The arguments of pp. 86-87, resting as they do upon the close relationship between the ancient language of Gaul[24] and the British--would be materially impaired by any thing which subtracted from the evidence in favour of that relationship. Now the present Welsh and the present Armorican of Brittany are languages that are very nearly mutually intelligible. And as the Armorican represents the ancient Gallic, and the Welsh the ancient British, the affinity between the two old tongues must have been, at least, equal to that between the two new ones. But what if the Armorican do not represent the ancient Gallic, but be merely so much Welsh or Cornish transferred to Brittany in the fifth century? In such a case the argument is materially weakened. Now there is a certain amount of statements to this very effect, viz., to the Welsh origin of the Armorican. Let them be examined. Gildas, who mentions the rebellion of Maximus, says nothing of any British migration to Brittany. Nennius gives us an account beset with inaccuracies, being to the effect that Maximus the seventh _imperator_ in Britain, left the island with all the British soldiers it contained, killed Gratian King of Rome, and held rule over all Europe; that he would not dismiss the soldiers who went with him, but gave them lands in Armorica or the country _over-sea_ (_Ar-mor_-); that, then and there, these soldiers of Maximus slaughtered all the males, married the females, and cut out their tongues lest the children should learn the language of their parents instead of that of their conquerors. For this reason we call them _Letewicion_, or, _half-silent_ (_semi-tacentes_). Thus was Brittany peopled, and Britain emptied; so that strangers took possession of it. Beda's account is equally unsatisfactory. The Britons were the first who came into the island, and they came _from_ Armorica. It was _from_ Armorica that they came, it was in the south of England that they landed, and it was they who gave the name to the island. Now there is an error somewhere--if not in Beda, in Nennius; if not in Nennius, in Beda. Traditions are uniform, inferences vary; and when Nennius brings his Armoricans from Cornwall, and Beda his Cornishmen from Armorica, we have a presumption against a _tradition_ being the basis of their statements. The real basis was the existence of the British language on both sides of the Channel, a fact which being differently interpreted by the different writers gave us two separate and contradictory inferences--each legitimate, and each (for want of further _data_) wrong. The present similarity, then, between the Welsh and Armorican remains unaffected by the statements of Beda and Nennius; and the commonsense inference as to the latter language representing the ancient Gallic takes its course. V. _The Belgæ were Kelts of the British branch._