Histoire des Celtes

A fortunate monument of the ancient Gothic, Tudesque Old Germanic, or Celtic language remains for us the author claims these are the same language in the version of the four Gospels in Gothic. This was produced by Ulphilas, Bishop of the Goths in the fourth century, for the use of those peoples. A precious manuscript of this version is still kept in the Library of Uppsala. This version provides the author with his best evidence. However, if the language of the Gauls and that of the ancient Germans differed only as dialects of the same language, why does Caesar say that Ariovistus, a German Prince, spoke the language of the country well only after a long stay in the Gauls? referring to Caesar's Commentaries, Book I, Chapter 47. If it were only a matter of two different dialects, would a long stay among the Gauls be necessary to speak their language? I would prefer to say, following the author's system, that the two languages drew their origin from a common source, much as Latin is to French and Spanish, or Saxon is to English and Dutch. French and Spanish are not dialects of Latin, nor are English or Dutch dialects of Saxon. Furthermore, I ask Mr. Pelloutier how this infinity of dialects he supposes could have formed to the point of becoming languages that had almost no similarity? If originally all of Europe, except for the Sarmatians, spoke the same language, which was Celtic, what could have changed its speech so much and diversified it in so many ways? Languages only alter considerably through commerce with peoples who speak another language. Does one see peoples in the middle of France corrupting their speech so much that neighboring peoples cannot understand them? This can only happen on the borders. Why then, in the middle of Europe inhabited by the same nation, which had the same language, is there this strange diversity of idioms? What traces of a common origin can be seen on one side in Basque and Breton, and on the other in German? It is certain that, in the time of Caesar and Strabo, there were three dialects in the language of the Gauls; but they understood each other well: they were truly dialects. It was not the same for the Germans. Tacitus remarks that the Gothini, a people of Germany, spoke Gaulish, and from this he concludes that they were not Germans at all referring to Tacitus, Germania, 43. If Gaulish had only differed from German as two dialects, would he have drawn this conclusion? Our author takes such pleasure in extending the reach of the Celtic language that he makes even the Scythians of Asia speak it. This is why, according to him, the Turks, who came from that country, preserve several German words in their language. But who told him that these words do not come from recent trade between the two nations? The author finds the same similarity in some Persian words. It must be admitted that all the examples he cites have something surprising about them. However

(*) One could have asked the Abbé des Fontaines how the Chinese established in Japan have so corrupted their primitive language that the current language of the Japanese is a language peculiar to their country, which has nothing in common with Chinese except the hieroglyphs characters from which these two languages are composed? It should be noted that formerly only the Chinese used hieroglyphs, and that these characters are in use, even today, only among the peoples who speak these languages which consistently derive from that of the Chinese, such as in Japan, Cochinchina, and Tonking. It is therefore not commerce with other nations that altered the primitive language of the Chinese established in Japan. Why would the same thing not have happened among the Celts?

a few similar terms do not prove the identity of two languages, nor even a common origin, but only a natural adoption of words, which pass easily from one language into another. I will speak to you further of the second part of this learned work.

This May 24, 1741.

LETTER 358. After having treated the origin of the Celts, the countries they formerly occupied, and their language, as you have seen, Monsieur, in Letter 355, Mr. Pelloutier explains in the second part of his work their manner of feeding themselves, housing themselves, and dressing; their ordinary occupations, and their contempt for agriculture, for the sciences, and for all the arts. He also speaks of their hymns, which contained their laws, their religion, and their history; and finally of their virtues and their vices. Without following the author into all these curious details, I will report the principal features here.

Formerly the nomadic peoples, that is to say, those who had no fixed dwelling, such as the ancient Scythians, drank only pure water or water mixed with honey. Those who sowed grains composed beer from them, which was the most common drink of the Celts. The Spaniards called it Celia, the Gauls Cervisia, the Illyrians Sabaja; others gave it other names. It was made everywhere in the same way, as beer is still made today. It is undoubtedly concerning beer that Herodotus says some Scythians sowed wheat to roast it. Wine was long unknown to the Celts: the Phocaeans first brought the vine to the Gauls, about 600 years before Jesus Christ, when they established a colony there and built Marseille. We read in Athenaeus that the wine drunk in the Gauls, in Caesar's time, was brought there from Italy or from the territory of Marseille: Diodorus and Varro confirm the same thing. In the time of Tacitus, the Germans who lived along the Rhine bought wine from foreigners. Under the Emperor Severus, there were very few vines in Hungary, according to Dio Cassius. Wine was even forbidden among the Nervii, who are the people of Hainault referring to Caesar, Commentaries, Book II, Chapter 15. Despite this, the author, based on the testimonies of antiquity, assures us that most Celtic peoples were heavy drinkers.

The Celts ate while sitting. This is how, according to Varro, the ancient Romans, the Spartans, and the Cretans ate. It was the Phoenicians and the Egyptians who introduced into Greece the effeminate fashion of eating while lying on beds arranged around a table. The ancient Pelasgians ate sitting, like the Celts. All the detail found here is drawn from ancient authors, whose passages are cited exactly at the bottom of the pages, and Mr. Pelloutier always applies to the Celts what is attributed to the Germans by Tacitus, and to the Scythians by several other celebrated writers of antiquity. The Celts sat separately, each having a private table without a tablecloth; their dishes were of wood and clay; they also had some of silver, which had been given as gifts to their chiefs; but they valued them no more than clay dishes. In feasts, drink was presented in the horns of wild oxen, or in human skulls, plated with gold or silver, like the ox horns. The skulls of enemies a Celt had killed were titles of nobility for him and his family. These skulls were reserved for great feasts, and all the guests had to drink from them. However, there