|
As I promised, I will
give you some opinions concerning the Celts, about whom people
dispute so much. The Gaels are certainly a part of that people,
whether they are from Scotland, Ireland, or the Isle of :Flan, and,
excepting those who have emigrated from these islands, there exists
no Gaelic speaking people elsewhere; but they are only a part of the
great people called Celts. The opinions as to the Celts are so
numerous that you would be tired of the word if I ventured to tell
you half, and so various and so wild have some of these notions been
that the holders have been called Celtomaniacs. There is scarcely
any other class of language or people that has such a following, so
you have a proof of the interesting character of both. I have known
Celtomaniacs and may quote some of their opinions : for example, I
have been told by one that Gaelic was spoken in Paradise; and that
if you do not allow a child to hear a language it will of itself
speak Gaelic. There are milder forms; if you derive Hebrew from
Gaelic, or such names as Nile, Nineveh, Nimrod, Sabbath, Abraham,
Sarah, and Babylon from Celtic, then I think you are a Celtomaniac.
When you say it is spoken among the Berbers you are one; and some
will say that it will apply also to those who bring the Greek from
it, and I agree with them. But when we come nearer here we are
obliged to be more cautious; for example, who will say that the
Latin did not to a great degree rise from or along with the Celtic.
There are different degrees of mania, and here we may begin to be
cautious. After all who were the Celts? In the time of the Roman
kings some of them came to the north of Italy, and they made
incursions far south into Italy. They stayed a while among the
hills, but how long we do not know, and how many of their people
they left behind them we do not know. They troubled the Etruscans,
who lived south of the Cisalpine Gauls, and they broke through the
Etruscan territory to Rome. It is said that they were all driven
back; but the Romans knew little of Italy in early times, and the
hills close to them were inhabited by strangers, perhaps Celtic. The
Celts had, if not all Gaul, at least most of it; apparently all the
present France except the extreme south-west possibly. North-east
Gaul was Belgic, and probably the Belga, were a mixed population of
Celts. Switzerland, at least the part called Helvetia, was Celtic,
and the inhabitants made incursions into Germany, so that Celtic was
spoken in some parts there, and it is said even, in some parts, down
to the Middle Ages. Germans and Celts fought with each other about
the Rhine, as they have done in our day. Spain also had Celts; how
far mixed we do not know. And probably all Britain and Ireland were
Celtic in Caesar's time, so far as the speech was concerned. Celts
also are said to have peopled Galatia, and there is a saying of St.
Jerome that he had heard the same language there as in Treves. (Dr.
Karl Wieseler has endeavoured to show that the language was German.
This does not oppose the theory here.) Celts appear to have at one
time overrun Asia Minor, and there are some reasons for supposing
them to have appeared in North Africa.
Now, I have read
numerous and wearisome opinions, and have looked carefully for
little phrases that would show the Gauls or some class of Celts to
have been in Italy, as far south as Rome, before the reputed
building of that city; but it is not easy to prove it by quotations
from historians, and I wish to search a wider field. It seems to me
that the similarity of language speaks decidedly of a connection
between Rome and Gaul, and tends to show that Latin was Gaulish to
begin with, then tinctured by the Greek of Magna Grxcia. It in time
developed itself in its own method, by its own character, derived
perhaps from the Tuscans and various tribes of Italy. (I have just
time to insert a note calling attention to "Vorgeschichte Rums, by
Johann Gustav Cuno. Erster Tell, Die Kellen. Leipzig. Teubner,
1878," which came to me when this was passing through the press. The
general conclusions are like mine, but my mode of reasoning is
different. Mine were obtained without the minute study of the many
different languages spoken of in the volume alluded to.)
But, again, what are
Celts or Kelts? I must tell you that the reason for writing the K
instead of the C is not so good as many imagine. We obtain C from
the Latins; if we pass the Roman empire and go back to the Greek for
our words, we must make a great change. But we must not be bigoted.
We say king and kingly, and we think it right at times to say regal,
it has something of Roman majesty about it; but we never say
basileus or basilikos, it is a step too far back. If we go eastward
we may next meet some Phoenician dialect, and say melck instead of
king.
At what stage did the
Italians soften their C! why do we pass beyond this period without
even knowing where it is?
The question now is,
who are the Celts? Philologists can tell us only that they are those
who speak Celtic. This is so far a very good definition. What is
food ? It is that which people eat, is a question with an analogous
answer; it is a proof of ignorance, but there is much of this
reasoning adopted for want of better, and I fear it is that which I
must also adopt. The Celts are said by Caesar, Tacitus, and others
to have been red or light haired, and to have had blue eyes; others
say they had dark hair; now I have come to the conclusion that we
must not trust merely to the ancient campaigners.
We know what errors
travellers make, and how necessary it is to have statements sifted
in all branches of history, and to do this we must attend to the
contradictions of different historians. For old times we have too
few to trust to, and their knowledge was too limited. Let us look at
the countries over which Caesar went, and those of which Tacitus
wrote, and take into consideration the great influx of Germans into
Europe, and Franks enough to give a name to old Gaul, also Normans
giving one to a province of France, and we feel surprised to see
that the usual French are not at all like Germans, and that their
appearance is as different as their language and their character. I
believe, whatever ancient historians may say, that France, as a
rule, retains its old races, whilst the old tales of destruction are
mostly boastings of the conquerors or melancholy moanings of the
conquered. Now we see chiefly black hair in west France, and blonde
in Germany. Of course some will say that hair changes. Why has
Germany not changed, why have England, Sweden, Norway, Italy, and
Spain, not changed? This argument cuts both ways. We know of no time
when dark hair prevailed in the former, or light as a rule in the
two latter countries.
If we go to Ireland,
a true land of the Gaelic, we find both red hair and dark, and the
native records speak of a yellow-haired race, a brown-haired and a
dark-haired. In the Highlands of Scotland there is the same
diversity, the dark preponderating, notwithstanding the influx of
the light; but complete statistics have not been taken. In Wales the
same thing is found. Spain, Portugal, and Italy have all dark hair;
we may except some of the northern Italians, where the invaders were
very numerous. In short, if you look at the Celtic countries—i.e.,
countries in which Celtic was spoken in old time, or is spoken
now—or countries on the continent called Celtica, you find a
predominance of dark hair, and, notwithstanding invasions, this
holds good also on the islands.
As to the question of
hair changing, I will not say that it is a trifling one. Fair-haired
children become dark-haired as the nervous system becomes more
active. Take Germans with fair hair into the town, and dark hair
increases as the busy life of the town strains the nervous system. I
wait for this to be confirmed by the statistics now being collected,
but I myself have counted in German town churches a great
preponderance of dark hair, and this is a very fair way of taking
statistics; so whatever the greater result may be, I know the truth
of some cases to be as I say, and this I concluded many years ago.
However, I know of no rural light-haired population becoming
dark-haired, although I do not say that it is impossible.
The argument then is,
that the nations alluded to who arc dark-haired to a great extent
now, were dark-haired to an equal or greater extent when the
earliest writers spoke of them ; we know no influx of dark-haired
people to change them. If that be the case, the Celts of the early
time must have been dark haired to a great extent, and the
assertions of several historians must be wrong. It may certainly be
a daring thing to tell Ceasar that we know better than he did the
appearance of a Celt.
Instead of writing
this, I might almost quote an article by Dr. Beddoe in the Journal
of Anthropology, 1870, wherein he shows with remarkable clearness
the dark character of the hair of all those countries now Celtic,
and Celtic in the Imperial Roman time. There still remains a
difficulty, namely, the fact that several historians ascribe to them
light hair. Dr. Beddoe explains some of this by the contrast which
the Romans, accustomed to black hair, would find in men who had not
black but such as we should call dark hair,,whilst they appeared to
the Romans light. (Dr. Beddoe has brought his arguments so fully and
fairly that had I seen the article in time I should have relied on
it solely, although my own opinions are of long standing on this
point.) A curious sentence in Stanley's Journey Across Africa
illustrates this; having long been accustomed to black faces he
looked on the faces he first met at Bemo, in the west of Africa, as
exceedingly pale, whereas they were rather of an olive complexion.
Another mode of
surmounting the difficulty has been adopted of late. This affirms
that Celts and Teutons are all one race; they are all Aryans, and,
therefore, we require no more to account for differences in them
than in private families. The argument that all are one would seem
at first a powerful one. Men, for centuries, have spoken of the
differences, and now, suddenly, the word is passed that there are no
differences. We like, when we understand a subject, to enter into
full detail, to examine it by the aid of every department of
physics, to look into it with the microscope when our own eyes are
deficient, to send back reflections from history, when the present
is not enough, and to reason with the utmost subtlety over every
detail: but when we can come to no sound conclusion it is pleasant
to dash the whole aside, or to cut it like the Gordian knot, and to
determine that, if possible, no man shall solve it if we cannot. But
this mode of acting will not settle the Celtic question. The Gordian
knot was destroyed, but the Celtic question remained unaffected by
the sword.
Although a few men of
high position have attempted to carry the careless view alluded to,
it has not been possible to darken the eyes of historians generally
to the great question. The Celts, that is, the people in countries
which have been or are Celtic, have not been and are not of the same
race as the Teutons in any useful sense of the word. It is wonderful
what difference there is between the dark Frenchman and the light
German, between the small and dark Irish, the descendants, according
to one authority, of the Firbolgs, and the same great smooth-skinned
and fleshy Teuton. It is marvellous, too, how they differ in
character. This difference is proverbial, and has been so for ages,
one may say; to this clay it is plain to all who have had any
acquaintance with both. It is true that we have the same difference
in Ireland itself, both in appearance and character, that is, we
hear of Milesians with brown hair invading the country, and Tuatha
de Danann with light hair, and it is clear, therefore, that Ireland
had, in the earliest known times, a mixed population. In those times
there was no attempt to prove that the dark, small, and mean were of
the same race as the brave, large, and noble, because it would have
been simply absurd, and it has been left for bolder men of our day.
There was a class, low and degraded in character, another generous,
open, and such as bards could admire and sing of The one small and
dark, the other large and light We must, therefore, distinguish
between these and name them differently since they are different ;
to call them the same is passing those boundaries to which I, for
one, confine myself.
It is clear, then,
that in earliest times men recognized the difference of races, and
that in some Celtic countries the races were mixed, and so mixed
that the ignorant people of the time could recognize the difference.
Even now these various peoples and others also may be recognized to
some extent, although some do say that the MIilesian race has gone
out.
The people of the
Celtic lands were not one, and who can tell the exact character of a
Celt? One may ask, is the Celtic character in one section of the
mixture only? We cannot shew this, they are not now sufficiently
kept separate, but there is a character obtained by the union of
all. This does not deny that there may have been a definite and
uniform character of body and mind which originally gave rise to the
name Celt.
We may suppose, then,
that it is scarcely worth proving that Celt and Saxon are not the
same, reasoning and feeling, body and mind, are different.
Literature, which is the outcome of the inner soul of a people, is
remarkably so, and that of the Celts has a peculiar character, such
as never has been found among Teutons.
It is scarcely worth
while alluding to things so well known. To prove them all requires a
considerable time. Now, for example, let us take the last and the
most important—the spirit of people in their literature. I shall not
trouble you by bringing the arguments forward, they would be very
numerous, but I should advise any one interested to read the
literature of Ireland, after being pretty well acquainted with that
of England and of Europe; and if the peculiarity of this most Celtic
of all literatures is not visible, then, of course, this argument
fails more than expected.
Read Dr. Beddoe's
accounts, and examine his tables of the eyes and hair of Celtic and
Teutonic nations, and see if that argument fails.
It is very difficult,
indeed, to remove a population. The boundaries of the Celtic remain
in some places in this island, the same, to a few yards, as they
were centuries ago. I speak with consideration when I say yards,
meaning by this a small portion of a mile. The Comte de Villemarque,
as quoted by Dr. Beddoe, says that the boundary line has been the
same for French and Breton for four centuries; how much longer is
not known. I shall mention a similar case in Scotland—one may say
that Britain has an example extending all the length of Wales and
north Scotland.
It may be said by men
who seek a flaw that the argument only proves that light people and
dark exist in a peculiarly Celtic country such as Ireland, whilst
there arc also light and dark people in the peculiarly Teutonic
countries.
At first a
loosely-constructed opposition like this sounds well, but we cannot
travel in France or Germany without seeing remarkable differences
such as are striking to the most careless, and when we enter into
details and take the statistics that have been prepared, the result
is certain that there is a majority dark in the one and light in the
other.
Here I can imagine
some one saying, It has been abundantly proved that an Aryan race
has peopled Mid-Europe, the languages, with slight exception, being
closely allied, and to upset such a well-established theory will
require another generation, even if the arguments for the theory are
not good, but on the other hand they appear incontestable.
This I believe to be
a fallacy which has caused much error. I am not aware of any proof
of a purely Aryan race existing anywhere, neither do I know that any
one has shown what an Aryan race really is. There certainly is no
proof that such a race ever fully peopled Europe, but there are
abundant proofs that it never did so in any known epoch. To have
such a result we must put the dark-faced hillmen of Italy and the
plain-dwellers of Holland and Schleswig into the same category,
although they are as different to ordinary observation as negroes
and Chinese. We must bring in the Spanish and the Portuguese with
the Slav and the German. The Welsh and the Norman become one
although so different in type, and the Irish of all kinds, long
recognised as different by themselves, and as coming from different
countries, must be called one. Character goes for nothing in this
mode of arguing, as nearly all the characteristics known to us from
India to Portugal, with some slight exception, are thrown into one.
The shapes of the head are not considered the broad, square Roman
one, the long Anglo-Saxon, and the Irish are all one. This is merely
to cease observing. Of course, I am willing to say that all men are
one, but there are differences, and it is convenient to call these
by. names, the word race being very well chosen for the purpose.
Whenever two peoples cannot be found to have distinctions we may
call them of one race.
It may, however, be
asked whether I am intending to deny all the conclusions obtained by
comparative grammar, and the results which indicate not only a
similarity of language among nations in India and Europe, but a
certain identity in many points of thought and tradition. This is
not my intention. So far as I see, it is proved that an Aryan
language has spread from the East, and, of the whole theory of the
language and its relations, it is most interesting to learn the
important results obtained. They have been found by men who have
devoted their lives to the purpose. It is quite otherwise, however,
with the idea of an Aryan race being co-extensive with an Aryan
language, and it seems to me that many persons do not see the
difference. I have seen no proof of the spread of any one race to
such an extent as to people the Nest, and the differences already
alluded to when speaking of the Celts constitute of themselves
sufficient reasons.
There remains; then,
the old difficulty, how to account for the similarity of language or
the Aryan relationship of the languages. Whatever these difficulties
he I will not throw them all aside as trifling, and, if I cannot
account for them, I will wait for more information.
The permanence of the
boundaries of language is enough to surprise us. A German language
is found on one side of the Upper Rhine valley, although not on the
river itself, and a Celtic on the other, and this is as old as
history. The Belgians have their own German tongue, why should that
be considered to have changed its boundary more than the other? In
the little town of Nairn, in the North of Scotland, a few years ago,
I found that Gaelic was spoken in one part and English in another,
and it is said that King James I. of England made the same remark
300 years ago. I stood on the pier at Dunoon, and asked a policeman
there how far it was across to the other side, in Renfrewshire? He
said, "I do not know, I was never there." The distance was about two
and a half miles. The oldest people of Dunoon speak Gaelic now; the
people in Renfrew have spoken English for centuries, it is not easy
to say how many. The conclusion is that language is a very permanent
boundary or institution if nature helps to separate, as in this
case, or even without apparent natural boundaries as at Nairn.
When I was a boy few
people at Dunoon spoke English; now a large town exists, and all
imported people speak English; we may say the same of similar places
around, and miles of pure country district. The conclusion is that
language is not a permanent boundary. We have these two
contradictory and remarkable results from places well known.
Let us apply the
lesson to Europe. We see at Dunoon that centuries of an opposing
population never changed the boundary. Centuries under one
government did not change it, but an influx of an overwhelming
number, something like twenty or more to one of the original number,
changed the language rapidly. This would lead us to say that no
overwhelming invasions had taken place since Caesar's time, from
Germany to France or Spain, nothing to overwhelm the original
language, and yet German and Scandinavian incursions have been so
numerous that one would not have been surprised if the language had
changed to Teutonic. If we go back to Roman times, still less do we
find that enormous numbers invaded the country, so as to change
entirely the population.
It was said that all
the Celtic races are rather dark, but it was made clear that even in
the supposed most Celtic of countries—Ireland, the colour of the
hair and the character of body and mind were mixed. The dark hair,
however, was a very general characteristic, and there was the
peculiarity of speech besides.
This seems to lead to
the conclusion of a pretty general existence of a prehistoric race,
or of previous races covering the countries alluded to, and having
some similarity. If we go very far back we find men with very little
enterprise. Savage nations do not wander far; the world is small to
them, and they lock each other out by their animosities. A country
peopled in this way may have districts with many peculiarities as we
find in Africa, and if it has a sea coast it may have many strangers
coming in, but the tendency with a low civilization and similar
original habits is to an estrangement. The primitive people then
could not be the Celts in the condition in which history brings them
to Europe. When we hear of the Celts coming as invaders they are
said to have had a civilization which comprised a knowledge of the
usual metals.
But if we suppose the
historic invading Celts to be only a small portion of the total
races called Celtic, we can account for a great deal of
contradiction, one part being rude in the extreme, and the other
considerably advanced. In this way the invaders might bring a
peculiar language called Celtic and impose it, in part, on the
people. This would account for it part of the Gaelic being Aryan,
and a large part not being proved to be so. The invading people
might be light in colour, and large in stature, ruling over a
considerable variety of people inferior in weight.
This is one mode of
considering the question, but I want to bring in the Romans as
having this Celtic tongue also, and as allied to the rest of Europe.
We can do this by supposing the Celts to be only a branch of the
same people that peopled Latium at a period earlier than we hear of
the Celts in Italian history. By doing this we have to pass only a
few generations back to the legendary building of Rome, a time which
I do not doubt was one of no small commotion, worthy of many a tale
even if Romulus and Remus are thrust out. We have nothing in the
history of the Italian nations to quite contradict this, and much to
make it seem possible, whilst I would revert to my former remarks,
and look on the language as making it certain. There is also
considerable reason for looking on Celtic nations as existing in
Italy very early, but I am not ready to enter on the questions
regarding Liguria and Umbria.
It must not be
supposed that the Romans were even by this theory only Celts, or the
Celts Romans. There is a remarkable difference in their characters
and in their languages. The old Roman language has a wonderful
firmness, hardness, and definiteness. Every •word is as if shaped by
a carpenter, every sentence is like a well dovetailed box. The
sharpness of consonants is like their laws and their armies, and the
beauty is more of the reason than of the feeling. It is not easy to
find from whom the language received this characteristic; it does
not seem to be derivable from any known neighbours. The Etruscan may
have had some influence, but it is an unknown factor; or quite
possibly the peculiarity may have come from a very small knot of
men, as the true old Roman head probably existed among few. Had it
been common, the ruling class would not have been so small or so
readily worn out. One sees the head occasionally in the present day,
but if unmeasuring observation is to be regarded as enough, the old
Roman head is not the Italian head.
The strong Roman
character is in great contrast with the lighter Celtic, and was a
matter of early observation. The Celtic may be quicker and more
penetrating, but it has not the Roman grip. The languages illustrate
this well. It is remarkable how well the Romans have retained the
pronunciation of their language, even although the old Roman
strength of individual character be rare. The language has kept up
the early spirit, and the sound of the Italian is wonderfully clear
and near to the Latin as it is spelt and as in many cases it must
have been pronounced. Nevertheless there is a change such as the
pure Roman of old would certainly object to; but when we go to
France the tendency to break down a language is seen in great
vigour. One might say that the cause of this was simply the distance
from Rome and the mixture with the Celtic, and so far this may be
true, but that same inclination to degradation of firm and clear
sounds into soft, easy, and uncertain sounds is seen with remarkable
fulness in the change and loss of the consonants in the branches of
the Celtic called Gaelic.
The German has, like
Latin, little flexibility, but the way in which Latin and German
roots become hidden in Gaelic is very strange and even amusing. We
may compare them to a hard character and a soft, to an active man
and an idle, to a stern man and an easy man, and this last is the
best comparison. Hard Roman words drop lightly out of Celtic mouths,
consonants go away entirely whilst others are changed, and vowels
take a form more easily pronounced. The manner in which Latin is
broken down in Gaelic is marvellous; let us look at a few examples.
For example: liber,
a book; leabhar, pronounced lyonr in Gaelic Alb. Gladius,
a sword; claidheamh, pronounced clai. Benefactus,
Latin; beannaiglithe, Irish Gaelic, pronounced bannihe.
Tectum, a building or covering, is in Gaelic tigh,
pronounced tei, and aspirated in certain cases to hei,
Gaelic Alb.
Not only so, but
Gaelic itself decays, it has this tendency in it, and it is becoming
merely a few sighs and gutturals from its desire to soften. Gobha is
pronounced gow, although the b was pronounced in old time. Aedh, a
king, is ay; the d was certainly pronounced, as it occurs in
English in the name Aidan. Cath, a battle, pronounced ca,
although the pronunciation must have been cat, as the stones
commemorating them are called cat-stones in Lowland Scotch.
With this great
diversity of character in Celt and Roman, and the great difference
in the tendency of language, we have an undoubted similarity of
roots, and this we must closely remember. If it were merely an Aryan
similarity we might leave it ; but we believe it to show that the
flow of the two peoples westward was at the same time or nearly the
same time, and therefore that the Celts did not make their first
appearance in Europe when we hear of them frightening the Romans.
This view makes the
immediate pre-historic inhabitants of Europe diverse in appearance
and not necessarily alike in language, whilst a new language comes
in and obtains the ascendancy, not driving out the old. The invasion
of Celtic-speaking people might be succeeded by Teutonic, and the
great mixture of Teutonic roots would be accounted for, the
substratum of the people remaining little changed, or at least
changed less than the language.
Another view would
make the Celtic the prevailing language in Europe, by pressure the
Celts themselves being driven forward to become a conquering people.
This also would connect the Romans and Celts; but it is not easy to
suppose all Europe, or even West Europe and the British Isles, to
have been inhabited by one people, and then invaded in historic
times by such a diversity of races as to cause the present
differences, and the languages made similar by invasion. I prefer to
make them diverse beforehand. The languages, if diverse, as I think
probable, would have an Aryan similarity introduced, either by the
historic Celts, or by previous invaders from the East. The original
very old substratum would supply the diversity in the language not
proved to be Aryan.
Beyond these modes of
reasoning it is difficult to go. If we do go we are apt on one side
to suppose the Celtic element to grow into Roman with a rapidity
quite incredible, and to fall into other great difficulties.
We may put the reasoning in fewer words.
1st. We may suppose a
dark-haired race all over Central Europe and Britain, as well as
much of Italy, with an uniform Aryan language ; whilst incursions of
various tongues to different spots changed it.
2nd. We may imagine a
diversity of people over the present Celtic Europe—not forgetting
Rome—with a diversity of languages, these being invaded by Celts who
imposed much of their language and by Germans who imposed some also.
There are many other
alternatives; but these two account for a great diversity of
appearance in the people. In the first case the diversity would be
produced by various mixtures made in long periods among a widely
extended substratum with one language. In the second the languages
and people may both have been different, but the newer race coming
in produced the Celtic portion of the language, and extended it in
the comparatively known short period to all the lands alluded to.
This language is the main, perhaps only one, point- joining all
people called Celts.
Both theories account
for that which we must be prepared to admit, a great diversity of
appearance and that which may be called races or sub-races even
among Celts, and a still greater separation from the Teutons as a
great whole, notwithstanding all similarities of portions. In this
we take the Celt as he is known to us in all the fulness of the
meaning of the term, and do not confine ourselves to certain
observations of the ancients, whose words cannot weigh when
contradicted by other ancients, and cannot outweigh well known
appearances.
We cannot imagine
that, in all the long periods before history, people were so
miserable that they died off like Australians before the eyes of the
historic Celt; archeological remains seem to contradict this, and
history does not support it. If the historic Celt of one type had
driven the people out, he would have left only one type in, and one
type does not appear alone, for neither are the people one, nor is
the predominating people such as is described by Cesar for example.
That the Celt should bring one language or dialect of Aryan is
probable enough; but the remarkable thing is that it is like the
Roman. We are compelled either to bring in this language with its
speakers to join a number of people diverse in appearance, language,
and character, or to bring in the latter to join the former. The
mixture in historic times, great as it has been, by no means solves
the Celtic mystery.
This one race may
have been thoroughly Aryan, and some people may prefer to fix upon
it and give it exclusively the title of Celtic; but it is not
clearly the original idea, as the title goes over too much ground,
as has been said, and is possibly too old for the invading portion
which attacked Rome. We can, however, readily suppose the race to
have conquered far and to have Aryanized the words and thoughts of
the conquered, who were themselves being lost in the crowd. We can
account for any variety of people in this way among men called
Celts, and even for the sixty-two tribes which existed in Gaul. We
gather up all the wild pre-historic fragments of tribes, and with
every variety of face and tongue, give them an attachment to their
leaders, who are Aryan, and as much of their Aryan language as will
make them be understood whilst the diversity of dialects is also
accounted for. We account also for a brilliancy and greatness of
character in certain Celts, in contrast with the backwardness of the
race generally, in places where the true Aryan had less hold.
This is my view,
after reading many volumes.
After all, it may be
asked, how does this theory differ from that of others ? It differs,
so far as I see, from most in this, that it considers the
overpowering yellow-haired race to be the minority, whether they
brought in the Aryan language or not, and the races before them,
however old, still to be in the majority, and to differ distinctly
in mind and body from the fair, however diverse among themselves,
and united by the one language.
Note.—Enquiries now
making in Italy may enable us to speak more decidedly of the Celts
in relation to that country. See the latest "Die Italiker in Po
Ebene, by Wolfgang Helbig, 1879." |
