Chapter II: Part 2

I have evidently wounded the susceptibilities of some extreme churchman or irascible Celt, in the person of a reviewer in the _Literary World_, whose hostility is hardly explainable on the ground of mere difference of opinion. According to this disposer of events, I fall wofully short in the qualifications of one who is entitled to speak on the subject of archæology. I might, however, plead in extenuation, and in mitigation of punishment the reason given by Mr. Gladstone for upholding the verity of Old Testament Scripture, that “there is a very large portion of the community whose opportunities of judgment have been materially smaller than my own,” and that, “in all studies light may be thrown inwards from without.” I profess not to unravel the hidden mysteries of prehistoric antiquity, but simply to deal with the historical aspect of outside facts, though, as the _Saturday_ reviewer justly remarks, I must get into prehistory somewhere. Among the numerous disqualifications manifested in my treatise, I show “a very indifferent acquaintance” with “Language;” and its “twin sister, Ethnology,” of which, however, I may reasonably be presumed to know as much as my censor. Most persons who write on any subject do something to keep in touch with current facts and common knowledge. If the critic of the _Literary World_ had taken the trouble to read my book attentively, he would have found many references to what has been done by philologers and Ethnologists on whose labours he sets so much store. “As the book is in a second edition,” he condescends to inform us, he has “occupied more space than he should otherwise have done in estimating its claims to authority.” The conclusion he has reached is that I go as far astray in one direction as the Celticists do in another, an opinion which is quite within the limit of legitimate criticism. When, however, from his lofty tribune he looks down and imputes to me ignorance of what has been done by the great masters of “Language,” the Joneses, and Colebrookeses, and Bopps, and Potts, and Grimms, and Steinthals, and suggests that I do not know what has been said by such writers as Camper, Jacquart, Blumenbach, Cuvier, Prichard, Latham and Morton, not to mention the pernicious nonsense of Darwin, and the vagaries of Professor Huxley, I must be permitted to take exception. It is one thing to know what they have written, and quite another to accept their conclusions as absolute and final, considering how often we hear the most arrant nonsense solemnly propounded as the deductions of scientific investigation. It has been pointed out by a late minister of the Crown that “Newton’s projectile theory of Light” which had apparently been firmly established has given place to “the theory of undulation,” which, citing from the Virginian philosopher Dr. Smith, he says, “has now for fifty years reigned in its stead.” On this he grounds the suggestion that we should not “receive with impatience the assertion of contradictions.” On the subject of specialists we have the opinion of the same eminent individual, notable among the great intellects of the age, one who like Brougham, “has the languages of Greece and Rome strung like a bunch of keys at his girdle.” No less a personage in fact, than the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, with whom, while admiring the versatility of his genius, I differ politically, _toto cœlo_. To none of the sciences, rightly or wrongly so named, do his remarks more aptly apply than to the “Science of Language,” and its twin sister, “Ethnology.” “I have had the opportunity,” he says, “of perceiving how, among specialists as with other men, there may be fashions of the time and school, which Lord Bacon called idols of the market-place, and currents of prejudice below the surface, which may detract somewhat from the authority which each enquirer may justly claim in his own field, and from their title to impose their conclusions upon mankind.” In proof of the fluctuating and uncertain character of this so-called science Dr. Morton in regard to “certain points of primary importance found himself compelled to differ in opinion from the majority of scholars.” I believe with Bishop Percy, Dr. R. Angus Smith, and others, that the Celts and Teutons even remotely had not a common origin, but were _ab origine_ distinct races of mankind. As to _authority_ I hold that “no man is an authority for any statement which he cannot prove,” and although according to the critic of the _Literary World_, I deliver my opinions in a manner “more forcible than elegant”[5] my pretensions are exceedingly humble. “I venture to draw attention to the subject, in the hope that the matter may be taken up by some one with more time and better appliances at his disposal than I can command.” Without pretending to be “exhaustive or specially erudite” I have done the best I can to extinguish a national delusion, and I hope cannot finally, and altogether fail. If I be deficient in language, in whatever acceptation, I am in no worse position than the statesman already referred to, who maintains the truth of ancient Scripture avowedly without any knowledge of the Hebrew tongue. Language, as Lord Southesk most accurately, and pertinently points out, “is a thing that seems like a boomerang, so queer are the twists it takes, and so uncertain its returns.” Ethnology, or Anthropology--whichever its votaries choose to call it--is not, as I think, a science. It consists of the conceits and assumptions of men learned and unlearned who have reached certain conclusions, and who profess to bring back from the depths of prehistoric antiquity facts which may not be facts, or which at least we have no means of knowing to be true. The whole subject is “feeble, perplexed, and to all appearance, confused.” Many years since Mr. Hyde Clarke, at a meeting of the Ethnological Society, remarking on the utterances of Professor Huxley, suggested that, although the latter “had laid down his statements as established by men of science, there was little capable of proof.” What then is the value of a study, the results of which are as unstable as the passing vapour? It was a conception of the late Sir David Brewster, that _science_ is the only earthly treasure we can carry with us to a better state. Let us hope that if _Language_, and its _twin sister_ be among the number destined thither, they will be freed from their mundane misconceptions and uncertainties.

The Reviewer of the _Literary World_ thinks I “make a sorry jumble of races and languages. All sorts of people, and tribes, dialects, and remains, related and unrelated, are said to be Goths or Gothic,” though in dealing with my shortcomings, real or supposed, he does not always keep faith with facts. The ancient Scythians, he makes me to say, were Goths, for which the only foundation is that I cite Dr. Macculloch and Mr. Planché from each a paragraph in which the name Scythian is mentioned. “The occupiers of prehistoric lake dwellings Goths.” Precisely what I do not say. I mention the facts that “a species of combat called _holmgang_, peculiar to the old Northmen, was usually fought in a small island or holm in a lake,” and that islands in lakes were places resorted to by the Scandinavian “foude,” or magistrate, with his law officers, &c. In Iceland, the men on whom sentence of death had been passed, were beheaded upon an islet in a lake or river. I submit these facts to the candid consideration of those who are capable of judging, because if my conjecture be correct, palisaded islands were neither inhabited nor are they prehistoric. “The Caledonians, Goths; the Picts, Goths.” I was taught to believe that Pict and Caledonian are convertible terms. “The Icelanders and others were Goths.” I do not, of course, know which “others” the reviewer may have had in his mind, but the Icelanders are certainly Goths. “Sometimes,” the critic says, “Gothic appears as the equivalent of Scandinavian.” Certainly as opposed to Celtic. “And the sum of the whole matter is that ‘the Scandinavians are our true progenitors,’” which, he points out, is “the same blunder that M. du Chaillu has been dashing his head against.” All wise beyond conception! By a figure of speech a writer might be said to dash his head against a rock, but hardly I should think, against a _blunder_! It is rather odd that this captious censor should be ignorant of the fact that the quotation which he cites from my preface contains the _ipsissima verba_ of the writer of an article that appeared in _Good Words_ nearly forty years ago, by whom M. du Chaillu was anticipated, and that the same views and opinions were advocated by myself nineteen years since in the pages of _Notes and Queries._

The languages or dialects to be dealt with as regards the British islands, are few in number, and we can judge of them in an outside fashion, without the aid of Bopp, or Grimm, or Zeuss, or Steinthal. These are the Welsh of the Principality, which, roughly speaking, includes the extinct dialect of Cornwall. The Erse or Gaelic of Scotland, Ireland, and the Isle of Man. The Teutonic of the Belgae, which Prichard calls Celtic, but which we gather from Cæsar was German. At least it is a fair inference from his statement, _Belgas esse ortos a Germanis_, that they spoke some dialect of Teutonic speech.[6] The language of the Picts or Caledonians, which Skene affirms is neither Welsh nor Gaelic, but a Gaelic dialect partaking largely of Welsh forms. This, however, on the faith of Tacitus, I believe to have been Scandinavian, _rutilæ Caledoniam habitantium comæ magni artus Germanicam asseverant_. The Saxon, or earlier Scandinavian of South Britain, and the confessedly Scandinavian dialects of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Northumberland and North Britain. In point of fact only two languages, the Gothic or Teutonic, and the Celtic, or whatever else may be the structure, foundation or admixture of the dialects so named. I have elsewhere stated that “The several dialects of what has been called Celtic might be compared to so many dust heaps to which has been swept the refuse of all other languages from time immemorial,” and I see no reason to change my opinion. It will thus be seen that there is not much room to jumble either races or language. The jumble, if such there be, arises out of the confusion and obscurity of the critic’s own mind. He ridicules the idea of identifying the “Gothic _Magus_” with what he calls the “Celtic _Mac_ or _Maqui_.” I deny that _Mac_ is Celtic, and I identify it with the _Maqui_ of the Ogham inscriptions, because I think there are good grounds for believing that Oghams and runes were equally the work of the Northmen, although Lord Southesk, who has made these remains a special study, differs from me in opinion. There is certainly an uncommon outside resemblance between the two words. It is however, satisfactory to know that his Lordship is in substantial agreement with me on the main subject of my contention, the preponderance of the Scandinavian element in the British Isles. Coming to the essence of the controversy, he says, “Where I agree with you thoroughly is in the belief that the prevalence and influence of the Scandinavian races in Britain and Ireland have been largely underrated, and that much due to them has been ascribed to the various peoples commonly classed as Celts.” “One has only to look at the people inhabiting Aberdeenshire, Angus, &c., to convince one’s-self that Norse blood predominates.” I regard the questions of races, art, and culture entirely from an outside or historic view. In the face of such facts as I have adduced to continue to call _Mac_ Celtic is simply persistent dogmatism--a perverse determination to adhere _per fas et nefas_ to a foregone conclusion. The prefix _Mac_ though found in Scotch Gaelic and other dialects of the Erse, has obviously been imported thither only as a foreign term, in the same manner that the Norse word _jarl_, an earl, found its way into the Welsh. _Mac_, as I have elsewhere pointed out, occurs in the Anglo-Norse dialect of Craven, West Riding of York. It was used in the sense of _son_ by the Danes and Northmen. It occurs as a prefix to an interminable number of personal names distinctively Scandinavian, and in one form or other is found in every dialect of the Teutonic. We must “deal with the evidence before us according to a rational appreciation of its force.” “_Plaid_,” the critic, affirms, “does not exist in Moeso-Gothic.” Thomson in _Observations_ prefixed to his Lexicon, says, “Plaid, a cloke in Moeso-Gothic, was the Icelandic _palt_.” I would rather believe that the critic of the _Literary World_ does not know where to look for the word, than that the erudite private secretary to the Marquis of Hastings in India, presuming on their ignorance, sought to impose on his readers a word which he knew did not exist. Again this critic says, “Denying to another (Anglo-Saxon) a word that does (foster).” The expression is confused, but he evidently means that “foster” _is_ found in Anglo-Saxon. In the text of my treatise I say, “Neither can there be any doubt as to the Northern derivation of the word _foster_.” To this I append a footnote taken from the _Quarterly Review_, vol. 139 (1875), p. 449. “The word _foster_ is not found in Anglo-Saxon, Moeso-Gothic, or German,” and at the same time indicate the source whence my information is derived. I accepted the statement on the faith of the writer. If it does occur, it only shows how little dependence can be placed on facts adduced by literary critics even in connection with such responsible publications as the _Quarterly Review_. Another evidence of disqualification as “a writer on Archæological matters,” is that the word _Celte_ cited from the Vulgate was shown long ago by Mr. Knight Watson to be a misprint for _Certe_. The critic must indeed have been much at a loss for a peg on which to hang his hypercriticism. I hardly know why it is incumbent on me before delivering my views on the Celtic myth to know all that has been explained on collateral subjects by Mr. Knight Watson. I found neither note nor marginal reference declaratory of this gentleman’s critical acumen, or of the great service he had rendered to archæology in resolving this enigma, nor if I had should I have introduced it into my treatise. My remark in regard to the Vulgate is an incidental reference of the vaguest description on which nothing depends. To borrow the expression of an eminent individual, Would the critic of the _Literary World_ “be surprised to learn” that by a defect of information, quite as glaring as that which he imputes to me, he has entirely missed the point of my stricture which is directed against the executive of the _Society of Antiquaries of Scotland_. At page 11 of its _Catalogue of Antiquities_, printed in 1876, it is stated as the heading of a section, “STONE CELTS OR AXE HEADS.” Behind the word “Celts,” an asterisk, and underneath, a footnote corresponding thereto the explanation “Celtis, a chisel,” of all which the critic shows himself to be entirely ignorant. He mentions the Gothic word _afar_. Thomson calls it _hafar_. I can only conjecture that the critic may have first seen the light within the vibrations of certain well-known sounds, and that he habitually drops the letter _h_. In the course of my “polemic,” he thinks, I “undoubtedly score a point here and there in matters of detail.” “Thus,” he says, “he maintains what ought to be obvious enough [but which to the Celtic expositor it never is] that remains inscribed in Northern runes must be attributed to the Scandinavians.” I give, he says, “and this appears to be my _chef d’œuvre_, a very probable reading (GRIMKITIL THANE RAIST, Grimkitil engraved this) to a fragmentary inscription ( ... KITIL TH ...) on what is known as the bronze plate of Laws. And inasmuch as” that this critic “formed a similar opinion many years ago, he is bound to approve my suggestion that the old Greek and runic alphabets were derived from some common source, and not either from the other.” He is “bound to approve.” How very condescending! It is evident he does not perceive the effect of his own conclusion. If my reading of the inscription on the Laws plate be correct it involves something more than a mere matter of detail. It is the solution of a problem which has perplexed and bewildered most antiquaries of the present century, because it demonstrates the symbols of the Laws crescent plate, and those of the Scotch sculptured stones to be the work of the Scandinavians. This has long been my individual opinion, though I doubt if the critic of the _Literary World_ will make many converts among antiquaries on the other side of the Tweed. When I attempt to establish “my own peculiar views,” he says, I seem to “break down.” Are not the points on which--to borrow his elegant diction--I “score” as much my “peculiar views” as those on which he alleges I fail? “Of the Teutonic tribes, whose settlements grew into our old Heptarchy, or Octarchy, none, and no discoverable part of any, were Scandinavian proper. [This is mere arbitrary statement.] There was subsequently, of course, in certain districts, a large infusion of Scandinavian forms, proper names, &c. [What does he mean by _forms_? The Scandinavians brought their _names_ when they brought their bodies] in consequence of the invasions and settlements of the ‘Danes,’ but in spite of this, and of much more serious disturbance afterwards, our language from the Channel to the Forth, owing to its power of absorption, and assimilation, remained, and remains substantially ‘English.’” “Remained and remains substantially English.” These remarks are unanswerable, which it is said, is the happy property of all remarks sufficiently wide of the purpose. Is the language of the British nation less “English” because derived from the _Scandinavian_ rather than from the _Saxon_, two dialects of the same speech in their essential elements hardly distinguishable? If this be true--as beyond all question it is true--it demolishes utterly the bugbear which the suggestion he advocates sets up.

While accepting with becoming humility the disparaging estimate of my performance, it is not desirable that a reviewer of this character should have his say uncontradicted, though in setting myself right with those whom his strictures might have influenced, I have perhaps honoured him with too much notice. It is not a very formidable matter to cope with such an adversary.

“While these are censors, ’twould be sin to spare;
While such are critics, why should I forbear?”--BYRON.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The sonnets were originally discovered in the Monastery of the “Monks of Therfuse,” which stood on the site now occupied by the terminus of the “Glenmutchkin Railway.” They were afterwards placed for safe custody with the MSS. of Ossian.

[2] “Well-known scholars,” the _Quarterly_ says, “have shown before him, and he is justified in adopting the conclusion, that the name of ‘Saxon’ must have been loosely applied to all the pirates that scoured the Narrow Seas. We may conjecture that many crews from Scania and the Danish Isles, or from the great bay by the Naze of Norway, which gave its name to the Vikings, must have been found among the roving fleets of the fourth and fifth centuries, when the Empire was crumbling into ruins.”

[3] “The red-bearded Thor was called ‘The Englishmen’s God.’”--_Quarterly Review._

[4] I suspect these were not the savage Americans Pinkerton had in his mind.

[5] A writer who, to denote that which is without foundation, makes use of the expression “mere fudge” cannot be a very competent judge of elegance.

[6] That cannot be regarded as _science_ which based only on the uncertain hypothesis of _language_ contradicts the ascertained facts of history.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS, AND OTHERS IN REGARD TO THE SECOND EDITION OF “CELTICISM A MYTH.”

“This issue of the work, resumes in an able statement the arguments of those antiquaries who hold that the early civilization of these islands was the work, not of Celts, but of Scandinavians.”--_Scotsman._

* * * * *

“He [Mr. Roger] is on much firmer ground when he declines to believe in any art or culture that can fairly be called Celtic. The very patterns which are usually spoken of as Celtic are common on the gold work of the Mycenæan graves, which few people, we think, will now place much later than 1500 B.C. ... Mr. Roger is probably right when he claims a Scandinavian origin for the ancient claymores (two handed), for the Tara brooch, and other brooches, for stone crosses, dirk handles, and what so else is too commonly attributed to Celtic art.”--_Saturday Review._

* * * * *

“The book throughout in its many pages bears evidence to an exceeding amount of careful research, clever reasoning, and close intimacy with the subject.... Until contradicted and disproved the facts in the pages of ‘Celticism a Myth’ must carry conviction.”--_Montrose Standard._

* * * * *

“A further issue of this learned work is evidence that the arguments advanced against the pet theories of such recognised authorities as Dr. Joseph Anderson, and Dr. Daniel Wilson have aroused some commotion in the camp of archæologists.”--_Publishers’ Circular._

* * * * *

“A second edition of Mr. Roger’s argument against the prehistoric existence of a Celtic civilization, and his ‘demonstration beyond reasonable doubt,’ that the only civilization in Scotland, of which we have any knowledge, was brought there by the Scandinavians.”--_The Bookseller._

* * * * *

“It is a vigorous piece of controversy in favour of the argument that Celtic literature, and Celtic art never existed.”--_Evening News and Post._

* * * * *

“It is a book that has interested me much.”--_The Most Hon. The Marquis of Lorne, K.T., &c._

* * * * *

“Where I agree with you thoroughly is in the belief that the prevalence, and influence of the Scandinavian races in Britain and Ireland have been largely underrated, and that much due to them has been ascribed to the various peoples commonly classed as Celts.”--_The Right Hon. The Earl of Southesk, K.T., F.S.A. Scot., &c._

* * * * *

“I have long been of opinion that we owe the _whole_ of our civilization to Scandinavian, and Teutonic ancestors, and partly to Roman influence, and your very interesting volume confirms that opinion.”--_John Kirkpatrick, Esq., Advocate, M.A., Ph.D. LL.B., LL.D., Professor of History, University of Edinburgh._

* * * * *

“Bertrand gives maps shewing the course followed by the megalithic monument builders in entering Europe, and this, I think, dispels the idea of their being due to the Celts.”--_Rev. S. Baring-Gould, M.A. &c., &c._

* * * * *

“Your case is so well put, your rebutting evidence so cogent, and your reasoning so clear, that you must by this time have convinced many of your readers that ‘Celticism’ _is_ ‘A Myth.’”--_John C. H. Flood, of the Middle Temple, Esq._

* * * * *

“You have certainly dispelled my illusion as to Celtic art, and I consider you have proved your case certainly in the main, if not altogether.”--_Walter L. Spofforth of the Inner Temple, Esq._

* * * * *

“I have seldom perused a more interesting work. The whole argument is clearly stated, and most convincing.”--_Rev. George Brown, F.S.A. Scot., Bendochy Manse._

DIPROSE, BATEMAN & CO., PRINTERS, SHEFFIELD STREET, LINCOLN’S INN FIELDS.

Transcriber’s Note

In this file, text in _italics_ is indicated by underscores.

Printer’s errors were corrected where they could be clearly identified. Otherwise, as far as possible, original spelling and punctuation have been retained.