(Vol. ix., p. 136.)
Mr. Crossley seems to confine the word Celtic to the Irish branch of that dialect. My notion of the words iosal and iriosal is taken from the Highland Gaelic, and the authorised version of the Bible in that language. Let Celtic scholars who look to the sense of words in the four spoken languages, decide between us. There can be no doubt of the meaning of the two words in the Gaelic of Job v. 11. and Ps. iv. 6. In Welsh, and (I believe) in bas-Breton, there is no word similar to uim or umhal, in the senses of humus and humilis, to be found. In Gaelic uir is more common than uim, and talamh more common than either in the sense of humus; and in that of humble, iosal and iriosal are much more common than umhal.
It is certain that Latin was introduced into Ireland before it reached the Highlands, and Christianity with it; and therefore, as this word is not found in one branch of the Celtic at all, and is not a very common word in another, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it is of Latin origin. The sense which Mr. Crossley declares to be the only sense of iosal and iriosal, is precisely that which is the nearest to the original meaning of low, and low as the earth; and this is also the sense which humilis always bears in classical Latin, though Christianity (which first recognised humility as a virtue, instead of stigmatising it as a meanness) attached to it the sense which its derivatives in all modern Romance languages, with the exception of Italian, exclusively bear.
Now Mr. Crossley has omitted to notice the fact that umhal in Gaelic, and, I believe, umal in Irish, have not the intermediate sense of low and cringing, but only the Christian sense of humble, as a virtuous attribute. It seems natural that if uim and umal were radical words, the latter would bear the some relation to uim, in every respect, which humilis does to humus, its supposed derivative. But unless humus be derived from χάμαι (the root of χθὼν and χθαμαλὸς), how does Mr. Crossley account for the h, which had a sound in Latin as well as horror and hostilis, both of which retain the aspirate in English, though they lose it in French? If Mr. Crossley will tell me why horreur and hostile have no aspirate in French, I will tell him why heir, honour, and humour have none in English, though humid (which is as closely connected with humour, as humidus is with humor) retains the aspirate.
These Celtic etymologies, however, though amusing, do not touch the main point, which is simply this: the usual mode of pronouncing the word humble in good English society. What that is, seems to be so satisfactorily shown by your correspondent S. G. C., Vol. viii., p. 393., that all farther argument on the subject would be superfluous.
E. C. H.
PHOTOGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE.
Improvements in the Albumenized Process.—Your expectation of being soon able to announce the successful manufacture of a new negative calotype paper, will, I am sure, be gladly received by many photographers, and especially by those who, like me, have been subjected to much disappointment with Turner's paper. For one sheet that has turned out well, at least half-a-dozen have proved useless from spottiness, and some sheets do not take the iodizing solution evenly, from an apparent want of uniformity in the texture of the paper, which causes the solution to penetrate portions the moment it is laid on the solution. Undoubtedly, when it does succeed, it is superior to Whatman's, but this is not enough to compensate for its extreme uncertainty.