the Celts had kindred tribes towards Scotland, and in all Ireland, to whom they could retreat for safety. That the Welsh, then, are the descendants of the Bel

* Vol. IX. May 1838.

gian invaders alluded to by Cæsar, and not of the Celtic aborigines, seems to me incontrovertible; and this fact is admitted by Lhuyd, the soundest writer on the subject that Wales has yet produced, his opinion being, "that they (the Gaël or Celts) possessed the whole of South Britain long before the Cumraig or Welsh came into this country and expelled them." His chief reason for this admission is, "that the greater part of the Cumraig names of places are Gaelic, and must have been imposed in ages vastly prior to the arrival of the Cimbri in Britain." But of this, I think I have said enough for it follows as a corollary to my first position, the dissimilarity of the languages. If the Welsh were Celts, it is impossible that their language should have changed so much, while that of the Celts of Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man, has continued the same for so many centuries.

With regard to the Armoric or BasBreton, it is, as might be expected, a very mixed idiom; but, on a careful analysis of the grammar and vocabulary of it given by Lhuyd,† I am led to conclude that its framework or basis is Celtic. More than half its words are from the French or Latin; of the remainder the majority are Welsh, but the structure and idiom are entirely Gaelic. The Armoric, then, stripped of its Latin, French, and Welsh vocables, is necessarily reduced to a small number of words, probably to a fifth or sixth of the whole, yet in that small number there is the germ of the language, and that language pure Gaelic; and it is a curious fact, that a number of these Gaëlic words do not exist in the Welsh. Now all this is very easily accounted for, as the Armoric has resulted from an amalgamation of the Belgic and Celtic Gauls, the Belgians having been forced to give way before the Saxon race, who at present inhabit their ancient territories. The Belgians, thus driven from their own possessions, intermixed with the Celts of the west of Gaul; and hence arose, as is always the case, a

mixed language, the basis being that of the aborigines, though the copia verborum may be of foreign growth.

When a nation is invaded, if the inhabitants quietly submit to their conquerors, the language merely receives a multitude of new words, but does not thereby change its nature. Such is the case with the English, the Persian, and the Hindustani, and half a dozen others I could name. If, again, in the case of an invasion, the aborigines be in a rude state of civilisation, and little attached to any particular spot, they will of course abandon their country altogether to their more warlike conquerors. Of this we have abundant instances in America, Africa, and New Holland, where the language of the invaders flourishes unmixed.

If both parties be nearly equal in point of civilisation, then, although they may not absolutely intermingle, still there will be a considerable intercourse between them either in peace or war, and consequently several words will become common to both languages. We have an instance of this in the language of the Spanish Peninsula, which has received a considerable accession of words from that of the Arabs. Still these do not materially alter the Latin impress of the Spanish and Portuguese languages. In like manner the Arabic of Morocco and the Mediterranean coast of Africa has a considerable intermixture of words from the Spanish and Italian: still this does not at all change its Semitic structure. In fact, the Spanish and the Arabic of Morocco, or the Italian and Maltese, furnish the best illustrations that I know of the precise affinity between the Gaëlic and Welsh; which have, like the forementioned, several words in common, but bearing only a small ratio to the whole words of either language.

In the case of the Bas-Bretons, whose language is a total mixture of the Celtic and Cimbric, (I mean, of course, that fraction of it which is not Latin or French,) it matters little whether the Cimbric people came among them as conquerors from Belgium, or as fugitives for shelter from the victorious Saxons, or as colonists from Wales, which some say was the case; it all

comes to the same result. They coalesced with the aborigines, and although the majority of Armoric words are Welsh, yet the language seems Celtic. I have mentioned that the Armoric has got Gaëlic words not found in the Welsh, such are blonec fatness, bresq brittle, coun to remember, dale to delay, dalta to moisten or bedew, and many others I could enumerate. Now, if the Gaëlic, Welsh, and Bas-Breton were dialects of each other, how, I would ask, could it happen that the Bas-Breton should be nearer the Gaëlic than the Welch is? According to my view of the case the answer is obvious: the Bas-Breton is a Celtic language, of which the foundation alone is discernible, the superstructure being of Cimbric, Latin, and French materials. The Gaëlic is a language entirely Celtic, and most probably the same as was once spoken in Celtic Gaul, and which, very naturally, furnished the basis of the present Armoric.

I have, in some of my former letters,* expressed my opinions freely, because truth has nothing to fear, and fairly, because founded on facts, respecting those soi-disant Celtic and Cimbric etymologists who have gained a sort of reputation among those of their own kind. As to such Saxon writers as have treated of that subject, they are to be excused; because, as they were imperfectly acquainted either with Gaëlic or Welsh, they have merely erred in placing too great a reliance on the accuracy of the natives. Authors in general, and book-makers in particular, find it much easier to adopt the opinions of others than to examine facts. Nay, further, it has sometimes happened that an error has been repeated and multiplied in the writings of far greater men than any of the Celtic and Cimbrian etymologists aforesaid. As facts are my principal weapons, I shall here mention a case in point. The names of the late Dr. Carey, Mr. H. T. Colebrooke, and Sir C. Wilkins, were deservedly at the very head of Oriental literature in their day. Each of these eminent men gave out in their writings that the Teloogoo language was a dialect of Sanscrit. Now it really happens that the Teloogoo is no more Sanscrit than En

Biscayan tongue; it is so totally dif ferent from Gaëlic or Welsh either, that the most shallow* etymologist would feel at a loss to prove their identity. To begin with facts, Balbi gives sixteen words of the most common occurrence of the Basque, Gaëlic, and Welsh. Of these sixteen not one Basque word bears the least resemblance to the Gaëlic or Welsh; and even out of the ten numerals, which are also given, there is only one (the sixth) that has any sort of affinity. This is the more remarkable as the numerals, in almost all the languages of Europe, and a great many in Asia, have a considerable degree of affinity, how much so ever the languages may differ in other respects. The Basque is most probably all that remains of the language of the Acquitani of Cæsar's time. That these differed in every respect from the Celts and Belgic Gauls we have the most positive testimony from Strabo, who says (book iv. cap. 1), "that the Acquitani were altogether different, τελέως ἐξηλλαγμένους, from the others, not only in their language, but in their persons, resembling the Spaniards more than the Gauls; nor did the rest of the Gauls, who were similar as to personal appearance, speak the same language.' It

is probable that Spain was peopled from Africa, and Acquitania from Spain; and the Basque may therefore search for its kindred among the ancient languages of Numidia and Mauritania, if still in existence. I think, if a Basque scholar were to examine the Punic scene in Plautus, he might prove more successful than our Hibernian O'Neachtans and other O's.

I have thus, Mr. Urban, endeavoured to fulfil the promise which I made to you at the beginning of this year. To have done justice to the task would have required much more space than your pages could afford, and more leisure and ability than are at my command. I trust, however, that these essays of mine, imperfect as they are, may induce abler hands to take up the subject, and pursue the path which I have so far followed. I am convinced that it is a safe route,

because I have had no favourite theory to support, nor have I indulged in any conjectures of my own imagination. It will be found that all my statements are merely natural inferences from certain observed phenomena or facts, or from the fair and unthwarted testimony of ancient writers. It may be asked, why do I disregard the opinions of so many of our modern writers? To this question my answer has been already given, "with reasons good." I have no regard for those moderns who pervert and degrade the science of etymology, so useful within its lawful sphere, and who misquote and misrepresent ancient authorities in support of some favourite theory. The writings of all such, being the result either of prejudice, ignorance, or insanity, are by no means entitled to that respect which we pay to those of Cæsar, Tacitus, and Strabo.

In conclusion, I may be allowed to say, that I feel cheered and highly gratified to find that my efforts have met with the approbation of Sir William Betham, whose remarks to that effect appeared in your Number for October. It will be seen that, in some of my letters, I had free recourse for assistance and confirmation of my views to Sir William's excellent work on the "Gaël and the Cymbri," in which it is clearly and fully proved that the Gaëlic and Welsh are very different languages. To this work I also referred Mr. Logan and the literati of Wales at large; but not a shadow of an argument have they been able to bring forward in its refutation. is true I differ from Sir William on some points in the first part of his work, particularly in making Ireland the cradle of the Celts. I should say, that in early times it was more natural that islands should be peopled from continents, and that the diffusion of mankind over the earth should have taken place by land rather than the reverse. For this reason I have inferred that the Celts came from the eastward by land, (from what precise part I do not presume to say,) first into Gaul, and thence into Britain and

It

Ireland. Had Ireland been peopled from Phoenicia direct, I cannot conceive it possible that there should be so very little affinity between the Celtic and Semitic languages, particularly as both have remained pure and unmixed for such a length of time.

Perhaps I am too fastidious in my ideas of the legitimate application of etymological science, which I still think has been allowed to run riot in the hands of some of our countrymen. I believe I can account for my taste in this respect from having been several years accustomed to a very rigorous etymological school, that of the Arabic. Nothing can be more satisfactory than the certainty with which every word of that language may be traced on fixed principles to a particular root, beyond which it is deemed absurd to proceed. The Arabic roots, too, consist generally of three syllables; and though the Oriental grammarians have the good sense to leave these undisturbed, yet our etymologists would mangle them without mercy. For instance, the word mukaddimatun, which signifies the first part of anything, is, on the most unerring principles, derived from kaduma, to go before; but an Arab would never dream of dissecting kadama into ceud-am (first time), like our Celtic derivators. Again, in all the words resulting from the root kadama (and they are many) the radical consonants k, d, and m, are never lost nor transposed on any account; and the same rigorous principle is applicable to all the other roots, which, in fact, is the grand characteristic of languages of the Semitic family. I mention this to excuse, if not to justify, the suspicion with which I receive all arguments founded on the etymological researches of my countrymen. If they show me a single principle on which their art is founded, I trust that I shall prove amenable to reason; as matters stand, I consider the whole as mere conjecture, of which there is ample proof in their own disagreement in the derivation of such words as Britain, Caledonia, Celtæ, &c.

Great praise is due to Sir William Betham for the light which he has

thrown on the most obscure portion of British history,-that of the Picts. That these were a Cymbric race there is every reason to conclude; still, I should say that those of them who escaped from Scotland were too small in number to form the basis of the present Cumraig. It will be borne in mind that the last struggle between the Scots and Picts was a war of extermination on the part of the former, and, according to the testimony of all the old historians, only a remnant of the Picts made their escape to England. These in all probability sought shelter, not among the Saxons, but amidst the mountains of Cumberland, which, as well as the whole western coast of the island, was then occupied by those Britons whom the Saxons had displaced. The expulsion of the Picts from Scotland took place near the middle of the ninth century, and it will be difficult to prove that the present Cumraig were not settled in Wales several centuries before that period. In fact, the poet Taliesin flourished about the middle of the sixth century, or, at all events, long before the era of Kenneth Macalpin. It seems to me, then, the more natural inference, that the Picts were really of the same race as the Britons or Cumraig of the South, and that on their defeat and expulsion by the Celts of Scotland, they easily coalesced with those of their own kindred, so that every trace of them, as a distinct people, was thenceforth lost.

But it is now high time for me to close this long letter, together with the Celtic controversy, on which I have nothing further to add, unless Mr. Logan should raise stronger objections against my views than any he has yet brought forward. I am well aware that this has been a subject on which opinions have greatly differed; and the only plea on which I claim any credit to my statements, consists in my not venturing (to the best of my judgment) beyond what may be established as facts, or such inferences as I deemed to be naturally deducible from facts.

Yours, &c. FIOR GHAEL.