F I. WERE THE GALATIANS CELTS OR TEUTONS? OLLOWING the universal tradition of ancient writers, I have hitherto assumed that the remarkable people who settled in the heart of Asia Minor were members of the great Celtic family and brothers of the Gauls occupying the region west of the Rhine. And this tradition is confirmed in a striking way by the character and temperament of the Asiatic nation. A Teutonic origin how- Teutonic theory. ever has been claimed for them by several writers, more especially commentators on this epistle; and this claim it will be necessary now to consider. rebuke. How or when this theory arose I do not know: but it seems, in some form or another, to have been held as early as the beginning of the sixteenth century; for Luther takes occasion by it to read Luther's his countrymen a wholesome lesson. Some think,' he says, 'that we Germans are descended from the Galatians. Neither is this divination perhaps untrue, for we Germans are not much unlike them in temper. And I also am constrained to wish there were in my countrymen more steadfastness and constancy: for in all things we do, at the first brunt we be very hot, but when the heat of our first affections is burnt out, anon we become more slack, and look, with what rashness we begin things, with the same we throw them aside again and neglect them"; and he goes on to reproach them with their waning interest in the cause of the Reformation. Doubtless the rebuke was well deserved; but Luther did injustice to his 1 Luther's later commentary on Gal. i. 6. French and Ger man wri ters. of Greeks countrymen in representing this as a special failing of the Teutonic race. The Roman historians at all events favourably contrast the constancy of the Germans with the fickleness of the Gauls. More recently a skirmishing battle has been fought over the carcase of this extinct nation, as if it were a point of national honour to claim possession. For ourselves,' says a French traveller, we cannot remember without a sentiment of national pride, that the Gauls penetrated to the very centre of Asia Minor, established themselves there, and left in that country imperishable monuments of themselves. If the name of Franks is the general term by which Eastern nations designate the inhabitants of Europe, it is because our ancestors have influenced in a remarkable manner the destinies of the East from the earliest ages of our history' Contrast with this the language held by German commentators. Thus,' says Wieseler, after summing up the arguments in favour of his view, it can scarcely be doubtful that the Galatians are indeed the first German people to whom the Word of the Cross was preached'.' 'The Epistle to the Galatians,' writes Olshausen, 'is addressed to Germans, and it was the German Luther who in this Apostolical Epistle again recognised and brought to light the substance of the Gospel.' The question is not so simple as at first sight it might appear. Accustomed ourselves to dwell on the distinctive features of Celts and Germans, and impressed with the striking contrasts between the two races, we can scarcely imagine any confusion possible. But with Testimony the ancients the case was different. In their eyes Gauls and Germans alike were savage and lawless tribes, living in the far North beyond the pale of civilisation, and speaking an unknown language. The contrast to Greeks and Romans, which they observed in both alike, obscured the minor differences between one barbarian and another. As time opened out new channels of communication, they became more and more alive to the distinction between the two races3. In and Ro 130s. 1 Texier in the Revue des deux Mondes, 1841, IV. P. 575. Galater p. 528. 3 The authorities will be found in Diefenbach's Celtica . They are very fairly and clearly stated also in Brandes Kelten und Germanen (Leipz. 1857). See especially his summary, p. ix. The only really important exception among ancient authors is Dion Cassius, who Caesar the line of separation is roughly traced: in Tacitus it is generally sharp and well-defined. But without doubt the two were sometimes confused; and this fact alone rescues the theory of the Teutonic origin of the Galatians from the imputation of a mere idle paradox. this evi Still historical scepticism must have some limit; and it would require a vast mass of evidence on the other side to overcome the very strong presumption from the agreement of ancient authorities, both Greek and Roman. Classical writers uniformly regard the ruthless hordes who poured into Italy and sacked Rome, the sacrilegious invaders who attacked the temple at Delphi, and the warlike immigrants who settled in the heart of Asia Minor, as belonging to one and the same race, as Gauls sprung from that Celtic nation Force of whose proper home was north of the Alps and west of the Rhine. dence. On this point there is little or no wavering, I believe, from first to last. It would not be strange that an incorrect view of the affinities of some obscure tribe, springing up in the early twilight of history, when the intercourse between distant nations was slight and intermitted, should pass unchallenged. But it is less easy to understand how, when a widespread race had played so important a part in the history of the world for some centuries, when civilised nations had been brought into close contact with them in the far East and West and at different points along a line extending with some interruptions across the whole of Europe and even into Asia, when the study of their language and manners had long been within the reach of the curious, so vital an error should still have held its ground. All ethnology would become hopeless, if testimony so strong were lightly set aside. There must have been many who for purposes of commerce or from love of travel or in persistently makes the Rhine the boundary-line between the Gauls on the left bank, and the Celts on the right bank. See Brandes p. 202. Thus he identifies the Celts with the Germans, and distinguishes them from the Gauls. Extreme paradoxes have been held by some recent writers. On the one hand Holtzmann, Kelten und Germanen (1855), maintains that the Celts and GAL. discharge of some official duty or Germans of the ancients (the inhabit- 16 Jerome's account of tians. through missionary zeal had visited both the mother country of the Gauls and their Asiatic settlement, and had seen in the language and physiognomy and national character of these distant peoples many striking features which betokened identity of race. The testimony of one of these witnesses is especially valuable. the Gaia Jerome, who writes at the close of the fourth century, had spent some time both in Gaul proper and in Galatia'. He had thus ample opportunities of ascertaining the facts. He was moreover eminently qualified by his critical ability and linguistic attainments for forming an opinion. In the preface to his Commentary on the Galatians' he expresses himself to the following effect; Varro and others after him have written voluminous and important works on this race: nevertheless he will not quote heathen writers; he prefers citing the testimony of the Christian Lactantius. This author states that the Galata were so called from the whiteness of their complexion (yáλa), described by Virgil (.En. viii 660), Tum lactea colla auro innectuntur, informing us also that a horde of these Gauls arrived in Asia Minor, and there settled among the Greeks, whence the country was called Gallo-Græcia and afterwards Galatia. No wonder, adds Jerome, after ustrating this incident by other migrations between the East and the West, that the Galatians are called fools and slow of understanding, when Hilary, the Rhone of Latin eloquence, himself a Gaul and a native of Poitiers, calls the Gauls stupid (indociles). It is true that Gaul produces orators, but then Aquitania boasts a Greek origin, and the Galatians are not descended from these Lut from the fiercer Gaulish tribes (de ferocioribus Gallis sint profecti). Though betraying the weakness common to all ancient 1 Jerome mentions his visit to Galatia (totius Galatiae iter), and his sojourn in Gaul (Rheni semibarbarao ripae) in the same letter (Epist. iii, 1. pp. 1o, 12). While in Gaul, he appears to have stayed some time apud Treveros' (Epist. v, 1. p. 15). Elsewhere he tells us that he paid this visit to Gaui when a very young man (adoles centulus, adv. Jovin. ii. 7, 11. p. 335). Lastly, in his commentary on this epistle (VII. p. 430), he mentions having seen Ancyra the capital of Galatia. 2 II. p. 425. 3 It is scarcely necessary to say that Jerome here misses the point of St Paul's rebuke. The Galatians were intellectually quick enough (see p. 15, note 1). The folly' with which they are charged arose not from obtuseness but from fickleness and levity; the very versatility of their intellect was their snare. The passage of Hilary to which Jerome refers is not extant. |