Celtic MSS. in relation to the Macpherson fraud: With a review of Professor Freeman's criticism of [P.B. Du Chaillu's] "The Viking Age," by the author of "Celticism a myth"

In Short

This provocative treatise serves as a sharp, argumentative critique of the academic consensus regarding British origins. By systematically dismantling the reliance on Macpherson’s Ossian manuscripts and challenging the traditional narrative of a Saxon invasion, the text posits that Scandinavian influence, rather than Celtic, is the true bedrock of British civilization. It functions as a defiant reaction against established historians of the late nineteenth century, using historical deduction and skepticism to reframe the origins of language, art, and national identity for a generation long entrenched in a specific, contested worldview.

The Story

The narrative arc begins with an act of academic rejection. The author, having been denied space in the Scotsman to refute a professor’s defense of Celtic manuscripts, decides to publish his dissent independently. He frames the "Celtic myth" as a pervasive deception, rooted in the fraudulent eighteenth-century translations of Macpherson. He argues that what is commonly accepted as distinctively Celtic—whether literature, art, or social structure—is in reality a misattributed inheritance from the Northmen.

As the argument progresses, the focus shifts to the broader historical landscape, specifically the "Saxon invasion." The author engages with the work of M. du Chaillu, whose theories on the Viking Age serve as a primary catalyst for the author’s own contentions. He positions himself against the formidable Professor Freeman, whom he paints as an arrogant guardian of an outdated, "Teutonic" orthodoxy. Through a series of biting critiques, the author asserts that the traditional distinction between Saxon and Scandinavian is a false dichotomy. He insists that both groups were, at their core, the same people, and that the prevailing historical narrative has been blinded by a superficial focus on linguistic labels that ignore the underlying archaeological and historical truths.

The middle portion of the work moves from general theory into specific examples. The author disputes the findings of Dr. W. F. Skene regarding the Pictish language, dismissing the idea of a unique Pictish dialect as a "figment." He asserts that historical figures like Brude and Hungus are, by name and action, Scandinavian, not Celtic. He continues this assault on the established canon by analyzing artifacts like the Hunterston brooch, which he claims has been falsely labeled as Celtic by scholars too eager to confirm their own biases. He accuses contemporary historians of "jumbling" races and languages, suggesting that they lack the practical sense to interpret historical reality, preferring instead the imaginative, imprecise "science" of philology to the hard evidence of historical records provided by ancient observers like Caesar.

The conclusion is a defiant reinforcement of his central thesis. The author addresses his critics, particularly those in the Literary World, with a mix of academic rigor and personal scorn. He maintains that the "Celticism is a myth" stance is not merely a radical opinion but a rational deduction from evidence that others are afraid to acknowledge. The work closes with an extensive list of testimonials and supportive correspondence from fellow scholars and peers, essentially declaring victory over the "commotion in the camp of archaeologists" that his arguments have stirred. He does not seek to reconcile with the established historical consensus; rather, he seeks to replace it with a new, Scandinavian-centered framework that he believes is more faithful to the actual trajectory of British history.

How It Unfolds

The catalyst of rejection The author explains how the silencing of his initial critique in the press prompted him to compile his thoughts into a formal tractate. He establishes his primary enemy: the "Celtic myth" and the institutional gatekeepers who protect it.

The assault on linguistic orthodoxy The author attacks the reliance on modern philology, arguing it is an inexact science used to obscure historical fact. He contrasts the "dreamy" interpretations of academics with the direct observations of Roman historians like Caesar and Tacitus.

The confrontation with the establishment A detailed critique of Professor Freeman ensues, characterizing him as a pedantic defender of an obsolete view of history. The author argues that Freeman’s disdain for M. du Chaillu is a desperate attempt to ignore the overwhelming evidence of Scandinavian dominance.

The reclassification of artifacts The author provides examples of cultural items, such as the Hunterston brooch and stone crosses, to argue that these objects are fundamentally Scandinavian. He asserts that they have been misidentified by scholars who lack the courage to admit the truth of their origin.

The final defense The work concludes by addressing recent criticisms of his own methods and scholarship. He dismisses his detractors as confused or biased, ultimately framing his position as a necessary, truth-telling corrective to a century of historical delusion.

The People

The author, James Cruikshank Roger, acts as the central voice and polemicist. He is a man driven by a desire for intellectual clarity who views the academic establishment as a stagnant, self-serving body. He is unyielding in his skepticism, refusing to accept the "received accounts" of history, and he positions himself as a lone, brave seeker of truth against a tide of professional historians who he believes are fundamentally dishonest or misguided.

Professor Freeman represents the antithesis of the author’s values. He is portrayed as an elitist, "lofty" figure who guards the status quo with contemptuous, dismissive language. Freeman serves as the primary obstacle, embodying the academic arrogance that the author aims to dismantle. To the author, Freeman is not merely an opponent in an intellectual debate but a gatekeeper who prefers the preservation of a comfortable myth to the challenges posed by new evidence.

M. du Chaillu appears as an intellectual ally, though he is treated as a victim of Freeman’s "pitying contempt." The author champions du Chaillu’s work on the Viking Age because it aligns with his own theory, using du Chaillu’s treatment at the hands of the establishment to demonstrate the unfairness and irrationality of the academic community. Finally, there are the "irascible Celts" and anonymous reviewers who serve as foils, providing the author with opportunities to clarify his arguments and demonstrate his resolve. These figures are not granted the depth of the author or Freeman; they are instead obstacles to be brushed aside in his pursuit of a rewritten history.

In Its Own Voice

“I thought your book an imposture. I think it an imposture still.”

This biting quote from Dr. Johnson is used at the very beginning to set the tone for the author’s own skepticism regarding historical narratives.

“The received accounts of the Saxon immigration, and subsequent fortunes, and ultimate settlement, are devoid of historical truth in every detail.”

The author employs this statement from J. M. Kemble as a foundational pillar for his argument that traditional history is fundamentally flawed.

“The strife in its new form has become more deadly.”

This line is used to characterize the escalating intellectual war between traditionalists and those who, like the author, seek to expose the Scandinavian roots of British history.

What It's Really About

The core of the book is a radical challenge to the integrity of British historical identity. It is an argument against the validity of "Celticism" as a descriptive category for British origins, art, and culture. The author questions the authority of modern academics, suggesting that their reliance on linguistic theory has detached them from reality. The deeper question is one of historical truth: how do we distinguish between myth and fact when the very tools of historical analysis—philology, archaeology, and genealogy—have been hijacked by nationalistic or romantic agendas? The author insists that if we strip away the layers of academic fabrication, we will find that the cultural legacy of Britain is not Celtic, but fundamentally Scandinavian.

Why Read It Today

Reading this work is an exercise in engaging with the intellectual combat of a bygone era. It offers a fascinating, if aggressive, window into how historical narratives were constructed, challenged, and fiercely defended in the late nineteenth century. Readers who enjoy contrarian perspectives or the history of ideas will find the author’s unwavering, combative tone compelling. It captures a moment when the Victorian obsession with race, origin, and national identity was reaching a fever pitch, and the author’s willingness to call out "impostures" makes for a vivid experience.

However, the reader should be prepared for the book's limitations. The writing is dense and heavily polemical, reflecting the period's preference for vitriolic academic discourse. The author assumes a high level of familiarity with the scholars and controversies of his day, which may feel alienating to a modern audience without context. Furthermore, his attitudes toward "Celts" and the legitimacy of Celtic culture are intensely dismissive, serving as a reminder of the prejudices that colored historical discourse during this time. Ultimately, the book stays with you not for its balanced analysis, but for its raw, unfiltered, and deeply combative spirit—a testament to a time when historians were not just chroniclers, but fierce, often abrasive, warriors of interpretation.