(Vol. ix., p. 136.)
MR. CROSSLEY seems to confine the word _Celtic_ to the Irish branch of that
dialect. My notion of the words _iosal_ and _iriosal_ is taken from the
Highland Gaelic, and the authorised version of the Bible in that language.
Let Celtic scholars who look to the sense of words in the _four_ spoken
languages, decide between us. There can be no doubt of the meaning of the
two words in the Gaelic of Job v. 11. and Ps. iv. 6. In Welsh, and (I
believe) in bas-Breton, there is no word similar to _uim_ or _umhal_, in
the senses of _humus_ and _humilis_, to be found. In Gaelic _uir_ is more
common than _uim_, and _talamh_ more common than either in the sense of
_humus_; and in that of _humble_, _iosal_ and _iriosal_ are much more
common than _umhal_.
It is certain that Latin was introduced into Ireland before it reached the
Highlands, and Christianity with it; and therefore, as this word is not
found in one branch of the Celtic at all, and is not a very common word in
another, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it is of Latin origin. The
sense which MR. CROSSLEY declares to be the only sense of _iosal_ and
_iriosal_, is precisely that which is the nearest to the original meaning
of _low_, and _low as the earth_; and this is also the sense which
_humilis_ always bears in classical Latin, though Christianity (which first
recognised _humility_ as a virtue, instead of stigmatising it as a
meanness) attached to it the sense which its derivatives in all modern
Romance languages, with the exception of Italian, exclusively bear.
Now MR. CROSSLEY has omitted to notice the fact that _umhal_ in Gaelic,
and, I believe, _umal_ in Irish, have not the intermediate sense of _low_
and _cringing_, but only the Christian sense of _humble_, as a virtuous
attribute. It seems natural that if _uim_ and _umal_ were radical words,
the latter would bear the some relation to _uim_, in every respect, which
_humilis_ does to _humus_, its supposed derivative. But unless _humus_ be
derived from [Greek: chamai] (the root of [Greek: chthôn] and [Greek:
chthamalos]), how does MR. CROSSLEY account for the _h_, which had a sound
in Latin as well as _horror_ and _hostilis_, both of which retain the
aspirate in English, though they lose it in French? If MR. CROSSLEY will
tell me why _horreur_ and _hostile_ have no aspirate in French, I will tell
him why _heir_, _honour_, and _humour_ have none in English, though _humid_
(which is as closely connected with _humour_, as _humidus_ is with _humor_)
retains the aspirate. {206}
These Celtic etymologies, however, though amusing, do not touch the main
point, which is simply this: the usual mode of pronouncing the word
_humble_ in good English society. What that is, seems to be so
satisfactorily shown by your correspondent S. G. C., Vol. viii., p. 393.,
that all farther argument on the subject would be superfluous.