Τα μεν by Greek writers, and their distaste for barbarous names and fondness of euphony cannot be denied; for even Bryant, whose whole system is founded on similar etymologies, observes, — “ This was the standard [the Greek language] to which every thing was brought; and, if they met with any names that would not abide the trial, they deemed them barbarous, and entirely omitted them. Strabo fairly confesses that this was his way of proceeding; Ου λεγω δε των εθνων τα ονόματα τα παλαια, δια την αδοξίαν και άμα ατοπίαν της εκφορας αυτων. The ancient historian Cephalaon says the same; Εμοι δε ἡ γραφη τι τερπνον, η τι χαριεν εμελλεν ἕξειν ονομακλήδην ανευ πράξεων βαρβαρων φωνοεντι τυραννους, δειλους και μαλακες CapCapous. On this account Josephus was afraid to mention the names of the persons who composed the family of his great ancestor, Jacob, lest they should appear uncouth to the nice ears of his readers ; ουν ονοματα δηλωσαι τουτων ουκ εδοκιμαζον, εδοκιμαζον, και μαλιστα δια την δυσκολιαν αυτων. The Latin writers were less licentious in this respect; but, had both they and Greek authors been anxious to preserve the correct pronunciation of proper names, it would have been impossible for them to have effected this purpose: because no two alphabets, particularly those of Europe and Asia, contain precisely the same sounds; and, consequently, had a writer been capable of conquering the almost insuperable difficulty of accurately ascertaining the proper pronunciation of foreign words, he could not have expressed it in the characters of his own alphabet. In modern times it is only necessary to take the work of even a well informed traveller, in order to be convinced of the absolute impossibility of correctly preserving the exact sound of foreign proper names. Men and places, also, often receive names from strangers which are perfectly unknown to the language of the inhabitants; and thus any etymology founded upon them proceeds on an assumption totally erroneous.† up * Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology, 8vo ed. vol. vi. p. 39. I am aware that Bryant made this complaint, because he could not convert the unfortunate names preserved by Greek writers into good Hebrew; but it will be found equally impossible to make them good Celtic. If the reader wishes for examples, he may consult the works of Bochart, Bryant, and Faber, passim. The following instance may be sufficient: -"We find, then, that the title Until, therefore, it is proved that the proper name was actually used by the inhabitants of the country to which it is supposed to belong, and that the pronunciation has been correctly preserved, or, what would be preferable, until the name itself is produced written in its proper characters, no certainty of its genuineness can possibly exist. I admit, at the same time, that could the word be identified without violence with one of any known language, it might deserve attention; and that a number of such words would be a strong presumption that, in the country in which they had occurred, this particular language must have prevailed at some time or other: but, when there is no evidence whatever to evince that the people, to whose speech the name is alleged to belong, ever occupied the country in which it is found, it must be obvious that, unless its identity is rendered apparent by mere comparison with its supposed etymon, the correctness of the etymology is much too questionable to be admitted. That the Celtic etymologies, however, cannot stand this simple test, is singularly exemplified, with respect to comparatively modern times, in the difference of opinion that exists between Dr. Jamieson and Mr. G. Chalmers relative to the origin of the Picts. For Dr. Jamieson observes, -"A writer of great research has, indeed, lately attempted to show that all the names of the Pictish kings are British. The names of the Pictish kings, he says, have NOT ANY MEANING in the Teutonic, and they are, therefore, Celtic. They are not Irish, and, consequently, they are British. Here I must make the same observation, as before, with respect to the topography. I cannot pretend to give the true meaning of these names, as there is no branch of etymology so uncertain as this; but, if I can give a meaning, Samarim, or Semiramis, did not relate to one person but to many; and it seems particularly to have been usurped by princes. The Cuthites settled about Cochin and Madura, in India; and the great kings of Calicut were styled the Samarim even in later times, when these countries were visited by the Portuguese and English!"- An. Anc. Myth. vol. iii. p. 144. But such a word as Samarim, or Zamorin, is unknown in the Malabar language. I may, however, add, that both Mr. Bryant and Mr. Faber mention that Brahma is called Pra japati, that is, the Lord Japhet; but the word is Praja-pati, i. e. progeniei dominus, and one which is at least as probable as the other, it must appear that the TEUTONIC, as far as names can go, has as good a claim to the royal line of Picts as the BRITISH."* "Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites: " but, having carefully examined the two lists, I may be permitted to observe that the Teutonic is just as probable as the Celtic etymology, and that this example fully proves that the etymology of is mere folly.† proper names As, therefore, neither history, nor language, nor even the desperate resource of etymology of proper names, supports in the slightest degree the Celtic hypothesis, it must necessarily follow that it is totally groundless. The Celts, consequently, however mortifying to their lofty pretensions it may be, must acquiesce in the justness of this remark of Mr. G. Chalmers:-" Yet were not the aborigines of Europe, who, in subsequent ages, acquired the name of Celta, any where found in large assemblages. While Asia and Africa show several * Dissertation on the Scottish Language, prefixed to Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary, p. 35. Dr. Jamieson had before observed," Candour requires that it should be admitted, that the Celtic dialects seem to excel the Gothic in expressive terms of a topographical kind. The Celts have, undoubtedly, discovered greater warmth of fancy, and a more natural vein for practical description, than the Gothic or Teutonic tribes; their nomenclatures are, as it were, pictures of the countries which they inhabit; but, at the same time, their explanations must be viewed with reserve, not only because of the vivid character of their imagination, but on account of the extreme ductility of their language, which, from the great changes it admits in a state of construction, has a far more ample range than any of the Gothic dialects. Hence, an ingenious Celt, without the appearance of much violence, could derive almost any word from his mother tongue. Our author has very properly referred to Bullet's Dictionnaire in proof of the great variety of the Celtic tongue, for any one who consults that work must see what uncertain ground he treads on, in the pursuit of Celtic etymons."- Ibid. p. 12. It will be observed that I have not employed such etymologies in these Researches ; but, had I availed myself of the licentious rules laid down by Celtic etymologists, I could have converted, without much trouble, every proper name that I met with in ancient writers into very good Persian or very good Sanscrit. Whether the value of this work may have been diminished by this forbearance I must leave the reader to decide; but it has certainly deprived me of an opportunity of showing what seems considered to be both ingenuity and erudition. examples of empires vast and flourishing in the earliest times, we only see, among the Celts, clans disconnected from habit, and feeble from disunion. At the recent period when the Romans entered Gaul, with whatever design of revenge or conquest, that extensive country, the appropriate seat of the Celtic people, was cantoned among sixty tribes, who were little united by policy, and still less conjoined by the accustomed habits of natural affection. Wherever we turn our inquisitive eyes on the wide surface of Europe, we look in vain for a Celtic empire, however the Celtic people may have agreed in their language, in their worship, and in their customs.”* That the Celts were a primitive. people is sufficiently established by their language, but that they were the aborigines of Europe is a point which can neither be proved nor disproved: were it, however, admitted, the non-existence of genuine Celtic words in any one language of Europe, must irresistibly demonstrate that the Celts were anciently dispossesed of the greatest part of the country which they may have once occupied, by a perfectly distinct race of men. This very argument, therefore, evinces that the present inhabitants of Europe are not the descendants of the Celts, and that they did not receive from them their languages, manners, and religion. With regard, also, to the languages of Asia, I may adopt the words of Davis in the Preface to his Dictionary, after substituting the word nullam for manifestam : "Ausim affirmare linguam Britannicam (Celticam), tum vocibus, tum phrasibus et orationis contextu, tum literarum pronunciatione, nullam cum orientalibus habere congruentiam et affinitatem." The Celtic, therefore, when divested of all words which have been introduced into it by conquest and religion, is a perfectly original language: but this originality incontrovertibly proves that neither Greek, Latin, or the Teutonic dialects, nor Arabic, Persian, or Sanscrit, were derived from the Celtic, since these languages have not any affinity whatever with that tongue. Chalmers's Caledonia, vol. i. p. 6. 86 CHAP. VII. THE GREEK LANGUAGE. THE remarks contained in the two preceding chapters will, perhaps, have evinced that it is not from the unknown Scythian or the rude Celtic that the most copious, the most expressive, and the most harmonious of languages derives its origin: but, though the beauty and perfection of the Greek language is universally admitted, still Mr. Mitford merely expresses the general opinion, when he observes that “the origin of the Greek nation from a mixture of the Pelasgians, and possibly some other barbarous hordes, with colonies from Phenicia and Egypt, seems not doubtful."* If, however, the cause assigned be inadequate to produce the alleged effect, its existence may be reasonably questioned. As, therefore, experience proves that a barbarous people must speak a barbarous tongue, and as no attempts are made to explain the manner in which the rude speech of a mixed people, consisting of Pelasgians, barbarian aborigines, Phenicians, and Egyptians, was refined into that homogeneous and polished language by which the poems of Homer are distinguished, it may be justly concluded that the real descent of the Greeks is a point which still remains undetermined. Its investigation, also, is impeded by the deference which is no doubt due to the opinions of ancient writers; but it must be recollected that these authors themselves avow that the subject is involved in the greatest obscurity, and that the memory of events prior to the Trojan war had been preserved solely by tradition. † It History of Greece, vol. i. p. 20. + Diodorus Siculus observes that "some writers have rejected the ancient fables (μλyas), on account of the difficulty of discussing them," and acknowledges that his first six books contain the deeds and fables which occurred previous to the Trojan war: (lib. i. c. 24.) but Thucydides makes the same remark with respect to the events which took place prior to the Peloponnesian war,—“ For, before this," observes he, "it is impossible |