The reason of this misconception was, that their
records lay wholly uninvestigated as far as all historical
study of the language was concerned, and that nobody
troubled himself about the relative age and the development
of forms, so that the philologists were fain to take
them as they were put into their hands by uncritical
or perverse native commentators and writers, whose
grammars and dictionaries teemed with blunders and
downright forgeries. One thing, and one thing
alone, led to the truth: the sheer drudgery
of thirteen long years spent by Zeuss in the patient
investigation of the most ancient Celtic records, in
their actual condition, line by line and letter by
letter. Then for the first time the foundation
of Celtic research was laid; but the great philologist
did not live to see the superstructure which never
could have been raised but for him. Prichard
was first to indicate the right path, and Bopp, in
his monograph of 1839, displayed his incomparable
and masterly sagacity as usual, but for want of any
trustworthy record of Celtic words and forms to work
upon, the truth remained concealed or obscured until
the publication of the Gramatica Celtica. Dr.
Arnold, a man of the past generation, who made more
use of the then uncertain and unfixed doctrines of
comparative philology in his historical writings than
is done by the present generation in the fullest noonday
light of the Vergleichende Grammatik, was thus justified
in his view by the philology of the period, to which
he merely gave an enlarged historical expression.
The prime fallacy then as now, however, was that
of antedating the distinction between Gaelic and Cymric
Celts.’
{25} Dr. O’Conor in his Catalogue of the Stowe
MSS. (quoted by O’Curry).
{26} O’Curry.
{29} Here, where Saturday should come, something
is wanting in the manuscript.
{66} See Les Scythes, les Ancetres des Peuples Germaniques
et Slaves, par F. G. Bergmann, professeur a la faculte
des Lettres de Strasbourg: Colmar, 1858.
But Professor Bergmann’s etymologies are often,
says Lord Strangford, ’false lights, held by
an uncertain hand.’ And Lord Strangford
continues: —’The Apian land certainly
meant the watery land, Meer-Umschlungon, among the
pre-Hellenic Greeks, just as the same land is called
Morea by the modern post-Hellenic or Romaic Greeks
from more, the name for the sea in the Slavonic vernacular
of its inhabitants during the heart of the middle
ages. But it is only connected by a remote and
secondary affinity, if connected at all, with the
avia of Scandinavia, assuming that to be the true
German word for water, which, if it had come down to
us in Gothic, would have been avi, genitive aujos,
and not a mere Latinised termination. Scythian
is surely a negative rather than a positive term,
much like our Indian, or the Turanian of modern ethnologists,
used to comprehend nomads and barbarians of all sorts
and races north and east of the Black and Caspian seas.