Celtic was itself an offshoot from the Hebrew or Phoeni cian tongue; thus etymology, as well as profane history, confirms the account given by Moses of the peopling of the earth from one parent family. A marked resemblance may still be observed between the Hebrew and Welsh of the present day; and we can only wonder that thirty centuries, involving so many political revolutions, should not have produced a greater difference between them. As we have said that the original British was derived from the same stock as the language of Greece and that of Rome, it may seem strange that there was not sufficient resemblance between it and the latter to be observed and recorded by Cæsar when he invaded the island. It must be remembered, however, that centuries had elapsed from the time of their formation; that all languages at that early day, being spoken rather than written, were particularly liable to mutations, and that, after separating from each other, all intercourse be tween the kindred tribes ceased, and their dialects must therefore in a great measure have lost their affinity. The radicals common to both must have assumed distinct forms, and the new objects and inventions peculiar to each must have origi nated new terms to which the others were strangers. As they did not advance towards civilization with the same degree of rapidity, so their respective languages could not have been equally copious or polished; for words multiply with ideas. and successive advances in art and science. In process of time, these causes, added to the difference in the natural features of their respective countries and in the objects with which they were surrounded, must have obscured the common roots, and produced such accessions of new words to each dialect as to make them seem entirely distinct from one another. Even the temperature, soil, and atmosphere of a country have a great effect on its language. "It is commonly observed,” says Rowland, What connection had Greek and Latin with the original language of Britain? How, then, is it to be explained that there was not sufficient resemblance between them to be observed and recorded by Cæsar? What changes must have been made, and why? What natural circumstances produce changes in the language of a country? the learned author of "Mona Antiqua Restorata", "that different cli mates, airs, and aliments, do very much diversify the tone of the parts and muscles of human bodies; on some of which the modulation of the voice much depends. The peculiar moisture of one country, the drought of another (other causes from food, &c., concurring), extend or contract, swell or attenuate, the organs of the voice, so that the sound made thereby is rendered either shrill or hoarse, soft or hard, plain or lisping, in proportion to that contraction or extension. And hence it is, that the Chinese and Tartars have some sounds in their language that Euro. peans can scarcely imitate." It is probable that the Celtic spoken in Britain and Gaul before their conquest by the Romans bore a much closer resemblance to the parent tongue than the dialects that prevailed in the Southeast of Europe; for the obvious reason that the former countries had paid less attention to literature and science, enjoyed fewer opportunities of intercourse with other nations, and suffered less from invasion, war, and conquest. § 19. Branches of Celtic.—Of the Celtic stock there are two branches; the British or Cambrian, and Gaelic or Erse. The former was the dialect that anciently prevailed in Britain and Gaul; embracing the Cornish, spoken till a recent period in Cornwall, and the Armorican of the French province of Bretagne. It is represented by the Welsh of the present day. To the second or Erse branch belong the ancient and present Irish, the Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland, and the Manks of the Isle of Man. In the first class is placed, as we have seen, the language of Bre tagne or Brittany, on the north-west coast of France, generally called Armorican. An astonishing resemblance exists between this tongue and Welsh, which proves them to have had a common origin and to have suffered very few subsequent modifications. So similar are they that What does Rowland say in this connection? Which resembled more closely the parent tongue, the Celtic of Gaul and Britain, or that of Southeastern Europe? What reason is assigned for this? § 19. How many branches are there of the Celtic stock? Name them. Where did the British or Cambrian prevail? What dialects did it embrace? By what is it represented at the present day? What languages belong to the Erse branch? To which branch does the language of Brittany belong? What is it generally called? What tongue does Armorican resemble? What does this prove? Relate an incident illus when a Welsh regiment passed through Brittany some years since, after the conquest of Bellisle, they could converse with the inhabitants and were readily understood by them. When and how this district was settled is not known; but the inhabitants are manifestly of British, and therefore primarily of Celtic, origin. Some suppose that a body of British were driven by the Saxons across the Strait of Dover and settled on the French coast; others give credit to a tradition which prevails among the Armoricans, that they are descended from some British soldiers who were summoned to Italy as auxiliaries to the Roman army, and who, on their return, seized on this district for a home in conse quence of having learned that the Saxons had become masters of their native land. § 20. Peculiarities of Celtic.-Of the ancient Celtic we can form a tolerably correct idea by examining the modern Welsh and Irish. Its peculiarities seem to have been, A lack of inflection in its nouns; that is, they did no. undergo any change of termination to indicate a change of case. The modern Irish has a peculiar form for the dative plural; but with this exception there is no change in the terminations of nouns either in Irish, Welsh, or Ar morican. II. A system of initial mutations, by which the noun alters its first letter or receives a prefix, according to its relation to other words in the sentence. It must be remembered that we are now speaking of the original language of Britain, and not of the English of the present day. The formation of the latter was the work of a later date. Yet it contains some traces of the old Celtic, introduced either directly from the remains of that language, trative of the resemblance between Welsh and Armorican. When and how was Brittany settled? How do some account for its settlement? What tradition prevails among the Armoricans on the subject? 20. How may we form an idea of the ancient Celtic? What peculiarity belor.ged to its nouns? How do modern Irish, Welsh, and Armorican agree with ancient Celtic in this particular? How was the relation between the noun and other words in tho sentence indicated? Is Coltic, the original language of Britain, the groundwork of our present English? What connection is there between them still preserved in their greatest purity in the British Isles, or at second-hand from the Norman French or some other deriv ative from the same stock. § 21. Period of Roman Supremacy.-Britain was subjugated by the Romans about 50 B. C., and remained in possession of its conquerors for four centuries. It was an invariable point of policy with the Romans to introduce their own language into conquered states, as the most effective means of removing their prejudices and reconciling them to their bondage. Latin, consequently, supplanted a number of aboriginal tongues, just as English has superseded the verna culars of the native Indians of America. In some countries, where a war of extermination was carried on, this change was immediate; in others it was more gradual. The Celtic of Britain, however, does not seem to have received much modi. fication during the period of Roman supremacy. Our language has, it is true, many derivatives from the Latin; but these came through the medium of the Norman French, and were not introduced in the days of Cæsar or his immediate successors. Though numerous Roman garrisons were stationed in the island, and though many of the British youth were drafted into the armies of the Empire, while others were sent to Rome for their education, yet, either from their inaptness at learning or their aversion to those who had deprived them of liberty, the mass of the people continued firm in their attachment to their ancient language and in its exclusive use. Many, however, of the higher classes became acquainted with Latin, and through their means some words were introduced from it which are still found in modern Welsh. English, also, contains a few terms introduced from the language of the § 21. At what date did the Romans subjugate Britain? How long did it remain in their possession? What policy did the Romans pursue in the states they conquered? What was the consequence? Does the Celtic of Britain appear to have received much modification during the period of Roman supremacy? How, then, are we to account for the Latin derivatives in our language? What opportunities did the British youth have of learning the Roman tongue? Why did they not embrace these opportunities? What class remained firmest in their attachment to their ancient language? Through Romans at this period; such as the word street, from the Latin strata; and names of places ending in coln, a contraction of colonia (a colony), and in ccster, derived from castra (a camp). Hence the origin of Lincoln, Leicester, Gloucester, &c. LESSON VII. origin of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE (CONTINUED). § 22. The Saxon Conquest.—In this state of comparative purity the language of the British Celts remained until the beginning of the 5th century. About this time, the whole of Southern Europe began to be overrun by Goths, Huns, and other Northern barbarians; who, allured by the advantages of a milder climate and more productive soil, emigrated from what was then called Scandinavia, answering to our modern Norway and Sweden, and wrested province after province from the Roman Empire. Their conquest was so complete as to effect a radical change in the customs, laws, and of course dialects, of the districts they subjugated. The languages spoken by the Northern tribes were mostly of a common origin, and belonged to the great Gothic stock; yet, though resembling each other in their main features, they were distinguished by many minor points of difference. The Huns and Lombards, overrunning Italy, soon corrupted the Latin language and orig inated the modern Italian. The Franks and Normans, grafting their vernacular on the Latin-Celtic of Gaul, produced what class were a few Latin words introduced at this early period? Give some Lstin derivatives of this date, with the words from which they were formed. § 22. How long did the Celtic of Britain remain comparatively pure? About this time, what incursions began to be made in Southern Europe? Whence did the Northern barbarians come? What was the result of their conquests? To what stock did their languages belong? Which of these tribes overran Italy? What language originated in their corruptions of Latin? What tribes grafted their vernacular on the |