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 races'. In and Romans. 1 Texier in the Revue des deux Mondes, 1841, IV. P. 575. 2 Galater p. 528. 3 The authorities will be found in Diefenbach's Celtica II. 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 Cæsar 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 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 Gala- Jerome, who writes at the close of the fourth century, had spent tians. 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 (Æn. 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 illustrating 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 but 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 semibarbarae ripae) in the same letter (Epist. iii, 1. pp. 10, 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 Gaul when a very young man (adolescentulus, adv. Jovin. ii. 7, II. 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. writers when speculating on questions of philology, this passage taken in connexion with its context implies a very considerable knowledge of facts; and if Jerome agreed with the universal tradition in assuming the Galatians to be genuine Gauls, I can hardly doubt that they were so. indirect But beyond the testimony borne to Jerome's personal knowledge Its and conviction, this passage suggests another very important con- value. sideration. The influence of the Christian Church must have been largely instrumental in spreading information of this kind. The Roman official was under no obligation to learn the language of the people whom he governed; but the Christian missionary could not hope for success unless he were able to converse freely with his hearers. In this way the practical study of languages was promoted by the spread of the gospel far more than it had ever been by the growth of the Roman empire'. At the same time the feeling of brotherhood inspired by Christianity surmounted the barriers of race and language and linked together the most distant nations. There is no more striking phenomenon in the history of the early centuries than the close and sympathetic intercourse kept up between churches as far apart as those of Asia and Gaul. These communications could scarcely have failed to clear up the error as to the origin of the Galatian people, if any error existed. tians same lan But great reliance has been placed by those who advocate the The GalaTeutonic descent of the Galatians on the words with which Jerome spoke the concludes the passage above quoted; 'Besides the Greek,' he says, guage with 'which is spoken throughout the East, the Galatians use as their the Treveri, native tongue a language almost identical with that of the Treveri ; for any corruption they may have introduced need not be taken into account".' The Treveri, it is affirmed, were Germans and spoke a German tongue'. 1 The science of language,' says Prof. Max Müller, owes more than its first impulse to Christianity. The pioneers of our science were those very apostles who were commanded to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature; and their true successors, the missionaries of the whole Christian Church' (Science of Language, * See above, p. 12, note 2. The cor- 3 Even Niebuhr, who maintained the Celtic origin of the Galatians, con. who were Gauls, This question is not free from difficulty. The fact that German is now spoken and has been spoken for many centuries in the district corresponding to the ancient Treveri (Treves) is in itself a presumption in favour of this view. Nor is the testimony of ancient writers so decisive as to remove every shadow of doubt. Yet the balance of evidence is doubtless on the side of the Celtic extraction of this tribe. Tacitus indeed in one passage says that they, like the Nervii, eagerly affected a German origin, but he expresses no opinion of his own; and by distinguishing certain races whom he mentions immediately after as 'unquestionably Germans,' he evidently throws some doubt on the validity of their claims'. Elsewhere he speaks of them plainly as Belgians and Gauls'. The testimony of Cæsar leans the same way, though here again there is some indistinctness; 'Being harassed by constant wars, owing to their proximity to Germany, they did not differ much in their warlike habits from the Germans3'; but he too expressly calls them Gauls or Belgians elsewhere". sidered that German was the language 1 Tac. Germ. 28 Treveri et Nervii 361, note 65), it would seem that Strabo did not care to dispute their claims. 2 Ann.i. 43, 44, iii. 44, Hist. iv. 71, 73 3 Bell. Gall. viii. 25 Treveros quorum civitas propter Germaniae vicinitatem quotidianis exercitata bellis cultu et feritate non multum a Germanis differebat.' 4 Bell. Gall. ii. 4, 24, V. 3, 45, vi. 2, 7, 8, vii. 63. So too Mela iii. 2 calls them 'clarissimi Belgarum.' Dion Cassius in like manner, xxxix. 47, xl. 31, li. 20, separates them from his Keλrol (i.e. Germans). See Diefenb. Celt. II. p. 10 sq. In some of these passages they (as well as the Nervii) are spoken of as Gauls, in others as Belgians. This latter designation cannot be regarded as conclusive, inasmuch as some writers have maintained that the Belgians were themselves a German race. The evidence however is irresistibly strong in favour of their Gallic parentage. The facts of the case seem to be as follows; (1) The names of places and, what is more important, of persons among the |