The Celtic race was considered to stand apart from the whole body of the Indo-European stock until the publication of Dr. Pritchard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, which was announced in 1813, but not published till several years after. This gave a new impulse to Celtic ethnography, which has been followed up by Bopp, Pictet, and Meyer, with such success, that the affiliation of the aborigines of France and the British Islands with the great Aryan family, is almost universally admitted. The only substantial question still at issue is the period at which the Celts broke off from the common stock. That there is a connection all admit. Even their mythology is so clearly Aryan that Lappenberg has, with good reason, called the Druids the "Brahmins of the North." It is found, however, that the relation of the Celtic to the general Aryan family is by no means so close as that of the other members to each other. Their geographical position points out an earlier migration westward than can be affirmed of any other members of the family. Minute examination of Celtic philology accords remarkably with this supposition. Though a certain amount of affinity between the families in question is clearly proved, it is only by extending the limits of the Indo-European family that the Celtic can be included within it. The Celtic languages seem to be a transition stock between the agglutinated and the syllabic tongues proper. As compared with the other members of the class, it is represented to have, among others, the following peculiarities:

1. Its declension of nouns is exceedingly scanty. In the Irish alone there is found a form for the dative plural in aibhcos foot, cos-aibh=pedibus. "Beyond this," says

Latham, "there is nothing else whatever in the way of case" as found in the other tongues of the class. Even "this isolated form in question is not found, in Welsh and Breton."

2. The Celtic differs from the Indo-European class, in the agglutinate character of its verbal inflections.

In Welsh the pronouns we, ye, they, are "ni," chwyi, and hwynt. The root for love, is car. As conjugated in the plural it appears as follows:

Car-wu- -am-amus.

Car-ycham-atis.

Car-ant-am-ant.

The pronouns thus added, and forming the conjugation, are distinctly seen to be real, separate words, agglutinated, but not assimilated to the root. While this process can be traced in the more fully developed languages of the class, it can only be made clear by laborious grammatical analysis. In this we find an inflection in the process of formation, indicating that the language, and the race speaking it, broke off from the mother stock before the full development of the inflexional system had been completed.*

3. It differs by the system of initial mutations. The system of transmutation of initial consonants, which, says Dr. Charles Meyer, is "the peculiarity of the Celtic, by which that language is distinguished from all others." We have seen that the Celtic tongues are deficient in case endings. This deficiency is made up by a change in the initial letter of the noun, according to its relation to other words in a sentence. These changes follow according to a certain law, in which the euphonic and grammatical changes seem, to a certain extent, to coalesce with each other and form one consolidated system.t

We have given these illustrations of the Celtic grammatical system, to show with what completeness both the similarities and differences, between the Celtic and other members of the Indo-European family of tongues, coincide with the actual facts of history and geography. Traces of a deposit of Celtic speech which are found in Germany, Spain, and Northern Italy, show that, historically, it antedated other tongues in the occupancy of Western Europe, as much as the partial development of its inflectional system shows it to have preceded them in the time of its divulsion from the parent stock.

An hypothesis, suggested originally by Arndt, but identified with the name of Rask, who first fully developed

† See also Le Gouidec, Grammaire Celto-Bretonne, p. 13.

It was

it, deserves a passing notice in this connection. found that certain fragmentary peoples were scattered over Europe, whose languages could not be classified with any existing European tongues. These are the Lapps, Fins, Esthonians, Basques, and Skipetar or Albanians. The three first-named peoples, though differing physically to a considerable extent, were found to agree so entirely in their language, that they are considered ethnologically one stock. Taking this as a hint, Rask developed the idea that a body of people disconnected in stock and language from the IndoEuropean families were the aboriginal inhabitants of Europe, and that possibly these discontinuous areas or islands of speech were the outcropping peaks of a primitive linguistic and tribal formation. This pregnant philological hint has led the way, in a series of investigations, into the contents of ancient barrows and burial-places, resulting in a critical classification of weapons of war, utensils, and skulls, in the light and under the guidance of this single idea. The labors of Castren and others have connected the Finnic race with the inhabitants of northern Siberia. Gyarmarthi had long before this pointed out the affinities between the Finnish and the Madjar languages. Subsequent investigation has affiliated the Hungarian with the speech of the Vougouls and Ostiacks north of the Caspian sea. Students of the Basque have not, so far as we know, shown an affinity between it and the Finnish, beyond a remarkable similarity in its grammatical structure, which, like that of the American languages, is highly agglutinate or polysynthetic. The Skipetar have been probably identified with the ancient Epirotes, but their language, supposed by some to be Indo-European, still waits for its permanent classification. Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the Finnic hypothesis, it has given an impulse and direction to ethnological inquiry, in all its departments, which has already wrought out most brilliant results. Set forth and illustrated by a philologist, whose genius has rarely if ever been surpassed, it may justly be claimed as a practical contribution of philology to ethnological science.

We have already exceeded the limits proper for an article,

and have not alluded to the results of linguistic research in unravelling the complications of the ethnology of Hindostan, by separating the whole Tamil population from the Aryan tribes, evidently intrusive from the north. Nor have we referred to what we may hope in the future, in the affiliations of the barbarous hill tribes of the aborigines of India with each other, and through a series of linguistic islands extending around the north of the Bay of Bengal, with the transgangetic population of Burmah and Siam, and even with the tribes of Thibet amid the eastern spurs of the Himmalayas and the roving hordes of the high, cold plains of the central table-land of Asia. We have not spoken of the Malagasi, connected closely with Africa by location, but affiliated by language with the Malay population, three thousand miles across the Indian ocean. We have not been able to allude even to the continent of America, where the coincidences of sound philology, in the hands of Gallatin and Duponceau and their successors, have reduced the multitudinous tongues of the North American tribes to three great classes, different in vocables, but agreeing in grammatical development, and revealing even the law and the natural causes of their diversity in roots. We trust that sufficient proofs have been given to beget the conviction in a scientific mind, that comparative philology, so far from being of "no value" in ethnological classification, holds, in fact, a relation to inquiries into the physical history of man, similar to that which palæontological studies sustain to physical geology.

We had prepared a series of propositions founded in part on the preceding illustrations, and in part on facts not here introduced, giving the appropriate cautions and limitations in the use of philological inquiries in ethnology. We had designed to illustrate the manner in which the different lines of inquiry in ethnological study mutually correct and modify each other and should be made to give their concurrent testimony before any of the great questions of the science can be settled. But this design, if ever completed, must be laid aside for a future occasion.

ARTICLE II.-THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS.

BY D. GOTTHARD VICTOR LECHLER.

In the following examination we select but a single point from the comprehensive question of the relation of the two Testaments to each other. We do not, for example, consider how the apostles, as individuals or as a class, treated the old Covenant and the writings of the Old Testament; nor do we consider the position which the Evangelists, as thoughtful and independent historians, assumed toward the Old Testament, and in particular toward the prophecies, to whose fulfilment in the life of Jesus they now and then refer; but we direct our attention solely to the Redeemer, that we may ascertain His view of the Old Testament and listen to His divine word, thus obeying the command of God the Father: "Hear ye Him!"* To examine this point seems to us desirable; and the more so, because, unless we are mistaken, it has never yet been made the topic of a distinct and connected investigation. We seek at least in vain for such an investigation in writings where we might soonest expect to find it. Works on the "Life of Jesus," systems of "Christian Doctrine" and "Biblical Theology," treatises on the "Christology of the Old Testament," etc., touch upon this subject in a very occasional and fragmentary manner; the same is also true of exegetical works. Stier, to be sure, published in 1828 an Essay, which is, to some extent, parallel with our investigation; but it does not go into detail so fully as to render a new examination superfluous.

Whoever attempts to study all the discourses of Jesus in the Gospels, observing with special care their references to the Old

*Matt. xvii., 5.