support of my argument, and not his. The first is from the Gothic,
and is substantially a word implying "possessions," older than the
oldest European living languages. "Riches" is most unquestionably
in its original acceptation in our language a noun singular, being
identically the French "richesse," in which manner it is spelt in our
early writers. From the form coinciding with that of our plural, it
has acquired also a plural signification. But both words "have been
adopted bodily into the language," and thus strengthen my argument
that the process of manufacture is with us unknown.

Your correspondent is not quite correct in describing me as putting
forward as instances of the early communication between the English
and the German languages the derivation of "news" from "Neues," and
the similarity between two poems. The first I adduced as an instance
of the importance of the inquiry: with regard to the second, I
admitted all that your correspondent now says; but with the remark,
that the mode of treatment and the measure approaching so near to each
other in England and Germany within one half century (and, I may add,
at no other period in either of the two nations is the same mode or
measure to be found), there was reasonable ground for suspicion
of direct or indirect communication. On this subject I asked for
information.

In conclusion, I think I observe something of a sarcastic tone in
reference to my "novelty." I shall advocate nothing that I do not
believe to be true, "whether it be old or new;" but I have found that
our authorities are sometimes careless, sometimes unfaithful, and
are so given to run in a groove, that when I am in quest of truth I
generally discard them altogether, and explore, however laboriously,
by myself.