must give the same sound to e, e, and 7; it being the Pelasgic, as of all the continental nations. In Irish writings of more modern date, this diphthong is disused, and e long or ae substituted for it. It will be found that it shared the same fate with the Greeks and Romans, the former using y, generally circumflexed, and the latter e long, and sometimes when it should be aspirated je or ye.

A 1. Ath, oth, uth; adh, odh, udh;
Genit. aoth, aodh, uidhe, fire.

2. abh, or aph, obh, ubh; Gen.
aobh, uibhe.

3. ach, och, uch; Gen. aoch, eoch, uiche.

In form 3. the Irish use g as well as c. B. 1. Ar, air, a stone. It changes in composition to 2. er, 3. ir,

4. or, 5. ur.

If any one should consult a dictionary for the purpose of verifying these words, he will find in O'Reilly's book, ath, a kiln, and athan, fire. This is undoubtedly a mistake, and athan is, obviously, the derivative, the kiln. His mistake is the more inexcusable, since he translates adhan, assuredly the same word as athan, a caldron. A similar derivative from A. 2 is obhan, proved a derivative by the English word oven, which is exactly the same word, bh being sounded as v. Also from A 3, there is Auchen, Goth, and Ugen, Swed. (Wachter in Ofen).

In seeking for ar, he will find art only. But t is certainly adventitious to this word-is a suffix-as proved by a multitude of words in which it is found in composition, as in cahir, a wall of stone, arneamh, a whetstone, williair, a stone pit, or quarry, &c.

The radical A. 1 is found in the Greek aïow, aitho, I burn; and in the English, heat, hot. A. 2. is found in avo, auo, I burn, and in the English derivative oven. A. 3. in dvyǹ and in several others, which we shall now pass over. It is obviously the root of the Latin focus.

The radical B. 1, 2, seems to have changed its signification in the Greek pa, the Roman terra, and the Ger manic erd, ert, earth; the Roman being formed from the original B. 2, by prefixing t, the German by suffixing it, as in the Irish, art, Such changes of signification are not unusual and indeed it is a greater wonder that a word should not vary

its signification, after a lapse of ages, and in distant countries, than that it should. The Irish big signifies little; gealloch, certainly the same word as yeallow, yellow, is white; and vuidhe, evidently the same as white, yellow; breac (black) is speckled, and dearc (dark) red. But there are abundant proofs that the Irish have preserved the original Pelasgic sense of the word ar.

Aristotle, de Part. Animal. 1. 3. c. 7. says that there should be in the body of animals, an éoría, a fire place or kitchen, for cooking the food for the sustenance of the body. That accordingly, the heart supplies the heat, and the liver concocts the food. Lactantius, as may be seen in Faber's Thesaur. Art. Jecur, compares the liver to an hearth. It is curious that the original framers of the Pelasgic and Celtic languages had theories of this sort, for we shall find that they denominated both heart and liver from hearth stones. Indeed the antients must have been well acquainted with the form, anatomy and functions of those organs, from the minute observations made upon them in sacrifices for the purpose of divination.

Combining together the genit. of A. 1. with B. 1 and 4, we get aotha, aothor, literally the stone of the fire. This latter word is to all intents the same as the Greek hrop, and would be exactly so written now (hetor) by the Irish.

Inverting these roots (the nominatives) we get arath a fire-stone. This by contraction becomes heart and hearth, h being added to the latter for distinction-sake.

The radical ar takes the prefix c and becomes car, cor, as in the well-known derivative carog, corig, carock, a rock. The word cor, compounded with A. 1. gives coradh, and by contraction cord, the original form of the Latin cor, as appears from its genitive or patrius

casus.

The form caradh gives by a like contraction the Greek kapdiá, card-ia, and κpadia, crad-ia. So that both those forms are equally original.

There is another less usual form of the genitive aodh, viz. aoidh. This, compounded with car, gives, by contraction, craoidh, which is the modern Irish for the heart.

Joining together A. 2. and B. 1. we

get aobhar, aophar. The latter of these is identical with rap, hepar, the liver. Also, compounding A. 3. (genit.) with B. 4 and 5, we get aochor, eochur, whence jecor, jecur. As alhan, obhan are derivatives from alh and obh, so achan, genit. aochan, is a derivative of och. Joining this with B. 4. we get aochanor. Accordingly the Latin language has jecinor and jocinor, for the liver.

Abhar, compounded of A. 2. (Nom.) and B. 1. taking the common prefix c, becomes chabar. So, there is Helbon and Chelbon, Harran and Charran &c. This is the Hebrew for the liver. The Hebrews borrowed this word, among many others, from those whom they conquered and in return, the Hebrew became the language of the Phonicians, as the Saxon of the Britons, &c.

The ancient gutturals and aspirates have been silenced in almost all modern languages, as in the English yacht, fought, &c. The French have not only banished the sound but the form also. Suppressing the guttural in ogher, (by putting y for g, as we, in year from gear, yard from gard, &c.) composed of A. 3. and B. 2. and prefixing the usual f, we get foyer, an hearth, and omitting r for distinction-sake, foye the liver. Les François l'appellent foie, parceque, comme dit du Laurens, c'est le foyer, ou li cuisine, ou se cuit, et prepare le sang. Furet. Dict. Univ. Prefixing c, (as in the Phoenician word adopted by the Hebrews,) to aodhar, compounded of A. 1. (Genit). and B. 1. and 5. we get caodhar, caodhur. This by suppressing the aspirate, as before, becomes cœur, the heart, in French. Hence we may justly conclude that caodbar was the form used, if not by the Franks, by the ancient Gauls.

The modern Irish cut off the last syllable of aodhar, and use aodh, aedh only for the liver. This is undoubtedly an abuse of language.

The radical obh, ogh, taking the prefix 1, becomes lobh, logh. These forms are recognized in our wordbooks. From logh, lugh, was made lux, λúxvos, &c. and Loge, the name of the Scandinavian god of fire. The

genitive of lobh is laobh, laoibh. This latter compounded with er (B. 2.) gives liver, the triphthong aoi being sounded as ee. The Saxons deified

the radical, much more poetically thạn the Scandinavians-Loue.

With aruth, which may signify the heart, or liver, or both, join the Latin inseparable spex, and you have aruthspex, whence by contraction haruspex. Specio and spen are not without their radicals in the Celtic.-The transferring the aspirate from the middle and end of all those words to the beginning is very remarkable. The same takes place in the Irish. Thus the Irish call and write a hill near Dublin, Hedar, properly written aouhar, so named, on account of the cromlec or hearth-stone on one of its summits. In the Danish language, varying from the Pelasgic pronunciation, it was called Hoather, Hothr, whence it is now called Hoatb by the Anglo Irish. We know that the Romans gave the radical B. 2 the prefix t in terra. This would change aocher to aochter, plural aochtra. The Romans would change this to extra, and, for distinction sake, exta. They used x for the Pelasgic guttural, making from erogh erux, logh lux, righ rex, oireach, a chieftain or prince, orix ap. Cæsar, &c. We need no longer be puzzled to account why things within (entrails) were expressed by a particle (ex) denoting things without.

The Greek x is supposed by Valpy (a distinguished philologer) and others to have been a guttural. But probably it had not that rude, guttural sound of the German and Irish gh and ch, when they end a syllable. Asx never ended a word, it probably never ended a syllable, even when followed by μ, which is the only case of any difficulty. It is remarkable that in the names of the Ptolemaic geography of Ireland neither

nor x are to be found, although gutturals abounded in the originals. Thus from roboghd was made Robogdii, a name synonymous with Silures, and of the same import with Daln'aruidhe, or Harudes, which followed it. Of lovepvis, the name of the city which gave name to the country, every vestige remaining in the locality indicates the original to have been Igherin." I have fancied that, when

* I have strong reasons for concluding that the consonant of Aλovíwv Albion was also mistaken-that the original was Almhuin, not Albhuin, of the same meaning and roots as Aleman.

the Gauls were located in Britain, and thence called Wallish (Gaulish) by the Saxons, now Welsh, and the Britons transplanted into Gaul, these latter called the largest of the adjacent islands by this very name, Igherin, whence the Normans made Guerns-ey. The only ancient n tice of this island is in Anton. Itiner. where, according to D'Anville, the correct reading is Sarmia.

I have been led to think that the author of this part was some Greek of Marseilles, who had lived so long in the country as to be conversant with the language.. The Greeks certainly avoided the harshness of the guttural in the compound last mentioned by prefixing σ to x, i. e. by converting it into a sort of x (for ask the vulgar Irish say ar) like the Romans, making oxap a, an hearth, from the Pelasgic aogher, eghar, the same.

You will perceive, Mr. Urban, that these radicals, and their compounds above mentioned, form component parts of the names Hetr-urii, Hetrusci, M arub-ii. These latter, a people of the Marsi, were much addicted to religious ceremonies, like the former, Æneid. vii. 750. But I must reserve these for a future occasion, as well as the analysis of the names Tyrrheni, Tyrseni, Tusci, and Marsi, since they require the laying down two other radicals, which would extend this letter to too great a length.

I shall now set down two other derivations from one of those roots, to show that the variation of the vowels is Pelasgic, and that we were right in making athan the derivative. Our word-books give fes, a mouth. Join this with aobh, the genitive of abh, and you have vesev-us, a mouth of fire, Georg. ii. 224.

"vicina Vesevo

Ora jugo." Join it again with uibh, the genitive of ubh, and you have Vesuvius. The plural of athan, a furnace, is aithneÆtna, plural, because there are several craters or furnaces, Georg. i. 472.

-"ruptis fornacibus Ætnam." The vulgar are in the habit of substituting the oblique cases, one for the other, and for the nominatives, in all languages. There are some ugly things of this sort still remaining in the English pronouns, though denounced by

the grammarians. The Irish dictionaries are full of errors of this kind. Aschan, a corrupt word of this sort, would have for its plural aschn. This would be pronounced Hecna, which was corrupted to Hecla by the Norwegians. Iceland, when first visited by the Norwegians, in the ninth century, had, according to their own accounts, a few straggling inhabitants who spoke the Irish language. The craters of Iceland are innumerable; see Barrow. We need not be surprised at this change of letters by the Northerns, seeing that the Italians did exactly the like, making Palermo from Pænormus, and the Greeks Airpov from virpov. The Danes of Ireland found a difficulty in pronouncing a similar n, and so changed Liumenach to Limerick. So the French alter London to L ndres.

The regular achan would have aichne for its plural. This would serve very well for the original of Hecna and Hecla. But I think the corrupt form is the more probable origin. Indeed, the Norwegians probably had this word in their own language, since the Goths had auchen, and the Swedes ugen, synonymous with ofen and oven, as Wachter tells us.

The f in fes is a prefix. The original is es, and our word-books give this letter, with the metaphorical meaning of "food." Of es we have the remains in oliw, esca, es, est, esum, &c. from edo. Of fes in vescor, &c. festus, feast. It is evident that es is literally of the same sense as 08; therefore it is probably the same word, on account of the usual interchange of the vowels, as in illi, olli; genu, yóvu; vester, voster; versus, vorsus, &c. If so, the r of the genitive is a corruption, introduced in order to distinguish the cases of this os, from those of os, a bone; and Ath-os, fire mouth, would have the very same meaning

and roots as Vesuvius.

The radical consonant is, for the most part, preserved in the derivative, But it, as well as the radical quantity, sometimes falls a sacrifice to some convenience. Thus the radical r of hnap, preserved in the inflexions of the corresponding Latin word jecur, gave way to t, for the preservation of analogy, as in peap, dekeap, wespap, &c.

It is not improbable that es and fes

are the originals of éoria and Vesta, the rather as they may have taken the common suffix t. If so, Vesta must have been a very ancient and venerable goddess, presiding over the cooking and eating department. We can hence get a glimpse at the reason why it was so important to preserve the fire unextinguished, and why the vestal virgins were punished for neglect by starvation.

We have seen that the English word love signifies fire or flame. Let us inquire how the Greeks and Romans denominated that passion. The seat of love was supposed by some ancients to be the liver, as appears from Horace's ulceret jecur. It has been most generally supposed to be the heart. Now ἔρωτ, the original of ἒρως (as appears from the genitive) compounded of B 2, and the second form of A 1, may stand for either of those organs. In fact, it is the same word as the English heart; eroth, erath, heart. Amh is another form of the radical A, and hence amor is evidently descended from the same ancestry. So, at the present day, instead of "my love,' 'my heart" is used by lovers.

The form amh will not be doubted by those who see that the words ham, hag, and hoff, are used in the several Germanic dialects to stand for an house. These words are, in fact, our very radicals, used metaphorically. Thus in an English survey of Ireland (I think Petty's) instead of the number of houses in a district, is set down the number of "smokes." The Irish words for house are also those very radicals, but diversified by prefixes, damh, teagh. The former of these two will remind the reader of domus, and δῶμα.

It would appear from the above that ἐράω is the derivative from ἔρως, not the latter from the former. This accords with a conclusion that I had long ago come to, viz. that in the origin of languages the nouns were framed before the verbs (which, if I recollect right, is contrary to Lord Monboddo's theory) because the verbs, intimating actions, could be expressed, without words, by gestures. Thus the Egyptian hieroglyphics are a sort of primitive language. The figures depicted are necessarily of things, substantives, and the chief difficulty of decyphering the meaning, consists in finding out the

P. S. It may be necessary to add a word to obviate objections founded on the more modern pronunciation of these words, which suppresses not only the gutturals, but even all the aspirated consonants, as the French language does, except in a few words borrowed from the Greek. But the more ancient pronunciation is not to be measured by this standard. Thus, in Halliday's translation of Keating's Ireland, in which the names are written as now pronounced, Aruidhe, the name of a district in Antrim, is written Arry. But the more ancient pronunciation is still preserved in the name of that region, which is Routs or Roots, and Bede calls a fictitious personage, supposed to give name to it, Reuda. So, the word Brighan, Brighand, the old orthography, as appears from some inscriptions, is now not only pronounced but written Brian. Yet this was the name from which the Romans made the British, and Ptolemy the Irish Brigantes. The Britons too, subsequently, suppressed this guttural, and hence the Brians and Bryants of England. The French have done the like in this word, having changed their Brigantia to Briançon, while the Spaniards retain the g in Braganza, and the Germans in Bregenz. So, also, the word aodhar, hedar, above, would now be pronounced hehir. But Ptolemy calls an island near Dublin Hedri, a slight mistake of the text, or perhaps a contraction for Hedar-i, i.e. Hedar-island. Hoath is now a peninsula, separated from the main land by a very narrow and low isthmus, and was probably once an island. But this is uncertain, since peninsulas were called islands, by the Irish, as by the ancient Greeks. I, now written ey, and pronounced ee, is found still attached to islands in that neighbourhood, as Lamb-ey, Dalk-ey. So Angles-ey.

Memorials of the Order of the Garter, from its Foundation to the present Time; with Biographical Notices of the Knights in the Reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. By George Frederick Beltz, K.H. Lancaster Herald. Royal 8vo. pp. ccxxiv. 440. IT is with very great pleasure that we welcome the appearance of this long expected volume; which, though it comes as a substitute for a design once promising to be more extensive and therefore more important, is still a contribution of high value to the substantial and authentic history of some of the most illustrious characters that have graced the English annals. It is now many years since Mr. Beltz first announced a History of the Order of the Garter and of its Knights. The difficulties of the task, when executed with the care and research that he has expended upon it, have now induced him to limit the memoirs in the present publication to the knights elected in the reigns of the Founder and his successor. He says,

"Our researches and collections were adapted to a much later period; but the time which we have been able to devote to the pursuit, has proved insufficient for the completion of that branch of our original plan. We are but slightly consoled by the reflection that our distinguished predecessors, Ashmole and Anstis, experienced a similar disappointment,-and for the same cause, namely, the difficulty, almost insuperable, of adequately supporting by coetaneous testimony the narratives and assigned dates of transactions belonging to the early part of our history; and without which a compilation of this nature would be comparatively of little value."

Mr. Beltz commences his preface by a warm testimony to the merits of Ashmole, who presented his Commentaries on the Order of the Garter, the result of a research commencing some years before the restoration of the monarchy, to the Sovereign and Knights in chapter in 1674:

"Clear and precise is the classification GENT. MAG, VOL. XVI.

of the several subjects of which they treat; they have left nothing to be desired for all purposes of reference upon points affecting the laws and ceremonies of the Order, from its foundation to that time."

Ashmole, nevertheless, failed in making his lists of the early Knights complete or correct in chronology, and subsequent editors have not attempted to improve it, being content with appending the modern additions to the series. Mr. Beltz's recapitulation of the errors in so illustrious a catalogue is, indeed, not a little surprising. In the first place, Ashmole mistook the persons of two of the founders of the order, Grey and Audeley: and during the three first reigns, there are the following discrepancies observable in

his list:

"Under that of Edward III., the names both of Sir Fulk and Sir William Fitzwarine are inserted; but the former, although a very distinguished commander in the wars of that period, was not honoured with the Garter.

"Richard Fitzalan earl of Arundel, and Sir Thomas Felton, are incorrectly comprehended within that reign; they having been elected by Richard II.

"Henry Percy the first earl of Northumberland, William Ufford second earl of Suffolk, Thomas Holland second earl of Kent, and Thomas Percy earl of Worcester, are wholly omitted; whilst William Beauchamp lord Bergavenny, Sir Thomas Granson, and Sir Robert Namur, who were elected during the reign of Edward III. are placed under that of Richard II.; and Sir John Sully, called "Sulby," who had been also elected by the royal Founder, is numbered among the Knights chosen by Henry IV.

"Under the sovereignty of Richard II., the names of Michael de la Pole earl of Suffolk, Sir Robert Knolles, and Sir Robert Dunstanville, are given; but there exists no evidence that they were Knights of the Order.

"Richard lord Grey is stated to have been chosen by Richard II.; but was in fact admitted into the Order under the reign of Henry IV. Robert de Vere duke of Ireland, Sir Henry Percy, called "Hotspur," Thomas le Despenser earl of Glou

H