polite in Syria and Egypt, as well as in Italy and Carthage. It must have been understood by all ranks of men in Judea, since the inspired writers employed it in propagating the gospel, which was to be first preached to the Jews. It was even spoken in modern Europe, so late as the middle of the fifteenth century, when Constantinople was taken by the Turks; and when, after a reign of two thousand four hundred years as a living tongue, that is, from the time of Homer, it fell under the superior pressure of a branch of its own older family.

From the Greek, it is generally agreed by the most respectable authors both ancient and modern, the Latin letters were derived. Pliny, de literis antiquis, says, "Veteris Græcas fuisse easdem pené quæ nunc sunt Latina." And Tacitus asserts, "et forma literas Latinis, quæ veterrimis Græcorum." They are likewise supposed to have originally consisted of but sixteen,* Quintilian, indeed, says, "the number, form, and power of the Roman letters were not the same in his time as they were in former ages, he remarks, in particular, the etters were originally fewer in number. "Illa vetustissima transeo tempora, quibus et pauciores eræ, nec similes

* Astle.

his

his nostris earum formæ fuerunt, et vis quoque diversa." The primitives of the Latin tongue, we are also told, do not differ materially from the language of a branch of the Celts, to whom neitheir the literature nor the government of Rome ever extended themselves. "The Scots of Caledonia," says Macpherson, "were never subdued by the Romans; and they had little connection with that illustrious people. The Roman language cannot be supposed to have penetrated where neither the literature, nor the arms of Rome ever entered; yet, there is a wonderful similarity, if not a perfect identity, between many primitives of the Gaëlic, and others that correspond to them in the Latin tongue. And to remove every supposition, that the Scots of either of the British isles borrowed any part of their language from the Latin, every word in the Gaelic is either a compound or derivation, from acknowledged primitives in the same language. Pezron, indeed, had before declared his opinion, that the Greek, Roman, and Celtic languages, had one common origin; and our great antiquary, Lhuyd, had coincided with him.

Doctor Malcolm, however, in a publication many years previous to either, says, "I have enquired

Ee 3
Macpherson.

quired into the sources, and traced up the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Greek, and Latin languages, and find they may receive a great deal of illustration from the ancient languages of Britain, more especially, the ancient Scotch or Irish." Nor does a late learned writer in reality disagree with him. He only contends, that the form and structure of the Celtic tongue are remote from the Greek; the Celts changing the beginning of nouns in many inflexions, while the Greeks uniformly change the end. What we now call the Celtic, indeed, says he, is half Gothic, owing to

the Belgæ, Danes, and Norwegians being mixed with all the Celta of France and Britain; but, especially in the Highlands of Scotland, where the Celtic is the most corrupt, because the Norwegians were possessors of the Hebrides and western coasts, from the reign of Harold Har fagre, about 880, till so late as 1263.

*Pinkerton.

LET

LETTER LXXIV.

COURT DE GEBELIN gives a list of about eight hundred words radically the same in the Greek and in the Celtic languages; and the latter he terms Pelasgic. The old Celtic, indeed, seems to have been the most generally spread language of Europe, and to have continued so, until through length of time and place, and intermixture with the Scythians and other nations, it split into a great variety of dialects, which still however retain the filial marks of their original parent. The Celtic does not appear to differ much from the Scythiac, says a very able writer; the Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldaic, Greek, Latin, &c. one would be apt to conclude to be merely dialects of the same tongue.*

As we shall hereafter find, there is a strong resemblance among the several Gothic dialects, so I think it will be equally evident, that they are radically dissimilar to those of Celtic origin. Had these two languages ever had any pretenEe 4 sions

• Universal History.

sions to be considered as congenial, the further we traced them back the stronger would be the resemblance between them; but the most ancient exemplars appear as utterly dissimilar as the most modern. Here and there, indeed, a word may have been accidentally caught up on either side, or perhaps adopted by each of thèm, from some third language, radically different from them both. In short, if they must be ad mitted, though I am far from subscribing to the doctrine, to be streams from one common fountain, it must be allowed, that one or both of them have been greatly polluted in their course, and received large inlets from some other channels.

The Cambrian, or ancient British languages, for instance, namely, the Welsh, Armoric, and Cornish, I can readily believe to have been Celtic; and I can conceive the same of the very early Irish. But, beyond this I do not feel myself warranted to go. Even the ancient name Gael, Galic, which has made such a noise, and which has so eagerly been contended for, does not seem to have been used by the natives of Gaul themselves, but to have been given them by foreigners they called themselves Celtæ, and their language Celtic; in like manner as the in

habitants