.'38 



and Ptolemy, to caU Ireland a British inland; tlieuce insinuating 

 that its inhabita,nts were Britons. Tacitus ^'^- seeuis to confirm the 

 inference in his account of this island : ' the soil, climate, manners, 

 and genius of the inhabitants differ little from those of Britain.' 

 He has imaccountably omitted the mention of language ; but, tlie 

 affinity nou- subsisting between the Irish and Welsh, after the 

 lapse of ages, is a proof that the Gaulish or British language was 

 then spoken in Ireland. Time has in every tongue, and particu- 

 larly in unwritten ones, produced so considerable a change, that 

 tlte present descendants of any nation could not, Aom the mere 

 knowledge of modern tongues, understand the primitive languages 

 of their respective forefathers. Consequently, the ancient language 

 of Gaul, which M. Pezron too hastily assumes to be that of Ar- 

 morica and Wales, must have undergone a similar destiny be- 

 fore the 6th century ; and, as the Cornish, now a dead lan- 

 guage, and the Armorican, have since that period been consi- 

 derably altered from that of Wales and from each other, it is 

 not wonderful, that the Irish, which had been introduced into 

 this island before the Incarnation, should have suffered a still 

 greater change. Yet, compared with the present Welsh, the 

 roots and collocation of words approach much nearer than a 

 linguist, judging by the great interval of time, could reasonably 

 suppose ; and the idioms and accent have a still nearer affinity. 

 The relation between some words is very remote ; between 

 others very manifest, as it appears from the few I quote from 

 Baxter's Glossary. 



96. 24. ' Solum coelumque & ingenia cultusque hominum haud multum a Britannia dif- 

 ferunt.' 



