“Nay, I can tell you more,” said Wamba, in the same tone. “There is old

Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he is under the

charge of serfs and bondmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French

gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to

consume him. ‘Mynheer Calf,’ too, becomes ‘Monsieur de Veau,’ in the like

manner: he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name

when he becomes matter of enjoyment.”

“By St. Dunstan,” answered Gurth, “thou speakest but sad truths; little is

left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved

with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the

tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their

board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their

foreign masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones,

leaving few here who have either the will or the power to protect the

unfortunate Saxon!”

The effect of the Norman Conquest was simply to introduce among the Saxon

population a certain class of new terms, which—though they were eventually

embodied in their language—are still readily distinguishable from the

Stock on which they were thus engrafted. But the general structure and

composition of the language remained unaffected by any Foreign alloy. The

most common verbs, nouns, and grammatical inflections and forms—Horne

Tooke’s “epea pteroenta” of the English language—remained, and have since

continued to be, pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxon!

Such was the character of those modifications in the English Tongue that

flowed from the Norman Conquest. Partial and peculiar were those changes

in their nature—brief, also, was the interval of which they were the

result! A period can be fixed, at which it is certain that the dialect of

the Norman had ceased to encroach on that of the Anglo-Saxon people. In

the age of Chaucer, for example, the Norman and Saxon races had long

become undistinguishable, and the languages they spoke had blended into

one. Can the same age be fixed upon as an epoch at which the process of

transition in the English language had also been arrested? That

considerable changes have since occurred will not be disputed—for it is an

historical fact which does neither admit of doubt nor discussion. But had

all _important_ changes ceased at that time? Can it be said that—in the

time of Chaucer—that progressive revolution which has so widely separated

the modern English from the original Anglo-Saxon had gone through all its

stages? Can it be said that the innovations which have since occurred are

few in number, and trifling in point of character, compared to those which

belong to earlier periods of our History?

The answer to these inquiries involves a truth that I believe will be

found no less startling to the Philologist than to the general reader, in

whose mind the changes which the English language has undergone are

associated with the violent shock given by the Norman Conquest to

Anglo-Saxon institutions. The truth to which I allude—and it is one for

which I apprehend few inquirers will be prepared—is this: that the changes

which have occurred in the English language since the age of Chaucer are

at least equal in importance to those which took place in the antecedent

periods of our history. Novel as this conclusion may appear, the proofs

are so simple and so conclusive, as to place its accuracy beyond the

possibility of doubt.

The features which distinguish different languages from each other are

divisible into two classes—Words and Grammatical inflections. In both

these features marked differences have arisen between our modern English

and its parent Saxon, and to both these classes we must refer in forming

our conclusion as to the relative importance of the alterations which have

taken place in our language at two different epochs.

1st. The difference in words between the language of Chaucer and our

modern English will be sufficiently obvious, from a cursory glance at the

venerable remains of that poet. How many terms are there in the pages of

the father of English poetry that require the aid of a glossary to render

them intelligible even to an educated Englishman! These terms too, be it

observed—and it is a reflection highly deserving of the attention of those

who may still cling to the impression that the Norman Conquest has been

the sole agent of those phases through which the English Tongue has

passed—do not consist exclusively of Anglo-Saxon roots, but comprise also

a large number of Norman words which have shared the same fate!

2d. Still more striking have been those Changes in the Grammatical forms

of the English which may be referred to the last four centuries.

The ancient Saxon was a language of inflections—the modern English is a

language of simple forms. Thus, in the Anglo-Saxon the terminations of the

Verb were varied in different Persons, as they are in the Latin “Hab-_eo_,

Hab-_emus_, Hab-_ent_,” and in the German “Hab-_e_, Hab-_en_, Hab-_en_.”

These inflections have, for the most part, progressively disappeared from

the English, which expresses the changes of Persons by separate Pronouns,

in conjunction with a Root, in most instances unvarying, as “I _Have_, We

_Have_, They _Have_.” There is distinct evidence that this change has, in

a great measure, perhaps principally, taken place since the time of

Chaucer—whose writings, to a great extent, preserve the Anglo-Saxon

inflections, such as “They Hav-_en_,”(34) &c., corresponding with the

German “Sie Hab-_en_,” &c.

Slow and almost imperceptible have been the steps in this as in other

examples of that revolution of which the progress may be faintly traced in

the writings of Spenser, and Shakspeare, and Milton, and even in those of

the great modern Masters of the last century. In our _own_ generation it

has not been consummated! A striking instance occurs in the old inflection

of the third person singular “He Giv-_eth_,” still partially used in the

venerable forms of Scripture. This inflection, now fast passing into

oblivion, trifling as it may appear, forms a link which serves to

associate the English language not only with the German, but with the

Latin and the Sanscrit!(35)

The Auxiliary Verb may probably be regarded as the most important part of

Language. Now it is highly deserving of remark, that in the Anglo-Saxon

there existed an Auxiliary Verb, “Beo, or Beonne, To Be,” which has been

abandoned in the modern English. This Verb is interesting, not merely from

its important functions as a part of Language, but also from its forming a

link, as will hereafter appear, between the Anglo-Saxon, the German, the

dialects of the English Provinces, and of the Scottish Lowlands. From the

English of Literature it has been lost since the days of Chaucer, by whom

it is commonly used, as in the following example:

“These two sinnes _bin_ so nigh cosins.”—_Person’s Tale._

The peculiarities which distinguish the dialects of the English Counties

from the language of the higher classes of society are not, as is perhaps

generally supposed, the results of the capricious deviation of

uncultivated minds from an established standard. On the contrary, they

appear clearly for the most part to be various relics or Fragments of Old

English or Anglo-Saxon, which the more educated classes have lost. For

example, To “axe” (for To ask,) “I conne,” (I can,) expressions used by

the peasantry of Shropshire, are words of Saxon origin that occur in

Chaucer. In an able work on the peculiarities of the dialect of

Lancashire, by Mr. Collier,(36) it has been shown with much learning and

research that those peculiarities are to be recognized in Chaucer,

Spenser, Ben Jonson, and other old English writers. Obsolete Norman, as

well as Saxon, words occur in this dialect. Similar inferences with regard

to the Lowland Scotch may be drawn from Mr. Jamieson’s work on that branch

of the Anglo-Saxon.

Some very interesting results will be found to flow from a Comparison of

the “_Pronunciation_” of different English Counties, and of the Lowland

Scotch, with that of the educated classes of modern England. One of the

most marked differences between the modern English and the German consists

in the superior _breadth_ or _distinctness_ which is given in the German

to words which are uttered with a comparatively _narrow_ and _indistinct_

sound in Modern English. There is every reason to believe that the

Anglo-Saxon Pronunciation was similar to the German, and that the present

English mode has been the result of progressive innovation. Of the various

dialects of the Anglo-Saxon, the Lowland Scotch, in its pronunciation, as

well as in individual words, approaches nearest to the Continental

German.(37) But, as intimated above, many of the characteristics of German

articulation have been preserved also in the Provincial dialects of

England. Moreover, it is interesting to observe, that _different_

primitive peculiarities have been preserved in _different_ counties. For

example, the English of the educated classes differs from the Continental

German, and, as it is believed, from the Anglo-Saxon also,(38) in giving a

_narrow_ sound to the vowels A and U. Now the Shropshire dialect has

preserved the broad A; (“Hair,” for instance, is pronounced “_H-ā-r,_” as

it is by the Germans!) On the other hand, in Lancashire and Cheshire the

broad U forms the prominent feature in the dialect of the peasantry; (for

example, “Butter” and “Gutter” are pronounced “_Bootter_” and

“_Gootter_!”)

As already noticed, the Anglo-Saxon Auxiliary Verb forms in numerous

instances an important connecting link. Thus the modern English and the

modern German Auxiliary Verbs differ totally in the present tense.

English. German.

I am, Ich bin,

Thou art, Du bist,

He is. Er ist.

We are, Wir sind,

You are, Ihr seyd,

They are. Sie sind.

But both these Verbs co-exist in the present tense in the old Anglo-Saxon.

_Anglo-Saxon_(39) Verb the source of the English “I am,” and Anglo-Saxon

Verb corresponding with the German “Ich bin.”

Indicative Present.

_Singular._

1, Eom; 1, Beo,

2, Eort; 2, Byst,

3, Is.; 3, By & Byd.

_Plural._

1, 2, 3, Synd.; 1, 2, 3, Beod & Beo.

Subjunctive Present.

_Singular._

1, 2, 3, Sy (Seo); 1, 2, 3, Beo.

_Plural._

1, 2, 3, Sy’n; 1, 2, 3, Beon.

Indicative Imperfect.

_Singular._

1, Wæs; 1, 2, 3, Beo.

2, Wære,

3, Wæs.

_Plural._

1, 2, 3, Weron; 1, 2, 3, Beod.

Infinitive Present.

Wesanne; Beonne.

Participle Active.

Wesende; Beonde.

Participle Past.

Gewesen.

But though the present tense of the Verb “Beo” or “Beonne” does not exist

in modern English, it has been preserved in a remarkable manner in the

Shropshire and other dialects, in which it runs thus:

Provincial English. German.

I Be, or I Bin, Ich Bin,

Thou Bist, Du Bist,

He Is. Er Ist.

We Bin,

Yō Bin,

They Bin.

The word “Bin” or “Ben” is used by Chaucer for the 1st, 2d, and 3d Persons

Plural,(40) as in the passage previously quoted: “These two sinnes _bin_

so nigh cosins.” (_Person’s Tales._)

These are singular but highly instructive examples of the caprices of “the

great Innovator!”

SECTION IV.

_On the Scandinavian Languages. Resemblances between the Icelandic

and Anglo-Saxon. Recent Origin and extensive Nature of the

Differences among the Icelandic, Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian

Tongues. Approximation of the Ancient Specimens of the

Scandinavian and Teutonic Languages._

The Island of Iceland abounds in diversified features of interest; and its

Language, early History, and Institutions, will be found replete with

instruction, in connexion with the inquiry pursued in this volume.

As has been previously stated, the Gothic Class of languages are naturally

divisible into two great subordinate branches: the Teutonic or German,

including the dialects of Germany, the Low Countries, and of Great

Britain—and the Scandinavian, including those of the two Scandinavian

Peninsulas and Iceland. These two great Divisions of the Languages of the

Gothic race are radically the same, but they are supposed to display

certain specific differences by which they are distinguished from each

other.

Of the Teutonic—one of the most venerable specimens is the Anglo-Saxon,

the primitive tongue of the Ancestors of the modern English. More ancient

specimens of some of the other Gothic dialects have been preserved, but as

these are for the most part mere fragments—while of the Anglo-Saxon

literature and language we possess copious Remains—it has been inferred by

eminent Scholars that it is in these Remains—to Englishmen so interesting

for other reasons—that we may on the whole, perhaps, hope to find the

nearest approach to a transcript of the early language of the Teutonic

tribes.(41) Of all the Scandinavian Languages, on the other hand, the

Icelandic—by the general concurrence of the scholars of the North—appears

to be the most primitive.

Now in relation to these two Languages, a very interesting proposition has

been established by Scandinavian scholars—and though they widely differ as

to the cause of the results they discuss—they seem to be agreed with

respect to the proposition itself. The Icelandic, they have shown, closely

approaches to the Anglo-Saxon in numerous features in which it differs

from the languages of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Moreover it has been

pointed out by the writers who first noticed these resemblances, that—in

their Literary and Bardic Institutions, as well as in their Language—the

Icelanders approach to the Anglo-Saxons. In explanation of these facts,

they propose the theory—that in the early ages of their history the

Icelanders must have benefited by direct communication and instruction

from the Anglo-Saxons.

These views have been fully discussed by Professor Rask, in a Preface

prefixed to his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, which contains a valuable body of

facts that serve to throw a new light on the history of the Scandinavian

Tongues.(42) He does not deny the existence of these important common

features in the Icelandic and Anglo-Saxon Languages and Remains; nor the

absence of the same features as regards the Modern specimens of the

Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian; but he maintains, nevertheless, that all

these characteristics may be retraced in detail, either in the Ancient or

in the Provincial specimens of those three Languages. In the present day

the Icelandic differs widely from the Languages of the Mainland of

Scandinavia, and those Languages also differ widely among themselves. But

originally, he maintains, one common Speech, the ancient Scandinavian,

(“Danska Tunge,”) was spoken from the coasts of Greenland to those of

Finland, from the Frozen Ocean to the Eider.(43) As we ascend into the

remoter periods of history we find the languages of Scandinavia gradually

approximate to each other, and finally blend into one.(44) During the

ninth century, and the period immediately succeeding, these tongues were

perfectly identical.

Professor Rask’s proofs of this proposition may be said to consist of a

reunion of the “Disjecta Membra” of the “Danska Tunge,” as found dispersed

in the various kingdoms and provinces of the Scandinavian Mainland. Of

these proofs I shall offer a few examples.

After observing that the Danish and Norwegian have from various causes

become very much alike, he adds that a comparison of the Danish with the

Swedish would, for that reason, be more instructive.

“The Swedish has almost from the introduction of Christianity, even during

the Calmar union, A.D. 1397, and in the time of Gustavus I., been a

distinct tongue; a comparison, therefore, with the Swedish is more to the

present purpose.”

He then gives a specimen of an ancient Danish MS. of a date prior to the

Reformation, which, “like all MSS. prior” to that event, “differs widely

from the present Danish.... It has many _inflections now obsolete_, but

which are to be found only in Old Swedish and _Icelandic_; many antiquated

_words_ and phrases, exempli gratia, then annin,” Icelandic “thann annan.”

He then mentions some words contained in this MS. which are still

preserved in “the _provinces_ of _Upland, Jutland, and Dalecarlia._”

He next notices an old Swedish document issued by King Magnus Smik, of

which he observes: “This, although about a century older, greatly

resembles the preceding specimen, and is scarcely distinguishable from the

Danish of the same period.... But if we go further back to the language of

the old Danish Laws, we there recognize nearly the _entire structure_ of

the earliest Swedish, and the Icelandic though not always strictly adhered

to, as the language in those unhappy and turbulent times which preceded

the Calmar Union, underwent in Denmark what may be termed its

_fermentation_, somewhat earlier than in the other states.”

He then gives a specimen from the Ecclesiastical Laws of Zealand, of which

he observes: “The few deviations from the Icelandic bear, for the most

part, _a strong resemblance to the Swedish_.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“But the oldest remains of the Danish language are to be found on our

Runic stone monuments, and here at length it perfectly coincides with the

earliest Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“The Danish is closely allied to the Swedish, and both, in the earliest

times, lapse into the Icelandic, which, according to all ancient records,

was formerly universal over all the North, and must therefore be

considered as the parent of both the modern Scandinavian dialects.”(45)

On the subject of the differences of dialect in the different _provinces_

of the Northern Kingdoms he says that, “In Norway as well as in Denmark

one province terminates its verbs in _a_, another distinguishes all _the

three genders_, while a third has preserved a vast number of _old_ WORDS

_and inflections_ which to the others _are unintelligible_.”

We have thus a proof that even in the provinces of the same kingdom there

are differences of “_words_, grammar, _and inflections_.” The difference

_in the number_ of _genders_ is a very remarkable one.

The researches of Professor Rask will be found distinctly to warrant the

following conclusions. These conclusions are in the nature of results that

legitimately flow from his researches; they do not represent the

inferences which he himself has thence deduced. With regard both to the

languages of England and of his native Scandinavia, this learned writer

seems evidently to have been perplexed by the extent and variety of the

changes he has described. Hence, in both instances, he has shown an

inclination to ascribe to the influence of War and Social disturbance

changes which his own researches clearly prove to have been the effects

neither of transient nor of local influences, but of causes progressively

at work through a series of ages, and embracing large groups of nations

and languages in their action.

1. The differences which now exist between the various Scandinavian

Languages extend to all those features in which it is possible that one

Language, or one Class of Languages, can differ from another; viz. to

Words, Grammar, _Inflections,_(46) and to the _arrangement_ of Words in

sentences,(47) or _Idioms_.

2. Not only do differences of this nature present themselves in the

various Scandinavian _Kingdoms_—but also in the various Provinces of the

same _Kingdom_, which in many instances are distinguished by the most

marked differences in Words, Grammar, &c. Thus the Dialect of Dalecarlia

in Sweden is very ancient and distinct, and approaches to the Gothic.(48)

3. These characteristic features of the various languages and dialects of

Scandinavia have arisen progressively during the course of ages.

4. These differences principally consist in the abandonment in one Kingdom

or Province of a portion of the Words, Idioms, Grammar, &c. of the Parent

Speech—that part of the elements of the Original Tongue which have become

obsolete in one dialect having generally been preserved in the dialects of

other kingdoms and provinces—which have at the same time generally lost

other distinct portions of the Vocabulary, Grammar, &c. of their common

Original. In other words, the “Disjecta Membra” of the old Scandinavian,

or “_Danska Tunge,_” when not preserved in the Danish, have been retained

for the most part in the Swedish, Icelandic, and Norwegian, or in some of

the Provincial dialects of Scandinavia, and vice versâ. _In the various

provinces in which it was once spoken different portions of the Parent

speech have been abandoned or preserved._

5. Hence it follows that the Primitive Language of Scandinavia, or “Danska

Tunge,” does not exist in any one—but is dispersed in ALL its derivative

dialects. (Compare the motto from Grotius on the title-page.)

6. It is a necessary consequence of the third and fourth propositions that

the more ancient remains of the derivative dialects approach more nearly

to the Parent Speech, and—in the ratio of their superior antiquity—unite a

greater proportion of the distinctive peculiarities of all the

sister-dialects, which, as previously stated, have arisen in consequence

of certain portions of the Parent speech having been abandoned in some

provinces and retained in others, and vice versâ.

An interesting illustration of this maxim occurs in a passage from

Professor Rask’s preface already quoted, in which, after giving a specimen

of old Danish, which approaches closely to the Icelandic, he adds, “The

few deviations from the Icelandic bear for the most part _a strong

resemblance_ to the _Swedish_.” In other words, the older specimens of the

Danish _unite_ those peculiarities by which the modern collateral Tongues

of Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden are distinguished from each other.

Let it be borne in mind, that the lapse of one thousand years has produced

these changes, and the instructive nature of this example will be fully

apparent. Of the accuracy of the data on which the previous deductions

rest, all doubt must be removed by reference to one remarkable event. It

is historically certain that the Island of Iceland is inhabited by a

nation descended from emigrants from the opposite Norwegian coast. It is

historically certain, also, that previously to the Ninth Century these

warlike adventurers had not established themselves on the Icelandic soil.

Anterior to that period, therefore, it is self-evident that, inasmuch as

the Icelanders had no existence as a nation, the Icelandic Tongue could

not have had a separate existence as a language. Yet it is certain that in

the present day the Icelandic deviates at least as widely from the

language of the adjoining Norwegian Coasts as that language deviates from

the other Scandinavian Tongues.

The evidence furnished by Professor Rask and the writers whose views he

has combated, will be found, when fairly balanced, distinctly to support a

very important Conclusion, contemplated by neither. The facts adduced on

both sides conspire to show a rapid approximation of the Teutonic and

Scandinavian branches of the Gothic as we ascend into remote ages.

Of this approximation, the features of identity between the Anglo-Saxon

and the Icelandic, pointed out by the writers whose views Professor Rask

combats, furnish a reasonable presumption, which is converted into

positive proof by the evidence collected by Professor Rask himself, that

the same features occur in all the ancient, though they do not in the

modern, specimens of the Languages of the Scandinavian Peninsulas. It is

true, this learned writer, of whose researches I have chiefly availed

myself in this Section, maintains that there are some features in which

all the Scandinavian differ from the Anglo-Saxon and other Teutonic

Dialects, a conclusion, however, but feebly supported by the examples he

has adduced, and scarcely reconcilable in any way with the resemblance

which the primitive Swedish dialect of Dalecarlia is said to bear to the

Gothic. But, assuming the occurrence of some features of difference, even

in the earliest specimens we possess, this assumption leaves untouched the

proposition that these specimens show a rapid rate of approximation,

which, if equally rapid prior to their date, implies that at an era not

many ages anterior the identity of the languages of Germany and

Scandinavia must have been complete.

SECTION V.

_The Origin of the Irish Nation. The original Language of the

British Isles was a Union of Welsh and Irish. Union of the Irish,

Welsh, &c. in the ancient Local Names in the Celtic Countries of

Gaul, &c. These Names a connecting Link between the existing

Celtic Dialects and the Oriental, Greek, and other Languages, &c._

The origin of the Irish nation, or Gael, forms—for numerous reasons—a

highly interesting and important subject of inquiry. Of this Nation the

very same theories have been maintained as those which have been adopted

in some quarters with respect to the North American Indians, the Negroes,

and other branches of the Human Family; viz., that they are of a stock

aboriginally inferior and distinct, by nature incapable of the virtues of

civilization. Let the views advocated by Pinkerton with respect to the

Gaelic race—views received with no slight degree of favour in his time—be

compared with the doctrines of many modern writers on the subject of the

native African and American Races, and an instructive lesson will be

learnt on the force of prejudice and the uniformity of error!

On the other hand, it must be allowed that the opinions which have been

generally espoused on the subject of the origin of the Gael by many of the

Historians and Scholars of Ireland and of the Highlands of Scotland, can

scarcely be said to possess a better claim to the approbation of a calm

and dispassionate judgment. Eminently distinguished as the Irish are by

Literary genius, there is probably no subject on which their native talent

has appeared to less advantage than in the investigation of the early

History of their own Country. Fictions the most extravagant, borrowed from

the Chronicles of the dark ages, have been credulously adopted by their

first Scholars in lieu of those solid truths to which a calm and sober

inquiry alone can lead. Thus we find Mr. Moore, at once the Poet and the

Historian of Ireland, lending the sanction of his name to the Fable that

the Irish are of Spanish origin; and citing, in answer to the more

reasonable hypothesis of a British origin, a variety of Irish writers of

no mean note, and some Welsh writers also, in favour of the assertions: 1,

that the Irish Language is almost totally unlike the Welsh or Ancient

British; and 2, that the Welsh is not a Celtic but a Gothic Tongue! There

is every reason to conclude that Mr. Moore—unacquainted, probably, with

any of the Celtic dialects himself—resorted to those authorities which he

might naturally have deemed most deserving of confidence. But this only

renders more lamentably conspicuous the credulity, carelessness, and

ignorance of those to whose labours he has appealed. The assertions, 1,

that the Welsh and Irish are unlike; and 2, that the Welsh is a Gothic

dialect, are contradictions of the plainest facts.

Influenced by national feelings Gaelic Scholars have also advanced various

other theories, calculated to exhibit the antiquity of their language and

race in a favorable point of view. The Gaelic has been maintained to be

the Parent, at least in part, of the Latin, the Welsh, &c.; while to the

first Colonists of Ireland a Carthaginian or Phœnician origin has been

assigned.

These conclusions cannot be sustained. But it is highly probable,

notwithstanding, that the proofs on which they have been based will be

found, in many instances, to contain the germs of important truths, though

blended with an admixture of error. The traces of affinity between the

Irish and other ancient languages which have been collected by Gaelic

Scholars, may be open in many cases to the same remark, which is clearly

applicable to the examples of affinity pointed out by Mr. Catlin between

the dialect of the North American Indian tribe the Mandans and the Welsh;

viz., these features may consist of clear and genuine traces of a generic,

though they may afford no proofs of a specific, affinity of race. There

can be no doubt that the Irish preserves many primitive forms which the

kindred Celtic of Wales has lost; there can be no doubt also that the

Irish approximates to the Latin, to the Greek, and to the Egyptian,(49)

&c. in many features which the Welsh no longer exhibits. The examples

adduced in Appendix A of the connexion of the Irish language with the

Hebrew, Egyptian, &c. are sufficient to show that the Irish are a nation

of Oriental origin. But on the other hand it must be borne in mind, that

inasmuch as the Welsh, Latin, &c., have also preserved primitive forms

which the Irish has lost, there is no ground for concluding that the

Gaelic is a Parent rather than a Sister of these venerable Tongues; and

inasmuch as the evidence of the Eastern origin of the Gael, however

unequivocal, is not clearer or closer than the accompanying(50) evidence

with respect to the Welsh, English, and other European nations, there are

no peculiar grounds for referring the first colonization of Ireland to a

direct migration from the shores of Palestine or Africa, rather than to

the gradual diffusion of population from a central point.

The following comparison presents examples of features in which the Irish

approximates to the Gothic and other Languages, at the same time that it

differs more or less from the Welsh.

_Words in which the Gaelic resembles the Gothic, and other European

Languages, more closely than it resembles the Cymraeg or Welsh._

English. Gaelic. Illustrations. Cymraeg.

1. Ath-air, Atta, (_Gothic._), Ayta, Tad,

Father. (_Ir._) Aydia, (_Basque._), Attia, (_W._)

(_Hung._), Otek, (_Russ._),

Fader, slightly varied in all

the Gothic dialects, except

the Gothic properly so called,

Pater, (_Greek & Latin._)

2. Math-air, Mater or Mutter (with some

Mother. (_Ir._) trifling variations) in Latin,

Greek, and all the

Teuto-Scandinavian dialects

except the Gothic—also in the

Sclavonic and Bohemian.

Ath-ei, (_Gothic._)

Mymmog, Mam, (_W._)

(_Manx

dialect._

3. Brathair, The Irish form, _Brathair,_ Brawd,

Brother. (_Ir._) occurs in the Latin and (_W._),

Teuto-Scandinav. tongues; the Bredar,

Welsh form, _Brawd,_ in the (_Cornish._)

Sclavonian tongues.

Breur, Breur, (_Arm._)

(_Manx

dialect_

4. |Siur, The Irish form prevails in the Chwaer,

Sister. (_Ir._) Latin, Teuto-Scand. and (_W._)

Sclavonic.

Piur, Hor, Huyr,

(_Scotch._) (_Cornish._)

5. A Drong, Drang, a Throng, a Crowd, Torv.

Company. (_Ir._) (_German._)

6. Mock. Magom, Mock, (_English._) Gwatwor,

(_Ir._) (_W._)

7. Evil. Neoid, Naughty, (_Eng._) Droug,

(_Ir._) (_W._)

Olk, Ill, (_Eng._)

(_Ir._)

8. The Rang, Rand,(51) (_Germ._) Glan, (_W._)

Bank of a (_Ir._)

stream.

9. A Beim, Bēm-a, a Step, (_Greek._), Cam.

Step. (_Ir._) Bain-o, to go, Bahn, a Path,

(_Germ._)

10. To Beir-im, Fero, (_Latin._) Ge-Bähr-en, Dwyn.

bear. (_Ir._) (_Germ._)

11. Fon-amhad Fun, (_Eng._), Vonne, Delight, Vynn, or

Jeering, (_Ir._), (_Germ._), Vunsch, a Wish, Mynn, a

Delight, Foun, (_Germ._) Wish, (_W._)

A Desire. (_Ir._)

12. A Geon, Cwen, (_Ang.-Sax. & Icel._) Gen-eth, a

Woman. (_Ir._) Girl, (_W._)

13. To Fis-ay-im, Viss-en, (_Germ._), Vit-an, Wys, or

know. Fod-am, (_Ang.-Sax._), “I wot,” Gwys, Wyth,

(_Ir._) (_Eng._) or Gwyth,

Knowledge

(_W._)

14. To Gorm, Warm, (_Eng._) Gwresogi,

heat, or (_Ir._) (_W._)

warm.

15. A Sgath, Skia, Skiad-on, (_Greek._), Cysgod,

Shadow. (_Ir._) Schatten, (_Germ._) (_W._)

16. To |Raid-him, Read-en, (_Germ._) Siarad,

speak. (_Ir._) (_W._)

Some of these examples would furnish a more plausible argument to show

that the Irish are a Gothic race than any which have been advanced to

prove that the Welsh are of Gothic origin! It is singular, for instance,

that the Irish terms expressive of the Domestic relations are so near the

English as to excite in the first instance a suspicion that they must have

been borrowed from the followers of Strongbow! But this impression must be

dispelled by the reflection that terms of this class are never borrowed

from its conquerors by a nation that continues to retain its primitive

language. Moreover, it will be observed, that the Irish, in the instance

of these words, approaches much more nearly to the Gothic, Hungarian, and

Russian, &c. than it does to the English. Again, the Irish word “Gorm,” To

heat or warm, is _like_ the English “Warm.” But, on the other hand, its

genuineness is rendered indisputable by its _absolute identity_ with the

word ’Gorm’ in Persian and Egyptian, (See Appendix A, p. 21.) Finally, the

resemblances manifested above by the Irish to the Greek are quite as close

as those which the former language displays to the English and other

Gothic Tongues. In these examples, therefore, we may recognize proofs not

of any partial results or specific connexions, but of the more complete

approximation of the European languages as we enlarge our range of

inquiry, and obtain more ample specimens of each Class.

But, notwithstanding the occurrence of some features of difference, it is

indisputable that there exists a close specific affinity between the Irish

and Welsh Languages, which renders the common origin of the nations who

speak them evident. The original identity of the Irish and Welsh Languages

was established as far back as the commencement of the eighteenth century,

by the investigations of the excellent Archæologist, Edward Lhuyd, who

spent five years in travelling through the various Celtic regions, and

whose comparison of the dialects of Wales, Cornwall, Armorica, the

Highlands of Scotland, and the Isle of Man, is not inferior either in

soundness of reasoning, or in patient, extensive, and honest research, to

the best German works of the present day. But although the writings of

Lhuyd may be said to have established the original unity of the Welsh and

Irish races, since the publication of his work, a peculiar opinion has

been adopted by some learned men with regard to the _time_ of their

original separation. Of this opinion, Edward Lhuyd was himself the first

advocate; his conclusion was that though the Irish and British Celts were

both descendants from one stock, they must have been separated into two

distinct Tribes before their arrival in the British Islands. The Gaelic or

Irish Tribe he supposes to have preceded the Welsh or British Tribe, by

whom he conceives them to have been gradually driven to the West, as the

Britons were by the Saxons in subsequent ages. Lhuyd’s grounds are as

follows:

The most ancient names of Rivers and Mountains in the Island of Britain

are very generally composed of terms still preserved in the Welsh or

Ancient British Tongue. But there are some remarkable exceptions, and in

these instances it frequently happens that the Names may be clearly

identified with Words still preserved in the Irish or Gaelic branch of the

Celtic. For example, the names of the British rivers, the Usk and the Esk,

are particularly noticed by Lhuyd; these names are identical with “Uisge,

Eask,” the Irish term for “Water.” This word, he observes, does not exist

in the Welsh, and he had looked for it in vain in the sister dialect of

Armorica; but, he adds, it is still retained by the Irish or Gaelic.

Hence, he suggests that the Irish or Gaelic branch of the Celts must have

colonized the Island of Britain before the arrival of the Cymry or Welsh

branch, by whom, as he conceives, they were expelled, after having

conferred names on the principal localities.

The evidence of language will be found sufficient to show not merely the

common origin of the Welsh and Irish, but also to fix a much more recent

date for their separation than that which has been assigned by Lhuyd. It

will thence appear that the Irish are descendants of Colonists of the

Welsh or British race, not of a distinct Celtic sept, and that the

commencement of the separate existence of the Irish nation must be

referred to a comparatively recent date, propositions of much interest, of

which the proofs about to be advanced will probably be deemed to be at

once clear and simple.

Lhuyd’s reasoning in favour of his theory, that the Irish or Gael existed

in Britain as a separate Tribe, prior to the arrival of the Britons who

fought against Cæsar, the ancestors of the modern Welsh, is founded on a

false analogy not unnatural to a first inquirer.

The proposition that the most important local names in every country for

the most part consist of terms belonging to the language of the very first

inhabitants, is one of which I conceive the truth will be evident. For a

proof of this principle, I may refer to Chalmers’(52) admirable analysis

of local names in the Lowlands of Scotland, where, in spite of a

succession of Conquests, and the utter extinction in that part of Britain

of the language of the original inhabitants, viewed as a vernacular

dialect, Welsh and other Celtic names are still preserved, after the lapse

of ages, for the most prominent features of the country. This result, it

may be observed, is one that flows from the very nature of things. Even

the most fierce and ruthless invaders are compelled to hold sufficient

intercourse with the first population to enable them to learn the proper

names of their localities, and these names, from obvious motives of

convenience, they almost universally adopt.

Now, had Lhuyd shown that the most ancient Local names in Britain are

_exclusively_ Irish, there can be no doubt that, consistently with the

principle just noticed, his theory would have been supported by the facts

to which he adverts. But the most ancient local names in Britain are not

_exclusively_ or _principally_ Irish; in an equal number, perhaps in a

majority, of cases they are Welsh.

Moreover, it may be observed that the names of localities in this Island

furnish highly instructive evidence, not merely with respect to the

different races by whom it has been successively peopled, but also of the

order in which they arrived. Thus the names of Rivers and Mountains, and

other natural objects, at least of the most conspicuous, are Celtic; the

names of the most ancient Towns are Latin, or Latin grafted on British

words; more modern Towns and Villages have Saxon appellations; those of

more recent origin have frequently Norman designations; and last of all

come those places which have names derived from our present English. These

various classes of names cannot be nicely distinguished in each particular

instance. Of the correctness of the general principle, however, there is

no doubt.

But the terms noticed by Lhuyd as significant in the Irish language do not

belong to a different class of appellations from those which are obviously

of British or Cymraeg origin. The Irish and Cymraeg terms are both found

to predominate most in the names of the most ancient Class, viz. in those

of Rivers, Mountains, &c., and to be thus applied in conjunction. Hence

the natural inference that flows from his facts is not that these names

were conferred by two distinct and successive races, but that they were

imposed _contemporaneously_ and by the same People!

Further it may be noticed, that if British Topography presents words

extant only in the Irish Tongue, Irish Topography also presents names

which cannot be explained by means of the Irish, though their meaning is

preserved in Welsh; for example: There is a place near the head of a

Stream in Roscommon, called “Glan a Modda,” (from Glan, “The bank of a

Stream,” _Welsh_.) There is a place in Wales, called “Glan a Mowdduy.”

There is a place called “Glan-gora,” in a Creek at the head of Bantry Bay;

and another place in Ireland called “Glan-gort.”

“Ben-heder,” the ancient Irish name for “The Hill of Howth,” interpreted

by Mr. Moore “The Hill of Birds.” (Adar, “Birds,” _Welsh_. The word does

not exist in Irish.)

Arran, A mountainous Island. (Arran, a Mountain, _Welsh_. This word does

not exist in Irish,) &c. &c.

Mr. Chalmers in his Caledonia states that the prevalent ancient names of

localities in Britain and Ireland are essentially the same.

The conclusions to which these facts legitimately and necessarily lead

are, that the British Islands were originally colonized by Settlers, who,

at the time of the first occupation of Great Britain and Ireland, spoke

one uniform language, in which the Welsh, Irish, and other living Celtic

Dialects were combined. We may infer, and I conceive most clearly, that

these dialects must be viewed in the light of “Disjecta Membra” of the

speech of the old British and Irish Celts, just as the Icelandic,

Norwegian, &c. are fragments of the ancient “Danska Tunge,” as noticed in

the previous section.

It has been shown by Dr. Prichard that the population of Islands has been

derived from the neighbouring Continents, and that the population of the

more distant Islands has been derived in like manner from those which are

nearer to the common source of migration. It is highly unreasonable to

assume that Ireland has formed an exception to this general rule,

considering that the common basis of the Irish and ancient British or

Welsh languages are confessedly the same, unless it can be proved that the

accompanying differences are such as to require the solution Lhuyd has

suggested. Here, then, the question arises, are the features of difference

between the Welsh and Irish languages more numerous or more fundamental,

in relation to the interval of time that has elapsed since the Roman

Invasion of Britain, than the varieties of dialect among the Scandinavian

nations are in relation to the period that has elapsed since the

colonization of Iceland? They are not! It will thence be seen that Lhuyd’s

theory, as to the remote date of the separation of the Gaelic or Irish

from the British or Cymraeg branch of the Celts, is founded on an

exaggerated conception of the stability of Human Tongues; and that the

abandonment by various septs of different synonymes used conjointly by

their common forefathers will satisfactorily account for the differences

between the Welsh and Irish, to which he attaches so much weight. It will

be perceived, for example, that in the Icelandic, of which the existence

commenced in the ninth century, and the Continental Scandinavian from

which it then sprang, totally different terms are used for “Water,” the

very instance to which Lhuyd especially adverts, as regards the languages

of the Welsh and Irish, whom we know to have existed as separate nations

in the time of Cæsar eighteen centuries ago!

Another highly instructive test of the correctness of his theory may be

derived from the investigations of Lhuyd himself, who, in his comparison

of the Welsh and Irish languages, uniformly distinguished the current

terms from the obsolete synonymous words that occur only in ancient MSS.

This comparison proves distinctly that the Irish and Welsh languages

approximate, as we ascend, at a rate which, if as rapid previously as we

know it to have been up to the date of the earliest MSS., would imply that

these languages must have been identical about the era of the Roman

invasion. As the changes which languages undergo in their infancy are more

rapid than those which occur at later stages of their growth, it is

possible that the unity of these Tongues may be ascribed even to a much

later period, an opinion which has been maintained by a very judicious and

excellent writer, Mr. Edward Davies, who in his “Claims of Ossian” has

published an early specimen of Irish Poetry, which in Language and Style

he regards as identical with the most ancient productions of the Welsh

Bards. Making every allowance for the irregularity of the changes which

occur in Languages, I do not conceive it possible that the Welsh and Irish

could have differed very essentially in the time of Cæsar. This leads

directly to another conclusion, viz. that the first colonization of

Ireland could not have taken place a great many centuries before the Roman

invasion. Had such been the case, the differences between the Welsh and

Irish Languages must have been proportionately more extensive. In the time

of the Romans we learn that an Irish traitor arrived in Britain, who

stated that Ireland might be kept in subjection by a single legion, an

incident which tends, however slightly, to favour the opinion that the

sister Island was at that period but thinly, perhaps because but recently,

peopled.

Of the extent of the changes which the Celtic languages have undergone

since the first arrival of the Celts in Europe, we possess proofs of far

more ancient date than the earliest literary specimens of the living

dialects of the Celtic in the Local names of Celtic regions, as preserved

in Roman Maps, and in the existing languages of the French, English, and

other nations, who occupy countries of which the Celts were the first

inhabitants. These names I shall show to consist of three elements: A

union of 1, Welsh, Cornish, &c.; 2, Irish, Highland Scotch, &c.; and 3,

Terms not extant in any Celtic Tongue, but preserved in the Oriental,

Greek, and other languages.

As regards the Names of the 1st and 2d Classes, it will abundantly appear

from the ensuing examples that, in the Topographical Nomenclature of Gaul,

Britain, and other Celtic regions of Europe,(53) words derived from all

the various Celtic dialects now extant, occur in a manner that leads

distinctly to the inference that these “Disjecta membra” must have

simultaneously belonged to the language of the old Celts. Dr. Prichard,

who has examined these vestiges of the ancient Celtic Populations of

Europe with much ability and success, leans to the opinion that the

Cymraeg or Welsh Dialects predominate in these names. But the following

examples, which comprise many names derived from the Irish or Gaelic that

have not been noticed by Dr. Prichard or by previous writers on this

subject, will serve to render it manifest that the ancient Names in

Europœa Celtica did, in fact, include all the various living Celtic

dialects very equally and harmoniously blended.

How luminous and distinct these proofs of the identity of the ancient with

the modern Celtic nations are, will be better understood by a preliminary

statement of certain rules, which will serve to give greater precision and

perspicuity to the illustrations selected:

1. There can be no doubt that the Romans, in the Celtic, as in other

countries conquered by them, modified the native terms by the addition of

their own peculiar grammatical inflections, as in “Judæ-i, Britann-i,

Sen-ones,” &c. Now it is obvious that in identifying the Celtic terms we

must reject these mere Roman inflections.(54)

2. In many cases the Roman Names cannot be supposed to involve complete

transcripts of the Celtic Names; frequently they were doubtless convenient

abbreviations of the original names—names consisting of descriptive terms

to them unintelligible. According to Mr. Reynolds, the Saxons generally

adopted the first syllable only of the Roman or British names they found

in this island. According to Bullet, “Vic,” a word of Roman origin for a

Village or Town, has, from similar causes, become common as a Proper name

in Dauphiné; in modern times we have numerous Villages called “Thorpe,”

the name for a Village in Anglo-Saxon and German. In instances of this

kind, there can be no doubt that originally the names were descriptive,

such as “Long-town,” “Old-town,” &c. Tre or Trev is the common Welsh word

for a Town, Village, or residence; it had the same meaning in Cornwall:

“By Tre, Tres, and Tren,

You shall know the Cornish men.”

A consequence of the names of the gentry of the county having been derived

from those of their residences, into which this word commonly entered!

In Wales we have numerous examples of “Tre,” as in “Tre-llwng,” “The Town”

of the “Pool,” (i.e. Welshpool,) from an adjoining “Llyn,” or Pool, near

Powis Castle; “Tre-lydan,” the Broad Village, or Residence near Welshpool;

“Trev-alyn,” near Chester, the Residence on the Stream; the “Alyn,” &c.

&c.

Now according to the Roman mode, such a term as Trev-alyn would have been

changed into Trev-iri, the designation actually given to the Celts of

“Treves,” &c.

The following are analogous examples:

There is a tribe of Brig-antes in Yorkshire, another in Ireland, and a

third in the North-east of Spain. Many unsuccessful attempts have been

made to show that these distant Celtic tribes must have been scions of the

same tribe. A much simpler explanation may be given.

By referring to the Roman maps the reader will find a word, “Briga,” in

such general use as part of the names of towns as to leave no reasonable

doubt that it must have been, like Tre, a Celtic name for a town—now

obsolete. Thus in Spain we have, Laco-briga, Meido-briga, Ara-briga,

Tala-brica, Augusto-briga, &c. Now the analogous instances already noticed

suffice to point out that the occurrence of Brig-antes as a Roman name of

Tribes in three Celtic countries, is a natural result of the frequent

occurrence of Briga as the first part of the names of Celtic places.

The “Allo-bryg-es.” The name of this warlike tribe, the Celtic inhabitants

of Savoy, has also been the source of perplexity, which may be removed in

the same manner. This tribe had a town, called by the Romans “Brig-icum,”

which was said to be “the only one they had.”(55) Now Allo-Bryga may

reasonably be identified with Alpo-Briga, the Town of the Alps (Briga

being clearly the common base of “Allo-bryg-es,” and “Brig-icum.”)

The names of Celtic communities, as they appear on the Roman Maps, may, I

conceive, be proved to have been descriptive of the most prominent natural

features of the regions they inhabited, and not of their lineage or

descent, as seems to have been often supposed. Thus we have the Mor-ini in

Belgium, and the Ar-mor-ici in Gaul on the Sea; we have the Sen-ones on

the Seine, the Tamar-ici on the Tamar-is, in Hispania, &c. In the

Mountainous regions it will be observed that the names of tribes are

derived from the Mountains. In the flat countries they take their names

from Rivers or the confluence of Rivers. In the same manner it is highly

deserving of remark, that the names of the different French Departments

have been derived from precisely the same natural features. Thus in the

Hilly countries we have the Departments of the High Alps, “Hautes Alpes;”

of the Low Alps, “Basses Alpes;” in the Champaign countries the

Departments are named from the Rivers; such as the Seine, the Marne, and

the Somme, &c. Many of these French names are literally equivalent to

translations of the ancient Gaulish names, as interpreted by means of the

Welsh and Irish languages. It is impossible to conceive a more perfect

verification of the accuracy of these interpretations!

I may here observe, that as far as we can perceive, the various

independent communities of Britain and Gaul mentioned by Cæsar, such as

the Edui, the Venetes, &c., did not consist of _one_ clan or sept, they

seem rather to have been a combination of several contiguous septs, to

whom no appropriate common name _could have been_ given, except one

derived from the natural features of the district they occupied.

The durability of local names has been already noticed. Of this truth we

possess remarkable proofs in those of localities in France, as preserved

by the modern French to the present day. I do not doubt that the present

French names are, in many instances, much more faithful transcripts of the

original Celtic appellations than those which occur in the Roman Maps are.

Thus, for example, Bonomia, a name conferred by the Romans upon Boulogne,

and of which the origin has perplexed Antiquarics, may easily be explained

as a Roman abbreviation of the word Boulogne itself, of which the Celtic

meaning will be shown hereafter to be appropriate and unequivocal. Here it

may be noticed, that the Celtic language did not become extinct in Gaul

until many centuries after the termination of the Roman sway and the

establishment of the Franks in that country. The use of the old Gaulish or

Celtic continued until the eighth century, nearly until the time of

Charlemagne.(56) Now we know that the modern Welsh and Irish, for the most

part, continue to use their own primitive names of localities in those

cases in which abbreviations or translations have been substituted by the

English. There can be no reasonable doubt that the ancient Gauls did the

same, and that these names were in use among the inhabitants of each

locality at the time of the final subjugation of Gaul by the Franks, by

whom, in many instances, these names are more likely to have been adopted

than those used by the Romans.

It will also be observed in the course of the following examples, that

names of the class about to be noticed, viz., Topographical names of which

the elements are not extant in the existing Celtic dialects, but occur in

Oriental words, &c., are remarkably well preserved by the modern French.

Thus the “Aube,” as pronounced by the French, is identical in sound with

the Asiatic terms for Water, and names of Rivers, to which it is allied.

3. By many, perhaps by all those Celtic scholars who have investigated

this subject, it has been assumed that the living Celtic dialects may be

expected to furnish a complete clue to all the Local Names of ancient

Celtic regions. This conclusion, like the theory of Lhuyd above discussed,

is founded on an exaggerated idea of the stability of Human Tongues!

Neither the Irish nor the Welsh, nor a combination of all the Celtic

dialects, will be found to afford a complete solution of the Topographical

nomenclature of the ancient Celtic regions of Europe. Names undoubtedly

occur in these countries which have been preserved in none of the Celtic

tongues, names which I shall indisputably show to be positive transcripts,

in many instances, of appropriate terms occurring in the Hebrew and other

languages, with which, in other parts of this work, the original Celtic

dialects will be proved to have been originally identical. These facts

lead to the conclusion that the ancient nomenclature of Celtic countries

forms in reality a connecting link between the existing dialects of the

Celts and the language of the Oriental stock from which they are

descended.

This conclusion, though at variance with the views of many estimable

writers, is nevertheless in unison with those anticipations which

historical facts legitimately suggest. It is only reasonable to infer that

since the period of their first arrival in Europe, the era at which many

of these names must have been conferred (see page 10), the Celtic tribes

must have lost many words which none of the modern Celtic nations have

preserved. The Celts were settled about the sources of the “Ister, and the

city,” (perhaps the mountains) “of Pyrene,” even in the time of Herodotus,

and how many ages had elapsed since their first arrival is unknown!(57)

There is a certain Class of terms of which the meaning can reasonably be

inferred from their extensive use in combination with other terms, of

which the meaning may be considered as ascertained. To this class may be

referred the terms immediately following.

Catti, Cassii, Casses, or Cad, seem to have meant a People, Tribe, &c., as

in the following examples of the names of Celtic Tribes:

The Abr-in-Catui, in Normandy. The Catti-euch-lani, the people of

Cambridgeshire and the adjoining counties. The Cassii, in Hertfordshire.

The Bidu-casses, in Normandy. The Tri-casses, a people in Champagne. The

Cad-ur-ci, on the Garonne.

The above words seem clearly derivable from the following Welsh words,

which are allied to the Hebrew:

Welsh. Hebrew.

From Kiw-dod (Kiw-dod-æ, Gow, a Body of Men, a Society

_plur._) a Clan, a Nation. or Association.

Kiw-ed, a Multitude, a Tribe. Gowee, a Nation.

Kyf, a Body or Trunk, a Gow, Gowe, Goweeth, the Body

Pedigree. of a Man or Animal.

Tre, Trev, a Village, Town, or Residence, (_Welsh_,) a Tribe,

(_Irish._)(58)

Trev-iri, the people of Treves. A-Treb-ates, the people about Arras. (For

further examples see Dr. Prichard’s work.) Trev is a common element in

names of places in Wales, as Tre-vecca, Tre-gynnon.

Trigo, to reside, dwell, (_Welsh._)

Duro-trig-es, the dwellers on the Water or Sea, the people of Dorsetshire.

(Camden.)

Catt uriges. (See Dour.)

Dun-um, a Hill, a Fort or Town, generally on a Hill, (occurs in _Welsh_

and _Irish_.)

Oxell-dunum, a Hill-fort in Gaul, described by Cæsar. (See numerous

instances in Dr. Prichard’s work.)

“Castell Din-as Bran,” on a lofty eminence in the Vale of Llangollen,

Wales.

Dur, Duvr, Awethur (_Welsh_), Dour (_Cornish_), Dur (_Armorican_), Dovar

(_Irish_, obsolete, but occurs in ancient MSS.) “Water.”

This word, and Ydōr or Hudōr (_Greek_), and Tschur (_Armenian_), “Water,”

have an obvious affinity. These forms may be traced in the names of Celtic

Localities.

“Dour” occurs in the following names of Rivers: Dur, (_Hibernia_,) Dur-ia

Major, “The Doria,” and Duria Minor, (_Gallia Cisalpina_,) Dur-ius, “The

Douro,” and “Dero,” (_Hispania_,) Dur-anius, “The Dordogne,” (_Gallia_).

In _Bucharian_ Deriâ means “The Sea.”

Ydōr or Hudōr (_Greek_), Awethur (_Welsh_), occur in the Rivers “The

Adour,”(59) Atur-is (_Gallia_), “The Adder” (_Britain_), “The Adare”

(_Ireland_.)

“Tschur” (_Armenian_), occurs in “Stura,” (_Gallia Cis._), “The Stour”

(_Britain_), “The Suir” (_Britain & Ireland_), “The Souro” (_Spain_, a

branch of the Tagus.)

From the frequent recurrence of all these different forms in several

Celtic countries thus widely separated, it is plain that they were used

conjointly by the early Celts, and represent various transitions of the

same word. Thus “Stura” (in _Gal. Cis._), flows between the neighbouring

streams Duria Major and Duria Minor, &c.

This word “Dour” enters very largely into the names of tribes; it forms

singly a natural clue to a great number of names that hitherto have been

referred to a complication of Roots. Thus the Roman name for the people of

Dorsetshire, Duro-trig-es, i.e. The dwellers on the Water or the Ocean,

has been noticed by Camden.

In the preceding, and in several of the following, it will be apparent

that the old Celts applied this term to the “Sea or Ocean,” as the

Bucharians do, and also to a “River.” At present the Welsh apply the term

to Water only, in a restricted sense.

In the South-east of England names abound (applied to places on Rivers or

the Sea) in which the two slight variations of Dur and Du-v-r (or Do-v-ar,

_Irish_), still preserved in Welsh, are apparent. Duro-vern-um,

“Canterbury,” from Duro, Water, and Vern or Veryn, a Hill. (Compare the

name of the “Ar-vern-i,” under Beryn, at p. 78.) The Town was on a Hill by

the Stour.

Portus Du-b-r-is or Dub-r-œ, i.e. “Sea Port,” the modern “Do-v-or,” a word

which is an echo of the Irish Dovar and the Welsh Du-v-r.

Duro-brivæ, Rochester on the Medway, (Briva or Brivis, the ancient Celtic

for a Town.) Duro-levum, Milton on the Thames.

Lan-du-b-r-is, a Portuguese Island. Lan, a Bank of a Stream, or the Sea:

also an inclosed Space, (_Welsh._)

Tur-ones, the inhabitants of the country at the junction of several

streams with the Loire, the neighbourhood of the modern Tours.

Bi-tur-ig-es, from Bi “Two,” Tur or Dour, Water, and trigo, to reside.

There are two tribes of this name in Gaul; the Bituriges Cubi, situated

between two of the branches of the Loire, and the Bi-turi-ges Vobisci,

between the Garonne and the Sea, at the junction of the Dordogne and the

Garonne.

Cat-ur-iges, from Catti, Tribes or People; Dour, Water, and Trigo, to

reside; on the Durentia, South-east of France, about Embrun or

Eburo-Dunum, which was their principal town. Cad-ur-ci, from Catti,

Tribes, and dur.

There is one tribe of this name on the Dordogne, and another contiguously

placed on the Garonne.

The mutual support that these interpretations give to each other will be

obvious.

The following Irish word for “Water,” which is not extant in the Welsh,

may be traced in Celtic regions in its various modifications: Uisge

(_Irish_), “The Usk” (_South Britain_)—Eask(60) (_Irish_, obsolete), “The

Esk” (_Scotland_), “The Escaut” (_North of France_), Isca, “The Exe”

(_South Britain_)—Easkong (_Irish_, obsolete), Axona (_Gallia_, _Belg._),

“The Aisne,” Axones, the neighbouring tribe.

Names Of Estuaries, Or Mouths Of Streams.

The terms of this class, which occur in ancient Gaul, &c., consist either

of terms still thus applied in the living Celtic dialects, or of compounds

of which the elements may be recognized, unchanged, in those dialects.

Moreover it will be highly interesting to observe that these terms, for

the most part, consist of Metaphors derived respectively from the same

sources as the two English words “Estuary” and “Mouth,” and the two Latin

words “Æstuarium” and “Os Fluminis.”

One of the principal arguments of those writers who maintain that the

separation of the Irish from the other Celtic tribes must have been of

remoter date than the first peopling of these islands, is founded on the

fact that the Irish use the word In-ver for the Mouth of a Stream, while

the Welsh use Ab-ber (spelt Aber); a feeble support for so wide a

conclusion, which a correct analysis of these terms, and a comparison of

some interesting coincidences in the local names of ancient Gaul will show

to be utterly futile! In-ver and Ab-ber are not simple but compound terms,

literally corresponding to the Latin expression “Fluminis Æstuarium.”

Æstuarium is from Æstuo, “To boil,” a metaphorical term, obviously derived

from the agitation of the Waters where two Streams meet, or where a River

enters the Sea.

In the first syllable “Inver” and “Ab-ber” differ, but they agree in the

last. Both “In” and “Ab,” the first syllables of these terms, occur so

often in Celtic regions that there can be no doubt they were both in use

among the ancient Celts as words for a River, or Water. The last syllable

of these words, Ber or Ver, I shall show to mean an “Estuary.”

“In” occurs in the name of “The Inn,” in the Tyrol, the “Æn-us” of the

Romans, and in other instances previously noticed. “An” is a Gaelic or

Irish term for “Water,” which is identical in sound and sense with terms

of frequent occurrence among the tribes of the American Continent, as in

Aouin (_Hurons, N. America_), Jin Jin (_Kolushians_, extreme North-west of

_N. America_), Ueni (_Maipurians, S. America_.)

“Ab” occurs in “The Aube,” in France, &c., a name of which the

pronunciation may be considered identical with Ab, “Water,” (_Persian._)

Ap in Sanscrit, and Ubu Obe in Affghan, mean “Water.” “Obe” occurs in

Siberia as the name of a well-known river. In India also the term has been

applied to “Rivers;” thus we have in that country the Punj-âb, (the

Province of “The Five Rivers,”) an appellation of which the corresponding

Celtic terms “Pump-ab” would be almost an echo!

Further it may here be noticed—as an example of the complete identity of

the Celtic and Oriental languages when all the “Disjecta Membra” are

compared—that this word does not exist in the modern Celtic in the simple

form of Ab, but in the derivative form of Avon, which is found in the

Roman maps spelt “Abon,” &c. Now this form also occurs in the East. Abinn,

“A River,” is given by Klaproth from the language of the inhabitants of

the Mountains to the North of Bhagalpur. Apem means “Water,” in Zend, an

ancient Persian dialect. Af is “Water,” in Kurdish.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“Berw” is the South Welsh name for the effervescence in the deep

receptacle in which a Cataract foams after its fall; it is applied also to

the Cataract itself, as “Berw Rhondda,” the fall of the River Rhondda.

Aber, in Cornish, means “a Confluence of Rivers,” also “_a Gulf_,” “_a

Whirlpool_.”(61)

In Breton or Armorican Aber means “a confluence of Rivers.” “Dans le

diocese de Vannes,” says Bullet, “le mot a encore une autre signification,

c’est _celle de torrent_.” “In the diocese of Vannes this word has still

another meaning, viz., that of ‘a Torrent!’ ” Compare Torr-ens (_Latin_),

“Torrent” (_English_), from Torreo (_Latin_), “To boil.” “Aber, in a

deflected sense,” he says, “has been applied to a Harbour; hence Havre de

Grace!”

“It is a curious fact,” says Chalmers, “which we learn from the Charters

of the twelfth century, that the Scoto-Irish people substituted Inver for

the previous Aber of the Britons. David I. granted to the Monastery of May

_Inver-In_ qui fuit _Aber-In_ in Chart May.”(62) This remarkable place is

at the “_Influx of a small stream_, called the _In_, on the coast of Fife.

Both appellations are now lost.”

Among the names of ancient Celtic regions we have Abrin-catui, that is

(_without any change in the word_) Aber-In-Catui; the name of a Tribe in

Normandy, about Avranches, which is at the mouth of a River now called the

See. (Another stream flows into the same Estuary.)

Aber—In—Cattui.

Literally,

“Estuary (of the) River—Tribes or People,” i.e. The Tribes living at the

Estuary of the River or Rivers.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The name of the same place will also furnish an example of a corresponding

term, primarily meaning “The Mouth,” in the modern Celtic.

Genœ (_Welsh_), Ganau (_Cornish_), Gion (_Irish_), Genu (_Armorican_),

mean “The Mouth.”

The original name of “Avranches,” when the country was first subdued by

the Romans, was In-“_gena_.” Here it is plain “Gena” was synonymous with

Aber! The Town was afterwards called Aber-in-Catui by the Romans, who very

generally gave the names of the Celtic tribes to their principal Towns.

In D’Anville’s Map we find, in the same part of Gaul, _Aræ-genu_-s given

to Bayeux, (the capital of the Bajocasses,) at the _mouth_ of a river now

called the “Ayr!”

The following are very striking examples of the occurrence of the same

word, Genœ or Ganau:

“Gano-durum” (Dur water) Constance, at the spot where the Rhine issues out

of Lake Constance.

“Geneva.” (The Rhone issues here from the Lake, and is immediately

afterwards joined by the Arve.)

“Genua” (Genoa). At the mouth of a stream.

“Albium In-gaun-um,” a town to the east of Genoa, where many streams from

the Maritime Alps unite in one mouth.

Beal or Bel (_Irish_), Buel (_Manx_), “A Mouth.” This is another word,

applied in Wales and Ireland, in topographical names, in nearly the same

sense as Aber, as in Bala, at the mouth of a lake, North Wales,

_Bally-shannon_, Ireland. This word does not occur either in vernacular

Welsh or in the Welsh of old MSS. But in Irish, _Beal_ or _Bel_ is still

the common word for “A Mouth.”

We shall find unequivocal proofs that this word also was used by the old

Celts of Gaul, as in “_Boulogne_,” i.e. Bala (Beal, or Buel) Liane, “The

mouth of the Liane.” The town is at the mouth of a small stream, of which

Bullet, who does not appear to have suspected the derivation, says “La

rivière qui passe à Boulogne s’appelle _Liane_.—The stream that runs by

Boulogne is called Liane!” “Liane, Lune,” &c. is a common proper name for

a stream in all countries of which the Celts formed the first population.

Lliant (Llian-au, _plur._) means a stream, a torrent, in Welsh; Llyn,

“Water,” in Welsh; and Lean, Irish. Hence “The Lune” in Herefordshire, &c.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

A further example of words of this Class occurs in the Latin name of the

“Humber.”

This great receptacle of streams was generally called Ab-us; but Ptolomey,

in Greek, gives the name more fully, “Abontrus!”(63) This word means in

Welsh and Irish “The Outlet”, or literally “The Door” of the Rivers. Trus,

A Door, (Drous, _Welsh_, Doros, _Irish_,) occurs in the same sense in Tura

(_Sanscrit_), Der (_Persian_). Hence it appears that the Welsh word, which

is nearer to the term preserved in this name, has not been borrowed from

the English “Door!”

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“Aber,” however, was the greatest favorite with the ancient Celts, as with

the modern Cymry! It would seem that this word “Aber” was as commonly

applied in ancient Gaul, &c. as it still is in Wales, not merely to the

mouths of large rivers, but to places situated at those of _very small

streams_!(64)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Britain._—York, Ebor-acum (Caer Eboranch, _Welsh_; Ever-wick, _Saxon_.)

Is inclosed for the most part between the Ouse and the Foss, which unite

close to the Town! The river Foss separates _some parts of the Town_ from

the rest.

Eburo-cass-um (Alnewick), at the mouth of the River Alne, Northumberland.

Ever-wick is the name of an adjoining Village on the same river.

Eburo-nes (_Belgic. Gaul_). About the junction of the Saba and the Mosa.

Cæsar states in his account of them that this tribe had no Town.

There was a prince of the Œduans(65) in Cæsar’s time, named Eporo-dor-ix,

apparently from Aber-Dour “Water,” and Rex. The Gaulish chiefs, like those

of the Gaelic Scotch, seem to have frequently derived their names from

their peculiar territories or patrimonies; in the same manner, for

instance, as the chiefs “Lochiel, Glengarry,” &c.

As before intimated, it appears pretty clear that the little nations into

which Gaul was divided, such as the Ceno-mani, the Œdui, &c. consisted for

the most part of a combination of _several_ distinct septs or clans each

under their respective princes. The name of the chief (Eporo-dor-ix) just

mentioned may, therefore—and most probably must—have been derived from

that of some place no longer capable of being identified, though the

country of the Œdui, the source of many rivers, abounds in localities to

which it would apply very appropriately!

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Gaul._—Eburo-dunum (now Embrun in Dauphiné.) At the confluence of a small

stream with the Durance.

Since writing the above I find this town in Hornius’ map, marked “Epeb

r-o-durû,” i.e. “Mouth of the Water,” (_Welsh._)

Eburo-briga, a Town. At the junction of one of the streams that feed the

Seine above Sens.

Ebro-lacum. A Town near the source of the Loire; precise situation

apparently unknown. But the affinity of “Ebro” to the Celtic “Aber,” and

the identity of Lac (um) with Loch(66) or Lach, the Gaelic for a Lake or

Water, will be obvious.

Avar-icum (Bourges), at the junction of the L’Evrette with the Evre, one

of the branches of the Cher.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Switzerland._—Ebro-dunum, “Yverdun,” at the mouth of the river Orbe, that

flows there into the Lake of Neuf-chatel.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

_Spain and Portugal._—Eburo-britz-ium, the modern Alco-baza or Alco-baca,

on the Portuguese coast, between the Tagus and the Mondego, and not far

from Torres Vedras. This town is at the mouth of the Alcoa river. The

modern name, Alco-baca, (“The mouth of the Alcoa,”) is a guarantee of the

correctness of the above construction of the ancient name!(67)

In the North-east of Spain, on the Bay of Biscay, we meet with the word

Aber itself in an undisguised form, as we do in Gaul in the word

Abr-in-catui.

There is a town, Uxam-_aber_, on a river called in Roman Maps the

Uch-esia.(68) This is an unfortunate word for the advocates of the Spanish

origin of the Irish, for here we have the Welsh Aber, in lieu of the

Gaelic Inver, in the North of Spain—the very district from which the

Colony is supposed to have come! Indeed the Local names in the Celtic

regions of Spain generally approach much more nearly to the Welsh than to

the Irish! This will be seen in some of the following examples.

Glan or Lan, “a Sea shore or Margin,” (_Welsh_,) not extant in Irish.

Glan a tuia (Glandeves), at the junction of a small stream with the Varus,

that separates France and Italy.

Glan-um, on the Puech River, near Embrun.

Cat-a-laun-i. A tribe resident about Chalons on the Seine.

Cat-a-laun-i. “People (of) the river bank.” The name originally given to

this town by the Romans was Duro-Cat-a-laun-i, i.e. (The Town of) “the

Tribe on the Bank of the _River_ or _Water_.”

Llanes, a place on the coast of Asturia. (The aspirated _Ll_ of the

Spaniards is very like the Welsh _Ll_, and is most probably a relic of

Celtic pronunciation.) Lancia (Ciudad Rodrigo,) Lancia (Guarda.)

Lan-dubr-is. “The Shore or Margin of the Sea or Water,” or a spot inclosed

by the Sea.(69) An Island, in Latin Maps, on the coast of Portugal.

“The Lan-des,” The well-known arid sandy deserts forming the South-eastern

coast of France.

Medio-lan-um.(70) Medd, the middle, (_Celtic_,) and Lan. Towns thus

designated seem to have been situated either at the Curve or Winding of a

stream, or inclosed between two streams.

I may instance—in Cisalpine.

Gaul. Medio-lan-um, Milan.

Mediolanum (_Santones_), on the Loire.

(_Eburovices Aulerci_), Evreux, Normandy.

(_Bituriges Cubi_), inclosed between two winding streams, which are the

sources of the Loire. Bi-tur-iges is from a synonyme, Bi, two, and Dour,

Water.

Dôl, “A wind, a bow, a turn, a meander, a dale or mead, through which a

river runs,” (_Welsh_,)(71) as in Dol-Vorwyn and Dol-Vorgan,

Montgomeryshire, North Wales; “Dôle,” the ancient capital of Franche

Compté. (Compare the situation.)

Lut-ecia,(72) Paris, seems clearly to have derived its name from its

situation among marshes. “Située dans une isle de la Seine environnée de

marais profonds, difficiles à traverser, qui communiquent à ce fleuve.”

(Bullet, from Strabo.)

Llath-ach, “Mud, Dirt,” (Irish,) Llaith, Moist, (_Welsh._)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Lug-dunum or Lau-dunum.(73) “Laon,” built on the Summit of a Rock divided

into two branches. Lug, from Llech, a Stone. Clog, a detached rock,

(_Welsh._) Liag, a great Stone. Leagan Kloiche, a Rock, (_Irish._)

In the following instances the identity of the Gaulish and other Celtic

names with the Welsh is remarkably clear, and will be vividly felt by

persons vernacularly familiar with the Welsh language, and the most common

local names in Wales.

The “Bretons,” Ar-mor-ici. Ar, “On,” Mor, “the Sea.”

The people of a Hilly Region in the South-east of France, Ar-e-com-ici.

Coum, “a Hollow Circular Valley, or Depression,” (_Welsh._) This word is

the source of the numerous names of places in England ending in Combe. The

Oriental origin of the word is clearly traceable. After describing the

great Table-land of Central Asia as extending over the whole of Persia,

Ritter adds: “Towards ‘Koom,’ (in Persia,) we find the greatest

depression, in the Table-land; here the surface sinks to 2046 feet!”(74)

There are also the “Com-oni,” above Toulon, and Com-us, “Como,” to which

the word is peculiarly appropriate. (Bullet.)

The People of Auvergne. Ar-vern-i, “On the Hills.” Veryn or Beryn is a

Hill in Welsh. Thus “Cevn y Beryn,” is the name of a Hill in

Montgomeryshire.

By Plutarch the Ar-vern-i are called Ar-ben-i. “This is a very interesting

addition to our information. ‘Veryn’ and ‘Ben’ are both synonymes extant

in Welsh for ‘a Hill.’ ”

We have the same words repeated in the following instances, joined with Um

(_Irish_), Am (_Welsh_), “About.” (Compare the Greek Amphi.)

Um-benn i, “The People (living) about the Hills.” A Swiss Tribe.

Um-bran-ici (from Beryn or Bron, _Welsh_,) a name of the Helvii

mountaineers to the South-east of the Cevennes.

In the following names, again, we have Pen or Ben, and Beryn or Bron,

alone.

Ben-ones, a Mountain Tribe in Switzerland.

Breun-i, on the borders of Bavaria and the Tyrol.

Bern-enses, the people of Berne, in Switzerland, and also those of Bearne,

in the South of France, adjoining the Pyrenees.

A-Pen-inus Mons. Alpes Pen-inæ, the Alps immediately to the South of

Geneva. Vallis Pen-ina, the Valley of the Rhone.

The primary sense of Pen, in Welsh, is “the Head.” As observed at page 11,

the names for Hills in that language are metaphors from “the Head, the

Breast,” &c. Now it is observable that in ancient Celtic Europe a

difference of application corresponding to the different primary meanings

of the terms is discoverable. Alpes is the general name for the Alps.

(Alpes) Pen-inæ, a term derived from the Head, are the lofty and abrupt

Alps, as distinguished from Alpes Maritimæ, &c.

In Spain and Portugal. Pena-s da Europa, (North of Spain.) Cape Pena-s,

(in the Asturias.) Pen-a Longa, a Town adjoining the long ridge called the

Sierra da St. Catherina in Portugal.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Gebenn-a Mons, the Cevenn-es, “South of France.” Cevenn-es, (omitting

“es,” French plural,) is identical with Cevn, “a Back,” “a Hill,” as in

Cevn y Coed, the name of a hill in Montgomeryshire, (_Welsh._)

The Irish Gibhis, “a Valley,” is from the same source. Names of “Valleys

and Hills” are generally composed of the same roots. (Similiter the Latin

word “Altus” means both “High” and Deep!) A Valley is, in fact, formed by

Hills!

These various meanings and inflections are found united in the Hebrew.

Hebrew. Hebrew. Derivatives

Ga.e, to rise.

Gve, or Gou e, to be Kub, a Mountain.(75)

high, gibbous, or (_Persian._)

curved.

Kof. (_Pehlwi._)

Goun, or Gav.n, Gb, the Back. Gbn, Gev.n, or Cev.n, the

Swelling. Hunch backed. Back, the Ridge of a

Hill. (_Welsh._)

Gee a. Ga.oun, plur. G.b.oe, G.h.o.th, a Geib-his, Gibhis, a

A valley, or more Mountain. G.b.o.the, Valley. (_Irish._)

properly a lawn the Slope of a The Ghauts,

rising to the top of Mountain. Mountains in Asia.

the adjoining hill. Gibb-osus.

(_Latin._)

Goupp en, a chain of Hills in Switzerland. (Bullet.)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Alp. Dr. Owen Pughe quotes many classical authors to show that the word

meant in Gallish a lofty Mountain. In the mountains of Glamorganshire, he

adds, it is still used for a craggy summit.

Alp-es. Allo-bryges, from Alp- and (briga).(76) Brigi-cum was their only

town. To the South-east of the Allobryges were the Hel-v-ii, (_Alba_ their

capital.) To the North the Hel-v-etii, (Vod in Welsh, a Residence.) Both

names were probably from Al-p.

Nant, (Nan-au, _plural_,) a Mountain Valley, “a Mountain Stream,”

(_Welsh._) This word is still in use in Savoy. (See Dr. Prichard’s

remarks.)(77)

Nannet-es, a Tribe in Britany, and

Nant-uates, a Tribe occupying the valley of the Rhine below its source.

Nang-ates, the people of Connaught. This is one of numerous instances of

local names in Ireland, of which the sense has been lost in the Irish and

still preserved in the Welsh.

Cori, or Corrie, means a hollow between hills. A glen or “Cleugh,” a small

stream.(78) (A word of _Celtic origin_. Jamieson’s Etymological Dict. of

the Scottish Language.)

This word appears to be in use both in the Highlands and Lowlands of

Scotland; the first a Gaelic, the second originally a Cymraeg district.

(See Chalmers’s Caledonia.)

Sir Walter Scott has very gracefully introduced this ancient word in the

beautiful “Coronach,” or Funeral-song of the Clansman, in the “Lady of the

Lake:”

“He is gone from the mountain,

He is gone from the forest,

Like a summer-dried fountain,

When our need was the sorest.

“Fleet foot on the _corrie_

Sage counsel in cumber

Red hand in the foray,

How sound is thy slumber!”

To this passage Sir Walter Scott has added the following note:(79) “Corrie

or Cori.” The _hollow_ side of the hill where game usually lies!

I conceive a comparison of the following examples will serve to render it

indisputable that this term may be accepted as a clue to a great number of

the most important topographical names of Gaul and Britain, which have

hitherto eluded the researches of Celtic scholars.

Hebrew. Celtic.

C.r. To surround, go round. Cor. A Circle, (_Welsh_.)

A pasture or Circuit for Cor-lan. A Sheepfold,

Cattle. (_Welsh_.)

A Lamb. Ka ora, or Kyra. A Sheep,

(_Irish_.)

A “Cor.” A measure so called

from its round form.

C.eee.ou.r. A Round Pot, or “Cori,” or Corrie. “The

Caldron. _hollow side_ of the Hill

where the game usually lies.”

(Sir W. Scott.)

C.r.e. To dig, as a Well or A _Hollow_ between Hills. A

Pit. Cleugh. (Jamieson.)

The Tri-Cori-i. From Tre and Cori. A tribe who inhabited the modern French

Department of the “High Alps,” an Alpine region, the source of numerous

streams which feed the Rhone and its branches.

The Petro-Cori-i.(80) The inhabitants of the Departments of Dordogne and

Correze. Dordogne is thus described by Malte Brun:

“We may pass from the Department of Lot to that of Dordogne by descending

the last river which traverses it on the South from East to West. It is

also watered by the Ille, the Dronne, the Vezere, and by more than

_fourteen hundred small rivers_ and streams. Hills extend along this

country in every direction, but with the exception of two vallies, those

watered by the Ille and the Dordogne, they bound only _narrow passes,

almost all of which are desolated by torrents!_”

Correze. From the same authority we learn that two thirds of this

department consists of a mountainous region, full of “ravines and

precipices,” and that its scenery progressively assumes more of this wild

and romantic character as you ascend the river Correze, which gives its

name to the Department, and to its principal town. Correze is plainly

derived from Cori.(81)

The Cori-tan-i. A British tribe in Derbyshire, &c., from Cori and Tania,

an addition frequently made by the Romans to the name of a province or

district, as in Aqui-tania, Mauri-tania. Camden expresses himself totally

unable to explain this term satisfactorily.

The following are partly composed of ancient Celtic Topographical Names,

of which the appropriate meanings have not been preserved(82) in the Welsh

and Irish, &c., but are found in the Oriental and other languages.

“Eryr-i,” the Welsh name of the Snowdon Mountains. This word has been

variously explained by Welsh scholars, as meaning the “Snowy Mountain”

(from Eira, “Snow”), the “Eagles’ Mountain,” &c. None of these

explanations are appropriate. Moreover “Eryr-i” is not the name of a

_single_ peak, but of the Snowdon _range_ of mountains! “E.r.r” is a pure

Hebrew word, signifying a very high mountain,(83) from which “Eryr-i,” the

name of the Snowdon range, the highest in South Britain, is a plural

regularly formed!

Cimas da Our-ar-as, are high Mountains to the North of Lisbon.

Ban-nau Brycheiniog, “the Brecon Beacons,” lofty hills in Brecknockshire.

Ban de la Roche, the celebrated Pastor Oberlin’s residence among the

Vosges Mountains, in the East of France. Ban, “Lofty,” (_Welsh_,) Bian, a

Hill, (_Irish_,) Boun-os, a Hill, (_Greek_,) Ban-k (_English_), a

diminutive.

Bal. “Applied in Wales to Mountains that terminate in a Peak. Balannu, to

shoot or spring forth.” (Dr. W. Owen Pughe.) Belan is also applied to

Hills, as “Nant y Belan,” near Wynnstay. Bala, Bulund (_Persian_), Beland

(_Pehlwi_), Bulund (_Zend_), “High.”

“The Don and the Dune,” Rivers in Scotland. Trev-i don, i.e. “the Town of,

or on the River,” a place on the river Tarn, in the South of France. Don,

Dun, “Water,” “a River,” (_Ossetians_, a people of the Caucasus). “The

Don” River, in the country of the “Don Cossacks,” who are also considered

to be a people of the Caucasus. “Donau” (_German_), the Danube.

From Ar, “a River, a Stream,” (_Hebrew._) “Ar-a,” now “the Ayr,” that

enters the sea at Bayeux, (see before, p. 73.) “The Ar-ar,” Gaul. “The

Ayr,” Scotland.

From Ee.a.ou.r, “a River, a Stream,” (_Hebrew_,) a modification of A.r.

Wari, “Water,” (_Sanscrit._) “The Evre” and “Evrette,” France. “The

Wavre,” Belgium. “The Weaver” and “the Wear,” England.

From Ee.a.r (_Hebrew_), and Iaro, “a River,” (_Egyptian_,) “The Yarrow,”

Scotland. (See p. 10.)

From Ur, “Water,” (_Jeniseians_, in Siberia,) and Our-on (_Greek_), terms

connected with the previous Hebrew words; “Ur-us,” the Ouse, Britain.

Thus it will be seen that the various inflections of the Hebrew word A.r.

have been completely preserved in the names of the different rivers in

each of the Celtic countries of Britain and Gaul.

Lamu, “the Sea,” (_Tungusian._) Lam, “the Sea,” (_Lamutian._) Limnē, a

Lake, “Poetically, the Sea, the Ocean, which seems to be the most

primitive sense; also anciently, as it would appear, the Estuary of a

River,” Schneider (_Greek_). At the mouths of the rivers that flow into

the Black Sea lakes are formed, which are called “Limans.”(84) Hence

“Leman-us Lacus” in Switzerland.

Lim-ēn, a Haven, (_Greek_,) connected apparently with the last word, Limnē

(_Greek_). “Lemanæ” vel Portus “Leman-is.” Lyme, in Kent, where Cæsar

first landed.

Jura, a long Mountainous ridge in ancient Gaul. Jura, a long Mountainous

Island (Scotland). “Jur-jura,” an important chain of Mountains in the

North of Africa. Gora (_Russian_), Ghiri (_Sanscrit_), a Mountain.

In the foregoing examples Celtic words having an affinity to the Latin

frequently occur, employed in a manner that shows they could not have been

borrowed by the Celts from the Romans. Thus we have the names

Ar-_mor_-ici, Ebro-lacum, names in which terms like the Latin “Mare” and

“Lacus” are naturally blended with other Celtic words which are quite

unlike the Latin!

I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages must serve to place

beyond all doubt the truth of the propositions illustrated in this

Section, viz., that the language of the primitive Celts of Europe and the

British Isles originally consisted of a combination of the Welsh and

Irish, and other living Celtic dialects, united with many words and forms

preserved in none of those dialects, but traceable in the Hebrew, the

Greek, and the languages of other ancient and distant nations.

The uniformity that presents itself in the ancient local nomenclature of

all the Celtic countries is a very remarkable and instructive feature, of

which an adequate conception can be formed only by an examination of the

Roman Maps. The identity of names, for example, is found to be as complete

when the Roman Maps of Gaul and Britain are compared, as we meet with in

examining the Maps of two English Counties! To this rule Ireland, as far

as we can judge from the imperfect nature of the information transmitted

to us, formed no exception. These facts lead to the inference that the

Celts must have diffused themselves, within a comparatively short interval

of time, over all the regions of Europe of which the Romans found them in

possession! Had the process of diffusion occupied a great many ages, there

must have been a commensurate change in the Celtic language, which would

have displayed itself in the local names of the more distant regions. But

no such difference occurs, the local nomenclature of Britain, for

instance, being identical with that of Switzerland and Spain!

SECTION VI.

_Summary of the Results deducible from the previous Sections. The

Changes which have occurred in the English, Scandinavian, and

Celtic Languages, sufficient to account for the Differences among

all Human Tongues. Causes which give rise to the Abandonment and

specific Appropriation of Synonymes. Total Differences of

Grammatical Forms no Proof of a fundamental Difference of

Language. The Relation which the Languages of one Continent,

viewed in the aggregate, bear to the individual Languages of such

Continent, the same as that which the ancient Scandinavian bears

to its derivative Dialects, &c. Incipient Changes in the Language

of Australia._

The facts developed in the previous Sections obviously present a

satisfactory solution of the problem suggested at page 25, viz., whence it

has come to pass that languages almost totally different in their present

composition could have sprung from one original Tongue? That existing

languages have sprung from one source is a proposition of which the proofs

have been explained in the same Chapter in which this problem has been

suggested. (See Chap. I.)

In the preceding Sections it has been shown, agreeably to the statement

contained in Section I., that Languages are exposed to two prominent

causes of change; viz., the abandonment by different branches of the same

race—1, of different Synonymes; 2, of different meanings of the same

Synonyme.

From the facts Historically proved in the previous Sections it will be

found to be an indisputable truth, that—assuming their operation to be

continued for an adequate period of time,—these two causes are calculated

to produce, from one parent Tongue, languages of which the differences are

apparently fundamental. For example, if the differences between the Gothic

and Celtic languages noticed at page 28,—languages which differ almost

totally,—are compared with those which have been proved to have arisen in

the last nine hundred years among the various branches of the Scandinavian

and the Celtic, it will be seen at once that the latter are of precisely

the same nature as the former. The only distinction is that they are fewer

in point of number! But on the other hand, it is certain that the same

causes of change—acting at the same rate during a previous period of

treble that length of time—might have produced between two branches of a

common original speech differences equally numerous with those which the

Gothic and Celtic exhibit; in other words, differences sufficiently

extensive almost entirely to exclude all vestiges of original unity!

But it must be added, that it would be highly erroneous to infer that the

rate of change previous to the commencement of the Historical period was

the same as it has been since; it must have been much more rapid! Changes

of this nature are prompted by the dictates of convenience, which suggest

the extinction of superfluous words, and the appropriation of the

remainder to distinct though kindred purposes; names for “Water, Rivers,

the Sea,” for example, were doubtless in the first instance applied

indifferently to all these objects. Now, inasmuch as languages are more

redundant in their earlier than they are in their later stages, it is

apparent that these changes, of which this redundant character is the

source, must be more rapid.

This explanation would fully account for the diversity of structure

evinced by the Gothic and Celtic Tongues, which probably differ as widely

as any languages of the globe, without referring the commencement of their

separation to a more remote date than would be quite consistent with

received systems of Chronology. That the Celtic and Gothic were originally

one speech, and that the differences which they now display have arisen in

this manner, will be evident from Section II. (page 26,) combined with the

facts developed in the other Sections of this Chapter.

Difference of Grammatical forms has been supposed to afford proof of a

fundamental difference of language. A comparison of those of the languages

previously noticed will show this to be a highly erroneous conclusion! The

Welsh and Irish differ most widely in their grammars, though the general

resemblance of these languages proves their original identity. The German

and English also differ very widely, the majority of the Pronouns being

unlike. Again, even the modern and the provincial English have different

Auxiliary Verbs, &c. &c. These are results of the same principle, viz.,

the tendency to abandon, or appropriate differently, the various elements

of a common parent speech.

Moreover since Pronouns, which are the principal basis of Grammar, are

merely different Synonymes for “Man,” or a “Human Being” (see page 13),

appropriated to different Persons, the supposition that kindred nations

may be expected in all cases to use the same grammatical forms is founded

on the gratuitous and highly unreasonable assumption, that the process of

appropriating these various Nouns to different Persons must have been

complete at a very early period, before the separation of the Human Race

into distinct Tribes!

But though the rejection of superfluous Synonymes, and the specific

appropriation of the remainder are results of the dictates of convenience,

the selection of the particular synonymes which are retained, and the

particular mode of application, are results dependent on individual

caprice and idiosyncracy. Hence we find, as has been shown in previous

Sections, the various branches of the same race adopt and abandon

different terms. This feature, which has been traced in the Historical

progress of languages, completely explains the phenomenon especially

noticed at the close of the First Chapter, viz., the positive identity

which we find on the one hand, when the languages of the different

Continents are compared in the aggregate, combined on the other with a

difference nearly total among individual languages, occurring, in many

cases, among the languages of contiguous nations of the same Continent. In

each separate tribe there is a tendency to abandon part of the parent

speech, but as different tribes generally abandon different parts,

probably no portion of the original tongue is lost! Its component parts

are dispersed, and not destroyed! There is a complete and perfect analogy

between the relation which will be found to prevail between the languages

of each continent viewed in the aggregate as one original Tongue—compared

with the individual existing languages of the same continent—and the

relation shown in the previous Sections to prevail between the ancient

“Danska Tunge” and its derivative Scandinavian Tongues—between the

Anglo-Saxon and the modern English Dialects—between the ancient Celtic and

the modern Welsh and Irish!

A recent work on Australia, by Colonel Grey, furnishes an account of the

language of that country, so strikingly corroborative of the views

developed above with respect to the origin of the various languages of the

other four great Divisions of the Globe, that I have been induced

especially to advert to Colonel Grey’s statement in this Section.

“The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common

root, are:

“1st. A general similarity of sound, and structure of words, in the

different portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained.

“2d. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification; to be

traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of

course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications.

“3d. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite

portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to

Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from any

remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such being

the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a similarity

of dialect.

“The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with

regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the

aborigines of Australia _abounds in synonymes_, many of which are, _for a

time_, altogether _local_; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a

particular district will use one word for _water_,(85) while those of a

neighbouring district will _apply another_, which appears to be a totally

different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both

tribes _understood the words which either made use of_, and merely

employed another one, from _temporary fashion and caprice_, I felt

convinced that the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives

of any _one small district_ could not be considered as a fair specimen of

the general language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the

vocabulary which I compiled in Western Australia, I introduced words

collected from _a very extensive tract of country_.

“Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, &c. from the

natives, many causes of error arise, for they have names for almost every

minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for the _arm_,

one stranger would get the name for the _upper arm_, another for the

_lower arm_, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, &c.; and

it therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry

into the nature of the language of this people, these circumstances

contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion, that languages radically

different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.

“One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different

portions of Australia is, that those of districts _widely removed from one

another_ sometimes assimilate _very closely_, whilst the dialects spoken

in the intermediate ones _differ considerably from either of them_. The

same circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but

as this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which

this race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not

now enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a

language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.

“If, then, we start from Perth, in Western Australia, following the coast

in a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King

George’s Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects,

scarcely differing from one another in any material points, and gradually

merging into the dialects of these two places, as the two points

considered are nearer to one or the other.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

“The word for the Sun at Perth is _Nganga_, whilst at Adelaide it is

_Tin-dee_; but the word used by the natives at Encounter Bay, South

Australia, thirty-six miles from Adelaide, is _Ngon-ge_, and the word used

in the southern districts of Western Australia for the Stars is _Tiendee_;

thus, by extending the vocabularies of the two places, the identity of the

language is shown.”(86)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The reader who by a perusal of the previous Sections has learned how rapid

are the changes which languages undergo, will not merely conclude, with

Colonel Grey, that the population of Australia must be descendants of one

Sept, but he will conclude also that the first colonization of that

continent must be referred to a comparatively recent date. Australia is

nearly as large as the Continent of Europe, and yet we find one language

prevail over the whole of its extensive surface! It may be inferred with

certainty, from the changes which one thousand years have produced in the

European languages, that this fact makes it probable that the date of the

origin of the Australian tribes must have been comparatively recent,—makes

it impossible that it can have been remote!

In relation more immediately to the conclusions developed in this Section,

it remains to be noticed that the trifling incipient differences of

dialect in the language of Australia, as described by Colonel Grey, afford

a vivid picture of the first phases of that process which, during the

course of a series of ages, has given rise to the different languages of

the four great Continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America!

But how are we to account for the origin of these numerous synonymous

terms which abound in all, especially in ancient, languages?

This subject will be discussed in the next Chapter.

CHAPTER III. ON THE ORIGIN OF SYNONYMES.

SECTION I.

_First Source of Synonymes the Metaphorical Character of Human

Language in its Infancy. Even modern Languages metaphorical or

descriptive, as regards the Names of Substances recently known to

Man. Progressive Change from a metaphorical to a conventional

Character displayed by more Modern compared to more Ancient

Languages. Illustration from the Sanscrit Words for __“__The

Sun.__”_

But not only may the dispersion of Synonymes be referred to influences of

which the active agency still continues; it will appear that the first

Origin of the numerous Synonymes which Human Language presents may also be

explained by means of causes still in operation!

Human Language, in its infancy, was descriptive or metaphorical. Nouns, or

names of objects, were expressive of some of their dominant or most

conspicuous qualities. Hence, inasmuch as in different individuals, and in

the same individual at different times, the faculty of Imagination is

affected by various characteristics, a great diversity of descriptive

terms were generally devised for the same objects, and these, as their

primitive metaphorical meanings were insensibly forgotten, gradually

lapsed into arbitrary or conventional Nouns. That this is a correct

explanation of the origin of a large portion of the Synonymes in which

Human Tongues abound, will be apparent from an examination of two

venerable Oriental Languages, the Hebrew and the Sanscrit, which

indisputably display through their whole structure a metaphorical or

pictorial character.

The same truth is confirmed by facts within the range of our actual

experience—facts that suggest reflections of high interest!

Several thousand years have passed away since man first became acquainted

with the most prominent and familiar of those objects with which he is

surrounded. For these objects he has inherited from his remote ancestors

names which he learns in infancy, and which relieve him from the task of

inventing anew appropriate designations. But though Nature presents no new

features, the progress of Science has in modern times revealed a few new

substances unknown to our forefathers, which have served at intervals to

call forth the exercise of the same inventive powers by which language was

originally constructed! Now if we examine the names that were originally

conferred on the various chemical substances which have been brought to

light in our own and in the last generation, we shall arrive at the

instructive result that these names almost wholly consist of descriptive

terms, representing either some of their most obvious properties, or the

various conclusions formed by different philosophers on the subject of

their nature and composition.(87) Further, we shall find that many of

these new substances gave rise, in the first instance, to numerous

descriptive terms! That these terms were for some time used concurrently!

That subsequently a portion of them fell into disuse! That finally the

remainder gradually lost the descriptive significations at first attached

to them, and acquired the character of mere arbitrary or conventional

names!

Hence it is evident, and most assuredly it is a result of the highest

interest, that the native and permanent tendencies of the Human mind

itself distinctly point to the conclusion that language must originally

have been descriptive or metaphorical! Hence, also, we derive a vivid

illustration of the sameness of those tendencies, as exhibited both in the

latest and in the earliest ages of the world, in the trains of thought

excited by new objects in the minds of the Philosophers of modern days,

and in those of the simple forefathers of the Human Race, whose

“Souls proud Science never taught to stray

Far as the solar walk or milky way!”

As we ascend from Modern into remote ages, Human Language gradually

reassumes its Metaphorical character. Moreover, it will appear that the

transition may be traced occurring in different classes of words at

different epochs: terms for newly-discovered substances or new inventions

being descriptive in all languages; terms for the most common and

conspicuous objects of nature, on the other hand, not exhibiting this

quality, except in the most ancient Tongues; while in specimens of

Language belonging to intermediate eras, an intermediate character is

observable; terms for less common and less conspicuous natural objects

being more generally descriptive than they are in modern Tongues, &c.

The nature and steps of this transition will be more distinctly perceived

if viewed retrospectively:

1. Modern Languages.

In such languages as the modern English, French, and German, probably the

great majority of terms are conventional, though we meet with numerous

names of animals, birds, &c. which are descriptive, as “Black-bird.” In

words applied to new inventions or discoveries, a descriptive character is

commonly displayed, as in “Rail-road” (_Eng._), “Eisen-bahn” (_Ger._),

“Chemin de fer” (_French_), i.e. “Iron-way.”

2. Ancient Specimens of the European Languages.

In the oldest written specimens of the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, &c., the

vestiges of a descriptive origin rapidly increase. The names of Animals

and Birds are found to be nearly all either descriptive or imitative, and

Synonymes are much more numerous in certain classes of words.

The names for “The Sun, The Hand,” &c., and other objects enumerated at

page 8, as the first on which appellations must have been conferred by

Man, seem to have become purely conventional previously to the date of the

earliest Celtic or Saxon MSS. But, on the other hand, a comparison of

Languages serves to indicate that in this class of terms also these

Tongues were Metaphorical in remote ages prior to the era of History. Thus

“Grian,” The Sun, (_Irish_,) means “A Burner” in _Welsh_. Again, the

Celtic and Gothic races have been too long separated to use the same

conventional terms. But they frequently agree in the basis of the

descriptive terms, from which the conventional terms are derived. Thus

Llygad, “An Eye,” (_Welsh_,) is totally _unlike_ the English “Eye,”

(“Auge,” _German_;) but it is identical in its root with the English word

_Look_. “_Traed_,” The Feet, (_Celtic_,) is unlike “Foot,” but its root is

identical with “Tread” (_English_)! Celtic scholars have often derived the

English “Tread” from the Celtic or Welsh “Traed;” but the Verb “Tread”

(“Tret-en,” _German_) is used by all the Gothic nations from the Danube to

Iceland!

The Greek and Latin also conspicuously exhibit a more Metaphorical

character than the modern tongues of Europe.

3. The Sanscrit and the Hebrew.

It is agreed that in the entire structure of these languages a

metaphorical character is displayed; even such words as the names for “The

Sun,” &c. are for the most part metaphorical or descriptive.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

The truth and extensive application of the principle under discussion will

be best understood by a perusal of Appendix A, which contains ample

illustrations of the rule that while the conventional significations of

words are preserved in one Language, the same words commonly occur in

others in kindred metaphorical meanings. In this place, however, may be

appropriately introduced one illustration derived from the various

Sanscrit words for the Sun. These words, which are all considered to be

descriptive or metaphorical, have obviously formed the source of the

following Conventional Terms for that Luminary, which occur in

Indo-Germanic languages of more modern form:

_Different Words for the Sun in Sanscrit, and their distribution in other

Indo-Germanic Languages_.

Sanscrit. Persian. Greek. Latin. German Welsh.

and

English.

Hailih Sol. (S. Hail.

Hail-ih.)

Hail-is He-elios.

Sura Ser-en, A

Star.

Sunu Sun,

Sonne.

Mihira Mihira.

SECTION II.

_Second Source of Synonymes. Imitative Origin of the Elements of

Human Language. Imitative Character of Ancient Languages.

Imitative Origin of Language consistent with the Unity of the

Human Race. Supported by Analogy. Adam Smith’s Opinion that the

first Elements of Language were Nouns, considered. Progress of

Language in Infancy. Illustration, from Campbell’s Hohenlinden, of

the Influence of the Imitative Faculty on the Imagination.

Progressive Growth of Language. Important Exception to the

Principle of the Imitative Origin of Language. Origin of the Harsh

and Open Sounds of Ancient Languages._

In its infancy, Language was metaphorical, but it was directly Imitative

of surrounding objects at its birth! Hence, as will now be explained,

another source of the synonymes in which Human Tongues abound!

Did man derive his language from the direct instruction of his Creator, or

from the natural exercise of those faculties with which he has been

endowed? For the former opinion no argument, either Scriptural or

Philosophical, has ever been advanced. In favour of the latter, proofs

deducible from Language, Analogy, and the actual features of the Human

Mind, conspire.

In the Hebrew, and other ancient languages, Man’s first imitative efforts

are distinctly traceable,(88) and as we ascend from modern to earlier eras

in the history of Human Tongues, and extend our comparison by including

within its range a greater number of kindred dialects, we shall find—not

only the features of a descriptive or metaphorical character, as already

noticed—but also the vestiges of an imitative origin progressively

increase. Thus, for example, the English words for two common birds, the

“Owl” and the “Crow,” have no other effect on the ear than that of mere

arbitrary or conventional terms; they have been too much abbreviated any

longer to suggest distinctly the source from which they have sprung. But

in the Swedish “Ul-u-la,” and the Sanscrit “Ul-u-ka,” the reiterated

screams of “the bird of night” are plainly mimicked, as is the harsh

guttural croak of the crow in the German “Krähe!”

Those writers who have espoused, and those who have impugned, the

conclusion that language is the natural fruit of the endowments which have

been conferred on our species, have, for the most part, mutually assumed

that conclusion to be irreconcilable with the common origin of the

different nations and languages of the globe. Each ancient sept, they take

for granted, must in that case be inferred to have had a distinct origin,

and to have invented a distinct language for itself. But there is no

necessary connexion between the premises and the conclusion. All nations

may have emanated from one parent sept, and all languages may have sprung

from one parent tongue, and yet the parent speech may, notwithstanding,

have been the product of Man’s own native energies in the earliest era of

his existence! Our species may have been invested with the faculty of

constructing a language adequate to meet all its first wants, and yet that

faculty may have been exercised only once!

The conclusion adopted above is supported by the dictates of Analogy, as

traceable in the instance of provisions made for wants analogous to those

which language is calculated to supply. Destined to pass successively

through various phases of civilization, and to push his colonies into

every clime and country, Man required and has received, both in his

physical and mental constitution, powers of adaptation that enable him to

conform to those marvellous changes which are incident to his condition as

a Progressive Being. His first infantine feelings are expressed by

imitations of surrounding objects, and as his higher moral and

intellectual faculties are developed, they find utterance in metaphors

derived from the organs of sensation. In those advances which he was

mysteriously intended to make from age to age, he would have been fettered

and not aided by the gift of an immutable language! His wants in this

respect have been more wisely provided for by the power which has

evidently been conferred upon him of framing in the first instance a

language calculated to express his earliest wants as they successively

arose, and of subsequently moulding it to suit the emergencies of his

condition.

It was the opinion of Adam Smith that the elements of language consist of

Nouns or Names of things. From this opinion, M. Du Ponceau dissents. Nor

is this conclusion confirmed by an analysis of languages, which serves to

show, on the contrary, that these elements or roots partake less of the

character of Nouns or Names of Objects than of that of Verbs or terms

descriptive of their actions and qualities. This result appears to be a

necessary consequence of the imitative origin of language, for it is only

their characteristic sounds or other salient qualities that admit of

imitation, it is impossible to copy by the voice the objects themselves!

The English word Cuc-koo furnishes an excellent example. This word is now

used as a Noun or Name. But it is quite manifest that originally it was a

mere imitation of the characteristic cry of the bird, in other words it

was descriptive of a single quality or action!

But though they partake of the character of Verbs rather than of that of

Nouns, it will, I conceive, appear that the roots or elements of language

do not in reality belong to any existing class of grammatical terms. In

the Hebrew and the Sanscrit the “Root” is neither a Noun nor a Verb, but

the common basis of both. Nor is the application of this maxim confined to

ancient languages; it may be shown to apply extensively to modern

languages also, as in the following examples, derived from the English:

Root. Noun. Verb.

Burst. Burst. I burst.

Thrust. Thrust. I thrust.

Crack. Crack. Crack-er. I crack.

Wrench. Wrench.

Hiss. Hiss. I hiss.

Rumble. Rumbl-er. It rumbles.

Break. Break. Break-er. I break, &c.

Croak. Croak. Croak-er. I croak.

The previous examples will serve to illustrate at once the proposition

they are intended to support, and also the imitative character of the

roots or elements of language. This character, it will be observed, does

not occur exclusively in terms primarily descriptive of sounds, it is

displayed in an equally unequivocal manner in terms descriptive of other

physical qualities, as in “Thrust, Burst, Wrest,” &c.

It is obvious that the human voice possesses the power of copying sounds

more perfectly than other external impressions. But the _attempt_ at

imitation is not more conspicuous than it is in other cases, in which the

imitation is necessarily more imperfect. Thus Kōōm, used in Persia and

Wales for “a hollow circular valley,” “Coop” (_English_), are attempts by

means of the motion of the lips, &c. to imitate the _shapes_ of the

subjects of description.

The evidence furnished by language in support of the proposition suggested

above, viz., that its roots or elements do not consist either of Nouns or

Verbs, but of sounds which constitute the common basis of both, will be

found, I conceive, to derive direct confirmation from an examination of

the faculties employed in the formation of language, and the order of

their development.

Man is endowed with two faculties of a very different nature, of which

language seems to be the joint product, viz., with powers of imitation and

powers of reflection. Now the elementary sounds, or roots of language, may

be viewed as exclusively the work of the imitative propensity; the steady

appropriation of these elements as recognized descriptions of actions and

objects seems, on the other hand, to be the result of the progressive

growth and of the reiterated subsequent exercise of the functions of

Memory and Abstraction. Thus we find infants mimic sounds long before we

can suppose their minds to be sufficiently developed permanently to

associate such sounds with particular objects; afterwards, as their

faculties are gradually unfolded, these imitations are appropriated as

names. Accordingly we find that almost all children are in the habit of

using a certain number of words thus formed, which are understood and

employed by the guardians and companions of their infancy.(89) An

instructive example of the natural activity of those mental qualities to

which language first owed its existence—an activity which is repressed by

no other cause than by the maturity of languages in use, which fully meet

all the exigencies of the social state!

The vehement gesticulations of uncivilized tribes is another manifestation

of the imitative propensity. Nor are the vestiges of its influence among

civilized nations altogether confined to the period of childhood. They may

be recognized in the marked, though generally unconscious, disposition we

feel to select words imitative of the ideas we seek to convey, and in the

pleasure we derive from works of imagination, in which the sound is

rendered “an echo of the sense,” in conformity to the critical rule of

classical antiquity. Of the sublime associations called forth by a happy

appeal to the imitative faculty, we possess a fine example in the lines of

the great living Poet, which, with a fastidiousness as marvellous as the

genius by which they were conceived, he proposed to cancel, as being “Drum

and Trumpet lines!”(90)

“On Linden when the sun was low

All bloodless lay the untrodden snow,

And dark as winter was the flow

Of Iser rolling rapidly.

“But Linden saw another sight

When the trump blew at dead of night,

Commanding fires of death to light

The darkness of her scenery!

“By torch and trumpet fast array’d

Each warrior drew his battle blade,

And furious every courser neigh’d

To join the dreadful revelry!”

(Campbell’s “Hobenlinden.”)

The progressive appropriation of elementary sounds or Roots to the various

purposes of language, and the consequent development of grammatical forms,

remain to be explained.

In the first instance these Roots were, it would seem, employed alike both

as Verbs and Nouns, &c.; the requisite distinction, it may be inferred,

was made by Signs. In the course of time the Noun was distinguished by

characteristic additions identical, as may be proved, with terms for

“Man.”

This tendency to personify appears, as Du Ponceau observes, to be

“according to nature!” The English word Smith, and the German Schmidt, are

nouns of the primitive kind, being mere transcripts of the Root. On the

other hand, in the English “Join-er, Break-er,” we have examples of Nouns

distinguished as such by a grammatical suffix, “Er,” which, in German,

means “He,” and in Turkish means “A Man.” In the Pehlwi, an ancient

dialect of Persia, which is intimately connected with the English, and

other Gothic languages, we actually find the English word “Man,” used for

the same purpose as “Er,” in the above example. Thus we have Ruis-man, “A

Head,” (_Pehlwi_,) Ras (_Arabic_), and Rosh, “A Head,” (_Hebrew_,)

Lager-man, “The Foot,” (_Pehlwi_,) Lagyl (_Wogul_), Leg (_English_).

The Verb, and its different persons, were distinguished by pronouns,

annexed in various modes.(91)

Finally, it may be noticed, that since all other branches of Human

Language have been shown to be derivable from terms originally applied to

Material actions and objects, (see pages 11, 12, 13;) and since these have

been proved to be products of the imitative faculty, it follows that all

the elements of language are ultimately traceable to the same source.

There is, however, an important exception.

There is a class of terms, including many of those expressive of domestic

relations, which cannot be traced to imitation, but seem to consist of

those sounds which are most easy to pronounce. They may, in fact, be

viewed as the fruits of the first essays of the organs of

articulation.(92)

Hebrew.

A.m. A Mother. Also, the lower Amee A Father, (_Mangree_, a

arm (with the hand) by which a Negro Dialect.)

child is supported.

Mamma, Mother, a Teat, a

Breast, (_Latin._)

A.m.e. A Maid Servant. Mamma.(93) A Father,

(_Georgian._)

A.m.n. A Nurse, To support, A.m.e. A Nurse, (_German._)

nurse.

A.m.ou.n. A Child, &c. &c. Mam. A Mother, (_Welsh._)

Mamma (_English_).

It will be perceived that the application of terms from this “Root” was

not confined to parents, but was extended to other objects familiar in

childhood.

Other examples of the principle just noticed occur in Abba, “Father,”

(_Hebrew_,) Ab-avus, Av-us, and Papa (_Latin_). These words are clearly

traceable to sounds which may be readily pronounced in infancy.

The Hebrew, and some other ancient Oriental tongues, are distinguished by

the frequent occurrence of harsh aspirates and gutturals, and of vehement

and discordant tones, which, in many instances, are utterly incapable of

representation by means of any sounds in use among the nations of modern

Europe. Now if language had an imitative origin, and if these ancient

Oriental tongues can be viewed as specimens of language near its source,

and the European tongues as specimens more altered by time, these features

of contrast will be satisfactorily explained. This will be evident from

the following considerations.

As Language in its incipient state must have been an imperfect medium of

communication, it may be concluded that the auxiliary aid of Signs was

commonly resorted to; violent motions of the hands and the feet were

probably combined with intonations of the voice, expressive, even to

exaggeration, of the ideas intended to be conveyed. Now the influence of

this cause was obviously calculated to give to language in its infancy the

very qualities which are ascribed to the Hebrew and some other ancient

languages, viz., fulness, distinctness, and in some respects extreme

harshness.

On the other hand, the natural progress of language will account also for

the opposite qualities displayed by the dialects of modern Europe. As

Society advanced, the severe features that belonged to Language at its

first commencement must have gradually softened down. Words originally

intelligible only as imitations of the qualities of objects, or by reason

of the signs with which they were accompanied, must have gradually

acquired conventional meanings, calculated to render the use of signs and

of rough and painful articulations unnecessary. Compare, as examples, the

words already noticed, viz., the English word “Crow,” and the German

guttural word “Krä-he,” the English “Owl,” and the Swedish and Sanscrit

“Ulula,” and “Ulu-ka.”

Many writers on subjects of this nature appear to fall into considerable

confusion of thought in the eulogies which they are prone to bestow on

those particular languages to which their studies have been chiefly

directed. In some instances we find a language extolled for the fulness

and clearness of its sounds, while another is eulogized for its softness.

These different qualities cannot with consistency be regarded as merits in

languages that belong to the same stage of society. A more judicious view

of the subject would involve the conclusion to which the previous

considerations must give rise, viz., that a full and distinct language is

the result of necessity in the infancy of society, and that a soft and

abbreviated language is the joint product of the dictates of convenience

and taste that influence its later stages.

It is probable that in the features under discussion the ancient Oriental

Tongues do not differ from the languages of Europe more widely than the

earliest differ from the latest specimens of the latter class of

languages. The difference in this respect between the Anglo-Saxon and the

modern English has already been noticed. The abbreviated pronunciation of

the French, compared to the parent Latin, is another instance of the same

kind. The following is an example of similar variations in three Celtic

dialects, showing a progressively contracted pronunciation:

Welsh. Irish. Manx.

Arm. Braich. Brak -Ri.

(obsolete).

Raigh.

Gold. Ayr. Or. -Eer.

A Year. Bluyddyn. Bleadhain. Blien.

The Isle of Man was not occupied by the Irish until the fourth century.

Yet the Manx differs from the Irish perhaps even more widely than the

Irish differs from the Welsh.

The desire to render language a more rapid and convenient medium of

thought may be regarded as the principal source of changes of this nature.

SECTION III.

_Application of these Conclusions to the Question of the Unity of

the Human Race._

It may be objected that if language were in its origin imitative, the

identity of the various languages of the globe shown in this work may be

accounted for on that principle, without ascribing that important fact to

an original unity of race. But an answer to this objection is involved in

the following passage from the Mithridates of Adelung and Vater:

“In those instances in which the sound imitated is very definite and

invariable, the imitation is so likewise (as in that of the name of the

Cuckoo, which is nearly the same in all languages). But this is seldom the

case. Generally the natural sound is very variable; hence one people

imitates one, and another a different change. A very striking example

occurs in the names for Thunder. Distinct as this natural sound is, the

impressions which it makes on the ear are very variable, and it has

accordingly given rise to a great number of different names, which all

betray, nevertheless, their origin in Nature. In my Ancient History of the

German Language I have adduced, in proof of this proposition, 353 of these

names from the European languages.”

It appears, then, that the principle that language was imitative in its

origin does not involve the inference that there is for that reason a

tendency in human language to Unity. On the contrary, this principle

leads, as has been shown, to the very opposite conclusion. Hence features

of affinity displayed by different Tongues must be referred to original

unity of race.

SECTION IV.

_Recent Origin of the Human Race._

The Hebrew and Sanscrit, as pointed out in the previous Sections, display

certain features which cannot have long survived the infancy of language.

The caprices of custom, the progress of the human mind, and the dictates

of convenience, are calculated to efface these features within a limited

period of time. Hence it follows, that the existence of language, and of

the Species by which it is employed, could not have commenced at an era

very remotely anterior to the date of the earliest specimens of these

ancient Tongues; for it must be borne in mind that the identity of the

Hebrew and the Sanscrit with other Human Tongues having been proved (see

Appendix A), the vestiges of recent formation which these two languages

display furnish evidence of the recent origin, not only of the ancient

nations by whom they were spoken, but also of the Human Race. As

previously noticed, no difficulty is felt in accounting for the

descriptive character of the scientific names which occur at page 95, on

the ground that the substances named have only lately become known to man.

The existence in the Sanscrit of numerous descriptive Synonymes for the

“Sun” (see page 98), the most conspicuous object in nature, is an example

which, as already intimated, must suggest analogous reflections.

Viewed with reference to the lapse of a few centuries, the changes

language undergoes are too irregular to furnish a safe test of the date of

historical events. But adverting to the progress of the European languages

within the last thousand years, we may infer, nevertheless, that the

effect of a long interval in producing extensive changes is certain.

Judging from these data, I conceive it may reasonably be concluded that

the ancient Hebrew and Sanscrit remains could not have preserved the

descriptive or metaphorical character to the same extent as they have done

had the Human species been introduced at a period anterior to the date

assigned to that event by our received systems of chronology.

CHAPTER IV. ON THE ORIGINAL IDENTITY OF THE ENGLISH, WELSH, HINDOOS, AND

OTHER NATIONS CLASSED AS INDO-EUROPEAN WITH THE JEWS, ARABIANS, ETC.

SECTION I.

_Sir William Jones’s Opinion that the Languages and Religions of

these two Classes of Nations are quite distinct. The Names of the

Gods of Greece, Italy, and India significant in the Hebrew. Arts

brought by the Ancestors of the European Nations from the East.

Names of Fermented Liquors. Arts of the Pastoral State. Words for

Butter, &c. Close Connexion of the Hebrew with the English. No

specific difference between the Semetic and Indo-European

Tongues._

Among Orientalists, both in Germany and in this country, an opinion

prevails that there is a specific connexion among certain Asiatic and

European Nations, which they have accordingly classed together as members

of what they term the Indo-European race. The principal Nations included

in this class are the Hindoos, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Russians, and

other Sclavonic Nations; the English, Germans, and other Gothic Nations;

the Irish and Welsh, and other Celtic Nations, have more recently been

ranged under the same appellation, in consequence of the researches of Dr.

Prichard, M. Pictet, and Dr. Karl Meyer. The advocates of a distinct

Indo-European race assume either that there is no connexion, or a

comparatively slight one, between the various languages of that race and

those of the ancient inhabitants of Judea, Arabia, and other contiguous

nations. This theory may be viewed as a modification of a conclusion

expressed by Sir William Jones in his Discourse on the Origin and Families

of Nations.

“That the first race of _Persians_ and _Indians_, to whom we may add the

_Romans_ and _Greeks_, the Goths, and the old _Egyptians_ or _Ethiops_,

originally spoke the same language and professed the same popular faith,

is capable, in my humble opinion, of incontestible proof; that the _Jews_

and _Arabs_, the _Assyrians_ or second _Persian_ race, the people who

spoke _Syriack_, and a numerous tribe of _Abyssinians_, used one primitive

dialect wholly distinct from the idiom just mentioned, is, I believe,

undisputed, and, I am sure, indisputable.”(94)

While one class of writers have adopted the views of Sir William Jones,

another class have maintained a very opposite opinion, viz. that the

Hebrew is connected, not merely as a sister but as a parent, with all the

other languages of the globe. The unreasonableness of this opinion, which

is totally unsupported by authority, sacred or profane, has been forcibly

pointed out by Adelung, who observes, “Of all the Semetic languages the

Hebrew is the youngest; the Hebrew nation still slumbered in the loins of

their patriarch Abraham at a time when the whole south-west of Asia, even

including the eastern banks of the Tigris, was already filled with

Semetic(95) nations and tongues.”

The proofs of affinity between the Hebrew and other tongues which have

been adduced by the writers last referred to, are in many instances

perfectly sound and legitimate. But owing to the untenable nature of the

proposition with which they are associated, they have had no influence in

opposition to the opinions of those celebrated men who have denied the

existence of any such affinity between the Hebrew and the Indo-European

tongues.

Truth in this, as in many other inquiries, has been lost in the collision

of opposite errors! The Hebrew, it is true, is not the Parent Tongue, but

on the other hand, notwithstanding the weight that must necessarily be

attached to the memorable passage quoted above, and also to the views of

recent Orientalists, it can be shown, by evidence too clear and simple to

be neutralized by any authority however eminent, that the languages termed

Indo-European are as closely connected with the Hebrew as they are among

themselves. To these languages, the relation which it bears is that of an

ancient collateral, exhibiting many of the features of a parent in

consequence of the antiquity of its earliest remains, which contain

specimens of Language near to its source. This relation, except as regards

the Sanscrit, is strikingly analogous to that which specimens of the

Scandinavian dialects near to their common source have been shown to bear

to the modern languages of Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland. (See Proposition

6, p. 46.)

As the proofs contained in Appendix A and in other parts of this work, are

sufficient to establish that such is the nature of the connexion between

the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages, I shall here confine myself to

such illustrations as possess an independent interest by reason of the

light, they throw on the institutions and condition of ancient nations.

The identity of the Gods of three of the principal Indo-European nations

has been shown by Sir William Jones in his luminous and graceful

Dissertation on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India. But in the passage

above quoted from the same great writer, the conclusion is conveyed that

these Indo-European nations, agreeing among themselves, fundamentally

differed with the Jews and other Syro-Phœnician nations in two important

points, viz. Religion and Language.

This conclusion will be found to involve many fallacies of a very obvious

nature. The Assyrians and other Syro-Phœnician nations were idolaters,

though the Jews were not; and even the Jews were constantly lapsing into

the idolatrous practices of the surrounding nations. We have no reason for

inferring with certainty that the superstitions of the land of Canaan and

of other Semetic countries were different from those of the Greeks,

Italians, and Indians; the evidence rather favours the contrary

supposition. Again, the ancient Egyptians, whom Sir William Jones classes

with the Indo-European nations, from Language and Geographical position

may reasonably be pronounced to have been more nearly related to the

Semetic nations of Palestine and Arabia. Such are the errors even of an

“all-accomplished” inquirer in exploring a new field!

That the Jews differed in religion from the nations of Greece, Italy, and

India is a proposition which, in a general sense, cannot be disputed. But

it will now be shown that this proposition must, nevertheless, be received

with two qualifications, which entirely destroy its application as a proof

of an aboriginal or remote difference of race, viz. 1. The same

conceptions of the Supreme Being as are unfolded in the Hebrew Scriptures

may be traced in the attributes of the principal Heathen Deities. 2. The

names of the inferior Gods are perfectly preserved in the Hebrew language

in appropriate senses, which distinctly indicate the recent origin of the

superstitions of which they were the objects. While these inferior

divinities appear to have been mere personifications of the powers of

nature or of the passions of Man,—in the conceptions of the Creator of all

things equally just and sublime,—which rise above this mass of error in

the character of the Greek Zeus, the Latin Jupiter, and the Indian

Brahma,(96) the barrier which is supposed so abruptly to have separated

the primitive faith of these nations from that of the patriarchs

disappears!

The following analysis of the names of Heathen divinities may be regarded

as a continuation of a similar analysis which occurs at page 20. As

regards the names and attributes of the Indian Gods, I have availed myself

of Sir W. Jones’s Dissertation on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India:

The Gods Of Greece And Italy.

JUPITER, JOV-(IS), JOV-(EM), “The Supreme Being,” (_Latin_); Ee.e.v.e or

J.ee.v.e, “Jehovah, The Deity,” from E.v.e, “To Be,” (_Hebrew_.) This name

is believed to be expressive of eternal existence.(97)

ZEUS or ZĒN (_Greek_), “The Supreme Being,” the same as Jupiter; Zēn, To

Live, Zē, He Lives, Zŏŏs, Living, (_Greek_.) Esse, “To Be,” (_Latin._)

Ee.sh.e, “To Be,” A.ce.sh, “A Being,” Ee.sh.sh, “Very old Ancient,”

(_Heb._)

JUNO (_Latin_), ĒRĒ (_Greek_), “The Goddess of the Firmament and The Queen

and Mother of the Gods.”

MERCUR-IUS, “The God of Commerce,” (_Latin._) M.c.r, “Merchandise, To

Sell,” (_Heb._) Merx, Mercari (_Latin_). Market (_English._)

MIN-ERVA, The Goddess of Wisdom, (_Latin._) Mēn, “The Mind.”

MIN-OS, “The Supreme Judge in the Infernal Regions,” (_Latin & Greek._)

M.n.e, “To ordain, adjust, number,” (_Heb._)

AURORA (_Latin_), ĒŌS (_Greek_), “The Goddess of the Dawn.” (See p. 20.)

PHAETON, “Son of Apollo, or The Sun,” (_Latin & Greek._) Phaethōn,

Shining, (_Greek._) Pha.o, To Shine, (_Greek._) Ee.ph.o (_Heb._) Phaethon

in Greek was an epithet applied to “The Sun,” a word for “The Day” and for

“The Star Jupiter.” (Compare Phoibos, Fos, &c. p. 21.)

PHOS-PHOR-US (_Latin_), PHS PHOR-OS, The Morning Star, (_Greek_,) from

Phero, “To Bear,” and Phōs, Light. The origin of this name will be plain

from the last example and from the analogous terms at p. 21. Phōs, “A

Star,” (_Japan_.) Fosseye, “The Sun,” (_Sereres_, _Negroes_,) &c. &c.

ARĒS, “The God of War,” (_Greek._) War (_English._) Or, “An Enemy;”

O.r.ee.ts, “Formidable, Violent;” O.r.ts, E.r.s, Ee.ou.r.ee.sh, “To break

in pieces, demolish,” (_Heb._) Eris, “Strife,” (_Greek._)

M-ARS, MART-IS, M-AVORS, “The God of War,” (_Latin._) M.Or.ts.e,

“Violence, Terror,” from O.r.ts with M. formative. (See “Ares,” above.)

BELL-ONA, “The Goddess of War.” Bellum, War, (_Latin._) Beli, Bela, War,

(_Welsh._) Beli, Bela, Havoc, Devastation, (Welsh.) B.l.ee, B.l.o

(_Hebrew._)

VESTA (_Latin_),(98) HESTIA (_Greek_), “The Goddess of Fire.” “Her power

was exercised about Altars and Houses.” Hestia also signifies a Hearth.

Ee.ts.th, “To Burn, Kindle, To be kindled as fuel,” (_Hebrew._)

CERES, “The Goddess of the Fruits of the Earth,” (_Latin._) G.r.sh, “Corn

trodden out,” “To spring forth,” Tender, Green, in full Verdure,

Vegetables, (_Hebrew._) Grass (_German & English._)

HARP-YÆ (_Greek & Latin_), “Winged Creatures, the fabulous

personifications of Hunger and _Rapacity_!” (See Æneid 3.)

C’H.r.b, “To Consume, waste.”

C’H.r.b.e, “Desolation,” (_Hebrew._)