CHAPTER IV.
OF CERTAIN UNDETERMINED AND FICTITIOUS LANGUAGES OF GREAT BRITAIN.
[§ 191]. The languages mentioned in the present chapter claim their place on one ground only,—they have been the subject of controversy. The notice of them will be brief. The current texts upon which the controversies have turned will be quoted; whilst the opinion of the present writer is left to be collected from the title of the chapter.
The Belgæ.—By some these are considered a Germanic rather than a Celtic tribe; the view being supported by the following extracts from Cæsar:—"Gallia est omnis divisa in tres partes; quarum unam incolunt Belgæ, aliam Aquitani, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua Celtæ, nostra Galli, appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus inter se differunt. Gallos—a Belgis Matrona et Sequana dividit."—B. G. i. "Belgæ ab extremis Galliæ finibus oriuntur."—B. G. ii. "Quum ab his quæreret, quæ civitates, quantæque in armis essent, et quid in bello possent, sic reperiebat: plerosque Belgas esse ortos a Germanis, Rhenumque antiquitùs transductos, propter loci fertilitatem ibi consedisse; Gallosque, qui ea loca incolerent, expulisse; solosque esse qui patrum nostrorum memoria, omni Gallia vexata Teutones Cimbrosque intra fines suos ingredi prohibuerunt."—B. G. ii. 4. "Britanniæ pars interior ab iis incolitur quos natos in insulâ ipsâ memoriâ proditum dicunt: maritima pars ab iis, qui prædæ ac belli inferendi causa ex Belgio transierant."—B. G. v. 12.
[§ 192]. The possibly Germanic origin of the Belgæ, and the Belgic element of the British population, are matters which bear upon the question indicated in [§ 10], or that of the Germanic influences anterior to A.D. 449.
They have a still more important bearing, the historian over and above identifying the Belgæ with the Germans, affirms that what applies to the Belgæ applies to the Picts also.
Now this is one of the arguments in favour of the doctrine exhibited (and objected to) in pp. [124]-127, and the extent of questions upon which it bears, may be collected from the following quotation:—"A variety of other considerations might be mentioned, which, although they do not singly amount to proof, yet merit attention, as viewed in connexion with what has been already stated.
"As so great a part of the eastern coast of what is now called England was so early peopled by the Belgæ, it is hardly conceivable that neither so enterprising a people, nor any of their kindred tribes, should ever think of extending their descents a little farther eastward. For that the Belgæ and the inhabitants of the countries bordering on the Baltic, had a common origin, there seems to be little reason to doubt. The Dutch assert that their progenitors were Scandinavians, who, about a century before the common era, left Jutland and the neighbouring territories, in quest of new habitations.[[29]] The Saxons must be viewed as a branch from the same stock; for they also proceeded from modern Jutland and its vicinity. Now, there is nothing repugnant to reason in supposing that some of these tribes should pass over directly to the coast of Scotland opposite to them, even before the Christian era. For Mr. Whitaker admits that the Saxons, whom he strangely makes a Gaulic people, in the second century applied themselves to navigation, and soon became formidable to the Romans.[[30]] Before they could become formidable to so powerful a people, they must have been at least so well acquainted with navigation as to account it no great enterprise to cross from the shores of the Baltic over to Scotland, especially if they took the islands of Shetland and Orkney in their way.
"As we have seen that, according to Ptolemy, there were, in his time, different tribes of Belgæ, settled on the northern
extremity of our country: the most natural idea undoubtedly is, that they came directly from the Continent. For had these Belgæ crossed the English Channel, according to the common progress of barbarous nations, it is scarcely supposable that this island would have been settled to its utmost extremity so early as the age of Agricola.
"There is every reason to believe, that the Belgic tribes in Caledonia, described by Ptolemy, were Picts. For as the Belgæ, Picts, and Saxons seem to have had a common origin, it is not worth while to differ about names. These frequently arise from causes so trivial, that their origin becomes totally inscrutable to succeeding ages. The Angles, although only one tribe, have accidentally given their name to the country which they invaded, and to all the descendants of the Saxons and Belgæ, who were by far more numerous.
"It is universally admitted, that there is a certain national character, of an external kind, which distinguishes one people from another. This is often so strong that those who have travelled through various countries, or have accurately marked the diversities of this character, will scarcely be deceived even as to a straggling individual. Tacitus long ago remarked the striking resemblance between the Germans and Caledonians. Every stranger, at this day, observes the great difference and complexion between the Highlanders and Lowlanders. No intelligent person in England is in danger of confounding the Welsh with the posterity of the Saxons. Now, if the Lowland Scots be not a Gothic race, but in fact the descendants of the ancient British, they must be supposed to retain some national resemblance of the Welsh. But will any impartial observer venture to assert, that in feature, complexion, or form, there is any such similarity as to induce the slightest apprehension that they have been originally the same people?"[[31]]
It is doubtful, however, whether Cæsar meant to say more than that over above certain differences which distinguished the Belgæ from the other inhabitants of the common country Gallia, there was an intermixture of Germans.
The import of a possibly Germanic origin for the Belgæ gives us the import of a possibly Germanic origin for—
[§ 193]. The Caledonians.—A speculative sentence of Tacitus indicates the chance of the Caledonians being Germanic:—"Britanniam qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenæ an advecti, ut inter barbaros, parum compertum. Habitus corporum varii: atque ex eo argumenta: namque rutilæ Caledoniam habitantium comæ, magni artus, Germanicam originem adseverant."—Agricola, xi.
The continuation of the passage quoted in § 193 has induced the notion that there have been in Britain Spanish, Iberic, or Basque tribes:—"Silurum colorati vultus, et torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispania, Iberos veteres trajecisse, easque sedes occupâsse fidem faciunt."—Agricola, xi.
As this, although an opinion connected with the history of the languages of Great Britain, is not an opinion connected with the history of the English language, it is a question for the Celtic, rather than the Gothic, philologist. The same applies to the points noticed in [§§ 136]-138. Nevertheless they are necessary for the purposes of minute philological analysis.
[§ 194]. As early as the year A.D. 1676, an opinion was advanced by[[32]] Aylett Sammes, in a work entitled Britannia Antiqua Illustrata, that the first colonisers of Ireland were the merchants of Tyre and Sidon. In confirmation of this opinion the existence of several Eastern customs in Ireland was adduced by subsequent antiquarians. Further marks of an Eastern origin of the Irish were soon found in the Gaelic dialect of that country. Finally, the matter (in the eyes at least of the national writers) was satisfactorily settled by the famous discovery, attributed to General Vallancey, of the true meaning of the Carthaginian lines in Plautus.
In the Little Carthaginian (Pœnulus) of the Latin comic writer Plautus, a portion of the dialogue is carried on in the language of Carthage.
That the Punic language of Carthage should closely
resemble that of the mother-city Tyre, which was Phœnician; and that the Phœnician of Tyre should be allied to the language of Palestine and Syria, was soon remarked by the classical commentators of the time. Joseph Scaliger asserted that the Punic of the Pœnulus differed but little from pure Hebrew—"Ab Hebraismi puritate parum abesse."
Emendated and interpreted by Bochart, the first ten lines of a speech in Act v. s. 1. stand thus:—
1. N' yth alionim valionuth sicorath jismacon sith
2. Chy-mlachai jythmu mitslia mittebariim ischi
3. Liphorcaneth yth beni ith jad adi ubinuthai
4. Birua rob syllohom alonim ubymisyrtohom
5. Bythrym moth ymoth othi helech Antidamarchon
6. Ys sideli: brim tyfel yth chili schontem liphul
7. Uth bin imys dibur thim nocuth nu' Agorastocles
8. Ythem aneti hy chyr saely choc, sith naso.
9. Binni id chi lu hilli gubylim lasibil thym
10. Body aly thera ynn' yss' immoncon lu sim—
The Same, in Hebrew Characters.
נא את עליונים ועליונות שכורת יסמכון זאת׃
.1
כי מלכי נתמו׃ מצליח מדבריהם עסקי׃
.2
לפורקנת את בני את יד עדי ובנותי׃
.3
ברוח רב שלהם עליונים ובמשורתהם׃
.4
בטרם מות חנות אותי הלך אנתידמרכון׃
.5
איש שידעלי׃ ברם טפל את חילי שכינתם לאפל׃
.6
את בן אמיץ דבור תם נקוט נוה אגורסטוקליס׃
.7
חותם חנותי הוא כיור שאלי חוק זאת נושא׃
.8
ביני עד כי לו האלה גבולים לשבת תם׃
.9
בוא די עלי תרע אנא׃ הנו אשאל אם מנכר לו אם
.01
Six lines following these were determined to be Liby-Phœnician, or the language of the native Africans in the neighbourhood of Carthage, mixed with Punic. These, it was stated, had the same meaning with the ten lines in Carthaginian.
The following lines of Plautus have, by all commentators,
been viewed in the same light, viz. as the Latin version of the speech of the Carthaginian.
1. Deos deasque veneror, qui hanc urbem colunt,
2. Ut, quod de mea re huc veni, rite venerim.
3. Measque hic ut gnatas, et mei fratris filium
4. Reperire me siritis: Di, vostram fidem!
5. Quæ mihi surruptæ sunt, et fratris filium:
6. Sed hic mihi antehac hospes Antidamas fuit.
7. Eum fecisse aiunt, sibi quod faciendum fuit.
8. Ejus filium hic esse prædicant Agorastoclem:
9. Deum hospitalem et tesseram mecum fero:
10. In hisce habitare monstratum est regionibus.
11. Hos percunctabor, qui huc egrediuntur foras.
Guided by the metrical paraphrase of the original author, Bochart laid before the scholars of his time a Latin version, of which the following is an English translation:—
Close Translation of Bochart's Latin Version.
1. I ask the gods and goddesses that preside over this city,
2. That my plans may be fulfilled.—May my business prosper under their guidance!
3. The release of my son and my daughters from the hands of a robber.
4. May the gods grant this, through the mighty spirit that is in them and by their providence!
5. Before his death, Antidamarchus used to sojourn with me.
6. A man intimate with me: but he has joined the ranks of those whose dwelling is in darkness (the dead).
7. There is a general report that his son has here taken his abode; viz. Agorastocles.
8. The token (tally) of my claim to hospitality is a carven tablet, the sculpture whereof is my god. This I carry.
9. A witness has informed me that he lives in this neighbourhood.
10. Somebody comes this way through the gate: behold him: I'll ask him whether he knows the name.
To professed classics and to professed orientalists, the version of Bochart has, on the whole, appeared satisfactory. Divisions of opinion there have been, it is true, even amongst those who received it; but merely upon matters of detail. Some have held that the Punic is Syriac rather than Hebraic, whilst others have called in to its interpretation the Arabic,
the Maltese, or the Chaldee; all (be it observed) languages akin to the Hebrew. Those who look further than this for their affinities, Gesenius[[33]] dismisses in the following cavalier and cursory manner:—"Ne eorum somnia memorem, qui e Vasconum et Hiberniæ linguis huic causæ succurri posse opinati sunt; de quibus copiosius referre piget."
The remark of Gesenius concerning the pretended affinities between the Punic and Hibernian arose from the discovery attributed to General Vallancey; viz. that the speech in Plautus was Irish Gaelic, and consequently that the Irish was Carthaginian, and vice versâ. The word attributed is used because the true originator of the hypothesis was not Vallancey, but O'Neachtan.
The Gaelic Version.
1. N 'iath all o nimh uath lonnaithe socruidshe me comsith
2. Chimi lach chuinigh! muini is toil, miocht beiridh iar mo scith
3. Liomhtha can ati bi mitche ad éadan beannaithe
4. Bior nar ob siladh umhal: o nimh! ibhim a frotha!
5. Beith liom! mo thime noctaithe; neil ach tan ti daisic mac coinme
6. Is i de leabhraim tafach leith, chi lis con teampluibh ulla
7. Uch bin nim i is de beart inn a ccomhnuithe Agorastocles!
8. Itche mana ith a chithirsi; leicceath sith nosa!
9. Buaine na iad cheile ile: gabh liom an la so bithim'!
10. Bo dileachtach nionath n' isle, mon cothoil us im.
In English.
1. Omnipotent much-dreaded Deity of this country! assuage my troubled mind!
2. Thou! the support of feeble captives! being now exhausted with fatigue, of thy free will guide to my children!
3. O let my prayers be perfectly acceptable in thy sight!
4. An inexhaustible fountain to the humble: O Deity! let me drink of its streams!
5. Forsake me not! my earnest desire is now disclosed, which is only that of recovering my daughters.
6. This was my fervent prayer, lamenting their misfortunes in thy sacred temples.
7. O bounteous Deity! it is reported here dwelleth Agorastocles.
8. Should my request appear just, let here my disquietudes cease.
9. Let them be no longer concealed; O that I may this day find my daughters!
10. They will be fatherless, and preys to the worst of men, unless it be thy pleasure that I should find them.
From the quotations already given, the general reader may see that both the text and the translation of Plautus are least violated in the reading and rendering of Bochart, a reading and rendering which no Gothic or Semitic scholar has ever set aside.
[§ 195]. The hypothesis of an aboriginal Finnic population in Britain and elsewhere.—A Celtic population of Britain preceded the Germanic. Are there any reasons for believing that any older population preceded the Celtic?
The reasoning upon this point is preeminently that of the Scandinavian (i.e. Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian) school of philology and ethnology.
Arndt, I believe, was the first who argued that if the so-called Indo-European nations were as closely connected with each other as they are generally considered, their separation from the common stock must have been subsequent to the occupation of Europe by some portion or other of the human species—in other words, that this earlier population must have been spread over those areas of which the Indo-Europeans took possession only at a later period.
That the divisions of such an earlier population were, at least, as closely connected with each other as the different members of the so-called Indo-European class, was a reasonable opinion. It was even reasonable to suppose that they were more closely connected; since the date of their diffusion must have been nearer the time of the original dispersion of mankind.
If so, all Europe (the British Isles included) might have had as its aborigines a family older than the oldest members of the Indo-European stock; a family of which every member may now be extinct, or a family of which remains may still survive.
Where are such remains to be sought? In two sorts of localities—
1. Parts beyond the limits of the area occupied by the so-called Indo-Europeans.
2. Parts within the limits of the so-called Indo-Europeans; but so fortified by nature as to have been the stronghold of a retiring population.
What are the chief parts coming under the first of these conditions?
a. The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Scandinavian and Slavonic areas, i.e. the countries of the Laplanders and Finnlanders.
b. The countries beyond the Indo-Europeans of the Iranian stock, i.e. the Dekkan, or the country of those natives of India (whatever they may be) whose languages are not derived from the Sanscrit.
What are parts coming under the second of these conditions?
a. The Basque districts of the Pyrenees, where the language represents that of the aborigines of Spain anterior to the conquest of the Roman.
b. The Albanians.—Such the doctrine of the continuity of an ante-Indo-European population, from Cape Comorin to Lapland, and from Lapland to the Pyrenees. There is some philological evidence of this: whether there is enough is another matter.
This view, which on its philological side has been taken up by Rask, Kayser, and the chief Scandinavian scholars, and which, whether right or wrong, is the idea of a bold and comprehensive mind, as well as a powerful instrument of criticism in the way of a provisional theory, has also been adopted on its physiological side by the chief Scandinavian anatomists and palæontologists—Retzius, Eschricht, Niilson, and others. Skulls differing in shape from the Celtic skulls of Gaul, and from the Gothic skulls of Germany and Scandinavia, have been found in considerable numbers; and generally in burial-places of an apparently greater antiquity than those which contain typical Celtic, or typical Gothic crania. Hence there is some anatomical as well as philological evidence: whether there is enough is another question.