diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-21 19:42:48 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-21 19:42:48 -0800 |
| commit | 953e4aeef04b2308f9e414c98c41c7f9a87f821e (patch) | |
| tree | 5734d61fe1da1265092fc89c176749d6523daa0b /old/68323-0.txt | |
| parent | 4eb8c663a8ce4a06bed0b3369a6bb40f151ec9cc (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/68323-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/68323-0.txt | 1620 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1620 deletions
diff --git a/old/68323-0.txt b/old/68323-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 961dc75..0000000 --- a/old/68323-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,1620 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Celtic mss. in relation to the -Macpherson fraud, by J. C. Roger - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Celtic mss. in relation to the Macpherson fraud - With a review of Professor Freeman's criticism of "The Viking - Age," by the author of "Celticism a myth" - -Author: J. C. Roger - -Release Date: June 15, 2022 [eBook #68323] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Thomas Frost and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team - at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CELTIC MSS. IN RELATION TO -THE MACPHERSON FRAUD *** - - - - - - CELTIC MSS. - - IN RELATION TO - - THE MACPHERSON FRAUD; - - WITH A REVIEW OF - - PROFESSOR FREEMAN’S CRITICISM - - OF - - “The Viking Age,” - - BY - - THE AUTHOR OF - - “CELTICISM A MYTH.” - - “I thought your book an imposture. I think it an imposture - still.”--_Dr. Johnson._ - -“The purposeless tortuosities of Celtic falsehood, and its most subtile - manifestations.”--_Weekly Scotsman._ - - “The received accounts of the Saxon immigration, and subsequent - fortunes, and ultimate settlement, are devoid of historical truth in - every detail.”--_J. M. Kemble._ - - “And, armed in proof, the gauntlet cast at once - To Scotch marauder, and to Southern dunce.”--_Byron._ - - LONDON: - E. W. ALLEN, 4, AVE MARIA LANE. - - MDCCCXC. - - - - - LONDON - PRINTED AT THE COURTS OF JUSTICE PRINTING WORKS - BY DIPROSE, BATEMAN AND CO. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -That portion of this tractate which relates to Celtic manuscripts and -the doings of Macpherson, was transmitted to the _Scotsman_ newspaper, -in reply to an article by Professor Mackinnon which appeared in that -journal. My communication was however returned by the editor on the -plea that he could not find room for its insertion. It was perhaps -too much to expect that a journal owned by one of the secretaries of -a Society, which had engaged the services of the Celtic Professor at -Oxford, to uphold what I call the Celtic myth, should open its columns -to one inimical to Macpherson, and utterly sceptical in regard to his -pretended translation. Mr. Mackinnon’s enumeration seems a vindication -of the antiquity of Celtic MSS. in general, and was no doubt also -projected “as a basis for more extended collaboration.” - -It occurred to me that my remarks on the Ossian MSS. might with -advantage be incorporated with some notice of Professor Freeman’s -criticism of “The Viking Age,” both tending in the same direction. One -wipes out the Celts as the pioneers of civilization, the other explodes -the Saxons as a race distinct from the Scandinavians. With this in view -I have been aiming for some time past, to put my thoughts in train for -publication, but want of time has always stood in the way. - - J. C. ROGER. - - FRIARS WATCH, - WALTHAMSTOW. - _October, 1890._ - - - - -CELTIC MSS. - -IN RELATION TO - -THE MACPHERSON FRAUD, &c. - - -My attention was lately directed to a lengthy article that appeared in -_The Scotsman_ of the 12th of last November, bearing the initials of -Mr. Mackinnon, Professor of Celtic at the University of Edinburgh, to -whom I sent a copy of my book, _Celticism a Myth_, then just issued -from the press. The article begins with a tribute to the assiduity of -the Historiographer Royal in the cause of Celtic literature; but is -plainly intended as a refutation of my statement to the effect that -“It is no longer pretended that any Gaelic poetry has been preserved -in early manuscripts,” &c. In citing the remark of Dr. Irving it was -certainly not my intention to call down an exhibition of Professor -Mackinnon’s Celtic wares--of the authenticity and character of which I -am profoundly ignorant--but simply to express my conviction that the -alleged manuscript documents of which Macpherson professed to give a -translation did not exist. _De non existentibus et non apparentibus_ -Dr. Johnson says, _eadem est ratio_. There are unfortunately now no -Doctor Johnsons, or Pinkertons or John Hill Burtons to deal with these -possible inventions or forgeries of a later age, the perhaps “other -evidences” of what the great lexicographer characterised as “Scotch -conspiracy in national falsehood.” Ample time and opportunity has been -afforded since 1762--the date when Macpherson first gave to the world -his _Ossian the Son of Fingal_--to fabricate missing documents or -supply others of more startling character. A pungent criticism from the -pen of Mr. Hill Burton, or a crushing commentary by either of the other -named critics, would probably have relegated these so-called Celtic -MSS.--some of them at least--to the nothingness whence they came. It is -clear that what Professor Mackinnon brings forward is not _evidence_, -certainly not such as would be accepted in a Court of Law. There is -no substantiation of the Macpherson manuscripts save the statements, -and what I fear must be regarded as the fabrications, of a number of -interested individuals retailed at second-hand, none of all whom can -be accepted as unprejudiced witnesses. After the strictest search -for the originals of Ossian, Dr. Johnson came to the conclusion that -as regards Scotland and the pretensions of James Macpherson, there -was not in existence “an Erse manuscript a hundred years old.” Any -attempt therefore, in our day to bring into agreement this literary -imposture with the difficulties which stultify all conception of its -genuineness is foredoomed to failure. If, as Mr. Mackinnon alleges, -it be “perfectly established” that Macpherson carried away from the -North-West Highlands several Gaelic manuscripts it is equally certain -he never exhibited them to anyone capable of forming a judgment as to -their authenticity. “The collection proper,” it would appear, “consists -of sixty-three separate parcels.” How many of these are genuine we -shall probably never know. These are “Transcripts of several MSS. or -portions of MSS. by Mr. McLachlan, and the Rev. Donald Mackintosh,” and -collections of “Ossianic poetry made by a schoolmaster at Kilmelford,” -volumes of tales which belonged to Mr. Campbell of Islay, a collection -of Gaelic poetry made by a schoolmaster at Dunkeld, the MSS. whatever -these may be, written in “The old Gaelic hand!” the use of which, we -are told, was discontinued about the middle of the last century. -“Regarding the history of the great majority of these documents,” it -is said “we are ignorant”--certainly at least, I am, most profoundly. -It appears however, that “The Rev. Mr. Gallie saw in Macpherson’s -possession” ‘several volumes, small octavos, or rather large duodecimo -in the Gaelic language and characters’! Scarcely less authentic is the -fact that Lachlan Macviurich “remembers well that Clanranald made his -father give up the _Red book_ to James Macpherson,” and that Macpherson -himself deposited certain MSS. with his publishers Messrs. Beckett and -Dehondt which for a whole year remained in the custody of that firm. -These manuscripts mentioned by Mr. Mackinnon were probably the Gaelic -leases of Macleod of Rasay referred to by me in _Celticism a Myth_. -The fact that Macpherson so prostituted his talents, and character -for integrity was stated to me many years ago by an aged clergyman of -the Church of Scotland, who vouched for his statement on the faith -of his friend George Dempster of Dunichen, who was cognizant of the -circumstance. Father Farquharson, it is alleged, made a collection of -Gaelic MSS. before 1745, the last leaves of which were used to kindle a -stove fire in the Roman Catholic College at Douay, a circumstance, as -I think, not greatly to be deplored, while the “illiterate descendant” -of the _Seanachies_ attached to the family of Clanranald describes the -dispersion of the manuscript library accumulated by his ancestors, -and the fate of certain parchments [? old leases] which were cut down -for tailors’ measuring tapes. “He himself” (the descendant of the -_Seanachies_) “had possession of some parchments after his father’s -death,” but not being able to read, these disappeared from view. A -valuable witness truly in the identification of doubtful MSS. “Such -acts of vandalism,” we are told, “are not likely to occur again.” -Probably not. Like Joshua arresting the Sun and the Moon, they are -“things that have once been done but can be done no more.” The fact of -the dispersion, however, and the fate of the parchments, leases, title -deeds, literary treasures or by whatever name they may be called, rests -on the testimony of this Celtic ignoramus who, it is to be feared, -would not be too particular in any relation concerning the “glories and -greatness” of his country, his personal consequence, or the departed -grandeur of his clan. I well remember, many years ago, meeting with -an ignorant Highlander of some property, who offered to sell for ten -pounds an ancient claymore, with a pretentious, but unauthenticated -pedigree, for which he declared, with the voluntary accompaniment of -an oath, he had previously declined “_A Sousand pounds_.” It is my -experience that to persons of this class it comes more natural to state -a falsehood than to speak the truth. We all remember Charles Surface’s -exculpatory witness in _The School for Scandal_, “Oh yes, I swear.” Mr. -Mackinnon states that “The Gaelic text of Ossian which James Macpherson -handed over to Mr. Mackenzie, and which was given to the editor of the -edition of 1807, has disappeared.” How very odd that manuscripts on -which the human eye never rested should thus so strangely disappear! -Can that be said to disappear which was never visible? Of the poems of -Ossian, Dr. Irving says, “We are required to believe that these were -composed in the third century; and that by means of oral tradition, -they were delivered by one generation to another for the space of -nearly fifteen hundred years. If this account could be received as -authentic, if these poems could be regarded as genuine, they must be -classed among the most extraordinary effort of human genius. That a -nation so rude in other arts, and even unacquainted with the use of -letters, should yet have carried the most elegant of all arts to so -high a degree of perfection, would not only be sufficient to overturn -every established theory, but would exceed all the possibilities of -rational assent. But if we could suppose an untaught barbarian capable -of combining the rules of ancient poetry with the refinements of modern -sentiment one difficulty is indeed removed; but another difficulty -scarcely less formidable still remains--By what rare felicity were -many thousand verses, only written on the frail tablet of memory, -to be safely transmitted through fifty generations of mankind? If -Ossian could compose epic poems on the same model as Homer, how was -it possible for them to preserve their original texture through the -fearful vicissitudes of nearly fifteen centuries? * * * * It is utterly -incredible that such poems as Fingal and Temora, consisting each of -several thousand lines were thus transmitted from the supposed age -of Ossian to the age of Macpherson.” “It is” Dr. Irving continues -“no longer pretended that any Gaelic poetry has been preserved in -early manuscripts; and indeed the period when Gaelic can be traced -as a written language is comparatively modern.” “That many poems -and fragments of poems,” he goes on to say, “were preserved in the -Highlands of Scotland cannot however be doubted; and it is sufficiently -ascertained that Macpherson was assiduously employed in collecting such -popular reliques, some of which had perhaps existed for many ages. -_From the materials which he had thus procured he appears to have -fabricated the various works which he delivered to the public under -the name of Ossian, and afterwards to have adjusted the Gaelic by the -English text._” “The ground upon which Hume finally decided against the -authenticity of the _Poems of Ossian_, was the impossibility of any man -of sense imagining that they should have been orally preserved ‘during -fifty generations, by _the rudest, perhaps of all European nations; -the most necessitous_, the most turbulent, and the most unsettled.’” -Such is the historian Hume’s estimate of the Macpherson fraud as stated -by the _Edinburgh Review_, and such the beggarly array of evidence on -which, according to the abettors of Macpherson, the honour and glory -of Scotland, must rest in all time to come. The Scotch are a stubborn -race on which to operate, especially in matters that concern their -nationality. They have conceived the idea that in the dark ages--dark -to all but them--their countrymen, a Celtic race, were skilled in the -sciences and acquainted with art. This as an article of faith has -hardened into a conviction not to be shaken, and is that which, in -their view, distinguishes Scotland above all competitors. In it, in the -remote ages of the past, there existed culture and refinement rivalling -that of the most literary nations of antiquity whether Egyptian, -Etruscan, Greek or Roman. The roving Northmen, according to their -account, were but plundering pirates, and other nations barbarians. -No evidence, however overwhelming, will alter or modify this opinion. -Not on any terms will they be induced to give up their preconceptions. -Philologers and Ethnologists, Professors, and specialists, _et hoc -genus omne_, are called to the rescue, while they refuse to look at the -clearest facts. When their favourite idol begins to shake they rush -into the market-place crying “Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” It is -impossible to doubt that Macpherson was an impudent impostor. When his -veracity was impugned no simpler method of clearing his reputation -from the aspersions cast upon it could have been devised than the very -reasonable plan suggested by Dr. Johnson, that he should place the -manuscripts in the hands of the professors at Aberdeen where there were -persons capable of judging of their authenticity. The manuscripts were -never produced, and in admitting this fact the defenders of Macpherson -resign the whole question. “To refuse,” Dr. Johnson says, “to gratify -a reasonable curiosity is the last refuge of impudent mendacity.” Dr. -Johnson’s letter to this vain-glorious boaster repelling a threat of -personal violence is a master-piece of contemptuous scorn and defiance. -“Mr. James Macpherson, I received your foolish and impudent letter. Any -violence offered me I shall do my best to repel, and what I cannot do -myself the law will do for me. I hope I shall never be deterred from -detecting what I think a cheat by the menaces of a ruffian. What would -you have me retract? I thought your book an imposture. I think it an -imposture still. For this opinion I have given my reasons to the public -which I here dare you to refute. Your rage I defy. Your abilities since -your _Homer_ are not so formidable, and what I hear of your morals -inclines me to pay regard, not to what you shall say, but to what you -shall prove. You may print this if you will.” - -We are told that the subject of the Pictish language has been -thoroughly discussed by Dr. W. F. Skene in his _Four Ancient Books -of Wales_, that, in addition to _Pean Fahel_, the sole Pictish word -formerly known he has discovered four other distinct words, besides a -number of syllables entering into proper names; and from all these he -deduces the opinion that Pictish “Is not Welsh, neither is it Gaelic; -but it is a Gaelic dialect partaking largely of Welsh forms” whatever -that may mean. “More especially,” we are told, “he holds that Pictish -as compared with Gaelic, was a _Low_ dialect, that it differed from -the Gaelic in much the same way that Low German differs from High.” It -is perhaps unnecessary to add that I regard this supposed solution of -the Pictish difficulty as so much figment. It is simply the arbitrary -conclusion of a man looking into a mill stone, and giving a deliverance -in regard to which he is in no more commanding position than the -most illiterate specimen of humanity to be found in the slums of the -Northern Metropolis. On the other side of the question it is open to -me to state that the Pictish words which Mr. Skene persuades himself -he has discovered, and which on his own shewing are neither Welsh nor -Gaelic but, belonging to a Low dialect of the latter may after all -be only the obsolete remains of an early Gothic speech. The ruler of -the Picts about the end of the sixth century, it is said, was _Brude_, -the son of _Mailcon_, who died in 586. The most active of all the -Pictish sovereigns, according to the received accounts, was _Hungus_ or -_Ængus_ who began to reign in 730. In so far then as these names may -not be absolute myth, they may be claimed as Scandinavian. With _Brude_ -compare the Norse personal names _Brodi_, _Breid-r_, and _Brodd-r_ (the -_r_ final separated by a hyphen being merely the sign of the nominative -case). _Mailcon_ is the united Scandinavian personal names of _Miöl_ -and _Kon-r_. With _Hungus_ or _Ængus_ compare the Scoto-Norwegian names -_Magnus Anguson_, and _Angus Magnuson_. - -The Norwegians in Man, in the Hebrides, and in the North, and -North-Western Highlands were confessedly the dominant and more numerous -race, and there for upwards of four centuries held uninterrupted sway. - -Did the Norwegian colonists eventually go off in vapour, leaving behind -them only a native residuum speaking a purely Celtic dialect freed -from all taint of the Northman’s language after the close contact of -so many centuries? If the Norwegian element was not so sublimated, but -as Pinkerton affirms, and which I believe, continues in the modern -population of those portions of the United Kingdom, what becomes of -the purity of the so-called “Primitive Celtic tongue”? Assuming that -it was Celts among whom the Norwegians settled, is it possible to -conceive that men of such force of character as the Northmen made no -lasting impression on the speech of the wretched Celtic inhabitants -whom they trampled under foot? Despite the researches of philologers -is it rational to conclude that what is now called Celtic can on any -intelligible hypothesis be the primeval speech of the unlettered -savages who before the advent of the Romans had been driven into the -western portion of the Island by the Belgae? “It is not in nature,” -the _Saturday Reviewer_ says, “that people should accept Mr. Roger’s -or Pinkerton’s opinion in preference to the universally held belief -that the Celtic speech is a language of the Indo-European family of -speech,” &c. But it is not alone Mr. Roger and Pinkerton with whom the -_Reviewer_ has to deal. The late Lord Neaves, an eminent Scotch judge -and antiquary, held an opinion very much akin to that of Pinkerton, -that the Erse, and Gaelic, and Manx dialects, if not entirely a form -of obsolete Gothic speech, contain at least a very large admixture of -the northern tongue. The editor of the _Athenæum_ too, in reviewing -Skene’s _Highlanders of Scotland_, draws attention to the fact of -the striking resemblance between the oldest Erse monuments and those -dialects confessedly Teutonic, holding this decisive of the question -that the _Scots_ were Germans. On the same side of the question is the -strongly expressed opinion of the late Dr. R. Angus Smith, F.R.S. “I -consider,” he says, “those who hold the nations called Celtic and those -called Teutonic, as one race, to be simply abolishing the knowledge we -get from history, and refusing to look at very clear facts.” I am not -however going to quarrel with the _Saturday Reviewer_, who virtually -concedes all for which I contend, that the Celts were entirely without -art or culture, of which more hereafter. On the question of civilizing -influences we have the testimony of Professor Kirkpatrick, of the -Scotch Bar, a gentleman of well-known scholarly accomplishments, who -occupies the Chair of Constitutional Law and History in the University -of Edinburgh. “I have long been of opinion,” he writes, “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.” There is still another phase of the -question with which the philological critic has to deal, and this is, -that only where the Northmen settled are found those remains of what -is called Celtic speech. “The Northmen formed colonies in Wales, in -Cornwall, in Brittany, in Ireland, in the Highlands and islands of -Scotland, and in the Isle of Man, and there only do we find those -dialects usually known as Celtic.” I do not pretend to explain this, -but I state it as an outside fact, which, in my view, it is incumbent -on the Celtic philologer to explain. It is, of course, impossible to -reach any confident conclusion as to what may have been the language -on which the Northman grafted his Teutonic speech, though it must be -obvious to every unprejudiced enquirer, that those dialects must now -be very much mixed and altered and corrupted from close contact for -many centuries with the language of a dominant race. Having regard to -this fact, the question arises whether “the universally held belief” -referred to by the _Saturday Review_, be not founded on the Gothic -accretions derived from the Northmen, rather than on the structural -peculiarities of the original language of the people among whom the -Northmen settled. It is evident from the remarks of Professor Max -Muller that too much importance is not to be attached to what is told -us by the Celtic philologer. “Celtic words,” he says, “may be found in -German, Slavonic, and even Latin, but only as foreign terms, and their -number is much smaller than commonly supposed. A far larger number -of Latin and German words have since found their way into the modern -Celtic dialects, and these have frequently been mistaken by Celtic -enthusiasts for original words from which German and Latin might in -their turn be derived.” - -Professor Kirkpatrick’s opinion suggests a natural connection between -the Celtic myth, and M. du Chaillu’s account of _The Viking Age_. The -_Scotsman_, in its review of this book, wonders what Professor Freeman -will say, and we are not long left in doubt. He looks down upon M. du -Chaillu from a lofty eminence, evidently regarding him with something -like pitying contempt. He is not sure he should have thought the -doctrine set forth by M. du Chaillu worthy of serious examination, -but for the singular relation in which it stands to Mr. Seebohm’s -“slightly older teaching,” in his book called _The English Village -Community_. Mr. Seebohm’s views, he says, are the evident result -of honest work at original materials, and eminently entitled to be -considered, and if need be, answered. But obviously both are eminently -objectionable. Though differing in method, they rival each other in -daring and absurdity. The only question is whether M. du Chaillu’s -theory need be discussed at all. Professor Freeman has decreed this, -and after so supreme a master in the art of criticism it is vain to -question it. - -It will thus be seen he lauds the one in order to disparage the other. -He compliments Mr. Seebohm and spits contemptuously in M. du Chaillu’s -face. I am Jupiter, and by contrast in the scale of intelligence, -you, M. du Chaillu, are only a black beetle. “The strife in its new -form,” he tells us, “has become more deadly.” M. du Chaillu threatens -to wipe out entirely Professor Freeman’s antiquated conception of a -Saxon invasion, and the latter is constrained to worship in secret the -divinity he pretends to despise. Professor Freeman’s views will be -found in _The Teutonic Conquest in Gaul and Britain_. He has had his -say, and “if anybody cares to know what that say is, he may read it -for himself.” Professor Freeman has written what he has written, and -woe to him who reads to controvert. It does not, however, follow that -what Professor Freeman has written is necessarily the gospel of English -history. Both theories alike, it would appear--Mr. Seebohm’s and M. -du Chaillu’s--throw aside the recorded facts of history! What are the -recorded facts of history in relation to the so-called Saxon invasion? -The Saxon invasion was doubted in the days of Bishop Nicolson, who -refers to the short and pithy despatch Sir William Temple makes of the -Saxon times, and the contempt with which he speaks of its historians. -The good Bishop himself is constrained to admit he does not know what -has become of the book written by King Alfred against corrupt judges, -nor of that gifted King’s collection of old Saxon sonnets.[1] The late -J. M. Kemble taught the learned world to believe that, “the received -accounts of the Saxon immigration, and subsequent fortunes, and -ultimate settlement are devoid of historical truth in every detail.” -Here is an eminent scholar who, having examined the subject with -perfect historical candour, regarded the Saxon invasion as fiction and -fabrication from beginning to end, and who surely may be accepted as -a valuable witness. To the same purpose we have the statement of Mr. -James Rankin, F.R.A.S., “Who the Saxons were, or when they arrived, or -where they settled, is a subject on which tradition is entirely silent, -for of written history there is none.” Professor Freeman says that M. -du Chaillu has put forth two very pretty volumes with abundance of -illustrations of Scandinavian objects. He contemns the pictures but -admires the frames. Most of them, however, he adds, will be found in -“various Scandinavian books,” but he does not suggest that the “various -Scandinavian books” are not readily accessible to the English reader. - -Professor Freeman indulges in that species of raillery to which men -usually resort when they are driven into a corner. “We are really not -ourselves,” he says, “but somebody else.” “The belief as to their own -origin which the English of Britain have held ever since there have -been Englishmen,” and such incoherent trifling. The ordinary average -Englishman has no independent belief on the subject. He is told in -his youth the story about Hengist and Horsa, and if he remembers it -at all it gives him no particular concern. The bulk of Englishmen and -Scotchmen too, are profoundly ignorant as to their history and origin. -The Englishman has some vague conception that he is an “Anglo-Saxon,” -while the Scot takes it for granted that all Scotchmen are Celts, and -that all art found in Scotland is Celtic. Sir Daniel Wilson could -discern in the rude rock scroll the “stately Cathedral.” There are -others “who can see a coffin in a flake of soot.” It is hardly by -such an adversary as M. du Chaillu, Professor Freeman says: “that -we shall be beaten out of the belief that there is such a thing as -English people in Britain. Perhaps too we shall not be more inclined -to give up our national being, when we see its earliest records tossed -aside with all the ignorant scorn of the eighteenth century.” This -is absolutely childish. It reads more like mental imbecility than -intellectual acumen. M. du Chaillu does not deny that there is an -English people in Britain. He only doubts that the English people are -Saxon, and affirms that they are Scandinavian, and in this view of the -matter he is sustained by many and strong presumptions. Neither does -he ask us “to give up our national being,” which he does not assail. -Macaulay says: “it is only in Britain that an age of fable separates -two ages of truth,” and the void, it would appear, is to be filled up -with “some hints” by Professor Freeman, who, to his own satisfaction, -at least, has bridged over the dreary gulf. Professor Freeman thinks it -odd that the so-called Saxons were led into such strange mistakes as -to their own name and origin. Is it an exceptional thing for a nation -to be mistaken as to its remote history? Can Professor Freeman tell us -who were the aborigines of Ancient Greece? Professor Freeman declines -to be brought from the North by M. du Chaillu even more strongly than -he declines to be brought from the South by Mr. Seebohm. Mr. Seebohm, -according to Professor Freeman, “does leave some scrap of separate -national being to the ‘Anglo-Saxon invaders’ * * * * M. du Chaillu -takes away our last shreds; we are mere impostors,” &c. Must a nation -be accounted impostor because it does not possess an accurate knowledge -of its remote history? We might, indeed, be justly termed impostors if -in the face of overwhelming evidence we should continue to adhere to -the foregone conclusions of dogmatic historians built on the fictions -and figment of monkish tradition. “As far as M. du Chaillu’s theory -can be made out,” Professor Freeman holds it to be this, “The Suiones -of Tacitus are the Swedes, and the Suiones had ships; so far no one -need cavil. But we do not hear of the Suiones or any other Scandinavian -people doing anything by sea for several centuries. But though we -do not hear of it they must have been doing something. What was it -they did? Now in the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries we hear of the -Saxons doing a good deal by sea; therefore the name _Saxones_ must be a -mistake of the Latin writer’s for _Suiones_.” The assumption that goes -through all this, Professor Freeman continues, is that “because the -Suiones had ships in the days of Tacitus, as they could not have left -off using ships it must have been they who did the acts attributed to -the Saxons.” He condescends to admit that “a good deal is involved in -this last assumption; it is at least conceivable,” he says, “and not -at all unlike the later history of Sweden, that the Suiones went on -using their ships, but used them somewhere else, and not on the coasts -of Gaul and Britain.” But this begs the question in dispute. Setting -aside M. du Chaillu’s conjecture as to the possible confounding of -names,[2] the question still remains who were the Saxons? Whether is it -more reasonable to believe that the Suiones or Swedes referred to by -Tacitus, not to mention the Danes and Norwegians, did not continue to -make their descent on the shores of Britain so readily accessible to -their fleets, or that the so-named Saxon invader was one and the same -with the Scandinavian? “There is nothing very strange,” the _Quarterly_ -thinks, “in supposing that some of the ‘Angles’ or ‘Saxons’ may have -descended from the Suiones of Tacitus.” M. du Chaillu, it says, “rests -his case mainly on the fact that, while the so-called Anglo-Saxon -remains found in England correspond minutely with those discovered -in enormous quantities in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, there are no -traces of such objects in the basins of the Elbe, the Weser, and the -Rhine, nor anywhere else, save in places which Scandinavians are known -to have visited.” “Every tumulus,” M. du Chaillu says, “described -by antiquaries as a Saxon or Frankish grave, is the counterpart of a -northern grave, thus showing conclusively the common origin of the -people.” Professor Freeman considers M. du Chaillu’s theory “several -degrees more amazing than that of Mr. Seebohm,” though why the two -should be connected I hardly know. “No one denies,” Mr. Freeman -says, that the Scandinavian infusion in England is “real, great, and -valuable,” only the date of the Scandinavian descent on the shores of -Britain, and the degree and manner of the northern immigration must -be taken on the faith of Professor Freeman. According to his account -the Scandinavian invasion was an _infusion_ that dates from the ninth -century. This is exactly the pivot on which the whole question turns. -There are strong grounds for believing that the Northman incursions and -settlements in Britain were not limited to the Danish invasions of the -ninth century. Did the fleets of the Northmen fully equipped start into -existence in the middle or end of the ninth century? If not, how were -they engaged during the centuries that immediately preceded? Professor -Freeman affirms that they were employed “somewhere else.” If they were -not used in the subjugation of Britain, perhaps Professor Freeman -will state circumstantially what portions of Europe are comprehended -under the vague generality of “Somewhere else.” We want something more -convincing than his _ipse dixit_. Danish writers, we are told, have -often greatly exaggerated the amount of Scandinavian influence in -England, a remark that applies with equal force to the advocates of the -Saxon and Celtic theories. Things, it is said, have been set down as -signs of direct Scandinavian influence, which “are part of the common -heritage of the Teutonic race.” Admitting this “common heritage,” and -having regard to the fact, that the language of the Scandinavian, and -that of the so-called Anglo-Saxon are almost identical, who shall -decide between their conflicting claims? The _Quarterly_, citing from -the _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_ of Vigfússon and Powell in reference -to the poetry of the Norsemen, says, “The men from whom these poems -sprung took no small share in the making of England; their blood is -in our veins, and their speech in our mouths.”[3] The preponderance -of the direct Scandinavian element in the English language has been -shown by Archbishop Trench, who states “That of a hundred English -words, sixty come from the Scandinavian, thirty from the Latin, five -from the Greek, and five from other sources.” “Dane and Angle, Dane -and Saxon,” according to Professor Freeman’s own shewing “were near -enough each other to learn from one another, and to profit by one -another.” Their dialectic difference was never such as to prevent them -from understanding each other. “There is,” the _Quarterly_ affirms, -“very high authority for saying that there was as little difference -in those early times between a Dane and an Englishman, as there was -between two Englishmen in different parts of the country.” The Saxons -were in fact only an earlier swarm of northern adventurers of the same -race who were afterwards known in history as Danes and Northmen. Still -Professor Freeman thinks the Scandinavian element was but an _infusion_ -into the already existing English mass. Hardly I should think if the -existing English mass, and the invading Northmen had a common origin! -The name of England’s principal city, it may be remarked, the great -metropolis of the Empire is Scandinavian. Neither are there wanting -persons who believe that such also is the name England itself. In -a communication to _Notes and Queries_ by Mr. Henry Rowan in 1868, -he suggests a derivation of this name from the Danish _Eng_. “While -travelling in Denmark,” he says, “I met with a word which seems to me -to afford a derivation of our name of England, as probable, at least -as the ordinary one of _Angle land_. The word I mean is _Eng_, an -old Danish name applied even yet to the level marshy pasture lands -adjoining rivers. I believe the Saxons and Angles, from the time of -whose invasion the name is supposed to date, first landed and possessed -the Isle of Thanet, which in parts, especially those about Minster, and -the river _Stour_, would answer very well to the description of Danish -_Eng lands_. It is from this word I think the name may have sprung, -instead of from the Angles, whom we have no reason for supposing to -have been so superior to the Saxons as to leave the remembrance of -their name to the entire exclusion of the latter.” M. Worsaae, in -the first words of his history unwittingly confirms what Mr. Rowan -here points out. “The greater part of England,” he says, “consists -of flat and fertile lowland, particularly towards the southern and -eastern coasts, where large open plains extend themselves.” There is a -low-lying district of Aberdeenshire called the _Enzie_, a name of the -same character, evidently imposed by the Northmen. This is pronounced -by the natives _aingie_, the sound of the first portion of the name -being as the _aing_ in the Scotch surname of _Laing_. The derivation -just cited, coupled with my conjecture that the name Scotland is the -ancient gothic _Skot-land_, land laid under tribute, Icelandic _Skat_, -a tax (Skat-land) goes to confirm M. du Chaillu’s contention that the -British people, and tongue (by tongue, I mean the present speech of the -British nation) are of northern origin. - -The contention that the Danish influx into England was in any sense a -mere infusion must in the nature of things be pure fiction. It was a -full rolling tide of conquest and colonization swelling a population -already essentially Scandinavian. - -The first authentic particulars relating to the ancient Britons are -derived from Cæsar who made his descent in the year 55 before Christ. -The original inhabitants appear to have been Celts from France and -Spain. We learn from the Roman historian that they had been driven -into the interior and western portion of the island by the Belgae who -settled on the east and south-eastern shores of England, and were now -known as Britons. He tells us in language, about which there can be no -misconception, that the Belgae were descended from the Germans. These -were the Britons with whom Cæsar had to do, and these the Romanized -Britons who, in their dire extremity, sent forth their despairing cry -to the gates of Imperial Rome, “The barbarians drive us to the sea, -and the sea to the barbarians.” Prichard demonstrated, at least to his -own satisfaction, that “the ancient Belgae were of Celtic, and not -of Teutonic race, as had previously been supposed,” and ethnologists -are agreed in setting aside the testimony of Cæsar! What amount of -hypothetical evidence is sufficient to overturn an historic fact? It -might be difficult to say who is an authority on language, but anyone -reasonably endowed with judgment may be an authority on matters of -fact and practical sense. The science of language is not an exact -science, and leaves a good deal of room for the imagination to play. -I would rather doubt the conclusions of philologers than believe -that the Roman historian wrote without knowledge of his subject, or -deliberately stated what he had no means of knowing to be true. The -weight of evidence is certainly on the side of Cæsar. Not all the -ingenuity of all the Bopps and Grimms and Potts and Zeusses who ever -applied themselves to the elucidation of this most obscure of all -unintelligible subjects can ever be sufficient to overturn an outside -historical fact. “In the history of all nations,” Pinkerton says, -“it is indispensable to admit the most ancient authorities as the -sole foundation of any knowledge we can acquire. If we reject them -or pretend to refute them no science can remain, and any dreamer may -build up an infinite series of romances from his own imagination. When, -therefore, a modern pretends to refute Cæsar and Tacitus in their -accounts of the inhabitants of ancient Britain, any man of science -would disdain to enter the field.” It does not by any means follow -that every scholar who is familiar with the structural peculiarities -of language has necessarily any aptitude for perceiving the exact -relations of things. Many distinguished men eminent in literature have -been singularly deficient in ordinary reasoning power. The late Charles -Kingsley, it is well known, “could not discern truth from falsehood.” -Though occupying “an historical chair, he lacked every qualification of -an historian.” - -M. Worsaae, the Danish antiquary, after a good deal of hesitation -and circumlocution in regard to several matters of disputed origin, -in particular the Ruthwell cross which he casts out of the category -of Scandinavian remains, and contradicts himself in the following -sentences: “Ornaments with similar so-called Anglo-Saxon runic -inscriptions are not altogether uncommon in England, particularly -in the North. But as not a few ornaments, as well as runic stones -with inscriptions in the self-same character, are also found in the -countries of Scandinavia both in Denmark and Norway, and particularly -the latter, and the west and south-west of Sweden (and there mostly -in Bleking), it may be a question whether this runic writing was not -originally brought over to England by Scandinavian emigrants. It -would otherwise be inexplicable that they should have used entirely -foreign runic characters in Scandinavia, whilst they possessed a -peculiar runic writing of their own.” I do not think there can be -any question in the matter. No stronger evidence could be given in -proof of the fact that the so-called Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians -were radically one and the same people. M. Worsaae has done much to -illustrate the Scandinavian antiquities of the British islands, and I -am unwilling to cast reflection on the memory of one so eminent and so -well-intentioned, but it is evident throughout his book, that he has -accepted at second-hand, on a variety of subjects, the conclusions of -English and Scotch antiquaries, which as a foreigner he was incapable -of dealing with by independent investigation. The Hunterston brooch, -which in every lineament is distinctively Scandinavian, he has been -told to call _Celtic_. He deals with this most interesting monument -of art in the ambiguous manner for which he is always remarkable -where his judgment seems to contradict his conclusion. “An excellent -silver gilt brooch,” he says, “found near Hunterston, about three -miles from Largs, was once said to have been lost by some Norwegian -who fled from the field of battle [nothing more probable]. There is -a short Scandinavian runic inscription scratched on the back of it, -but from what has hitherto been deciphered, it would rather seem to -denote the name of a Scotchman than of a Norwegian. Professor Munch -reads ‘Malbritha a dalk thana--Melbridg owns this brooch.’” M. Worsaae -here obviously means _Celt_, as opposed to Scandinavian, but uses -the term Scotchman to allow himself, if need be, a door of escape. -“Scotchman” would apply equally to anyone born in Scotland, whether -Celt by extraction, Scandinavian, Fleming or Norman. This seems to me -an undignified way of getting out of a difficult position. The runic -writing of the Hunterston brooch, which is in the Norse tongue, has -been accurately explained by Professor George Stephens, of Copenhagen. -M. Worsaae, we know, accepted the attentions of eminent British -antiquaries, and could not gracefully seem to doubt their conclusions -on special subjects submitted to his decision. He is first told what to -say, and then cited by his instructors, as an authority for statements -which they themselves have put into his mouth. Perhaps, under the -circumstances, this may not be an exceptional manner of dealing with -matters of disputed history, but it is certainly not the way to reach -the truth that reveals itself to intelligence. “In workmanship,” M. -Worsaae says, “the Hunterston brooch resembles the contemporary Irish -and Scotch more than Scandinavian ornaments.” Now, it certainly does no -such thing. It does not appear to me that as regards the Scandinavian -remains of Great Britain, one like M. Worsaae groping his way darkly -with the help of such lights as he can find is at all competent to -pronounce dogmatic judgments. Ireland and Scotland were invaded, and -subdued, and peopled by the Northmen, and brooches of the self-same -character are found in the Viking interments of Scandinavia. The -contemporary Irish and Scotch brooches may reasonably be presumed to -be Scandinavian. The resemblance of the Hunterston brooch to that -found at Tara, and to others of like character found in Scotland is -certainly not greater than to the brooch in the Bergen Museum exhumed -from a Viking mound at Vambheim, or to that dug up at North Trondheim -in another grave of the Viking period. The inscription contained on the -Hunterston brooch proves to demonstration, not only that its art, and -that of all others of kindred type is Scandinavian, but that the name -“Melbridg” is Norwegian. Whatever be the _origin_ of the art exhibited -on the brooches, it is plain that this cannot be Celtic, inasmuch as -that no one has ever shewn that the Celts possessed any knowledge of -art. It is all very well to talk in an off-handed way about Celtic -art, but something more than this is necessary to carry conviction. -To my perceptions a Celtic statement is much improved by some form of -_evidence_. Dr. Soderberg of Lund doubts if I will find many adherents -among Scandinavian scholars. “We are all of us,” he says, “more or -less imbued with Celticism.” So much the worse for Scandinavia, -that her sons deny her legitimate claims to her own historic and -archaic remains. It is not however, as I think, so much a question of -scholarship as of practical sense, the capacity to deal with facts -which may be weighed by anyone possessed of ordinary reasoning power -or capable of speech and thought in their simplest forms. One can -understand a Scotch antiquary of the Celtic type placing himself in -an attitude of antagonism, just as we might imagine Professor Freeman -gliding like a shark along the Saxon line ready to do battle on behalf -of his cherished delusion, because that to both of these the Northman -theory is total extinction. But that the Scandinavian antiquary, who -as regards his national remains has no reason to falsify the facts of -history, should in the interest of an exotic fable, waste his ingenuity -in disclaiming the art that especially belongs to his country surpasses -my comprehension. Let us hear what the _Saturday Review_ has to say on -the subject of Celtic art. Taking exception to many of my positions, -it says: “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 to -all the gold work of the Mycenæan graves, which few people, we think, -will now place much later than 1500 B.C.” “Dr. Schliemann’s Mycenæan -discoveries deprive the Celts of any credit for originality in their -system of spiral ornament.” Again “‘_Celtic_’ patterns certainly -existed on the shores of the Ægean fifteen hundred years before our -era.” “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.” “‘What is Celtic art?’ cries -Mr. Roger, triumphantly. What, indeed? ‘The Celts, Pinkerton tells -us, had no monuments, any more than the Finns or savage Africans, or -Americans.’ As to Americans, Mr. Roger can see their bas-reliefs at -the South Kensington Museum;[4] _but for Celtic art not derived from -the Scandinavians or Romans, we know not where to bid him look_.” -I am content to rest the matter here. There is no art known as -distinctively Celtic, and in this aspect of the question I am confirmed -by the _Saturday Review_. But to return to Professor Freeman. In a -number of the publication called _The Antiquary_, issued on November -16th, 1872, the writer of a paper on _The Landing of the Saxons in -Kent_, tells us that “after pillaging for ‘a hundred and fifty years’ -the British shores,” the Jutes, or Saxons, landed under Hengist and -Horsa, “and here,” the writer says, “we must halt for a few moments -till we have disposed of Mr. E. A. Freeman’s astounding statement that -Horsa meant _mare_. Hors, our misspelt _horse_,” the writer says, “is -like its German equivalent Ross, a neuter word. The Saxon hero is -sometimes called simply Hors, but more frequently by the addition of a -masculine termination--a, as in ‘Ida Ælla,’ and some thousands more, -he becomes Horsa, masculine and male. _Mare_ is Myre, feminine. -* * * * If Mr. Freeman will be good enough to tell us how he came to -fall into this preposterous error, we may possibly clear up the cause of -his mistake; for the most part, when he makes a bad blunder, we can -form a notion what better authority has misled him; but in this case -no English dictionary, grammar, or history can have been consulted -by him. Can it have been a Latin grammar? Mr. Freeman is extensively -known as blowing weekly a shrill trumpet, ‘_asper, acerba, sonans_,’ -in reviews of literary and illiterate performances, but then he is -in hiding; we hear the obstreperous whirr, but the midge is behind -the screen; when he appears in human body, he makes lapses, trips and -stumbles, and lays himself bare to stings,” &c. This is in Professor -Freeman’s early days, but men carry their idiosyncrasies into their -riper years. It gives us an insight into this critic’s mind according -to the estimation in which he was then held by his fellow-scribblers. -To the article in question, which occupies nearly two columns of -_The Antiquary_, the editor appends the following note:--“The story -of Hengist and Horsa (including the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion) -is an exploded fable. The Anglo-Saxons of England, like the Picts -or Caledonians of Scotland, were only the earlier Northmen or -Scandinavians.” - -This is pre-eminently an age of platitudes and Professor Freeman is -great in such. “There is,” he says, “an English folk, and there is a -British Crown.” There is also, it might be affirmed, a Scotch folk, -and a British Crown, and until Mr. Gladstone shall accomplish his -visionary project of Irish Home Rule, there is, and will be an Irish -folk and a British Crown. “But the homes of the English folk,” we are -to note, “and the dominions of the British Crown do not always mean -the same thing.” Does any one suppose they do? “Here by the border -stream of the Angle and the Saxon” we are in “the dominions of the -British Crown,” &c. If by the “border stream” be meant the Tweed, it -is more than doubtful if the Angles and Saxons ever saw that stream. -In Professor Freeman’s “youth,” the “Anglo-Saxon race was unheard of,” -and by some strange delusion, for which it is difficult to account, the -“British race” dates, he believes, from some speech delivered a week -before the time at which he writes. It is evident Professor Freeman -has not been a reader of _Good Words_, at least of its early numbers -published more than thirty years ago. In one of these he will find “The -British race has been called Anglo-Saxon,” &c., and a good deal more -which it might be inconvenient for him to learn. - -Professor Freeman “shows how some writers, sometimes more famous -writers, now and then get at their facts.” “One received way,” he -tells us, “is to glance at a page of an original writer, to have the -eye caught by a word, to write down another word, that looks a little -like it, and to invent facts that suit the words written down. To roll -two independent words into a compound word with a hyphen is perhaps a -little stronger; but only a little.” Are we to suppose that Professor -Freeman is recounting his individual experience in dealing with the -facts of English history? - -The gifted Edmund Spenser, who charmed the world with his _Faery Queen_ -died forsaken and in want. Milton sold his copyright of Paradise Lost -for fifteen pounds, and Goldsmith’s Vicar of Wakefield was disposed of -for a trifle to save him from the grip of the law. _Tempora mutantur!_ -Third rate contributions by high class writers command their market -value. If men can obtain payment for writing such articles as that of -Professor Freeman’s criticism of _The Viking Age_ that appeared in the -January number of the _Contemporary Review_ it shows that there is -something in a name, that the conductors of such periodicals pay more -regard to the reputation of the writer, than to the quality of the -writing. Professor Freeman is no doubt a very able writer, but this is -not the conclusion that would be reached in reading his captious and -illogical criticism of M. du Chaillu’s book. - -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. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CELTIC MSS. IN RELATION TO THE -MACPHERSON FRAUD *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |