GOTHS (in Latin Gothi, Goti, and Gothones), a secondary denomination of that great, powerful, and victorious race which, after a protracted struggle, at length overturned the Roman empire, and diffused itself throughout the whole of Europe, excepting Russia, Poland, and Hungary. The Scythians or Goths were distinguished from the Celts, with whom they have often been confounded, by characteristics equally obvious and remarkable. This we shall have occasion to establish in the sequel of the present article. Many learned authors, however, have contended for the identity of these races; all antiquity has been ransacked for proofs and authorities by the writers on the opposite sides of the question; and in a discussion which might surely have been carried on with moderation and good manners, the utmost heat and exacerbation of feeling have unaccountably been evinced. Amongst those who have contended for the identity of the Goths and Celts, the first place is due to Cluverius and Pelloutier, who have asserted this proposition in its most unqualified form; and likewise to Sir William Jones, though he contends for nothing more than an identity of origin, leaving the question of subsequent divergence and secondary distinction untouched. On the other hand, of all the champions for the diversity of these races, Mr Pinkerton is by far the most formidable, and, seconded as his views have been by an able writer in the Edinburgh Review, and also by Dr Jamieson in his Hermes Sythicus, they must be allowed to have great weight by all who attentively consider and examine the question at issue. Conceiving that the arguments and reasonings of Cluverius and Pelloutier have been entirely overthrown, and that the diversity contended for has been established by a mass of evidence and authority which cannot be shaken, what we propose in this article, therefore, is to lay before our readers the substance of Mr Pinkerton’s very learned argument, modified however by the views of succeeding writers.

Of the Scythians an ample account is given by Herodotus in his fourth book, where he also mentions the Gerae, whom Darius subdued whilst advancing against the wandering Scythians who lived on the other side of the Ister or Danube. From the earliest periods of history, therefore, mention is made of the Scytha and Geta as only separated by a river. But the name of Goths is not nearly so ancient. The first mention of it occurs in the time of the Emperor Decius, in the year of Christ 250, when part of them invaded the empire from Getia, and Decius, in attempting to expel them from Thrace, was vanquished and slain. After this they are as frequently mentioned in the Latin authors by the names of Geta and Gothi, as the Scytha formerly were in the Greek; and, subsequently to this period, all the Greek writers uniformly call those Scytha whom the Latin authors denominate Gothi. This being the case, Mr Pinkerton shows, first, that the Geta and Gothi were the same people; and, secondly, that the Geta or Gothi were the same with the Scytha.

1. That the Geta and Gothi were the same, is proved by a multitude of authorities, which our limits prevent us from enumerating in detail. It may sufiice to mention, that Dio, who wrote under Alexander Severus, about the year 230, entitles his history of the Goths Γιr<xo∣⅛ or the Getic [7:10:619]history; that Spartian, who wrote about the year 300, says, in his Life of Antoninus Caracallus, Gotti Getae dicerentur, “the Goths were then called Getae,” and, again, in his Life of Antoninus Geta, Getticus quasi Gotticus, “Getic as we would now say Gothic that Claudian always calls the Goths Getae, and entitles his poem on the Gothic war De bello Getico ,∙ that Sidonius Apollinaris frequently calls the Goths Get<e, and denominates the Ostrogoths Massagetae ; that Orosius says, Getae qui et nunc Gothi, “the Getae, who are now also called Goths that St Jerome states that the Goths were anciently called Getae; that in the panegyric of Ennodius, on Theodoric, king of the Goths, it is said, “Nam illud quo ore celebrandum est quod Getici instrumenta roboris, dum provides ne interpellentur otia nostra, custodis that, according to Procopius, “the Goths are a Getic race ;” that Jemandes entitles his history De Getarum sive Gothorum origine et rebus Gestis, and constantly uses the names Getae and Gothi as synonymous; and, finally, that Isidorus says the Getae and Gothi are the same. This identity, therefore, seems to be completely established; especially as there is not even a shadow of authority on the opposite side.

2. It appears equally certain that the Getae or Goths were the same with the Scythians. Strabo, Pliny, and Ptolemy, all rank the Getae as Scythians. Trebellius Pollio, in Galieno, says, “Scythae autem, id est, peri Gothorum, Asiam vastabant.” Dexippus, who is supposed to have written in the reign of Gallienus, entitled his history of the wars between the Romans and Goths ΣKTΘIKA, or Scythic histories, and called the Goths ∑xuda<, Scythae. Priscus employs the words Scythians and Goths synonymously. Eunapius denominates the Scythians, whom Valens planted in Moesia, Goths. Procopius speaks of “all the other Gothic nations, who were also called Scythians in ancient times.” Theophanes, writing in the year 370, states “that the Scythians are in their tongue called Goths,” according to the relation of Trajanus Patricius, “in the history of his own time.” Syncellus states that “the Scythians are also called Goths in their own language and the same author likewise says, “when a great many Scythians, called Goths, had passed the river Ister in the time of Decius, they ravaged the Roman empire.” Jemandes always speaks of the Goths, Getae, and Scythae, as one people, and uses these names synonymously. Isidorus commences his chronicle of the Goths in Spain with these words: “Gothorum antiquissimum esse regnum certum est, quod ex regno Scytha-rum est exortum.” Procopius frequently calls the Fede-rati, so well known in the Lower Empire, Goths ; and Suidas, in voce, denominates them Scythians. Lastly, Ammianus Marcellinus, mentioning the death of Decius, who fell in battle against the Goths or Getae, denominates the latter Scytl.icae gentes. “That the Scythians and Getae were the same people,” says Dr Jamieson, “is attested by incontrovertible evidence.”^[1. /termes Scythicus, Dissert, on the Origin of the Greeks, sec. 2. ]

Having thus established that the Scythians, Getae, and Goths, are all one people, Pinkerton next proceeds to consider the question whether the Scythians or Goths went from Scandinavia into Asia, or whether, on the contrary, they came from Asia into Europe. And, in prosecution of this curious and important inquiry, he endeavours, in the first place, to show that the common notion of the Scythians having originated from Scandinavia is groundless. This opinion, which has been somewhat hastily adopted by Montesquieu, Gibbon, and other writers of the first name, has been built on a single sentence in the fourth chapter of Jemandes, namely, “Ex hac igitur Scania insula, quasi officina gentium, aut certe velut vagina nationum, cum rege suo nomine Berig Gothi quondam memorantur egressi.” But no weight can reasonably be attached to this single authority, however direct and explicit; first, because the work of Jemandes being, as is commonly supposed, only an abridgment of a large history of the Goths by his contemporary Cassiodorus, it is possible that in this as well as in other particulars, the abridgment may be inaccurate, more especially as it would seem to have been written solely from memory, after a perusal of three days; secondly, because though he generally followed Cassiodorus, he added many things from the Greek and Roman writers; thirdly, because Scandinavia having been, down to a late period, almost overrun with impenetrable forests, there was neither room nor subsistence in that country for so vast a population as that which so often invaded, and at last overturned, the Roman empire; fourthly, because we learn from Adam of Bremen, who wrote in the eleventh century, that, even in Denmark, the sea coasts alone were then peopled, whilst the interior parts of the country were one immense forest; and, lastly, because it can be proved from many authorities, in opposition to the single one of Jemandes, which is moreover highly improbable in itself, that the Scythians originated from Asia. On this last point some of Pinkerton’s authorities have been disputed both by the author of the Vindication of the Cells, and also by the able writer in the Edinburgh Review already referred to, who have each convicted him of sundry errors and inaccuracies of detail; but such is the redundancy of evidence which he has produced in support of his views, that, after every reasonable deduction has been made, enough remains to establish the position, that at a period probably as early as the year 1400 before Christ, the Scythians had advanced fron» the vicinity of the river Araxes, entered the Cimmerian Bosphorus, whence they afterwards spread themselves westward and northward over a considerable part of Europe. He shows that Herodotus, Diodorus, and indeed all the writers who have occasion to mention the subject, down to the sixth century, when Jemandes wrote, are in opposition to this monastic historian, and uniformly represent the Scythians as having passed, from the south of Asia, in a north-westerly direction, until, in process of time, they spread themselves all over Europe.

We pass over the chapter upon the real origin and first progress of the Scythians or Goths, whom Pinkerton traces from the banks of the Indus, through Persia, to the shores of the Caspian, and proceed to state the results at which he has arrived in the succeeding one, which treats of the western settlements of this people. From their intermediate position on the Euxine, the Scythians gradually extended themselves over the most part of Europe; and, according to Pinkerton, the Greeks and Romans, though refined by adventitious circumstances, certainly belonged to the same great family of mankind. We may also mention here, that, both on historical and on philological grounds, Dr Jamieson, in his Dissertation and in his Hermes Scythicus, contends strenuously for the Scythian origin of the Greeks, and, by many new and ingenious arguments, supports this, which forms one of the principal points of Pinkerton’s hypothesis. According to the latter, the Scythians successively invaded and settled in Thrace, Illyricum, Greece, Italy, Germany, and Scandinavia; in other words, he endeavours to show that the Thracians, Illyrians, Greeks, Italians, Germans, and Scandinavians, were all Scythians or Goths. And all this seems to us to be proved, as far at least as such a subject can be established by ancient authorities. The Scythian origin of the Thracians and Illyrians is indisputable. But there is more difficulty respecting the ancient inhabitants of Greece, taking that denomination in the large sense given to Hellas, as including Macedon, [7:10:620]and extending from Thrace and Hlyricum to the Cretan, Ionian, and Sicilian Seas. From the concurrent testimony of the Greek writers, it appears, first, that the ancient inhabitants of Hellas were the Pelasgi ; and, secondly, that the Hellenes were the same people who had formerly been called the Pelasgi, being, in fact, a small tribe of the Pelasgi who, having last settled in the country, had the good fortune to give their name to the whole. Pinkerton next considers, first, who the Pelasgi were not, and, secondly, who they were. They were not Egyptians, because the two small colonies of Egyptians who settled in Athens and Argos from the earliest times, were specially distinguished as a different people from the Pelasgi; because the Greek mythology has little or no affinity to the Egyptian; and because the Greek language differs entirely from the Coptic, in which are embodied the remains of the old Egyptian. They were not Phoenicians, because of all the reasons urged respecting the Egyptians. They were not Celts, because the latter were confined to the farthest west, whereas Greece was surrounded by Scythians; because the form and structure of the Celtic tongue are as remote as possible from that of the Greek; and because the manners, customs, and usages of the Celts, as described by the Greek and Roman authors, are entirely dissimilar to those of the earliest Greeks. They were not Sarmatae, because there is reason to doubt whether the latter entered Europe more than a thousand years before our era, whereas the progressive advancement of the Scythians dates from a much earlier period; because the manners of the earliest Greeks had nothing in common with those of the Sarmatic or Tartar tribes; and because the Slavonic language, which was spoken by the Sarmatians, differs from the Greek in grammatical structure as well as in nomenclature. But the Pelasgi, or Hellenes, were Scythians of Thrace; a position which, besides being established by authority, is rendered highly probable from the circumstance that ancient Hellas was everywhere surrounded either by the Scythians or the sea. For the full illustration of this branch of the subject, however, we must refer the reader to the fourth chapter of Mr Pinkerton’s Dissertation, to Dr Doig’s paper on the Ancient Hellenes,^[2. Tramactionl of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. iii. part 2, p. 131. ] and to the Hermes Scythicus of Dr Jamieson, passim. A similar mode of reasoning leads to the conclusion that the Italians, as well as the Greeks, were Scythians.

In the second part of his Dissertation, where he contemplates the extended settlements of the Scythians or Goths over all Germany, and in Scandinavia, Mr Pinkerton endeavours, in the first place, to show, negatively, that the Germans were not of Sarmatic nor of Celtic origin; and, secondly, he attempts to prove, positively, that they were Scythians, from identity of language, from the testimonies of the ancient authors, and from similarity of manners and institutions. The details required for the illustration of both branches of his argument are necessarily complicated, and do not admit of abridgment. But the reasoning is throughout strictly logical, and the conclusion can only be affected by impeaching the accuracy or validity of the premises. This, we are aware, has, to a considerable extent, been done in the Vindication of the Cells, in the Edinburgh Her∙iew, and in other works; and it must be confessed that the most unsparing severity of criticism is provoked, and in some measure justified, by the tone of insolent dogmatism which Pinkerton thought proper to assume, no less than by the contemptuous language in which he is pleased to characterise almost every writer whose opinions happened to differ from his own. But notwithstanding all his errors, aggravated as they unfortunately are by some misrepresentations, the stability of his argument remains as yet unshaken; and even those who have been most successful in detecting his blunders, will, if impartial, be the first to admit the great learning which he has brought to bear on his subject, and the ability with which he has throughout conducted his reasoning. In tracing the distinctive characteristics of the Goths and the Celts, he has, in fact, established his case, independently altogether of the positive evidence derived from authorities, which is afterwards supplied in profusion. Races of men which are found to differ in person, in manners, in laws, in religion, and in language, cannot, upon any known principle of reason, be admitted to bave had a common origin, whatever we may be led to believe upon the paramount authority of revelation.

Upon the whole, in reference to the subject of the Goths and Celts, the following points may be considered as established by the best evidence which the case admits of, viz. 1. At a period so early as the age of Sesostris, that is, at least 1400 years before Christ, the Scythians, previously established on the western shores of the Caspian and the eastern shores of the Euxine, had extended their conquests into Europe, and advanced at least as far as Thrace and the surrounding countries. 2. About 640 years before Christ, the Scythians drove the Cimmerians (believed to be the same people with the Cimbri and the Cymry) out of Europe, or forced them to take refuge in wild, mountainous, and inaccessible regions. 3. The Scythae were afterwards known in history by the names of Gerae, Gothi, and Germani ; but whether distinguished by these names, or by the more comprehensive appellation of Scythians, they are to be regarded as one and the same people. 4. The principal part of the population of every country in Europe, excepting Russia, Poland, and Hungary, where the Slavonic race predominates, is of Gothic origin and descent, though variously modified by the force of adventitious circumstances. 5. With regard to the Celts, the testimony of the earliest writers authorizes us to place their principal settlement, in the fifth century before our era, in the southwest of Gaul, or neighbourhood of the Pyrenees, whence they appear to have been driven by the Germans or Goths on the east, and the Aquitani (probably an Iberian race) on the south, to that part of Gaul where they were found in the time of Caesar. 6. The Slavi, who invaded the north-west of Europe after the destruction of the Roman empire, were an Asiatic tribe; and the present inhabitants and languages of Russia, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and Dalmatia, are derived from them.

Dr Jamieson, in the Dissertation prefixed to his Hermes Scythicus, adopts the same views, and follows nearly the same line of argument, as Mr Pinkerton, in considering the historical proofs of the Scythian origin of the Greeks. He shows that the Scythians and Getae were one people, that the Goths were identical with the Getae, and that the Thracians were of Scythian origin. He then treats of the diffusion of the Pelasgi throughout Greece; the identity of the Hellenes with the Pelasgi; the erroneous opinions which have been entertained respecting the origin of this people; the origin of their name; the proofs from testimony of the Scythian origin of the Pelasgi; the progress of this people as illustrative of their origin; the language of the Pelasgi; and, lastly, the resemblance of the Greek language to that of the Scythians. He next adverts to the origin of the religion of the Greeks, and of those called Hyperboreans, and, by an elaborate analytical examination, endeavours to show that the mythology of the Greeks, or at least their theocracy, was of Scythian descent, and merely an improved or polished form of the ruder system of superstition which the Goths imported into Europe from their [7:10:621]original settlements, and of which the principal features are still preserved in the Scandinavian mythology. These topics exhaust the historical disquisition, which, however, is in no small degree purely philological. But, in the second part of his work entitled Hermes Scythicus, the learned and estimable author applies himself to demonstrate the-affinity of the Scythian and Greek language by a critical and etymological examination of the purely elementary parts of the one, with cognatç or corresponding forms of expression in the other; and, in prosecuting this refined and delicate analysis, he displays equal erudition and ingenuity, accompanied, however, it must be admitted, with a little occasional straining. Whatever may be thought of the hypothesis, therefore, the learning brought to bear upon the subject is worthy of all acceptation; and every philosophical inquirer into the origin and structure of languages must feel grateful to Dr Jamieson for the curious and interesting information which he has so laboriously accumulated.

The most ancient proofs of the affinity of Scythian and Greek, which the doctor has referred to in his inquiry, are derived from the celebrated version os Ulphilas, bishop of the Moeso-Goths, which appears to have been executed about the year 360 of our era, though some learned writers have affirmed that it was executed in the reign of Constantine the Great. It is much to be regretted, that of the labours of Ulphilas, all that remains is his version of the four gospels, nearly one half of which has been lost; and some fragments of his translation of the Epistle to the Romans. The proofs derivable from the Moeso-Gothic are thus extremely limited. But recourse may be had to the Anglo-Saxon, a derivative dialect of the ancient Gothic, introduced into England about the year 450, or nearly a century after the date of the version of Ulphilas. There is not, indeed, extant any Anglo-Saxon writer older than Caedmon, who flourished about three centuries later than the Bishop of Moesia; but so close is the affinity of these two languages, that Hickes, the learned author of the Thesaurus Linguarum Septentrionalium has included both in the same grammar. The form of speech which has the next claim in point of antiquity is the Alemanic or Franco-Theotiscan; but of this there exist no memorials of an earlier date than the reign of Charlemagne. The Islandic is the oldest and purest dialect of the Gothic which still exists as a living language. This language, in its more ancient form, has been called the Runic, from the character in which it was written; and in it Saemund the Wise wrote the Edda which bears his name, towards the close of the eleventh century. The Suio-Gothic, including the ancient language of Sweden, is nearly allied to theTslandic, and constitutes one of the sources from which the proofs of affinity are principally derived. Finally, without attempting to pronounce any opinion as to the result of Dr Jamieson’s analytical investigation, we may however be permitted to observe, that, if there exist such an affinity as that contended for between the Gothic and Greek, and if an argument be thence deduced as to the Scythian origin of the people by whom the latter was spoken, the well-known fact of the striking affinity, amounting almost to identity, which is found to subsist between the Greek and the sacred language of India, the Sanscrit, must give an entirely new direction to the inquiry into the origin and descent of nations, and lead us to extend our views on this subject far beyond the range to which Dr Jamieson, and those who have followed in his footsteps, have confined their researches.

(Pinkerton’s History of Scotland, vol. ii. Dissertation on the Origin and Progress of the Scythians and Goths, Edinburgh, 1814, in 8vo. Vindication of the Celts, from Ancient Authorities; with observations on Mr Pinkerton’s Hypothesis concerning the Origin of the European Nations, London, 1803. Edinburgh Review, vol. ii. p. 355

et seqq. Jamieson’s Hermes Scythicus, or the Radical Affinities of the Greek and Latin Languages to the Gothic, &c. Edinburgh, 1814. Doig on the Ancient Hellenes, Edinburgh Transactions, vol. iii.) (a.)