of a language; and in this respect, derivative tongues have the advantage over original languages, their superficies being kept constantly smooth and glossy by carefully varnishing the stereotyped forms and existing phrases. But though the elder tongues labour under this seeming disadvantage, it is really vastly overbalanced by their abundance of words, sufficiently flexible to supply every grade and nuance of thought with a distinct and peculiar expression, in which the full extent of any idea is as clearly displayed as if the words were framed on purpose for it. What German student who has passed over the slippery ground of etymology can refrain from paying the homage of his fervent admiration to the luminous faculties illustrated in the copious and lucid language of Herrman, Luther, Klopstock, Schiller, Goethe, Lessing, Herder, Fichte, Schlegel, Jacobi, Schleiermacher, and the thousands of philosophers, poets, &c. who adorn the wide area of German literature? Is there a single spot in classical learning throughout the arts and sciences where room may be found for a suggestion on the particular subject, that you will not find it in some German work, beside three-score other suggestions, good, bad, and middling? Hardly has a notion or hypothesis crossed the brain of a German scholar, than he instantaneously finds a proper expression in his language to commit it to paper; and however abstruse and abstract it may appear to a stranger when he undertakes to dress it in another language, it is not the obscurity of the idea, but the insufficiency of the alien tongue that baffles at tempts at translation!!! What words has the Frenchman for the German 1. gebieterin, 2. meisterin, 3. herzensbeherr-scherin, and 4. kebse, all these words, conveying, as they do, different distinct notions:-we ask again, what words has he for them? In sooth, but one, maitresse! With the single word delicatesse, the Frenchman seasons, 1. les alimens, 2. les sentimens, and 3. le jugement; while the German

has die feinheit der speisen, die zart heit der gefühle, and die schärfe des urtheils. Take the German laden, to how many families has it not given birth ladung, lasten, last, lästig, lästigkeit, laster, lästern, lästerung, and probably also leiden, are all its descendants. Now what has the French to show against that extensive race, simply charger une charge, for incommode, vice, and medisance, belong to quite different roots. What has the French to produce for the nuances of the German abladen, abladung, aufladen, ausladen, beladen, beiladen, nachladen, umladen, überladen, verladen, einladen, vorladen, zuladen, zulast, ablasten, auflasten, belasten, belästigen, belästigung, entladen, verlästern, verlästerung? &c. &c. What says the French to all these nuances? Why just décharger and surcharger !!! Voltaire must certainly have been impressed with the truth of his sarcastic remarks, when he called his language la gueuse orgueilleuse! (the proud beggar). We have in the outset of this article observed, that as soon as a nation begins to advance in civilization, it feels the necessity of converting the proper into common nouns, and thus arraying the whole range of nature into various categories and systematic classes. This process, however, cannot be effected without materially affecting the body of the words, and deforming their primitive and natural shapes. Yet sufficient generally remains to trace the original sound, even under the crippled state in which time and circumstances have left the child of nature. What German peasant when he hears the sound of laster (vice), but thinks on last (burden) or laden (to burden), in spite of all the scholastie definitions given of that word. people who receive a language from another nation-probably by compul sion, since no one would willingly exchange his mother tongue for a foreign one-receive all the common nouns, without analysing their original sense, much as a school-boy, to meet his master, learns his lessons by rote, without regarding their import. The

The

injury, however, would be of no great moment, if the words were not, little by little, mutilated in spirit as well as body; a consequence almost unavoidable, even in mother tongues, and much more so in an adopted language, where the best imitation of a foreign sound always remains what it always is-a bad imitation. Who can yet trace in chien the barking of the dog?*

What is of still more importance, the very sense and acceptation of the common nouns often become altered as soon as they are transplanted into another climate, and placed in strange society, where different shades of circumstance, relations, and ideas prevail. How the French notion of patron varies from that of the Roman patronus! This evil in derivative languages leads to one still greater-the vague and uncertain signification of the words commonly called homonymes, arising from a doubt what was originally the meaning of those words which abound in the French language, and almost characterise the people by the facility of their jeux de mots; while, in the German, as we have already observed, every varying shade of idea is so limited to accuracy in word and expression, as to render the language such a repository of supposed (there are no real) synonymes, that their plenty is an actual inconvenience, the writer or speaker being at a loss which word to prefer, so many are at hand for the most simple purpose. As the common nouns were formed (as before stated) prior to their modifying adjectives, it is no wonder to find them, in the French, more mutilated than the latter, as: chien from canis, and caniculaires from caniculares; yeux from oculi, and oculaire from oculatus; prix from pretium, and precieux from pretiosus; while, at the same time, occupying the first place in a sentence. The common abstract nouns were the first words the ancient Gauls learned from the Romans, and being accustomed to combine them in a sentence without the aid of other definitive parts of speech, the sense must necessarily have remained uncertain and ambiguous. Nor could the later introduced

modifying and determining parts sup. plant the nouns in the occupation of the first place in a phrase.

Observe how well our Parisian friend can manage without an adjective; he does not say, like the German, goldner ring, nor as the Roman aureus annulus, but bague d'or-a noun and again a

noun !

Mr. URBAN,

I AM afraid that the discussion respecting the ancient languages of our country, now pending between Mr. Logan and myself, may in the end become tiresome both to you and your readers. It is for this reason that I wished Mr. Logan to restrict himself to actual observation and facts rather than authorities; for of opinions and authorities there is no end. Were our dispute concerning the languages spoken in Carthage, Memphis, Persepo lis, and Mathura 3000 years ago, then the opinions and authorities of others would be everything; but with us the case is very different-the Gaëlic and Welsh are still spoken-yea, they are both immortalised by the divine art of typography. Dictionaries, grammars, and various compositions in verse and prose exist in both languages. All that remains to be done, then, is to lay aside prejudice, and, as the French say, en philosophe to compare the one with the other. To me this mode seems the shortest and most direct path to the temple of truth; the grand goal at which to arrive is, I have no hesitation in saying, the sincere desire both of Mr. Logan and myself.

Mr. Logan says that, "according to Balbi, the copia verborum proves the radical affinity of languages." I must say that I cannot find such sentiments in Balbi's work; and if there were such, it is easy to shew that it is not a sound criterion. For instance, there are many pieces of English composition which at first sight would lead one to suppose, from the copia verborum, that our language is a dialect of the Latin, whereas it is decidedly Saxon. I may also add, that three-fourths of the words of the Persian and Hindustani languages are pure Arabic; of which

fact Mr. Logan may satisfy himself by a mere reference to their respective dictionaries yet the former is a sistertongue of the Sanscrit, and the latter one of the numerous progeny of that venerable and elegant language. As a further illustration, I may observe, with what facility I might prove, by such a mode, that the English is a dialect of the Latin. I take the first verse of St. John's Gospel, which is pure Saxon, and without straining the subject nearly so much as Mr. Logan does in the specimen he has given of what he is pleased to call Gaëlic, I shall be much more successful: thus, "In the commencement existed the vocable, and the vocable was conjunct with the Deity, and the Deity was the vocable." Now Mr. L. may see that all this merely proves that we have engrafted, or may engraft, ad libitum, a multitude of Latin and French words upon our own Saxon stem; still our idiom is and ever will be Saxon. Mr. Logan's proposed version would therefore prove nothing even if it were Gaëlic; but as it is, it cannot for a moment be admitted in the way of argument. I appeal to all the Celts in Scotland and Ireland, whether Mr. Logan's five verses be intelligible to them, or whether they convey the real meaning of the original. In fact, they form a fair specimen of "the unknown tongues," and would no doubt, be duly appreciated as materials for texts among the disciples of the late Mr. Irving, particularly as the spirit appears to be rather shy in that quarter now-a-days. But, joking apart, let us examine Mr. Logan's first verse: he substitutes teachdread for toiseach, Now teachdread does not exist in the Gaëlic language; it is purely a creation of Mr. Logan's own, and a very farfetched one it is. The word gairm in Gaëlic means a call or summons, and consequently will not do for the logos of the original. In fact there is a word in Gaëlic spelt like the Welsh gair; but then it means laughter, which, I suppose, in this case does not 1 suit Mr. Logan. Lastly, cuid in Gaëlic is a substantive, and means portion or share, whereas the Welsh gyd is nothing more or less than the Saxon preposition with in a bewitched state.

It is needless for me to notice the remaining verses; for we must take the

languages as they really are, and not as Mr. Logan thinks they might be. The fact is, that the Gaëlic and Welsh have several words in common like English and French, which proves that there was once an intercourse between those who spoke them. Again, the main features of each language, and, above all, the essential words, and what may be called the groundwork of each, are totally different; which clearly proves that the Gaël and Cimbry are of different races. This is a fact which unprejudiced scholars of the present day admit.

There is a prevalent idea among the learned, that all languages are sprung from one source, and consequently that they have all, more or less, resemblance to each other. Now very little reflection will shew that this opinion is utterly groundless, being in direct opposition both to Divine revelation and to facts.

At the building of the tower of Babel all mankind spoke the same speech. By Divine interposition the language was then confounded; and to answer the purpose intended, the confusion must have been total. An indefinite number of distinct languages was the result, from which afterwards sprung various dialects. At the same time, we have no proof whatever that any vestige of the primitive tongue remained. How absurd, then, are the pretensions of those who tell us that Irish, or Welsh, or Hebrew, or high Dutch, (all of which have, in their turn, been set up as candidates for the honour) was the language spoken in Paradise!

Again, if we examine facts, we shall find that languages were as different in early ages as they are now. Mr. Logan mentioned in one of his communications the bright idea of some learned sage, that about 1500 years before Christ all the people of the earth might or could understand one another. In that case where was the occasion for stopping the building of Babel? This opinion, by the way, is one of the many that are hastily adopted without a due examination of facts. It is the quotation of these sad reveries on the part of Mr. Logan that I am particularly sensitive upon, and I trust that he will kindly spare me all such inflictions. Just mark

how a simple and ascertained fact subverts the whole fabric! The Laws of Menu in Sanscrit, and the Pentateuch in Hebrew, were both written sometime between the 17th and 12th centuries before Christ, and no two languages under the sun can have less resemblance to each other than Sanscrit and Hebrew. The Chinese language, judging from its structure, seems still older than either, and totally different from both. After this brief exposé, I trust Mr. Logan will excuse me if I admit none of his authorities except such as I perceive to be founded on facts, or such as I am unable by facts to refute.

I

Speaking of facts, I may mention the specimen of Welsh given by Mr. Logan on the authority of Dr. Edw. Davies as a translation of an Irish fragment in your July Number. To the eye there is, indeed, a resemblance between the Irish and Welsh. shewed it however to a Welsh scholar, who assured me that it was choice Welsh, but still he could not translate one line of it, that I might compare it with the original. I must therefore class Dr. Davies's Welsh, in this instance, among the unknown tongues, until such time as a true translation be forthcoming. It is my thorough conviction, that it is of a piece with Mr. Logan's gospel : that is, the Welsh words are forced so as to resemble the opposite Celtic without the least regard to sense. This is not all; several of the Welsh words do not absolutely exist in the Welsh dictionaries of Richards and Owen !!

These are facts which require no comment, except the total inutility of our attempting to settle this dispute by merely referring to the theories of Celtic and Cimbric etymologists, of whom there are but too many whose writings display a great deal more of enthusiasm than judgment. They seem too much attached to preconceived notions of their own, and shew a wonderful deficiency in sound learning and logical reasoning. The works to which I here chiefly allude are those of Vallancey, of which I have already said more than the subject is worth-" nec habet victoria laudem." O'Connor's Chronicles of Eri is a sample of the GENT. MAG. VOL. X.

same sort. O'Brien's "Round Towers of Ireland" is an elegant and highly poetical work; but then it proves nothing, the author having mistaken rhetoric for logic. The compilers of the Gaelic Dictionary under the auspices of the Highland Society of Scotland, have set out with a wonderful display of Semitic words apparently borrowed from Vallancey. Strange to say, however, after the fourth or fifth letter of the alphabet, the Hebrew and Arabic roots seem to have made a strike of it, to use a vernacular phrase; and they afterwards appear, "rari nantes in gurgite vasto." Now, how are we to account for this state of things? Was it because Vallancey's Dictionary is copious only in the first letters of the Alphabet? Or, was some one charitable enough to hint to the compilers that they were displaying more zeal than wisdom in the affair? 1, of course, need not weary your readers by contrasting a long list of such Gaëlic and Semitic words as have been yoked together in this performance suffice it to point out the following:-G. Asal-an ass-Chaldaic atsel, piger-lazy. Now this is ridiculous enough; for the ass was a very respectable beast among the Semitic people, and was never peculiarised by the epithet atsel. Under the G. word Ceud we have the wonderful information that the Semitic root Kadam, preceding, is made up of the Celtic monosyllables ceud am, first time! One word more, and I finish. The Gaëlic word Ceig denotes a kick, to which is appended in the Naskhi letters the Arabic Keik-foolish. Now the relationship between Ceig, a kick, and Keik foolish, except in mere sound, is beyond my comprehension, unless it mystically intimates that the foolish ought to be kicked. So much for the affinity of the Gaëlic and Semitic. I could add hundreds of equally absurd specimens, were it not waste of time.

:

Of Cymbrian etymologists I have perused three, and dipped into several. First and foremost is Lhuyd, possessed of profound learning and candour-a noble exception to the others. He examines facts, and reasons accordingly; he admits, with the greatest naiveté, that there is an infinite number of ex

2 M

otic words, besides Welsh, to be found in the language of the Gwydhels (i. e. Gaël). In the preface to his work, addressing his own countrymen, he says, "To me it seems most probable that they (the Gaël) were here before our coming into the Island!!!" I wish, Mr. Urban, I were capable of translating honest Lhuyd's Welsh Preface; I verily believe it would decide our controversy. The other two writers to whom I allude, are Mr. Rowlands and Dr. Davies, whom I may briefly and correctly describe as Vallancey and O'Connor in Wales.

There remains yet a Cimbro-Breton Abbé named Pezron, of whom I must say a few words. In a book entitled "Antiquities of Nations," this author attempts to prove that Greek, Latin, &c. are derived from the Celtic; together with sundry marvellous things besides. What the Abbé is pleased to call Celtic, is the melange,-half Welsh half French, spoken in Britanny, commonly called the Armoric: however, Welsh or French, it is all fish (i. e. Celtic) that comes into the learned gentleman's net. As a specimen of the Abbé's ingenuity and learning, he says that the following Latin words, habilis, honestus, ratio, and resina, are derived from the following Celtic words respectively-habil, honest, raison and rousin!!!

Of course I need not add a single word of comment here; I am merely doubtful whether your readers will believe me; and I can only assure them that the fact is as I have stated it see the book, viz. the Antiquities of Nations, by Pezron," book iii. ch. 2. Yet this author is praised up to the very skies by Rowlands as the most learned and the most accurate of Antiquaries. I have been somewhat diffuse on the Celtic and Cimbrian etymologists and soi-disant antiquaries, to convince Mr. Logan that I have no wish whatever to adopt an "" exclusive or arrogant" mode of controversy; and I still submit, that where facts are at hand, authorities are of little consequence. Mr. L. must perceive that authorities are liable to be subverted, whereas facts are permanent: this refers more particularly to the opinions of such writers as I have above speci

fied-writers whose ill- supported theories and shallow lucubrations are (with the sole exception of Lhuyd) enough to bring Celts and Cimbrians, and etymological research itself, into everlasting contempt.

With these compare the profound and strictly philosophical researches of continental scholars such as Gesenius, and Bopp, and Balbi, and Eichoff; and in that case, Mr. Urban, you will admit that both Celts and Cimbrians will be found wanting in the balance. For my own part, I believe I am perfectly indifferent to all prejudices resulting from country or tribe: I merely reason upon facts as I find them, and wherever I meet with the crude and inadmissible theories of either Celt or Cimbrian, I will freely and candidly expose them, so far as facts bear me out. "Tros Tyriusve mihi, nullo discrimine agetur."

FIOR GHAEL.

ENGLISH HEXAMETERS.

"With so little knowledge of facts, and so little regard to accuracy, are confident assertions sometimes made." Dr. Southey.

BISHOP HALL, in the 6th Satire of his first book, "laughs," says Warton, "at the hexametrical version of the Roman Prosody, so contrary to the genius of our language, lately introduced into English poetry by Stanihurst the translator of Virgil, and patronized by Gabriel Harvey and Sir Philip Sidney."

A writer in the Censura Literaria, from some slip of memory, when referring to these circumstances of poetical history, inadvertently substitutes the name of Spenser for Sidney. And

The Chevalier F. G. Eichoff has lately published at Paris a valuable work entitled," Paralléle des Langues de l'Europe et de l'Inde." The author with vast learning and sound research enters into a comparison between the Sanscrit and the leading languages of Europe, the Gaelic and Welsh among others. By a careful perusal of this work, Mr. Logan will find that the Gaëlic and Cimbric are (to use the terms of naturalists) of the same genus, but not of the same species.