their time respectable persons on account of their learning but they have certainly lowered themselves by giving into these idle reveries. What can be more fallacious than the notion adopted by 27 Wise, of the antiquity of the Scythians from the height of their ground? Which height, he says, the Scythians urged in their dispute with the Egyptians, as a chief argument of the antiquity of their nation: and the Egyptians, at least other good judges, acquiesced in the proof. The notion was, according to Justin, from whom it is borrowed, that, as the earth was once overflowed, the higher grounds emerged first, and consequently were first inhabited. And that Scythia was the higher ground, they proved from this, because all the rivers of Scythia descended from the north to the south, and ran towards Egypt. 2 Porro Scythiam adeo editiorem omnibus terris esse, ut cuncta flumina ibi nata in Mæotim, tum deinde in Ponticum, et Ægyptium mare decurrant. What a strange proof is this and what an argument to be laid before the Egyptians? They lived upon the Nile, and from the same principles might draw a different conclusion. As their river ran in a contrary direction, from south to north, they had the 27 Religion and Learning of Europe. p. 9. 28 Justin. 1. 2. c. 1. same reason to 29 insist that Upper Egypt and Ethiopia were the higher grounds, and the more antient countries: and they would be so far in the right, as the earth is certainly higher as we advance towards the equator, than it is towards the poles. As to the Tanaïs running from north to south, and so entering the Palus Mæotis and Pontus Euxinus, it is well known that there are many rivers upon the coast of the Black Sea which run in various and contrary directions; consequently different countries must be equally supereminent, and have the same title to be the most antient, which is absurd and a contradiction. The learned Pezron argues no better, when he tries to shew the similitude which subsisted between the Sace and the antient Gauls. He takes notice from Herodotus that the Amyrgian Sace wore breeches like the Gauls; and, having observed that they were an enterprising people, and given an account of their dress and arms, he concludes by saying, We may, upon the whole, find in these Gomarians of Margiana the language, arms, habit, with the restless and warlike spirit of our antient Celta. Will any body take upon him to deny that they came originally from this Asiatic nation? Yet, after all, I cannot assent, for I do not see the re 29 The Egyptians did insist upon it. See Diodorus. 1. 1. p. 10, semblance; and the authority upon which I proceed is that of Herodotus, to whom he sends me. This author takes notice both of the Bactrians and the Sacæ. He says that the Bactrians were archers, and used bows made of their country reed or cane, and had short darts. In other respects, they were accoutered like the Medes, who wore tiaras, tunics, and breeches, with a dagger at their girdle. The Sacæ, or Amyrgians, had caps upon their heads which terminated above in a point; they had also breeches. Their chief arms were bows and arrows with a dagger; also battle-axes and sagars. Let us now turn and view the habiliments of the Celta, and see if any resemblance subsisted. Their chief weapons, according to Polybius, Livy, and Cæsar, were a long dart, or framea; and a long cutting sword, but pointless; and they used an immense shield, which covered the whole body. They had helmets upon their heads which were ornamented with the wings of a bird for a crest, or else with the horns of some wild animal. To bows and arrows they were strangers, or did but seldom use them. From hence we may see that they were in nothing similar, but breeches and bravery; and of the former they were divested when they fought, for they went into battle naked. Great respect is certainly due to men of learning, and a proper regard should be paid to their memory but they forfeit much of this esteem when they misapply their talents, and put themselves to these shifts to support an hypothesis. They may smile at their reveries, and plume themselves upon their ingenuity in finding out such expedients, but no good can possibly arise from it, for the whole is a fallacy and imposition. And a person who gets out of his depth, and tries to save himself by such feeble supports, is like an ideot drowning without knowing his danger, who laughs, and plunges, and catches at every straw. What I have said in respect to these two learned men will, I hope, be an argument to all those who follow their system. |