13.07.2015 Views

A new edition of Toland's History of the druids: - Free History Ebooks

A new edition of Toland's History of the druids: - Free History Ebooks

A new edition of Toland's History of the druids: - Free History Ebooks

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

—/_43iNOTES.p. 225.) <strong>the</strong> Scots io whom Patrick zcas sent are perfectly knownto have been only Jrish»But prior to <strong>the</strong> year 460, <strong>the</strong> very name Scot was totally unknownin Ireland, whereas it was well known in Scotland a fullcentury earlier.If <strong>the</strong> Irish were Ihe original Scoti, and Ireland<strong>the</strong> original Scotia; and if <strong>the</strong>se names passed in process <strong>of</strong> timefrom Ireland to Scotland, it roust be proved that <strong>the</strong> Irish andIreland bore <strong>the</strong>se names prior to <strong>the</strong> year 360. This is sifting<strong>the</strong> matter to <strong>the</strong> bottom ; and Pinkarton, sensible that nothingless would serve <strong>the</strong> purpose, has hazarded <strong>the</strong> attempt. Hesets out (v. 2. p. 45, &c.) with <strong>the</strong> assumption that Sci/th andScot, Scythia and Scotia^ are synonimous.and Menapii, were to be found in Ireland ;That BeJgce, Cauciyand that <strong>the</strong> Beigeswere Scots, because <strong>the</strong> Beiges were Scythians.I have already{ihewn, on <strong>the</strong> testimony <strong>of</strong> Caesar and Tacitus, that <strong>the</strong> Belgaetvere Celts. But waving this objection altoge<strong>the</strong>r, instead <strong>of</strong>pro<strong>of</strong>, we have nothing but impudent and groundless assertion.But were his assertions as well founded as <strong>the</strong>y are completely<strong>the</strong> reverse, still <strong>the</strong> inference drawn from <strong>the</strong>m totally ruins <strong>the</strong>very point which he wishes to establish ;for if ScythJa and Sco.tia are synonimous, it must follow that Scythia, and not Ireland,was <strong>the</strong> original Scotland.The childish idea that Scythians andScots were synonimous, is borrowed from <strong>the</strong> ridiculous preara-"ble to <strong>the</strong> Chronkon Pictorum, in which is <strong>the</strong> following remarkon <strong>the</strong> Scots:Scotli (qui nunc corrvpte vocantur Hibernien^es)^uasi Sciti, quia a Scithia regione venerunt ; siie a Scctta filia£haraonis regis Egypti quce fnii, ut feriur, regina Scotorum—\. e.'*The Scots (who are now improperly called Irish), as ifScythians, because <strong>the</strong>y came from <strong>the</strong> country cf Scythia; orfrom Scotta, <strong>the</strong> daughter <strong>of</strong> Pharaoh, king <strong>of</strong> Egypt, who was,as is reported, queen <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Scots." The Chronicle tells us also,— Gothi a Magog filio Japheifi nominati putaniur, de simiUiudi.ne idtimce syllabce— i. e, '' The Golhs are thought to be namedfrom Magog, <strong>the</strong> son <strong>of</strong> Japheth, from <strong>the</strong> resemblance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Jast syllable." Whoever would found any thing on such nonsejjseasthis^ is certainly rcduped to <strong>the</strong> last cstrcD:ity. lit \\hQ

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!