« EdellinenJatka »
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE DRUIDS.
των δ' αμόθενγε, Θεά θύγατερ Διός, είπε και ημίν.
Homeri Odyss. 1.
From what part of the world this island was at first peopled, is a point which has given birth to a variety of discordant opinions, from very few of which we are able to educe any thing, that may be deemed satisfactory. Some writers, who from their productions appear to discredit the Mosaic account, without taking much pains to disguise their sentiments, conceive the Druids to be aútódoves; others, wandering in a labyrinth not less confused, imagine the Goths and the Celtæ to be the same people; and a different class, who seem not altogether to be convinced by the idea, and who yet do not reject it, are manifestly undecided respecting the different tribes, and the countries which they occupied. By some, the Phoenicians have been summoned to solve the difficulty, but Bryant observes, with the greatest truth, that ignorance has frequently taken shelter under that name, since Phænician was a title, which was given to Tyrians, to Tsidonians, and to Canaanites, and was introduced by a people from Egypt, according to his quotation from Eusebius, Φοίνιξ και Κάδμος από Θήβων των Αιγυπτίων εξέλθοντες εις την Συρίαν, Τύρου και Σίδωντος εβασίλευον.
Pezron informs us, that a people called Gomarians, Cimmerians, Celts, and Scythæ, in the earliest ages spread themselves over Bactria and Margiana, and that, travelling by way of Armenia, and Cappadocia, they passed into Europe. Tacitus, in words not very dissimilar from those of the writers, who deem the Druids to be aúrózsoves, says of the Germans : " Ipsos Germanos indigenas crediderim, minimèque aliarum gentium adventibus et hospitiis mixtos; quia nec terrâ olim sed classibus advehebantur, qui mutare sedes quærebant ; et immensus ultrà, utque sic dixerim, adversus Oceanus raris ab orbe navibus aditur.” This reasoning is too evidently absurd, to require a refutation, and thus calls forth the criticism of Brotier : “ Indigenæ et quasi è terrâ prognati veteribus scriptoribus dicti sunt populi omnes, quorum origo eos latebat...............aliter et verè ipse Tacitus infrà cap. 28 et 43. Gallos, Gothincs, et Osos advenas atque hospites memorat," and accordingly in cap. 28. he contradicts his assertion, that colonists did not travel by land. But as Cluverius and others have so amply treated of the Sarmatæ, Gothi, Gothini, Getæ, Osi, Daci, &c. it is needless for us to go over the same ground : suffice it
then to observe, that the Goths and Celts appear to have derived their religious rites from the same source through different channels, but that in their transit they suffered a considerable change ; that they were clearly distinct people at the time, that we read of them in Europe, that the various words of mutual affinity, which have been cited to support their coincidence, may probably have arisen from proximity of territory, in which some of the different tribes resided, or may have proceeded from some sacred tongue, which, for aught that we know to the contrary, may, in the more early part
of their history, have been used by their priests. It is, therefore, proposed to demonstrate from the noble relics bequeathed to us by the Greek historians, that the foundation of Captain Wilford's opinions rests not merely on Sanskrịta MSS. but on the records of other people likewise ;-but as it is presumed, that those opinions are now well-known, they will but seldom be quoted. Indeed, the almost universal account of Phænicians, who settled in this island, is itself in direct favor of the idea ; as will more fully appear from the words of Sir William Jones : « If Strabo and Herodotus were not grossly deceived, the adventurous Idumæans, who first gave names to the stars, and hazarded long voyages in ships of their own construction, could be no other than a branch of the Hindù race: in all events, there is no ground for believing them of a fourth distinct lineage; and we need say no more of them, till we meet them' again on our return under the name of Phoenicians," and in another part, he says, that he has no doubts that “ Syria, Samaria, and Phoenice, or the long strip of land on the shore of the Mediterranean, were anciently peopled by a branch of the Indian stock, but were afterwards inhabited by that race, which for the present we call Arabian.” And the Welsh, so far from considering themselves indigenous, aver, as Meyrick has shown from Taliesin and from the Triads, that Hu the Mighty stands on record as the first, who colonized Great Britain with Cimbric adventurers.
Tacitus writes in his Agricola, “Ceterum Britanniam, qui mortales initio coluerint, indigenæ an advecti, ut inter Barbaros paràm compertum.” Nor is it to be denied, that we may justly rank among the things, that are inscrutable, if not among the things, that are fabulous, that the Celtæ were sons of Gomer, and that his brother Magog's descendants peopled Tartary; since all the authority, upon which we can absolutely depend, is to be found in Gen. X. 3.
בְנֵי גִמֶר אַשְׁכְּנַז יְרִיפַת וְתְגַרְמָה:
which is much too brief and indefinite to justify us in any such hypothesis ; and in reality proves nothing.' Trebellius in Claud. Ć. 6. notices the Celtæ as a people of Scythia, who were conquered by Claudius : “ Denique Scytharum diversi populi, Deucini...... Celtæ etiam et Heruli in Romanum solum et rempublicam prædæ cupiditate venerunt.” Pelloutier observes, « On sait, que les Ægyptiens et les Phæniciens commencèrent de bonne heure à équiper les flottes, et à faire des établissemens le long des côtes de la mer Mediterranée, jusqu'aux Colonnes d'Hercule. D'ailleurs il est à presumer, que ces établissemens commencèrent par la Grece; cette contrée se trouvoit à leur bienséance, parcequ'elle leur ouvroit plusieurs autres provinces de l'Europe.” In another place he writes, “Le célébre Bochart et plusieurs autres écrivains ont oui qu'il valoit mieux faire venir les Celtes de l'Egypte ;” and in a different part, “les Perses, les Iberes d'Orient, les Albaniens, les Bactriens paroissent avoir été le même peuple que les Celtes,” and elsewhere he labors to establish their Scythian origin, and says, that the Scythians and the Celtes lived together united : from all which it is evident that he knows not where to fix their origin, and in the sequel it will be shown, that these confused accounts most wonderfully harmonize; but, whenever an example is produced from Pelloutier, it should be remembered, that he indulged the common error of the identity of the Goths and Celtæ. However, it
may not be amiss to wander from our subject for the sake of exhibiting an ingenious conjecture of Cluver, concerning the famous passage of Herodotus, άλλοι δε Πέρσαι εισί οι δε Πανθηλαίοι, Δορευplano, Tequavion. De cetero, eorum heic maxime notanda est parùm felix conjectura, qui à Persarum gente Germanos ortos, ex Herodoto probare posse arbitrantur : scilicet, quia huic in lib. 1. sub Persarum imperio populi recensentur l'equívios, quibus equidem duplex hujus sententiæ ratio.........originem gentis nostra, qui ex Herodoti vocabulo Teppannon ostendere volunt, præter vocabulum hoc nihil in Herodoto legisse mihi videntur: quis namque geographiæ, historiæque veteris tam rudis, atque ignarus, quin vel primo statim intuitu percipiat l'equávins Herodoti esse eosdem populos, qui aliis frequenter auctoribus kasuáriou et Káguayos dicuntur, gens ad fauceis sinûs Persici nobilissima ? Now, although these observations are exceedingly probable, yet the evidence of other authors renders it certain, that we must look in that part of the world for the origin of that people. But the remark, which he makes concerning the Goths, erroneously calling theni Celtæ, will also apply with undiminished force to the true Celtæ :“ nam quum Deorum cultum primi Celtre (lege Getæ) quorum pars maxima Germani, ex Asiâ -secum in Celticam attulerint, sacerdoteis quoque sacrorum procuratores, divinæque voluntatis interpreteis unà inde adduxisse, certum est."
The translator of Mallet, in his interesting preface, proves the dif. ference on which we here insist, and says, that Gauls, Britons, and
Mr. Barker's Reply, &c.
175 Irish are descended from Celtic ancestors; but that Germans, Belgians, Saxons, and Scandinavians, from Gothic or Teutonic, all of which have been included by Zosimus and others under the term Scythian, which at best is but indefinite. This writer quotes Strabo, who informs us, that although the old Greek authors gave all the northern nations the common name of Scythians, or CeltoScythians, yet that writers still more ancient divided all the nations, who lived beyond the Euxine, the Danube, and the Adriatic Sea, into the Hyperboreans, the Sauromatæ, and Arimaspians, as they did those beyond the Caspian sea into the Sacæ and the Massagetæ. These Sacæ and Massagetæ might possibly be the ancesa tors of the Saxons and Goths, as these last are fully proved to have been the Getæ of the ancients.” And indeed this distinction
D. G. IVAIT.
Mr. Barker's Reply' to the Strictures of the SCOTTISH REVIEW
on his Edition of CICERO'S Two TRACTS.
In the 7th No. of the Scottish Review (lately termed Edinburgh Quarterly) is an elaborate critique on my Edition of Cicero's Two Tracts. The hypothesis about the origin of ne quidem, in the sense of not even, has been assailed by the Writer: I shall give his own words in the order in which they occur, and subjoin to each sentence
· Perhaps it inay be useful to give here an index of the critical matter introduced into this Reply. 1. Ne quidem the same as nec quidem in the opinion of Priscian, and of Basil Faber ; neque never used for ne quidem, with Remarks npon a Passage of Colunella, and Strictures upon M. Gesner and Forcellinus; nec used for ne quidem by the ellipse of quidem; nec before quidem resolvable into et ne quidem, when it begins the sentence, in which it occurs; ne quidem never used without the interveution of some word, except in one passage; Onus Etna gravius, the opinions of Basil Faber and M. Gesner upon the origin of the pro. verb; Ætna et Alhuncs moutes used proverbially; Cicero took the proverb from Euripides Herc. Fur. ; sustinere properly used with a reference to the shoulder ; pænitet, licet, miseret, tædet, piget, pudet, decet,' libet, expedit, erenit, accidit, tonat,
such remarks, as I have to make upon them. « Priscian is understood by Gesner to intimate 16 p. 1028, that ne in ne quidem is a corruption of neque, or nec : our Author's opinion, therefore, is not quite so novel, as he seems to think ; but whether he, and Priscian be at all right in their conjecture, appears to us extremely doubtful." I must confess that I know not where “ Gesner intimates” this, but I cannot find any intimation of it in the Thes. Ling. Lat.: the reference, however, to Priscian, whose words I subjoin, is correct: “Invenitur etiam ne pro neque, quæ copulativa est conjunctio; sub una enim abnegatione, copulat res, quomodo et nec, Lucan. in 1. Nec se Roma ferens, Cicero in iv. Invent. Ne dici quidem opus est, quanta diminutione civium, Te. rent. in Eun. Non eam, ne nunc quidem, cum accersor ultro, pro neque nunc, Grammaticæ Lat. Auctores antiqui, Opera Heliæ Putchii Hanoviæ, 160 p. 1028 : Basil Faber in the Thes. Scholast. Erudit. also
says “ne quidem pro nec quidem, Ne istius quidem laudis sum cu- , pidus, Cic. Pro Rosc. Am.c. 1.," and he then cites other passages.
It was not fair in the Reviewer to say that “our Author's opinion, therefore, is not quite so novel, as he seems to think,” when my Note begins with the words, “ I know not whether Grammarians have ever remarked.” To proceed with the Reviewer's words, “ Our Author has, indeed, produced one instance in which nec quidem is found, and might easily advance more, but, as nec is a corruption of neque, we are pretty sure that, the latter is never used precisely in the same way as ne quidem :" the Reviewer has overlooked the instance of neque for ne quidem, to which I have, with the authority of Gesner in the Thes. Lat. Ling. referred, and that is, Colum. 3, 21, 7.: I shall now produce the passage itself, Frigora melius quam humores sustinent, humores commodius quam siccitates, nec caloribus tamen contristantur : in the Inder to Gesner's Scriptores Rei Rustica, Ed. 2., Lipsiæ, 1774, he observes that nec is here used for ne quidem, but, to speak the truth, the passage is not exactly to the purpose: at the first view of it, nec seems to be used not so much for ne quidem, as for et ne quidem, that is nec quidem, and the solution of the passage is to be found in tamen, which always refers to quamvis, etsi, etc. either expressed, or implied, as I have observed in p. xxill. of my Work: thus here the full construction is, Nec, si commodius sustineant, etc., tamen contristantur. Forcellimus, in the Lericon totius Latinitatis, says Neque pro ne quidem, Cic. Agrar. 3. c. 2. Caput est legis, de quo ego consulto, Quirites, neque apud vos ante feci mentionem, ne viderer etc., but this passage also is not to the purpose, and Forcellinus has probably made some mistake about it. Gesner in the Thes. Ling. Lat, says, picari, pro ne suspicari quidem, Cic. Acad. 1. 7. Quod bonum quale sit, negat omnino Epicurus, sine voluptatibus sensum moventibus nec suspi
« Nec susa
not impersonals; stipare, metaphorically applied in the sense of to attend a great personage, with Remarks upon a Passage of Horace; humi, domi, &c. noi adverbs, used elliptically; terræ equivalent to in solo, or in solum, instances produced where the ellipse is supplied; humi not to be derived from Xapuri : tollere digitum, manum, manus, pugnare au digitum, tendere manus, manceps, micare, their different meanings illustrated, with Remarks upon their origiu.