that only where the Northmen settled are found those remains of what is called Celtic speech. “The Northmen formed colonies in Wales, in Cornwall, in Brittany, in Ireland, in the Highlands and islands of Scotland, and in the Isle of Man, and there only do we find those dialects usually known as Celtic.” I do not pretend to explain this, but I state it as an outside fact, which, in my view, it is incumbent on the Celtic philologer to explain. It is, of course, impossible to reach any confident conclusion as to what may have been the language on which the Northman grafted his Teutonic speech, though it must be obvious to every unprejudiced enquirer, that those dialects must now be very much mixed and altered and corrupted from close contact for many centuries with the language of a dominant race. Having regard to this fact, the question arises whether “the universally held belief” referred to by the _Saturday Review_, be not founded on the Gothic accretions derived from the Northmen, rather than on the structural peculiarities of the original language of the people among whom the Northmen settled. It is evident from the remarks of Professor Max Muller that too much importance is not to be attached to what is told us by the Celtic philologer. “Celtic words,” he says, “may be found in German, Slavonic, and even Latin, but only as foreign terms, and their number is much smaller than commonly supposed. A far larger number of Latin and German words have since found their way into the modern Celtic dialects, and these have frequently been mistaken by Celtic enthusiasts for original words from which German and Latin might in their turn be derived.” Professor Kirkpatrick’s opinion suggests a natural connection between the Celtic myth, and M. du Chaillu’s account of _The Viking Age_. The _Scotsman_, in its review of this book, wonders what Professor Freeman will say, and we are not long left in doubt. He looks down upon M. du Chaillu from a lofty eminence, evidently regarding him with something like pitying contempt. He is not sure he should have thought the doctrine set forth by M. du Chaillu worthy of serious examination, but for the singular relation in which it stands to Mr. Seebohm’s “slightly older teaching,” in his book called _The English Village Community_. Mr. Seebohm’s views, he says, are the evident result of honest work at original materials, and eminently entitled to be considered, and if need be, answered. But obviously both are eminently objectionable. Though differing in method, they rival each other in daring and absurdity. The only question is whether M. du Chaillu’s theory need be discussed at all. Professor Freeman has decreed this, and after so supreme a master in the art of criticism it is vain to question it.