Copyright
John Toland.

A new edition of Toland's History of the druids : with an Abstract of his life and writings; and a copious appendix, containing notes critical, philological, and explanatory online

. (page 31 of 31)
Online LibraryJohn TolandA new edition of Toland's History of the druids : with an Abstract of his life and writings; and a copious appendix, containing notes critical, philological, and explanatory → online text (page 31 of 31)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


for Hiberiiia; but be that as it may, he always places the Scots
in Britain— 5coH qui sunt in Britannia— \. e. " the Scots who
are ia Britain;" and, as I have before noticed, tells us that he
calls the Scots and Picts transmarine, not because they are
placed out of Britain, but because of their peninsular situatioa
beyond the Forth and Clyde. Giraldus, a writer of the twelfth
century, in his Descriptio AlhanicE, says — Monies qui dividuitt
Scociam ab Aregaithal — i. e. "' The mountains which diride
Scotland from Argyle," and calls the inhabitants Gaeli and Hi.
bernensis — Gael or Irish. If this passage has any meaniog at
all, it certainly proves that Argyleshire was Hibernia or Ireland.
Mr. Pinkarton oughtnot to hare quoted this passage, as it makes,
directly against him. But he is one of those men who can strain
at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Giraldus' geographical igno.
ranee is almost proverbial. This very author (as Piokartoa
himself admits, vol. 2. p. 207.) mistakes Scotliswaik (Solway
Firth), for Scottiszcatre (the Firth of Forth), and at one blow
lops off, and adds to England that part of Scotland situated south
of the Forth. If he did not know the limits of Scotland, where
it was conterminous to his native country, what accuracy was to
be expected respecting Argyleshire, which lay greatly more re-
mote. Giraldus chiefly dabbled in Irish history, and bad ion.
bibed many of their false notions respecting Scotland. It was,
indeed, very consistent in him, after having appropriated the
most valuable half of Scotland to England, to make Ireland a
present of Argyleshire. It is, however, extremely anaccounla.
ble in Pinkarton, after having repeatedly asserted that the Dal.
riads of Argyleshire were the original Scots, to cite this very
passage to prove that Argjleshire formed.no part of Scotland.
That Giraldus considered Argyleshire as Hibcmia (Ireland) is
pvid«at from his calling the inhabitants (Hibernenses) Irish,
isidorus (quoted by Pinkarton) says, Scotia eadem et Hibernia ;
i. e. " Scotland the same as Ireland," but this only proves that
Scotland was sometimes called Ireland. He then quotes St. Ber.
nard, a w.iter of the t«th-(h coutury, vrho says of St. Malachy



Notes, 427

ah ulteriori Scotia usque cucurrit ille ad mortem — i. e. " He ran
from further Scotland, even to death." Mr. Pinkarton is gene,
rally very unfortunate in his quotations; and this very one has
completely ruined his cause. If there was a Scotia ulterior,
there must also have been a Scotia citerior, a hither Scotland ;
and the truth is, that the Dalriads, an Irish colony, settled in
Argyleshire about the middle of the third century, and were
called Hiberni, Irish. This circumstance gave rise to two Hi.
hernia (Irelands), the one in Scotland, and the other in Ireland.
But this colony soon received the name Scots (colonists or emi-
grants). This again gave rise to two Scotlands, which Bernard
very properly denominates Ulterior and Citerior, The claim of
the Irish is, in this case, of the very same nature with that aU
ready noticed respecting the poems of Ossian. The Irish claim
this colony, its martial exploits against the Romans, its name,
&c. because of its Irish origin ; and this circumstance has misled
many respectable writers. But, as I have already observed,
this contest is of ho importance tq the Scots, because it can he
satisfactorily established, even on the evidence of Pinkarton
himself, that Scotland was the parent, not only of Ireland, but
«f the very colony in question. '

The Irish historians uniformly admit that the Tuatk de Danan
(race of the Danan or Damnii) migrated fiom Scotland to Ire.
land 1250 years before the Christian aera. That these Danan
were the Damnii of North Britain, has been generally allowed;
and even Pinkarton himself has, without reluctance, repeatedly
, acceded to it. These Damnii, according to Ptolemy, possessed
from Galloway to the Tay. Pinkarton himself adds Galloway
to their territories, and Richard of Cirencester adds Fife. The
last mentioned author also places a tribe of the Damnii Albani
(Highland Damnii) in Argyleshire. Hence it is clear that the
Damnii possessed the west coast of Scotland throughout nearly
its whole extent. I have formerly remarked, that Alhani and
Meat<ie (Albanach and Meatach, or Meadach) are merely local
discriminations of one and the same people, t\i^ Darunii. Pin.
kartoa himself it obliged to admit that the Demnii AWani (vol.



428 NOTES.

2. p. 72.) formed at least a part of the Dalriadic colony; and
apain (v. 2, p. 234.) adniits that Scoti and ^/fia«8 were synoD?.
tnous with writers of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth cen-
tury. Hoveden (quoted by Pinkarton, t. 2. p. 233.) has the
following remarkable passage, when describing the war of thfe
standard in USS—Exclamavitque simul exercUus Scottorum
insjgne patriu-m ; ei ascendit clamor usque in ccelum, Album!
Albanil i. e. " and the army of the Scots, with one voice, vo-
ciferated their native distinction, and the shout of Albanil Al.
bani! (Highlanders! Highlanders!) ascended even to the hea-
vens." From this remarkable passage we learn that Albani
was the native badge or distinction of the Scots. To this it is
only necessary to add that the Duan Albanach uniformly calls
the Dalriadic colony Albanach^ and their country Alba. Nay
Pinkarton himself says (v. 1. p. 224.) that the Damnii Albani
and Atiacotti were the first Scots from Ireland, and arrived ia
Argyle about the year 258. Having thus identified the Damnii
Albani, Dalriadi, and Scots, the result clearly is, that a colony
of the Damnfi migrated from North Britain to Ireland 1250
years (as the Irish historians themselves declare) before our era,
and that a tribe of the same Damnii returned to Argyleshire
about the middle of the third century. It is here particularly
vorthy of remark, that though 1 500 years had intervened from
the migration of the Damnii to Ireland, till their return to Ar-
gyleshire about the year 258, they had inflexibly retained tlieir
name, viz. Damnii Albani ; and though Damnii is now omitted,
they retain the r\ame^Albanach, even to the present hour. Nei-
ther the Irish nor Mr. Pinkarton have much reason, therefore,
to pique thetnselves on the Irish Dalriadic colony, because it
can be proved to demonstration, even from their own arguments,
that the ancestors of this colony emigrated from North Britain
to Ireland. But the most unaccountable conceit of all is, that
Pinkarton should insist that the name Scot originated in Ireland
whilst, in fact, they have no such name in their language, neither
have the Scots themselves any such name in their dialect of the
Cellic. In both languages the word used for Scot is uniformlv



NOTES. 429

Alhdnach- and ev^il ia Galloway, wtere the name wild Scot is
still proverbial, it is expressed, if we credit Bachanan, by Gal.
lovid, the literal import of which is Gallisyhestres. The quasi
alia Insula of Taciius, the Glacidis lerne. of Claudian, the Hu
berni and Picti of Eumehius, the Scotti and Picti.oi Ammianus,
with a few other ambiguous passages of the Roman authors, gave
a plausible pretext for the ridiculous fictioji ,thatjS'coW'« Antique
•was Ireland. Sensible that the whole tenour of Rorian ev,idence
was against them, the Irish mutilated the Duan Albanach, pass-
ed over the flrst Scottish colony under Riada, with barely men-
tioning it, and then proceeded to the second colony, under Loam
and Fergus, in 503. Having thus overstepped the Roman pe-
riod in Britain, they gravely tell us that there were no Scots in
Britain till 503, and that the Scots mentioned by the, Romans
were Irish auxiliaries, not resident in Scotland, and that'conse.
quently Ireland was Scotland. This foundation being laid, it
is not to.be wondered at, considering the influence and number
of the Irish Ecclesiastics, not only in Britain, but on the Conti-
nent of Europe, that this fraudulent imposition was widely
spread, and took deep root, Usher,'L!oyd, Stillingfleetj O'Fla.
herty, Keating, and many other respectable writers^ were im-
posed on, and positively deny the existence of the first colony,
altogether ; and had it not been the publication of the Duan AL
banach, mutilated as it is, the error had been irretrievable.
Mr.Toland, (see his Nazarenus) covAiasj to the opinion of the
other Irish historians, bad the honesty and disinterestedness to
assert the existence of the first colony.

Before dismissing this subject, it may not be improper to ha.
zardafew remarks on the probable origin of the word Scot.
AmmianuS) under the year 360, is the very first who mentions
the Scots and Picts, making war on the Romans. But he dof s
not drop a single hint that they were Irish auxiliaries. .On the
contrary, he always speaks of them as immediate, and at hand.
'I^he next author who mentions them is Hieronymus. In order
to, get over the evidence of this author as superficially as'poSsible,
Xr. Pinkarton inserts -^ffgcom instead oC Scvti, and teUs «a

3 I



430 NOTES.

that St. Jerome says (hey ate human flesh. The passage to which
he alludes is thus quoted by Calepine, an eminent lexicographer,
who wrote about 1490. Quid (inquit) loquor de cceteris natio.
nibus quum ipse adokicentulus in Gallia viderim Scotos gentem
Britunnicam humanis vesci camibus? — Vide Dictionarium ia
Terbo Scofi — 1. e. " Why (says HierOnymus) do I speak of other
nations, since I myself, when a boy, saw the Scots, a British na.
tion in Gaul, eat human flesh." It would have been conTenient
enough for Pinkarton to allow that the Scots ate human flesh,
but not equally so that they were a Britannic nation, for which
reason he inserts the Attaeotti in their stead. St. Jerome (Hie.
Tonymus)wasborn 343, and died 4S0. — {Ste Cave' sHist. Liter (».')
If we allow St. Jerome to be 18 years old (an age fully com.
nensurate to the word Adolescenttilus) when he saw the Sbots ia
Gaul, he must have seen them about 360, the very year wheit
Ammianus first mentions them. These Scots were unqnestion.
sbly mercenary troops in the Roman armies in Gaul. From the
Notilia Imperii, a work of the fifth century, it is clear that the
Romans employed foreign forces from all Rations, and n»t a few
from North Britain. St. Jerome imputes to them the custom
of eating human flesh ; and this very circumstance would induce
him to be particular iu his enquiries respeeting their name and
Ration. The Roman officers who commanded tfaem in Gaul, and
had levied them in Britain, were capable of giving him the cor-
rectest information ; and when he pronounces the Scots Britan.
nicam Gentem— ^^ a British nation," his authority is more than
a counterpoise to all that has been advanced en the other side
of the question. St. Jerome saw theSe Scots in Gaul more than
50 years before the Romans almndened Britatn, an4 at least
three centuries before tike Irish claim tp Scotland and the Stots
was startet]. The only argument Which can be adduced against
these authorities is, that St. Patrick conrerte^ the Scots in Ire.
land, and therefore the Scots must have been Irish. The very-
first name of Scots in Ireland appears in the letters of St. Patrick,
published by Usher. But the Sera of this saint was the very pe.
riod when the old Scots of Afgyle, fnfter a signal defeat by the



NQTES. 431

Picis, were oMiged to take refugg in [rel^oiil. Their re^^ence
ia Ireland is variously stated at from 17 to 40 years. T^ey r^.
turned to Argylesbire under jLoam and Ffir^gus, ihe sons of £rc,
about the end <^f tbe fiftli century. The Scots mentioned by $t.
Patrick were therefore t>he identical Dalriads, or aborigiu;il Scots
of Argylesihire. That St. Patrick converted this «X)Iony is clear
from the Duan Jilbanach, which says,— «

Tr^ mic Eire, mhic Eachach ait,
Triar four beaapachtaia Pfaadraic —

i. e. " The three sons of Ere, the son of Eachach the Grreat, ob.
tained the benediction of Patrick." Finkarton, the grand iid.
versary of the Scots,' is as express to this point as words caa
make it. Beda's Scots (says he, v. 2. p. 260.) in Britam were
hut the inhabitants of Argtfle, a petty diifria, and were convert*
ed to Christianity during their endle in Ireland,frQm 446 to SOS,
And again, (v. 2. p. 266.) in 460 Patrick converts the Dalreu.
dini, or oM British Scots of Argyie, then exiled in Ireland, as
he does the other Irish; and prophesies that Fergus, the satt of
Ef'c, shall be a king, and father of kings. It is a matter of tha
estremest facility to identify the Scot^ of St. Patrick and the
Scots of Argyle, by numerous and respectable authorities; but
Mr. Plnkarton has done it himself, and saved me the trouble.
It is therefore historic truth that the inhabitants of Argyleshire
ire the aboriginal Scots — that they are mentioned by Ammianus
and Hieronymus as early as 360 — that the name Scot was un.
known in Ireland till 460, and when known, belonged not to
the Irish, but solely and exclusively to the aboriginal Scots of
Argyleshire, then exiles in Ireland. Hence the extreme anxiety
of the Irish to suppress all knowledge of the first colony under
Riada, and to commence the Scottish name with the second co.
lony under Loarn and Fergus, the sons o^ Ere. It is pitiful
it is really distressing, to see Mr. Pinkarton flatly contradict
himself so often. Having, as liefore stated, admitted in the most
unequivocal terms that the Scots of St. Patrick were the old
ScX)tS of Argyleshire, he totally forgets himselfj and says (v, 2.

3 I 2



432 NOTES,

p. 225.) the Scots to whom Patrick was sent are perfectly known

to have been onlif Irish.

But prior to the year 460, the very name Scot was totally un-
known in Ireland, whereas it -was well known in Scotland a full
centuri^ earlier. If the Irish were the original Scoti, and Ireland
the origioal Scotia ; and if these names passed in process of time
from Ireland to Scotland, it must be proved that the Iriskand
Ireland bore these names prior to the year 360. This is sifting
the matter to the bottom ; and Pinkarton, sensible that nothing
less would serve the purpose, has hazarded the attempt. He
sets out (v. 2, p. 45, &c,) with the assumption that Seyth and
Scot, Scythia and Scotia, are synooimous. That Belgte, €auci,
and Menapit, were to be found in Ireland ; and that the Belgee
were Scots, because the Belgte were Scythians. I have already
shewn, on the testimony of Cassar and Tacitus, that the Belgx
were Celts. Eut waving this objection altogether, instead of
proof, we have nothing but impudent and groundless assertion.
But were his assertions as well founded as they are completely
the reverse, still the inference drawn from themtotally ruins the
very point which he wishes to establish ; for if Scythin and Sco.
tia are synonimous, it must follow that Scythia, and not Ireland,
was the original Scot/and, The childish.idea that Scythians and
Scots were synonimous, is borrowed from the ridiculous pream-
ble to the Cljfonicon Pictoruin, in which is the following remark
on the Scots: — Scotti (qui nunc corriipte vocantur Hibervienfes)
quasi Sciti, quia a Scithia regione venerunt ; ike a Scotta Jitia
Pharaonis regis Egypti qua fuit, utfertur, regina Scotoriim —
i. e. " The Scots (who are now improperly called Irish), as if
Scythians, because they came from the country of Scythia- or
from Scotta, the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who was
«s is reported, queen of the Scots." The Chroniele tells us also
— Gothi a Magog filio Japketh nominati putantur, de simiUtudL.
ne ultima syllaba — i. e. " The Goths ai^e thought to be named
from Magog, the son of Japheth, from the resemblance of the
last syllable." Whoever would found any thing on such npn.
sense as this, is certainly reduced to the last extremity. He who



NOTES. 433

can derive Goth from Magor;, nprd noi fifsitate to identify Scy-
Ihia and Scotia. But if synotiimity is of any avail in this cas»,
Scotia, Pharoah's daughter, has a better title to be called 5'corire
than even Scy thia itself. Mr. Pinkarton set out with the avow,
cd intention of proving that Ireland was ancient Scotland, in-
stead of which he has conferred that honour on "ancient Scythia,
and might, with equal justice,' have conferred it on Mexico or
Madagascar. ' ■ '

The most probable etymon of the word Sc6t, is the Celtic Sca-
oth oT'Seuih, meaning a swarm or colony; and hence (as colo.
nies are generally not composed of the most respectable mater?,
als) it frequently Signifies an exile, fugitive, wanderer, "&c.
This'last signification well expresses the migratory habits'of the
Scythians; and if there is any affinity betwixt S<;yfA?c« and 5cof,
the clear inference is, that the Scythians were Celts, and their
language Celtic, otherwise the radical meaning of the wbtd
would not have been lost in all other languages, and preserved
in the Celtic alone. We all know that the Oalriads, who first
bore the name of Scots, were Irish emigrants ; and I am verily
persuaded, that the name was given them by their Celtic neigh-
bours the Picts, for the sake of distinction, or, perhapsj from
contempt. The original name appears to have been Scaoth Eri.
nach (Irish fugitives), which has often been rendered in Latin
Hiberni Scoii, which Mr. Pinkarton, contrary tg all reason,
makes a proof that the Irish were Scots, and renders the Scots
in Ireland. But Hiberni Scoti literally means Irish fugitives ;
^nd could there remain any doubt on this head, it is completely
obviated by Bede and Gildas, who repeatedly call the Scots Hi.
lerni Grassalores, Scaoth Erinach, Hiberni Scoti, and Hiberni
Grassatores, are phrases strictly'^ynonimous; nor indeed could
the Celtic Scaoth, when taken in an opprobrious sense, be more
aptly rendered than by the Latin Grassator.

I do not, however, wish to be understood as by any means im-
pugning the antiquity of the Irish manuscripts. I only blame the
selfish use to which they have been applied. Ireland must
rankjposterior to Gaul and Britain, in point of early literature;



434 NOTES.

but on the pspnlsien of the Drafds frocn these kingdoms, it was
enriched with the »poils of both. The Irish have, therefore, aa
obvious interest in not publishing these manuscripts. Tlie mo-
tnent thej- are published, a great part of these records would in-
falliWy turn out to be, not the history of Ireland, but that of
Gaul and Britain. This is evidently the case with the Duan
Jlbanach, which is strictly and literally the history of Argyle-
shire. But having this important document in their custody,
the Irish laid claim to the whole Scottish name and atchievements,
up to the eleventh century. Indeed, I ds not hesitate to state,
that whatever is recoverable of the early Celtic literature, his.
tory, and mythology, either of Gaul or Britain, is to be found in
Ireland, and in Ireland alone; and I sincerely hope that the
pablieatioB of the Irish manuscripts will speedily be made a na.
tional concern. The English language is making rapid progress,
and tf this undertaking is delayed half a c«)tury longer, all is
lost, ia imti^um eonfimdimur chaos.



THE END.



J. Watt, Prmter, Montrose.






Online LibraryJohn TolandA new edition of Toland's History of the druids : with an Abstract of his life and writings; and a copious appendix, containing notes critical, philological, and explanatory → online text (page 31 of 31)