t. 1800.

Form, &c. Fast. 1801.

Form and Thanksgiving for the Harvest. 1801.

Form and Thanksgiving for putting an End to the War. 1802.

Form, &c. Fast. 1803.

Form, &c. Fast. 1804.

Form, &c. Fast. 1805.

Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving for Lord Nelson's Victory. 1805.

Form, &c. Fast. 1806.

Form, &c. Fast. 1807.

Form, &c. Fast. 1808.

Form, &c. Fast. 1809.

Form, &c. Fast. 1810.

Form, &c. Fast. 1812.

Form, &c. Thanksgiving for the Peace. 1814.

Form, &c. Thanksgiving for the Peace. 1816.

JOHN MACRAY.

Oxford.

* * * * *

{14}

CELTIC AND LATIN LANGUAGES.

(Vol. viii., p. 174.)

There was a Query some time ago upon this subject, but though it is one
full of interest to all scholars, I have not observed any Notes worth
mentioning in reply. The connexion between these two languages has only of
late occupied the attention of philologers; but the more closely they are
compared together, the more important and the more striking do the
resemblances appear; and the remark of Arnold with regard to Greek
literature applies equally to Latin, "that we seem now to have reached that
point in our knowledge of the language, at which other languages of the
same family must be more largely studied, before we can make a fresh step
in advance." But this study, as regards the comparison of Celtic and Latin,
is, in England at least, in a very infant state. Professor Newman, in his
_Regal Rome_, has attention to the subject; but his induction does not
appear sufficiently extensive to warrant any decisive conclusion respecting
the position the Celtic holds as an element of the Latin. Pritchard's work
upon the subject is satisfactory as far as it goes, but both these authors
have chiefly confined themselves to a tabular view of Celtic and Latin
words; but it is not _merely_ this we want. What is required is a critical
examination into the comparative structure and formal development of the
two languages, and this is a work still to be accomplished. The later
numbers of Bopp's _Comparative Grammar_ are, I believe, devoted to this
subject, but as they have not been translated, they must be confined to a
limited circle of English readers, and I have not yet seen any reproduction
of the views therein contained in the philological literature of England.

As the first step to considerations of this kind must be made from