PART IV. The Dalriads.
  • Chap. I. Irish origins; and progress of the Dal­riads from Ireland to North Britain 3
  • Chap. II. The first colony of Old Scots in North Britain, under Riada, about the year 258, being the Dalreudini or Attacotti 60
  • Chap. III. The second arrival of the Ancient Scots in Britain; and first establishment of the Dalriadic kingdom in 503 87
  • Chap. IV. Extent of the kingdom of Dalriada 95
  • Chap. V. Catalogue of the Dalriadic kings 100
  • Chap. VI. Manners, language, antiquities, &c. of the Old British Scots 138
PART V. Piks and Dalriads united.
  • Chap. I. Union of the Piks and Dalriads 149
  • Chap. II. The kings from 843 till 1056 175
  • Chap. III. Extent of the united territories, dur­ing this period from 843 till 1056 205
  • Chap. IV. Origin of the name SCOTLAND 223
  • Chap. V. Manners and antiquities of this pe­riod, from 843 till 1056 247
PART VI. Ecclesiastic and Literary History.
  • [Page iv]Chap. I. Ecclesiastic History 259
  • Chap. II. Literary History 274
SUPPLEMENT. The Angles and the Norwegians.
  • Sect. I. The Angles 285
  • Sect. II. The Norwegians. History of the Iles 293
  • Numb. I. Extracts from the Annals of Ulster 307
  • Numb. II. The Albanic Duan, with transla­tions 321
  • Numb. III. The succession of Scotish kings, inserted in the Chronicle of Melrose; comprizing the Chro­nicon Elegiacum 330
  • Numb. IV. Kings of Norway 337
  • Numb. V. Kings of Denmark 342
  • Numb. VI. Kings of Sweden 345
  • Numb. VII. Earls of the Orkneys 347
  • Numb. VIII. Some themes for dissertations on Scotish history 349
  • Genealogy of kings, fronting 350
  • Tables of kings 352



PART IV. The Dalriad …

PART IV. The Dalriads.

SCOTIA vel HIBERNIA medii oevi.

PART IV. The Dalriads.

CHAPTER I. Irish origins; and progres [...] of the Dalriads from Ireland to North Britain.

THE remote origin of the Irish settlers in North Britain, little concerns the history of Scotland. But as much has been writ­ten on this subject; and this work might be regarded as imperfect, without some illustra­tions upon it, a few shall be propounded, with as much brevity as possible.

SECTION I. Irish Origins.

At this moment, when entering on a subject essential to ancient Irish history, i feel myself as much a native of Ireland, as of Britain. Far from violating the reverence due to the antiqui­ties [Page 4]of that noble iland, i should be happy to support and illustrate them, as far as lay in my power. But having treated the antiquities of my own country, with all the freedom of an ardent en­quirer after truth, i must beg leave to assert the same philosophic privilege in respect to other realms.

It may be imagined that i, who confess no further knowledge of the Celtic language, than is picked up from a few grammars and dictionaries, am but ill qualified to discuss a subject, whose evidences are wrapt up in that language. But from complete and repeated perusal of most Irish and other writers, who have treated this matter in Latin or English, certainly all the information necessary on this point may now be had. The works of Mageogaghan, Stanihurst, Colgan, Usher, Ware, Keating, Maccurtin, Kennedy, O'Flaherty, O'Conor, &c. &c. derived from all the monuments in the Irish language, surely af­ford full and sufficient materials, and as complete knowlege of the original evidence, as can be procured from that evidence itself. I hope there­fore to escape any charge of rashness, while i exa­mine this important part of Irish history, upon the testimony of Irish writers. Were i writing on the history of Ireland, or Wales, in a total igno­rance of the Irish and Welch languages, there would be room for as much laughter, and utter derision, as if one should attempt to paint without colours, or to build without materials. But as i am only occupied with the history of Scotland, of which there is not one monument in the Celtic tonguesa, it is hoped laborious perusal of the Irish writers in Latin or English will, in this instance, atone for my ignorance of the Celtic.

[Page 5]It is well known that the history of Ireland has, like that of Scotland, had a singular fate. While the history and antiquities of Scotland have been, for five centuries, a field of the blackest forgery, falsification, and perversion of all autho­rities, those of Ireland have afforded a scene as deplorable, tho not so detestable, of folly and credulity. The contest between the Irish antiqua­ries, who were right, and the Scotish, who were wrong, became unequal, by the natural preponde­rance of cunning over weakness. The fables, gross beyond those of childhood or anility, and disgraceful to the very name of human reason, which stained the page of Irish history, now be­gin slowly to vanish. According to the present state of Antiquities in Ireland, there remain only three additional fables to be thrown aside.

  • 1. That concerning the Fir-bolg.
  • 2. The Tuath de Danan.
  • 3. The Milesians.

Those abandoned to utter oblivion precede these three in antiquity; and are,

  • 1. The three daughters of Cain.
  • 2. Caesara, Noah's niece.
  • 3. Partholanus.
  • 4. The race of Nemedius.

Let us examine the three remaining fables; yes, at the end of the eighteenth century, let us exa­mine fables that would disgrace the twelfth; not the dreams of sensible ignorance, but of the mad­ness of noonday.

1. The Fir bolg. It is unnecessary to sicken the reader by any detail of these fables. The Fir-bolg, according to Irish antiquaries, came to Ire­land about 1500 years before Christ. The Tuath de Danan about 250 after. The Milesians about 1000 years before our aera. Simply to enquire how the memory of these events was preserved, in an illiterate country, is a sufficient confutation of those childish fables. He who believes them is incapable of reason, or conviction. It would therefore be labour lost to confute absurdity; for [Page 6]the foolish cannot be convinced; and those indued with the smallest portion of common sense would only have recourse to laughter.

In this fable the name alone is just; for it is now allowed that the Fir-Bolg were the Belgae, placed by Ptolemy, the geographer, in the South of Ire­land. But these Belgae, as appears by the Disser­tation annexed, could not be there till about 300 years before Christ, so that the reality of the name, as preserved in Irish tradition, palliates not the fable; which ought to be wholly set aside, espe­cially as it precedes the Milesians, a race entirely and utterly fabulous. It is indeed clear that those dreaming compilers, who mention the Fir-bolg and Tuath de Danan, have erred grossly in placing the Milesians after them. None of those Irish fablers are older than the Thirteenth century, and have altered the real series of the fables in order to make their favourite Milesians the last, and conquerors of all the former. Nennius, who wrote in 858, and used the Irish accounts then existing, says nothing of the Fir-bolg, nor Tuath de Danan; but only tells of the Spanish (or Milesian) colo­nies as the first inhabitants of Irelandb. So also Giraldus Cambrensis, who wrote about 1170. The Psalter of Cashel, which seems the very fountain of these visions, is by some Irish antiqua­ries said to have been written by Cormac, king of Ireland, about the year 260. Others ascribe it to a Cormac king and bishop of Cashel, about the year 900. Mageogaghan, who details a long account of the matter, gives it to king Brian Borowe's time, about the year 1008. I have redd many quota­tions and extracts from it, and it seems a collec­tion of poetical romances on Irish history, compiled [Page 7]in the Thirteenth century, at the earliest, and kept and found at Cashel, whence the name.

2. The Tuath de Danan. That a great part of the Damnii fled from North Britain into Ireland, before the Pikish pressure, has already been shewn to be highly probable. But this event could not happen above 200 years before our aera; whereas these Tuath de Danan are placed about 1250 years before Christ. The name, as with the Fir-bolg, seems genuine, and traditional: but the Irish ac­count of this colony of magicians, for such they are represented, is ridiculously false. All the Irish accounts agree that the Tuath de Danan went from North Britain to Ireland; but represent them as before that, residing in Denmark, and practising magic.

An ingenious Irish author, who is writing an history of Ireland, and whose judgment despises what even fancy cannot believe, is inclined to think that the Tuath de Danan were the Danes. Certain it is that Danan was, and is, the Irish for a Dane. But it is also certain that the name of Dane was unknown till the Sixth century, when Jornan­des and Procopius first mention itc. The Danish writers allow it not to have been the ancient name, but to have proceeded from a king called Dan, or from Daun, our down, 'Low country,' as Den­mark is to Scandinavia. And from a complete series of writers, and geographers in particular, it is perfectly known that the name was not existent till the Sixth century. Like the name of Saxons, Franks, Alamans, Slavons, it seems to have arisen at a late period, from some adventitious circum­stance. That no Scandinavians nor Danes pro­ceeded to Ireland till the end of the eighth century, shall be presently argued. Had the Tuath de [Page 8]Danan been Danes, how came they to be totally unmentioned in the Annals of Ulster, or more an­cient writers, till the Eighth century? To them who know the nature of tradition, and of Celtic tradition in particular, it will not indeed be sur­prizing that ignorant bards of the Twelfth and Thirteenth centuries should confound all chrono­logy, so far as to make the Danes, who arrived in Ireland in the Eighth century, settle there more than a thousand years before Christ. In this view, but in no other, the Tuath de Danan may be the Danes. But as the Milesian frenzies follow these Tuath de Danan, there is no reason to discrimi­nate them, or the Fir-bolg, from the mass of fable, merely because the names may be real and traditional, while that of Milesians confessedly is not. If the Irish antiquaries, as they have from the beginning daily changed their ground, will change it once more, and put the Milesians first, and the Fir-bolg and Tuath de Danan after, some plausible discussion might follow. But as the case stands, the Firbolg, Tuath de Danan, and Mile­sians, form one lump of fiction.

3. The Milesians. This fabulous progeny, ac­cording to Irish accounts, after many adventures in Europe, Asia, and Africa, arrived in Spain, and from thence came to Ireland, about 1000 years before Christ. There subduing the Tuath de Danan, they founded a great and powerful kingdom, flourishing in literature, arts, and arms, but, by a singular fate, unknown and invisible to other nations. The kings and leading people of Ireland were all, in the diseased imagination of later bards and antiquists, descended from the Milesian stock; and hence of course the chief fables of Irish antiquity rest upon it. The Fir-bolg, and Tuath de Danan, are regarded as foreigners; and the Milesians as the ancestors of the Irish nation.

As this Milesian Tale is the grand object of religi­ous faith, and reverent research, among the Irish an­tiquaries; [Page 9]and of eternal laughter, and utter scorn, among those of all other countries; it is hoped that a short acount of it will not be unacceptable. There are two systems of this deplorable piece of absurdity: that of the Irish authors, and that of the Scotish. The later, as Father Innes shews at great length, is by far the more rational of the two; and is also the most pure and ancient, being in consonance with Nennius, and other early wri­ters, while the Irish is perverted and corrupt, and more foolish than folly.

The Irish story is briefly this. Fenius Farsa was great grandson to Japhet, one of Noah's sons. Farsa's son Niul, came from Scythia to Greece. Niul's son GATHELUS went to Egypt; and thence to Spain, where he founded a kingdom, which there lasted for thirteen generations before MILE­SIUS, This Milesius went to Scythia, where he served under king Resloir: thence to Egypt, where he married SCOTA the daughter of Pharaoh, and carried her to Spain. HEREMON, eldest son of Milesius, led the Milesians to Ireland, and founded his kingdom there about 1000 years before Christ. From him the catalogue of Irish kings is drawn in constant succession. HIBER the brother of Here­mon also attended him, and had the North of Ire­land.

The Scotish account, as given by Fordun, Win­ton, Boyce, &c. runs thus. Niul, the twentieth from Japhet, went from Scythia to Greece. GA­THELUS, Niul's son, went to Egypt, where he married SCOTA, the daughter of Pharaoh; and, after the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, he proceeded to Spain, and founded a kingdom. EBER, the son of Gathelus, discovered Ireland, and called it Scotia, in honour of his mother; and it was also called Hibernia from the discoverer. But he founded no kingdom there, returning immediately to Spain. MILESIUS, whom the blundering transcribers of Fordun call Micelius, [Page 10]Winton, Milet, was the thirteenth from Gathelus, and reigned in Spain. Heremon, Partholm, and Hybert, sons of Milesius, led a colony to Spain; and the two last remained there, but assumed no kingly title. Heremon returned to Spain, where he succeeded his father. Winton makes no men­tion of any colony being led by the sons of Milesius; but puts him barely in the list of the successors of Gathelus. The seventeenth in a right line from Mi­lesius was the famous SIMON BREC; who, by the Scotish tale, brought the noted stone from Spain to Ireland; and founded the monarchy there. Winton says that Fergus, son of Erc, who brought the stone to Scotland, and founded the Scotish monarchy, was in the Fiftieth and Fifth degree of descendance from Simon Brec. With this illustri­ous founder of the Irish monarchy, according to the Scotish account, Old Sir Simon the King, the later Irish antiquaries are so angry, that, to prevent the Scotish tale from prejudicing Heremon, they have some of them hanged Simon Brec, and others have torn him in pieces, for some pretended crime, of which they cannot at this day produce any evi­dence. As a Scotishman, i must loudly, in the name of my country, protest against this gross in­justice, of hanging a man without hearing his de­fence: and wonder that Mr. Goodal, or some such zealous Scotish author, has not written "A Defence of Simon Brec, alias Old Sir Simon the King, against the bloody, atrocious, and crying slaughter, committed on him after he was dead, by certain Irish antiquaries: with some reflections from the book called God's revenge against mur­der."

But to be serious if possible. The Scotish ac­count is more coherent and plausible than the Irish, as Father Innes shews at great length. To add to the absurdity of the later Donald O'Neal, king of Ulster, in his letter to Pope John XXII. in the year 1317, informs the Pontif, that it was [Page 11]then about 3500 years since the three sons of Mile­sius settled in Spain: that is, they were there about 2200 years before Christ's birth. But the grand and radical difference, between the Irish and Scotish account [...] is that the former commences the Mile­sian monarchy with HERE [...]ON the eldest son of Milesius, and, as stated by O'Flaherty, about 1000 years before Christ: whereas the Scotish relation begins that monarchy in the person of SIMON BREC, the sixteenth in degree from Heremon, and yet about 1200 years before Christ. By the old genea­logy there are fifty-eight generations, from Simon Brec, down to Fergus, son of Erc; tho Winton makes but fifty-five. Of these generations there are twenty-four from Simon to Forgo, the mock Fergus I. of Scotish dreamers: and thirty-four from Forgo to Fergus, son of Erc. Allowing 30 years, as usual, to each generation, fifty-eight generations extend to 1740 years. Twenty-four generations make 720 years from Simon to Forgo; and thirty-four make 1020 from Forgo to Fergus, son of Erc. Fergus, son of Erc, ascended the Scotish throne about 503 years after Christ; and of course, by the Scotish account, Simon Brec lived about 1200 years before Christ: and Forgo about 500, instead of 330, as Fordun, Boyce, Bucha­nan date him, merely to make him cotemporary with Alexander the Great.

Such are the two Milesian systems, that of the Scotish, and that of the Irish writers. Since the Sixteenth century the Scotish authors have totally dropt it on their part; or mentioned it merely as a weak fable. But the Irish writers persist in it to this hour; and regard those who despise it as ene­mies of their nation, and invidious of it's honour! Deluded madmen! they are themselves the worst enemies of their country; and the real and unmer­ciful destroyers of it's honour, of it's character among all nations. For from the writers of any country, a judgment is often rashly formed con­cerning [Page 12]the knowlege and wisdom of the country at large. In the present case no error can be greater: as, out of two millions in Ireland, not a thousand have even heard of those lamentable delusions; and of that thousand, nine hundred utterly despise them. True it is, that the crazy and mercenary bards and sennachies thought to get money, and favour, by giving genealogies of their patrons, carried up to Heremon and Milesius, nay to Adam, and far beyond. And the Irish antiquists, as O'Connor the translator of Keating and others, the true heirs of the madness of the sennachies, and in fact, mere modern sennachies, attempt to continue the imposture, by tracing all the chief families of Ireland up to Milesius, in order by this pitiful trick, to engage them all under the banners of folly. But these families having solid claims of respect, do generally contemn these poor delusions; and are content, as other noble families of Europe, to close the genealogy at the first shade of uncertainty; for falsehood, far from adding honour, is infa­mous in itself, and can only bring infamy and de­rision. Men of reading are in their closets, apt to dream of opinions being national, which are in fact confined to a few visionaries. Antiquarian matters are, as i humbly conceive, never national; as there are seldom above a dozen antiquaries in a nation; and in the British empire, where alone antiquary and visionary are synonymous, the nation only laughs at it's antiquaries. On the continent indeed, where an antiquary is a sacred and most important cha­racter, that of a man of profound and solid learning, who confers honour on his country by a most labo­rious research into it's genuine antiquities, and intro­ducing them to the most rigorous discussion of the whole republic of letters, the highest respect is paid to antiquaries; and their province is justly regarded, as by far the most difficult, and, of course, the most honourable in the whole circle of science. But even there, antiquarian matters are not na­tional: [Page 13]but only known to the thinking and learned few. It is therefore merely the vanity of authors that dreams of nations being interested in support of their opinions; while not above one in ten thousand of the nation has ever heard any thing of the matter. With these views, tho i have the most sincere respect for the Irish nation, yet i scruple not to hold to due contempt the Irish sennachies and modern antiquists, which last would be called children, and not antiquaries, on the continent: and believe that every sensible native of Ireland will see, that to expose the ab­surd enemies of the true honour of that country, is to do a service to its cause. For, if i am rightly informed, in Ireland, as here, and in the rest of Europe, the very name of Milesians is a jest; and the acceptance of any part of the fable is esteemed an infallible criterion of an insane writer. Indeed as there is no credit due to any account of Irish kings, or their actions, preceding the Christian aera, the very mark A. M. or Anno Mundi in Irish affairs, is well interpreted Asinaria Maxima by fo­reigners, and affords perpetual laughter.

These fables shall be dismissed with a remark or two, naturally arising from the subject. The whole tale of the Milesians, and the history of the monarchs of that mock line, preceding our aera, or for a thousand years, is the most deplorable piece of nonsense, that ever stained the annals of mankind. The fables of the other Grand Celtic race, the Welch, as delivered to us by the de­servedly infamous Geoffrey of Monmouth, and de­duced from Brutus, great grand son of Eneas, who, as they tell, came to Britain about 1000 years before Christ, are sober and sapient, com­pared to the Irish fictions. In the page of Geof­frey of Monmouth may be found an Imogen, a Locrine, and Guendolen, with their daughter Sabra; a Bladud; a Lear, and his daughters; a Gordobuc; a Belinus; a Lud; an Arthur; all [Page 14]non-existences, yet well known in the regions of poetry and romance. But the whole Irish historic fictions are not only beneath contempt, as history; but beneath contempt, as fictions. To read them is to be condemned to a disgust, and pity, the same with that arising from the conversation of a mere idiot. Zealous as i am for what little truth can be found in history, were i a native of Ireland, and could evidence the veracity of these tales to all Europe by irrefragable proofs, i would give my vote for their being left in utter oblivion, lest they should dishonour my country. Destitute of the smallest charm of fiction, they are not only lies, but disgusting and nauseous lies. Boyce, Bucha­nan, and the other Scotish forgers, made their fic­tions lessons to monarchs; and it is to their false­hoods that we owe the death of Charles I. and ab­dication of James IId. The tales of the Welch and Scotish forgers had an influence on the whole his­tory of Europe: those of the Irish never had nor can have any effect, being wholly contemptible even to imagination. Bishop Nicolson, in his Irish historical library, has most facetiously at­tempted to bring the Irish fables into a similar point of view with the Islandic. On the very plan he has followed, a comparison might also be drawn of the Hottentot traditions with the Gothic: and he seems totally to have forgot that the power of the human mind is no where better distinguished than in fiction, it's own creation. The Gothic tales are often ingenious, always vigorous, some­times sublime. Even the wildest of them has al­ways strong marks of [...], of thought, of sense. The mythology, and well-known unconquerable character of the people, live, and breath in them [Page 15]all. The Irish legends are in all points the re­verse. The Milesian fable is connected with Pha­raoh; and bears other palpable marks of being in­vented long after Christianity was established in Ireland. Odin was the god of war; and can be traced in most writers of the middle ages, long before the Icelandic monuments were written. Snorro, who wrote in the thirteenth century, places the arrival of Odin in Scandinavia, about seventy years before Christe. Donald O'Neal, in the fourteenth, placed the arrival of the sons of Mile­sius, who were never heard of before, about 2200 years before Christ! Beda, who wrote in 731, mentions Odin; but, tho intimate with many of the most learned men of Ireland, had never heard a syllable of the Milesian tales, but puts Ireland as the patria, or first habitation of the Scots. Let any one read the Northern sagas, and he will find manly judgment, and fine imagination, while the Irish tales are quite destitute of these quali­ties. The Scandinavians we know had letters, and yet their antiquaries build not on this: the Irish we know had none, till converted by Patrick, and yet their writers are forced, as one absurdity includes another, to build their fairy mansion upon the use of letters, among a people marked by the Greek and Roman writers as utterly savage. Bi­ship Nicolson's parallel only shews the infallibility of the axiom that fancy will find resemblances any where; while to discriminate is the peculiar pro­vince of judgment. Others have said that there are fables in early Greek and Roman history, and why not allow the Irish to pass as such? With all my heart; but observe at the same time that the Greek and Roman fables vary a little from the Irish; the former being produced by great and able writers, and deservedly admired for many [Page 16]centuries; the later the weak effusions of silly sen­nachies, and only fit for the flames. The argu­ment is modest and Celtic; but there is, as is generally believed, a difference in fable; some slight shade of dissonance between the history of Tom Jones, and that of Tom Thumb. There are also degrees in nonsense; some nonsense is risible; other nonsense, as the old Irish history, is super-superlative, and extra-soporific. As history or as fiction, it is equally absurd. Allegory is the last apology for nonsensef; but even John Bunyan could not allegorize Milesian history. Late Irish writers say, that Fenius Farsa was a name for the Phenicians; Simon Brec for Sampson, who broke the heads of the Philistines, &c. There is one in­famy yet greater than telling a lye, and that is, to make an apology for that lye. The more plausible the apology is, it is the more scandalous. So much the better, so much the worse. For to im­pose on society is one crime; but to colour that imposition afresh, and to dress falsehood in the holy robes of truth, is a far greater crime. No modi­fication, or apology of any kind, can be accepted. The point is utterly to give up these abominable fables; and till this be done, the Irish antiquaries will have them all to themselves, without one rival. For how can the literati of Europe converse with those who give evident signs of madness, of a mad­ness unknown to any other nation?

Before proceeding to consider the real and genuine origins of Irish history, it becomes neces­sary to notice the claim, which some Irish anti­quaries pretend their country has to the use of letters [Page 17]before Christianity was planted there. Keating tells that Fenius Farsa great grandson of Ja­phet, and ancestor of the Milesians, set up a school of learning in the plains of Senaar, about one hundred and fifty years after the deluge; and invented Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Irish, characters. These earliest Irish characters were the Beth-luis-nion and Ogum, according to Toland, who gravely relates this childish lye as matter of fact. Charles the Second said of Isaac Vossius, that he believed every thing but the scripture; and this character is justly applicable to Toland, whose incredulity must have been the fruit of vain glory, and not of strength of mind. For there is nothing in scripture so absurd as this: and he who believed this should have boggled at nothing. The mind of Toland must, like that of Isaac Vos­sius, have been very ill poised; and instead of calling such men philosophers, it can only be said that they were fools, who believed, or disbelieved; as the whim led them. For sound reason knows no prejudices; but weighs every thing in the same scales. The Irish history also bears, that king Tigermna, and after him Eocha Ollam-fodla; about 800 years before Christ, gave great en­couragement to learning, ordered annals to be di­gested, &c. By such gross falsehoods, asserted at random, would these Irish antiquists persuade the literati of Europe to believe impossibilities! Who can confute such nonsense? and who will listen to the confutation?

The old characters, which the Irish pretend to, are the Beth-luis-nion, the different kinds of Ogum, Bebeloth, &c. The Beth-luis-nion is the common Saxon, or lower Roman alphabet, changed in the order of letters, by the whim of the sennachies. The different kinds of Ogum are merely sorts of short-hand-writing, used in the middle ages. The Bebeloth is another contracted mode of writing, well known to the learned by the name of Notae Longobardicoe. The Helsing Runes, [Page 18]consisting of conic marks, variously disposed, have also, i believe, been found in Ireland, so long possessed in part by the Danes; and have, as usual, been regarded as letters older than christianity, while they were used in Denmark in the Twelfth century. It is in vain to strive, not only with folly, but with utter ignorance. If those Irish antiquists will study the antiquities of Europe, and compare them with their own, they may acquire sobriety. As it is, when an Usher, or a Ware, arises in Ireland, they regard those matters as mere dreams; and pass at once to the time when chris­tianity and letters first appeared in Ireland. The cause of folly is only supported by ignorance; and no writer cares to answer what all know to be puerile. The contest between those Irish writers, and the literati of all Europe, is the most risible in the world. The former say, their country was highly civilized, had letters and academies, as the Greeks and Romans. The latter say, the Greeks we know, and the Romans we know, but who are ye? Those Greeks and Romans pronounce you not only barbarous, but utterly savage. Where are your authorities against this? In the name of that degree of rationality, which even some beasts have, where are the slightest marks of ancient civi­lization among you? Where are ruins of cities? Where inscriptions? Where ancient coins? Where is the least trace of ancient art or science in your whole iland? The old inhabitants of your country, the Wild Irish, the true Milesian breed, untainted with Gothic blood, we know to be utter savages at this day. Can a nation, once civilized, ever become savage? Impossible! Such a nation may be lost in effeminacy, as the modern Italians and Greeks; but will ever bear marks of the ex­cess, not the want, of civilization.

Father Innes has at great length examined, and completely confuted, the Irish claim to letters, be­fore St. Patrick introduced them, along with chris­tianity, [Page 19]about the year 440. That the Irish had letters so early, and many writers soon after, is surely enough; and more than several great na­tions of Europe can pretend to. The Germans, Scandinavians, Polanders, Russians, have by no means such early claim; but stand later by near four centuries. In the name of heaven, what would those Celtic gentry have? But, like the dog in the fable, by grasping at the shadow, they lose the substance; and the fictions of early Irish his­tory bring contempt upon the whole. From such friends and assertors, may heaven defend my country! We are told of many abstract terms in the old Irish language, as a proof that the people were civilized. Yet no such terms are produced, and, if they were, how old are they? The use of Latin abstract terms is quite modern In the old German, Anglo-belgic, &c. the abstract terms are peculiar to the speech, as godhede for deity, &c. There is not one Irish manuscript extant, older than the Eleventh century, long after metaphysics, and other nonsensical learning, had been success­fully studied there. What wonder then at abstract terms? The Irish antiquists, as i have found from experience, are so ignorant, as not to know a MS. of the Fourteenth century; but will repeatedly call such a one of the Third, Fourth, or Fifth, as they please to baptise it. They do not know what is known to all; yet pretend to know what is un­known to all. Vague references to MSS. of vague antiquity form the main chicane of Irish authors; who are so stupid, as not to discern that this is never allowed in such questions; but that if a MS. be quoted, it's age, place where kept, page, and column, are always accurately marked by the antiquaries of all other countries, and the words themselves always produced, with a literal transla­tion. But the Irish MSS. are ashamed of the light; and it is no wonder that they shun it. Of Ice­landic MSS. we have above Five Hundred now in [Page 20]print. Of Irish not one. The consequence is, that the language cannot be studied, and is but imperfectly known, even to those Irish writers, who use these MSS. as is clear from the various and vague interpretation, given by different Irish writers, of one and the same passage. They are perpetually accusing each other of not understand­ing the tongue; and i do believe they are all in the right. Were the MSS. published, the language would be studied by different literati; and it's principles and vocabulary fully settled. At present who will study a language, in which there is not one book published?

Having thus, with as much patience as possible, mentioned the fabulous origins of Ireland, it re­mains to illustrate the truth of this subject. As there is not one Irish manuscript, at all mentioning these origins, which is older than the Thirteenth century, it is clear that no information can be ex­pected from Irish MSS. upon this matter; and that, far from throwing the least ray of light upon it, they only darken it with the thickest clouds of ig­norance and folly. In judging of Irish origins therefor, as in those of other European nations, recourse must be had to the only genuine fountains of light, the Roman writers.

It is universally known, that the Wild Irish, re­mains of the old inhabitants, call themselves Gael, and their language Gaelic, and that they are Celts from Gaul. Much labour has been wasted in at­tempting to shew that they must have past from Britain, the nearest shore. To me it is apparent, that they actually passed from the North-west of Gaul to Ireland; tho great numbers might join them from Britain. The manner in which pro­found scholars treat human affairs is often highly risible. They judge of them upon mechanical principles! A sensible French writer has ruined a learned dissertation, by supposing that barbaric nations have no navigation, but always proceed [Page 21]by land! Tacitus more wisely thought there could be no progress but by sea! But both were wrong, for want of one simple reflection, namely that even savages have generally hands as well as feet. No savages have yet been discovered over the whole globe, who had no navigation. From the North Pole to the South Pole, where there were men, there were canoes. The invention, if it may be so called, is so utterly simple, that every untaught infant throws his cork upon the water; and, if he had a cork large enough, would jump on it, to have a sail himself. If we except eating and drinking, there is certainly no art so primitive as rude navigation. Where cloths are not invented, where huts are not invented, still there are canoes. And, from the late discoveries in the South Sea, we know, that even the rudest savages will venture on a voyage, at open sea, of four or five hundred miles, or more. Let us therefore judge of human affairs, not by mechanical learning, but by com­mon sense; and allow, for instance, that it is quite uncertain whether Ireland or Britain was first peopled from Gaul. The passage over the straits of Dover is Twenty-four miles: that from the North-west of Gaul to Ireland is about Two Hun­dred. The probability is certainly that Britain was first peopled; but it by no means follows that Ireland must have been peopled from Britain. For the vast forests of Britain, and three hundred miles of breadth, were far more difficult to pass, than two hundred miles of open sea, which a fleet of savages, in canoes, might pass on a summer day. The sea, as now perfectly known, far from separating nations, is the grand mean of comm [...] ­nication between them. It is land, and not sea, that is difficult for civilized nations, as for savages, to pass.

That the old Irish did not originate from Spain, can never be argued from the distance, which is but four hundred miles of open sea: but from [Page 22]other urgent reasons. I once inclined to think that they did originate from Spain; chiefly be­cause Tacitus thought the Silures, who were in that part of Britain opposite to Ireland, a Spanish colony: and because he mentions that the ports of Ireland were, in his time, more frequented than those of Britain. Other reasons also concurred. For it might reasonably be supposed, that, as the Celts held Germany and Gaul, so they also pos­sessed Spain, before the Iberi came over from Africa and expelled them. That the Irish were not Iberi, is certain from their speech, which is Celtic, not Iberian, or Cantabric. If they came from Spain, they must therefore have been Celts from Spain. And it was highly plausible to sup­pose that the Iberi drove the Celts out of Spain, on the East, over the Pyrenees; but that, on the west, the Celts were confined between the Iberi and the sea, and had no recourse but to escape by sea: and that, as all the coast of Gaul and Britain was filled with their Celtic brethren, they would naturally pass to the nearest uninhabited land, which was Ireland. Facts also seemed to corrobo­rate this theory. We find may Celtic nations in the North of Spain, as described by ancient writers. The Verones, a people of present Biscay, were Celts, as Strabo tells, lib. III. p. 245. In Asturia there were also Celts, as Pliny informs us, lib. III. cap. 3. But above all, and what was most to the purpose, in Gallicia, that very point of Spain which fronts Ireland, and to which it was natural to suppose that the Celts would be driven, the an­cients actually place Celts. Cape Finisterre was called Promontorium Gelticum, not Ibericum, by the ancients; and Pliny describing the nations around it, or in Gallicia, puts Celtici cognomine Nerioe, and Celtici cognomine Proesamarci, lib. IV. c. 20. Strabo also, lib. III. p. 230, tells, that the region around this promontory was inhabited by Celts. And there is every reason to believe [Page 23]that the Gallaeci, who are here placed by Pliny, and other ancients, and who gave name to present Gallicia, were Gauls, and bore the Gallic name accordingly. In this scheme of Irish origins i much exulted; as it would give me no small pleasure to support the Irish antiquaries, in their favorite Spanish origin.

But unhappily all this theory was forced to yield to ancient facts. In the dissertation annexed, it is shewn that the Celrici and Celtiberi of Spain were not Celts proper; but German Gauls, who, as new possessors of Gaul, the ancient domain of the Celts, acquired the name of Celts, as the English in Britain are termed Britons, in America, Americans. Yet the Celtiberi were on the East, and the Celtici on the South of Spain; so that these northern Celts of Spain might have been re­mains of the old Celts. But the authority of Strabo is direct on the other side, and admits of no answer, or palliative. For he shews that both the Verones and the Celts of Gallicia were of the same race with the Celtici and Celtiberi, that is, German Gauls; and that, far from being old possessors of the country, they had only gained their territories in the same late expedition with the Celtiberi and Celtici. Of the Verones, he says, lib. III. p. 245: [...]. 'Inhabit to the parts north of the Celtiberi, the VERONES, neigh­bours of the Cantabrian Conisci, and they also were of the Celtic expedition.' And lib. III. p. 230, speaking of the Promontorium Celticum, which was also called Nerium, he says: [...] 'Furthest dwell the Artabri, at the promontory, which is called Nerion, and which is the bound of the northern, and of the western side of Spain. [Page 24]The Celtici inhabit around it, of the same race with those on the river Ana.' Those on the Ana were the Celtici, peculiarly so called; and who are shewn to have been Gothic, or German Gauls, in the annexed Dissertation. Whether they were Celts or Goths is indeed nothing to the purpose: for it is clear that these northern Celts of Spain were all of one expedition with the Celtici and Celtiberi; who had lately past from Gaul into Spain, as appears from Lucan, Silius Italicus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Appian. So that they were not ancient inhabitants of the country, but late immigrators from Gaul, who had conquered possessions for themselves from the Iberi. What time this expedition happened is uncertain; but from the strong memory of it, in all the above authors, it was certainly late; and the learned and accurate Schoepfling only says, that it must have hap­pened before the Second Punic War, as Livy, XXII. 21. and Silius Italicus III. 350. mention the Celtiberi as engaged in that war which broke out 216 years before Christ. It is shewn in the Dissertation, that the Celts proper, or old savages of Gaul, were so far from sending colonies into other countries, that they could not defend their own; and in particular the Iberi gained all Aqui­tania from them; so that their conquering Iberian possessions would have been a phaenomenon indeed. That the Gauls, or Celts, so called, of Gallia Bracata were Gothic, or German Gauls; and that as they lay on the North of Spain, while the other Gauls were at a distance, there is no room to doubt that they were the Celts, so called, who seized various possessions in Spain. This further appears from the names of their towns in Spain, of which many begin, or end, with brig the German berg, or town, so usual at this day. Strabo, lib. VII. and Steph. de Urb. say that bria, or briga, signifies [Page 25]a townh. This it does in no Celtic dialect: but in the Gothic it retains that meaning. Among the Celts of the North of Spain we find Flaviobriga, (now Bilboa) or Flaviusberg; and Flavium Bri­gantium, (Ferrol). But not to rest the argument even upon this truth, it cannot at any rate be ever imagined that the few Celts who migrated from Gaul into the north of Spain, at a late period, could be those Celts who peopled Ireland. Ware, and other cool Irish antiquaries, who argue that the Irish came from Spain, always conclude them Iberi, the real ancient inhabitants of Spain; and that the name Ibernia sprung from the Iberi. But this opinion is wholly untenable, because the Irish language, the Gaelic, is as remote from the Ibe­rian, or Cantabric, as possible; and is well known to be a grand Celtic dialect. The ancients are totally silent concerning any Celtic aborigines in Spain; and uniformly regard the Iberi as the most ancient inhabitants: so that it is certain that the old Irish, as Celts proper, could not pass from Spain, a country never inhabited by Celts proper, but must have passed from Gaul, a nearer country, and known to have been originally wholly possest by Celts proper.

So much for the origin of the Wild Irish, or true Gaelic Irish, esteemed by their antiquaries the genuine Milesian breed. The prevalence of their language is a clear proof that they were al­ways by far the most numerous people in Ireland, as they formed the real ancient population of the country, and such colonies as settled among them were regarded as aliens. The date of this earliest population of Ireland it is impossible to ascertain; and it may have been a thousand or two thousand years before our aera. It is indeed a matter of supreme indifference at what time the savages of a continent peopled a neighbouring iland.

[Page 26]But tho it be thus certain that the Gaelic Irish, the Irish peculiarly so called, or Wild Irish, were Gael, or Celts of Gaul, it remains to enquire if any Iberian colonies settled among them. For tho the prevalence of the Gaelic tongue shews that the Celts formed the grand population of the country; yet Iberian colonies might arrive, and their own speech be lost, as usual, in that of the more numer­ous inhabitants. The whole idea of the popula­tion of Ireland from Spain seems to have arisen from the proximity of the names Iberni and Iberi: and the absurd etymologies of Isidorus, and other writers of the middle ages, surely led the way to all the dreaming connection between Ibernia and Iberia, between Ireland and Spain. To those who know how often great events spring from little causes, it will not appear wonderful that the prox­imity of the words Ibernia and Iberia has converted the ancient history of Ireland into a mass of folly never mentioned but with laughter. What foolish ideas did not the Iberi of Asia, and those of Spain, lead even sensible ancients into! Strabo, and others, thought the former sprung from the later: Pliny and others, on the contrary, thought that the Iberi of Spain proceeded from those in Asia. Etymology, and approximation of names, one would imagine, were two rocks of Syrens in the ocean of literature, that deprived even sensible writers of common understanding. For is any matter so sim­ple, so universally known, as that identic names will happen from mere falls of letters, and from the greatest variety of causes? Did Pendennis in Asia Minor bear the same origin as Pendennis in Corn­wall? Cannot a hundred instances be given of identic names, in languages that have no relation? And in the same languages, is not the same word often used in various meanings; and the same name given to nations of quite distinct origins, because it implies some common quality? I assent to Pelloutier that the name Iberi is from the [Page 27]Gothic, Uber, beyond; but think that the Goths of Asia gave it to their own brethren Beyond the mountains, that run between them and the Iberi of Asia; and those of Gallia Bracata also gave the very same name to quite a different people Beyond the Pyrenees. We term the Scotish high­landers, Mountaineers, and the Swiss Moun­taineers; and if, in the simplicity of ancient times, Mountaineers had become a national term, it might have been argued that the Swiss and Highlanders were of one name and origin. No writer of the smallest pretension to common rationality ever ought to found any thing on etymology or identity of distant names; and too strong detestation can­not be exprest against this childish frenzy, which has tainted and utterly spoilt innumerable works of this century, and corrupted them into mas­ses of learned madness, the disgrace, mortifica­tion, and contempt of human reason.

The Roman names of Ireland, Hibernia, Iverne, Ierne, are now thought to have sprung from the Cumraig, or old British Yverdon, or Western Ile; tho perhaps from the Gothic Uber-Ey, or Iber-Ey, 'the further iland,' in respect to Britain. The indigenal name Erin has the same meaning; but the Romans received the name from the Britons. The old etymology of Iberni from Iberi is accord­ingly now abandoned on all hands. But it deserves notice, that there was a tribe called peculiarly Iverni, in the south of Ireland, as appears from the Palatine MS. which contains the genuine text of Ptolemy, far more free from corruptions than any other. The common editions bear Uterni; but that Iverni is the genuine reading is clear from the Palatine MS. and from Richard of Ciren­cester. It may therefore be argued, that as the Gallic, and other merchants, would naturally touch at the South of Ireland, and enquire the name of the first people they traded with, the name of this [Page 26] [...] [Page 27] [...] [Page 28]tribe might come to be given to the iland. This derivation is indeed as probable as any other; and in a matter so uncertain, every one may follow his own mind. Of what extract these Iverni were, it is difficult to say. Their town was Ivernis, or, as we would say, Inverness, upon the river Iernus, now Kenmare. To the East of them were the Vodii: to the North-west, the Luceni and Velabri. Iver, or Inver, is not unfrequent in Scandinavian and German names of places; but as no such people as Iverni can be found in Britain, Gaul, or Spain, it is impossible to determine the origin of the Iverni. To the Luceni and Velabri, on the West of them, similar names are found on the North of Spain: the Luceni, or Lucenses, of Lucus, now Lugo in Gallicia, (Plin. III. 3.) and the Velienses, of Biscay (ib.) The Auteri of Ireland approxi­mate to the Autrigones of Biscay (ib.) The Gangani of Ireland, Camden and Ware derive from the Concani in Spaini. There were also Caucenses in present Leon of Spain, as there were Cau [...]i in Ire­land; but the Caucenses were but the inhabitants of Cauca, a small inland town; so that they are as much out of the question, as the Caucones of Pon­tus. Ptolemy mentions seven towns in Ireland; two Rhegias, Rhaiba, Laberus, Macolicum, Du­num, Ivernis. Of all which names i can find no trace in ancient Spain. He also gives fifteen rivers; Logia, Argita, Vidua, Ravius, Libnius, Ausoba, Senus, Dur, Iernus, Daurona, Bargus, Mo­donus, [Page 29]Oboca, Buvinda, Vindarius; and three iles, Odrus, Limnus, and Ricina. Of these names i only find a river Durus in Spain; and there was also a Durius in Devonshire, and Durius in Italy; as there was a Deva, or Dee, in Asturia. There was a river Bargus that fell into the Hebrus. (Pliny IV. 11). Of all the names therefore given us by Ptolemy, the Luceni, Velabri, and Auteri, alone approximate to the Spanish names, Lucenses, Ve­lienses, and Autrigones. But there were also Leuci and Leuaci; Velo-cassi; and Atrebates; names as similar in Belgic Gaul. Autricum was a city of the Carnuntes. Velavia, or De Veluwe, is the ancient name of a large part of Guelderland. And the pro­bability is much in favour of the Belgic names, for three reasons.

  • 1. That we find the Menapii and Cauci, two nations of the Belgic coast, in Ire­land; so that it is certain that some Belgic nations went there; and probable that others followed; whereas there is no Iberian nation to be positively traced in Ireland.
  • 2. That the Belgic coast is as near to Ireland, as the Spanish; and the passage is moreover a mere coasting voyage, always in view of land.
  • 3. That we know from Caesar, and other an­cients, that the Belgae peopled great part of Britain, so that it is also probable that some went to Ireland, the next shore; whereas we find no trace of Iberi in Britain; Tacitus, who hints an opinion that the Silures were Iberi, in the same sentence retracting that opinion. And the Belgic nations of Britain are marked by Ptolemy, and others, while not one trace of a single Iberian nation can be found, no Cantabri, Astures, &c.

Nor can any Cantabric, or Iberian words be found in the Irish language; while it abounds with Gothic terms. For the spe­cimen of Lloyd only shews the dissimilarity of the very words he chuses; and he might have easily found more English words, or German words, with greater resemblance of the Cantabric, than [Page 30]the Irish, if his whims had turned that wayk. The Japanese, as has lately been shewn, bears more resemblance to the Irish, than the Cantabric does; and if one seeks resemblance of single words, in this way, one is sure to find them; for it would be a miracle indeed, if out of 60,000 words, all pro­duced by the same organs, there were not 100 alike, in any two languages whatever l. It will therefore, upon the whole, not be accounted rash to say, that there is not the slightest proof to be found that any colonies ever came from Spain to Ireland: but that, as such events always leave traces behind them, and none such are to be found in ancient writers, nor in the language of the peo­ple, there is firm reason to infer the contrary.

On the continent, an antiquary is a man, who examines ancient matters upon ancient authorities, [Page 31]and solid reasoning. In Britain an antiquary is a visionary, who details superficial dreams to the public, upon no ancient authority at all, and upon the most silly and irrational ratiocination. Hence what no foreign antiquary, what no man of sound learning, would even imagine, has been seriously advanced among us lately; to wit, that the Phoe­nicians settled colonies in the south of Britain, and in Ireland! That traces of the Phoenician lan­guage may be found in that of the Wild Irish! Seriously this is too bad! this is pushing learned folly to an extreme degree! Do reflect, sweet gentleman dablers, that the Phoenicians were a people equal to the Greeks and Romans in every art, and refinement. That the traces of their colonies in Africa, in Spain, are fixt, and deci­sive; and throw light all around them. That, if they had held even the smallest settlement in Bri­tain, or Ireland, so striking a circumstance, so dis­tinguished a mark of their extended power and na­vigation, could never have escaped all the ancient writers. It is well known that the Phoenicians traded to Britain and Ireland, from their Spanish colonies, perhaps a thousand years before our aera. Strabo tells us, they imported to Britain earthen vessels, salt, iron and copper goods; and exported skins, but above all tin; and Diodorus Siculus informs us that it was the people of Cape Belerium (Cornwall) that digged the tin. From Ireland they could only export skins; certainly a branch of commerce that no nation ever thought of settling for, when the supply depended on the hunting, &c. of all the inhabitants of the country. Had the Phoenicians settled in any part of Britain or Ireland, their usual splendor would have attended them. A few Phoenician coins may perhaps be found in Britain and Ireland, a circumstance na­turally to be expected from their trading there; but, had there been any settlements, there would have been ruins, and numerous coins struck at the [Page 32]settlement, as at all those in Spain. But not to waste time in answering the dreams of folly, the total silence of all the ancients on this head is a complete negation. The proximity of the Gaelic to the Phoenician is no greater than that of the Gaelic to the Japanese, or to the Shilhic, or to the Malayan, as we now know from specimens of all. It is perfectly understood by every man of the least reading, that any two given languages will afford such specimens. A learned German has shewn, that all tongues whatever have such resem­blances. It is the grammar, and form, and whole mass of a language; not a similarity of a few words, that is the criterion. The Irish being a language quite in the dark, no wonder that it appears a bear, a tyger, a calf, a lion, a man, a ghost, or what you please, in the midnight around it. Let us await with patience till other antiquaries with new whims find Japanese, African, Malayan, Tar­tarian colonies in Ireland; and then the cool reader will answer them all at once, with the single word nonsense.

Having now, it is hoped, past the morasses of folly, let us proceed on solid ground. The reader has seen that the first population of Ireland was, in every probability, from Gaul. The Wild Irish, confessedly the original inhabitants, call themselves Gael, and their speech Gaelic. Caesar informs us, that Kelts was the indigenal name; Gauls, a name given by the Romans. It is therefore apparent that the primitive Irish called themselves Kelts, and their speech Keltic: and i am told there are woods in Ireland, called Coit Keltich, or Keltic Woods, at this day. The origin of names is quite uncertain, and especially in the Celtic language, which is so lax, vague, and indefinite: but a ques­tion arises, how the wild Irish droped the indigenal name Kelts, and assumed the Roman appellation, Gael, or Gauls? On many occasions, as is well known, nations and societies exchange the name [Page 33]they give themselves, for a general foreign term, tho even of reproach. Thus sprang the names of Arabs, Quakers, Hugonots, &c. Indeed this is necessarily the case, for it is needless to retain a name only known to a particular nation, or so­ciety, while all its neighbours concur in giv­ing it another; and it is forced, in every inter­course with it's neighbours, to adopt the general term. There is a confusion of words in the Celtic language, naturally arising from the confused and misty ideas, well known to be peculiar to the peo­ple. Thus the most opposite terms almost coa­lesce: Ear is the East, Iar is the West: Gal is a foreigner, Gaël, a native. The confusion arising from this proximity may easily be guest. Galli, or foreigners, must have been the name originally given by the Celts to the Germans, who poured into their country. Gaël seems the word which the Greeks, who in their musical language perverted all foreign names sadly, altered to [...]. The Celtic G is indeed so sharply pronounced, that it approaches to K. Gaël and Kelt may therefore be the same word, differently pronounced; while the Roman Gallus may be Gal, a foreigner. If this be granted, the question is answered. But if Kelt, actually so pronounced, was the old indigenal term, and Gael be Gallus, the Roman appellation; the name must have been assumed from the Ro­mans in Britain. To the former opinion i rather incline; for the Irish language was much softened by the bards, as all their antiquaries agree: and Ghaëlt may have been the old name softened by Greek and Roman pronunciation to Kelt, and by the progress of the Irish language to Gaël.

The first colonies that followed the Gauls to Ire­land, seem to have been from Britain. Lloyd tells us the general tradition among the Welch, that the Cumri expelled the Guidhil from Britain into Ireland, a tradition confirmed by several of the oldest names of rivers, mountains, &c. in [Page 34]England and Wales being Gaelic, not Cumraig. The Celts of Gaul may be infallibly concluded, from proximity, to have been the first tenants of Britain. The Cumri, or German Celts, seem to have arrived at a much later period: and in all probability in consequence of the Gothic progress from the east. The Cumri, or Northern Celts, were far superior to the Gallic Celts in prowess; as is clear from their conquest of Gaul in the time of Marius; not to speak of the constant superior hardiness of northern nations. The Guidhil, or Gael, fled before them; and Ireland received them. Population was then very thin; but perhaps as many Gaël proceeded on this occasion to Ireland, as had formerly passed from Gaul. They were one identic people with the first colonies, who, no doubt, with open arms received such a reinforce­ment of brethren. This event closed the original population of Ireland: and the Wild Irish are thus partly from Gaul, partly from Britain.

The Alien Colonies now claim attention. It is highly probable that, when the Belgae, or Goths, first came to Britain, about 300 years before our aera, a great number of the Cumri were driven to Ireland. Richard of Cirencester says, under the year of the world 3650, that is, by his calculation, about 350 years before our aera, Circa haec tempora in Hyberniam commigrarunt ejecti a Belgis Brittones, ibique sedes posuerunt, ex illo tempore Scotti appellati. In the later point he is certainly mistaken, for the name Scotti was a far later appellative; and was given to the Scythae of Ireland. But that many Cumri, or Brittones, passed about that time into Ireland, there is every reason to believe.

So much for the Celtic, or savage, colonization of Ireland. We now come to the colonies of rude Goths, then a barbarous people, but always ad­vancing in society, while the Celts remained as they were. A barbarous people is indeed as much superior to a savage one, as a civilized to a bar­barous. [Page 35]Savage nations were the [...] of the Greeks, the Feri of the Romans; while the name of [...], and Barbari, they some [...]imes gave to nations as polished as themselves. Of savages there can be no history; while that of barbarians is often preserved; and is most interesting, as it marks the history of man, the progress of society. As the history of North America, is the history, not of the savage natives, but of the English there; so the history of Europe is that of the Goths in Europe; that of Ireland is that of the Goths in Ireland.

That the Goths had arrived at the extremity of Germany, and penetrated into Gaul, about 500 years before our aera, is shewn in the annexed Dissertation. That the Belgae, a part of these Gorths, had past to Britain, and peopled all the south and east of present England, is clear from Caesar, who came to Britain 54 years before the Christian epoch. From the full state of that popu­lation, and other incidents mentioned by Caesar, it seems certain that not less than two, or three, centuries could possibly effect it; and it may there­fore be safely argued, that the Belgae had begun to colonize Britain, at least 300 years before Christ's birth. That they had past to Ireland much about the same time may be thus shewn. From Ptolemy's description of Ireland, written about 150 years after Christ, it is clear that the Menapii, a people of the coast of Belgic Gaul, held at that time large possessions in the south of Ireland; as did the Cauci, a people of Germany, originally on the coast north of the Rhine. Now it seems certain that these nations could not have past to Ireland either in Roman times, or even in times of which the memory was recent, when Caesar came to Britain. For Caesar, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Mela, Pliny, Tacitus, who all describe Ireland, Gaul, Germany, could never have been silent about this event, while they so [Page 36]minutely detail the origins of any nations that they could discover. Commerce rendered Ireland well known to the Romans of Ptolemy's time, as is clear from his geography of it, which is very accu­rate for the age. Tacitus indeed observes that, in his time, the ports of Ireland were more visited by merchants, than those of Britain: the cause of which seems to me to have been, that the commer­cial articles of Britain were now consumed by the home-trade of the Romans, actually living in Bri­tain, so that merchants applied to Ireland for the skins, &c. The imports must also have been much lessened; because the Roman manufacturers supplied the natives with copper and iron, earthen ware, &c. while the consumption of those articles in Ireland, where there were no Roman manufac­turers, must have remained in full force. By this trade with Ireland that country, in Ptolemy's time, was as much known to the Romans, as Japan, or any country traded to by Europeans, is to us. Had the Menapii and Cauci past from Germany and Belgic Gaul to Ireland, in Roman times, it seems impossible that this event could escape so many writers. Pliny in particular, that curious investigator, had served in Germany, and written Twenty Books on the German Wars, before he began his Natural History, yet had not heard of this colonization. Caesar, who describes Ireland, Gaul, and Germany, knew nothing of it, tho from his work it be plain that he was verst in the traditional history of the Gauls and Germans. I be­lieve it will therefore be granted that this coloni­zation must have been much more ancient than Caesar's time; and, that if we allow it to have hap­pened two or three centuries before that time, we shall be as near the truth as possible in a case of this kind. The Belgae, and the Cauci their neigh­bours, seeing the success of their brethren in Bri­tain, woud naturally be instigated to similar ex­cursions. The passage to Ireland was longer, but [Page 37]the acquisition easier, as the Cumri or Northern Celts of Britain were the victors of those very Gael, or Southern Celts, who held Britain. The Goths had in Britain to encounter the victors: in Ireland the vanquished. As this was the case, perhaps the Gothic settlement in Ireland even preceded that in Britain; for such affairs do not proceed on a fanciful mechanism. But as no cer­tainty can ever be acquired on either side in this question, it seems most proper, with the allow­ance usually made in such cases, to date both events about one and the same time, 300 years before our aera.

That the Menapii and Cauci were not the only Belgic or German nations, that then passed to Ire­land, there is every reason to infer. In Britain there were Belgae proper, and many tribes of Belgae with various names, not found on the con­tinent. In Ireland the Eblani, on the north of the Cauci proper, seem a Caucic tribe. The Luceni seem to have been of the Leuaci, who lay next to the Menapii in Belgic Gaul; Leuac and Luc being similar, and en only the German plural. The Au­teri may have been Atrebates; also a people near the Menapii, in their original seats. The Vela-bri may have been of the Velo-cassi on the shore of Belgic Gaul, the last syllables being varied epi­thets. The Vodii apparently bear a German namem: and the Iverni from their situation and name seem to have been Belgae. Mr. O'Conor allows that hardly one of Ptolemy's names admits of a Celtic derivation; and the probable inference is, that the chief nations were not of Celtic origin. The greater part of Ireland was certainly subdued by the Belgae; and rude towns and forts erected by them to maintain the conquest. The Celts, having [Page 36] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page 38]now no further refuge, could not fly from the con­queror; but remained the numerous population of the ile; and their language of course in time prevailed. But the power of the Belgae even Irish history and tradition imply. For Bolg signi­fies to this day a nobleman, and also a man of science; and there are many old fortified hills still called Dun Bolg, or forts of the Belgae.

As the Belgae entered on the South of Ireland, the Celts would naturally crowd to the North. About two hundred years before Christ, a vast number of Cumri retired thither from present Scotland upon the entrance of the Piks into that country, as before shewn. It appears from Pto­lemy, that three British tribes had also settlements in Ireland, namely, the Coriondi or Coritani and Brigantes, in the South; and the Voluntii in the North. These tribes seem to have been naturally directed in their choice by their Gothic and Celtic origin. The Coritani and Brigantes, Go­thic neighbours in Britain, settled on the South of Ireland. The Voluntii Celts of Cumberland set­tled on the North, among their Celtic brethren. Richard dates this migration fifty-two years after Christ: and says, these nations retired to Ireland from the Roman arms; which seems very probable. He adds the Cangi, as a fourth tribe; as he takes the Gangani of Ptolemy to be Cangani; but of this let every one think as he sees proper. The same writer tells us that the Menapii and Cauci were in­faillibly nationes Teutonicae originis, 'nations of Teu­tonic origin,' that the time of their arrival was not known, but probably, as he guesses, a little before Caesar's time. The reader has above seen argu­ments for a dare yet a little earlier.

Thus were the Belgae and German Goths estab­lished in the south of Ireland. A most curious and important question now arises, namely, if any Scandinavian Goths seized on the north of [Page 39]Ireland in early times? This is a hinge upon which the whole history of Ireland turns.

That fabulous progeny the Tuath de Danan are here out of all question. If they passed from pre­sent Scotland, as all the Irish accounts bear, they were clearly Damnii, a Cumraig people, that fled before the Piks. If they were Danes, they must be those who, in the eighth century, for the first time, appeared in Ireland. I incline, after more labour and investigation than any part of Irish ori­gins has cost me, to give this grand question the negative; or to think that no Scandinavians ap­peared in Ireland before the eighth century, upon the following grounds.

What seems totally to negative the question at first is, that there is no mention of the Scan­dinavians, of any Danes or Norwegians in Ireland, before the eighth century, in Tighernac, the annals of Ulster, or other authentic documents of real Irish history. In Cumineus, Adomnan, writers of the seventh century, not a trace of Scandinavian invasion can be found. The prophecies of Co­lumba could hardly pass such an evil, had he foreseen what had never happened. Gildas, Nen­nius, Beda, are also quite silent. Sir James Ware therefore rightly says, that, in 795, primum, for the FIRST time, the Northern nations infested Ire­land, as the Irish annals bear. It may be thought that as the Piks came from Norway to the He­budes; and entered upon their conquest of pre­sent Scotland on that side about 300 years before Christ; their Gothic brethren of Norway and Denmark might naturally be imagined to have made other incursions that way. But history does not bear such analogical reasoning; and human affairs proceed not upon mechanical, or upon the­oretic, principles. In fact the effect was in this instance destructive of the cause. For the Pikish and Danish colonies were so large, that they may well be inferred to have exhausted the Scandina­vian [Page 40]population so much as to leave no occasion for emigration, for a long time. This was the case with the Angli, Saxons, &c. In ancient times the Lydians, as Herodotus states, formed an emigration of one half of the nation; but no more Lydians went to Hetruria afterward. The Danes were themselves but a late Scandinavian colony; and their population must have been a long time only sufficient for their own territory. The Vitae and Angli seem the first colony they sent out; and that only in the fifth and sixth centuries. They are therefore out of the question. The Scandinavians were exhausted by the Pikish and Danish colonies. The former they might also, in these dark ages, regard as possest of all the iles on the west, and have of course no temptation to invade their own countrymen. Certain it is, that no trace can be found of Danes, or Norwegians, invading Scotland, till the ninth century. Nor a single trace in all the Irish annals of any northern nations, by any name whatever, assailing Ireland till 795. About 210 years after Christ, as ap­pears from the Pikish chronicle, a large colony of Piks settled in the north of Ireland; and they are remarkable to a late period in Irish annals, &c. by the name of Cruthneans, the Irish term for the Piks. They had their own kings, and are a marked people, till the ninth century. Had any Scandinavians been in that tract, there is reason to question if the Piks could have effected a set­tlement. It is indeed no wonder that the Scan­dinavian sagas and histories, silent about the Piks, Vitae and Angli, should be silent about this; and if any saga should speak of invasions of Ireland or Scotland, prior to the eighth century, no cre­dit can be paid to those pieces written many cen­turies after, and in which early chronology is quite confounded. Concerning Prolemy's names of na­tions in the north of Ireland, Darnii (or D [...]mnii, as Richard from older and better MSS. reads), Ve­nicnii, [Page 41]Robogdii, Nagnati, Erdini, i have consulted a learned Northern antiquary, who informs m [...] that they are not Scandinavian names. Had the Scandinavians made any invasions on Ireland, they would also, as in later times, have attacked the western shores of Britain; while there is not a hint of this to be found in Roman writers, who only mention the Scots of Ireland as invading the western shore, and Saxons the east. It may fluc­tuate in the minds of some, that as the Piks, 300 years before Christ, came from Scandinavia to the Hebudes, and thence conquered and peopled pre­sent Scotland; so it seems probable that other in­vaders would follow that tract to the north of Ire­land, long before the year 795 after Christ. But the fact is, that this same large colony of Piks would be, of necessity, the very cause of prevent­ing similar invasions in that course, till the me­mory of it had expired. For Caledonia, and the north of Ireland, were filled with Piks, or, in other words, with Scandinavians, which no doubt the Scandinavians perfectly knew from the inter­course of single ships, or trading vessels. So that they would never think of attacking their country­men, till length of time had extinguished all such considerations. In future times they did not at­tack Iceland, lately colonized, but Scotland, whose connexion was lost. It may be said that England presents an exception to this remark, the Angli having only arrived in 547, and being at­tacked by the Danes in the beginning of the ninth century. But the Angli, tho of Scandina­vian origin, as the Danes, were quite a distinct nation, not only from the ancient Danes, but from the Iutes, their northern neighbours. The Iutes had their own kings; and so had the Angli; as appears from Suhm's history of Denmark, and other works. So late as 830, Regnar Lodbrog, king of Denmark, was occupied in conquering the Iutes. The Angli were still more remote from [Page 42]Denmark than the Iutes. The Danes, in attack­ing the Angli of Britain, warred against a people always distinct from themselves: while the Scan­dinavians and Piks were divisions of the same identic people. Besides the cases are, in another view, not parallel: for the Angli were only the conquerors who settled among the inhabitants of Northumbria, and were soon lost among the in­habitants. The Piks, on the contrary, were the people of Caledonia. The Piks formed a great colony; and doubtless, as the Islandic, brought wives and family with them, or sent for them when the ground was secured. Like the Lydians of Hetruria, they may have been a vast discon­tented party, or indeed like many modern colo­nies. On the first arrival of the Goths in Scandi­navia, as they had enemies to subdue, they must have proceeded in armies, and have formed large states under one government, as appears from Ta­citus in his account of the Suiones or Danes, and Sitones or Swedes; all the former of whom obeyed one king, the later one queen. Of course, in these early times, the emigrating parties must have been very large, and in proportion to the states. But in time, when the danger of the grand Ge­neric foe, as the Fins for instance, was abated, the warlike spirit of the Goths broke out often among themselves, and split them into numerous petty kingdoms and states; as we know was the case in Norway till the ninth century, and in Denmark and Sweden, tho not quite so long. In Britain the Piks were kept together, from constant danger of the Cumri, their southern neighbours; so we learn of no divisions among them, save con­tentions for the crown. But in Scandinavia the Fins being driven beyond the Bothnic gulf, and the Vends inhabiting only the south of the Baltic, the Goths were secure from Generic foes, and often immersed in domestic wars, and split into con­tending states. Those domestick wars weakened [Page 43]them much, till seven or eight centuries after Christ, when monarchs of superior talents subdued the rest, and formed again into one powerful state, what security from foreign foes had divided, soon after the Generic foe was subdued. Attention to all these circumstances becomes necessary to form a proper judgment upon this question. The rea­der must reflect on the three grand stages of Scan­dinavian government:

  • 1. Great states, united un­der one supreme power, against a Generic foe.
  • 2. Those states split into small ones by diffen­tion from security, and from want of a common foe.
  • 3. Great states formed by the small ones being subdued by one monarch, as the heptarchies of England.

The middle stage of small states is the most unsuitable for emigration; because the po­pulation is consumed by domestic war. In the first and third stages alone the Scandinavian co­lonies emigrated. Considering the Piks therefore in this light, during the first stage, or till about a century after Christ, the memory of this grand western colony was quite recent; and the Scandi­navians could no more dream of sending out fresh colonies, or of invading that quarter, than we of sending colonies to North America, or the Spaniards to the South, already in their own oc­cupation. During the second stage, till seven or eight centuries after our aera, domestic war en­gaged all attention, and destroyed population, so that no colonies nor invaders could be sent. Dur­ing the third stage fresh invasions naturally arose. From all these reasons it seems clear that before the year 795 the Scandinavians never invaded Ire­land. Indeed, he who asserts that they did must do it upon his own authority; as the negative testimony of all the ancients, Roman, and British, and Irish, is most cogent against him. Such being the state of the question, the Scandinavians are to be regarded as having no part in Irish origins.

[Page 44]The ancient history of Ireland is therefore the history of the Belgic and German Goths in Ireland. And the reader having thus seen the detail of Irish origins, it remains to consider the name of Scots.

Many etymologies have been given of the word Scot. All the more ancient writers concur in re­presenting it as the same with Scyth, or Scythian: an opinion which prevailed till the present century. Of the late Dr. Macpherson supposes Scuit, or Scot to signify a small body of men; Mr. Whita­ker, wanderers, or refugees. Others more plausibly derive it from Coit, a wood; or from Schut, a boat, or small vessel, as Ireland abounded with woods, and the Scots attacked Britain in such ves­sels. Others from Scutten, to shoot.

An opinion which, on ignorant representation, seems erroneous, will often, when supported on due grounds, assume quite another appearance. The first etymon of Scot, as the same with Scyth, or Scythian, seemed to me most ridiculous; as the Scots of Ireland, as soon as known in history, spoke the Celtic tongue. But on the slightest reflec­tion this was found no argument; for the Franks, or French, tho still so called, do not speak Francic; but the corrupted Roman of Gaul, where they settled. The Normans of France in two centuries after settling, spoke not Norman, but Romance also. The Angli spoke not Danish, after fixing here, but the Belgic of England. All these na­tions, with many others, retained their name, tho they changed their language. In short, a small nation, settling in any country, may retain it's name, may give it to all the country; yet will ever lose it's speech in that of the population of the country. Such are human affairs; and hence gross impropriety rises: for the French language is not the French, but the Roman; the English not English, but Belgic; the Irish-Scotish, not Scy­thic, but Celtic.

[Page 45]It is shewn, in the annexed Dissertation, that SCYTHAE was the grand generic name of the furthest Germans on the west. And that SCOT is synony­mous with SCYTH, and was the name originally, and generically, borne by the Belgae and Germans, who conquered Ireland, will appear from the fol­lowing arguments.

  • 1. All the Irish accounts bear, that the Scots landed in the south of Ireland, and from thence subdued the old inhabitants; a de­scription only applicable to the Belgae and Ger­mans.
  • 2. The Scots infested Britain from the eastern shore of Ireland; which, we know from Ptolemy, was held by the Germans and Belgae.
  • 3. The Celts of Gaul and of Britain were easily subdued by the Romans; and gave them no fur­ther disturbance. The Scots of Ireland were ever making incursions into the Roman provinces; a conduct not at all according with the Celtic cha­racter.
  • 4. King Alfred, in his translation of Beda, and an Anglo-Belgic poem on the Danish wars in the Cotton Libraryn, with other writers of that time, use Scytisc for Scotish familiarly; so that Scyt and Scot were synonymous: and the only Scythae implied must be the Belgae and Germans; for the Piks of the north of Ireland, are out of the question, not settling there till about A. D. 210, long after the Scotish monarchy was established in Ireland; and being possessed of but one corner.
  • 5. By all the Irish accounts the Scots were the people who came last to Ireland on the south, before Christianity; and vanquished the old in­habitants: a description only applicable to the Belgae and Germans. Late Irish writers distin­guish the Belgae, or Fir-Bolg, from the Scots; but represent the later as leagued with the former in vanquishing the Tuath de Dannan. The Fir Bolg were a part of the Scots, as the Angli were of the Goths, who came to England. The mention [Page 46]of a particular name argues not that name to be of a different generic people.
  • 6. The Irish writers uniformly say that the Scots were Scythians, and so Nennius tells us expressly; and the Belgae and Germans were the only Scythians we find at the time in Ireland; so that the Belgae and Germans must have been the Scots.

Diodorus Siculus re­peatedly names the very country from whence the Cauci went, 'Scythia above Gaul;' as shewn in the Dissertation added. If we deny the Scots to have been Scythians, we must reject all the Irish accounts, ancient and modern. But, if Scythians, they could only come from the Scythic territories in Germany and Gaul. For the Gothic colonies in the north of Spain are out of the question, the Gothic nations in Ireland identifying their Belgic and German origin by their names, Menapii, Cauci, &c. Other arguments might be addedo, but it is believed that these may suffice to shew that the Scots were those Scythae, namely the Belgae and Germans, who vanquished Ireland. The reason why Nennius, and other writers of the middle ages, who expressly tell us, that the Scots were Scythae, yet represent them as coming from Spain, was that absurd etymology of Ibernia from Iberia. But it is now granted on all hands that Hibernia is a name arising from the western situation of this fine iland; and that Scotia is an appellation arising from the Scots settling in it. So that this opinion of the Scots having come from Spain, or Iberia, sprung from a ridiculous etymology; and is be­neath all notice, being of a piece with the Brutus of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The names of the Scotish kings in Ireland are also Gothic, not Celtic. [Page 47]Such is Leogaire the first Christian king, for who is ignorant that Leogaire is also the name of a Francic king; and is a German name, Leof-gard, 'a keeper of love,' as Leopold, Leonard, &c.? Some of the names of Scotish or Irish kings are no doubt Celtic epithets, given them by their peo­ple; but others are mere Gothic names. Such are Conary, or Conrad, Hugh, Hugony; Nial is quite a Gothic name, familiar in Runic monuments, and Icelandic sagas. Are not the O'Brians from the Briani of Belgic Gaul? The Celtic language changes almost all words to it's own form; and even in the Irish bible the names are forced to be changed and accommodated to that odd speech. Thus Alexander can only be put Alisdair; Adam is Adhamh; Andrew is Aindra; Bartholomew is Par­tholan; Daniel is Donuil; David is Dabhi; Gideon, Gide-eon; James, Semis; John, Eoin; Peter, Phedair; Samuel, Somhairle: &c. &c. &c. Such being the case, the strange perversion of Gothic names in the Celtic language is easily accounted for. My present subject forbids my entering at full length into this point; but from perusal of the Annals of Ulster i am fully convinced that the names of not only the Irish monarchs, but of most of the provincial king­lets, are Gothic.

But long before Christianity was settled in Ire­land, perhaps indeed before the birth of Christ, the Scots, or Scythae, who conquered Ireland, had lost their speech in that of the greater number of the Celts, the common people, as usually hap­pens. From England and Scotland the Celts had crouded to the west, and vast numbers had past to Ireland. The mountainous north and west of Eng­land, the friths of Scotland, had formed barriers between the Goths and Celts. But in Ireland, the grand and last receptacle of the Celts, and whither almost their whole remains finally flowed, it is no wonder that the Gothic conquerors, the Scots, lost their speech in that of the population. [Page 48]In Britain, the Celts who remained were much improved by Roman intercourse; and the supe­riority of the Welch to the Irish Celts appears in the laws of Howel Dha, in their historic fables, in the superior accuracy of their language, and in the name they gave, and give, the Irish Celts, Guydhil, or Wild Men. Originally indeed the Northern Celts, or Cumri, were superior to the Southern, or Gael, in strength of mind and body; as the conquests of the former over the later prove. The Wild Irish are at this day known to be some of the veriest savages in the globe; and seem by nature intended as a medial race between beasts and men. The chief families in Ireland, and the industrious and civilized part of the people, are all of Gothic descent, as Scots, Danes, Norwe­gians, and laterly English and modern Scots. What interest they can have therefore in support­ing the Celtic visions, which, far from honouring, really disgrace their country, it were difficult to say; did not we see national prejudice, another name for national madness, often swallow up every spark of discernment. The English, till the present century, were fighting for the Welch anti­quities, as doing honour to their nation; and the Scots are following the same tract to this day. The bards, and sennachies, authors of all this perdition to the history of Great Britain and Ire­land, were strollers of the genuine Celtic breed.

So much for the origin of the Scotsp; and i beg leave to subjoin a hint or two concerning the [Page 49]early Irish history, which is that of the Scots, or Goths in Ireland. That they subdued Ireland with united arms, and divided it as usual among their chiefs and soldiers, is apparent from all Irish writers ancient and modern; and inferable from others, as Orosius, Beda, &c. who represent Ire­land as fully possest by the Scots. The nature of the acquisition would, in all likelihood, render the several divisions monarchic; and one monarch or other would be acknowledged superior; as, we learn from Caesar, was the case among the states of Gaul. In other countries, vanquished by the Goths, the Celts totally retired apart, as did the Welch when the Saxons came here; and the vic­tors sometimes formed monarchies, sometimes re­publics; being all freemen, and having no con­quered subjects to keep under. But in Ireland, that grand refuge of Celtic population, the states could not be republican, as three quarters of the subjects could form no part of the government; so that it must in all appearance have remained military, that is monarchic. In this all the Irish accounts agree; and in 432, when Patrick went to Ireland, we find Leogaire Rex Hiberniae, king of Ireland by eminence. The idea asserted by Maitland, and some others, that Leogaire was the first king of this supreme title, is chi [...]dish and in­vidious. We might as justly reject all the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian annals, prior to Chris­tianity's [Page 50]being established in those countries. How far back the kings of Ireland can be named with certainty, becomes not me to say, who have not seen the original documents. This is therefore submitted to the antiquaries of that kingdom. Mr. O'Conorq dates the commencement of the genuine list at the establishment of the palace of supreme royalty, at Emania in Ulster, seven gene­rations, or about 210 years, before our aera. The Pagan period of Irish history seems to fall into two divisions; The OBSCURE, from the arrival of the Scots, till the reign of Tuathal the Acceptable, about 137 years after Christ: and The DAWNING, from the reign of Tuathal, till Patrick's arrival in 432, after which all is clear. Mr. O'Conorr re­marks that Tuathal's reign forms a new and cer­tain epoch in the progress of Irish history. Fo­reigners may imagine that it is granting too much to the Irish to allow them lists of kings more an­cient than of any other country in modern Europe: but the singularly compact and remote situation of that iland, and it's freedom from Roman con­quest, and from the concussions of the fall of the Roman empire, may infer this allowance not too much. But all contended for, is the list of kings, so easily preserved by the repetition of bards at high solemnities; and some grand events of history. For to expect a certain detail, and regular order, in the pagan history of Ireland, were extravagant. The Irish antiquists will, on the other hand, ex­claim against this rejection of so many fables, which they call, and perhaps, if the human mind can be so debased, really think history. Mr. O'Conor says that the period from Tuathal to Leogaire is the most useful and important of the whole heathen history of Ireland. In which he is certainly right: and the traditions and bardish rhymes, with the early attention of the Irish, after [Page 51]conversion, to such learning as was then in vogue, promise considerably veracity to this last pagan pe­riod. Sir James Ware was confessedly ignorant of the Irish language; so that his rejection of all the pagan history of Ireland was at best rash. But indeed the Irish writers, like the dog in the fable, lose the substance, by grasping at the shadow: and their falsehoods are so wild, that it is no wonder they nauseate the public against the whole. The claim of letters in Ireland, preceding Christianity, is alone sufficient to cause the rejection of the whole early history of that country, by all the literati of Europe: and he who asserts such a glaring false­hood is the bitterest enemy of his country, and in his madness disgraces, when he means to honour. But it is the duty of a cool enquirer after truth not to allow the frenzy of such writers to hurt any cause, which they either attack, or defend.

SECTION II. Progress of the Old Scots, or Dalriads, from Ireland to North Britain.

IT is with infinite concern, that toward the close of the Eighteenth century, i am forced to contend against modern errors in Scotish antiqui­ties, that would have disgraced the Thirteenth. Superficiality is the parent of error: and in anti­quities, a subject requiring the utmost labour, and most profound and exuberant reading, it is no wonder that the fruit of superficiality is monstrous. Classical learning, as it is called, that is, a little dabbling in Greek and Roman classics, has in all ages formed the sum total of Scotish literature. In the present especially, even our little learning has gradually lessened; and philosophy, or really reasoning ignorance, supplies it's place. If philo­sophy has not extinguished common sense among us, we must know that human history proceeds upon no theoretic principles, but upon facts [Page 52]eternally contradictive of all theory; and that these facts can only be found in ancient authorities. To judge of antiquities upon a slight acquaintance with the classics, and with philosophic theory, is so absurd, that to mention such an idea is to ex­cite laughter. Yet it is a lamentable truth, that such is the plan of examining Scotish origins, among all our writers of this century, save Innes. The authors of the middle ages, the genuine foun­tains of information, are not even known by name to our puerile scribblers. The gold of truth, which is hid deep in the soil, they look for upon the sur­face of classic reading, and in the open day of phi­losophy. Antiquities, the severest of all studies in learned countries, are in mine the amusement, as they call it, of mere boys, who would any where else be sent to school. Puerile errors have begot puerile prejudices; and, in the frenzy of those prejudices against a respectable nation, the Irish, it is risible to see our antiquists forget that, even judging by those prejudices, it is more dis­graceful to the Scots to have been the fathers of the Irish, than the contrary. For is it more dishonour­able to have a foolish father, or a foolish son?

It is needless to enter into any discussion of that absurd question, Whether the old Scots proceeded from Ireland to North Britain, or from North Bri­tain to Ireland? That progress is detailed in the two following chapters. All that can be said to our Scotish antiquists is, Read: and read as on any other subject, without prejudice. A few hints shall however be given, after premising that the origin of the PRESENT Scots, or people so called after the Eleventh century, is not here discussed, but reserved for after-consideration. It is that of the old Scots in Britain, otherwise called Dalriads, which is here examined. The origin of the opi­nion that the old Scots proceeded to Ireland from North Britain, may well be supposed Celtic, that is in the inverse ratio of reason, and is accordingly [Page 53]to be first found in Lloyd's Archaeologia, printed in 1707, tho only in general terms concerning the progress of the Guydhil, or Gaël, from Britain to Ireland. Dr. Mackenzie, in the preface to his Scotish Writers, published in 1708, greedily pur­sued this scent; and, like a young hound, yelped much, but caught no prey. Gordon followed in a most impudent and lying section of his Itinerarium Septentrionale, London 1726, folio. Yet Innes, whose book was published in 1729, seems to have looked on this new opinion as beneath notice; for he says nothing of it. This favourite plant of ignorance still thrived, and assumed fresh vigour, in Maitland's History of Scotland, 1757; and in Goodal's Introduction to Fordun, 1759. And lastly the two Macphersons have dunged it afresh, in recent publications. In vain did Robert­son and Hume testify against it. A new plan of investigating antiquities was introduced for Scot­land exclusively. Other countries rest ancient facts totally upon ancient authorities; but for Scotland all authorities were to be cut down. The word of command was, "Put out the candles that we may see the clearer!"

It was my design to have laid before the reader a numerical abstract of all the arguments advanced by Maitland, Goodal, and the Macphersons, against the Irish extract of the old Scots of Britain; and to give answers in like order. But, after care­ful and repeated perusal of those doughty cham­pions, i was forced to relinquish the design, lest the reader should imagine that i was sporting at his ex­pence; and fighting with shades of utter ignorance and folly, of my own creation, in order that my great wisdom should appear conspicuous in the victory. Another grand reason was that i really could not find one argument used by these writers, that would bear a repetition. To any man who, with Democritus, delights in laughing at the madness of mankind, there cannot be a greater [Page 54]feast than the perusal of the Scotish and Irish con­test on their origins. Much cunning upon one side, much weakness on the other, while that su­preme goddess Ignorance sits umpire, and deals out her equal favours in the largest proportion to both parties. On the Irish side nothing can be charged, but a shameful credulity and obduracy in ancient fable. But our Scotish antiquists, ignorant themselves, and writing in a country remarkable for ignorance of antiquities, are like other rogues, emboldened by darkness; and venture on tricks, that the most unprincipled man of learning would, in a learned country, tremble at, as if the pillory stood before him. This censure may be thought severe; but Truth whispers me, that it is not suffi­ciently severe for the occasion.

These four Scotish champions of falsehood have had the honour to introduce quite a new style of composition. The only arguments they use are of two kinds: 1. Railing against all ancient autho­rities, which, by a madness unknown in any other country, they think they can confute! 2. Assertions totally false, and impudent. Far from being learned, they have not even those ideas which lead to learning; and thus their arguments, far from being accurate, are unscientific, nay irrational, and such as never were used before in any literary question whatever. Their heat is so extreme as to excite utter disgust; and to merit being repressed by all the indignation of insulted science. The Ossian Macpherson in particular uses a most extra­vagant style. He says he has finally decided the question, a question of ancient facts and circum­stances, from his dabling in modern Gaelic, while there is not one MS. in Gaelic upon the matter! A boy at school would know that a man may be able to speak, nay read, English; and yet not de­cide upon English origins. But such are Celtic understandings! The style of the later writer is indeed peculiarly Celtic, hyperbolic, and bom­bastic. [Page 55]Genius in Ossian was well; but in a ques­tion of this kind it is frenzy. The only powers of mind to be exerted are learning, clear and cool comprehension, veracity, and penetration. But Mr. Macpherson pretends to build a house with a sword: and he has only wounded himself. A book like his is indeed sufficient to decide a question; for if ignorance and falsehood be on one side, it follows that learning and truth will be on the other.

These strange writers have betrayed me into a style perhaps unworthy of my purpose, but which they deserve. Good manners are not to be shewn to all; else what difference between the worthy and unworthy part of society? Indignation belongs to virtue, and to science also. And how answer writers who childishly take the Hibernia of the an­cients for Scotland; the Ierne of Greek and Ro­man writers for Stratherne; the Mona of Caesar, for Aemona, in the frith of Forth; Tethyca vallis s for Menteith, &c. &c. &c.? May that power, from whom the holy right of reason springs, pre­vent mine from being debased so far! Not content with assertions absolutely false, such as that the Highlanders call their country Caeldoch, that the Irish call their language Gaelich Eirinach, &c, &c. &c. they refer most falsely to authorities, which when examined, confute them: nay totally per­vert, interpolate, and mangle those authorities which they quote. What name shall we apply to such practices, happily quite unknown in other countries? Indeed i am apt to think that, in some countries, the antiquaries form an exception to the [Page 56]national character. My countrymen are deservedly noted for probity; their antiquaries are just the reverse. Their sacrifice of all truth, to what they call the honour of Scotland, is proverbial. Deluded men! Can any honour spring from falsehood? The people of England are solid and sensible; their antiquaries generally most visionary. The French are gay and frivolous; their antiquaries grave and solid. Let us then leave the lana caprina of confuting these writers to oblivion, that silent confuter of such attempts. Mr. Macpherson has been happily confuted by Mr. Whitaker, who has set nonsense against nonsense. For Ossian, and Richard of Cirencester, are the authors upon whom Mr. Whitaker confutes the father of Ossian. Ossian and La Morte Arthur, which last Mr. W. ranks against Gildas and Beda, and gives a long history of king Arthur from it, were just fit to produce that nonsense which would counterpoize any other nonsense. So that Mr. M. and Mr. W. and perfectly matched in judgement and skill; and we are much obliged to Mr. W. for proving to us that Mr. M's theory could not stand against non­sense itself.

Risu solvantur tabulae, tu missus abibis.

Not to waste time in a formal refutation of such writers as Maitland, Goodal, and the Macphersons, it is sufficient to observe that all this work is a silent confutation of them; for by establishing the truth all errors fa [...]l before it.

One point deserves consideration. Mr. Macpher­son has most ingenuously and ingeniously observed, that on the first mention of the Scots by Ammianus Marcellinus, at the year 360, we find them in Britain; and ergo the Scots were settled in Britain before they were in Ireland. By the same rule as Ammianus, at the year 369, mentions the Saxons in Britain, they were also settled in Britain. But the fact is, that Ammianus, in both places, is speak­ing of the nations that invaded the Roman pro­vinces [Page 57]in Britain. This is a specimen of the argu­ments of those Scotish antiquists; and the rest are of the same stamp; so that the reader may judge whether they deserve answer, or only laughter. Mr. M. is however forced to yield to that glaring and invincible truth, supported by all antiquity, that the name of Scotia was long borne by Ireland, before given to Scotland. The truth is, as after fully shewn in this work, that, from the Fourth Century to the Eleventh, the names Scotia and Scoti belonged solely to Ireland, and the Irish. In the reign of Malcom II. or take at a medium the middle of this reign, and say about the year 1020, the name Scotia was first applied to North Britain; but from its first appearance to that time, it belonged to Ireland alone. No foreigner has been misled by the pitiful prejudices and falsehoods of our Scotish dablers. Cellarius, Eccard, Schoep­flin, D'Anville, the learned editors of the Histo­riens de France, Suhm, &c. &c. &c. have all agreed in this point. But of this afterward. If therefore priority of name argues priority of pos­session, the Scots must have come from Ireland to Scotland. But this inference is not beyond con­troversy. For the people may have gone from Scotland to Ireland, some will say; and the name of Scots have been there given them, yet after­ward, by some strange contingence, have reverted to the parent country. That such a contingence is quite unknown to any other history, would not be a sufficient answer, for analogy, tho useful in such cases, is not absolute proof. If any writer were to attempt to prove that Greece, far from being the parent country of Magna Graecia, was actually peopled from it, in what way is he to be confuted? The probability is indeed equal on both sides (to speak for once as a Scotish antiquist), and the grand mark, that of identic language, may be applied either way. It is certain therefore that the only information we can have on this, or [Page 58]any other subject of ancient history, is that de­rived from ancient authorities; and in this pe­culiar and great instance, from the Tradition of the people themselves. Now all writers, English, Scotish, and Irish, from Beda down to this supersicial century, agree in this point, that the Ancient Scots of North Britain were a colony from Ireland. And in all ages the Scotish highlanders have assented: and the lowlanders, from Barbour in 1375, to this moment, call the highlanders Irishry, and their language Irish, Erish, or Erse. This clear inference is fully confirmed by all the ancient accounts of the progress of the old Scots in Britain, now about to be detailed; and is so firmly rooted in the whole ancient history of Britain and Ireland, that nothing but ignorance joined with frenzy could attempt to shake it. Indeed igno­rance, the deepest ignorance, was necessary to such an attempt; for profound ignorance judges of others by itself; and thinks that dark and dubi­ous to all, which is dark and dubious to itself alone, while others see it in the brightest day. An ignorant man will talk of opinion in the mathe­matics, because he can form no idea how certain they are. Opinion is the safe harbour of ignorance; and a benighted mind flies to it as a covert from utter shame. He who would call it matter of opinion, whether the Greeks proceeded from Magna Graecia, or to it, would be regarded as a mere ignorant; and the progress of the old Scots from Ireland, is far more clear, and rests upon more numerous grounds than the former. Before i had in the least examined this subject, i saw it in the dark, and thought it doubtful; nay really bellived, from general theory, that the Irish Scots had past from Scotland. When i had exa­mined it, i saw that i had been totally wrong; and that the contrary was from ancient writers, and innumerable other lesser lights and cir­cumstances, only acquirable in a thorough exami­nation, as clear as day. Let those who doubt [Page 59]therefore only read, and examine, with a mere desire of knowing the truth, and satisfying their own minds; and no arguments need be used. The proofs are so numerous, clear, and consistent, that they afford a perfect blaze of truth; as many small lights will, at night, make a chamber as bright as noon.

CHAPTER II. The first Colony of Old Scots in North Britain, under Riada, about the Year 258; being the DALREU­DINI, or ATTACOTTI.

SOME English and Irish antiquaries, as Usher, Bishop Lloyd, Stillingfleet, O'Flaherty, &c. have, in their great zeal against the antiquity of the Scots in North Britain, past this colony in ob­livion; and represented the second colony in the year 503, as the first settlement. The cogent authority of Beda they neglected, or railed against. That respectable writer, in his first chapter, gives us the origin of the Britons, Piks, and Scots, in Bri­tain. In his second chapter he proceeds to the wars of Julius Caesar in Britain. Had Beda therefore followed strict chronology, the Scots, by his ac­count, must have been settled in Britain before Cae­sar's time. But the Scots he introduces here, from their after connexion with the Piks, and that he may proceed to a continuous account of the Ro­man affairs in Britain. In like manner, under the year 449, he gives us the origin of the Iutes, Saxons, and Angli, in England; tho the Iutes alone arrived in that year, and there were no Saxons here till 477, nor Angli till 547. So, lib. I. c. 3. he places Vespasian after Claudius, and then passes to Nero: and I. 20. he puts St. Germanus, who lived about 420, long after the battle of Badon, 520. Nennius, a writer of the next century, with a still greater neglect of order, says, ch. 2. that in Britain at first dwelled Scoti, [Page 61]Picti, atque Saxones, et Britones. Yet, ch. 3, 4, he gives us the British origins; ch. 5, the Pikish; and ch. 6, he says, Novissime autem venerunt Scoti a partibus Hispaniae ad Hiberniam. But Beda, by giving us the name of the leader of this first colo­ny, enables us to six the date.

The words of Beda are, Procedente autem tem­pore, Britannia, post Britones et Pictos, tertiam Scot­torum nationem in Pictorum parte recepit. Qui, duce Reuda, de Hibernia egressi vel amicitia, vel ferro, sibi­met inter eos sedes, quas hactenus habent, vindica­rant. A quo videlicet duce usque hodie Dalreudini vocantur; nam lingua eorum dal partem significat. 'In process of time Britain, after the Britons and Piks, received a third nation, that of the Scots, in the part belonging to the Piks. Who emigrating from Ireland, under their leader Reuda, either by friendship or arms vindicated to themselves those seats among them, which they to this time hold. From which leader they are called Dalreudini to this day; for in their language dal signifies a part*.'

This very preservation of the name of the leader by Beda argues a late settlement; and accord­ingly we find that it took place about the year 258. For the REUDA of Beda is the READA of king Alfred's translation; and the RIADA of the ancient Irish writers.

But concerning this Riada, and his colony, the modern Irish authors were long mute. Stanihurst, and others, who, at the end of the sixteenth cen­tury, first superficially treated Irish antiquities, had seen few or none of the old Irish MSS. then in private and unknown hands, till Sir James Ware collected them. Usher, who published his [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] Antiquitates Eccl. Brit. in 1639, was a bitter enemy of the Scotish fables; and in his zeal denied that the Scots were settled in Britain till 503. Keat­ing, who wrote about the same time, from the same motive, followed the same course. Ware did not understand Irish; and his book is so brief that it is not to be wondered that he says nothing of the origin of the Scots in Britain. O'Flaherty even contradicts himself, as Mr. O'Conor shewsa, from his zeal against the antiquity of the Scots in Britain, and his wish to appropriate to the Irish Scots all the actions against the Romans; so that he denies all settlement of the Scots in Britain till 503. And, in his "Vindication of Ogygia against Sir G. Mackenzie," he insists that the Dalreudini were only settled in the north-east corner of Ireland, till a part passed in 503 to Scotland. Still later Irish writers have, it is believed, in their prejudice against Scotish antiquity, followed the fame tract; but from the greater candour of others the truth has appeared in this century.

Kennedy, whose bookb was published at Paris 1705, and tho brief, is the most accurate known on Irish history, as he generally quotes MS. page, and column, first laid open the fact, that a colony of Scots, under Riada, settled in Pikland. He tells us, p. 104, "Our books of antiquity, giving an account at large of the children and race of Conar Mac Mogalama king of Ireland, mention that he had three sons, Carbre Musc, Carbre Baskin, and Carbre Riada: and that the first was by another name Aengus; the second Olfill; and the third Eocha." And p. 107, "Our writers unanimously tell us that Carbre Riada was the founder of the Scotish sovereignty in Britain; but they make him only a captain, as venerable Beda does, or conductor, who ingratiated himself so [Page 63]far with the Picts, by his and his childrens as­sistance, and good service against the Britons; that they consented that they and their followers should continue among them." In both these passages he gives no authorities, tho he commonly pro­duces them. This most foolish and detestable practice prevails to this day in Irish writers adonec.

Mr. O'Conor, in his Dissertation on the His­tory of Scotland, at the end of his Dissertations on the Irish history, Dublin, 1766, 8vo. is the next, and last, Irish writer whom i shall quote upon this point. He there tells us, that in the time of Cormac O'Cuin, as O'Flaherty himself acknowleges Ogyg. part III. c. 69, an establish­ment of the Scots was made in North Britain. That it was in favour of Carbre Riada, a prince of the Degadsd of Munster, cousin of Cormac O'Cuin, and son of Conary II. who died in 220. That Riada and his immediate posterity ruled that colony, as well as another which he had set­tled in present Antrim, and both colonies were from him called Dalriada. That the Piks at length forced the whole colony in Britain to take flight into Ireland, under their leader Eochad Munrevar, and they settled in the Irish Dalriada. But nei­ther he, nor his son Erc, could obtain a re-estab­lishment in North Britain. Nor was it effected till the beginning of the sixth century, when Loarn, son of Erc, again fixed the Scots there. It appears from this, that the retreat of this first [Page 64]colony happened two generations before 503, or about 440.

Mr. O'Conor has, on different occasions, re­peated this information. In his publication of O'Flaherty's Vindication of Ogygia, Dublin, 1775, 8vo. he gives several notes concerning this settle­ment, but particularly a long one, p. 163. He there shews that O'Flaherty is contradicting his own words in the Ogygia, where, speaking of Cormac O'Cuin, he says, imperium in Albania exegit. That the greater part of Antrim, and a neighbouring part of North Britain, were given to Carbre Riada. That some Irish senachies con­firm Beda's testimony. That the Irish and British Dalriada were governed by the same family. That the sons of Erc, in the eighth generation from Carbre Riada, re-established this colony, which had suffered much. That when Conary II. was murdered in 220, his three sons were minors. That Carbre Riada, one of them, distinguishe himself at the battle of Kinfebrat, A. D. 237. That on Cormac's succession to the Irish throne in 254, Carbre Riada was sent against the Cruth­nii, who had rebelled in Ulster. That in 258 the war was carried into Albany, and the Scots settled there. And says that George III. descends from Conary thro Riada, and the Scotish Albanic line.

In the late Collectanea de Rebus Hibernicis there are also some letters of Mr. O'Conor, throwing light on this subject. He tells us in one numbere, 'Foreign alliances were renewed, and in particu­lar with the Cruthenians (Piks) of North Britain, among whom our Carbry Riada, the son of Co­nary II. found an establishment for his colony of Scots, the first that migrated from Ireland to North Britain." And in Number XII. p. 500, he says, 'About the year 256 Cormac O'Cuin, the most [Page 65]celebrated of our Irish monarchs, had his authority renounced by the Ultonians, the constant enemies of his family. After defeating those rebels in se­veral engagements, their remains fled for shelter into the isles and continent of North Britain. Supplied with an excellent militia, disciplined un­der the famous Fin Mac Cumhall, his commander in chief, and his son-in-law, Cormac fol­lowed his rebellious subjects into the places of their retreat. The terror of his power brought matters to a speedy issue. By consent, or force, he obtained from the Piks a settlement in Kintire and Argyle for his father's nephew Carbry Riada, above-mentioned. Through that colonization un­der his kinsman he left no foreign asylum open for his Ultonian enemies, whose power in Ulster he also curtailed, by stripping them of the territory now called the county of Antrim, with some con­tiguous districts, well marked by Usher. That territory, as well as the other in North Britain, had the name of Dalriada, from Carbry Riada, their first vassal sovereign under the Irish monarch, who vested him with authorityf.'

[Page 66]All this is given, as usual, without one autho­rity or reference! The circumstances of Mr. O'Conor's tale are also discordant. First he says the settlement was owing to force; then he im­putes it to treaty; then to force again. Dr. Ken­nedy's account, tho brief, seems much more ac­curate; and he imputes the settlement to the per­mission of the Piks. Common sense argues this to have been the case, for that a handful of men, to whom fortresses were unknown, should force a settlement among so fierce and numerous a people as the Piks, is impossible. And even by Mr. O'Conor's account, when the Piks afterward quarreled with them, they totally expelled the colony. Mr. O'Conor's story about the rebellion of the Cruthini, or Piks in Ulster, seems mere romance; and we have no room to believe that these Cruthini acknowleged the Irish sovereignty, or, in other words, that they could rebel. Those Cruthini had only settled in Ulster about the year 220; and, far from being conquered or expelled on this occasion, we find them under their own monarchs till the eighth or ninth century. They were certainly not in Antrim, but in present Lon­donderry and Donegal. For the Irish Dalreudini possessed Antrim, by Mr. O'Conor's own account; and at the same time he allows that the Cruthini were in the north of Ireland; and from Tighernac and the annals of Ulster, &c. it is certain that the Cruthini were in a distinct region of Ireland from the Dalreudini. That the Cruthini were not on the north-east of Ireland, but the north-west, also appears from Mr. O'Conor's own information, that [Page 67]he found in the old book of Glendalogh that the Cruthini were in Ulster and Connaught, which last province is on the west. There is but one people of Cruthini in Ireland, to be found in Adomnan, Tighernac, the annals of Ulster, and other authentic documents; and those Cruthini were in part of Ulster, and part of Connaught by Mr. O'Conor's own relation, that is, on the north-west of Ireland. The people on the north-east of Ire­land, among whom Riada planted his Dalreudini, were the Damnii or Darnii of Ptolemy, a Cum­raig people, that had past from Scotland upon the arrival of the Piks. The Dalreudini, or tribe of Riada, were certainly led by him from Mun­ster, his own province; and must have been Scythae or Scotti, who had subdued the south, east, and west of Ireland, but had not extended into the north, till Riada planted his colony. From the genuine writings of St. Patrick it is clear, as Innes remarks, that all the people of Ireland were not termed Scotti, but that the Scots were the su­perior and conquering people, while the common subject race were termed merely Hiberni, or Irish. That the Dalreudini were Scots proper is certain from their being led from the South of Ireland, the chief region of the Scots; and from their be­ing termed Scots peculiarly by Adomnan, Beda, and other ancients. This account of the matter is so consonant to probability, that it would al­most support itself, independent of all the ancient authorities, which are united in its favour. In­deed i have always found that the highest proba­bility and verisimilitude ever attend the ancient authorities, when duly examined and collated.

It may be thought that Kennedy and O'Conor, writers of this century, are but poor supports of Beda's authority. But it must be reflected, that concerning the origin of the Dalreudini of Ireland, all the Irish writers, Keating, Usher, O'Flaherty, &c. &c. &c. are concordant, and say the name [Page 68]sprung from Carbry Riada. Beda, a superior authority to all the Irish annals put together, in­forms us, that this very Riada led also the first co­lony of Scots to North Britain. So that the point stands clear, independently of the lights which Kennedy and O'Conor throw upon it. This Carbry, or, as others call him, Eocha Riada, ap­pears in the old genealogy of the Scotish kings, repeated at the coronation of Alexander III. and preserved by Diceto, Fordun, and many others. In that genealogy he is termed Eodach Riede, and is placed twelve generations before Fergus son of Erc. Kennedy informs us, that, tho the Scotish accounts thus put fourteen generations from Riada to Fergus (including both), yet the Irish and especially the book of Lecan, give but ele­ven; that is, nine generations between the two, which, at thirty years to a generation, make 270 years. Mr. O'Conor says but eight, or 240 years, which is surely the truth. Kennedy men­tions an Irish MS. which has but six: and says, that false names creep into such genealogies, from mistaking nicknames for proper names, and from putting names of predecessors as names of fathers; and scruples not, upon this occasion, to shew discordances in scripture etymologies. It is most strange that O'Flaherty, in his genealogy of James II. gives only three generations between Riada and Erc! But that gentleman seems to have paid little attention to facts or authorities, when his point was to abridge the antiquities of the British Scots, and to appropriate to the Irish all the actions of the Scots against the Romans. Which last purpose required no such aid, as it is certain that the Irish Scots are those of Roman history; and the British Scots were only known under another name, of which presently. But O'Flaherty deserves reproof for using falsifications, tho to serve the cause of truth: Non tali auxilio. It is matter of regret, that the acute and accu­rate [Page 69]Innes, who also shews the first colony of Irish Scots in Britain to have settled in the third cen­tury, as here stated, has not examined the gene­rations between Riada and Erc; for tho the lords of Dalriada were not kings till 503, and it is not certain whether they dwelled in the Irish Dalri­ada, or the Pikishg still they are the immediate ancestors of the Dalriadic or Old Scotish line. I shall here put down this genealogy according to the ancient Scotish account, and the Irish, as given by Kennedy.

The Scotish is,

  • 1. Eochad Riede.
  • 2. Fiachrach Tathmail.
  • 3. Eocha Andoth.
  • 4. Akirkir.
  • 5. Findach.
  • 6. Cruichlinch.
  • 7. Sencormac.
  • 8. Fethelmac Romach.
  • 9. Angusa Butim.
  • 10. Fethelmec Aslingret.
  • 11. Angusa Fir.
  • 12. Eocha Munremor.
  • 13. Erc.
  • 14. Fergus.

The Irish follows:

  • 1. Eocha Riada.
  • 2. Kinta.
  • 3. Fedlim Lave-dhoidh-cuige (hand that burns a province.)
  • [Page 70]4. Fiachra Taithmail.
  • 5. Fergus Ulladh.
  • 6. Aengus Fear.
  • 7. Eocha Munremor.
  • 8. Erc.
  • 9. Fergus.

Thus the Irish inserts two names, between Eocha Riada and Fiachra, not found in the Scotish; and likewise a Fergus Ulladh not in the Scotish. And the Scotish has eight names not in the Irish. The four last names are alone con­cordant. So much for Irish genealogies! It is remarkable that Angus Fir was cotemporary with St. Patrick, and that after him the genealogy seems accurate. Before Patrick's time only the names of the kings of Ireland, and great events, can be received.

Most writers on British antiquities have been puzzled to divine who the ATTACOTTI were; and none has hitherto settled this point. I am fully convinced that Attacotti was neither more nor less than the name given by the northern pro­vincial Britains, who were Cumraig, to the Dal­reudini. From the Dictionarium Kymbraicum of Davis it appears that At is ad; Attal is retinere, detinere, &c. So that there is reason to conclude, that the name Attacotti means simply Hither Scots, or Scots remaining in Britain. The S is quite a servile letter, sometimes superfluous, sometimes omitted, euphoniae causa, as all, the least verst in the struc­ture of languages, know. But this opinion receives full confirmation from other reasons. Ammianus Marcellinus first mentions the Attacotti at the year 364. Picti, Saxonesque, et Scotti, et Atta­cotti, Britannos aerumnis vexavere continuis. And then at the year 368, Picti in duas gentes divisi, Dicaledones et Vecturiones; itidemque Attacotti, belli­cosa hominum natio; et Scotti; per diversa vagantes multa populabantur. And from St. Jerome we learn [Page 71]that the Attacotti were a nation of Britain. Thus quite a new nation appears in Britain at this pe­riod. But how came it to escape the Roman writers for a whole century, from 258 till 364? The wonder would, it is presumed, have been greater, had this new colony appeared in Roman history sooner. Horsley well observes, that from the expedition of Severus 211, till Carausius 290, nothing concerning Britain can be found. And from 290 till 364, what have we? Only a hint or two of panegyrists, dealing wholly in generals. The first books of Ammianus are most unfortu­nately lost; so that from 258 till 364 we have really no writer, from whom such information could be in the least expected, either historian or geographer. Ammianus, at the year 368, tells us he had given a description of Britain, when describing the actions of Constans there, about the year 342, so shall add no more. Then he proceeds to the sentence above quoted. It is therefore to be inferred, that as he says nothing at 368 of the Attacotti being quite a new nation, he had described them at 342: and in all proba­bility told us, as we are still fully enabled to dis­cover, that they were a colony of the Scots who had come from Ireland, and settled on the north of the Glota, or Clyde. But the knowlege we have that the colony calling themselves Dalreu­dini came to Britain about 258; and the mention of the Attacotti, a new nation in North Britain, only a century afterward, will of itself convince us that Attacotti was neither more nor less than the name given by the provincial Britons to the Dalreudini.

Richard of Cirencester, a monk of the four­teenth century, who is often palpably erroneous, is a writer to be cautiously used. To Ptolemy's map of North Britain, Richard has added the Attacotti, and Damnii Albani, nations unknown to Ptolemy; but is certainly right in their posi­tion. [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72]He places the Attacotti on the north of the Frith of Clyde; and the Damnii Albani just above them. And these two nations form the only addition he makes to Ptolemy's map. Now Beda places the Dalreudini, on their first arrival, exactly in that very region. Est autem sinus ma­ris permaximus, qui antiquitus gentem Britonum a Pictis secernebat: qui ab occidente in terras longo spatio erumpit; ubi est civitas Britonum munitissima usque hodie, quae vocatur Alcluith. Ad cujus vide­licet sinus partem septentrionalem Scotti, quos diximus, adven [...]entes, sibi locum patriae fecerunt. This is surely a strong confirmation that the Dalreudini and Attacotti were one and the same nation. The Damnii Albani of Richard were, it is likely, some of the Damnii of Antrim, conquered by Riada, whom he had transplanted here along with his co­lony of Dalreudini. Albani is a well-known term for North British in the Irish tongue.

The Attacotti make a distinguished figure in the Notitia Imperii, a work of the fifth century, where numerous bodies of them appear in the list of the Roman army. One body was in Illyricum, their ensign a kind of mullet: another at Rome, their badge a circle: the Attacotti Honoriani were in Italy. In the same work are named bodies of Parthians, Sarmatae, Arabs, Franks, Saxons, &c. Those foreign soldiers had, in all likelihood, be­longed to vanquished armies; and been spared from carnage on condition of bearing arms in those of Rome. Some, it is likely, were merely foreign levies and auxiliaries. To which class those Attacotti belong, it is difficult to say. Cer­tain it is, that Theodosius, in 368, repelled the Piks, Scots, and Attacotti, from the Roman provinces in Britain; rebuilt the wall of Antoninus be­tween Forth and Clyde; and founded the pro­vince of Valentia. The Attacotti, finding no employment for their arms, might be tempted to enter into the Roman armies; for it was the Ro­man [Page 73]policy in later ages to levy as many foreign troops as possible, and to oppose barbarians to barbarians. Perhaps the Attacotti were subdued and forced to furnish levies. Perhaps these bo­dies were prisoners of warh.

The time when the Attacottic colony arrived in Pikland, was certainly that in which flourished the celebrated Fion Mac Cumhal (pronounce Fin Mac Cuwal) as all the Irish historians agree: and therefore a few words shall be added concerning that hero, who has had so singular a fate in our time. In Scotland he is also called Fingal; and is mentioned under that name by Barbour in 1375: but this name is unknown to the Irish. That Fingal was the same person with the Irish Fin Mac Cuwal, is clear from the identic name of the father Cuwal, the son Oisin, the grandson Oskir; and from the old Scotish poets, who sometimes call this personage Fingal, sometimes Fin Mac Coul. The names of his companions Gaul, son of Morni, &c. also coincide both in Irish and Highland tradition; so that the identity of Fin Mac Cuwal and Fingal is demonstrative. [Page 74]But how the Scots alone came to term him Fin­gal, is not so easily shewn. In the old Irish wri­ters, as Tighernac, the Annals of Ulster, &c. Fingal, or White Strangers, is a name uniformly given to the Danes, and is not used till their ap­pearance in 795; as Duf Gal, or Dugal, Black Strangers, is the peculiar name of the Norwegians. Mr. Thorkelin, a learned native of Iceland, in­forms me that the old dress of the Norwegians, and especially of the pirates and mariners, was black; as the Icelandic is at this day, and has always been. But the Danes seem to have been called Fingal, from the whiteness of their com­plexions, while the Celts are of black complexion. The name Fingal, given to Fion, seems therefore an impropriety, and a confusion (as tradition is synonymous with confusion) of the fame of the Fingals or Danes in Ireland, with that of Fin, the hero. The whole Irish and Highland poems and traditions, concerning this personage, form indeed one mass of confusion and absurdity.

The period when Fin flourished has, like other traditional matters, suffered the grossest anachro­nisms. Later Irish MSS. and traditions, and poems, both of Ireland and the Highlands, re­present his son Oisin or Ossian, as he is new christened, as cotemporary with St. Patrick, A. D. 440, holding dialogues with that Saint, writing poems to him, &c. But the real epoch of Fin preceded Saint Patrick near two centuries, as is clear from Irish history. He flourished un­der Cormac O'Cuin, who ascended the Irish throne in 254, as Mageogaghan 1627, Keating, O'Flaherty, Mac Curtin, O'Halloran, O'Conor, Warner, Wynne, and other writers, who mention Fin, shew from the Irish annals. Colonel Val­lancey tells us, that at the memorable battle of Gabhra, A. D. 296, between Moghchorb king of Munster, and Cairbre, son of Cormac, king of Tara, most of the standing army that had lately [Page 75]been commanded by Fion Mac Cumbal, and its re­nowned heroes called Fiana Eirionn, or Phenians, were slain, after vast carnage of the enemy. O'Flaherty informs, that Fin died in 284; and under the year 291, says Praelium Gauranum prope Temoriam. "In praelii aestu Carbreus, et Osgarus Fin­nii ex Ossino nepos, manus conserunt i, &c. That Fin and Oisin do not belong to Saint Patrick's time, is indeed clear from Tighernac, the Annals of Ulster, and other authentic documents. Jocelin, in his life of Saint Patrick, written in the twelfth century, places Finnan Mac Con, a giant, above a hundred years before Patrick. As to the ana­chronisms which have crept in, they are common in all traditions. Fin and Patrick were the two most famous men of ancient Ireland; and they are thus brought together. Still greater anachro­nisms appear in the Northern Sagas, concerning Starkader, the Fin or Arthur of Scandinavia. Torfaeus, in his Norwegian history, has a disser­tation De Starkadis; and makes many out of one, whom Saxo represents as living three centuries. Nay Torfaeus says there is no age from Christ's birth, to the eighth century, free from synchro­nisms of Starkader! Torfaeus, in the same work, vol. I. p. 296, is forced to strive against the gross anachronism of a man, whom he puts in the fifth century, marrying Ragnar Lodbrog's daughter, who lived in the ninth! But such is tradition! Suhm, in his Abstract of Danish History, makes two Starkaders, one in the fifth, the other in the eighth century; both of them great warriors and great poets. This resembles the three Odins, [Page 76]and is a mere apology for the anachronism of tra­dition. The mention of Starkader leads me to hint the great similarity between him and the Irish Fin and Oisin; whence it is reasonable to infer that the Danes and Norwegians in Ireland and Scotland, grafted many of the fables about Starkader on the story of Fin, Oisin, &c. Starka­der, like Ossian, is not only an Achilles, but a Homer; not only a hero, but a great poet. As Fin and Oisin are equally celebrated in Ireland, and the Highlands; so Starkader, both in Den­mark and Sweden. Starkader was famous for assisting the oppressed, so Fin; ideas evidently of the times of chivalry. As Macpherson makes his Ossian an historian of grave note; so Saxo repre­sents Starkader. Oisin celebrates his own actions, so Starkaderk.

Almost every nation has had a champion of this sort: the Persians, Rustan; the Greeks, Hercules; the Scandinavians, Starkader; the Welch, Arthur; the Irish, Fin; the French, Charlemagne, &c. Of these the Welch Arthur is now known to be a nonexistence, being only a Cumraig epithet Ard ur, 'The Great Man,' for Aurelius Ambrosius, their Roman leader against the Saxons. And of the Irish Fin the less that is said in history the better; and the Irish antiquaries act judiciously in this respect. He seems however to have been a man of great talents for the age, and of celebrity in arms. His formation of a regular standing army trained to war, in which all the Irish accounts agree, seems [Page 77]to have been a rude imitation of the Roman le­gions in Britain. The idea, tho simple enough, shews prudence; for such a force alone could have copt with the Romans, had they invaded Ireland. But this machine, which surprized a rude age, and seems the basis of all Fin's fame, like some other great schemes, only lived in its author, and expired soon after himl.

Of the pretended poems of Ossian, the son of this Fin, it is almost beneath the purpose of this work to speak. That so silly a delusion should impose even on some literati, both of England and Scotland, is only a proof how little historical antiquities are studied in Britain: for in any other country only laughter could have followed. As to us of Scotland, foreigners seem, on this occa­sion, justly to question whether we be yet savages or not. For that the most civilized and benevo­lent manners should belong to savage society, as represented in Ossian, is not so absurd as that such a delusion could impose on any, in a country advanced beyond a savage state. National preju­dice is also a species of madness, and consumes all reasoning and common sense; so that people, rather acute on other points, will on this betray a credulity beneath childhood, and an obduracy beyond the pitch of confirmed frenzy. Certain it is, that, had these poems of Ossian been published by an Irishman, all Scotland, from the Mull of Galloway to the Orkneys, would have been in one peal of laughter at so enormous a bull.

Yet it must be confessed, that these poems form a literary phaenomenon, the most singular that has ever appeared, or will, in all probability, [Page 78]ever appear, in the world of literature. Their general manner is such, that it is no wonder they impose. When very young, and immerst in Greek and Roman reading, i had a firm opinion of the falsehood of Ossian's poems; because it appeared, at first glance, that their preservation was an impossible fiction. This was before i had redd them; but, upon perusal, my sentiments to­tally changed. The intrinsic style and manner, and imagery of the poems, with the translator's plausible notes, and the testimonies given by Dr. Blair, a man of the most excellent moral charac­ter, made me a complete convert; and from the age of sixteen till twenty, their veracity appeared to me positive; any objections to it the mere ef­fect of envy, or of national prejudice. But be­ginning at last to study the antiquities of modern nations, and of my own country in particular, i soon awakened from so gross a delusion; and was apt to conclude them the mere fabrications of the translator, from the total ignorance even of the greatest features of our history, and manners, that runs through the whole. I am convinced, there­fore, from my own experience, that as soon as historical antiquities, the most manly and import­ant of all literary pursuits, begin to be in the least studied in Britain, the poems of Ossian will be regarded in their true light of mere romance. But that they are totally the fabrications of the translator, would be a rash conclusion; and tho i was led to think so once, in my abhorrence of be­ing made a dupe, yet, upon full consideration of this point, i am convinced that one half, or per­haps more, of these poems is really traditional. For the poem of Fingal is mentioned as preserved by tradition in the Highlands, long before the translation appeared. And Dr. Blair produces about an hundred respectable witnesses to the tra­dition of other poems, and passages. But this very tradition will, to any impartial mind, pre­sent [Page 79]a clear proof that the original parts are of a late age. And it appears to me, that some poet, or poets, of superlative genius, flourished in the Highlands of Scotland, in the Fourteenth or Fif­teenth centurym; to whom we are indebted for the traditional parts. For that they are not more ancient is clear from their being preserved by traditionn; and from the total confusion of all history that pervades them. The tales of Fin, and his heroes, were always famous among the Irish, and their descendents the Scotish High­landers; as those of Arthur among the Welch. Had a poet of superlative genius arisen in Wales, at a late period, we might have seen as fine poetry, with a similar ignorance, and perversion of all history. Arthur would no doubt have fought in France, Ireland, &c. and have been always victor. Had such a poet arisen in Bretagne, Wales, the real region of Arthur, would have been re­presented as the scene of his conquests, as is the case with Ossian. The French lais often place Arthur's court in Bretagne.

But it is said, that Ossian bears intrinsic marks of truth.

  • 1. Because Ossian always appears as the poet.
  • 2. Because there is no mention of Chris­tianity.
  • 3. Because the manners are of genuine hue.

The first of these arguments is nonsense. The second foolish. The third utterly false. Had [Page 80]Oisin, son of Fin, and father of Oskir, composed any poetry, this circumstance could never have escaped the whole Irish antiquaries. Any one the least verst in the Gothic, or other poetry of the middle ages, must know that nothing was so usual as to compose poetry in the name of an eminent person. Lodbrog's death-song is one in­stance of an hundred. Ariosto quotes Turpin as his author; and Cervantes has his Arabic autho­rity. Even in England, so late as the end of the sixteenth century, The Mirror of Magistrates is wholly of this kind. This was a mere trick of the poet for greater effect; and to command re­verence. As Homer, and other poets, put their poetry into the mouth of a muse; so these bards used one or more eminent persons, by way of a muse. A poor Highland stroler, however great his genius, would never have commanded half so much attention, to his own poetry, as he must have done by imputing it all to the celebrated Oisin, the son of Fin. Literary forgery is by no means confined to enlightened periods; but is, on the contrary, the proper fruit of a dark pe­riod, and of an ignorant country; for in other periods and countries the light is too strong. The night is the season of deception. In the dark ages there was false Herodotus, Phalaris, Aesop, &c. &c. &c. who all vanished when the light of literature arose. The forgeries of monks, poets, &c. in the middle ages, may be reckoned by thousands. But in the present case, as the translator has confessedly altered his copies at his pleasure, there is room to believe that most of the passages concerning Oisin, and his harp, are of his own interpolation, in order to appropriate the pieces to his title, The Works of Ossiano. If this [Page 81]translator would leave his Celtic hyperboles for a moment, and descend from the stilts of his extra­vagant impudence, merely to inform the republic of letters, in which the least are his equals, few not his superiors, what is traditional, what interpo­lated in these pieces, it would be better for him. As it is, the manifest intention he shews to de­ceive, and his ignorant and impudent assertions, will totally stifle all return from the public to his labours, and render his posthumous fame less than nothing.

That there is no mention of Christianity in these poems, is a foolish argument. By this argument few modern poets would belong to a Christian period. Poetry has a machinery of its own in all countries. I have seen Icelandic poetry, writ­ten last year, in which the whole mythology of the Edda was kept up; as it is indeed always fol­lowed, save in hymns alone, by the Icelandic skalds. Besides, the Norwegians, who seized the Hebudes and west of Scotland, in the ninth cen­tury, were not Christians; and their Celtic sub­jects had no religion at all, but became utterly ignorant. But this question is also in the hands of the translator, who has altered the poems, put out Saint Patrick, and put in Caracalla. As the pieces are confessedly altered, how reason with ac­curacy upon such a fabrication? Suffice it to say, that granting there is no mention of Christianity in these poems, any argument drawn from this would be as foolish, as to infer that the produc­tions of the Northern skalds, were all written be­fore Christianity.

As to the manners in this Ossian, they are false to excess, as are the whole history, geography, and chronologyp. To dwell at length upon this, [Page 80] [...] [Page 81] [...] [Page 82]would be foreign to my purpose. Fin, an Irish general, is metamorphosed into a king of Scot­land; as Arthur, from a Roman general, became, in Welch tradition, king of Britain To see Mr. Macpherson, who betrays such irrational preju­dices against the Irish, furbishing up the refuse of their fables, and insisting upon making one of their generals king of Scotland, is one of the most risible prospects in the scene of human madness. [Page 83]But ignorance is a strange affair! The very name of Lochlin was unknown in Ireland, or the High­lands, till the ninth century, when the invasions of the Scandinavians began. The name means pirates; and Mr. M. puts it as a name of Scandi­navia. The name Fingal was never given to Fin by the Irish, or Highlanders. It was only applied to him by the Lowland Scots; and perhaps means Fin the Gaël, or Fin the Irishman, by eminence. The actions of Cuchullin, who lived in the first century, are blended, in truly Celtic confusion, with those of Fin in the third, and of the Fingal and Lochlin in the ninth and tenth. Moylena, in the King's County, is placed in Ulster: as is Temora, which is in Meath. The last error de­stroys a whole poem, that of Temora, in Eight Books; which i am convinced is wholly Mr. Mac­pherson's own, save parts of the first book, which he at first published separately. The car of Cuchul­lin has been regarded as a mark of ancient man­ners. But the Norwegians used cars in the ninth century at the siege of Paris; and they are believed to have been used by them in Ireland, as in Scandinavia, down to the eleventh century. That they were used by the Crutheni or Piks in Ire­land in the sixth century, we know from Adom­nan. But, from the old tales, an Highland poet of the fifteenth century might easily have de­scribed a car; as modern poets describe gonfanons, mail, and other ancient, but well known, features of war. Arguments, as to the age of poetry, from such descriptions, are beneath puerility. The want of costume in these poems is gross. The manners of chivalry, gallantry to the women, and relieving the oppressed, fill every page of Ossian: and Fin, like king Arthur, is a perfect knight errant, seven centuries before knight-er­rantry was invented. To knight-errantry belong also the halls and towers, while, in Ossian's time, there were only palaces built with wattles, and [Page 84]all on one floor in Ireland. The mail also, or steel habergeon, perpetually mentioned in Ossian, shews the ignorance of those who fight for his an­tiquity; for Herodian expressly tells us that the people of Caledonia wore no mail, and hardly cloaths. Mail of complete steel in Caledonia! Aegri insomnia. Brass alone was used among the barbaric nations to a late period; and only for swords. Nay the shields in Ossian are not of lea­ther, but of bell-metal: else how could each of seven bosses yield a different sound, as a signal? Why should i [...] be condemned to follow such sickly idiotism? How comes Ossian to omit boars and wolves, so frequent in Scotland, down to the fifreenth century, in all his imagery? In the battle of Lora we find an arrow of gold; and a simple chief offers an hundred steeds, an hundred maids, an hundred hawks! The standard of Fingal was called the sun-beam, because studded with stones and gold! The only barbaric ensigns were the heads of beasts. In Carthon a thousand lights from the stranger's land are placed in the hall of Selma, which the learned translator thinks may be wax-candles from the Roman Province! The stars on the shield of Cathmor, Temora, b. VII. to what a strange understanding must they have occurred! The single ship invented by Lumon, with which he effects a settlement in Ireland! Suffice it to say, that, considering Ossian as a historic poet, no arguments need be used against him. They who look upon him in that view, must be too ignorant to understand argu­ment. How ridiculous would it be to use argu­ments against Geofrey of Monmouth, or the Psalter of Cashel! This Ossian, however, as the frenzy of the translator has pushed him into this odd point of view, may be safely regarded as the last effort of Celticism, to injure the history of Britain. Geofrey and the Psalter Cashel, the Welch and Irish fables, are lost in oblivion. The [Page 85]Highland Celts alone remained; and for the first time thrusting their noses into the world of letters, they have, from the darkness of their own minds, judged of an enlightened age. For how can an ignorant and absurd mind conceive the light and accuracy of science; or have any idea of the dan­ger of insulting it? Alas! they know no better. To their misty understandings tradition's silliest tales, and the dreams of the darkest night of ig­norance, altered at pleasure by the prejudiced imaginations of modern writers, strangers to all principles of common science or common literary integrity, assume the sacred shape of history! In­stead of arguing against such infatuation, pecu­liar to a second sighted people of disordered senses, we can only express the deepest regret at such a prospect of mental misery, at such cala­mitous depravation of the name of man.

So much for Ossian as a historic poet. As a romantic poet, or a mere poet, it is doubtful whether his faults or merits are greatest; for both are extreme. The faults of a total confusion of history, chronology, and geography, are radical, and run thro the whole. The verisimilitude, so necessary to please the mind, is quite wantingg. The poems ought also to have been dedicated to Death; for there is a death in almost every page, eternally the same. A vein of modern sentimental poetry, and late fiction, also very frequently peeps out from the cobweb covering. Half would have been more than the whole. Eternal epi­sodes, eternal ladies in mail, where no mail was known, sicken one at every turn. The machi­nery, [Page 86]imagery, and phraseology, are questionless fine; and some passages superlative. The phra­seology is indeed often perfectly scriptural, be­cause the translator was at first Reverend. In the third edition the parallel passages of scripture are marked in the notes. To prophecy concerning the future reputation of these poems of Ossian would puzzle the most acute and enlightened critic. On the one hand the pieces, with great defects, have also great and original merit. On the other there is a total confusion of all his­tory, chronology, and geography, and costume; a radical and ruinous defect, unknown in any poetry that has hitherto found continual applause, and indeed affording a disgust [...]sufficient to obli­terate all pleasure, in perusing so ignorant and in­sane a mass of fiction. How far this defect, joined with the imposture which pervades the translation, and which the public will soon recoil from with contempt and abhorrence, may crush and obliviate what merit, however high, the poems may possess, must be left to the judgment of posterity.

CHAPTER III. The second arrival of the Ancient Scots in Britain, and first establishment of the Dalriadic Kingdom in 503.

THE Dalreudini, or Attacotti, were, as has been hinted in the former chapter, repelled to Ireland in the middle of the fifth century, or about 200 years after their arrival. This event, preserved in Irish history, also appears from the Scotish accounts of Fordun, Major, Boyce, Bu­chanan, &c. who all allow that the Scots were driven to Ireland; and, after a retreat of about fifty years, were restored by Fergus, son of Erc. Gildas also strongly implies this: so that this in­cident may be regarded as fixt, and universally allowed. But its precise epoch, and circumstances, deserve consideration.

Gildas, after mentioning the letters of the Bri­tons to Aëtius, consul for the third time, that is in 446, tells us, that the Britons, instigated by despair, obtained a victory over the marauding Piks and Scots. That the Piks then remained quiet for a season; but the Irish returned home, not long after to return, revertuntur ergo impu­dentes grassatores Hiberni domum, post non multum temporis reversuri. The he mentions the plague, which in 446 pervaded Europe; and the arrival of the Iutes in Kent, 449. Thus the date assigned by Gildas is 446. But as his authority only af­fords a strong implication, it remains to confirm it by the Irish and Scotish accounts.


[Page 88]The Irish account, as above stated, bears that it was in the time of their leader Eochad Munre­var, father of Erc, father of Loarn and Fergus, who, in 503, re-established the Old Scots, that their retreat took place. That is, two genera­tions before 503, or about 60 years, which brings us to 440. But as in such cases the generations cannot afford the precise number, the Irish ac­count confirms the date given by Gildas of 446.

As to the Scotish account, it is so perverted by the forgeries of Fordun, who places the expulsion of the Scots in 360, and their re-establishment by Erc's sons in 403, that all that can be argued from it, is the duration of the expulsion, which by this calculation is 43 years. He also quotes some old verses, which give this number. Of later Scotish historians some enlarge this number, some diminish it. But sufficient traces remain in our old writers to shew the tradition of the ex­pulsion; and that it lasted forty, or fifty, or more years.

The epoch of this re-establishment is so marked and clear, that no part of ancient history can well be more certain. The period when Erc and his sons flourished, nay the year of the progress of the later to Pikland, and foundation of the Dal­riadic kingdom, will, to any one the least versed in Irish history, or our own old chronicles, illus­trated by Innes, be as openly evinced as any date of Greek or Roman history. Nor is this circum­stance to be wondered at, when the importance and lateness of the event are considered. Mait­land, and some other weak and ignorant writers, persist, in spite of all truth, learning, and com­mon sense, to fix the reign of Fergus, son of Erc, at 403, for two reasons: 1. Because the Roman transactions against the Piks and Scots, cease about this time; and this date affords, therefore, a convenient chain of history. 2. Because this date makes the Scotish kingdom more ancient than [Page 89]those of Spain, France, England, nay Ireland, which Maitland begins at Leogaire, the first Christian king. Thus the date 403 is very con­venient; and what is truth to a Scotish antiquist, who in the darkness of ignorance cannot even form an idea what the light of science is? Yet, A. D. 303, 203, or 403 years before Christ if you will, would be as proper a date for Erc's sons, and the establishment of the Dalriadic king­dom, as 403. What would we say of a writer who, to serve a foolish hypothesis, should antedate the reign of any prince in Greek or Roman his­tory, a full century? The case is as absurd here: for, after the Christian period of Irish history, the events are as clear and positive, being so late, as those of any ancient history whatever.

Erc, the son of Eochad Munrevar, is well known in Irish history, and flourished toward the end of the fifth century. He died in 474. Usher has long ago told us, what so many Irish writers have since repeated, that Tighernac, one of the most solid of the Irish annalists, and who wrote about 1080, says, that Fergus, son of Erc, with the race Dalriada, held a part of Britain, and died there. This event he puts in the first year of the pontificate of Symmachus, or 498a. The author of the synchronisms, also quoted by Usher, puts this event twenty years after the battle of Ocha, where Ailil Molt, king of Ireland, fell A. D. 483, that is, in 503.

Two questions arise upon this subject. 1. Whe­ther the date 498, given by Tighernac, or 503 put by the author of the synchronisms, should be preferred? 2. If Loarn, or Fergus his younger bro­ther, was the first king of Dalriada?


[Page 90]The first question is of small importance in an event of this nature, the difference being only five years. The author of the synchronisms is, by Mr. O'Conor, called Flan of Bute, and placed in the tenth century. The learned Usher calls him non novitius autor, 'no late author.' The question therefore lies between him and Tighernac. The author of the synchronisms, by such extracts as are given of his work, appears a writer of consi­derable learning and accuracy, who studiously en­deavoured to settle the chronology of his country, by synchronisms of Roman emperors, &c. And the date 503, given by him, is confirmed, as Innes shews, by the number of years assigned in the old Scotish chronicles to the kings from Fer­gus to the death of Aidan, which by all accounts was in 605: namely, Fergus 3, Dongard 5, Con­gal 24, Gabran 22, Conal 14, Aidan 34, making just 102 years; which, subtracted from 605, leave the date of the commencement of the Dalriadic kingdom, 503. This certainly turns the scale in favour of the synchronisms. Mageoghagan, Usher, O'Flaherty, Kennedy, Innes, O'Conor, all assent to this date of 503. As to the date 498, supposed to be put by Tighernac, it seems doubt­ful if so meant by the author; or if he, in other words, marks precisely the first year of Symma­chus. For his dates are sometimes wrong by four or five years; and Usher, who, in his Antiquitates Eccl. Brit. says that Tighernac mentions the first Symmachus, in another place says, that he only puts this event, sub initium pontificatus Symmachi. Symmachus sat from 498 till 514, or sixteen years; and the year 503 would be toward the beginning of his pontificate. If strictly interpreted, Tigher­nac would place the death of Fergus in the same year with his colony; for the words, et ibi mortuus est, would in regular annals imply this. But as it is well known, that this was not the case, it may well be argued that Tighernac puts the date of [Page 91]this event not to the precise first year of Symma­chus, but toward the beginning of his pontificate; and 503 is toward the beginning of it, as it lasted from 498 till 514.

Let us now consider the second question, or that concerning Loarn. In the Scotish accounts of Dalriadic kings Fergus begins the series; and Loarn is past in oblivion, but in the Irish Loarn ranks as the first king. Innes, who was afraid of offending his bigotted countrymen, and who pal­pably trembles when asserting plain truth and au­thority against ignorant prejudice and falsehood, passes Loarn in utter silence; as he has past the evidence for the retreat of the Scots from Al­bany to Ireland, in the fifth century. Strange that he should affront us so far as to think that questions of plain matter of fact, and mere ma­thematical pleasure, in other countries, should in Scotish antiquities, exclusively, be regarded as sacred to bigotry and frenzy! To him who looks on such questions with a due eye, they are points of mere curiosity; and of no more concern or pre­judice than if they related to the history of Egypt, Macedon, China, or Peru. Nevertheless let us beware of that common error of flying from one prejudice to another; and examine fairly whether Loarn or Fergus was really first king of Dal­riada.

The silence of the old Scotish lists upon this point is not to be wondered at, for they are to­tally erroneous and defective in other respects, as sh [...]ll presently be shewn, when we come to the chapter of Dalriadic kings. Those petty princes were little regarded, even in their own domain: their future fabulous fortunes were unknown. The Pikish monarchs were the kings of Scotland; and as such attracted all notice. The petty sovereigns of Argyle and Loarn were of such small account, that the only wonder is that any tolerable list of them is preserved at all. We have however no equal [Page 92]list of any provincial kings in Ireland: an ad­vantage which their detached situation afforded. But the Scotish lists are, after all, right, that Fer­gus was first king of ALL Dalriada; for Loarn was only king of a part, while Fergus held the other, and, succeeding his brother, first ruled the whole.

The Irish accounts bear, that Loarn, Angus, and Fergus, three sons of Erc, led the Scots back to Britain in 503. That Loarn was the first king, and was succeeded by Fergus. What became of Angus we are not told. It would seem that, either from incapacity, or preference of private life, he aspired not to any share of the power of his brothers. But tho Loarn be left out of the regal list, in the Scotish accounts; yet neither he, nor Angus, are unknown in them. Fordun, lib. III. cap. 1. says, that Fergus, son of Erc, came to Scotland, cum duobus fratribus Loarn et Tenegus, 'with his two brothers Loarn and Tene­gus,' which last word is a not uncommon corrup­tion of Angus with Fordun. The register of the priory of St. Andrew's, written about 1250, also says of Kenneth, son of Alpin, sepultus in Yona in­sula, ubi tres filii Erc, scilicet Fergus, Loarn, et Enegus, sepulti fuerant; 'he was buried in Hyona, where the three sons of Erc, namely, Fergus, Loarn, and Enegus, were buried.' And the Gae­lic poem, of Malcom the Third's time, puts Loarn as the first king. Indeed we learn from Jocelin, a writer of the twelfth century, and who compiled his life of St. Patrick from more ancient authors, that Fergus was the youngest son of Erc; so that the arrangement ought infallibly to be Loarn, Angus, and Fergus.

As to the Irish accounts, it is now perfectly known, from the works of O'Flaherty, Kennedy, O'Conor, &c. that they put Loarn as first king of Dalriada: and the Gaelic poem of Malcom the Third's time, and supposed to be written by the court-bard, as it is the most ancient monument of [Page 93]Dalriadic history remaining, deserves the greatest credit in this as in other points. The Highland Scots are allowed by their own late writers to have been an illiterate people. The celebrated monas­tery of Hyona was supplied from Ireland, which it always regarded as it's own parent country: and, being detached from Dalriada, had no effect on the character of the Highlanders. Ireland was, on the contrary, much noted for such learn­ing as was then in vogue. So that it is from the Irish writers that we must expect genuine memo­rials of the Dalriadic kingdom; and the proxi­mity and identity of the Old British and Irish Scots, and constant intercourse between them, lend these memorials every degree of authenticity and cre­dit. In any other history such testimonials would bear no doubt; and it would be a mark of deplo­rable prejudice to weigh the history of Scotland in any other scales than those used in that of any other country whatever. The early history of all barbaric states can only be gathered from writers of neighbouring nations; and the future authors of these barbaric countries have uniformly assented to these foreign accounts: nor has any one ever attempted, save in Scotland alone, to overturn foreign authorities by no authority at all. Setting aside Greek and Roman authorities, where would be all the ancient history of Europe, Asia, and Africa? The testimony of Irish writers is not equal to that of Greek and Roman; but is certainly more than sufficient for the early history of Dalriada, a petty Irish colony.

But in the present case it so happens, that there is no occasion for dispute; for the Irish and Scotish accounts are most easily reconciled. Late Irish authors doubtless err in supposing Loarn first SOLE king of Dalriada. He and Fergus were, in every appearance, joined kings, or rulers, of sepa­rate parts; the former of Lorn, which, as usual with Irish countries, retains his name; the later [Page 94]of Argyle. Loarn of the northern part of Dalriada; Fergus of the southern. Upon the death of Loarn, without heirs maleb, Fergus acceded to his share; and was thus in fact first king of Dalriada. This plain account, which reconciles all authorities, recommends itself by it's simplicity. The reason why Loarn is omitted in the Scotish lists, and ge­nealogists, thus appears at once. From Tigher­nach it is clear that Fergus led a great part of the Dalriads to Britain, and that ancient writer does not even mention Loarn. Hence it appears that Fergus was a chief leader of this colony; and it is not probable that he would have yielded to the sole sovereignty of his brother, who had done no more in the matter than himself. Thus even the Irish authorities concur to establish this account. Loarn and Fergus were both advanced in life, when they proceeded to Britain.

CHAPTER IV. Extent of the Kingdom of Dalriada.

THE Dalreudini, or Attacotti, as above shewn, were seated on the north-west side of the Frith of Clyde, or in the south of present Argyle­shire. From the figure which they make in his­tory, and in the Notitia, it is clear that they must have been considerably numerous. At the smallest computation not less than ten thousand effective men could infer the notice they attract; and sup­posing one man from each family, and each fa­mily to be of four persons, their population would thus amount to 40,000, or 50,000. Nor can more be granted from our knowlege of the territory they held; and from their being only denominated a Dal or Tribe, under one leader, Reuda, and his successors.

But on their return under Loarn and Fergus, in 503, their number seems to have doubled that account. The former leader had the north part of present Argyleshire, now called Lorn from his name. The Epidii are the only Caledonian, Pikish, or Gothic, people placed in all this tract by Pto­lemy; and they were in Cantire, and the ile of Epidion, or Jura and Ila. The ile of Mull was also retained by the Piks; for in 565 Hyona, which is on the south of Mull, was given by the Pikish monarch to Columba. The name Cantire is Gothic, but may have been given by the Nor­wegians, on their seizing the Hebudes about the year 800. When this tract was ceded to the Dal­riads, such of the Epidii as chused to remain, it [Page 96]may be inferred, had that privilege; but were soon lost in the new language of the colony.

Certain it is, from all the ancient testimonies, that the kingdom of Dalriada, in the whole period of it's duration, or from 503 till 843, did not ex­ceed the limits of present Argyleshire. This small territory is mountainous and barren; and it was no great gift to yield it to a colony of Scots, the old allies of the Piks. The ile of Mull, which fronts it's northern corner, and is flat, fertile and populous, the Piks retained; and it was alone worth all the rest. In treating of the extent of the Pikish dominions, the limits of Dalriada have been mentioned, and need not be here repeated. An ancient writer says, Fergus ruled the tract from Drum Albin to the Irish sea, and Hebudes. Drum Albin is the highest part of Braidalbin, on the east of Argyleshire; and it is clear from Adomnan, that it was the eastern boundary of Dalriada, or the Old Scotish kingdom in Britain. The Frith of Clyde is well known to have been the southern; and the Irish sea the western. The northern boundary is not so positive. Innes has not sufficiently illustrated this point. Winton considers old Argyle, as the whole of the Dalria­dic kingdomb; for, speaking of Kenneth, the fabled conqueror of the Piks, he says,

Out of ARGYLE he brocht the Scottis,
And put thame quhair that the Pychtis
Had befoir tham maid duelling;
And thair gart tham be, and he thair king.
Book VI ch. 106.

But it appears that Loch Linny was the northern boundary of Dalriada. For Mull remained to the [Page 97]Piksa; and it is not to be conceived that it was detached from their other dominions, but on the contrary must have adjoined to them. So that Morven, and the rest of that part of present Argyleshire, which lies north of Loch Linny, was in every appearance possest by the Piks: as was the rest of the north of Scotland. The name Loch-Aber given to the north-east part of Argyle implies, i am told, The Lake of Strangers; and seems to mark a limit; but on this nothing can be foundedb. It is to be regreted that those an­cient pieces which mark Drum Alban, and the Irish sea, as the eastern and western bounds of Albany, did not also affix the northern bound; for as to the southern it is perfectly known to have been the Frith of Clyde. But to any one who casts an eye upon the map of Scotland, Loch Linny will appear the only grand boundary which could be assigned on the north of the Dal­riadic territory; and it is connected with other lakes which intersect the country to Inverness. This was the limit of Vespasiana; and is now marked with a chain of forts, William, Augus­tus, and George. Beyond this, on the north-west [Page 98]of Scotland, there are only small creeks and crowded hills, which afford no grand natural boundary. The old description of Scotland, sup­posed to be by Giraldus Cambrensis; and Win­ton, with other ancient accounts, unanimously mark Argyle as the Dalriadic kingdom. The Piks certainly held Hyona; and of course Mull and the adjacent northern coast. For all these reasons it seems certain that Loch Linny was the grand and natural boundary of Dalriada on the north.

The charter of the earldom of Moray, published by Home, Lord Kaims, in his Essays on British Antiquities, and in Shaw's Moray, throws some light on the old limits of Argyle. This great earldom or province of Moray included present Elginshire, Nairn-shire and Inverness-shire: ex­tending on the north in the words of the Charter per mare usque ad marchias boreales Ergadiae quae est comitis de Ros: Glenelg, or that part of Inverness-shire which borders on Ross on the West, being in­cluded in Moray. Thus it would seem that in the fourteenth century Argyle extended even to Ross-shire. Yet in Gordon of Straloch's maps Argyle is restricted to the south of Lorn, and of Loch Aw. From the Descriptio Albaniae, pub­lished by Innes, it also appears that in the 12th century Argathelia was regarded as a large pro­vince. But this impropriety arose after the Nor­wegians settled in the north and west of Scot­land in the ninth century; and it is clear from Tighernac, and other early writers, that Lorn was a distinct province from Argyle: and the later was on the south of it, as Gordon of Stra­loch's maps rightly bear. From the Descriptio Albaniae it appears that Argathelia was all the country held by the Gatheli, Gael, or Irish; and thus seems different from the Argal of Tigher­nac. But both being translated Argyle, confusion arose. There is however no proof that the Gael [Page 99]extended up to Ross shire, before the Norwegians seized on the Hebudes; so that the limits of Dal­riadac have nothing to do with those of Arga­thelia.

CHAPTER V. Catalogue of the Dalriadic Kings.

IT is surprizing that Innes, who has published the genuine old lists of the kings in North Britain, as preserved in Scotish manuscripts, has given us no chronologic remarks on the dates of their respective reigns. The Pikish series he has arranged; but has left the Dalriadic, not seem­ing even to suspect the difficulties attending it, or perhaps afraid of offending weak brethren by shewing it's inaccuracy. The Dalriadic series, as digested by O'Flaherty, with some care and fide­lity, from the oldest monument on the subject, the poem ascribed to Malcom the Third's bard, and supported by the Annals of Ulster, Tighernac, and others of the most veracious Irish testimonies, Innes has past in total silence. Yet the Scotish lists, compared with that of O'Flaherty, are most inaccurate, and liable to strong objections. And it is in fact from Ireland alone that we are to look for genuine intelligence on this trifling subject of the Dalriadic kings, as above shewn. But when we find this intelligence resting on the oldest Scotish monument, the poem of Malcom's time, it is rash to oppose it; and to pass it in silence, as Innes has done, is still worse. Indeed, when Innes wrote, much of the old leaven of fabulous frenzy, and childish prejudice, remained in Scot­land: and it is no wonder that he shunned telling us that our own lists of our dear kings of Argyle are inaccurate; and that the Irish accounts are far superior. But as every reader must already have seen that the Pikish series is that of the kings of [Page 101]Scotland, down to 843 at least, if not after; this line of Dalriadic princes becomes of no more importance, than that of so many Dukes of Ar­gyle. Such being the case; and philosophy mak­ing daily progress in Scotland; it is presumed little or no bigotry remains on this subject: and it is hoped that every sensible reader will approve my treating it with perfect freedom, as i can safely say that my earnest wish is to despise all prejudice and timidity, while asserting the cause of truth, which is that of my country; for falshood is the greatest dishonour that any country, or indivi­dual, can undergo.

The succession of Dalriadic kings extends from 503 till 843, when Kenneth ascended the Pik­ish throne. For this period of 340 years, the old Latin lists assign twenty-four kings, including Kenneth. The Albanic Duan gives thirty-four. So that the difference amounts to no less than TEN kings.

It has been mentioned above, when treating of the Pikish succession, that from the lists of Irish monarchs, and of the Pikish, and of the heptarchic kings in England, not more than eleven years each fall to any series of barbaric monarchs in the north of Europe. Sir Isaac Newton has shewn that eighteen years form the medium in great and civilized kingdoms; but in small barbaric kingdoms it is clear, from facts as well as philo­sophy, that the succession is above one-third more rapid; and eleven years form the medium*. Now 24 kings, at 11 years each, give but 264 years instead of 340. And it is perfectly known that the Dalriadic kings were engaged in constant wars, and dissentions, above any, either in Britain or Ireland; so that, instead of granting them longer reigns than the neighbouring princes, it is [Page 100] [...] [Page 101] [...] [Page 102]but fair to assign them rather shorter. If we put them therefore at ten years a-piece, the reigns of thirty-four kings will just fill 340 years, or an­swer the Albanic account. Kenneth's reign also extended more than a dozen of years beyond 843, so that 34 kings seem necessary, upon general chronologic principles, to fill the space of time. But 24 kings for more than 350 years would give about 15 years a-piece; and form a striking and absurd exception to the Irish, Pikish, and Hep­tarchic lists. This argument becomes so cogent as to be invincible, when we consider that by all accounts the clear and certain list, from Kenneth's accession to the Pikish throne, 843, till the death of Lulach 1054, contains no less than eighteen kings in 211 years. Which is but between eleven and twelve years for each king. If this was the case, when the dissentions of the Piks and Dal­riads being at an end, one grand cause of the shortness of the Dalriadic reigns had ceased; and the kings possessed ample power and security; it is surely reasonable to infer, that the reigns pre­ceding that date must have been shorter, instead of so much longer as to amount to 15 years at a medium.

But over and above this plea, deduced from the soundest rules and philosophy of chronology, the preference due to the Gaelic list is clear, be­cause that list corresponds with dates preserved in authentic Irish Annals, and is in itself sufficiently exact, while the Latin lists are totally absurda. Till the death of Aidan, 605, or for the first cen­tury, both answer as to names of kings, com­mencement of the monarchy in 503, and death of Aidan in 605. But from 605 till 843, the confusion and inaccuracy of the Latin lists are self-apparent. They bear the following kings, and number of years each reigned: [Page 103]

  • 1. Eochod 16 years. Began to reign 605
  • 2. Kinat Keir 3 months 621
  • 3. Fercar 16 years 621
  • 4. Donal Brec 14 years 637
  • 5. Malduin 16 years 651
  • 6. Fercar Fada 21 years 667
  • 7. Eochoid Rinneval 3 years 688
  • 8. Armkelleth 1 year 691
  • 9. Edgan 13 yearsb 692
  • 10. Murdac 3 years 705
  • 11. Eogan 3 years 708
  • 12. Ed Fin 30 years 711
  • 13. Fergus 3 years 741
  • 14. Selvac 24 years 744
  • 15. Eochoid 30 years 768
  • 16. Dungal 7 years 798
  • 17. Alpin 3 years 805
  • 18. Kenneth 808

Winton follows this series, as to names of kings; but omits often the years they reigned; and puts the years of Christ at his pleasure. Fordun, that weak and insamous falsificator and forger of our history, was the first who presented us with ano­ther series of all our old Dalriadic kings; which, to the disgrace of our learning and sagacity; has been blindly followed by Major, Boyce, Lesly, Buchanan; nay to this day by Maitland, Guthrie, and the other dablers in our history. That falsi­fied list from the death of Aidan, 605, till Ken­neth's accession to the Pikish throne, 843, stands thus: [Page 104]

  • 1. Kennethus Keir 3 months 605
  • 2. Eugenius III. 16 years 605
  • 3. Ferquardus I. 11 years 621
  • 4. Donaldus III. 14 years 632
  • 5. Ferquardus II. 18 years 646
  • 6. Malduinus 20 years 664
  • 7. Eugenius IV. 3 years 684
  • 8. Eugenius V. 10 years 687
  • 9. Amberkelethus 1 year 697
  • 10. Eugenius VI. 17 years 698
  • 11. Murdacus 15 years 715
  • 12. Etfinus 31 years 730
  • 13. Eugenius VII. 2 years 761
  • 14. Fergus II. 3 years 763
  • 15. Selvathius 21 years 766
  • 16. Achaius 32 years 787
  • 17. Convallus 5 years 819
  • 18. Dungalus 7 years 824
  • 19. Alpinus 3 years 831
  • 20. Kennethus 834

Innes has sufficiently shewn the perversions, and interpolations, of the former part of this mock list; and this later part has also it's share. Connad Keir is placed before Eochoid, or Euge­nius as falsely translated, in direct perversion of the old lists which Fordun had before his eyes, and of the testimony of Adomnan, who lived in that very century, and tell us in express terms that Eochoid succeeded Aidan. Tighernac also clearly marks the reign of Connad Keir to have followed that of Eochoid, as shall be afterward stated in his own words. Fercar II. Fada is also put before Malduin, in defiance of the old lists, both Irish and Scotish. Eochod is again falsely translated Eugenius: and a false Euge­nius V. is interpolated, equally unknown both to the Irish and Scotish accounts. Ed Fin is placed before Eogan, against the same authentic cata­logues. And a false Convallus is interpolated. [Page 105]The cause of interpolating kings is self-apparent, namely, to swell the list, and bring it into some conformity with chronology: and Fordun's power of creating kings is too well known. But what purpose that ignorant dreamer had in view, by merely altering positions of kings, and putting the last first, is not so easily seen. This flaw seems indeed to have sprung merely from an ex­traordinary talent for blundering: or to shew us that our history was all his own, and he would use it as he pleased. But as he was strong, he should have been merciful; and not have in­sulted us by such a display of power, only equalled in the Rehearsal,

And all this I shall do, because I dare.

The falsehood of Fordun's list is also clear from it's chronology. Connad Keir died in 630, as Tig­hernac says: Fordun places his death in 605. Amkellach was slain in 719, according to the Irish annals: Fordun puts 698. Selvac is often mentioned in these annals at 719, &c. Fordun dates him 766. These glaring faults, perversions, and interpolations, render his authority as un­tenable in this part, as Innes has shewn it to be in the former; and the character of Fordun, now so well known as a gross forger, and falsificator, sets the due seal to his evidence. He had palpa­bly never seen the Albanic Duan, nor the Irish accounts. All he does is to alter and interpolate the old Latin lists, preserved in the Register of St. Andrew's, and other repositories; and pub­lished by Innes.

Fordun's list, followed by all our writers to this day, is indeed the utmost perfection of histo­rical falsehood; for it is a falsification of the old Latin lists, which are themselves false. It is a superfetation of falsehood: falsehood again fal­sified. For the defects of the old Latin lists are so great as to stamp them with utter falsehood on the whole chronology in gross, as above shewn. [Page 106]Their particular chronology is no less erroneous. Connad Keir died in 630: the lists put 621. Amkellach died 719: the lists say 692. Selvac began to reign 719: the lists date 744. Murdac began his reign 733: the lists say 705. And the well-known reign of Kenneth, who ascended the Pikish throne, is antedated by these old lists near thirty year!

Fordun's list, blindly followed by Major, Boyce, Lesly, Buchanan, and to our own times by Maitland, Guthrie, and other dablers in our history, being so totally false and erroneous, as to be out of the question; the only point that re­mained was whether the Latin or Gaelic list de­served preference. The Pikish series, in the essen­tial parts of which, as might be expected from it's importance, all Irish, Scotish, and English accounts, agree, as formerly shewn, is that of the kings of Scotland till 843. The Dalriadic series of kings of Argyle was so unimportant, that it is surprizing that any tolerable list is extant. In fact, the whole series stands upon one poem, which is now printed in the Appendix, from a transcript remitted to me by Mr. O'Conor. This poem bears in its conclusion that it was written in the time of Malcom III. 1056—1093c. It is beyond question the most antient monument of Dalriadic history extant; and has been long since quoted as such by Colgan, Ward, and others. O'Flaherty rightly drew the whole series from it: and he, and others most skilled in the Irish lan­guage, have ever regarded it's authenticity as un­questionable. It is believed to have been written by the Highland court-bard of Malcom III. and [Page 107]has no marks of having been written in Ireland. The beginning of this celebrated Duan, or short poem, is,

A eolcha Alban uile,
A shluagh feta foltbhuidle,
Cia ceud ghabhail aneol duibh,
Ro ghabhsadar Alban bruigh.

Ye skillful men of Alba, ye comely hosts of the yellow tresses, know ye the first tribes who posses­sed Albanian lands? Then the bard gives us the fable of Albanus and Brittus, from Nennius, who wrote in 858, knowing nothing of Locrine, Alba­nactus, and Camber, sons of Brutus, as Geoffrey fabled about 1150. Next he mentions that the Nemedians, under Erglan, settled in Albany, af­ter the siege of Tor Conang (in Donegal), which is a fable like the former. He then proceeds to the Cruthni, or Piks; and states, in conformity with the Irish annals, that seventy kings reigned in Pikland before Constantine. Next he puts the colony of Riada, descended from Conary, king of Ireland; and says, that 'in later time,' the three sons of Erc, Loarn, Fergus, and Angus, came over. After which follows the lift of kings from Loarn and Fergus, down to Malcom III. with the number of years they reigned. This Duan, besides its historical merit, is also valuable for its curiosity, as an ancient specimen of those metrical lists of kings, which supplied the place of history in illiterate countries, as explained in treating of the Pikish lists. Among the oldest monuments of our history is a metrical piece in Latin, written in the thirteenth century, in ele­giac measure, only beginning with Kenneth, 843. But this Duan is more valuable from it's being older by two centuries; and that Latin piece is evidently on the model of those used in the vulgar idiom, before Latin was in such general use. [Page 108]Without this old Gaelic Duan no series of the princes of Dalriada could have been given; for many of them are not found either in the Latin lists, or in the Irish Annals. Both the Latin lists and Irish Annals, however, concur to certify this Duan; and lend it every degree of historic faith. Indeed, as the most ancient piece of Dalriadic history preserved by near two cen­turies, this Duan would by every rule of historic authority have merited the preference, indepen­dently of other considerations.

There is, however, a circumstance relating to this old poem, with which it is proper that the reader should be acquainted. The part of it which contains the kings after Kenneth, son of Alpin, down to Malcom III. tho exact enough in the names and order, is yet very defective in the number of years it assigns to most of the reigns. Thus to Kenneth III. it gives 30 years, tho he only reigned 16: to Constantine II. the like num­ber of 30 years, tho he also reigned but 16: to Ed 2 years, for 1: to Donal II. 5, for 11: to Constantin III. 46, for 40: to Malcom I. 4, for 9: to Odo or Duf 7, for 5: to Kenneth IV. 27, for 24: to Constantin IV. 7, for 1: to Grim 4, for 8. This chronology would carry the be­ginning of Macbeth's reign down to the year 1055, in defiance of all our chronicles, and of the English and Irish historians. Nor can there be a doubt that it is totally erroneous thro-out this part.

The Irish antiquaries therefor agree that this later part is corrupted, and added by some igno­rant hand to the former, which they depend on as exact. But upon consulting one or two persons well skilled in the Irish language, i am informed that the style of this later part is identically the same with that of the former; and i am perfectly convinced that the whole piece is written by one hand; but that the Irish antiquaries assert the con­trary, [Page 109]merely because they find this later part un­tenable, as in the years assigned it contradicts the best and most numerous authorities. Instead there­for of granting that the years of the former part may be as erroneous as those of the later, they at­tempt to pass this last part as a corrupt addition, that they may save the credit of the former. But it is certain that the years in the first part often disagree with those of Tighernac; and seem fully as uncertain as those of the last.

It therefor appears that the bard who wrote this poem, tho right in the names and order, which he must have had from older poems, yet as he probably first thought of giving the years in his verse, he had not good authorities for these years; but has given them much at random from begin­ning to end. And as our old Latin lists are cer­tainly far more exact in the later part, as to these years, so it is but reasonable to infer that they are also more exact in the former. The names and order of the kings were duly repeated by the bards at coronations; but the number of years they reign­ed appears not to have been recited on these occa­sions, and were out of the bard's province. Our old lists, preserved in the Mass-books, &c. are therefor much more to be credited, as to the num­ber of these years; for numbers take less hold of the memory than any objects whatever, and are of course the least to be trusted, of all traditional mat­ters. The best plan of course appeared to be, to follow the bard in names and order; but to check his numbers from our old lists; the Irish Annals; and arguments from the nature of the subject. It will not indeed be surprizing if the reader should find the list of Dalriadic kings, which has cost the author more labour than any part of this work, the most unsatisfactory part of it. The Pikish Chro­nicle of the Kings of North Britain was clear and easy; but to adjust the obscure series of Dalriadic kings is no less difficult than it is unimportant.

[Page 110]The reader will, however, it is hoped, allow that the series of Dalriadic kings, preserved in this Gaelic Duan, deserves the preference over the old Scotish lists in Latin, for the causes above de­tailed: to wit,

  • 1. That the number of Thirty­four kings, given in the Duan, is conformable to the general chronology of the neighbouring bar­baric kingdoms, which allows but ten or eleven years for each king; whereas, Twenty-four would allow fifteen: and there is every reason to infer that the Dalriadic kings reigned even a shorter space in general, than those of England, Pikland, or Ireland. Nay, in the real series after Kenneth, till Malcom III. the later part of those very Latin lists gives but between eleven and twelve years for each king; tho in enlarged power and security.
  • 2. That the old Latin lists are so deficient in general chronology, that they want near thirty years of the period, which they pretend to reach at the commencement of Kenneth's reign in Pikland.
  • 3. That the old Latin lists are also quite deficient in particular chronology, as is clear from dates preserved in the authentic Irish Annals, which are right as to the kings of Pikland, and the English Heptarchy, and cannot be supposed wrong as to those of Dalriada alone; about whom, on the contrary, their intelligence must have been best.
  • 4. That the Duan is more ancient by two centuries than any Latin list preserved, and in this respect alone would, by every rule of history, deserve superior faith. The antiquity of the Duan admits of no doubt, being judged of by the very same rule followed concerning the Latin lists, namely, that it was written under the king with whom it ends, and the length of whose reign it therefore says was only known to heaven.

Let us, therefore, proceed to digest the genuine series of Dalriadic kings from that Duan. Mr. O'Flaherty, whose accuracy and fidelity in later events, and real history, are rendered suspicious [Page 111]by his notorious credulity in fabulous periods, has with much care preceded me in this labour. His Dalriadic series is in fact the best part of his work, for here he was a spectator, and not a party. Si sic omnia! But i shall beg leave to differ from him in many points; and as his authorities, namely, the Gaelic Duan, with a literal translation, and extracts from the translation of the Annals of Ulster in the Musaeum, are now on my table, i hope i shall not be blamed for using my own eyes and thoughts. It must be premised that the An­nals of Ulster seem accurate in Irish affairs; as ap­pears from the eclipses they mention; which, upon comparison with the chronology of eclipses, in L' Art de Verifier les Dates, i have never found to differ above one year. But in foreign affairs, as the actions and deaths of English, Pikish, and Dalriadic monarchs, there are mistakes from three to six years, sometimes antedated, some­times post-dated. The years are right (allowing one year, as Ware does, for the difference in beginning the year), but foreign actions are often referred to wrong years, tho sometimes also right.

1. Loarn, Fergus, sons of Erc, reigned together, as Loarn, Fergus, above explained. This reign began in 503. The Duan says Loarn reigned 10 years. But had he reigned so long, it is unaccountable that his name should have been omitted in our lists. Both he and Fergus were very old, when they came to Dalriada; and Tighernac speaks of Fergus as dying after a short reign. Loarn's reign could hardly exceed one year. Muredach, son of An­gus, another brother of Loarn, possessed the iland Ilay: O'Fl. Erca, daughter of Loarnd, was twice married; first to Muredach, father of Mur­chert, [Page 112]king of Ireland, 513; next to Fergus, son of Conal, and cousin-german of her first hus­band, to whom, among other sons, she bore Fed­lim, father of Saint Columba. Pompa Bebona, as O'Flaherty quaintly latinizes some Irish name, another daughter of Loarn, was also a mother of three saints!

2. Fergus I. first sole monarch of Dalriada, as out­living his brother, and inheriting his parte, A. C. 503. The Duan gives him a reign of Twenty-seven years: the old Latin lists only of three: Fordun, &c. of sixteen. He is sometimes, in Irish accounts, called Fergus Mor Mac Mise; for Mise was his mother's name. O'Fl. Mor does not only imply Great; but often tall, or fat; or, by irony, little.

3. Domangard, son of Fergus, A. C. 506. reigned four years, Duan: five according to the old lists and Fordun. He had two sons, by Fede­lina, daughter of Brian, son of Achay Mogmedon, king of Ireland, namely, Congal and Gabran. O'Fl.

4. Congal, son of Domangard, A. C. 511, reigned twenty-four years, Duan; and so also the old lists. Fordun puts twenty-two. The Annals of Ulster 34; as has the Chronicon Rythmicum: and their authority is here followed.

5. Gabran, son of Domangard, A. C. 545. In this reign there is the greatest difference be­tween the Duan and the Latin lists; the former giving but two years, the later twenty two. The Annals of Ulster date Congal's death, 544: Gabran's, 560; and so assign him 16 years. Tig­hernac, at the year 560, says, Mors Gaurani filii Domangardi, et Albadi, a Brudeo filio Milchuonis, Rege Pictorum, in fugam conversi; Dermitio rege [Page 113]Hiberniae postrema Temorensia comitia celebrante. 'The death of Gabran, son of Domangard, and of Albad, put to flight by Brudi, son of Milchuon, king of the Piks; while Dermod king of Ireland was celebrating the last assembly at Temora.' apud O'Fl.

6. Conal I. son of Congal, succeeded his uncle, A. C. 560, and reigned fifteen years, Duan: four­teen, according to the old lists. The Annals of Ulster and Tighernac say, that he gave Hyona to Columba 565: but Beda, a far more ancient and better informed writer, says, that the Piks gave that ile to Columba, as above explained. The words in the Ulster Annals, under 573, are, Mors Conail Mac Comgail anno regni sui 16. qui ob­tulit insulam Hy Columcillae. Conal had a son called Donchad, who fell in battle at Loro, in Kintire, after his father's death, as we learn from the An­nals of Ulster, A. 575. Bellum de Loro in Kintire in quo cecidit Duncath Mac Conail Mac Comgail; et alii multi de sociis filiorum Gauran ceciderunt.

7. Aidan, son of Gabran, A. C. 575, reigned twenty-four years, Duan: thirty-four, by the old lists. The Annals of Ulster, Fordun, and the chronology of the old lists, fix his death at 605, and if so, he reigned just thirty years. O'Flaherty tacitly puts his reign from 574, till 606, or thirty-two years. We know from Beda's express date that Aidan was defeated by Edilfrid in 603. At 579 we find Aidan mentioned in the An­nals of Ulster. Duncath, son of Conal, seems to have contested the kingdom; and the battle of Loro, above specified, appears to have decided the contest in Aidan's favour, A. D. 575, which just answers to the chronology here laid down, and thirty years must be assigned to Aidan's reign. But perhaps the Duan dates from his unction as king, which, as we learn from Adomnan, Co­lumba long deferred, having a predilection for Aidan's brother Eogenan. Thus there were both [Page 114]commotions and delay between the death of Conal, and complete unction of Aidan as king; and in all probability our bard dates from the last epoch, and not from the death of Conal, which may well have happened some years before. One of the old lists also makes Aidan's reign to be of twenty-four years, while two others give thirty-four. This Aidan is the most noted of all the Dalriadic kings: and Adomnan, Beda, and the Irish Annals, throw con­siderable light on his reign. The Duan calls him Aidan of the extended territories, and he certainly carried the Dalriadic power to a hight from which it ever after declined, till Kenneth ascended the throne of Pikland. O'Flaherty tells us, that his brother Brandubius, as he christens him in his quaint Latin, was king of Leinster. In 579, we find the battle of Ouc against Aidan, mentioned in the Ulster Annals. In 581, the battle of Manan, in which he was victor: O'Flaherty says, the ile of Maun. From Adomnan we learn, that Aidan also conquered in the battle of Miathorum, or Micithorum. O'Flaherty believes this may be the battle of Lethrigh, or Leithredh, mentioned in the Annals of Ulster, as fought by Aidan in 589. In 590, Aidan was at the famous council of Drumkeat, in the Diocese of Dere, in Ulster; consisting of kings, peers, and clergy, summoned by Aid king of Ireland, and mentioned by Adomnan, who names the place Dorsum Ceti, a Latin transla­tion of Drumkeat. Here Columba interceded for the Irish bards, whose disorders provoked notice, and they were only restricted to Ulster and Dal­riada: whence may spring the superiority of the Highland Ossians, and their aversion to Ireland. In this council Aidan also procured the remission of all homage due by the kings of Dalriada, to those of Ireland; which indeed, considering the case, it is natural to infer they at first paid. If we credit Irish writers, the acts of this famous council are still extant. In 594, Eugain, son of Gabran, and [Page 115]brother of Aidan died: Ann. Ult. It is likely he is the Eoganan of Adomnan, whom Columba pre­ferred to Aidan. In 603, Aidan appears in the page of Beda, under the name of Edan rex Scotto­rum qui Britanniam inhabitant, as coming against Edilfrid, king of Northumberland, with a great army; but conquered, and escaping with few. Beda adds, 'Nor from that time has any king of the Scots in Britain, dared to come to battle with the English to this day,' i. e. 731. Nor indeed ever after till Kenneth was called to the Pikish throne. In 605, Aidan died at an advanced age, probably more oppressed with chagrin at his last severe check, than elated with former successes. Fordun says he died in Kintyre: and was buried at Kilcheran, where no king was buried before. Do­mangard, a son of Aidan, fell at Kirkuin, the year after Columba's death, or A. C. 598. Codex Cluan. et Tighern. apud O'Fl. Tighernac mentions that Conan, another son of Aidan, was drowned, A. C. 622. Adomnan says, Domangard was slain in Saxonia, or England; perhaps at the battle of 603, bellica in strage; and he deserves the greatest credit. He also tells, that Artur and Eochod Find, sons of Aidan, fell at the battle of Micitorum, above mentioned; and that Eochod Buidhe succeeded his father: and that there were yet other younger brothers, of whom Conan above mentioned may have been one.

8. Eochoid I. Buidhe, son of Aidan, A. C. 605. reigned seventeen years, Duan; sixteen by the old lists, and Fordun. Adomnan fully instructs us, that Eochod, succeeded his father Aidan; Echodius autem Buide post patrem in regnum successit, lib. I. c. 8. so that Fordun's placing him after Connad Keir is a direct, and gratuitous, falsifi­cation of our old lists; and of Adomnan, whose words he is so shameless as to quote.

9. Connad Keir, son of Conal, A. C. 622, reigned only three months, Duan, Old Lists, For­dun. [Page 116]The Irish accounts bear, that he was son of Eochoid, the last king; which is improbable, as Eochoid was a young son of Aidan, and a child after his father came to the throne, as appears from Adomnan; and Fercar, son of Connad Keir, instantly succeeded him. Eochoid could not be above fifty-three when he died; and how could he have a grandson fit to reign? The Duan, cited by O'Flaherty to this purport, says no such thing. The old Lists mark Connad Keir as the son of Conal, probably the king in 560. Tig­hernac puts the death of Connad Keir at 630: and the annals of Ulster at 628. But their dates are sometimes wrong. From Tighernac we learn, that in the last year of Eochoid Buide, Connad Keir conquered, and slew Fiachna, son of Deman, king of Ulster, in the battle of Ardco­ran. And in the only year of Connad, Malcaich son of Scanlan, king of the Crutheni, or Piks in Ireland, vanquished Connad Keir in battle at Fea­oin. In which fell Dicol of the royal race of the Piks; Rigallan son of Conan, Falby son of Eochoid, and grandsons of Aidan; and Ostric, son of Albert, a Saxon prince; with a vast slaugh­ter of others. The power of these Crutheni hence appears very considerable. Connad Keir did not dy in battle, but soon after; probably of his wounds, or of a wounded spirit.

10. Fercar I. son of Connad Keir, A. C. 622, reigned sixteen years, Duan: and so the old listsf. But it appears from the reign of his successor Do­nal Brec, more noted in history, that the later must have succeeded about 630. Of course not [Page 117]more than eight years can be allowed for the reign of Fercar. The numbers in the Duan are often false, and the Dalriadic series cannot be ex­pected to resemble the Pikish in clearness; but must be digested from various materials, and re­conciled to general chronology. Torfaeus, in arranging the series of Danish kings, now univer­sally received as authentic, uses infinitely more freedom than shall be admitted in this Dalriadic series.

11. Donal I. Brec, son of Eochoid Buidhe, succeeded his nephew, A. C. 630, and reigned twelve years. The Duan and lists say fourteen. The translation of the annals of Ulster in the Mu­saeum has singular errors concerning Fercar, son of Connad Keir, whose death it marks in 693; and concerning Donal Brec. At 677 it bears Bellum apud Calaros in quo victus est Domnall Brec: and, at 685, Talorg Mac Acithen, et Domnal Brecc Mac Eacha, mortui sunt. There are interpo­lated passages in the annals of Ulster, manu recen­tiore, and these are certainly of them. For the Duan, old lists, and Fordun, all concur to put the reign of Donal Brec from about 630 till between 640 and 650. The annals of Ulster, tho a valu­able compilation, were only completed in the year 1541, and often quote Tighernac, who wrote about 1080. Now Tighernac puts the reign of Donal Brec 637—642. The battle of Moyrath, in which he was totally defeated, was fought 637, in the reign of Donal Mac Ed, king of Ireland 628—642; and is a known epoch of Irish history. There was no other Donal king of Ireland till 743. The genuine annals of Ulster say at 641, Mors Domnail Mac Aodha regis Hiberniae in fine Januarii. Postea Domnal in bello Fraithe Cairvin in fine anni, mense Decembri, interfectus est, et an. xv. regnavit. The later Domnal is Domnal Brec, king of Dalriada, slain at Fraith Cairvin, 642, by Hoan, king of the Britons, as O'Flaherty mentions from [Page 118]the same Annals. Donal, son of Ed, king of Ireland, died in 642, at Ardfothaig, in the 14th year of his reign, as Ware informs. Adom­nan also tells us, that Donal Brec was grandson of Aidan, and was defeated at Roth (Moy-Roth) by Domnail, grandson of Amurec; for Aid, fa­ther of Domnail, king of Ireland, was son of Amurec. See Ware. The reign of Donal Brec is therefore fixt: and the dates 677, 685, of the annals of Ulster must be gross interpolations, and they indeed form the only grand errors i have observed in that workg.—This Donal Brec was sin­gularly unfortunate; and his reign as ruinous to Dalriada as that of Aidan, his grandfather, had at first been advantageous. Congal Claon, king of Ullagh, having slain Suibney, king of Ireland, Donal, brother of Suibney, succeeded in 629, de­feated Congal, and forced him to take refuge in Britain. Here Congal gained assistance, and espe­cially that of Donal Brec, who, in 637, attended him to Ireland with an army; but after a long and desperate battle at Moyrath, Congal and Do­nal were defeated. The former was slain. The later so reduced, that in Adomnan's time, or about the year 700, Dalriada was in constant dread of utter subjectionh. Indeed Aidan was [Page 119]the only great prince that Dalriada had; and it is clear from the annals of Ulster, that, after this, the little kingdom declined almost to annihilation, before 843, when Kenneth came to the Pikish throne. In 638 there was a battle at Glen Mure­san, in which Donal Brec was again defeatedi. In 642 he was slain at Fraith Cairvin, fighting against Hoan, in all probability a king of Strat-Clyde.

12. Conal II, Began to reign 642; and the survivor Conal reigned ten years: Duan. Conal, according to O'Fla­herty, was son of Eochoid Buidhek, and younger brother of Donal Brec. Of Dungal nothing is known. His name signifies the black stranger.

13. Dungal I. Began to reign 642; and the survivor Conal reigned ten years: Duan. Conal, according to O'Fla­herty, was son of Eochoid Buidhek, and younger brother of Donal Brec. Of Dungal nothing is known. His name signifies the black stranger.

14. Donal II. Duin, son of Conal II. accord­ing to O'Flaherty, began to reign 652, and ruled thirteen years; Duan.

15. Malduin, 665, seventeen years; Duan: the old lists say sixteen. These lists, by an easy mis­take, have past from Donal Brec to Donal Duin, confounding the two Donals, and have thus lost three kings. O'Flaherty, on his own authority, says Malduin was son of Conal II. but the re­gister of St. Andrew's says he was son of Donal Duin, or, as misprinted, Durn. This affords no small confirmation of the accuracy of the Duan, which alone preserves the reign of this Donal Duin.

[Page 120] Thus far the House of Fergus apparently ruled. After this the House of Loarn began to hold the sovereignty: and contests arose, which seem finally to have extinguished both houses.

16. Fercar II. Fada, or Tall, A. C. 682, reigned twenty-one years. Duan, and Old Lists. This prince was the first of the house of Loarn, and in the eighth generation from Loarn, as O'Flaherty says, and indeed is right, running a parallel with the house of Fergus. That Fercar II. began a new house is clear from all the old Latin lists, in which his father's name appears not, tho that of all the rest be marked. After this also Tighernac, and the Annals of Ulster, mention frequent conflicts between the houses of Lorn and Argyle; sometimes the one gaining the sove­reignty, sometimes the other, as after stated.

17. Eochoid II (pronounce Achy) Rinnevail, or Hooked Nose, A. C. 703, reigned two years, Duan; the old lists say three. All agree that he was the son of Domangart, son of Donal Brec; and consequently of the house of Fergus. Do­mangart died 672. Tighernac, Ann. Ult.

18. Ambkellac, son of Fercar Fada, of the house of Loarn, A. C. 705, reigned one year; Duan, Lists. The Annals of Ulster say, he was expelled his kingdom, and sent bound to Ireland. This event they date 697, but are generally some years wrongl.

19. Selvac, brother of Ambkellac, A. C. 706, reigned twenty years. The old lists are now totally perverted, and place Selvac about TEN REIGNS later; which is the chief flaw in their or­der; their other faults arising from omission. [Page 121]The Duan is also defective, and wants two reigns here. But the reign of Selvac is so marked by the Irish Annals, as to be very clear. In 700 Selvac destroyed Dunaila; Ann. Ult. this was before he was king, if the Annals err not by a few years, as not unusual. But they seem right here, as they date the death of Adomnan and of Alfred, king of Northumberland, in 703. After this we find no more of Selvac for thirteen years. He is then of­tener mentioned than Aidan, or any other Dal­riadic king. In the Annals of Ulster he appears at 713; at 718; at 722; at 726; at 729: his sons at 732; at 735, as after stated.—Perhaps it may be said that all these dates are erroneous: as we found above, that Donal Brec appears in these Annals no less than forty-three years after his time; so Selvac may be put fifty years before his time. But it must be observed,

  • 1. That the two erroneous passages above-mentioned, con­cerning Donal Brec, are exceptions, not rules; there being no other such errors in these Annals; so that even the chance is here more than a thou­sand to one that they are right.
  • 2. Those two erroneous articles stand single, and without conse­quences, or connection; while these concerning Selvac are interwoven with marked events of the time.
  • 3. The two passages concerning Donal Brec are contradictory of other passages, concern­ing him, in these very Annals, as above ex­plained; whereas the articles respecting Selvac have not one contradiction or discordance.
  • 4. The passages concerning Donal Brec are but two; these about Selvac amount to no less than eight, interwoven with other circumstances, so that the chance of fallacy is less by three quarters.
  • 5. Tighernac, the genuine old annalist, positively contradicts the annals of Ulster, as to Donal Brec, but fully confirms them as to Selvac.

—These rea­sons will, it is believed, be found more than suf­ficient to fix the reign of Selvac here; and to [Page 122]shew that the old lists are, in this one respect, not only defective, but disordered.—Let us now at­tend to some particulars of Selvac's reign. In 700 we find him destroy Dunollam: in 713 he builds it; and it is destroyed by his daughter Alena. Ann. Ult. I suspect this to be one event variously told, and that the later is the true date. But this is of no moment. In 718 Selvac appears in two battles. One against Ambkellach his bro­ther, who is conquered, and slain. About 706 Selvac appears to have usurped the kingdom, seized his reigning brother Ambkellach, and sent him bound to Ireland, as above mentioned. Amb­kellach is called The Good in the Duan; and his mildness seems to have prompted his brother's ambition. For about twelve years Ambkellach seems to have lived in banishment, as Malcom in Macbeth's time: but in 718 he at length pro­cured assistance, and was slain in asserting his kingdom. Selvac was a warlike prince, tho a bad man; and in the same year fought a naval bat­tle against Duncha Beg, or Duncan the little, of the house of Argyle, but king only of Cantire; Selvac having apparently seized that part of Ar­gyle which was next Lorn his patrimonial country. Selvac lost this sea-fight, in which many chiefs fell, and which happened off Ardanesse, some promontory in Argyleshire. In 722 we find Cle­ricatus Selvaich, or that Selvac went into a mo­nastery. But this life, undertaken probably in penance for the murder of his brother, suited not his temper; and he seems to have aspired to so­vereignty again. For in 724, 5, or 6, was ano­ther battle in Argyle between Selvac, and the clan of Echtach, grandson of Domnail. Duncha Beg [Page 123]died in 720: and this Echtach was perhaps his son, and grandson of Domnail, or Donal II. Duin; and the same who succeeded Selvac; for Echtach and Eochoid seem but one name differently spelt. Three years after this battle Selvac died: say 726, tho the Annals of Ulster put 729. The fratricide of Selvac was punished on his race soon after, as shall be shewn.

20. Eochoid III. or Achy, began to reign A. C. 726, and ruled about ten years, as appears from the dates of Selvac his predecessor, and of Murdac his successor. This king is also lost along with Selvac, in the Duan. This is the last Achy in the Dalriadic series: and there is none in the Pikish; nor in the United series; so that this is the famous Achy, who, according to our fables, made à league with Charlemagne, who was yet unborn. That silly fiction has been amply con­futedn; and its total absurdity will appear in full [Page 124]light from this whole work. Charlemagne could not know the existence of the kings of Argyle. The kings of North Britain were those of the Piks. But the reges Scottorum, who, according to Eginhart, were at his obedience, were those of Ireland; from which country different men of saintly learning adorned his court and capital.—This Achy, who succeeded Selvac, is called Eochal Annuine in the old lists, translated Achaius in the modern: Annuine is in some of these lists, as that in the chronicle of Melrose, translated Veneosus, 'Poisonous;' and he has certainly poisoned our history with nonsense. There was an old king of Ireland called Achy Apthach, or 'poisonous,' because there was a great mortality of his subjects in his reign. The old lists, finding it necessary to pervert genealogy in perverting or­der, make Achy son of Ed Fin, who did not reign till ten years after him: Tighernac, as quoted by O'Flaherty, says at the year 733, Achaius filius Achaii rex Dalriadae mortuus est. This sentence of Tighernac's must be translated from the Irish by O'Flaherty; for the old writers know of no such name as Achaius, but give Eochod, and Echa. But it might seem from the Annals of Ulster that this Achy was son of Duncan Beg, son of Donal II. or Duin. The genealogy of the Dalriadic kings is indeed here totally broken and lost. As to Irish or Highland genealogies, the abortions of ignorant bards, and unknown in [Page 125]ancient documents, they can only be credited by people as weak and ignorant as themselves.

21. Murdac, son of Ambkellach, began to reign, A. C. 736, and continued three years. Duan, Lists. Tighernac, at 733, Muredachus filius Anbkellachi regnum generis Loarni assumit. The same year Tighernac informs us, that Dun­gal, son of Selvac, made an expedition into Ulster; and Flahertac, king of Ireland, recalled his fleet from the Dalreudini, or hired theirs, probably to oppose Dungal. In the third, or last year of Murdac, 739, Ungust, son of Vergust, king of the Piks, seems totally to have destroyed the Dal­riadic kingdomo. He wasted it's whole territo­ries; took Dunatp; and burned Creic: and put Dungal and Ferach, the two sons of Selvac, in chains. Soon after, in the same year, Talorgan, brother of Ungust, and his general, put Murdac, son of Ambkellach, to utter rout; and many chiefs were slain. In 743, Ungust again ravaged Dal­riada. After this, the history of Dalriada is al­most annihilated in Tighernac, the Annals of Ul­ster, and other authentic documents.

THESE events call for a pause, in order to in­vestigate a curious and important point in our his­tory, namely, What line of princes held the Dal­riadic sceptre at the time the kings of Dalriada are said to have acceded to the Pikish throne?

[Page 126]To form a due estimate of this question let us state what few further notices we find in the An­nals of Ulster, on the affairs of Dalriada.

Ao 746. Death of Dunlaing, son of Duncan, king of the sept of Argyle. [Argal.]

Ao 780. Fergus, son of Eachah, king of Dal­riada, died.

Ao 791. Doncorcai, king of Dalriada, died.

Ao 806. The killing of Conal, son of Aoain, at Kintire.

Ao 811. Angus, son of Dunlaing, king of Argyle, diedq [Ardgail.]

These are all the notices to be found from 746, till 857, when the death of Kenneth, son of Al­pin, king of the Piks, is marked.

The after kings of Dalriada, as appears from the Duan, &c. stand thus. After an interreg­num;

  • [Page 127]22. Aod, 743—r. 30 yrs.
  • 23. Donal III. 773— 4
  • 24. Fergus II. 777— 5
  • 25. Doncorcai, 782— 7
  • 26. Conal III. 789— 2
  • 27. Conal IV. 791— 4
  • 28. Constantin, 795— 9
  • 29. Angus, 804—r. 9 yrs.
  • 30. Aod II. 813— 4
  • 31. Eoganan, 817— 13
  • 32. Dungal II. 830— 7
  • 33. Alpin, 837— 4
  • 34. Kenneth, 841—

From the Annals of Ulster it would appear that Dunlaing, son of Duncan Beg, and brother of Achy, succeeded Achy in Argyle. Conal, son of Aoian, or Owen, might be an Irish prince, for his death only being mentioned, it does not ap­pear that he reigned in Kintire. In 811, is the last intelligence concerning Dalriadic affairs, the death of Angus, son of Dunlaing, king of the sept of Argyle.

We are unhappily in the greatest darkness, just before the morning breaks, in the reign of Ken­neth, son of Alpin. The apparent genealogy of Angus, last king of Argyle mentioned, is Angus, son of Dunlaing, son of Duncan Beg, son of Donal II. Duin. These four generations extend from 620, to 811, being 191 years, whereas by common rules they ought to be but 120. Dun­can Beg died about 720; Dunlaing, 746; An­gus, 811. But Donal Duin must thus have been born a full century before the death of Duncan Beg; so that there is no room to infer that Donal Duin was the Domnail, who was father of Dun­can Beg. The line of Fergus was certainly lost, on the death of Achy Rinneval; and Duncan Beg is only called king of Cantire, not even of Argyle. At any rate it is clear, by all accounts, that his race did not come to the Pikish sceptre; for not one name of them occurs in the genealogy of Kenneth, son of Alpin. It stands thus, in the old Latin lists and genealogies, Kenneth f. Alpin f. Achy Annuine f. Aod Fin f. Achy Rinneval f. Domangart f. Donal Brec. One old genealogy says f. Aod Fin f. Achy f. Achy f. Domangart*; and thus adds one generation. Donal Brec, died [Page 128]642, Kenneth 857; include Donal, and the space will amount to about 257 years, and for this we have eight generations, by the last account, or 240 years, which is fair. But alas! all is out of order. Kenneth and Alpin are undoubted. Achy Rinne­val lived 703, and thus might be father of Aod Fin. But Aod Fin reigned 743, so could not be father of Achy Annuine, 726; nor could Achy Annuine, 726, be father of Alpin, 837. Domangart died 672; so that the insertion of another Achy, between him, and Achy Rinneval, 703, is erroneous. Achy Annuine was perhaps son of another Achy, as Tighernac says; and the double Achy is here, if any where. If wanting, a generation is wanting; and the list incomplete. But the above radical faults are more than suffi­cient to stamp the whole genealogy, as one mass of falsehood, the mere work of some ignorant Highland sennarchy.

It must be clear to every reader, that Duncan Beg, and the princes of his family, were the sole representatives of Fergus, and hereditary kings of Argyle. They are so called; and the clan Ar­gyle always appears with those of that stem, against that of Loarn. Certainly then they were their undoubted and hereditary princes. The clan Argyle would never, at the price of their blood, have supported a race of usurpers; or divided and weakened the kingdom for their sake. They would not have contended against the house of Lorn, surely better intitled to be chiefs of Argyle, than any usurping race. The attachment of the highlanders to their hereditary chiefs is well known; and forbids such an idea, absurd indeed in itself. But neither Duncan Beg, nor any of his race, appear among the ancestors of Kenneth, son of Alpin. There is therefore reason to con­clude that Kenneth was not of the house of Argyle, nor descended from Fergus, son of Erc.

Was he then of the house of Loarn? This ques­tion is yet more strongly answered in the negative, by all the lists and genealogies.

[Page 129]As Kenneth was certainly neither of the house of Lorn, nor of Fergus, it remains to examine how his ancestors came to the throne of Dalriada; or rather of Lorn; for Argyle seems to have re­tained it's petty princes till 811 at least. In 739, and 743, Dalriada was totally wasted by Ungust, king of Pikland, and the princes of Lorn bound in chains. Those of Argyle were certainly not placed on the throne of Dalriada by the victor; for in 746 we find Dunlaing only styled king of the sept, or clan, of Argyle. In 780, Fergus, who, by the old Latin lists, was son of Aod Fin, is called king of Dalriada; as in 791 is Doncorcai. In 811 the race of Argyle are only marked as kings of Argyle. In 746, when Dunlaing was king of Argyle, Aod Fin was king of Dalriada. Thus nothing can be clearer, in such remote periods, than that the kings of Dalriada were not of the house of Argyle, after Achy Annuine 736. That they were not of the house of Lorn is as clear. For Ungust, in his conquest of Dalriada, 739, 743, threw the princes of Lorn, Dungal, and Fe­rach, into chains; and their names never appear either in the lists, or genealogies; so that Aod Fin, and the new royal stem of Dalriada, did not be­long to the house of Lorn.

There is therefore every reason to infer that Ungust, king of Pikland, upon his conquest of Dalriada, appointed a sovereign Aod Fin; and that this sovereign was neither of the house of Lorn, nor that of Argyle. Of what race then was he? Common sense, and the usual practice in such cases, dictate that Aod was of the Pikish royal race; and in all probability so of Ungustr, who, by the Pikish constitution above explained, [Page 130]could not ascend the Pikish throne, as his father had reigned. Ungust certainly had sons arrived at manhood, at the time of conquering Dalriada; for in the very year of the first conquest, and cap­tivity of Dungal and Ferach, is marked the death of Brudi, a son of Ungust. The Celtic language perverts names strangely, as the reader may have seen in many instances before. Aod, pronounced Ed, is translated Hugh by O'Flaher [...]y, and all the Irish writers. There is a Pikish name Wid, certainly more like Ed than Hugh is. The addition Fin or White is generally applied to the Gothic race by the Celts, as Fingal, the white foreigners, &c. for the Celts are dusky; the Goths fair. These slight matters have some weight here. This Ed Fin, by the Duan and the lists, reigned thirty years; being the longest reign since that of Aidan. Argyle had its own princes, yet he was not molested by them, as others of the house of Lorn had been; tho the native strength of Lorn had been crushed by Ungust. This cir­cumstance speaks a new and firm power. It was na­tural that Lorn, which chiefly bordered on the Piks, as Argyle did on the Stratclyde Britons, should have most intercourse with the Piks, and be the chief object of their enmity or support. It is also pro­bable that Ed Fin might, by the female line, have a claim to the kingdom of Lorn; and as the Piks regarded only the female line, his claim, or that of his father, assigned to him, might be supported, and even allowed by the clan of Lorn, who had no reason to respect the race of the fra­tricide Selvac. If Ungust gave the kingdom of Dalriada to his son, the case was paralleled in the kingdom of Cumbria, afterward held by the sons of the Scotish kings.

[Page 131]Another singular circumstance deserves atten­tion. Conal 789, Constantin 795, Angus 804, Eoganan 817, are kings of Dalriada. Canul 786, Constantin 791, Ungust 821, Uven or Eogan 836, are kings of Pikland. If we sup­posed an error in the dates of the Annals of Ulster, concerning Doncorcai, whose reign we may, with the greatest probability, suppose to be a little misdated, as are many others in these Annals, here are four kings in Dalriada, who apparently came to the Pikish throne, before Kenneth. Ca­nul and Conal seem the same. The name of Constantin is not to be found in the Irish or Dalria­dic names of kings, tho it is in the Pikish; and it therefore affords a slight additional proof that the new Dalriadic stem was Pikish. And Angus or Un­gust, and Uven or Eoganan, were in appearance kings of Dalriada before they came to the Pikish throne. All that Kenneth did in that case was to render the Pikish crown hereditary, which before had been elective. I suspect that this Eoganan was the father or Alpin, and that his name was from similar sound confounded with Eochoid An­nuine, as in Irish pronunciation the names can hardly be distinguished. If so, Alpin was son of Eoganan, or Uven, king of the Piks, who was son of Ungust, king of the Piks, who was son of Vergust, called Fergus by the Celtic writers. Hence the fable of Kenneth's descent from Fergus, son of Erc, might spring; for tradition confounds all chronology in such matters: and as the Dal­riadic Scots had all the little learning then known in North Britain, it was natural that they should apply to their own Fergus the genealogy of Ken­neth. We have an Alpin, king of the Piks, in 775, and another 725, and there is an Alpin, king of the Saxons, mentioned in the Annals of Ulster at 779 (if it be not a mistake for Alpin II. king of the Piks, who died that year): but no [Page 132]such name appears in either the Irish or Dalriadic list of kings. Is not this also an additional proof that Kenneth was really of Pikish extract? Tig­hernac and Caradoc of Llancarvon, mentioning his death in 857, call him simply, ‘king of the Piks,’ without one hint of any acquired domi­nion. But of this afterward.

Upon the whole, the genealogy of Kenneth is so utterly lost, that the name of his grandfather can never be ascertained. The probability is clearly that he was a Pikish prince, who suc­ceeded his father Alpin in the kingdom of Dal­riada, an inferior Pikish monarchy since the days of Aod Fin: and that taking advantage of the in­ternal divisions in Pikland, he, with the help of his Dalriadic subjects, seized the Pikish throne. That he was not of the old Dalriadic race, is cer­tain. There is a break in that series before Aod Fin, and another before Alpin, that Celtic forgery has not been able to supply even plausibly.

Aod Fin, according to O'Flaherty, and the La­tin lists, was son of Achy Rinneval: according to the old genealogy, he was son of Achy, son of Achy Rinneval. But even O'Flaherty can assign no genealogy for the TEN following kings, down to Alpin. And that Aod Fin was not of the house of Argyle, and could not be son of Achy Rinneval, has been shewn above.

But the name of the father of Alpin, father of Kenneth, i will venture to say, is lost beyond all recovery. This will strike any reader at once, upon looking at the pitiful shifts, and perversions, used in this business. Two plans have been adopted; and both equally false.

1. The Latin lists, published by Innes, which were drawn up in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, being some of the oldest monuments of our history extant, make Alpin, son of Achy Annuine, son of Aod Fin. The old genealogy, [Page 133]repeated by a Highlander at the coronation of Alexander III. 1249, has the same. This strange account has run thro Fordun down to Buchanan, and our own times; yet is as palpably false, and ignorant, as could be expected even from a High­land genealogist. For, as above shewn, Achy An­nuine succeeded Selvac in 726, or in 722 when Selvac retired to a monastery. The old Latin lists confirm this fully. For, as the compilers found that Selvac and Achy followed Ambkellac, who, by their own statement, reigned about the year 700, and that Achy of course could not be the father of Alpin 837, they were forced to take out both Selvac and Achy, and throw them back before Dungal and Alpin. The reason of this only perversion in the order of the old lists thus appears at once. The ignorant authors of this childish and easy falsification did not know that the reign of Selvac was the most certain, and fixt of any in the whole list, without exception; be­ing mentioned in no less than eight places, and interwoven with noted events in the Annals of Tighernac and Ulster; and that the death of Achy, his successor, was marked by Tighernac, who wrote in 1088, at the year 733. Such being the case, this pitiful forgery, and it's cause, be­come self-apparent. This Achy, who succeeded Selvac, is the last in our history. There are three Eochoids (pronounced Achys) in the Dalria­dic series. Achy Buide, or the Yellow, son of Aidan, 605: Achy Rinneval, or Hooked Nose, son of Domangart, son of Donal Brec, 703: and, lastly, Achy Annuine, or the Poisonous, 726; who, both by the Annals of Tighernac, and the old lists, succeeded Selvac, and could not possibly be the father of Alpin, 837. But one falsehood must be supported by others; and the fabricators of these old lists, following the second-sighted Highland genealogists, made Achy Annuine son of Aod [Page 134]Fin, who did not reign till ten years after his death. Dungal, son of Selvac, who is never called king of Dalriada, and it is certain never reigned, they make the same with Dungal, pre­decessor of Alpin 830; tho he was put in chains 739! But it is needless to dwell longer on so glaring a falsification, completely refutable in a dozen different ways. Let the candid reader con­sult his own thoughts, and pronounce if these poor shifts amount not to more than a confession, that the father of Alpin is totally unknown to every domestic monument of our history.

2. The Irish accounts are at least as lame as the Scotish. O'Flaherty, finding that Alpin be­longed to no genealogy of Dalriadic kings, has made a father for him. He has used the freedom to add two Achys to the Dalriadic list, to make up the real number of fifty-two kings; tho, upon looking into the Annals of Ulster, he might have seen that Fergus and Doncorcai were the two names, wanting in the Duan: the first of which is also evinced from our old lists. For the first supposed Achy, whom he calls Achy IV. 743, he alledges the book of Synchronism, which makes an Achy king of Dalriada at the time of the death of Aid Ollain, king of Ireland, or 743. But O'Flaherty seems to have redd Eochoid for Aod, the real king of Dalriada at that time: and our old lists ac­knowlege only the three Achys above stated. It is indeed likely that the Book of Synchronisms may, by a mistake of a few years, mean Achy III. But his Achy V. whom he places after Eoganan, and makes the father of Alpin, who succeeds him, is the offspring of his own brains; being unknown to the Duan, Old Lists, Irish Annals, and every historical monument whatever. O'Flaherty could forge as well as another genealogist; and found this insertion necessary; but could not even co­lour the falsehood. To this Achy V. he cannot [Page 135]assign even one year's reign. The three genera­tions of Achy V. Alpin, Kenneth, he puts in a course of twenty years! The Duan, tho defective in three other places, cannot be so here, as the very rimes shew that there was no king between Dungal II. and Alpin. Yet O'Flaherty leaves out Dungal, to make room for this Achy V. Thus it is clear, from both Irish and Scotish accounts, that the name of Alpin's father is quite unknown.

I must confess that this total failure of the Dalria­dic list was most unexpected by me; and struck me with great surprize when i discovered it: for i had always regarded it as a certain fact, that the Old Scotish, or Dalriadic line, had, in direct and clear genealogy, acceded to the Pikish throne. But the above cogent reasons force me to abandon this idea; and to allow that the very contrary was the truth; and that the Pikish race acceded to the throne of Dalriada, a century before the Piks and Scots were united under Kenneth. Such be­ing the case, the Irish extraction of our kings falls to the ground, in spite of all the labour which Irish antiquaries have employed to prove it; and their labours have indeed only proved the reverse. It is from their own annals, and antiquaries, that this discovery can alone be placed in the clearest day. But this point, and the origin of the new name of Scotland, shall be treated afterward.

Let us conclude with a brief review of the Dal­riadic series. This series may be divided into Two Parts; the CLEAR, and the OBSCURE. The FIRST Part reaches from Loarn and Fergus, or the beginning, down to the reign of Aod Fin, 743. The SECOND or OBSCURE Part reaches from that epoch to the end. This very circumstance, of the last part being obscure, certainly shews a kingdom declining in power, and not increasing so as to conquer the great Pikish kingdom, as vulgarly dreamed. Had the later been the case, [Page 136]the history of Dalriada would have been more and more important, and notorious; while, in fact, after it's conquest by Ungust, it sinks to nothing at once. The Pikish affairs, on the con­trary, become more and more known. This is left to the cool consideration of the reader. In the FIRST Part the Duan, Old Lists, and Irish Annals, mutually confirm each other. The only additional kings, not found in our old lists, are THREE together, Conal II. Dungal I. and Donal II. Duin. And the reason of their omission is appa­rent, namely, the mere mistake of passing Donal Brec and Donal Duin, as one persons. Yet the list of St. Andrew's plainly confirms the Duan, by marking Malduin as son of Donal Duin, as above mentioned. There is indeed a gross per­version, and the only one in the lists, namely, the taking out Selvac, and Achy Annuine his successor, from their real station after Ambkellac, 706; and making them exchange places with Aod II. and Eoganan, 813. For the two Eogans; one before, one after Murdac, in the lists; are only Aod II. and Eoganan, misnamed, with Murdac put be­tween them, to prevent the two Eogans from jar­ring and passing as onet. Allowing for this one perversion, the order of kings in the Duan; and old lists, is quite the same thro-out. But of TWELVE kings, from Aod II. to Alpin, the lists have but SIX, the other six being omitted imme­diately after Aod I. and all together successively, save one, Fergus II. This omission seems to have partly arisen, like the former, by passing two kings of the same name as one, namely Aod I. and Aod II. Such omissions often occur in transcrip­tion, [Page 137]while additions can never spring from this source; which is an additional argument for the larger series. But from 739 till 843 is therefore the OBSCURE part of Dalriadic history: and no pains should be spared to investigate it.


CHAPTER VI. Manners, Languages, Antiquities, &c. of the Old British Scots.

THE manners and language of the Ancient British Scots, being the same with those of the Irish Scots, their progenitors, little need be said on this subject. Both are Gothic mingled with Celtic. Ancient writers represent the Irish Scots, and their progeny the Attacotti, as savages in the extreme. These accounts are confirmed by the long description of the Irish given by Giral­dus Cambrensis; by the constant epithets of feri and sylvicolae, given to our Highlanders, by our wri­ters; and by the infallible evidence of present ob­servation. In vain do Irish writers attempt to reason against the ocular testimony of Giraldus; and to persuade us that the Old Irish were not savages. We must entreat them not to reason us out of our senses, by decrying the evidence of our own eyes. For the Wild Irish are the genuine remains of the Old Irish, with the very manners described by ancient writers.

Those Scots, or Goths, who ruled in Ireland, were soon lost among the numerous Celtic natives. In the time of Saint Patrick, 440, a great dis­tinction prevailed as above shewn; but soon after the term Scots became general to all the inhabi­tants of Ireland, which was itself called Scotia: and the Lingua Scotica, was the Gaelic of Ireland. But in the time of Saint Patrick Scotus and Hi­bernus were by no means synonymous; and it [Page 139]seems thence certain that they were not so in the Third century, when Riada led his colony of Scots (not Hiberni) to Pikland; nor so soon after Patrick's time as 503, when Loarn and Fergus re-established the colony. Beda calls Aidan 603, rex Scottorum in Britannia; and it is appa­rent that the Dalriadic Scots consisted chiefly of Scots, or Goths, of Ireland, tho using the Celtic tongue. From this circumstance may spring the peculiar Gothic epithet of 'yellow haired' given to the Albanach by the poet of the Duan; and the superior warlike spirit of the Highlanders com­pared to the Wild Irish. But the Highlanders, tho originally rather Goths than Celts, and tho afterward mingled with Piks and Norwegians, had been so contaminated with a Celtic mixture in Ireland, that their speech and most of their man­ners were, and are, rather Celtic than Gothica. And in laziness, filth, and every species of savage­ness, they have been always hardly distinguishable from the savages of Ireland. In all ages of our history they are marked as the savages of Scot­land; and uniformly mentioned as such by fo­reigners, and by Lowland writers. Every one, who has even travelled in Scotland, must have seen at one glance that the Highlanders are of as different a race from the Lowlanders, as the Old Welch from the English, or the Old Bretons from [Page 140]the people of Normandy. Their hilly habitation alone could not occasion this difference; for the inhabitants of the Alps; Apennines; Pyrenees; mountains in the north of England, and in Ire­land; Carpathian mountains, &c. &c. &c. differ not from those in the plains. And it is in the west of Ireland, the most champain part of that iland, that the old Irish are now found in their primitive savageness. Nor is Bretagne a moun­tainous country. Had the Celtic part of our countrymen been in the eastern plains, the case would have been the same: as the Fins, for in­stance, are in a plain country, while the Norwe­gians are in western mountains just similar to our Highlands. Had these Norwegians been general inhabitants in the Highlands of Scotland, with such superior harbours and opportunities, these Highlands would now be as full of towns and commerce as Norway is. But our Highland po­pulation appears from the comparison to be too truly Celtic: and the Gothic mixture has lost all effect, as a generous liquor will, when mixt with one of baleful quality. The people of the Ork­neys are pure Goths; and are so much superior to those of the Hebudes, that Kirkwall is one of the most polished places in Britain. Stornoway, the only town in the Celtic part of Scotland, was founded by the Dutch; and is now gone to ruin. In vain would we excite industry among savages; the point is to colonize the country afresh.

Ancient monuments of the British Scots there are none, save cairns of stones, used as sepulchres, and as memorials. These were adapted to Celtic indolence: while the Gothic industry raised vast stones, instead of piling small ones: nor are any cairns found in Gothic countries, so far as i can learn, except such as are very large. The Celtic churches, houses, &c. were all of wattles, as are the barns at this day in the Hebudes; so that no ruins can be found of them. The early cathedral [Page 141]of Hyona must have been of this sort; and it was burnt by the Danes in the ninth century. The present ruin is not older than the thirteenth. In the twelfth century Saint Bernard represents a stone church as quite a novelty even in Ireland.

As to the language of the Dalriads, the only difference between it and the Irish, at present, is that the former has rather more Gothic words. Anciently they were quite the same, as indeed they are very nearly so now: the difference not be­ing so great as between the provincial dialects in England. The old Gaelic, like the modern, was a totally different dialect of the Celtic from the old Welch, as Beda sufficiently proves, who marks them as different languages.

The kingdom was hereditary; but the brother was always esteemed a nearer heir than the sonb. An infant king must indeed be a phaenomenon unknown to early kingdoms; in which king and general are commonly synonymous. According to Irish antiquaries, the chief monarchy of Ireland was elective in a certain family: and Mr. O'Conor says the Dalriadic was so. But it appears from the succession that the later kingdom was heredi­tary, and there is no proof of election. The kingdom of Dalriada indeed differed radically from that of Ireland, which consisted in a sove­reignty over not less than twenty-five kinglets: and the kinglet of Dalriada was one of them, till Aidan's time. It must therefore be compared, not with the kingdom of Ireland, but with it's petty royalties; and was but the chiefship of a large clan. For clans, Genera, or Familiae, are primitive institutions; and occur in the earliest [Page 142]Irish periods and writers. And their very essence implies hereditary government, a mode used by different Gothic nations in the most ancient times. The Pikish monarchy was confined to one royal race: but it descended by the female, not by the male line: and the son of a king was always ex­cluded; while in Dalriada the case was in both points reversed. Hence the Pikish strikes us as a mere elective monarchy, the Dalriadic as heredi­tary. But the later ceased to be so, before the kingdoms were united by Kenneth: and it is even uncertain if Kenneth was of the Dalriadic race, if not certain that he was of the Pikish: so that neither the Dalriadic nor Pikish series can afford historic certainty of hereditary succession, just before Alpin and Kenneth. The line of Scotish kings must therefore, in all events, only com­mence with Kenneth: and to the Forty taken from the list by Innes, Twenty-eight must be added: who, tho they really existed, had no more to do with the kingdom of present Scotland, than the kings of Stratclyde. And their hereditary succession totally fails more than a century before the reign of Kenneth; so that even the name of Kenneth's grandfather cannot be recovered, as above shewn.

Let us close this chapter with a few hints con­cerning Dalriadic manners. Giraldus Cambrensis, in his account of the Irish, says, most of them were cloathed in black wrappers; as most of their sheep were black. They used little caputii, or hoods of plaid, linen vests, and trowsers. The phillibeg is quite unknown to the Welch, and Irish, lan­guage and manners. The gaudiest ornament of the old Irish, and Highlanders was the fibula, or broach; sometimes as large as a small plater, of gold, silver, or brass, ornamented with precious stones. With it the plaid was fastened at the breast; and sometimes a smaller broach within the large one fastened the plaid, while the later was [Page 143]only ornamental. The dress of old Irish kings, as appears from monuments, was a close vest; long trowsers down to the ancle; and a long loose robe over all, that reached to the ground, was brought over the shoulders, and fastened on the breast, by a very large clasp or brochc. This dress is abso­lutely Gothic. The primitive Celtic dress was only a skin thrown over the shoulder, and a piece of cloth tied round the middle. Gildas mentions the last as the dress of the Scots or Irish in his time.

The Irish armies consisted entirely of infantry: but laterly of two kinds. The Galloglachs were heavy armed, with helmet, and coat of mall, long swords, and pollaxes. The Keherns were light in­fantry, with javelins, and short daggers called skeyns. The pollax was peculiarly common in Ireland in the time of Giraldus, and was always carried in the hand as a staff. Their ferocity in war was great, and prompted the ancient, but false, accusation that they ate human food. Dio­dorus Siculus, the first who mentions this, also imputes the same practice to the German Gauls on the Rhine. But as Tacitus, and other better informed writers, found the later false; so the falsehood of the former would have appeared, as is reasonable to infer, had any Roman writer really visited Ireland. Strabo and others continue this charge. Saint Jerome is, it is believed, the last; and he imputes it to the Attacotti. It is cer­tain that human sacrifices were used among the early Goths, as they were in Greece and Rome; and as the later nations are great part of the common sacrifices, it was natural for them to con­clude that the same practice prevailed among other nations. But it was not so; for the human carcases were hung up in the holy grove. This however seems the real origin of the fiction. The [Page 144]Attacottic feasts were more innocent, and consisted chiefly of venison and other game. Their drink i do not find much illustrated. Ale they could not have, without agriculture. Ireland was always famous for bees; and mead would be a common liquor of course. The poor would, as now, use butter-milk. As to usquebaugh, or aqua vitae, i agree with Ware, that it is of late times. The Sarmatic distillation from corrupted milk could not be known in Ireland; nor had they mares enough to procure it. To the Germans, and other Goths, it was unknown. Nor could the Irish distill from oats, while agriculture was hardly in use. In the mountains of Argyle there was no room for agriculture; and wine was surely unknown, as there was no commerce. When whisky became known in the Highlands, perhaps three centuries ago, it was, as it is now in poor houses there, drunk out of shells, instead of li­queur glasses. These whisky-shells the learned fa­bricator of Ossian makes very ancient; and his heroes at the feast of shells, or whisky-feast, enjoy themselves in potations of half a gill a piece, while the naughty Germans were emptying quart hornsd.

As Aidan and Columba protected the Irish bards at the council of Drumkeat, there is reason to think that not a few of them must have re­paired to Dalriada. The following story occurs in Adomnan's life of Columba, written about the year 700e. 'Another time, when the saint was sitting at the lake Kei, near the mouth of the river, which in Latin is Bos (Damh?) with the bre­thren, an Irish poet came up to them, and, after some conversation, departed. Upon which the brethren said to the saint, Why did you allow [Page 145]Coronan to depart, without asking him to sing us some song in modulation, according to the cus­tom of his art? To which the saint answered, Why do you speak useless words? How could I ask a song of gladness from that miserable wretch, who, at this moment slain by his enemies, stood then at the end of his life? The saint had no sooner spoken, than a man called from the other side of the river, saying, That poet, who just left you in safety, is slain in his journey by enemies. Then all who were present looked at each other in great amazement.' The place of this scene i cannot ascertain; but it affords a strong specimen of the savage ferocity of the age. Upon the con­struction of the old Celtic poetry we want much information. Most of it was accompanied with music. Giraldus Cambrensis informs us, that the instruments in Ireland were the harp and the ta­bor; in Scotland the harp, tabor, and chorus f; in Wales the harp, pipes, and chorus; and that Scotland was in his time the most eminent for music. An ancient Irish harp yet preserved is thirty-two inches high: the sound-board is of oak; the rest of red sally richly adorned with sil­verg. Giraldus tells us, that the Irish preferred wire to leather for stringing of harps. The bag-pipe was a Roman instrument, as formerly shewn; but seems of modern use among our Highlanders.

PART V. Piks and Dalriads united.

PART V. Piks and Dalriads united.

CHAPTER I. Union of the Piks and Dalriads.

AT length we arrive at a period of Scotish history, which may reasonably be expected to be more clear than the preceding; namely, that from 843 till 1056. Our whole history may be divided into Four Periods:

  • 1. The Roman pe­riod, which reaches from the earliest accounts to the beginning of the Fifth century. In this part the facts are clear and certain, but few.
  • 2. The Pikish period, beginning at the reign of Drust the Great, 414, and extending to that of Ken­neth 843. On this period Adomnan, Beda, Tig­hernac, &c. throw much light.
  • 3. The Middle [Page 149] [...] [Page 150]Period, from 843 till 1056.
  • 4. The Clear Pe­riod, from 1056 till the Union of England and Scotland.

The Third Period, on which we now enter, might be expected to be clearer than the two pre­ceding: and yet i question much if this be the case. Far from the classic light, which is thrown on the first part by Tacitus, and others, there is not even an Adomnan, or a Beda; and the Irish writers, wholly occupied with the miseries of their own country, occasioned by the Northern invaders, hardly mark, now and then, the death of a king of North Britain. In Scotland itself not a native writer arose till the thirteenth century: and their brief accounts are perverted with gross traditional fable. For these reasons i rather in­cline to regard this Third Period as the most obscure of Scotish history, and as a dark night just before the day of our Clear Period. In­deed, over all Europe, as is well known, the ninth and tenth centuries form the deepest night, be­tween ancient and modern day. In the eighth century the former fails; and in the eleventh a new morning arises, and authentic writers appear in most countries.

Unfortunately the most important event, in the ancient history of Scotland, took place in this darkest night; namely, the Union of the Piks and Dalriads. Concerning this great event, upon which our whole history turns, we have no information till two centuries after, when accounts, palpably fabulous and absurd, began to be blindly followed by old writers. So that the night is not only dark, but haunted with spectres of fiction; and i am tempted to exclaim with Tasso,

Degne d'un chiaro sol, degne d'un pieno
Teatro, opre sarian si memorande.
Notte, che nel profondo oscuro seno
Chiudesti, e ne l'oblio fatto si grande;
[Page 151]Piacciati ch'io ne'l tragga; e'n bel sereno
A le future eta lo spieghi, e mande.
Viva la fama loro, e tra lor gloria
Splenda del fosco tuo l'alta memoria.

The great importance, and thick obscurity, of this event, render all the powers of industry and sagacity necessary to investigate it; and yet none of our antiquaries has yet lent it any examina­tion. I am therefore induced to treat it with the minuteness and prolixity of a special dissertation. The late prevalence of the names Scot and Scot­land, as the real source of the old fables, so is the cause of their currency at this day. Let us first examine those fables.

In Chap. IV. of this Part, where the causes of the new name of Scotland being given to North Britain are examined, the reader will find reason to conclude that this appellation (certainly un­known till about the year 1016 or 1020) was im­posed by the Irish monks and clergy, the only literati whom the country then had. A conse­quence of this erroneous denomination, was that, apparently in the same century, the same Irish churchmen began to fable, that the Old Scots, or Dalriads, had vanquished the Piks. This fable arose partly from the deep obscurity of the ninth and tenth centuries, so universally felt over Europe; but chiefly from the natural predilection of these churchmen for the colony of their coun­trymen in North Britain. It was indeed a natural and necessary consequence of the new name of Scotia; the origin of which the reader will find in the chapter above-mentioned.

Of course it is not surprizing that in the Chro­nicon Pictorum a, we find the conquest of the Piks by Kenneth asserted. That venerable piece ends [Page 152]at the year 992: and tho the years of Kenneth IV. whom it closes with, be left blank, which might induce some to suppose it written in his reign, yet it's closing words, Hic est qui, &c. "this is he who, &c." strongly imply, that it was written some time after. However, there is every reason to conclude, from intrinsic proofs, and from it's antique and barbaric manner, so dissimilar to our fragments of the twelfth century, that the conclu­sion of it was certainly written in the eleventh, and probably in the reign of Malcom II. This piece says, Pictavia autem a Pictis est nominata, quos, ut diximus, Kinadius delevit. The words ut diximus refer to some sentence, which does not appear in our copies: but the author of this part sufficiently marks his opinion, that Kenneth van­quished the Piks. Delere strictly means to de­stroy; but also signified in the middle ages to ra­vage, or to conquer. Thus in the annals of Tig­hernac, at the year 681, we find Orcades deletae sunt a Bruide. This Pikish king did not, as i humbly conceive, root up and destroy the Ork­neys; but merely ravaged them. It is clear however that the opinion, that Kenneth vanquished the Piks, is as old as the eleventh century; and perhaps coaeval with the name of Scotland in North Britain. But a gross fable may take root in far less time than two centuries, which inter­vened between Kenneth's time, and the first ap­pearance of this tale. And older authorities, soon to be produced, prove it void of all foundation.

Some parts of the Register of St. Andrew's, also published in the Appendix to vol. I. and written about the year 1130, as they bear, likewise support the conquest of the Piks by Kenneth. The Chroni­cle, No IV. ap. Innes, written in William's reign, 1165—1214, and other later pieces, insinuate the same. But extraneous writers pushed the fable to the greatest excess.

[Page 153]Henry of Huntingdon was born before the year 1108, as appears from his own work, fol. v. 217b, where he narrates his father's death at that year. His history closes at the year 1154, and was apparently written then, or before 1160. As William of Malmsbury is remarkable for be­ing the best of the old English historians; so Henry for being the worst. Nicolson has well branded him as fabulous and confused: and his work is rather a weak sermon, than a history, from his perversion of facts, in order to draw common­place morality from them. It is superfluous to con­firm this character by extracts from his history; the reader is referred to a perusal of it, as the surest proof. He was the first English writer who adopted the fables of Geoffrey of Monmouth; and his judgment is equally apparent in being the first writer, whom i can discover to have men­tioned the destruction of the Piks, by some pre­tended Scots: for the fact is, there was no people in Britain, known by the name of Scots, from about 740, when the kingdom of the old Scots in Britain fell, till about 1020; when the name of Scots was improperly given to the Piks, as after shewn. With his usual confusion Henry con­founds the Old Scots of Beda with the Scots of his own time; as if he had taken the Marcomanni of Tacitus, for the Marcomanni of Rabanus Mau­rus; or the Hungarians for Huns. In this view it struck him that the Piks had vanished; and accordingly he says, "the Piks seemed then so far extinct, and their language so utterly destroyed, that all that was recorded of them in ancient his­tory appeared a mere fable."c And adds, on the [Page 154]occasion, a sage reflection upon the instability of human glory: which reflection he seems to have wanted an occasion to make; and has thus in­vented the occasion, in order to make his reflec­tion striking. Nor is he the only author who has sacrificed truth to eloquence, and fact to period. Instead of concluding that a nation might change it's name, that a people, called Piks three centu­ries before, might be called Scots in his time, as the Gauls were termed Franks, he rashly infers that a whole nation had vanished! But his igno­rance concerning the north of Britain is not won­derful, when we reflect on his ignorance concern­ing his own country: and it is not surprizing that he thought the Piks extinct, who thought that William the Conqueror exterminated the Englishd. Such is the original fountain of this wondrous tale!

The story, however, thus darkly surmized at first, was, like other falsehoods, soon to acquire circumstances in order to make it tell well.

Giraldus Cambrensis wrote about 1180; and preceding this epoch there is no mention to be found of the Pikish and Dalriadic union: nor is there indeed the smallest fragment, or scrap exist­ing of Dalriadic history; except the Duan, which gives no hint on this subject, save that it tacks Kenneth to the list of Dalriadic kings; and that he was king of the Dalriads as well as of the [Page 155]Piks is undoubted. But as it mentions the Pikish line to have closed in Constantin 821, which is demonstrably false, no dependence can be placed on the Gaelic bard's knowlege of the Pikish kingdom, nor in course of the great event now treated. Yet he mentions no conquest of the Piks by the Dalriads, so that he was a stranger to the fables about to be considered. The words of Gi­raldus, in his Topographia Hiberniae, lib. III. c. 16, after speaking of St. Patrick's arrival in Ireland in 432, Leogaire, son of Nell, being king of Ireland, are as follow: Hic quoque notandum videtur, prae­dicto Nello Hiberniae monarchiam obtinente, sex filios Muredi Regis Ultoniae, in classe non modica, Boreales Britanniae partes occupasse. Unde et gens ab iis pro­pagata, et specificato vocabulo Scotica vocata, usque in hodiernum, angulum illum inhabitant. Sed quibus ex causis buc advenerint, qualiterque, et quantis pro­ditionibus, potius quam expeditionibus, Pictorum gen­tem, pervalidam, armis quoque et animositate longe praestantem, a partibus illis expulerunt, cum notabi­lem illam Britanniae Topographiam declaravimus enu­cleatius expedietur. "Here it is worthy of remark, that in the reign of the said Nell, king of Ireland, six sons of Mured, king of Ulster, with not a small fleet, occupied the north parts of Britain. Whence their progeny, by a special name called Scots, inhabit that corner to this day. But for what causes they came here, and by what treasons, rather than expeditions, they expelled the Piks, a nation most powerful in arms, and far superior in courage, from these parts, shall be more fully explained when we publish that notable Topogra­phy of Britain." This Topography never ap­peared, or at least cannot be found, tho long and anxiously sought after by many. But the above hint was sufficient for those Scotish writers, who were afterward to commence authors of our history, with small talents for such an impor­tant office, to narrate in solemn terms the [Page 56]conquest of the Piks by the Dalriads, are pretended Scots. For in those times the few Scotish writers always followed and imitated the English, as few or no other manuscripts then found their way into Scotland. Thus Fordun and Winton follow the Polycronicon in plan; and the Regiam Majestatem is a mere exscript of Glan­ville. Geoffrey of Monmouth furnished Fordun with half his fables. William of Malmsbury, and Henry of Huntingdon, are also familiar to For­dun, who puts from the last the total destruction of the Piks, tho he blends it also with the later fables of Giraldus. And this very work and pas­sage of Giraldus is referred to by Fordun, lib. I. c. 18. for the origin of the name Scotia.

But let the passage itself declare how worthy he was of belief. In his account of Irish history he shews the grossest ignorance: and in this hint of Scotish, the whole is one blunder. The settle­ment of the six sons of Mured, in the reign of Nell, father of Leogaire, or about the year 400, is unknown to every Irish and Scotish monument of history; to Beda, Nennius, &c. Beda directly confutes it, by marking Reuda as the first leader of the Old Scots from Ireland; and no one can hesitate to stamp it an arrant fiction. Giraldus calls that part of Britain, north of Forth and Clyde, a corner; tho it be six or eight times the size of all Wales, his country, put together. If he means Dalriada, or Argyleshire, that is indeed a corner; but a corner nearly as large as Wales. There was not even a king of Ulster till the eleventh century; as appears from Tighernac, and other ancient Irish writers. But it is clear that he wrote this in a total ignorance, both of the country, and of it's history: and if he be the author of the Descriptio Albaniae, it must have been written after this; and he profited, as that Descriptio says it's author did, by the advice of Andrew bishop of Caithness, in both points; for he there, with as risible excess, [Page 157]divides this corner into seven kingdoms; and only says modestly, Kenneth in Pictinia regnavit, 'reigned in Pikland,' without one hint of con­quest.

Meantime the fiction thrived in England. Roger of Chester wrote his Polychronicon about 1330; which is imputed to Higden the plagiary of it. In an excellent MS. of that work, containing pas­sages not found in other MSS. and which bears the name of Roger of Chester, and is written about 1350,e it is said that the Scots invited the chiefs of the Piks to an entertainment; and slew them by base treachery. It is added, Sicque de duobus populis gens bellicosior totaliter evanuit. A strange affair, that, because it's chiefs were slain, a whole nation should totally vanish! Well does O'Fla­herty laugh at this total extinction; for it tran­scends any thing in Irish fable. Need we a stronger proof that this period of our history is the most obscure of all? Is there so gross a fable in the Roman or Pikish periods?

Fordun followed: and from him this fable passed to all our historians to this day. He, in speaking of Kenneth's conquest of the Piks, lib. IV. c. 4. and almost using the words of Henry of Huntingdon, whom he quotes, says, Sic quidem non solum reges et duces gentis illius deleti sunt, ve­rum etiam stirps et genus adeo, cum idiomatis sui lin­gua, defecisse legitur, ut quicquid ex eis veterum re­peritur in scriptis, fictum, fabula, aut apogryphum, a plerisque credatur. 'So indeed, not only the kings and chiefs of that nation were destroyed, but likewise the stem and progeny, language and idiom, so totally failed, as we read, that whatever is found concerning them in the writ­ings of the ancients is believed by most to be feigned, fabulous, or apocryphal.' Bravissimo! Does not this confirm the aphorism formerly [Page 158]given, WHEN FALSEHOOD IS RECEIVED AS TRUTH, THE OPPOSITE TRUTH MUST OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY PASS FOR FALSEHOOD? The names Scot and Scot­land had totally turned the brains of Fordun, who was himself, as O'Flaherty justly observes, a Pik. Yet he spares no falsehood to destroy the honour of the Piks, and to assert that of the pre­tended Scots. Can human madness proceed to a greater height? What are human affairs, when one name, one word, can pervert the integrity, and common sense, of the writers of a whole na­tion for five centuries? Fordun has exerted all his little powers of fiction to adorn the catastrophe of the Piks. Kenneth uses a most sagacious strata­gem, to encourage his chiefs to this great con­quest, by dressing a man with luminous skins of fish, who, with the voice of an angel, denounces vengeance on the Piks. But enough of this childish fable.

Happily more ancient and purer sources re­main, from which it is clear, that this very Ken­neth was king of the Piks. That the name of Scots was not extended to the inhabitants of North Britain till about 1020, in the reign of Malcom II. whose predecessors are called kings of the Piks. That Kenneth, far from conquering or ex­tirpating the Piks, was a monarch of their own royal stem; and, if he conquered any nation, it must have been the Old Scots of Dalriada. These matters may appear strange, as indeed truth must to those accustomed to falsehood; but as truth is in it's nature directly opposite to falsehood, and it is certain that Kenneth did not conquer the Piks, but was their own proper sovereign; a can­did mind will naturally conclude, that the truth of this matter is the very reverse of it's falsehood, in every point: and that of course Kenneth, king of the Piks, conquered the Dalriads. Were i to embrace this other extreme side of the question, i would argue thus.

[Page 159]The name of Scotland not being given to North Britain till about 1020, as after shewn; that is near two dark centuries after Kenneth, it is out of the question. The Irish churchmen, re­ceiving more and more encouragement, as Chris­tianity advanced in Pikland, where learning was unknown among the natives, till a late period (the thirteenth century), might easily occasion this perversion of our history, by ascribing to their countrymen the Old Scots of Dalriada, what was really due to the Piks. The later had preserved the memory of their Scythic extraction, as appears from the Chronicon Pictorum, published by Innes; and as Scot was but another term for Scythian, as above shewn, the name with more propriety belonged to the Piks, than to the Dalriads. In the time of Adomnan and Beda, the later were alone called Scots of Britain; but this was before any due knowlege was had of the Piks, or of the Scy­thic origin of the first Scots. As more informa­tion was got, the name of Scythians, or Scots, was found to belong to both nations; and was with great propriety given to both. Thus the word Scotti Britanniae, which, in Beda's time, im­plied only the Dalreudini; in the eleventh cen­tury included the Piks, nay chiefly denoted them, as they were indeed real Scots or Scythians, while the Dalreudini were more than half Celts, and spoke the Celtic tongue. But they who gave the generic name of Scots to the Piks did not reflect on the confusion this novelty must occasion; while, by retaining the old names, all would have been clear. In the twelfth century, as we learn from many English cotemporary writers, the name of Piks was restricted to the people of Galloway, who having been separated from the Pikish kingdom by that of Stratclyde, lying be­tween, had their own lords, and retained the Pikish name. Now it is clear that the Piks, against whom Alpin and his son Kenneth fought, [Page 160]were those of Galloway only. The tales of For­dun, invented by himself, deserve no notice; and his falsehood is now too well known to meet with any. The Register of the Priory of St. Andrew's, one of the oldest monuments of our history, says, Alpin occisus est in Gallewathia, postquam eam peni­tus destruxit, et devastavit. Et hinc translatum est regnum Scotorum in regnum Pictorum. The Pikish kingdom was on the north and east of Dalriada; and not in Galloway. This is the origin of the fable concerning the battles of Kenneth against the Piks. Kenneth was natural sovereign of the Pikish kingdom; but wanted to subdue the Gal­wegians to it; and it happened afterward that the Galwegians were peculiarly termed Piks, af­ter that name had ceased in the real Pikish king­dom. Thus the fable can be traced even to it's source: and the distinction between Piks and Scots became, in this darkest period of our his­tory, totally different from what is commonly supposed.

That the language of the Scotti, the Irish, pre­vailed in Scotland after the time of Kenneth, there is not a shadow of proof. The extension of the Highlanders, and of their speech, seem to be­long to the times when the Norwegians drove them from the Hebudes, and western coast. They also naturally spred into the north of Scot­land, after the Norwegian power failed there, be­ing the nearest inhabitants; and adapted by na­ture and customs to mountainous and barren re­gions. Their speech had indeed a great advan­tage over the Pikish, in being a written and cul­tivated language, since the time of St. Patrick; while Ninian and Columba, the apostles of the Piks, most unfortunately totally neglected to teach them to write their own language. But as there is not a shadow of proof that the Irish tongue ever was at all used in the Lowlands of Scotland, it is needless to insist further upon this.

[Page 161]The question then remains entire, whether the union of the Piks and Dalriads, falsely called Scots, was not effected by a complete conquest of the later, by the former, under Kenneth their own proper king? Tighernac, and Caradoc of Llancarvon who wrote a century after Tigher­nac, or about 1180, mark the death of Kenneth, simply as king of the Piks; just as they state the death of Kenneth I. son of Luthrin, or of any other Pikish kings. The title of king of the Piks continues; that of king of Dalriada, or of the Old British Scots is extinct. Would not plain sense argue from this, that the Piks had conquered the Dalriads? The history of the later after their conquest by Ungust, 740, becomes more and more obscure, till it is totally extin­guished. That of the Piks is more and more known. The Irish writers would naturally favour the Dalriads; yet it is from them that these cir­cumstances fully appear. In common argument, a probabili, that the Piks vanquished the Dalriads is rational: that the Dalriads should conquer the Pikish kingdom, especially at a time when the former were so reduced, and the later so powerful, is absurd and impossible. The Danes ravage the Dalriads with impunity; no king, no army, ap­pears against them. In Pikland there are great battles, and the Danes gain no footing. The Norwegians about 880 seize most of the territo­ries of the Dalriads; and hold them for near four centuries. In the north of Pikland they effect a settlement; but the Pikish power gains as much on the south, as it loses on the north; and gains fertile plains, while it yields barren mountains. In short, upon every principle of historic autho­rity, and of argument, if the sole question were whether the Piks conquered the Dalriads, or the contrary, there is no room to hesitate in saying, that the truth is directly opposite to our Celtic fa­bles, [Page 162]and that the Piks conquered the Dalriads. Nor would this Celtic perversion of history want example in Welch, or in Irish history. Had not Gildas and Beda remained, Arthur's conquest of England might be still believed; tho the poor fa­thers of the fable be confined to a few mountains. The victories of the Gael over the Firbolg, in Irish history, are of the same class; and these Cel­tic fablers make the former the Scotti, while the later are the Scotti. As it is to Highland sena­chies and Irish churchmen, that we owe the con­quest of the Piks by the Dalriads, there is per­fect analogy in the case, and every room to infer that the usual perversion of Celtic understanding has taken place, and that the truth is the direct reverse.

But it may be said there are two arguments, to be drawn from the old lists of our kings against this account.

  • 1. The succession after Kenneth becomes hereditary.
  • 2. The Pikish Brudis, Drusts, &c. cease, and new names appear.

To the first of these arguments it is answered, that the Pikish succession became hereditary before Kenneth; as Drust IX. son of Constantin, and Uven son of Ungust II. came to the crown after their fathers; as formerly explained in the Chapter of Pikish kings. And the succession of these is absolutely similar to that after Kenneth, for first Ungust II. brother of Constantin succeeds, then Drust IX. son of Constantin.

To the second it is answered, that as the names after Kenneth are not the usual Pikish names, so neither are they the usual Dalriadic. The names of Kenneth, and of Alpin his father, are Pikish, not Dalriadic. Conad Keir our writers call Kenneth Keir, but Conad is not Kenneth, as Irish antiquaries justly observe. But the 52d king of the Piks was Kenneth son of Luthrin, A, D. 617, and the 66th, Kenneth, son of Wir­dech, A. D. 763, by Hoveden called Cynoth, as [Page 163]the Latin C is always to be pronounced K, as it was in the early, and in the middle agesf. Of the other seventeen kings down to Malcom III. there are two Donals, three Constantins, two Malcoms. Others are Ed, Grig, Indulf, Odo (called Duff-odo, or Black Odo, and hence by error Duff), Culen, Grim, Duncan, Macbeth, Lulach. That we are indebted for the history of this period to Irish churchmen, bards, and sena­chies, who had all the little learning then known in Pikland, is too certain; and hence Irish epi­thets. Yet these names are not Irish, tho, if some were, foreign causes might occasion them. For the churchmen, who were Irish, might, by per­mission of the parents, give Irish, names. Some of the kings might be married to Irish ladies, and the mothers, or their relations, impose the names. Irish names might become fashionable among the Piks, as the former were the learned people, and their language cultivated: so Greek names became common in Russia, tho the Russians be not Greeks. Lastly, the Irish churchmen, and bards, might, as usual in the Celtic language, change the names to a Celtic semblance. These causes considered, there would be little reason to wonder that the Pikish kings of this period, after the Dalriads were united with the Piks, should vary a little in their names. But there is no need of these arguments here; for, after all, the names are much more Pikish, than Irish or Dal­riadic. Donel was father of Garnad, 57th king of the Piks, and the name Domnail, or Donald, is Gothic, as indeed most Irish names of kings [Page 164]are: Domald was one of the ancient kings of Sweden. The Constantins are Pikish: the first Constantin king of the Piks in 792 is well known. Ed seems the Pikish Wid. Grig, Indulf, Odo, Culen, Grim, are all Gothic names, direct, and without Celtic vitiation. Thus only four names remain, Malcom, Duncan, Macbeth, Lulach. The former is surely Pikish; Brudi, the well­known Pikish king, being son of Mailcon: as for Celtic etymologies from Columba, &c. they are dreams. Mal is Gothic, speech; konr, a man; so that the word seems to imply an eloquent man, or perhaps a leader who directs the army by his words of command. There is no Malcom in the Irish or Dalriadic lists; and there is in the Pikish. Duncan is the only name to be found in Dalriadic story, where is a Duncan Beg, king of Cantire. The Irish name is really Donchadh, pronounced Donca, sometimes latinized Doncadius. Simeon of Durham, who wrote about 1164, calls our name Duncan, Dunecanus; and there is room to believe that this name is not the Irish Donchadh, tho the Highland senachies confounded them. Dun is Gothic, a fort g; kan, possum, valeo; and no Irish etymology can come so near; and there is no proof that the name is Irish. As for the two remaining, Macbeth, and Lulach, the former is commonly supposed no name at all, as it signi­fies only the son of Beth. The Mac now used was never anciently part of a fixt name, till surnames arose in the eleventh century; but they did not reach Scotland till after the time of Malcom III. Our old writers call this king Macbeda; and Beth, Bed, Beda, are well known Ango-gothic names. The Highland senachies seem, in scorn of this usurper, to have omitted his name, and to have called him the son of Beth, son of Finleg. Old [Page 165]English writers call him Macbetad; and i question if his name be not Maheth; or if the mac prefixt be not a fall of letters, not implying the Irish mac. The mac may be found in Gothic, nay in Latin names, as Macrinus, Macrobius; and i have heard of the later's being taken for a Scotish name. What seems to confirm that Macbeth does not mean son of Beth is, that his father was Finleg; and he is called Macbeth, filius Finleg, in our old lists. Now the grandfather's name is never put in these lists; and there seems no room to believe it the case here. In the Duan Mac­beth is called absolutely the son of Finleg; and his name not put at his own reign. As to Lu­lach, his name is not found in the Celtic; and, if it were, may be found in the Gothic. Thus, tho to grant some of these names Celtic would not injure the question, there is no occasion even for that conces­sion.

Upon the whole, as the Irish churchmen and bards had, after the union of the Piks and Dal­riads, all the little learning of Pikland, and totally perverted it's history to their own fables; there is great room to believe, that, in spite of all these fables, the Piks really conquered the Dalriads, and that the royal line continued Pikish, as did by far the most numerous, but unhappily the unlearned, part of the people. As for the name of Scots and Scotland, if we even granted them to originate in Pikland from the Dalriads, this al­lowance would not imply either conquest, or su­periority in numbers. For the Angli, tho finally vanquished by the Saxons, and always far inferior to them in number, yet gave name to England.

So much for the two extremities of this ques­tion; namely, whether the Dalriads conquered the Piks, or the Piks the Dalriads. But neither of these extreme views seems true; and there are medial views next to be considered, which have a juster claim to attention. Let us first consider the most ancient authorities on the matter.

[Page 166]1. Nennius, as is well known from different chronological calculations in his work, wrote in 858. Samuel, who made additions to it, was his friend and cotemporary; and the authority of both is equal. An authority nearer the time can­not be expected. His words, ch. 5. are, Post in­tervallum annorum multorum, non minus DCCCC, Picti venerunt, et occupaverunt insulas quae Orcades vocantur. Et postea, ex insulis affinitimis, vastave­runt non modicas et multas regiones; occupaveruntque, eas in sinistrali plaga Britanniae; et manent usque in hodiernum diem. Ibi tertiam partem Britanniae te­nuerunt, et tenent usque nunc. "After an interval of many, not less than 900, years, the Piks came and seized the ilands called Orkneys. And after­ward, from the neighbouring iles, wasted several not small regions; and seized those in the north part of Britain, and remain to this day. They held the THIRD part of Britain, and hold it now." No testimony can be more explicit than this. Had the Dalriads conquered the Piks, could so great an event have escaped the notice of Nennius, living at the very time? Far from this, he rather witnesses that the Piks had vanquished the Dal­riads; for he mentions the former as lords of the northern THIRD of Britain, a term of division al­most too large for Scotland. In another place Nennius, speaking of the Orkneys, says, they are beyond the Piks: so that the Piks retained all their possessions in the time of Nennius.

2. King Alfred reigned from 872 till 900. In his translations of Beda and Orosius, he uses a paraphrastic plan, and makes additions of his own. The Piks he frequently mentions by the names of Pehtar, Pihtar, Pyhtar, Peohtar; but drops not one hint of any alteration in their condition. This silence is surely important, if not conclusive; for so memorable an event as their conquest could not have escaped the king.

[Page 167]3. Asser wrote his life of Alfred about the same time; and he mentions the Danes as ravag­ing the Piks in 875: but says nothing of any new sovereignty in Pikland.

4. The Saxon Chronicle was written in the tenth and eleventh century. It mentions the Piks in 875, as Asser; but has not a hint of any revolu­tion in Pikland. Ethelwerd and Ingulphus, wri­ters of the eleventh century, mention the Piks especially, as warring under Constantin, their king, in 937.

5. Tighernac wrote about 1088; and has pre­served many particulars concerning the Piks and Dalriads. The kings of the former he chronicles minutely, and exactly; but is quite silent as to any revolution in Kenneth's time. On the con­trary, he mentions the death of Kenneth, as 'king of the Piks.' Surely, as Innes justly observes, had he conquered the Piks, he would not have been called their king, but king of Pikland. But Tighernac marks his death in the very same words, which he uses for all the other Pikish kings. Nay, Tighernac calls the successors of Kenneth down to Donald, who died 899, kings of the Piks always. He says, '861, Donald M'Alpin, king of the Piks, died.' '875, Constantin M'Cinaoch, rex Pictorum moritur.' Donald the next he calls king of Albany.

6. An old Irish translation of Nennius, quoted by Lynch, gives us a list of the kings of the Piks from Brudi, son of Meilocon 557; and goes on in constant succession to Malcom III. 1056, and after; making Kenneth son of Alpin succeed the last Brudi, without one hint of any failure, or new line.

7. The Welch writers are as ignorant of any revolution in Pikland as the English and Irish; for Caradoc, who wrote about 1180, marks the death of Kenneth simply as 'king of the Piks.'

[Page 168]8. The Gaelic Duan gives no hint of any revo­lution in Kenneth's time.

Such are the genuine ancient authorities on this subject: and from them two conclusions follow.

  • 1. That there was no conquest or remarkable revo­lution in Pikland, under Kenneth, son of Alpin; else it could not have escaped all writers of Eng­land, Ireland, and Wales, the three nearest coun­tries.
  • 2. That these ancient authors clearly testify, on the contrary, that there was not, by marking the Piks as in their old power in Kenneth's time, and long after; nay by putting Kenneth and his successors as really kings of the Piks.

To op­pose such late writers as Henry of Huntingdon and Giraldus, to those early testimonies, would be contrary to every rule of history.

Yet unhappily not one of these authorities sheds any light on the nature of Kenneth's succes­sion. The Duan, and our old lists, together with the regular inheritance after his time, seem to im­ply that there must have been some novelty. Per­haps prejudice may still cling around me; but i must confess that i am not bold enough to say that there was no change under Kenneth. So much smoke raises a suspicion of some fire. As a Greek grammarian wished to raise the ghost of Homer, in order to learn the place of that poet's birth, i would desire to evocate the shade of Ken­neth, that i might enquire how he came to the Pikish throne. But let us use the means in our power to arrive at the highest probability, if not the truth of this event.

There are, so far as i recollect, four ways in which a crown may be gained.

  • 1. By inheritance.
  • 2. By conquest.
  • 3. By election.
  • 4. By usurpa­tion. The three later ways seem here out of the question.

That there was no conquest has been shewn above. Had Kenneth been elected, it is hard to account for his establishing the inheritance in his race; and election, as above shewn, had cer­tainly [Page 169]ceased in Pikland before Kenneth's time. For usurpation we have no authority, nor even cause of suspicion; Kenneth was the son of Al­pin, a king; and i know no example of usurpation so firm in the race of the usurper, and void of competition: nor is there one hint in Tighernac, or other early authors, of any victory over the lawful king. There is therefore reason to infer that Kenneth became king of Pikland by inherit­ance.

Allowing this, only three questions can, in ap­pearance, arise on the subject.

  • 1. If Kenneth was originally and merely king of the Piks, and had no connexion with the Dalriads?
  • 2. If he was of the old Dalriadic line of kings of the Scotish or Irish stem, and heir of Pikland by the female line?
  • 3. If he was of a new Dalriadic line of Pik­ish extract, and claimed the Pikish throne by right of inheritance?

1. If Kenneth was merely and solely king of the Piks, it is hard, if not impossible, to account for the old lists placing a remarkable revolution in his time. The Duan, and other pieces, put him in the Dalriadic series: Tighernac, Caradoc, the Irish translator of Nennius, &c. put him in the Pikish. Nothing is more certain in our his­tory than that the kingdoms of Pikland and Dal­riada were united in his person. With all due contempt for Celtic perversion, it seems violent to offer such outrage to all our old fragments of history, as to say that Kenneth was merely king of the Piks; and that no revolution happened in Pikland in his time.

2. That Kenneth was not of the Dalriadic, Old Scotish, or Irish line, has been shewn above. The poor falsifications, used to connect him with that line, sufficiently prove, to a candid enquirer, that he did not belong to it. The Irish Annals, certainly not biassed against such a matter, afford convincing proofs against the supposition. The [Page 168] [...] [Page 169] [...] [Page 170]Gaelic Duan, written in the eleventh century, marks all the kings from Fergus and Loarn to Malcom III. 1056, as of the race of Erc. This only shews that the Highland senachies had used the common Celtic skill in fabricating genealo­gies; and that the elapse of two dark centuries had encouraged their usual perversion of history. The Piks, a warlike and illiterate people, were taught by Irish churchmen to venerate their learn­ing. The new name of Scots, imposed before the Piks had any literature among them, and the name of Piks restricted to the inimical Galwegi­ans, made the old Piks despise and abolish the memory of their own power. Perhaps the Piks had quite different genealogies, before the new name of Scots turned their own sword against their own breast; and made them fight for the su­periority of the Old Scots, their nominal ances­tors. Such frenzy also occurred in French and English history; and prevails in it's highest rage at this day in the Scotish. But who is now so weak as to regard a Celtic genealogy as history? A Celtic senachy would build a genealogy of the Pope or the Great Mogul, up to Milesius, nay to Adam and beyond, stans pede in uno. What can indeed be easier than to make a list of names? With other nations a lineal descent fails in a few centuries; but with the Celts it endures for ever! There cannot be a stronger proof of Celtic capa­city than their fondness for genealogy; a science unknown to, or despised by, all other nationsh; [Page 171]and when protracted, of such notorious uncertainty and falsehood, as to disgust every sound mind. It is well known what toil and industry it has cost men of real learning, to detail a genealogy of the first imperial and royal houses in Europe, even up to the twelfth century: how then lend any faith to an ignorant Celtic senachy, utterly a stranger to truth and history? O'Flaherty has been forced to cut and mangle the Irish genealogies at plea­sure; because the generations were too numerous; that is the genealogy was false, for a defect in one link destroys the whole chain at once. But to insist on this would be to insult the reader's good sense, so let us leave Celtic genealogies to Celtic understandings. From Tighernac, and other au­thentic writers, we know that the Irish genealogy of our kings is false and absurd, as has been shewn above; and that the name of Kenneth's grandfather is lost beyond redemption. From Tighernac, and the Annals of Ulster, we learn who were the latest kings of the race of Erc, both in Argyle and Lorn; and know to a cer­tainty that Kenneth did not belong to that gene­alogy at all.

3. After long and mature consideration of the present subject, and revolving it in every point of view, as it's radical importance to our history deserved, i am convinced, that the affirmative of the third question can alone solve every difficulty, and bear every weight of historic truth; namely, That Kenneth was of a new Dalriadic line of Pikish extract, and gained the Pikish crown by inheritance. To confirm this, the following co­gent arguments arise.

  • 1. In mere theory this opinion is the most probable, as it is a medial one between two extremes above considered; namely, that Kenneth was merely king of the Piks, and that he was of the old Dalriadic race. Now tho it be true that truth is one extreme, and [Page 172]falsehood another; and a medial opinion may, abstractly considered, be thought to be neither true nor false; yet in human testimony there is generally such a mixture of falsehood in truth, and of truth in falsehood, that the medial point has always been considered as that of truth, wisdom, and virtue. Medio tutissimus ibis, is a maxim ap­plicable to history, as well as to life, and has been followed in doubtful points by most writers of wisdom and moderation.
  • 2. But to pass from theory to facts we know, as above stated, that Ungust, king of the Piks, totally conquered Dal­riada, and put its princes in chains about the year 740. And we know that after this neither the house of Lorn, nor that of Argyle, held the scep­tre of Dalriada, but that a new house succeeded, inferrable to be Pikish by every reason.
  • 3. Even supposing that Ed Fin was not of Pikish race, there are no less than eight other kings from Ed Fin to Alpin, whose genealogy we know nothing of; and, not to dwell on the others, it is certain that Alpin and Kenneth are Pikish regal names, and not Dalriadic: so that there is reason to infer that Kenneth are his father, at least, were Pikish kings of Dalriada.
  • 4. This plain account solves the various information we have concerning Ken­neth; some ancient writers calling him king of the Piks, while others put him in the Dalriadic line. Allow him to have been originally king of the Dalriads; and all is easy. Alpin and he had, as is most likely, received the Dalriadic sceptre in hereditary succession from Ed Fin, Pikish monarch of Dalriada. The right which Kenneth had to the Pikish crown is indeed obscure, for as to our mo­dern tale of Fergusia, daughter (or, as some more chronologically cook it, sister) of Ungust II. king of the Piks, being wedded to Achy, father of Alpin, it is a mere romance of that king of forgers, Hec­tor Boyce. The very name Fergusia speaks this; [Page 173]and that Achy never existed, as fully shewn above. In 839 Uwen, or in Irish Eogan (pro­nounce Oan), son of Ungust II. king of the Piks by inheritance, died. It would seem, that, on the death of Uwen, two competitors arose for the Pikish crown, Alpin the Dalriadic king, and Vered; but that the later carried it. That Vered dying in 842, Kenneth asserted his claim (his father Alpin being dead in 841), and, deposing Brudi son of Vered, assumed the sceptre. There was no national dispute between the Dalriads and the Piks. Kenneth had no doubt a strong party in Pikland; and the advantages of uniting the kingdoms must have been very apparent, even in a rude age. The English heptarchies had been partly united by Egbert, twenty years before this; and the new invasions of the Danes called for the united force of Caledonia to oppose them. What was the claim of Alpin, and that of Vered, it is impossible to discover: but both were palpably hereditary; for the sons of both succeeded in Pikland, now an hereditary kingdom. Had this been a national war, the Dalriads could have done nothing, declining for three centuries as they had been, and utterly vanquished in 743. But they would naturally assist Kenneth, and the favour which he, and his nearer successors, shewed them was natural. The constant hereditary form of their govern­ment, must have rendered them subjects more to be trusted by the kings of Pikland; in which state that form of succession was new, and not fixt on constant use, and the proscription of ages. Kenneth, and his ancestors, as kings of Dalriada, apparently used the Irish language; and the churchmen of Pikland were almost all Irish, so that the Irish may have been long the fashionable language, as the French in England after the Norman conquest. The Irish was then indeed [Page 174]far superior to the Pikish, as being a written, and of course a more polished and exact lan­guage.

This plain and easy account of the Union of the Piks and Dalriads, as it alone can reconcile all authorities, bears every mark of historic truth.

CHAPTER II. The Kings from 843 till 1056.

THE chronology of this period is sufficiently exact, and easily adjusted by computing the number of years each king reigned, according to the old lists and chronicles published by Innes, from the fixt date of the accession of Kenneth to the Pikish throne, 843; or from the death of Macbeth, which, by unanimous consent of the ancient historians, the Chronicle of Melrose, &c. happened in 1054. Fordun dates the accession of Kenneth 838; and has been blindly followed as usual by Boyce, Buchanan, &c. and as this perversion threw back the reign of Kenneth six years, they have been forced to add these six years to the reign of Grig, making him reign eighteen years; while, by our old lists, he only reigned twelve. But these, and other smaller perversions did not deserve serious examination, as they are confuted by the chronology of Pikish kings formerly given, and by the following chronology, compiled with minute attention and care.

Tho the chronology of our kings during this period be as exact as that of any kingdom in Europe at the time, yet the history is faint and obscure. That of Kenneth, and his eleven imme­diate successors, appears to best advantage, being preserved in the brief but valuable Chronicon Pic­torum, published by Innesa. The other six kings, [Page 176]from Constantin IV. 992, to Malcom III. 1056, or for a space of sixty-four years, are in more ob­scurity. A few faint rays are however to be found in the list No IV. published by Innes; in that of the Register of Saint Andrew's No V.; in the Chro­nicon Elegiacum, published at the end of the Chro­nicle of Melroseb; and in the English and Islan­dic writers. As for Fordun, Boyce, Buchanan, and their latest followers, they are to be considered as mere fablers, till the reign of Malcom III. 1056; and cannot be founded on, in the smallest particular before that period, being generally contradictory of our old monuments, and blend­ing even their truth with such fables as obscure the light of history.

The Dalriadic series, tho hitherto built upon, has, as formerly shewn in this work, no title to be regarded as that of the kings of North Britain. The Pikish series has the sole claim to that dig­nity. Upon the accession of James VI. to the English throne, it would have been absurd to con­sider his ancestors, the Scotish kings, as monarchs of England; or to drop the history of England for that of Scotland: and the case is the same here. The reader, upon recurring to the list of Pikish kings, will find that the reign of Kenneth was the seventy-seventh from the foundation of the Pikish monarchy. Kings of the same name are numbered in the Pikish series; thus there were two Kenneths, kings of Pikland, before the Dal­riadic Kenneth: and so in other names.

77. KENNETH III. A. C. 843, reigned 16 years in Pikland by all accounts. He seems to have been a prince of considerable talents for the age and country. He had ruled Dalriada two years, when he ascended the Pikish throne (Ch. Pict). In his seventh year, 849, he transported the reliques of St. Columba, hitherto kept in [Page 177]Hyona, to a new church which he built in Pik­land (Ib.). Invading the English territory six times, he burned Dunbar and Melrose, which had been usurped (Ib.) or seized by the English or Danes of Northumbria. But the Britons of Strat­clyde burned Dulblaan; and the Danes wasted Pikland to Cluanan and Dunkeldc (Ib.) He died on the feria tertia, or third day of the week, Tuesday, the ides or thirteenth of February (Ib.), that is, in 860, after a reign of sixteen years, and some months. Tuesday was also the 13th Fe­bruary in 854, or six years before; and Fordun, &c. place his death in that year. The Annals of Ulster say 857; but as to our history they often antedate by three or four years; thus Brudi's death is put 583 instead of 587; and so in the rest. That 860 was the real date is clear from the Pikish chronicle, so valuable for exact co-in­cidence with the English writers in other mat­ters: and from the eclipse of the sun on the day of St. Cyriacus, 891, aftermentioned. Fordun's perversion of all chronology concerning Selvac, &c. shews his dates put at random; and that Tuesday should be the [...]3th of February in 854 is a mere chance: and the six years deficient were forced to be added to the reign of Grig, to make up the chronology, tho our old lists give him but 11 or 12, not 18 years. Kenneth died in his palace at Forthuir-tabacht (Ch. Pict.) Fortheviot (Ch. Eleg.) now Forteviot near the river Ern, south of Perth, the chief residence of the Pikish kings, after their recovery of Lothian in 684. Before that time, as appears from Adomnan, they resided near Inverness.

78. DONAL I. brother of Kenneth III. A. C. 860, reigned 4 years by all accounts. In his [Page 178]time the Gaël, or Dalriads, obtained a confirma­tion of the old laws assigned them by Ed Fin (Chr. Pict). The laws forged by Boyce, in auk­ward imitation of those of the Twelve Tables, and imputed to Kenneth III. are too gross an im­position to deceive even the most ignorant. There is no authority whatever to be found in our old and genuine fragments of history, for Kenneth's having made any laws at all. Donal died in his palace of Belachoird on the ides or 13th of April (Ib.) 864.

From the Register of St. Andrew's we learn that our kings, from Kenneth III. down to Edgar, 1098, were buried in Hyona or Icolmkill. After that period Dunfermlin was the place of royal sepulture.

79. CONSTANTIN II. son of Kenneth III. A. C. 864, reigned 16 years (Chr. Pict) 20 years (Chr. No II. Innes), but 18 seems the real number; for 891 was the ninth year of Grig, as after shewn. In his third year 866, Olave, leader of the Danes and Norwegians in Ireland, ravaged Pikland, from the day of the new year till that of St. Pa­trick, or 17th March, and carried off plunder and hostages. (Chr. Pict.) The Annals of Ulster, as usual, antedate this event in 865. Some years after, Olave returning was slain in battle with Constantin (Ib.) The Irish Annals are silent as to the time and manner of Olave's death; but mention him in 870 as returning to Ireland, from a second invasion of Pikland, with 200 ships and great booty. Soon after, in another invasion, the Piks were defeated at Coach-cochlum with great slaughter; and the Northern invaders re­mained a whole year in Pikland. (Chr. Pict. Ann. Ult. 874.) But Eystein, son of Olave, was killed [Page 179] (Ann. Ult.) In 871, say 874 or 875, Artga, king of the Britons of Stratclyde, was killed by advice of Constantin III. king of the Piks (Ib.). Con­stantin died 882, being, by the Annals of Ul­ster, the year after his last defeat by the Danes. Fordun says Constantin was slain by the Danes in a cave near Fifeness; but the Annals of Ulster, and our best chronicle of the time (Chr. Pict.), are silent as to this.

This reign was the most ruinous that North Britain ever beheld, or was to behold. The Piks had long enjoyed peace, or at least freedom from foreign invasions; and a default in martial skill and prowess was the natural consequence. They were therefore unprepared for their Northern in­vaders, men inured to arms and perpetual war. After this reign the Piks changed the scene, and generally repelled the invaders with great slaugh­ter. But during the reign of Constantin II. or from 864 till 882, the losses Pikland sustained were not confined to booty and captives; but were great and permanent. For it is clear, from the most ancient and authentic monuments of Scandi­navian history, that during this period the Nor­wegians seized the Orkneys and Hebudes, with present Sutherland, Caithness, and most of Ross­shires, amounting in the whole to more than a fourth part of the Pikish kingdom. But of this in the next chapter.e.

80. ED, brother of Constantin II. A. C. 882 reigned 1 year by all accounts; and was slain by his own subjects. (Chr. Pict. Ann. Ult. &c.)

81. EOCHOD (or Achy) and GRIG reigned jointly, from 883 till 894, or 11 years. The [Page 180]former was son of Ku, king of the Stratclyde Britons, who was son of Kenneth III. (Chr. Pict). The same venerable monument adds that Achy was the real king, tho some put Grig, who only governed in his name; and i suppose Achy was a minor. But it seems best to reconcile all ac­counts by making this a joint reign. Who Grig was is obscure. The Register of St. Andrew's says it was he who slew Ed: and he seems to have pretended to govern in the name of Achy to support his usurpation. Our old lists, and other writers, say that Grig (or Gregory, as they christen him) was son of Dungal, brother of Al­pin. But that seems dubious. The Annals of Ulster are quite silent concerning Achy and Grig. The only thing known concerning this reign is, that in its ninth year, or 891, there was an eclipse of the sun on the day of St. Cyriacus, or 8th August: which really did happen that year and dayf: and that after reigning eleven years Achy and Grig were expelled the kingdom (Ch. Pict). Innes foolishly trembles at this account of Gregory the Great, whom the Register of St. Andrew's marks as the conqueror of England, and Ireland, in which silly stuff it is followed by our fablers! Strange that no English, nor Irish, historian should even know the name of this tre­mendous whale! Seriously the condition of Eng­land and Ireland at this time, from 883 till 894, is too perfectly known for such tales. The reign of Alfred is too bright to be obscured by a cloud of childish fable. The Danes and Norwegians held too sure footing in Ireland for Grig to in­terfere. [Page 181]And Tighernac, who wrote in 1088, did not even know of Grig's existence.

82. DONAL II. son of Constantin II. A. C. 894, reigned 10 years; and died in his eleventh (Chr. Eleg.), whence, by other accounts, he reigned eleven years, but the chronology requires only ten. During this reign the Norwegians again wasted Pikland. A battle was fought between them and the Piks, in which victory fell to the later. Ivar, the Norwegian chief, fell. (Chr. Pict. Ann. Ult.) Donal is however said to have fallen by the hands of the Norwegians near Forres. (Chr. Pict.)

83. CONSTANTIN III. son of Ed, A. C. 904, reigned 40 years by all accounts. This reign is remarkable for length, and for action. In his third year, 906, the Norwegians ravaged Dun­keld, and all Pikland (Chr. Pict.). The follow­ing year, 907, they were slaughtered at Fraith­hemi. In his sixth year, 909g, Constantin the king, and Kellach the bishop, leges disciplinasque fidei, atque jura ecclesiarum evangeliorumque pariter cum Scottis, in colle credulitatis prope regalem civita­tem Scoan devoverunt custodiri. Ab hoc die collis hoc nomen meruit, i. e. Collis credulitatis. (Chr. Pict.) This passage is clear, save the words pariter cum Scottis. Innes, p. 588, translates them, 'with the Scots:' but the arrangement seems to demand 'like the Scots;' and the word pariter implies this only. Certain it is however that, in this Chronicle, Scotti is used for the people of Scot­land: Hybernenses for the Irish. But the passage may have been transcribed from an older Chronicle, in which Scotti here implied the Irish. Yet if Con­stantin and Kellach alone took this vow, the public name of the hill seems too consequential for the occasion. I therefore incline to the opinion of Innes, that this was a national assembly, and that [Page 180] [...] [Page 181] [...] [Page 182] pariter cum Scottis is a barbarous phrase, to express that the king and Kellach took this vow, at same time and on the same footing, with the na­tional assembly. This Hill of Credulity was surely the Moothill near Scoon. In this reign died Donald, king of the Britons of Stratclyde; and Donald, son of Ed, was elected king (Chr. Pict.) It is clear from this, and the circumstance of Ku, king of these Britons, being son of Ken­neth III. as above-mentioned, that the people of Stratclyde, at this period, secured protection from the Piks, by chusing their kings from the Pikish royal family. Nor is there a hint of any dissention, till the reign of Culen, who was slain by these Britons (Chr. Pict.) The reign of Con­stantin III. was famous for two remarkable bat­tles. The first happened in his eighteenth year (Chr. Pict.), or 921: the Annals of Ulster, al­ways three or four years antedated, place it in 917. It was at Tinmore, between Constantin and Reginald, and the former had the victoryh (Chr. Pict) The Annals of Ulster give a long account of this memorable engagement. The Norwegians and Danes of Ireland, desiring as would seem fully to possess North Britain, as they did Ireland, formed a vast army, and landed in North Britain. Constantin, foreseeing the danger, had wisely formed an alliance with the Northern Saxons, as the Annals of Ulster call them, that is, the people of Northumbria, still separated from the English under their Danish kings; who naturally sought assistance from North Britain to support them against the kings of England, and were thus bound by reciprocal tyes. The enemy formed in four divisions: the first commanded by God­fred; [Page 183]the two next by different earls and chiefs: the fourth and last by Reginald. Constantin de­feated the three first with great slaughter: but Reginald attacking him in the rear, the battle became dubious, when night put an end to the engagement. The Danes returned to Ireland, without effecting any thing; so that the Chr. Pict. says not improperly that Constantin had the vic­tory. This engagement was so great, that it is the only one particularly described in the Annals of Ulster, which generally only say there was a battle in such a place, between such a man and such another.

But the second conflict of Constantin was yet greater; and the Saxon Annalist has even risen to poetry on the occasion. This was the famous battle of Bruneburg fought in the thirty-fourth year of Constantin (Chr. Pict.) that is 937, a computation exactly agreeing with the Saxon Chronicle, and Simeon of Durham. Athelstan, king of England, having expelled Anlaff and Godfred, princes of Northumberland in 927 (Ann. Sax.), the former fled to Ireland; the later took refuge with Constantin. Constan­tin, solicited by Athelstan to give up Godfred, but detesting the treachery, advised him to leave his kingdom; which he did, and subsisted by piracy for some years till he died. Athelstan, re­senting Constantin's conduct, in 934 (Ann. Sax. Sim. Dun. &c.) attacked his dominions by sea and landi. His army ravaged even to Dunfoeder and Wertermorek: his fleet to Caithness. Con­stantin, not expecting this sudden invasion, was unprepared for resistance; but as to any submis­sion or homage paid by him on this occasion, the Saxon Annals and Simeon, that is, the oldest English writers, are mute; tho Hoveden, and [Page 84]William of Malmsbury, assert the matter gr [...]tis. But of these mock homages in next chapter. The English army and fleet after this revenge retired. Constantin, resolving to wipe off this insult, formed a powerful confederacy against Athelstan, consisting of Anlaf king of Ireland, Constantin's son-in-law; the Norwegian prince of the He­budes; and Eugenius, or Owen, king of Cum­berland, still a Cumraig monarchy; with Anlaf prince of Northumberland; and many petty Norwegian and Danish kinglets of Ireland. The West of England was all in the hands of the Bri­tons; but the allies by landing at Bruneburg, now, it is believed, Brugh on the Humberl evi­dently intended to re-establish the kingdom of Northumbria first, and from thence to invade Athelstan's territories. But that great prince, with uncommon prudence and success, crushed the design at once. Tho the allies brought no less than six hundred and fifteen ships (Sim.) he was able to attack them on their landing; and after, as Milton justly observes, the greatest and bloodiest battle that this iland ever beheld, the allies were totally defeated. Five kinglets, and many celebrated chiefs, fell on the side of the allies. Constantin's son was also among the slain. He and Anlaf fled to their ships and escaped. The loss on Athelstan's side must also have been vast; tho carefully concealed by old English his­torians. Certain it is, that he was too much weakened to disturb his neighbours again; and died in 941, after passing his last years in peace.

Constantin survived this battle many years. In his extreme old age he retired to a monastery; and resigned the kingdom to Malcom (C [...]r. Pict.) This happened in 944, and he died about 954. [Page 185] (Ib.) The venerable chronicle last quoted men­tions that one year after the battle of Bruneburg; or in 938, mortuus est Dubican, fil. Indrechtaig, MORMAIR Oengusa: 'Dubican son of Indrechtaig, Mormair of Angus, died.' This singular title also occurs in the Annals of Ulster, "A. D. 1032, Maolbryd Murmor of Mureve (Murray) burnt with 50 men about him:" and describing the battle of 921, between the Norwegians and Constantin, Murmors are named as chiefs on Constantin's side. And 1014, Donel, a great Murmor of Scotland, is killed with king Brian Borowe. This title seems equivalent to thane or iarl; but i know not if it is any where else to be found.

84. MALCOM I. son of Donal II. A. C. 944, reigned 9 years, as our old lists agree, save Chr. Pict. which bears eleven; but the chrono­logy fixes nine. Proceeding with an army to Moray, he slew Kelac, i suppose a rebellious Murmor. In his seventh year, 950, he wasted England to the river Teise, and seized great prey of captives and cattle* (Chr. Pict.) The author relates that some said Constantin led the army himself; others that he only instigated Malcom. This invasion seems irreconcileable with what we learn from the Saxon Annals; namely, that in 945 Edmund king of England conquering Cum­berland from the Britons, gave it to Malcom, on condition of homage for it, and defending the North of England against the Danes. But the fact is, that after this we find no wars between our kings and those of England till the time of Ethelred, A. D. 1000. So that it seems clear that Edmund conciliated the alliance of Malcom, and that the Danes, tho allied with Constantin, were ever after regarded as a common enemy by our kings, and those of England. The above [Page 186]invasion, as the author of the Chr. Pict. con­cludes, was not done by Malcom, but by Con­stantin's influence. Yet i take it to have been made upon the Danes in Northumberland, after Malcom had taken possession of Cumberland; and not upon 'Angli,' as the above chronicle bears. Malcom was slain by the people of Mo­ray, perhaps in revenge of Kelac's death. (Chr, Pict.)

85. INDULF, son of Constantin III. A. C. 953, reigned 8 years. 'In hujus tempore oppidum Eden vacuatum est; ac relictum est Scottis usque in hodiernum diem.' (Chr. Pict.) 'In his time the town of Eden was vacated, and left to the Scots to this day.' This noted passage has been quoted by Camden. If Edinburgh be meant, it is likely that Athelstan, in his invasion 934, had seized and garrisoned it. But of this in next chapter. The above chronicle informs us, that some Sumer­lid Pirates were slain in Buchan. This name of Sumerlids is frequent in the thirteenth century, and is given to the Norwegians of Argyle and the Hebudes. Sumerliod means summer-people; and perhaps arose from these pirates always appearing in summer. This name shews that the Irish lan­guage was never that of Scotland, being a Pikish or Gothic, and yet common, appellation.

86. ODO, son of Malcom I. A. C. 961, reigned 4 years. By the Celtic part of his subjects he was surnamed DUFFm, or The Black; which tho a mere epithet has past for his name. The Duan styles him Dubb Oda, or Odo the Black. His reign was constantly disturbed by Culen, son of Indulf, whose name the author of the Chr. Pict. taking to be Irish, has translated Caniculus (Cuil [...]n Gaelic, A Whelp.) Odo vanquished Culen in a war on Drumcrup, perhaps Duncrub in [Page 187]Perthshire, now the seat of Lord Rollo. In that battle fell Duchad, Abbot of Dunkeld; and Dubdou satrapas, or Murmor of Athol (Chr. Pict.) The Annals of Ulster seem to refer to this engagement, as happening the year before Odo's death, 'A. 964; battle between Scotsmen about Etir, were many slain about Donoch, abbot of Duncalten.' Next year, or 965, Odo was slain by his people (Ann. Ult.) These Annals begin about this time to date right, omitting the ante­date of four years, common before. The Register of St. Andrew's says, Duff was slain in Fores, and his body hid under the bridge of Kinlos; and the [...]un did not appear till it was found. That Re­gister has many fables.

87. CULEN, son of Indulf, A. C. 965, reigned 5 years. The Chr. Pict. gives only private events in this reignn Marcan, son of Breoda­laig was slain in the church of St. Michaelo: (where?) Leot and Sluagadach departed to Rome, now beginning to be a common pilgrim age. Maelbrig the Bishop, a term of eminence given to the Bishop of St. Andrew's, died: and Kellach, son of Ferdulaig, succeeded. Maelbrig, son of Dubican, died: i suppose Melbrig, the Scot­ish iarl of Scandinavian historyp. Culen, and his brother Achy, were slain by the Britons (Chr. Pict.) of Stratclyde in battle (Ann. Ult. 970.) The Re­gister of St. Andrew's, which the Chron. Eleg. fol­lows, is again fabulous concerning his death.

[Page 188]88. KENNETH IV. son of Malcom I. A. C. 970, reigned 22 years (Innes, No II.). Others say 24, against chronology. He instantly entered on war against Stratclyde; but the Chron. Pict. is here so obscure that it is uncertain with what success. His army seems at first to have been de­feated; and Kenneth fortified the banks of Forth (lb.) Yet in his first year he ravaged Saxonia, or England, and took prisoner the king's sonq (lb.) Edgar was then king of England, and his sons Edward the Martyr, and Ethelred, followed him in the succession. But i am convinced that Northumberland was the part ravaged, and some prince of it taken prisoner. Matthew of West­minster, a late English writer, says, that Edgar gave Lothian to Kenneth; of which see next chapter. Kenneth seems at last to have totally vanquished the Britons of Stratclyde; for after his time, as before shewn, we find no mention of their kingdom. The Chr. Pict. closes with tell­ing us, that Kenneth gave Brechen to the church: 'Hic est qui tribuit magnam civitatem Brechne do­mino.' This close palpably marks that chronicle not to have been written in Kenneth's time; but it was certainly written in the eleventh century. The Ulster Annals at 994 mention Kenneth's death per dolum, or by treachery.

So much for the Twelve kings commemorated in the Pikish Chronicle. The remaining Six are in greater obscurity; but happily a few rays gleam from the English and Icelandic wri­ters.

[Page 189]89. CONSTANTIN IV. son of Culen, A. C. 992, reigned only 1 year, and some months. He was slain at Rathveramoen, by Kenneth, a son of Mal­com I. (Reg. Sti. And.) The Chron. Eleg. says, at the head of the river Amond.

90. KENNETH V. surnamed GRIM*, son of Odo or Duff, A. C. 993, reigned 8 years. In the year 1000, Ethelred king of England wasted Cumber­land (Sim. Dun.) Grim was slain by Malcom, son of Kenneth IV. in Moeghanard (Reg. S. And.) The Chron. Eleg. translates this Campus Bardorum.

91. MALCOM II. son of Kenneth IV. A. C. 1001, reigned 30 years. Of this long and remarkable reign almost every incident is lost. The Reg. St. And. calls him rex victoriosissimus, but i suppose his victories were like those of Grig. In English history Malcom is only known by the war of Carrum, 1018r, between him and Uch­tred, the Earl of Northumberland, a title suc­ceeding to the regal, and with regal power. Eu­genius Calvus, or Owen the Bald, kinglet of Lo­thian, assisted Malcom. Hoveden, and other Eng­lish historians, by their silence concerning its event, seem to imply it to have been an indeci­sive engagement. If we credit Icelandic Sagas, which are often romantic, Sigurd the Gross, Earl of Orkney, married the daughter of Malcom II. and had five sons by her; of whom four Sumar­lid, Einar, Brusi, and Thorfin, were Earls of Orkney. (Orkneyinga Saga, Torf. Orc.) This Sigurd was slain in the famous battle of Clontarf▪ [Page 190]near Dublin, 23 April, 1014, fighting against Brian Borowe, king of Dublin. An event which gave rise to the celebrated Icelandic poem, so finely translated by Mr. Gray, in his Fatal Sisters. Upon Sigurd's death, Malcom gave his grand­son Thorfin investiture of the earldom of Caith­ness and Sutherland (Torf. p. 45), and appointed counsellors to assist him in the government (Ork. Saga, p. 5.) Thorfin was indeed but five years old at the time (Ib. p. 29.) He refused the ac­customed homage to the kings of Norway; and died in 1064, (Ib.)

The wars of Malcom II. with the Danes are mentioned by our writers; but i know not if there be any ground for them at all. The history of Denmark and Norway is, at this period, very clear; but it is silent as to any descents on Scot­land. Indeed the fables of Boyce and Buchanan are self-confuted; for they represent Swein, the Danish king of England, as carrying on these wars; and yet the seat is always in Buchan and Moray. Fordun, tho he mentions one battle against the Norwegians, is quite silent as to those wars; and so is Winton. Major, in 1521, knew nothing of them. That infamous forger Boyce, 1526, first started this game; and, struck with the obelisques he saw in the north of Scotland, gives them and victories to Malcom II. Sigurd and Thorfin, who possessed the north of Scotland, were in strict amity with Malcom. Swein and Canute the Danish kings, 985—1035, were wholly occupied with England, and far from wishing to excite a new enemy. Saint Olave, king of Norway 1014—1030, carried on no such wars. Einar, earl of a part of the Ork­neys, ravaged piratically the coasts of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, about 1018; as did Kalf, son of Arna, about 1026s; but the concatenation of [Page 191]names shews that they keeped on the west: and indeed would not think of landing in Mo­ray, and putting themselves between Malcom, and his ally, the earl of Caithness. Besides, they were pirates beneath serious war. In an old Islandic poem, Canute is said to have received homage from two kings of Fifet; but the fiction confutes itself. In short there is not a shadow of authority for those Danish wars of Malcom II.

The pretended laws of Malcom II. form ano­ther gross fable: and able writers have fully shewn them a forgery. The story of the division of all the lands in Scotland at the Moothill is no­toriously false. If the feudal system was used before in Scotland, as is most probable, the idea is absurd. If not, no power, but that of conquest, could force the people to such a concession. The king was only lord of his own estate, of that part alloted for his maintenance: the other sub­jects held their property as absolutely as he did. But it is now vain to confute so idle a story. The foundation of the see of Murtlach, afterward re­moved to Aberdeen, is ascribed to Malcom II. but Ruddiman who argues this because Malcom conquered the Norwegians at Murtlach, accord­ing to our fables, only builds on the mire of falsehoodu.

The Saxon Annals, at the year 1031, inform us that Canute, king of England and Denmark, went to Scotland; and Malcom became subject to him, with two other kings, Malbeth and Jehmare. Of this in the next chapter. The Ulster Annals [Page 192]at 1033 (say 1030), mention that the son of Mac­boete Mac Cinaoh was killed by Malcom Mac Cinaoh. The last is surely Malcom II. whose death is marked at 1034v.

Malcom II. died a natural death at Glammis: mortitus in Glamis, says the Reg. St. And. The Chronicon Elegiacum thus:

In vico Glammis rapuit mors libera regem;
Sub pede prostratis hostibus ipse perit.

The mors libera cannot imply a violent death: the last line refers to his former victories, as the Chron. Eleg. says he was miles victoriosus. The fa­bles of Fordun and his followers, concerning Malcom's dying in a conspiracy, have not a sha­dow of foundation. The Reg. St. And. carefully marks interfectus, if a king was slain: and no fewer than six kings before Malcom II. and three after him, are thus marked; so that it is cruel to murder Malcom in his old age.

92. DUNCAN, A. C. 1031, reigned 6 years. This king was the son of Bethocw, a daughter of Malcom II. by Crinan, abbot of Dunkeld. Don­chath Mac Crini abbatis de Dunkeld, Reg. St. And. Fordun, not knowing the dignity of an abbot in these times, and that the abbot of Hyona was really archbishop of the north of Ireland and of Pikland, as Beda shews: and perhaps affronted to find our kings sprung of an abbot, creates a new dignity for Crinan. He calls him Crynyn ab­thanus de Dul, ac insularum senescallus: "Crynyn Abthane of Dul, and steward of the iles!" No iles were then subject to Scotland. To support this [Page 193]nonsense he brings more nonsense; and tells us Abba is father, and thana is respondens vel numerans; and that the Abthane was a chamberlain, who managed the king's rents and treasury! Even Bu­chanan is missed by this puerile stuff, for the ho­nour of Scotland! I know of no proof that the title of thane was ever known in Scotland, till Mal­com III. introduced Saxon names. The word means a servant, a soldier, an officer, but is only sound in England as a title of honour. In Den­mark the herses were equivalent to English thanes. In Scotland Murmor was the term, as above men­tioned. But who ever heard of an Abthane? And who knows not that Dul, a village, could not give a title, which was in that age territorial; an earl or abthane, if you will, being always go­vernor of the province whose title he bore? It is needless to dwell on this silly tale. Both the Re­gistrum St. And. and the Chronicon ElegiacUm, as preserved in the original of the Chronicle of Mel­rose in the Cotton Library, inform us that Crinan was ABBAS, an abbot. The church now getting rich, its great benefices were sought after by men of the highest rank; and sons and brothers of kings were bishops and abbots. Some abbacies were superior to bishoprics in wealth; and mitred abbots equal to bishops in dignity. The marriage of churchmen was esteemed as proper as that of others, in many kingdoms not yet infected with Roman superstition and intrigue. It is unlikely that Malcom should give his daughter in marriage unworthily. Crinanx was perhaps his minister of state, as usual for churchmen in that period, for they possessed all the learning of the times. [Page 194]But it is very likely that the marriage took place before Malcom came to the throne. The French history, after Charlemagne, has many such in­stances. Alfred the Great was the son of Ethel­wulf who was a priest before he was crowned; and Alfred himself was bred up to the church, a circumstance to which we owe that learning which perfected his transcendant character. The secular power and spirit of the clergy, in the mid­dle ages, are well known. Even till the council of Rheims, 1148, monks might marry; and it cost many a struggle before the later popish sys­tem took effect. The abbots were esteemed ante­rior in dignity to nobles, for the charters run Episcopis, Abbatibus, Comitibus, &c. From St. Bernard's life of Malachy, cap. 7. it appears that the Archbishops of Armagh had succeeded heredi­tarily, for fifteen generations. In Charlemagne's time fourteen monasteries of his empire furnished their proportion of soldiers; and the abbots were the usual leaders. The chief of the republic of Genoa till 1339 was an abbot, Abbas Populi. In 982 we find the bishop of Augsburg, and the abbot of Fulda, killed in the same battle. An abbot of Fontenelle assembled troops, and opposed Charles Martel. Charlemagne, in a letter to Frastada, one of his wives, mentions a bishop who fought by his side. In the time of Louis Debonnaire we find the abbots of Corbie and St. Denis raising troops. Hugh, son of Charlemagne, was abbot of St. Quentin. The abbots of Fulda, St. Gal, Kempten, Corbie, in Germany, were all great princes. In modern times the Cardinals Guise, Retz, Richelieu, de la Valette, Sourdis, were all military men. Peter the Great of Russia was grandson of the patriarch Feder Romanow, who caused his son Michael to be made Czar. In 757 we find a bull granted by the Pope to the abbot of St. Denis, allowing him to have a particular bishop in his monastery. In 977 John XIII. allowed [Page 195]Diederic abbot of St. Vincent at Metz to wear pontifical ornaments. In the tenth century the emperor Otho made even dukes and counts vas­sals to the bishops and abbots of Germany. In Beda's time the monasteries were often private property, belonging to a family; and the same men were abbots and captains. (Epist. ad Egbert. edit. Ware, 73—79.) The abbots appeared in the national council of England (Sax. Chr. 694. Ingulf. 855, M. Paris, 1210). At the time of the Reformation the mitred abbots, in the English parliament, were more numerous than the bishops. In Spain it is well known what power bishop Oppa, the son of king Witiza, had at the time of the Moorish invasion, 710. But, not to enlarge, the reader who wishes to see the power of the digni­fied clergy in the dark ages, is referred to the his­torians of the times, and to the antiquaries of all countries in Christendom.

As the monks were all laymen till a late pe­riod, in Britain and Ireland till the eleventh cen­tury, it is no wonder that the abbots were lay­men. Du Cange mentions the Abba-Comites, who were often both earls and abbotsy; and always laymen. The son of Malcom III. was abbot of Dunkeld, and earl of Fifez. As the third race of France descends from Arnulf bishop of Metz, it is not surprizing that a race of Scotish kings is the progeny of an abbot of Dunkeld. There might [Page 196]be Ab-thanes as well as Abba-Comites; but we must abide by the old testimonies, and infer Crinan to have been Abbot of Dunkeld. Had Fordun, like many others, had a little more learning, he needed not recourse to lyes for the honour of Scot­land. Certain it is that Crinan, abbot of Dun­keld, was the ancestor of our kings down to the accession of Baliol: and our royal houses are of ABPIN: of CRINAN: of BALIOL: of BRUCE: of STUART. Duncan's claim was indeed quite new. By the form of succession before, a brother, or brother's son, of Malcom, had a prior right. But there appear to have been none such living. Macbeth's title we know nothing of with cer­tainty.

The Orkneyinga Saga, and Torfaeus copying it, give us a king Karl or Kalius at this period. The name is Danish; and no such king ever ruled in Scotland. The Saga and Torfaeus tell us that Thorsin vanquished this Kalius, and pur­sued the victory even down to Fife. But this fa­ble needs only to be redd to be rejected. And such gross fictions shew what might be expected, that those Icelandic sagas, compiled from old ro­mantic poems, are mere romances, and claim lit­tle historic faith. The marriage of Sigard to Malcom's daughter is therefore left to the reader's discretion. From Simeon of Durham we learn that, in 1035, Duncan besieged Durham withoutLangebek Scr. Rer. Dan. success; and returning home was slain by his people a short time after; that is, in 1037, by our chro­nology: whereas if we date his reign four years later, as usual, the expression of Simeon is erro­neous. Duncan was slain by Macbeth, son of Fin­leg, in Bothgouanan, Reg. St. And. near Elgin, says the Chron. Eleg.

The Orkneyinga Saga, and Torfaeus copying it, give us a king Karl or Kalius at this period. The name is Danish; and no such king ever ruled in Scotland. The Saga and Torfaeus tell us that Thorsin vanquished this Kalius, and pur­sued the victory even down to Fife. But this fa­ble needs only to be redd to be rejected. And such gross fictions shew what might be expected, that those Icelandic sagas, compiled from old ro­mantic poems, are mere romances, and claim lit­tle historic faith. The marriage of Sigard to Malcom's daughter is therefore left to the reader's discretion. From Simeon of Durham we learn that, in 1035, Duncan besieged Durham without success; and returning home was slain by his people a short time after; that is, in 1037, by our chro­nology: whereas if we date his reign four years later, as usual, the expression of Simeon is erro­neous. Duncan was slain by Macbeth, son of Fin­leg, in Bothgouanan, Reg. St. And. near Elgin, says the Chron. Eleg.

93. MACBETH, A. C. 1037, reigned 17 years. He was son of Finlega, but further of his descent [Page 197]we know not. Finnleikr Scota Jarl is mentioned in Olave Tryggueson's Saga, about the year 990, as fighting against Sigurd, before he married Malcom's daughter, This 'Finleik the Scotish earl' may have been our Finleg; but in sagas one knows not what to trust. Torfaeus Orc. p. 27, calls him Finnleicus Scotorum comes. It would ap­pear from this and the mention of Malbrig, 965, by the same title, that there was a powerful family then in Scotland, only second to the royal. Our late writers say that Macbeth's mother was Doaca, a daughter of Malcom II. and that his father was thane of Angus; but this is mere fable without foundation. From certain authority, the Chartu­lary of Dunfermlin, we know that Macbeth's own wife was Gruoch filia Bodhe, 'Gruoch, the daughter of Bodhe,' called by Winton Gruok b; and a charter by her is there mentioned. Lulac, successor of Macbeth, is in the Chronicle (Innes, No IV.) called nepos filii Boide. Winton says that Macbeth was sister's son of Duncan; and calls Duncan his eme, or uncle.

Macbeth seems to have been an able and bene­ficent prince. The Chron. Eleg. represents fertile seasons as attendants of his reign, which Winton confirms. If a king makes fertile seasons, it must be by promoting agriculture, and diffusing among his people the blessings of peace. Had he paid more attention to his own interests, and less to those of his subjects, the crown might have remained in his family. But neglecting the prac­tice of war, he fell a martyr to his own virtues. The claim of Duncan to the crown was so new, that Macbeth can hardly be called an usurper.

[Page 198]Simeon of Durham, and Roger Hoveden, tell us, at the year 1050, Rex Scotiae Machetad Romae argentum spargendo distribuit. Sir David Dalrym­ple, in his Annals, ridicules those who thence in­fer that Macbeth went to Rome himself; and says, the passage only implies that he remitted money to Rome. But the plain sense of the words refuses that interpretation; and that Macbeth went to Rome were surely no wonder, considering how very common the practice was about this time. Thorsin, earl of Orkney, went to Rome about 1060, to obtain remission of his crimes. Torf. Orc. p. 65. About 1105 Haco, earl of Orkney, went to Rome and Jerusalem, ib. p. 90. In 854 Kon­gen, king of Powis, went to Rome. Caradoc, p. 29, ed. 1697. In 926 Howel Dha performed the same journey. Ib. Canute, king of England, visited Rome about 1033. Eric, king of Den­mark, travelled on foot to Rome about 1098, and to Jerusalem 1102. Mallet Hist. de Dan. Ingi, king of Norway, went to Jerusalem in the twelfth century. Torf. Norv. vol. III. p. 420. Garcias, king of Navarre, went to Rome about 1030, as the Spanish historians shew. Examples from Irish history may also be adduced; but these may suffice to shew the custom very com­mon: and such being the case, there is no rea­son to wrest the plain sense of the words concern­ing Macbeth. His reign was perfectly tranquil; and his subjects enjoying prosperity and peace, there was no reason against his going to Rome: a pilgrimage now frequent, in spite of the crimes of Theodora and Marozia, who in the preceding century had commanded Rome, and degraded its Popes, their lovers, and bastards, in the eyes of nations. Winton confirms this acceptation, when speaking of Macbeth, VI. 29, he says,

All his tyme was gret plenté,
Habundande bathe on lande and se:
[Page 199]He was in justice richt lauchful,
And til his legis al awfulle.
Quhen Bape was Leo the Nynt in Rome;
As pilgryme to the court he come;
And in his alms he sew silver
Til al pur folk, that had myster.
In al tyme oysit he to wyrk
Profetabilly for haly kyrk.

Leo the ninth ascended the papal chair in 1049. Winton surely had not seen Simeon or Roger, but relates the circumstance of Macbeth's pilgrimage, as he does his amiable character, from some do­mestic monument, preserved in spite of the zeal of our writers for Malcom III. and his descendants. But to gratify these, many childish fables were given concerning Macbeth, representing him as the son of a devil, connected with witches, &c. which Winton likewise details; so that the above praise is most impartial, and bears the signature of truth; as the calumnies on Macbeth are so wild, as to shew that gross falsehood alone could ca­lumniate him. Large quantities of the coin of Canute have been found in Scotland; but scarce any of elder kings; and it is probable that Ca­nute's coin found this new path in Macbeth's time. The recourse of Malcom III. to a foreign force in order to assert his right to the crown, shews that Macbeth's subjects were well satisfied, as his long reign proves of itself.

Roger Hoveden, at the year 1052, says, that Osbern, surnamed Pentecost, and Hugh, his com­panion, surrendered their castles, and, by permis­sion of earl Leofric, passing through his earldom to Scotland, were received by Macbeth king of Scot­land. Leofric was earl of Mercia, and this affair happened during the commotions between Edward king of England, and the famous earl Godwin. Osbern and Hugh were leaders of the Normans, who had come to assist Edward against Godwin, [Page 200]and who, with their leaders, retired into Scot­land, when Edward was forced to disband themc.

From the Saxon Annals, Simeon of Durham, Roger Hoveden, William of Malmsbury, and in short all the English historians of the period, it is certain that in the year 1054, Siward, earl of Northumbria, went with Malcom, heir of Scot­land, against Macbeth, and the battle ensued in which Macbeth was slain. They therefore who place this event in 1057, err against the clearest chronology, of one of the most known events in ancient English history. By the consent of all the same English writers, and many unpublished chro­nicles in the Cotton and Harleian libraries, Siward, earl of Northumbria, died in 1055. So that the matter admits of no doubt. The chronicle of Mal­rose perfectly agrees with the English accounts, and rightly dares the accession of Malcom III. in 1056. Osbern, eldest son of Siward, fell in the battle: and Brompton relates that Siward was forced instantly to return to Northumbria, to sup­press a rebellion, where he died of a disease next year. This Siward possessed all the power of an ancient king of Northumbriad; and was of such valour and fame, that ancient writers almost wan­der into poetry when speaking of him. He, Leo­fric, earl of Mercia, and Godwin, earl of Kent, were powerful as kings; and, had they not ba­lanced each other, the throne of Edward, so much shaken by Godwin, must have fallen. Much fa­ble has attended the death of Macbeth; but all we know with certainty is, that it happened at Lunfanan, Aberdeen shire (Reg. St. And.). The [Page 201]old English writers, in their usual style of usurpation toward Scotland, say, that Siward, by Edward's command, slew Macbeth, and placed Malcom on the throne. But this was not so easily done. Siward was dead before Malcom ascended the throne; and there is room to doubt if Edward at all interfered, Malcom being kinsman of Siward, as shall pre­sently be explained.

94. LULAC, A. C. 1054, reigned four months and a few days, as our old lists, published by Innes, bear. All we know concerning his descent is from one of these lists, which says that he was nepos filii Boide, 'grandson of the son of Boide.' Macbeth's queen was daughter of Bodhe. For­dun calls him consobrinus, or cousin-german of Macbeth; a mother's sister's son, or father's sis­ter's son. But, from the list, he must have been the grandson of Macbeth's queen's brother.e That brother must have been twenty or thirty years older than Gruoch his sister. Lulac is sur­named Fatuus, or the fool, in one of those lists, and his relation to Macbeth was almost none. Yet he keeped the throne four months against Malcom, now left by Siward to manage his own business. Siward's army certainly followed him back to Northumberland, to suppress the re­bellion there: and to the imbecillity and weak claim of Lulac was Malcom totally indebted for the throne. The chiefs and people of Scotland must, of free consent, have preferred his title to that of Lulac; which was far worse, and reduced to nothing by the incapacity of its holder. The time employed shews that deliberation was used before Malcom's right was fully acknowleged; and he was not appointed king till the year 1056, after a deliberative interstice of an year, or an year and a half. In 1055, and 1056, Edward [Page 202]of England was too much occupied with the war against Griffin and Algar, to attend to foreign matters: and there is no room to suspect that he interfered in Malcom's succession; so that the old English writers are as unlucky as usual in their usurpations upon Scotland. To the consent and approbation of the Scotish chiefs and people, Malcom was solely indebted for his dignity, due indeed to his heriditary right. Lulac was slain at Esseg in S [...]rathbogy by Malcom's adherents. Reg. St. And. Chron. Eleg. Both Macbeth and he were buried at Hyona, as well as the legal race. Ib.

95. MALCOM III. 1056. After this our history is clear: but some matters concerning this reign require notice. Sir David Dalrym­ple, following Fordun, says Malcom began his reign on the day of St. Mark, or 25 April, 1057. But Fordun says he was crowned on that day (tho from Icelandic writers it appears that no king of Scotland was crowned, even in the thir­teenth centuryf, and he might be anointed, and proclaimed king the year before, even by For­dun's account. But the fact is, that Fordun, by an erroneous chronology, as above shewn in many places, begins the reign of Macbeth in 1040, and extends his seventeen years to 1057: whereas, not to repeat other errors, we know to a certainty that Macbeth was slain in 1054. This part of the chronicle of Melrose, written in the twelfth century, which i have consulted in the original in the Cotton Library, dates the accession of Malcom, M. LVI. as plain as possible. And no man will prefer the testimony of Fordun, a most weak and fabulous writer, who wrote two whole centuries after, and whose work was interpolated, and not published till 1440, to the cotemporary veracity of the chronicle of Melrose. But another argument annuls all doubt. For Malcom III. was [Page 203]certainly slain near Alwick, 6 June, 1093. Now by ALL our old lists he reigned 37 years, and some months. So that his reign must of course have begun in 1056. As to Fordun's date, it is but one of the many forgeries of that weak writer: and to set his authority against six or seven, more ancient, would be the heighth of absurdity.

Another point is, that Malcom III. is commonly reputed son of Duncan, king of Scotland; but there is room to suspect that he was his grand­son. Florence of Worcesterg and Roger Hoveden, who wrote in the twelfth century, say Malcom III. was son of the king of Cumbria. Duncan was slain in 1037. Malcom is then represented as a man who sled to England for protection. Put his age 20: when he died he was 76. A great age to go to battle at! and yet his great age has to­tally escaped our writers. Nay, David I. youngest son of Malcom III. ascended the throne in 1124, and died 1153. David I. could not be more than 70 when he died; and, if so much, was born in 1083. and Malcom III. was aged 66, when he begot him. All this is strange and suspicious. But if we allow Malcom the grandson of Duncan, all is well: and the authority of the above wri­ters reconciled. Duncan, grandson of Malcom II. was put in possession of Cumberland by him, be­fore his death. Wil. Malms. Malcom II. was up­ward of eighty when he died, as Fordun says. His grandson Duncan may have easily been between thirty and forty when he ascended the throne, and may have assigned Cumberland as usual to a son of his, also named Duncan, and arrived at man's estate. When Duncan the father was slain, this Duncan, called king of Cumbria by Flo­rence and Hoveden, was unmolested by Macbeth; who had no immediate heir, and was content [Page 204]with his other possessions. This Duncan of Cum­bria, from weakness, sickliness, or because of no equal aid, died without being able to assert his claim to Scotland. But his son Malcom, surely not above 24 years of age when he ascended the throne, had his right assisted by Siward his rela­tion, who by degrees had acquired great power. Malcom III. is represented as a young man on his coming to the crown, and on his marriage with Margaret. Moreover Duncan, father of Malcom, was married to a daughter (more likely to a sister) of Siward, as all agree; and this could hardly be Gruoch, who, as Winton says, became wife of Macheth after Duncan's death. The Duan also implies that Duncan, father of Malcom III. was not Duncan king of Scotland, for it gives them different epithets, calling the king Donnchadh ghlain gaoith, 'Doncha the Sweet-breathed;' and Malcom Mee Donnchaidh datha drechvi, 'son of Doncha the Agreeable.' The two Duncans were easily confounded in genealogies: but it is be­lieved the reader will see grounds to infer that Malcom III. was son of Duncan king of Cum­bria, son of Duncan king of Scotland.

CHAPTER III. Extent of the united territories during this period, from 843 till 1056.

THIS subject falls into two parts: I. The loss of Caithness, the Orkneys, and Hebudes II. The acquisitions on the south.

The first part properly belongs to our conside­ration of the Norwegians in Scotland, (Supple­ment, Section II.) where it is shewn that the loss of all the above mentioned possessions happened about the year 880.

The second part, concerning the southern ac­quisitions, is one of the most interesting articles of early Scotish history; and must be considered here.

In Part III. ch. 9. it has been shewn that, in 685, the Piks recovered LOTHIAN, or all the south east part of Scotland from the Forth to the Tweed, after it had been held by the Angli of Northum­bria for about a century. No trace can be found in any old English writer that the Angli ever re­gained Lothian; and Beda expresily says that when he wrote, or in 731, the Piks maintained the acquisition. But the Angli retained the south of Galloway; where Candida Casa was still theirs in Beda's time, as was Malrose on the east. It would seem from Beda that Cuningham, on the west of Galloway, also belonged to Northumbria in his time; and his continuator says that, in 750, Edbert king of Northumbria added Campum Cyil, which appears to be Kyle, to his dominions. Stratclyde remained a petty kingdom till about [Page 206]970, when conquered by the Piks: but in 756 it paid homage to Edbert the Northumbrian, and Ungust the Pikish king.

The later part of the history of Northumbria is obscure: but certain it is that domestic broils, and the arrival of the Danes at the beginning of the ninth century, must have effectually prevented any enlargement of the Northumbrian territory, in the Anglic times. The Danish period of Northum­brian history remains to be considered; and is un­happily yet more obscure than the Anglic. But there is not a shadow of proof that the Danish kingdom of Northumbria 860—953 ever reached beyond the Tweed; far less that the earldom of Northumbria, 953 till 12th cent. exceeded that boundary. It, on the contrary, is evident from all such testimonies as remain, that York was the seat of the Danish kings, and earls of Northumbria; and the parts on the north bank of the Humber their prime domain. Asser and others say, the Danes, 875, settled on the Tine, and thence wasted the Piks and Stratclyde Welsh. Richard of Hexham, who wrote about 1180 in Northum­bria, expressly says, that Northumbria reached from Humber to Tweed; and that Deira extend­ed from Humber to Teise, Bernicia from Teise to Tweed. Roger of Chester tells that Kenneth, ascending the Pikish throne, acquired all the ter­ritory down to the Tweed.

After the failure of the Anglic monarchy of Northumbria, not a trace can be found that either Angli or Danes held any possession in the south of present Scotland. The Piks of Galloway threw off the Anglic yoke, on the failure of that monar­chy; and before 840 we find them mentioned as an independent people. After 685 the Angli lost all the country north of Tweed: and, far from recovering any part, they soon after lost all the territory between Tweed and the Cheviot hills, and Solway frith. Kenneth III. as above stated, [Page 207]burned Dunbar and Melrose, usurpata, which had been 'usurped' by the Angli. This word shews that Lothian, or the south-east of Scotland, be­tween Forth and Tweed, was regarded as a pos­session of the Pikish crown; and a settlement, or two, of the Angli as usurpations. In 934 Athel­stan wasted Scotland even to Dunfeodar and Wer­termore. These names unhappily cannot be ad­justed.

Goodal, in the best chapter of his worka, has shewn that Usher, Carte, Innes, and others, have fallen into gross ertors, by mistaking Scottiswath for Scottiswatre. The former, as Fordun unde­signedly tells us in two places, is Solway frith: the later is perfectly known to be the frith of Forth. Indeed wath, or wade, implies a fordb: while watre means a small sea, or limb of the sea. This error abridged the dominions of Scotland of all the tract between Solway frith and Forth: and is of ancient standing, for Giraldus in his Descrip­tio Albaniae falls into it; and taking Scottiswath for Scottiswatre, makes the Forth the boundary be­tween England and Scotland in his time; which is so notoriously false as to deserve no notice. The same Scottiswath is also called Myreford by old English writers. The Solway sands were passable at low water, and were the path by which William the Conqueror entered Scotland, as did Edward I and others after him. The Abernith where Wil­liam met our Malcom was at the mouth of the river Nith, as Goodal fully shews; and not at Abernethy on the Tay, which was called Aberne­than, not Abernith. These watry sands of Solway were termed Scottiswath, or the Scotish ford, after Cumberland had been yielded to Scotland; and were also very properly termed Myreford, or miry ford. But such is the power of chance that this [Page 206] [...] [Page 207] [...] [Page 208]last term has also given rise to a blunder; and as d and th are often interchanged in Gothic dialects, Mireford sometimes appears Mireforth; and has been interpreted to apply to the river Forth. John of Wallingford mentions the Castrum Puel­larum as at the northern extremity of Northum­bria. This name our writers apply to Edinburgh. It is a mere translation of the name of Dumfries: Dun-Fres; Dun, castellum, urbs; Fru, Fre, virgo nobilis, Icelandic. This was the name given by the Piks, while the Cumri of Cumbria called the same place Abernith, as it stands at the mouth of the Nith.

It is no wonder that these erratic coincidences puzzled, and misled, even early English writers, who generally lived far from Northumbria, and were utter strangers to it. Richard of Hexham, a Northumbrian, therefore deserves more credit than them all put together; and he marks the Tweed as the northern boundary of Northumbria.

Lothian, or the south-east of Scotland, therefore never belonged to the English after the year 685; but was always a Pikish possession. Old English writers agree as to Cumberland being given up by Edmund to Malcom in 945; but as to Lothene they differ widely. Some say Edgar gave it to Kenneth about 975; but they are late writers. Simeon of Durham, an early writer, says, Eadulf Cudel gave it up to the Scots, in terror, about 1020. But before judging of this the reader must discuss what country is meant by Lothene: for names vary much; and there is proof that this Lothene was not present Lothian; nor London, formerly the name of a tract between Lanerkshire and Airshire.

The Saxon Chronicle, 1091, says, 'King Mal­com departed with his army out of Scotland into Lothene in England, and there remained.' Flo­rence of Worcester, relating the same, calls the place Provincia Loidis. In the continuation of the [Page 209]Saxon Chronicle, 1125, a 'J. bishop of Lothene' is mentionedc. John of Wallingford places Lou­thian with Deira, not with Bernicia; and says there were disputes concerning it, between the English and Scotish, even in his time. In 1147 Malcom IV. was forced to surrender to Henry II. 'the city of Carlile, Newcastle, and the county of London.' These instances surely cannot apply to present Lothian, nor London. There is great rea­son to believe that the present county of North­umberland was anciently called Lothene, or Lo­den, before the great name of Northumbria, which anciently included all England north of the Hum­ber, was restricted to that petty county. The cir­cumstances of Lothene's being joined to New­castle, and having a bishop, as they are proofs against Lothene's implying Lothian, remote from Newcastle, and having no bishop till 1633, when Charles I. founded the see of Edinburgh; so they strongly imply that Lothene was no other than present Northumberland. Lindisfarne was a bi­shopric. Mr. Hume, who is by no means disposed to flatter Scotish prejudices, shews that there must have been a Lothen in England; because,

  • '1. The Saxon Chronicle, p. 197, says, that Malcom Ken­mor met William Rufus in Lodene in England.
  • 2. It is agreed by all historians, that Henry II. only reconquered from Scotland the northern counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. See Newbriggs, p. 383; Wykes, p. 30; Hemingford, p. 492. Yet the same coun­try is called by other historians Loidis, comitatus Lodonensis, or some such name. See M. Paris, p. 68; M. West. p. 247. Annal. Waverl. p. 159; and Diceto, p. 531.
  • 3. This last mentioned author, when he speaks of Lothian in Scotland, calls it [Page 210] Loheneis, p. 574, though he had called the Eng. lish territory Loidis.'

Hist. vol. II. notes. Indeed those old English writers who inform us that Mal­com gave up the comitatus Lodonensis d to Henry II. afford full proof that Lothian in Scotland is not meant; for it is perfectly known that this country was never given up, whereas present Northumber­land actually was. There is therefore ground to infer that the whole country, from the Tine and Newcastle up to the Forth, was anciently called Lothene; that name being thus as extensive as that of Galloway, which once extended from Glyde to Solway. But as the name of Galloway gradually diminished, and past south; so that of Lothian, like that of Northumberland, gradually diminish­ed, and passed north: the former being a Scotish term, the later an English; and, as society ad­vanced, and smaller divisions arose, the vague term gradually passed to the extremities. Ptolemy and Richard mark the Ottadeni, or old inhabitants of Lothian, as reaching from Bodotria, or the Forth down to the river Tine, and wall of Gallio. Thus the country, as possessed by one people, might well receive one name. But the Saxon Chronicle, by the special and remarkable term, 'Lothene on England,' Lothian in England, also implies that there was, 'Lothene on Pihtland,' Lothian in Pikland. Else why this peculiar ad­junct in England, for there is no example in that work, or any other monument of English history, [Page 211]where the name of a country is put, with the ad­junct that it was in England; a ridiculous informa­tion, if not a necessary distinction. The present name of Northumberland is quite a late one, and that county itself is omitted in Domesday book, with Cumberland and Westmorelande; all then not belonging to England, but to Scotland. Old Northumberland was chiefly Yorkshire, being the country immediately north of the Humber. This was called Deira; while present Durham, bound­ed by the Teis on the south, formed the chief part of Bernicia, as appears from the best authority, that of Simeon of Durham. The tract from the Tine to the Forth, or between the walls, was in Roman times a vast march, and regarded as one uniform territory; so that its having after but one name was a matter of course. But after the Piks had seized all down to the Tweed, its general name fell into two divisions, Pikish and Anglic, English Lothian and Pikish Lothian; as we say French Netherlands, Austrian Netherlands, Dutch Netherlands. Beda calls Pikish Lothian the pro­vincia Pictorum, of which Trumwin was bishop; and the name of Pentland hills, or Pikland hills, also marks it peculiarly a Pikish possession. When a matter is universally known in their own times, writers never explain it for the sake of posterity; and it is well known what obscurity this practice throws on parts even of Greek and Roman history. Thus the old English writers thought it needless to explain the difference between the English and Pikish Lothian; when all the readers of their own days must have seen at once which was meant. The break in English history also occasions obscu­rity, for William of Malmsbury observes that, from Beda's time to his, that is, from the eighth till [Page 212]the twelfth century, no general writer had arisen; and this period is unfortunately the most obscure, and on which we want most light, as the passage from ancient to modern times. To proceed: in 1018 an Eugenius Calvus rex Lutinensium is men­tioned, as assisting Malcom II. at the battle of Carrum. This is the only time that a king of this people is mentioned; and it is difficult to conceive the meaning of this singular instance. He seems a titular king, whom Malcom supported against the earl of Northumberland, in his claim for the English Lothen, or present Northumberland; but his title was lost with the battle of Carrum, and we read no more of him. Let me only observe further that, by all accounts of the old English writers, Cumberland was given up to Scotland long before Lothene was; and it is impossible to conceive that, when Cumberland was given up, the Scots were not also possessed of the adjacent territory on the north. All accounts imply that Cumberland was then contiguous to the Scotish dominions: and Galloway was an independent country till the twelfth centuryf. It follows that the Scots, when they acquired Cumberland, were possessed of the south-east part of present Scotland down to Solway frith. The Lothian, afterward given up, must of course have been the Lothene on England, or present Northumberland.

But other circumstances remain to be consider­ed. It was rather unfair in the Scotish writers, who assert Lothian as a part of Scotland, to con­ceal the testimony of the Regiam Majestatem on this subject; as, at first glance, it seems to favour the English claim. For certain it is that this work excludes Laodonia and Galwegia, as Sir James Dalrympleg observes, as not parts of Scot­land. [Page 213]In ch. 8. it mentions, as two districts, the Citra Mare Scoticum, and the Ultra in Laodonia. And, even in the reign of David II. 1330—1370, there was a Justiciarius ex parte Boreali, and a Jus­ticiarius Laodoniae h. Lothian being thus put as distinct from Scotland, it may be said that it must of course have been regarded as part of England.

It is answered that, by the same rule, Nor­thumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Westmor­land, must be regarded as part of Scotland, be­cause omitted in Domesday book. Caithness and Sutherland are omitted in the Regiam Majestatem, because subject to the Norwegians: as for the same cause are the Orkneys, Hebudes, Argyle, and Lorn. It mentions the chief towns of the following shires, for law-proceedings; namely, Gowrie, Stormont, Athol, Fife, Strathern, Angus, Mar, Buchan, Ross, and Moray; then adds, Haec sunt loca capitalia Scotiae Comitatuum, per TOTUM REGNUM. The Descriptio Albaniae confirms this extent of Scotland proper, in the twelfth century. But tho the Orkneys, Caithness, Sutherland, are omitted, because subject to the Norwegian earls of Orkney; and the Hebudes, Argyle, and Lorn, because subject to the Norwegian kings, or lords of the Iles; and Galloway, as having its own princes: it follows not that Lothian is omitted as subject to England. In the next chapter it is shewn that the term Scotia was at first yet more confined in North Britain; and it did not extend to Lothian till a late period. But tho the Mare Scoticum, or Frith of Forth, divided Lothian from Scotland proper, yet it was ever after the year 685 regarded as subject to the Pikish or Scotish mo­narchs.

[Page 214]So much for a Lothian in England: and i hope the reader will do me the justice to believe that, had not there been proofs that the Lothian given up to Scotland, was not present Lothian, i would, with the utmost pleasure, have fought for truth against the prejudices of my countrymen. But, upon full examination, the prejudice here appears to be on the other side, and to rest with these weak writers, Carte, and others, who have hither­to condescended to treat English history. When English talents, so long wasted on foreign affairs, are applied to English history, this point, with many others, may be stript of prejudice; and ap­pear in the light that ability lends to truth. It is a matter of the merest curiosity, and of no more im­portance than Stephen's holding his crown of the Pope; so that he must be weak indeed who blends prejudice with it on either side. For my own part, i have peculiarly guarded myself against prejudice in favour of Scotland, tho i am also by no means prejudiced against that country: but had i not met with the above obstacles, i should surely have inferred that the Scotish Lothian was the only one known to, or meant by, old English historians.

As to the Scotish Lothian, it is also known by that name to English writers. Roger Hoveden mentions Dunbar cum adjacentibus terris in Lodo­nies, 'Dunbar with the adjacent lands in Lothian.' Its people are the Lodonenses, who make so great a figura in the famous War of the Standard, 1138. It is very remarkable that the old historians of this war mention as in the army of David king of Scotland, along with Cumbrenses, Nordanum­brenses, Galweienses, Laodunenses, and such large names, the Tevidalenses, or men of Teviotdale. This noted tract is very small, but lying between the English and Scotish Lothian, its people, before the English Lothian was given up to the Scots, had from constant border-war acquired great skill in arms, which they retained to a late period. It [Page 215]is therefore no wonder that they are thus emi­nently distinguished, and specially named; tho they formed a part, and a very small one, of the Lodonenses.

Besides Lothene in England, or present Nor­thumberlandi, the Scotish monarchy also, during this period, acquired CUMBERLAND. This acqui­sition preceded that of Lothene in time, but the train of circumstances required to elucidate the later induced me to consider it first, especially as this of Cumberland is clear and positive. Innes and Carte have indeed confused this plain fact, by mistaking the two kingdoms of Strat­clyde and Cumbria, for one and the same. But as this error has been fully detected in the second part of this work, it is needless to insist on a matter so clear from all the old English writers, as that the Cumberland given up to Scotland, was present Cumberland with Westmoreland. In the Doomsday Book both these counties are omitted, as well as present Northumberland; be­ing not subject to England, but to Scotland. As for the kingdom of Stratclyde, whose capital was Dumbarton, it was palpably subdued by the Scots about 970, after which it is never men­tioned, as formerly explained at great length. Both Cumberland and Lothene were restored by Malcom IV. to Henry II. but it is perfectly known that Scotland had, after that reddition, the very same bounds as now; as the old English historians in passages innumerable fully evince. This fact is so broad and clear, as to render all further arguments on the subject unnecessary.

It is proper to add a few words on the pre­tended homage paid by the kings of Scotland to those of England during this period. The situa­tion [Page 216]of these two kingdoms in the same iland was such as naturally to suggest to the writers of the larger and more powerful an idea of inferiority and dependance in the smaller, which had no neigh­bour to support it. As there was also no other field of glory for England but Scotland, the wars with France being all posterior to the Norman Conquest, those writers who wished to adorn any saintly king with historic fame, generally drew upon the Scotish bank. This practice appears so early as the reign of saint Oswald king of Northumber­land, about the year 640, who is termed Impera­tor totius Britanniae, even by a Dalriadic writer Cuminius; who, sensible of the insignificance of the Dalreudini in Britain, adds Pikland gratis to Oswald's empire. This risible title of a king of Northumberland, during the heptarchy, the other six kingdoms of which, not to speak of Pikland, certainly never acknowleged any such claim, only serves to shew the spirit of these pious authors; who seem to have thought that all hu­man truth was to be sacrificed to sainthood, a matter of faith. For as reason alone is the judge and guardian of truth, and in those ages faith, or blind credulity, was considered as above human reason, it necessarily followed that the more false any miracle or tale was, yet if it concerned a saint, there was the more merit in believing it. Credo quia impossibile est. The source of these mock honours of Saint Oswald is therefore so pal­pable, that it becomes needless to remark, that if the other kings in Britain acknowleged his su­periority, it must have been in his saintly charac­ter, for he fought not one battle against the Piks; or any of the heptarchic kings, except that against Penda king of Mercia, in which Oswald was slain. There is however reason to conclude, as mentioned Part III. ch. 9, that Oswi, king of Northumbria, 658, actually vanquished the Piks, [Page 217]and that they paid tribute to the Northumbrian kings till 685, when Brudi IV. conquered and slew Egfrid.

Such is the only claim of the kingdom of Northumbria upon Pikland: and it deserved mention here, before proceeding to the period, especially under view, from 843 till 1056. The kingdom of Northumbria, which alone could pretend any such miracle as to Pikland, soon after declined before the Pikish power, and be­came at last a prey to the Danes about 843. The Danish kings of Northumbria till 953, and the earls after, certainly were not saints; and accord­ingly we find no claim of theirs upon the homage of North Britain. Let us therefore pass to those of the kings of England.

Old English writers preserve no less than six such.

  • 1. That of Edward the Elder, son of Al­fred the Great, in 924.
  • 2. That Althelstan 934.
  • 3. That of Edred 950.
  • 4. That of Edgar 974.
  • 5. That of Canute 1031.
  • 6. That of Ed­ward the Confessor 1054.

1. The Saxon Chronicle says, that, in 924, Ed­ward the Elder went to Bedecanwillan in Pikland, where he built a strong town on the borders; and the king of Scots honoured him as sovereign, to­gether with the whole Scotish nation. Edward was certainly a great and victorious monarch, and subjected Northumbria for a time: but Constan­tin III. king of Pikland, was certainly not a monarch capable of gratuitous concessions, as his after conduct to Athelstan evinces. As he was himself harrassed by the Danes, and had van­quished Reginald in 923, or just the year before this supposed homage, it might be that he met Ed­ward to form a league against the common enemy. The Chron. Pictorum, tho particular concerning this king's reign, is quite mute as to this inter­view; and the circumstance, that all the Scots [Page 218]joined in the homage, seems sufficient to stamp it as a mere glorious fable.

2. That Athelstan ravaged Scotland in 934 is certain; and it is possible that Constantin paid him some submission, but as to homage for his kingdom we have only the evidence on one side; and certainly no just man would judge, upon hearing only one party. Nay the English writers seem to confute themselves, for they say that in 945, eleven years after this homage, Edmund gave Cumberland to Malcom I. on condition of assisting him in his wars; whereas, had Scotland been under homage to England, its king was surely bound to assist England in war, without so large a present.

3. Edred ravaged Northumberland 950, but as to the gratuitous submission of the Scots it is hard to believe. Even Northumbria was not yet sub­ject to England, but furnished its kings full em­ployment. It is surely then most improbable that, with such a screen between them, the Scots should be such cowards. Their opposite conduct, in the clear part of English history, shews the im­possibility of such eternal dastardly submission. If we credit English writers, no king of England could make war on Northumbria, but the Scotish king paid gratuitous homage. Who can believe this? The jest is carried so far, and repeated so often, that it becomes stale. How comes it that not one king of Scotland was ever cited to ap­pear in England, before his liege lord, to whom appeals lay? But as to this instance, and the three following, the cession of Cumberland to Scotland in 945 by English accounts restricts the homage paid, to be for Cumberland, not for the kingdom. The kings of England paid homage to France, for their possessions in France; but what should be said to a French writer, who would pretend that homage to be for England?

[Page 219]4. Edgar founded no less than 48 religious houses: and the tales of ecclesiastic writers, con­cerning him, are therefore much to be suspected of panegyric. The story of his being rowed in a barge on the Dee, by eight tributary kings, is a palpable monkish legend; and may perhaps be still found to be borrowed from a similar circum­stance in some old romance. From the Saxon Chronicle it is clear that six petty kings met Edgar, to make an alliance, not to pay homage. This will lead any man of candour to suspect that when a king of Scotland entered into a league with England, the monkish writers, strangers to human affairs, always dreamed of submission and homage. The reign of Edgar was quite peaceable; and, stripped of monkish pa­negyric to their patron, was that of a slothful and debauched prince, sunk in pleasures, and in the most contemptible slavery to the clergy. The charter of Oswald's law, in which Edgar asserts his having conquered all even to Norway, with a great part of Ireland, is a gross and notorious instance of monkish slattery; who, in gratitude for their charters, thus set that weak prince's seal to the most absurd falsehoods. The Irish, Scotish, Northern writers hardly even mark Edgar's ex­istance as king of England. The Chronicon Picto­rum represents Kenneth as invading England, in­stead of paying homage. The Annals of Tigher­nach, and of Ulster, barely mark Edgar's death. The Orkneying a Saga knew nothing of him. The power of the Danes had been quite broken before 953, when their kingdom in Northumbria ceased. Edred and Edwi, predecessors of Edgar, were equally free from Danish invasion, so that Edgar's ability is not to be weighed by this circumstance. He was indeed the very first monarch of all Eng­land; and it is no wonder that his amity was courted by the other kings in Britain.

[Page 220]5. Canute in 1031, according to the Saxon Chronicle, went to Scotland; and Malcom king of Scots, and two other kings, Maelbaeth and Jehmarc, became subject to him. But William of Malmsbury says, that Malcom only permitted Duncan, his grandson and heir, who was possessed of Cumberland, to pay homage for that province. This plain account sufficiently refutes the usurpa­tive style of the Saxon Chronicle.

6. Some old English writers say, that in 1054 Siward, earl of Northumbria, put Malcom on the throne of Scotland, by command of Edward king of England. This is false, because Siward died before Malcom came to the throne.

This singular usurpative style concerning Scot­land, is peculiar to the old English writers, who seem thus to avenge the conquests of their own country, by Sweyn, by Canute, by William I. upon poor Scotland. From Beda's time 731, till William of Malmsbury 1150, or at least till the end of the eleventh century, hardly one English writer arosek. When writers re-appeared in Eng­land, they were stung with the degradation of their countrymen, under their Danish and Nor­man conquerors; and naturally wished to relieve their minds, by swelling the glory of the old English kings. Scotland was the only country over which any probable claim could be forged; and they have not spared it. Camden justly ob­serves, that the Saxon Annals never mention any battles lost by the English. Brompton says, Hardeknute held Scotland in constant and peace­able subjectionl. The Saxon Chronicle asserts that William I. subdued Scotland: and that Henry I. 1107 gave leave to Alexander king of Scotland to reign. The notorious falsehood of these instances [Page 221]renders the rest still more suspicious, if it does not stamp them utterly false. How is all this? Scotland was always subdued, always to subdue; always making homage to England, always mak­ing war on England! always subject, yet not a trace of it, but single sentences of English writers, without so much as one permanent fact! Surely human affairs proceed not thus; but if a kingdom be subject to another, fixt and lasting marks al­ways appear. The forged charters of Harding, and others, concerning Scotish homage, have been fully exposed by Rymer and other English antiquaries. But does not the need of such for­geries prove invincibly that the claim itself was all one forgery? As for the gifts of Cumberland, and Lothene or present Northumberland, there is room to suspect them as fabulous as the ho­mage; and to question if any homage was paid for them till the time of Canute. They seem ac­quisitions by conquest: and examples of such gifts are not found in the history of any other country. But as Henry I. gave leave to Alexan­der to reign, such it is likely were those gifts. In the history of Denmark the claim of the Emperor of Germany to the homage of that kingdom oc­curs; and one Danish king was taken prisoner, and forced to pay it. But Germany being sur­rounded with inferior states, its writers had many affairs to attend; and do not harp upon this string always: while poor Scotland was the only country over which English writers could extend their claim. Hence the style of old English wri­ters concerning Scotland is quite peculiar, and full of a bitter usurpation, unknown to any other ancient writers, whose works have ever fallen in my way. Such mock claims are indeed found. Wormiusm says, Frotho, son of Harding, king of Denmark, subdued Germany and Bri­tain. Torfaeus represents the Anglo-saxon kings [Page 222]as tributary to the Danish kings of Northumberland. Regnar Lodbrog subdued Ireland, Pikland, and the Orkneys, and gave them to his friends Si­guard and Rathbartn Geoffrey of Monmouth says, Arthur conquered France, Germany, Norway, &c. &c. &c. Fordun's Gregory the Great con­quered Ireland, and most of England. And of the same kind are the English claims over Scot­land.

CHAPTER IV. Origin of the name SCOTLAND.

THAT the name Scotia, or Scotland, origi­nally belonged to Ireland, and continued to belong to that country, alone, till a late period, begins now to be acknowleged even by the fiercest Scotish writers. This fact clearly appears from the following numerous authorities, while that the names Scoti, Scotia, were ever applied to the present Scots and Scotland, before the reign of Malcom II. or beginning of the eleventh cen­tury, not one authority can be produced.

1. The first mention of the name Piks is by Eumenius the panegyrist, who says, as fully quoted Part III. ch. I. that, before the time of Julius Caesar, Britain, that is, the part of Britain fouth of Forth and Clyde, or Roman Britain, was only invaded by the Piks and Irish, Pictis modo et Hibernis. This was written in the year 296; and the name of Scots was still unknown. For as the Britons, before they knew the indigenal ap­pellation of the Piks, termed them Caledonians; so before they knew the indigenal name of that superior people in Ireland, whose warlike spirit burst upon them, they called them Hiberni, or Irish, from the name of the iland. So in later times the pirates of Scandinavia were all called Normans, before the indigenal names of Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, came to be known. But the name of Scots is first mentioned by Ammia­nus Marcellinus at the year 360, and not as be­longing to most ancient times, as Eumenius men­tions that of Picti; but as present and immediate [Page 222] [...] [Page 223] [...] [Page 224]under that year: In Britanniis cum Scotorum Picto­rumque, gentium ferarum, excursus, &c. Thus, on the very first mention of the name Scotti, it is joined with that of Picti, just as Hiberni had been sixty-four years before by Eumenius. This, compared with the subsequent authorities, affords a clear inference, that, from the very first, Hiberni and Scoti were synonymous; that Ireland was Scotia, and the Irish Scoti. Indeed it is risible to see some of our infatuated writers suppose, that such a small country as Scotland could suffice for two grand nations, the Piks and Scots; while England had but one the Britanni, Gaul but Galli, Spain only Hispani! Do these weak men imagine that the noble iland of Ireland, a country superior in size, and far more in fertility and popu­lation to Scotland, was quite invisible to the Ro­mans: or that by another miracle the inhabitants of a country so very near to Britain, never invaded this iland? Do open your eyes, gentlemen! or at least do not imagine, that, because ye are blind, others must be so. At 364 Ammianus mentions Picti, Saxonesque; et Scotti et Attacotti. At 368, Picti, Attacotti, and Scotti. The former passage no more implies the Scots to have been settled in Britain, than the Saxons. And the Attacotti, or, as shewn above, those Scots who settled in Pik­land, are specially distinguished from the Scotti proper, or those of Ireland.

2. Ethicus the Cosmographer, or whoever wrote the work in his name, belongs to the same pe­riod; and says, Hibernia a Scotorum gentibus coli­tur, 'Ireland is inhabited by the nations of Scots.'

3. Claudian also, about 390, has this line: ‘Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne:’ 'Icy Ireland weeped the slaughtered heaps of Scots.' And again, totam cum Scotus Iernen mo­vit, [Page 225]'when the Scot moves all Ireland.' No rea­der need be told that Iorne is the Greek name of Ireland; and all interpreters, Barthius, Gesner, &c. agree in thisa. Those among us who have dreamed of Strath-Erne, a valley in Scotland, only shew that national prejudice, like that over­weening self-love from which it really springs, is a species of madness. A school-boy would be whipped for such an interpretation; and fo­reigners may perhaps suspect that i am in jest with my Scotish valley known to Claudian: but alas it is too true!

Pudet haec opprobria nobis
Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli.

4. In the next century Orosius has, Hibernia insula inter Britanniam et Hispaniam....a Scoiorum gentibus, colitur. 'Ireland an iland between Bri­tain and inhabited by the Scotish na­tions.' The letters of St. Patrick, published by Usher, also clearly mark the Scoti in Ireland only. The Scots, to whom Patrick was sent, are perfectly known to have been the Irish.

5. In the sixth century Cogitosus; author of the life of St. Brigid, as quoted by Usherb, suffici­ently evinces in different places the Scots to be Irish. Gildas marks the Piks as invading the Britons ab aquilone, 'from the north:' the Scots a circio, 'from the north west.' For they always passed from the north of Ireland, to join the Piks; but no part of present Scotland is on the north-west of Roman Britain, laterly extending to the Clyde.

6. In the seventh age Isidorus is most explicit, Scotia eadem et Hibernia, proxima Britonnia insula; 'Scotia the same as Ireland, an iland very near [Page 226]Britain.' Adomnan, in his life of Columba, con­firms the same thro-out; for Columba sails from Scotia to Britain and Hyona, and from thence to Scotia, &c. &c. &c.

7. In the next Beda, speaking of Hibernia, or Ireland, says, haec Scotorum patria est, 'this is the native country of the Scots.' And in passages innumerable his Scotia is always Ireland, and his Scoti the Irish. Speaking of the Dalreudini, and their king Aidan, he calls them Scotti qui sunt in Britannia, 'the Scots in Britain:' as a special mark of distinction from the Scotti or Irish, a term he puts sometimes absolutely. The Geographus Ravennas says, Hibernia quae, ut dictum est, et Sco­tia appellatur.

8. In the ninth century, Eginhart, in his life of Charlemagne, says Norwegi Hiberniam, Scoto­rum insulam, aggressi, a Scotis in fugam conversi sunt; 'The Norwegians invading Ireland, the iland of the Scots, are put to flight by the Scots.' It is certain therefore that the Irish alone are the Scots of Eginhart; and that the correspondence he mentions between Charlemagne and the reges Scotorum, kings of the Scots, refers solely to Ire­land. That emperor procured learned men from Ireland; but did not probably know even the ex­istence of the Dalreudini, or British Scots. In the same age Rabanus Maurus, bishop of Mentz, says in his Martyrology, Natale Kiliani martyris, et duorum sociorum ejus, qui ab Hibernia, Scotorum in­sula, venientes, &c. Walafrid Strabo, in his life of St. Gallus, also repeatedly shews Ireland to be the Scotia. The monk of Saint Gall, in his history of Charlemagne, also says of the famous Clemens and Albinus, founders of the University of Paris, Contigit duos Scotos de Hibernia, cum mercatoribus Britannis, ad littus Galliae devenire, viros et in sae­cularibus, et in sacris scripturis, incomparabiliter cruditos. 'It happened that two Scots of Ireland came to the French coast, with British merchants; [Page 227]those men were incomparably skilled both in sae­cular and sacred letters? King Alfred's Scotland is always Ireland.

9. In the tenth century Notkerus Balbulus, in his Martyrology, speaking of Columba, V. Id. Jun. has In Scotia, insula Hibernia, depositio S. Columbae, 'In Scotia, the iland Ireland, the placing of the relics of St. Columba, &c.c.

10. In the eleventh century Marianus Scotus, at the year 686, has Sanctus Kilianus Scotus de Hi­bernia insula, &c. 'Saint Kilian a Scot of Ireland.' Hermannus Contractus, in his Chronicle, at the year 812, Classis Danorum Hiberniam invadens a Scotis victa est; 'A fleet of Danes invading Ire­land, is vanquished by the Scots.' Rhegino speak­ing of the same says, Anno Dominicae Incarnationis DCCCXII. Classis Nortmannorum Hiberniam insulam aggressa, commissoque cum Scotis praelio, multi ex eis interfecti, ceteri suga lapsi sunt. A writer of this century published by Du Chesne says, at the year 846, Scothi a Northmannis, per annos plurimos, tri­butarii efficiuntur; 'The Scots are rendered tribu­tary to the Norwegians, for many yearsd.' This passage, it is believed, our hottest writers will not chuse to apply to the present Scots; but to the conquest of the Irish by the Danes and Norwegi­ans at this time. The same historian, at the year 848, Scothi super Northmannos irruentes, auxilio Dei victores, eos e suis finibus propellunt. Unde rex Sco­thorum ad Karolum, pacis et amicitiae gratia, legatos cum muneribus mittit, viam sibi petendi Romam con­cedi [Page 228]deposcens. This was Melachlin king of Ire­land, as Ware justly remarks, who in that year obtained a victory over the Danes; but they soon returned, so that the tribute continued for many years, in spite of this victory. The Annals of Ulster date this victory 847.

Nay, in the twelfth century, St. Bernard in his life of St. Malachy, calls Ireland Scotia, and the Irish Scotti. For he calls Malachy Hibernus; and after says ab [...]ulteriori Scotia usque cucurrit ille ad mortem. And, telling the aversion of the Irish to Malachy's building a chapel of stone at Benchor, when wood had alone been used before, he makes them say, Scoti sumus, non Galli. Giraldus Cam­brensis also, speaking of the Irish, says Dicti sunt et Gaideli, dicti sunt et Scoti.

But that present Scotland was so called, before the eleventh century, there is not one authority whatever.

What do those weak and ignorant bigots, who have fought on the contrary side, produce? No­thing: except the most shameful subterfuge, and falsehood; and the most impudent railing. Fight­ing, as their blindness persuades them, for the honour of their country, they are the bitterest enemies of their country. Fable i have found in the writings of other countries; but opposition to the most open and clear truths, i am sorry to say, i never found, save in the writings of Scotish anti­quists. Their productions are indeed so poor that they never reach foreign notice; but only hu­mour sickly brains at home: else i should tremble for the fame of my country, which has produced men capable of open enmity to truth and reason. This is not patriotism, but the mere madness of self-love; tho if even patriotism were ever opposite to truth and reason, every man of sense and inte­grity would dash it on the ground, before their altars.

[Page 229]Irish writers are certainly prejudiced on the one side; but it is the right one: and Scotish writers on the other; but it is the wrong. Foreigners however must be impartial, and they uniformly give it against the Scotish. Bozius an Italian; Molanus, Miraeus, Canisius, Gretserus, Germans; Sirmond a Frenchman; nay, Major and Buchanan, Scotishmen too learned for such ignorant prejudi­ces; gave it against us, even at the beginning of the controversy. It is perfectly known that the English writers have been uniformly on the Irish side: and in spite of the insinuation of an authore who judges of others by himself, i do believe that these English writers are most impartial, and would have fought for us had we been under the banner of truth. Of late the learned editors of the ancient French historians are clear against us: and in their map for the epoch of Charlemagne mark Ireland as SCOTIA. D'Anville, the greatest of modern geographers, is of the same mind; and as he observes, 'Les Caledoniens ne sont point a de­stinguer des Picti,' 'the Caledonians are not to be distinguished from the Piks;' so he says we find Ireland called Scotia about the fall of the western empire. And in his geography of the middle ages, he puts Ireland as SCOTIA; and says it bore that name long before it passed to present Scotland. The most learned Schoepslin, a German, has also a Dissertation to shew this; and especially marks that Ireland is the Scotia of Eginhart, and other writers of Charlemagne's timef. A dispute indeed, alike disgraceful to the learning and veracity of our antiquists, and supported on their side only by chicanery, and railing; and on the other by nu­merous [Page 230]and clear testimonies, required no penetra­tion, but only a free mind to settle. This fanati­cism of our scriblers for a name, is only a woful proof of the most illiterate and vulgar prejudice. Of the great nations of antiquity the conduct, on this subject, was just the reverse: and to him who considers the vast ΝΟΥΣ, the mental vigour of the Greek and Roman writers, it will not be difficult to decide on which side the defect of science and understanding lies. The Greeks gloried in hav­ing many appellations Pelasgi, Hellenes, Achaii, Danai, &c. &c. nay laterly adopted the Roman term Graeci, without repining. The Romans termed themselves Quirites, Latini, &c.

But let us examine the origin of this mighty Abraxas, of this term Scoti, which has turned the brains of our antiquists, and made our history a mass of fable. Even in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, this redoubtable shibboleth was confined to the part of present Scotland, north of Forth and Clyde. On the south of these rivers the Piks re­tained their old name; and possessed the most fer­tile quarter of Scotland. These facts are clear from all the writers on the War of the Standard, 1138. The Galweienses vel Picti reached from Solway to the frith of Clyde. And in Scotish Lothian from Tweed to Forth was the prime resi­dence of the southern Piks; whence that country is termed Pictorum Provincia, by Beda: and what some writers on the war of the Standard ascribe to the Piks, the honour of leading the Scotish army, Brompton gives to the Lodonenses. Roger of Ches­ter says, Edinburgh is in terra Pictorum, 'in Pik­land;' and the modern name of a range of hills in present Lothian, Pentland hills, marks the Pikish possession, as clearly is Pentland frith or Pictland frith, still so called in the time of James V. Sir David Dalrymple also justly remarks that, in 1216, the name of Scotti is mentioned as very confined. [Page 231]Indeed, even on the north of Forth and Clyde, the Norwegians held Caithness, Sutherland, the Ork­neys, and Hebudes; amounting to another quarter of present Scotland. So that only half of present Scotland was inhabited by people called Scoti, even in the thirteenth century. Nay even of that half the Moravienses, or inhabitants of the large province of Moray, bounded by Spey and Locha­ber, and Athole, on the east and south, and by the Norwegian dominions on the north, were not Scoti, but Picti, down to the thriteenth century, as appears from Fordun and others. And the people of ancient Argyle, or the kingdom of Dalriada, were not Scoti, but Gadeli, as the Chronicon Picto­rum, and the Descriptio Albaniae, shew.

Thus it is certain, from cotemporary records, that in the thirteenth century the name Scoti only belonged to the inhabitants of five provinces of Scotland, Buchan, Angus, Athole, Strathern, Fife: or, in other words, only extended from the Spey and Kinnaird's Head north, to the Forth south; and from Braidalbin west, to the British or Ger­man ocean east. When the reader reflects how it after passed, without conquest, to the rest of Scot­land, it is believed he will be apt to suspect the same true of its first appearance, and that it was as arbitrary first as last.

To trace its first appearance, we must recur to the different inhabitants of that tract, where it be­gan; namely, the Dalreudini and Piks.

The people who came from Ireland and settled in Argyle, called themselves Dalreudini, as Beda expressly tells us. This fact is also clear from Tighernac, and other ancient Irish writers, who term them Dalriadi, and their country Dalriada. Those modern highlanders, who say they never gave themselves this name, because they have not done so lately, only shew what a strange affair a Celtic understanding is. The people of Middle­sex sex have not called themselves Saxons, but Eng­lish, [Page 230] [...] [Page 231] [...] [Page 232]for these eight centuries; and yet nothing is more certain than that they called themselves Saxons down to the tenth century. These people indigenally, and vulgarly, called Dalriadach, were also termed Scoti Britanniae, Scoti in Britannia, by such of their own writers, and others, as used Latin; as for instance Adomnan uses the first ex­pression, Beda the later. Indigenally the Dalriadi also termed themselves Gaclach, as their Irish an­cestors did, being a generic name of the Celts. Thus they are specially termed Gaedeli in the Chronicon Pictorum, and in the Descriptio Albaniae; and the old name of Ard Gael belongs to their chief settlement from its most ancient date. But by no other names were they known, either among themselves, or by others, in ancient times. The modern name they give themselves, of Albanach, anciently belonged to the Piks, as shall presently be shewn; and was assumed by the Dalreudini, after their union with the Piks, as the Burgun­dians, &c. since their coalescence with France are called French; and as the Scots call themselves Britons, since their union with England.

The Piks, as is clear from the writings of king Alfred, the Saxon Chronicle, Witichind, &c. called themselves Pihtar, Pehtar, Peohtar (pro­nounce this last, as in Icelandic, Peuhtar) and in modern language of Scotland, and the north of England, Pehts; by later Icelandic writers they are termed Pets. The Romans unluckily Latinized this name Picti. The Cumraig Britons termed them Phichtiaid. The Irish, who are fond of pa­tronymics, called them, after their first king, Cru­then, by the name of Cruitnich. Their country they termed Tir Cruitnich, The Land of the Cruit­nich, and from the royal residence Fortrin, as the Welch called the king of England king of Lon­don. The Icelanders called it Petland; the Eng­lish Peohtlond; natives Pehtland.

But there can be no question that Albani was an appellation also belonging to the Piks, and in every [Page 233]probability indigenal. Alban was as would seem the name which the Piks gave to Britain, or at least to their part of it; for i can never find it ap­plied to present England, either in ancient or mo­dern times; and they who upon this occasion dream of the Greek name Albion, should be re­ferred to Swift's etymologies. Adomnan indeed translates Drum Alban, Dorsum Britanniae; but it is certain that all Irish and Welch writers confine the name of Alban to the north of Britain. At the same time it is very probable that Alban was the name given by the Cumri to Britain, in gene­ral, as Bret-tan was by the Belgae; and that the Piks finding their country so called by its first in­habitants, retained the appellation. Thus as they were not only Piks, by a peculiar and proper ap­pellation, but also Britons as inhabitants of Bri­tain, so they were Albani, as dwelling in Alban. At the same time we must reflect that this name Albani is common to highlanders, in many coun­tries peopled by Scythae or Goths; as the Albani on Caucasus, those of Macedon, and Italy. This circumstance leads to suspect, that the name is really Gothicg; and was given by the Piks to their own mountainous country. It is possible also that the Belgae of Ireland, fronting the mountains of Wales, called Britain Alban; and that from them the Greek mariners, coming from the south, and first touching at Ireland, might receive it. However this be, there is no ground whatever to infer that the name of Albani was ever, in ancient times, assumed by the Dalreudini, or present Cel­tic highlanders. Adomnan tells us, that Drum Al­ban, or Dorsum Britanniae, as he translates it, lay between th [...] Scots in Britain and the Piks. If [Page 234] Alban be thus translated Britain, or if confined to North Britain, it is equally clear that the Dalreu­dini who held so small a corner, had no claim to the style of Albanach by eminence. On the con­trary, as that appellation is always found among Gothic nations, there is room to infer that Alban and Albani were indigenal terms among the Piks, who gave them to their territory, and to them­selves from situation in it. So the Dalreudini afterward called themselves Albanach, from their situation in Pikland, tho originally Gael. There is no room to deny that the Piks might have a peculiar, and also a territorial appellation, as well as the Dalreudini, Cumri, or other nations in Bri­tain, and in all other countries. The Belgae and Franks were thus Galli: the Celtiberi, Suevi, &c. Hispani. Tighernac palpably implies Albain to be synonymous with Pikland; for at 894 he calls Donal king of Albain, as he does his successors; tho all his predecessors he terms kings of the Piks. The Duan also puts the Cumri as first possessors of Albain, and then the Piks. It certainly follows from this that the Piks, as inhabitants of Alban, were Albani; and from Tighernac it is clear that king of the Piks, and king of Albain, were terms as perfectly synonymous as king of the Scots and king of Scotland. These matters considered, it will appear as ridiculous to infer that, because our highlanders now term themselves Albanach, they were the ancient Albanach; as to infer that be­cause the people of Bretagne now call themselves French, they were the original Franci.

These arguments admit of strong reinforcement. It is allowed by all that Albani and Scotti are syno­nymous, in writers of the eleventhh, twelfth, and [Page 235]thirteenth centuries. Roger Hoveden, 1190, de­scribing the war of the Standard 1138, says Excla­mavitque simul exercitus Scottorum insigne patrium; et ascendit clamor usque in coelum, Albani! Albani! The Duan, and the Descriptio Albaniae, fully con­firm this. Yet, however it may suprize the read­er, it is evident from writers of that time, that the Gadeli, or Gael of Dalriada, or Argyle, are not the Scots of those times, but especially distinguished from them. The Chronicon Pictorum calls the eas­tern inhabitants of Scotland uniformly Scoti; but the western Gaedeli, by a special distinct name. The Descriptio Albaniae says, Montes qui dividunt Scociam ab Arregaithel, 'the mountains which di­vide Scotland from Argyle:' and it after speaks of Argyle as possessed by the Gaeli, or Hibernenses, quite a different people from the Scots. And it shall presently be shewn, that the Scots of the ele­venth century, and of this day, are quite a differ­ent people from the British Scots of Adomnan and Beda. It therefore follows that, as our highlanders were not the Scots of the eleventh and succeeding centuries, so neither were they the Albani. This fact is also evident from the names of places in ancient Buchan, Angus, Athole, Strathern, Fife, or all that region which first bore the modern name of Scotia, for they are Gothic, not Gaelic. And that name Scotia came in place of Albania i, as the [Page 236] Descriptio Albaniae restifies; so that neither the country, nor its inhabitants, received their names from our highland Albanach, who use the Celtic tongue only. For the real Alban was in the east, and possessed by the Piks. The Welch fables, concerning Camber, Locrine, and Albanact, also infer the Piks to have been the Albani, as the Saxons were the Locrini, or Loegr. The Elegiac Chronicle of our kings, written in the 13th cen­tury, also marks Pikland as Albania: ‘Primus in Albania fertur regnasse Kenedus.’ whereas, ‘Primus in Ergadia Fergus rexit tribus annis.’ Thus we find Albany opposed to Argyle; and the former synonymous with Pikland, as the De­scriptio Albaniae says it was first called Albania, then Pictavia. Upon the whole it appears that the Piks called their country Alban, and them­selves Albanr, or Albani; either,

  • 1. from its mountains, as the other Gothic Albani in Asia, Macedon, Italy.
  • 2. Or from their finding it so called by the Cumri, the old inhabitants whom they expelled: or adopting it from their Cumraig neighbours on the south.
  • 3. Or lastly, as taught to assume this name by their Irish and Cumraig churchmen, their only literati.

[Page 237]The names Scoti, and Scotia. Scot and Scot­land, claim next and last consideration. Tho the Dalreudini were, as above-mentioned, termed by writers in Latin Scoti in Britannia, and Scoti Bri­tanniae, yet those inhabitants of Argyle were so few and insignificant, that only Adomnan and Beda mark them by that appellation. From the reign of Aidan, 605, they gradually diminished, as fully shewn above, in power and fame; and after being vanquished by Ungust 739, they became almost unknown in history till this day. Tho ri­diculous fables concerning their conquest of the Piks have been amply exposed before; and no­thing is more certain than that, after Beda 731, they are known to no writer by the name of Scoti or Scots. As for the modern Scots, who are quite a different people of different language (the Gothic), there is no fact more certain in human history than that they did not bear that name, till about the year 1020.

It has been shewn above, from numerous testi­monies invincible, even by those who set all re­gard for truth at defiance, that Ireland was called Scotia, and its ruling people Scoti, from the first appearance of these names, down to the eleventh century. But that present Scotland was called Scotia, or its people Scoti, before the eleventh century, not so much as one single authority can be produced. The people of North Britain ap­pear by the name of Caledonians or Piks, from the time of Tacitus down to the tenth century. Ta­citus, Ptolemy, Dion Cassius, Eumenius, Clau­dian, Gildas, Adomnan, Beda, Nennius, Asser, Tighernae, form a chain of indissoluble autho­rities on this matter: and as their testimonies have been separately quoted in this work, they need not be here repeatedk Nennius, in 858, [Page 238]describes the Piks as quite in the same power and situation as Beda found them. King Alfred, in his paraphrases of Beda, Orosius, &c. would have noted any change had any occurred since Beda's time. Asser, who wrote his life of Alfred in the beginning of the tenth century, tells us that the Danes, 875, preyed on the Piks and Stratclyde-Welch, from their camp in Northumberland. Not one writer before the eleventh century affords the smallest hint of any change in Pikland. The Saxon Chronicle, written in the eleventh or twelfth century, sometimes calls Ireland Scotland, and sometimes gives North Britain the same ap­pellation of Scotland; but laterly. In it is pre­served a poem on the victory of Athelstan over our Constantin 937, and in every appearance written instantly after the event; but there is not a trace in that poem of the names Scot, Scotland, being applied to North Britain. On the contrary it constantly gives them to Ireland. Anlaf, or Olave the Red, king of the Scandinavians in Ire­land, and thence called Scota konungr, 'king of Scots,' in the Icelandic accounts, was the chief party at the battle of Brunenburg. Both Irish and Icelandic accounts agree perfectly in this; and it is remarkable that none of these accounts make the least mention of our Constantin upon this occasion. He seems merely to have lent his own presence; for the Piks, his subjects, had no skill in sea-affairs; and Olave's fleet was, in every appearance, wholly filled with Scandinavians and Scots of Ireland. The Saxon poem of course speaks of Flottan an Sceotta, 'the Scottish mari­ners;' and dwells almost entirely on the Scots or Irish, and Nordmans, or Scandinavians. Constan­tin, [Page 239]it terms Nord Constantinus, 'the Northern Constantin;' but never calls him Scotish, or his men Scots. The poem also says,

Guma Norderna
Ofer scyld scoten.

'The Northern men under their shields with spears.' This expression seems to apply to Con­stantin's subjects, as he is himself called Nord; and in all other places the Scandinavians are called Nordmanna, not Norderna. The North Bri­tons were also remarkable for spears, even from their earliest history. But this is submitted to the reader. Certain it is from this poem, and from the Icelandic accounts, that the name of Scots at this period, 937, belonged solely to the Irish; and they who are the most bigotted on the other side will not insist that in 846 we Scots were sub­jected to the Norwegians, as Du Chesne's histo­rian says; or that in 937 Olave was our king, as the Icelandic writers bear. In the other Icelandic poems, and traditions, relating to events preced­ing the eleventh century, the names Skota and Skotland generally belong to Ireland. Thus in Ragnar's death-song Skotland is Ireland; and in the Ransom of Egil, Eric, a Danish king of Northumbria, is called 'Commander of the Scotish fleet,' because he had commanded that of the Scandinavians in Ireland. Saxo Grammati­cus fabulously says Ragnar Lodbrog subdued Sco­tia and Petia; that is, Ireland, and Pikland or present Scotland. But there not being an Icelandic or Scandinavian piece extant preceding the ele­venth century, save a few poems and traditions, it is no wonder that Scotland generally appears in such late writers, as now accepted; and that many of these writers confound Ireland with Scot­land.

There being thus not one authority for the pre­sent Scots being known by that name, till the [Page 240]eleventh century, none but mere dreamers and romancers can assert the contrary, in despite of plain truth and reason, and every rule of history. But that the name of Scots was used in its pre­sent acceptation in the eleventh century is cer­tain; and they who would make it yet later err on the other side. Turgot, confessor of queen Margaret, wrote her life in the end of the ele­venth century, and calls her husband Malcom III king of Scots. The Saxon Chronicle, apparently written under William Rufus, also accepts Scots as now, toward the end of the work; and applies that name, as usual, to the people after so called, even before its present application. Macbeth is called rex Scotorum in a charter, if genuinel. So is indeed a Malcom, but doubtful if the Second, in the charter of Murtlach, whose very existence is however dubious. Marianus Scotus, who wrote about 1070 calls Ireland Scotia; but at 1034 calls the present Scots, Scoti. On the whole the reign of Malcom II. 1001 till 1031, is the proper aera of this new name; and taking the middle of his reign, it appeared about 1016. In 1150 Ireland and Scotland were known by their present names even in Egyptm.

Having thus adjusted the real date of this name, it remains to trace its origin. Two questions only arise on this subject.

  • 1. If the later Scots, or those of North Britain after 1016, received their name from the Scoti Bri­tanniae, of Adomnan and Beda?
  • 2. If, on the contrary, the later Scoti were quite a different people; and the name proceeded from another cause?

The first question must be answered in the ne­gative; for the Scots of the eleventh century were as different a people from those of Adomnan [Page 241]and Beda, as the Hungarians are from the Huns, or the Marcomanni of Tacitus from the Marco­manni of Rabanus Maurus. The old Scots used the Celtic tongue, and came from Ireland to Dal­riada or Argyle. The later Scots used the Gothic tongue, and came from Scandinavia, being the very same people before called Piks. There was certainly no revolution in North Britain in the time of Malcom II. and yet the name first appears then. The name was at first confined to the mid­dle of the eastern part of Scotland, as above shewn: and as it spred over the rest without revolution, so it is certain it began without revolution. Had it proceeded from Kenneth's bearing the Pikish sceptre, it would have begun then: but, on the contrary, he, and his successors, are called kings of the Piks; then kings of Albany, 894; then kings of the Scots, 1016. Giraldus, or whoever wrote the Descriptio Albanioe, had his information from Andrew bishop of Caithness, and was cer­tainly well informed as to it's then state, 1180. He tells us Albany was called Scotia, CORRUPTE, 'corruptly.' Had the old Scots vanquished the Piks, as fabled, the name was proper, not cor­rupt. The same writer affords clear evidence that the old Scots of Beda did not impart their name to the later Scots; but had on the contrary lost their own, and were not regarded as Scots, when the later name began. For he says, Montes qui dividunt Scociam ab Arregaithel, 'the moun­tains which divide Scotland from Argyle:' and he tells us the people of Argyle were Hybernenses, whereas he gives no hint that the later Scotti were so: but, on the contrary, his special mention that the people of Argyle were Hibernenses, or Irish, sufficiently implies that the later Scoti were not, any more than the Moravienses, Lodonenses, Gal­weienses, who were all afterward called Scots. So also in the Chron. Pictorum the Dalreudini, or Scots of Beda, are called Gadeli, as a special dis­tinction [Page 240] [...] [Page 241] [...] [Page 242]from the Scoti, the name there given to the eastern people or Piks. This shews the radical mistake of our fabulists, who confound the old Scoti with the later; as Olahus, and other Hun­garian fabulists, take the Huns for the Hungarians. Moreover the old English writers on the war of the standard, 1138, mention the Scoti along with the Galweienses, Lodonenses, &c. These Scots were certainly not Highlanders, a people always despised as mere savages by our monarchs; but the people from Forth to Moray, as Sir David Dalrymple observes in his Annals. Their offensive arms were spears, the known weapons of the Low­land Scots, in later times. The Highlanders are called Hibernenses, 1180; and so Barbour, 1375, calls them Erischry, 'Irish;' and our other writers to this day term their language Erse, or Irish. Even in 1180, or the century after the first ap­pearance of the later name of Scots, the High­landers, or old Scots of Beda, are specially distin­guished as a different people from the later Scots; so that it is clear that the later Scots were not so called, because the same identic people with the old Scots of Britain, or even incorporated with them; seeing that the old Scots actually were not called Scots when this name was first given to the later Scots, but, on the contrary, were termed Irish, as a sufficient distinction from the later Scots, who were not Irish. This plain account may occasion a smile at the Scotish and Irish antiquists, who have fought so long about what none of them understood: for as the Scots of Ireland did not proceed from Britain, so the present Scots did not come from Ireland. This discovery was as unexpected by me, as the failure of the Dalriadic line a century before Kenneth; and as i have on a former occasion expressed the contrary of both these points,n before i had [Page 243]fully examined them, i hope every reader will ac­quit me of all prejudice. Indeed the matter is so unimportant, that i can hardly conceive how any prejudice can arise upon it.

The second question is of course answered in the affirmative, namely, that the later, and present Scots, are quite a different people from the Scoti Britanniae of Adomnan and Beda: and their name proceeded not from any conquest, or coalescence with the old Scoti, but from some other cause. This cause in fact marked them not as the same, but as a different people, as above shewn. The name began in North Britain, on the east, between Forth and Moray; while the old Scots of Argyle were regarded as Hibernenses not as Scoti. And the country, where the name first began, had been ever regarded as the prime seat of the Piks, who continued its possessors as the names, and lan­guage, and people of that tract, always were, and are, Gothic. But how came this new name of Scots to be given to a central part of the Piks, around the king's residence? It is answered, just as the name of Scots originally arose in Ireland. The whole little learning of Pikland lay among the Irish clergy; for Ireland, as it supplied Eng­land, and even France, with many clergy, so it supplied almost all the clergy of Pikland. Hyona was indeed the supreme cathedral of Pikland, as Beda tells, and all know: and Hyona was fur­nished with abbots, &c. from Ireland. The Piks, a northern Gothic nation, despised holiness, and the learning then in vogue, as long as their ancestors of Scandinavia; and there is not one Pikish saint or writer on record. This clearly evidences that their clergy, or only literati, must have been Irish. And there is every reason to be­lieve that the name Scoti was given them by their Irish clergy, for one of these two reasons, or both. 1. The Dalreudini, tho originally mixt with Goths, yet from intermarriages in Ireland, [Page 244]and constant intercourse with that kingdom, be­came almost quite Celtic; or at least certainly used the Celtic tongue from the beginning. In that tongue the Scythians or Goths were called Scots, as fully explained above; and as the Celts call themselves by generic names, so they natu­rally gave a generic name to the Piks, who were Scythians or Scots. And thus, as the wild Irish were at first termed Hibernenses, and their Gothic conquerors Scoti, so the wild Highlanders, and their Gothic neighbours, fell into the very same distinctions of Hibernenses and Scoti. 2. But it seems more probable that the Irish church­men did not receive this novelty from the vulgar, but gave rise to it themselves. For discovering from Beda, and others, that the Piks were Scy­thae, and from Nennius, and Irish chronicles, that the name Scythae was synonymous with Scoti, they would naturally give their favorite term to the Piks, as real Scythae or Scoti. Other causes might concur. Picti was but an odd name for a people; and the practice of staining the body was considered as Pagan, and the very memory of it to be abolished. The real word from which this was latinized, Pihtar, or Pehtar, never oc­curred as such; but the second meaning painted was odious in every view Pehts was a harsh word to latinize; tho, had Witichind fallen in the way of these people, perhaps REX PEHI­TORUM might have remained, to the lasting clearness of our history. But Albani was lyable to none of these objections; yet having never been used by Roman writers, as applicable to the Scots, it ob­tained no notice Personal vanity might also in­duce the Irish clergy to give their beloved name Scoti to their Pikish laity. But it was certainly the very worst name that could have been given, as it belonged to a neighbouring country; and the confusion it has introduced into our his­tory is eternal and irremediable. The new Scots [Page 245]were however more properly so, than the old, as they preserved their Scythic or Gothic lan­guage: and the name was so far curious as in Ire­land, and Scotland, it formed an extreme western bound for the Scythic settlements in Europe, as Ancient Scythia on the Euxine did the extreme eastern bound of these settlements. That the name of Scots was given to the Piks, because it was observed that the later were really Scythae, as the former were originally, is not merely a plau­sible conjecture, but actually rests upon an ancient and valuable monument of our history. For the Chronicon Regum Pictorum, whose perfect concord­ance with all the best, and most ancient, English and Irish writers, renders it the most valuable of all our historic fragments, as fully shewn before, has a preface shewing the identity of the Piks, Scythae, Scoti. This Chronicle is certainly one of our most ancient monuments, and written in or before the eleventh century; for, after that time, the new name Scoti had such a pernicious effect, that the history of the Piks became a sacrifice to that of the old Scoti, who had no concern with the new Scoti. The preface to it seems fully to evidence the reasons that led to change the name of Picti for Scoti. It tells that the Picti were so called from staining their bodies; in which, as in other points, it gives the very words of Isidorus, whose etymologies are so risible. The author never reflected that Pihtar, the vulgar name for the Piks, could only be latinized Picti, and that the meaning of the later word was foreign to the question: and that Isidorus never heard of the in­digenal name, but gave at random an etymology, indeed plausible if compared with his others, for his work in this view is a perpetual fund of laughter. The preface then says the Scoti are so called "quasi Sciti, quia a Scythia regione vene­runt." Then the arrival of the Britons is noted, in the words of Nennius, as is that of the Scots or [Page 246]Scythae in Ireland. It is added, Gentes Scitiae albo crine nascuntur, ab assiduis nivibus; et ipsius capilli color genti nomen dedit, et inde dicuntur Al­bani; de quibus originem duxerunt Scotti et Picti. 'The nations of Scythia are born with white hair, because of the perpetual snow; and the colour of their hair gave the name of Albani (White) to the nation, from which the Scots and Piks drew their origin.' This curious passage shews that the Piks were called Albani; and that they and the Scots were reputed of common origin as Scythae. The Chronicle then remarks on the Asiatic Albani, and the Gothi, Gethae, or Scythae, and Daci, and gives a long account of Ancient Scythia on the Euxine, chiefly in the words of Isi­dorus. This preface is very curious, as it shews the then state of learning in Pikland. Isidorus was the favorite author there, as in Ireland, where the etymology of Ibernia from Iberia was first discovered from him; and all the Milesian fables built upon that basis. Perhaps the perver­sion both of Irish, and of Scotish, ancient history springs solely from one foolish book, the Origines of Isidorus. Such are human affairs! I suspect that Isidorus is the sole father of the new name of Scoti given to the Piks; and that the following sen­tence ruined the history of Pikland; Scoti propria lingua nomen habent a picto corpore, eo quod aculeis ferreis cum atramento variarum figurarum stigmate an­notantur. Orig. lib. IX. p. 120, edit. Paris, 1601, fol. 'The Scots are so called in their own lan­guage, from painting their bodies, because they are marked in various figures with iron needles and inkh. After this who could doubt that Scoti and Picti were but different names for the same people? And is it a wonder that the Irish priests gave their favorite name Scoti to the Piks?

CHAPTER V. Manners and Antiquities of this Period from 843 till 1056.

WHAT is said in the former volume, con­cerning the manners and antiquities of the Piks, may be also generally referred to this period. The manners even of the Lowlanders continued very barbarous, as might be expected among a people shut up, in a corner of a remote iland, from the advantages of intercourse with southern and civilized nations. The meek tem­per of Christianity, while it perhaps too much emolliated the manners of southern nations, had the most beneficial effects upon the ferocity of the northern. But nothing can more strongly mark the poverty of Scotland, than the fewness of her episcopal sees, and great churches, pre­ceding the reign of David I. 1124. Abernethy, Dunkeld, and St. Andrews, were founded before 843, as formerly narrated; and it seems remark­able that we find no valid authority for any other religious foundation preceding the year 1056a. Had any such taken place, our old lists could never have been totally silent on the subject.

The manners of the North Britons, at this pe­riod, can only be studied in those of the Scandi­navians, to be found in different Icelandic au­thors; and which we may safely regard as pa­rallel to those of their brethren in Pikland. But [Page 248]so much has been said upon this subject in the former volume, that i shall not enlarge upon it here, but shall content myself with adding a few remarks upon such ancient monuments in Scot­land, as seem peculiar to this period.

Of these the buildings vulgarly called Piks Houses form a remarkable instance. They are of a conic form, and of two kinds. First, the small, which consist of a hall, or large apartment in the middle, with places for beds on the sides, as usual among the Icelanders and other Gothsb. At about the height of twelve feet the wall converges into a conic arch, with a hole in the center, to emit the smoke. Secondly, the large, which have walls thirty or forty feet high as yet remaining, but converge not to a point at the top, tho parts of the wall seem still of the original height.

The first are infallibly the most ancient, and are now only found in the northern extremities of Scotland, where there was no temptation to use their stones for fences, or other civilized purposes. A good description and print of such may be found in Mr. Pennant's third volume. The walls are of prodigious thickness, piled with dry stones, but with considerable art. I am almost tempted to think that Arthur's Oven, a Roman work, fur­nished our rude ancestors with a hint for such buildings, being a similar fabric with a hole in the roof, but of far superior art and neatness. These castles, tho rude and small, were certainly only used by the chiefs, or the rich, while the common people had wooden or turf huts. They, as well as the next, are seldom found on hills; but are generally in glens, and by the sides of waters.

The second, or large castles, are of a construc­tion quite singular. The walls, as they yet re­main, are often from thirty to forty feet high; [Page 249]and the central area of as great diameter. There are two walls; the inner of which rises erect; the outer, generally at the bottom four or five feet distant from the other, gradually verges inward, till it joins. The outer wall has no windows, or holes at all, except a small door. The inner has windows, sometimes large, with stone shelves running across, sometimes very small. Between the walls is a rude staircase, running to the top; and two or three galleries five or six feet high pass above each other all around, between the walls, except where interrupted by the rude stair­case. The middle space formed one great round hall, open at the top; and there is no mark of any floors; as indeed, even in later times, halls were often thirty to forty feet highc. These large castles are more common than the small, and are even numerous in the north of Scotland, and in the Hebudes and Orkneys. Particularly in the vale of Glenelg, near Bernera, on the west of Inverness-shire, there are no less than four. Dun Dornadilla is a remarkable one in that most unknown corner of Scotland, the North West ex­tremity, around the Cape called Hvarf by the Norwegians, and now corruptly Wrath. It seems to have received its name from a female possessord; as for king Dornadilla, he is a non-existence, and of the family of Gargantua. Perhaps indeed the parson of the parish, after Boyce's fables ap­peared, told the people that this must have been a residence of Dornadilla the great hunter; and they preserve this information by pious tradition. But it is foolish to reason upon traditional names, or any thing belonging to tradition; else we might conclude Arthur's Oven to be justly so called.

[Page 250]Mr. King regards these edifices as the rudi­mental forms of Gothic castles. They evidently belong to this period of our history; and were followed by the square tower, such as the castle of Oldwick. The Norman lords, who acquired possessions in Scotland, in the twelfth and thir­teenth centuries, must have introduced the com­plete Norman castle. In the North of Scotland, and the Orkneys, these conic edifices are called Piks Houses. In the Hebudes the same kind of forts, in all respects, are called Danish; and in Scotland the vulgar ascribe many antiquities to the Pehts, in which they had no share. Nothing can indeed be founded on tradition, which is al­ways uncertain, if not always false; and it is even beneath a severe writer once to mention it. There is one circumstance, which strongly indi­cates these forts Norwegian; namely, that they extend over the Orkneys, Hebudes, Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross, and are found in no other part of Scotland. That is, they are found ex­actly in those very parts which were held by the Norwegians. A local invention might take place among the Norwegians in Scotland; and not ex­tend to their other possessions. But, at the same time it must be reflected, that not many of these forts exist even in the north of Scotland, excluding the Orkneys and Hebudes. And if any are found in the east and south, where the Grampians, and other hills, afford glens enough for their erection and preservation, the claim of the Piks must come in. In the Appendix to Mr. Pennant's third volume, p. 453, is mention of the founda­tions of several such circular buildings existing in one spot near Perth. But certainly some must be found as entire in the east and south as in the north, if really Pikish works. As the case stands i must say that they appear to me Norwegian, upon the model of the smaller sort, which [Page 251]seem Pikish, and far more ancient, as above men­tionedf.

A great singularity attending these edifices is, that in Glenelg, on the western extremity of In­verness-shire, opposite to the He of Skey, were no less than four of them, within the extent of one mile. If we suppose them forts of defence garri­soned against an enemy, or residences of chiefs, this proximity is alike puzzling; and contrary to the practice of all ages and countries. If garri­sons, they could neither have been placed so [Page 252]near, nor have stood in glens, the very worst situ­ation. Antiquaries and commentators generally pass over difficult passages, without even a hint; and it is therefore no wonder that no writer on the subject has attempted to explain this. But from the proximity, and sheltered situation of some of these edifices, such would appear winter retreats of the richer class of inhabitants, with their retainers. For we are not to suppose that among the Piks, or Norwegians, Gothic nations, not split into breeds or clans, the case was the same as among the Celts, whose chiefs were kings, and the clan beggars and slaves, without property or possession. Among the ancient Ger­mans arable land belonged to the tribe, and not to individuals, as we learn from Tacitus. And pasture-ground, as the Highlands of Scotland, must have been common to the society of the district; but individuals were wealthy in propor­tion to their herds and flocks. That unique work Islands Landnamabok, or The Book of Icel [...]ndic Origins, being the only one containing a full and minute display of the settlement of a barbaric colony, throws great light on the state of property among the Norwegians, in the ninth century. Individuals had numerous flocks of sheep and of swine, wandering on the mountains, while their few horses and cattle were carefully kept near home, and shut up at night in turf sta­bles adjoining to the house. Many were rich in this primitive wealth; and the poor were free and industrious, and had their voice in the national council, when the wealthy did not forget that they were men. The rich pretended not to be tyrants, but lived in concord and subjection to the laws. It also appears from that work, that the numerous storemen, or rich, had summer resi­dencess, and winter residences: the former on [Page 253]the hills; the later in sheltered glens, and some­times so near each other, as to form little towns. Friendship, family connections, and mutual de­fence and intercourse, naturally occasioned such instances. The mountainous lands being free pasture, there was no room for an estate with a castle, as in later times of fixt and hereditary pro­perty. When the state of society therefore is considered, the propinquity of these castles will not be matter of surprize: and it is observable that they are called Duns in the Highlands, the Gothic word for a Town, the later being a slight alteration of it, as in the Gothic D and T are of­ten interchanged. In Scotland a farm-house with out-houses, or two or three standing near each other, are called towns by the common people to this day.

At Dunrobin, a seat of the earls of Sutherland, one of these Pik's houses, as vulgarly called, has several small ones of the same form communicat­ing with the largeh. These were apparently for more numerous servants and flocks, belonging to the owner. Castle Troddan, Glenelg, has a ruin­ous building fronting the door, and opening to­ward it, surely for flocks or herds; for the door of the large ones is so small, that a horse or cow could not enter; so that adjacent receptacles were necessary for them. This smallness of the door is an usual practice among barbaric nations; per­haps meant for more warmth and security; or perhaps merely an erroneous custom, for in most arts the best plan, tho quite obvious, is seldom lighted on at first.

These buildings are interesting as specimens of the most ancient Gothic castles. Mr. King has considered them in this view; and observes that Coninsburg castle, Yorkshire, the oldest in Eng­land, is a mere improvement of a Pikish dun. [Page 254]But as Yorkshire was in antient Northumbria, the great seat of the Danes, i take Coninsburg to be Danish, and not Saxon, as Mr. King infers.

Another class of monuments, some of which are perhaps as ancient as this period from 843 till 1056, are the engraven obelisques. Saxo tells us, that Regnar Lodbrog, about 840, erected such stones in honour of his victoriesi; and those in Scotland are sometimes ascribed to the Danes. During the disastrous reign of Constantin II. 864 —882, the Danes indeed ravaged in the very vi­tals of Pikland. In 867 Olave wasted Pikland from New Year's Day till 17th March. About 878 the Danes remained a whole year in Pik­land. These events are preserved in the Chron. Pictorum, one of the most valuable records of our genuine history. But these invaders came merely for spoil, as appears from Tighernac; and it is not to be supposed that they would be at the trouble and expence of erecting such artificial mo­numents of their rapine. In England, and espe­cially in Northumberland, these spoilers remained fixt, and yet have left no such monuments. I therefore conclude with Mr. Pennant, that these remains belong to the Piks, the inhabitants of the country. But when Mr. Pennant says, III. 168, that no such stones are found in Scandinavia, without Runic inscriptions, he goes too far; for in the edition of Saxo by Stephanius, p. 173, three stones, Nos. 4, 5, 6, are similar to the Pikish, and without inscriptions: not to name [Page 255]other instances, tho the Northern antiquaries have seldom thought those without inscriptions worth publishing. And indeed the want of letters among the Piks cannot be enough regretted on every occasion of their history. It must also be added, that if these stones had been memorials of enemies, the inhabitants would have eagerly de­stroyed such trophies of their shame.

In Scandinavia such stones are found of as late erection as the fifteenth century; which is evi­denced by their dates, and there is room to infer that those in Scotland are far later than is gene­rally imagined. Upon looking into Mr. Cordi­ner's Antiquities, it will be found that the figures on these obelisques are of the same style and kind with those on some tomb-stone, which he produces, remaining in and near churches known to have been founded in the twelfth century; and which tomb-stones have, like the obelisques, no inscrip­tions. The obelisque near Forres is the most re­markable, and has been published by Mr. Cor­diner with laudable care. Perhaps it was erected by Malcom IV. upon his victories over the Mo­ravians. The common Scotish dress appears, from it, to have been a tunic with skirts, girded round the waist. Trousers or breeches were a luxury among the barbaric Goths, and only used by the chiefs; and it appears, from Mr. Strutt's plates, that even among the common people in England, breeches were not used till after the ele­venth century. The dress of the common Saxons is quite the same with that of the Scots on the obelisques at Forres. The want of inscrip­tions on those monuments is one proof, among many, of the slow progress of letters in Scotland.

As national councils and courts of justice were held in the open air till late times, there is room to infer that some of the stone circles, foolishly called Druidic temples, belong to this period.

PART VI. Ecclesiastic and Literary History.

PART VI. Ecclesiastic and Literary History.

CHAPTER I. Ecclesiastic History.

THE grand intention of this work may be regarded as already fulfilled, in the forgoing pages; which, it is hoped, place our ancient his­tory upon the perpetual basis of ancient authori­ties, or, in other words, of historic truth. What shall be here added in this last Part, and in the Supplement, is rather illustrative, than essential; and shall therefore be more briefly treated, than those radical points, upon which the very exist­ence of our history depends.

[Page 260]In this chapter on our ancient Ecclesiastic His­tory, it is only proposed, in the first place, to offer a few remarks on the conversion of the people of North Britain to christianity; and lastly, to hint at the few events, which can be recovered, in chronologic order.

Baronius expresses great wonder that the con­version of the Scots in Britain should be totally omitted by Beda, and by other ancient writers. But when the simple light of truth is discovered, it throws uniform splendor all around it; and to him who has attended to the forgoing pages, this wonder will totally cease. Beda's Scots in Britain were but the inhabitants of Argyle, a petty dis­trict, and were converted to christianity during their exile in Ireland, from 446 till 503. Their conversion was beneath notice. That of the inha­bitants of North Britain, the Piks, after 1016 called Scots, is sufficiently illustrated by Beda, as its importance required.

But our ignorant dreamers, in a paroxysm of self-love for the Scotish name, and confounding Beda's Scots in Britain with quite a different people, the later and present Scots, contend that Palladius was sent to the Scots in Britain, as Pa­trick was to the Irish. I question if the very ex­istence of the Scots in Britain, that great people in Argyle, was in the least known to the Pope who sent Palladius. The Scots of Ireland, since the heresy of Pelagius, had been well known, and attracted particular attention: but the occasion re­quires a few hints on the conversion of the Irish.

Christianity had made some progress in Ireland, before the mission of Palladius and Patrick, 430 and 432. Nothing can evince this more clearly than the heresy of Pelagius, which as Usher shews, from collation of the best authorities, broke out in 405. Tho Pelagius was a Briton, yet his apostle Celestius, condemned in the Synod of Carthage 412, was a Scotus, or Irishman. Hence St. Je­rome, [Page 261]who lived at this time, calls the heresy of Pelagius pullis Scotorum, 'Scotish potage;' and rails at it as peculiarly Scotish, that is Irish. Some Counsels also admonish against the pultis Scotorum. The reader has seen above, from the consent of all antiquity, that the name Scoti belonged to the Irish alone, till the eleventh century; at which time, by a caprice of chance, it passed to the Piks or present Scots. That Celestius was an Irishman follows of course; and he became so illustrious a propagator of this heresy that, as Augustin in­forms, it's followers were in his time called Celes­tians, not Pelagians. The pultis Scotorum, and similar expressions, indicate that this heresy was not confined to one Scotus, Celestius; but that he had many followers of his own country. At any rate it would be absurd to think that Celestius was the only Scotus, who was a christian; and it is on the contrary fair to conclude that, by means of intercourse with Britain, christianity had made some progress in Ireland, in the fourth century. But as Gildas testifies that even in his time the Britons were much addicted to paganism, such seems to have been the case in Ireland, down to St. Patrick's time at least. And christianity was not received by the kings, till St. Patrick's time, so that it was liable to total expulsion, till in his hands it became regal and universal. He is there­fore deservedly esteemed the apostle of Ireland.

The Pelagian or Celestian heresy had excited great ferment in christendom; and it is no wonder that it drew much attention of the bishop of Rome, now aspiring to pre-eminent power, toward the Scoti or Irish, after whose name it was specially called. Accordingly Pope Celestinus in 429 sent Germanus, a Gallic bishop, to purge Britain of this heresy; and in the same, or next, year sent Palladius, a deacon of the Roman church, to Ire­land, for the same purpose; appointing him bishop of all the Scoti, or Irish, who believed in Christ. [Page 262]Germanus, having performed his commission, re­turned to his own see of Autun in Burgundy. Palladius, after remaining a short time in Ireland, left it; and died in Britain on his return to Rome. If we believe old authors of the life of St. Patrick, Palladius died in Pikland. Others say he was martyred in Ireland: others that he died in the territory of the Britons. The first account, name­ly, that he died in Pikland, is the most singular; but it seems likely that he passed over to Britain, from the north of Ireland, and died in Galloway, held by Piks after 426, as above shewn. But the place and manner of his death is so uncertain, that nothing can be built on it. From Prosper we know that he was sent ad Scotos; and that this name belonged solely to the Irish till 1016, the reader has seen above. As for the Scots of Argyle they were certainly of importance, and deserve to usurp the history of Ireland! yet can nothing be more risible, than the conduct of some of our an­tiquists on this occasion. They contend that the ancient church in Scotland was not subject to Roman bishops, yet contend that Palladius was sent to them! But national phrenzy is capable of any absurdity. It suffices to observe on this sub­ject, that Palladius is quite unknown to the old and genuine monuments of our history. Ninian, Columba, and, in later times, St. Andrew, are the only saintly patrons of our accounts. Not a church was ever dedicated to Palladius in Scot­land; nor is there a trace of him in our history, or tradition: whereas Tighernac who wrote in 1088, and old writers of St. Patrick's life, with other Irish, British, and English old documents, fix his mission to Ireland; where his name was ever revered, and consecrated by churches, and popular tradition.

It would seem that Palladius, educated in the splendor of the Roman por [...]ificate, found Ireland [Page 263]in such a state of barbarism, that he left it in order to acquaint the pope with its almost pagan condi­tion, and to procure assisting missionaries. How­ever this be, after his death, Patrick, a native of Stratclyde, was sent to Ireland in 432, where he met with great success. That Patrick succeeded Palladius in his function, the restimonies of an­cient writers are numerous; and none of us has yet imagined that Patrick was sent to present Scot­land: so that the dreams of our antiquists on this, as on other subjects, not only shew an ignorance gross beyond example, but are also so irrational as to defy reason, while they defy truth.

Another late dream of our antiquists is, that Scotland was converted by eastern missionaries! The cause of this profound idea is that those scriblers, who pretend to treat our antiquities, are so grossly ignorant even in this the eighteenth century, as to confound the disputes between the church of Rome and those of Ireland and Scot­land, concerning the time of keeping Easter, with those between the Roman and Eastern church! In any other country school-boys have more learning; but, in such a night of ignorance, it is no wonder that all objects seem alike.

The difference between the Roman and eastern church concerning Easter, which began about the year 200, lay in this. The churches of Asia ob­served this feast on the fourteenth moon, upon whatsoever day of the week it fell out, being the day on which the Jews offered their paschal lamb. The church of Rome celebrated it on the Sunday following that day, if it chanced not to fall on Sunday; but did not, as the eastern churches had, from perpetual practice and tradition, ever done, celebrate Easter on a week day. Thus the diffe­rence between the Roman and Eastern church only consisted in six days at most; and the only ques­tion was, whether Easter was to be celebrated on [Page 264]the week day on which it fell, or on the Sunday followinga

Very different was the dispute between the Ro­man church, and those of Britain and Ireland, concerning Easter. It began in the sixth century upon this ground. In 532 Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman priest, introduced a great variation into the mode of computing Easter, of which the tech­nical terms would neither instruct nor entertain the reader. Suffice it to say that his rule, adopted by the Roman church, threw the celebration of Easter a whole month further back than before. But Britain and Ireland were as obstinate for their old Easter, as they were lately for the old style; and thus keeped Easter a whole month before the Roman church. Cuminius, who lived at the time, specially mentions this difference of a monthb; and the dispute between the Roman, and the Bri­tish and Irish churches, was not known till Au­gustin the monk was sent to convert the Saxons in 597. Adomnanc tells us that columba about 585 prophesied concerning it. Nothing can be more ridiculous therefore, than to confound such different matters: and the dreams concerning eastern missionaries all fall to the ground of course. Indeed it was absurd to infer such a consequence at any rate; for the Scots or Irish were converted by the British, and the Piks or present Scotish by the Irish and British; so that there was no occasion to go further than to the British, for the variation of Easter. And the British, as we know from Euse­bius, in the time of Constantine I. observed it in the same way as other western nations. There is therefore no occasion to infer that the Britons were converted by eastern missionaries; nor that [Page 265]the Scots or Irish, nor Piks or present Scots were; seeing that the former were in the fourth century perfectly agreed with the Romans, and the later two nations were converted by the former. The variations of the Roman church were of far pos­terior date: and the Eastern church differed from the British, as from the Roman, even at the very first.

Those fables being discussed, it remains to state the truth concerning the conversion of the Piks or present Scots, as narrated by Beda, Lib. III. c. 4. We are there informed that, in the year 565, Columba came from Ireland to convert the northern Piks, or those to the north of the Gram­pian hills. And upon this occasion Beda tells us, that the Piks on the south of those hills had been converted by Ninian long before, multo ante tem­pore. The time when Ninian lived, is easily ad­justed from his life, written by Ailred the famous abbot of Reval, about 1150, or translated from the Saxon, and a copy of which from that in the Bodleian library is now before me. It tells that Ninian, in his return from Rome, visited St. Mar­tin at Tours, &c. Floruit tune temporis beatissimus Martinus, Turonicae civitatis episcopus, cujus vita, miraculis gloriosa, jam ab eruditissimo viro sancto Sul­picio descripta, &c. Beda also informs us that Ninian dedicated the church he built to St. Mar­tin; and an old writer quoted by Usher says, that he did this, after he heard that St. Martin, whom he always much esteemed, had left this life. But St. Martin, as appears from the well known life of him by Sulpicius Severus, and from many other testimonies, flourished from 370 to 398, in which last year he died. The learned and accurate Usher, whose abilities in chronology are now universally acknowledged, fixes the conversion of the southern Piks by Ninian at the year 412.

Our antiquists, who certainly bear the palm of ignorance from all others in Europe, suppose the [Page 266]southern Piks converted by Ninian to have been in Galloway, because Beda says the church and episcopal see of Ninian was at Whithern in Gal­loway. There were no Piks in Galloway, till 426 at soonest. Galloway in Ninian's time was in the province of Valentia; and possessed by Cumraig Britons, and Roman soldiers. Ninian was not a bishop of the Piks, nor was his see among them. He went to convert them after he was bishop; and his church and see were among his country­men the Cumraig Britons. Not to mention his Life by Ailred, Beda sufficiently explains this: praedicante eis verbum Nynia episcopo; and cujus sedem episcopatus ad Candidam Casam, eo quod ibi ecclesiam de lapide, insolito BRITONIBUS more, fecerit. But it is needless to insist on such a blunder. The Piks converted by Ninian were those between the Forth and the Grampian hills, as is clear not only from Beda, but from Adomnan, who represents Columba as keeping always on the north of these hills. Ninian converted the Vecturiones, Columba the Dicaledones, the grand and natural divisions of the Piks, in the time of Ammianus, as fully ex­plained before. Hence Ninian a Cumraig Briton, and Columba an Irishman, are to be regarded as the apostles of the Piks, or present Scots. Let us now proceed to the chronology of a few facts recoverable, in the ancient ecclesiastic history of North Britain.

A. D. 412. Ninian bishop of Candida Casa, or Whithern, in Valentia, converts the Piks between the Forth and Grampian mountains. Beda. The life of Ninian by Ailred is a meagre piece, con­taining very little as to his Pikish mission, and in civil history only mentions one Tudwald a Cum­raig kinglet, in the south of Valentia.

460. Patrick converts the Dalreudini, or old British Scots of Argyle, then exiled into Ireland, as he does the other Irish; and prophesies that Fergus son of Erc shall be a king, and father of kings. Jocelin, &c.

[Page 267]565. Columba converts the northern Piks, and baptizes Brudi II. son of Meilocon. Adomnan, Beda, Chron. Pict. The life of Columba by Adomnan, is very curious and interesting.

580. Kentigern the Stratelyde-Welch saint of Glasgow, flourishes. His life by Jocelin is long and curious.

608. The foundation of the church at Aber­nethy is ascribed to Nethan II. by the Register of St. Andrew's.

715. Ceolfrid writes his famous letter to Ne­than III. Beda. Nethan desires architects to be sent to build a church; Id. perhaps that of Aber­nethy.d

815. Constantin king of the Piks builds the church of Dunkeld. Reg. St. And. Fordun, Win­ton.

827. Ungust II. son of Vergust, founded Kil­remont, afterward called St. Andrews, as the same authors testify. The clergy of St. Andrew's after­ward invented the legend of Regulus, the appari­tion of St. Andrew to Ungust, &c. But the fact is that the same ideas which led the Irish clergy to call the Piks Scots, as Scythae, also made them regard St. Andrew as the apostle of the Piks, be­cause he was the apostle of the Scythae, as ancient writers agree.

842. Brudi VII. is said to have founded the church of Lochleven. Reg. St. And.

849. Kenneth III. transported the reliques of Columba to a new church in Pikland. Chron. Pict.

909. Constantin III. and Kellach bishop of St. Andrews, and all the people, vowed solemnly to observe the laws of the churches and of the gos­pels. Chron. Pict.

[Page 268]990. Kenneth IV. seems to have founded the church of Brechen. Ib.

The succession of abbots of Hyona, and some other trifles concerning this period, may be found in extracts from the Ulster Annals in the Appen­dixe. I cannot find that there were any bishoprics before A. D. 883, to the north of Clyde and Forth. In present Scotland the bishopric of Galloway, or Whithern, is questionless the oldest: next is that of Glasgow, if we admit Kentigern to have been a bishop: next is that of Abercorn or Lothian, while that province was subject to Northumbria 547 to 685. The abbot of Hyona having such supreme power over the Pikish churches, certainly would not allow of any bishop's see, as the title was superior to his own, and could not be controuled by him. Abernethy and Dunkeld were but abbacies, even in the eleventh century, long after St. Andrews was a bishopric. Indeed all our writers, ancient and modern, concur that St. Andrews was the most ancient bishopric, north of Clyde and Forth.

The origin of the bishopric of St. And rews has been handled by many authors. The learned and accurate Ruddiman puts Kellach as the first bishop; and Kellach lived as we know from the Chron. Pict. in the sixth year of Constantin III. or 909. But Tighernac, and the Annals of Ulster, furnish us with a bishop of Pikland much ealier; for at the year 864, they say Tuahal Mac Artgusa, archbishop of Fortren, and abbot of Dun Callen dor­mivit, 'Tuahal son of Artgus, archbishop of Pik­land, and abbot of Dunkeld, died.' This would lead us to suspect that after Hyona was destroyed by the Danes,f, or after its power over the Pikish [Page 269]churches ceased, the abbot of Dunkeld was for a time regarded as supreme of the Pikish church. Certain it is that St. Andrew's had no title to be regarded as supreme church in Pikland, till erec­ted into a bishopric. And there is reason to be­lieve that this happened in the reign of Achy and Grig, 883—894. For Fordun and Winton say that Kellach, the first bishop, lived in the time of Grig, or their Gregory; and this agrees with the Chron. Pict. which mentions him as yet living un­der Constantin III. 909, or fifteen years after the expulsion of Achy and Grig. A singular passage of the Reg. St. And. in the reign of Grig also strengthens this; Et hic primus dedit libertatem ec­clesiae Scoticanae, quae sub servitute erat usque ad illud tempus, ex constitutione et more Pictorum. 'He first gave freedom to the Scotish church, which till that time was in servitude, by the constitution and custom of the Piks.' This surely refers to the subjection of the Pikish churches to Hyona; from which they were delivered, by erecting St. An­drews into a bishopric. Our clergy, in gratitude, gave much fabulous praise to Grig, as was their custom in such cases; and say that he conquered Ireland, and most of England. I cannot help sus­pecting that this subjection of the Pikish churches to Hyona, contributed to render the name of Piks odious to our clergy, and to recommend that of Scots, that they might transfer the old ecclesiastic power of the Scots in Pikland to themselves, as also Scots. For the seminary of Hyona being now destroyed, and Ireland subject to the Scandi­navians enemies of Pikland, such native clergy as now arose, affected the name of Scots so revered by long custom, and so superior in ecclesiastic matters; and at same time naturally hated their [Page 270]old spiritual masters the Irish. Our native clergy, being however distant from the then chief seats of learning, France and Germany, were long so deficient that our kings were glad to have clergy from England; as the examples of Turgot and of Eadmer, both bishops of St. Andrews, may witness. And to this local situation was it owing, that while Ireland and England from proximity to France, and afterward Scandinavia from proxi­mity to Germany, produced many writers, not one arose in Pikland till the thirteenth century, when Michael Scot and others flourished. When this is considered, it is no wonder that our history is be­hind that of every country in Europe.

The other bishops of St. Andrews, the only bishopric in that tract, after 1016 called Scotland proper, as before Albany and Pikland; and hence called simply episcopi in our old fragments; were, after Kellach, Fothad, who was expelled by king Indulf 954—962, Fordun, and died in the time of Odo 962—966. Chron. Pict. The third was Maelbriget, called Malisius by Fordun, who died in Culen's time 966—971. Chron. Pict. The fourth was Kellach II. son of Ferdulaig, who suc­ceeded Maelbriget, ib. and died about 996. The fifth Malis: the sixth Malmer, from 996 to 1031. The seventh Alwin, 1031 to 1035. The eighth Malduin, 1034 to 1061. Except the journey of Macbeth to Rome 1050, there is no reason to be­lieve that the Pikish churches paid any homage to the Roman. Hyona was their Rome till the end of the ninth century; and king Grig, not the Pope, made St. Andrews a bishopric, as above shewn from our old fragments. Even the pil­grimage of Macbeth was merely to Rome as a holy city, as others went pilgrims to Jerusalem. Scotland was too poor for papal rapacity or usur­pation. In 1126 the first legate John of Crema appeared in Scotland; and before that time there is not a trace of any papal power in Scotland.

[Page 271]This chapter shall be closed with a few hints concerning the Culdees. It is well known that a violent dispute was long carried on, by the pres­byterian and episcopal writers, concerning this noted class of men. Selden, Sir James Dalrymple, and other presbyterian writers, would have the Culdees to be a sort of presbyters, strangers to the Roman church, and to episcopacy. Lloyd, Stil­ling fleet and Keith, will have them to have been episcopal. The best account of them yet given, is doubtless that presixt to Keith's Catalogue of Scotish bishops; and from thence it is clear, from ancient charters, that the Culdees, far from being enemies to episcopacy, were the very men who chose the bishops. Doubtless he who expects to find in Scotland matters not to be found in any neighbouring country, only shews his own credu­lity: and that, from the fourth century, every Christian country had its bishops, is too well known to be insisted on. But that these bishops differed very much from the warlike bishops of the ninth, and following centuries, and from the opulent and idle bishops of later times, is as clear.

When St. Martin first brought monks into Eu­rope, about the year 380, their rigid life acquired them high esteem. In a short time the bishops were chiefly chosen from their order: and after­ward, usurping the right of the people, they be­gan to chuse the bishops from among themselves. Hence, in the middle ages, almost every mona­stery had its bishop, almost every bishopric its monastery. Nay the abbot, or chief of the mona­stery, was sometimes esteemed superior in dignity to the bishop; that is in every thing not immedi­ately belonging to the episcopal function. Of this the monastery of Hyona, the seminary of Christi­anity in North Britain, affords a noted instanceg

[Page 272]Hence the abbot of Hyona was in effect primate of Scotland, till the ninth century. When Hyona had been ravaged by the Danes, Dunkeld was the primatial see, till the reign of Grig and Achy, A. D. 883, from which time St. Andrews held that supremacy. But the high rank of the abbots of Dunkeld, one of whom was the father of a royal race of Scotland, and another, Ethelred, the son of Malcom III. sufficiently marks the estima­tion in which that dignity was long held. In Abernethy, Dunkeld, &c. it is reasonable to infer that there were bishops, as well as at Hyona; but being subject to the abbots, they attracted no at­tention.

The Culdees were surely only Irish clergy. At first they seem to have been regular monks, who followed the rule of St. Columba; and generally their societies consisted of twelve and a chiefh, in imitation either of Christ and the apostles; or of Columba and the twelve monks who came with him from Irelandi. In the gradual corruption of the monastic order, they married; and left their Culdeeships to their childrenk: and, after the ha­vock introduced by the Danes, usurped the rank of secular clergy. In short, they were merely cor­rupted monks, such as abounded in all the coun­tries of Europe, till the eleventh century, when the popes were forced to institute canons regular, whom the princes gradually introduced into the chief monasteries, instead of the old depraved monksl. Henry I. brought these canons into England; and soon after we find the Scotish sove­reigns turning out the Culdees, to make way for [Page 273]these canons. The various modern sort of mona­stic names and orders, it is well known, did not begin till the twelfth century.

The Culdees thus united in themselves, the dis­tinctions of monks and of secular clergy; being apparently, from Columba's time to the eleventh century, the only monks and clergy in Scotland; and all Irish, as formerly shewn. At St. Andrew's the Culdees elected the bishops till 1140, and existed there till 1297m: at Dunkeld, Dumblane, and Brechin, they elected the bishops yet later than at St. Andrew's. At the two last they consti­tuted with their prior, the dean and chapter till about A. D. 1240n. It is well known what struggles it cost the popes to reform the monks; and to prevent them and the clergy from marry­ing; even in the southern countries of Europe: and we are not to wonder that in so remote a cor­ner as Scotland, the supposed abuses remained long incorrigible. Till the decree of Gregory VII. 1074, all the clergy might marry, or have concu­bineso; and it was not till a century after, that their opposition was effectually overcome even in Englandp.

CHAPTER II. Literary History.

THIS part of my subject is so extremely con­tracted, that very little can be said upon it. It is a melancholy truth that the Piks did not pro­duce one writer till the thirteenth century; and there is not even a Pikish saint, or churchman, on record. The little learning of North Britain, during this period, was confined to the Stratclyde Welch, and to the Irish clergy. In this chapter therefore, can only be given some hints concern­ing learning among,

  • 1. The Stratclyde Welch;
  • 2. The Irish clergy in Pikland: as also,
  • 3. Rea­sons why learning was unknown among the Piks, or later Scots, even till the thirteenth century.

1. THE STRATCLYDE WELCH. Ninian may be regarded as belonging to them: but, alas! from the want of literature which so long pre­vailed among the Southern Piks, his converts, it is too clear that he was a pious man, but a stranger to letters; else he would never have neglected so essential a part of his mission.

Patrick was born at Nemthur, near Alclud or Dunbarton, now thought to be Old Kirkpatrick, From his own name Patricius, and that of his fa­ther Calphurnius, he appears to have been of Ro­man extract; and he was indeed born about the year 400, when the Romans possessed Valentia. In 432 he went to Ireland; and after converting that whole iland, died about 480. He was cer­tainly a man of extraordinary talents, for the [Page 275]time and country. His first and greatest care was to teach the Irish the use of letters, as the prime mean of making their conversion permanent. Would that he had also been the apostle of the Piks, or that Ninian and Columba had shewn such care! The supreme veneration, in which the Irish always held, and still hold Patrick, is most deserved and just: while it is no wonder that Ninian and Columba were forgotten among us. Two genuine epistles of Patrick are pre­served, and have been published by Ware.

Gildas Albanius, or the saint, was son of a king of Alclyde, and born as Usher collects about 425. He must be carefully distinguished from that Gildas, who wrote the book De excidio Britonum; and who lived a century after. The epithet Albanius marks the present, as a native of Albany or Scotland. Caradoc of Llancarvon, the Welch historian, wrote the life of St. Gildas, who was only remarkable for superior piety, and was no writer.

The only other native of Stratclyde here to be mentioned is Merlinus Caledonius, otherwise called Merlin the Wild. This extraordinary, or per­haps fabulous, personage lived at Alclyde, in the time of king Roderch, and was thus cotemporary with Kentigern, A. D. 570. The other and more famous Merlin, the Magician, lived as appears from Nennius in the time of Vortigern, or more than a century before him of Caledonia. A curi­ous life of Merlin the Wild, written in Latin verse by Geofrey of Monmouth, is extant, and extracts may be found belowz. He appears to [Page 276]have been a melancholy visionary, who by living in the woods, and other singularities, acquired the reputation of a prophet. Fordun, III. 31. has a long tale concerning Kentigern, and Merlin the Wild.

I know not if any fragments of Welch poetry, written in Stratclyde or in Cumbria, remain. But indeed there is great room to question the anti­quity of those ascribed to Taliessin, and others. A man accustomed to exact ideas in antiquarian matters will hardly suppose that pieces unknown to Nennius, Geofrey, Giraldus, Caradoc, should be developed in the eighteenth century. I have known a man of learning imagine that a song written but ten years ago, was four hundred years old. Antiquity is a special science; and tho perhaps the most difficult of any, yet every one pretends to judge of it.

II. THE IRISH CLERGY IN PIKLAND. Columba, the apostle of the Northern Piks, is said to have written one or two pieces extant. But he wanted the talents of Patrick, and did not teach his con­verts the use of letters.

[Page 277] Cuminius, abbot of Hyona, 657, wrote a life of Columba, published by Mabillon and others.

Adomnan, abbot of Hyona, 679, composed a long life of Columba in three books, published by Canisius, from an imperfect copy; for that in the king's library is larger. He also wrote an ac­count of the Holy Places in Judaea, abridged by Beda; but published whole by Mabillon.

Besides these i cannot find any remain written in present Scotland, during the period preceding 1056, except the Chronicon Pictorum. And another short chronicle or two may have been begun, or at any rate the names of the kings preserved in the religious books and records, whence they were afterward digested into short chronicles. But let us now examine the causes of this deplorable de­fect of literature among the Piks.


1. The want of learning, and of talents in the apostles of the Piks, may be regarded as one great cause of this deplorable defect. Ninian and Columba were of confined minds, and of bigotted piety, strangers to secular learning, and to those enlarged ideas which prompted Ulphilas, Patrick, and in later times the apostles of Scandinavia, to impart the use of letters, as the first foundation among their converts. These apostles of the Piks, as appears from their lives, were men lost in gloomy bigotry. Patrick understood the Irish language himself; while Columba was forced to use an interpreter among the Piks, as Adomnan tells: whereas he ought to have studied their lan­guage in the very first place. Bollandus has ob­served that in the Welch and Irish lives of saints, the miracles and visions are so numerous and absurd, and the whole tenor so unlike those of other coun­tries, that he did not know what to think of them. But this was the natural fruit of that strange cre­dulity, and weakness of mind, peculiar to the [Page 278]Celts. The lives of Ninian and of Columba swarm with such puerile miracles, as are really impious, nay blasphemous; while every thing that is rational, wise, and truly virtuous, is forgotten. Such Celtic apostles were not calculated to en­lighten and civilize a nation; and, illiterate themselves, could never impart literature to others.

2. To a late period, the only common clergy in Pikland were Irish, as is clear from there be­ing no Pikish saints or churchmen to be found in history, or in sanctology; from Hyona being the seminary of the Pikish church; and from such fragments of our history as remain, which bear Irish epithets, names, &c. and which were certainly written by clergy, the only literati of the time. The offices of the church were per­formed in Latin; nay the homilies preached in that language, as appears from those of Beda, and others, and as all conversant in ecclesiastic history know. There was of course no necessity for the clergy to learn the Pikish language. Even in England, as appears from Beda, most of the clergy were Irish; and came from Ireland and Hyona to English sees at once, having no necessity to know the common language, Latin alone being necessary. The divine service, and preachings, tho in Latin, it was an office of piety to attend; but scarce one in an audience understood a word, so that they could not in­struct the people. And the Irish clergy, for their own interest, retained the Pikish church to themselves; and never excited Pikish youth to qualify themselves for the church, which they re­garded as their own peculiar portion.

3. As these Celtic clergy were strangers to the liberal sentiments of true wisdom, so they had all that cunning which is the wisdom of folly, and all that selfishness which attends a narrow mind. This is evident from the conduct of Columba, [Page 279]and his successors. The institution of Hyona, an Irish seminary, as supreme church of Pikland, was, and is, without example in ecclesiastic his­tory. The metropolitan church ought to have been established in the heart of Pikland; and, as in other countries, all means should have been used to furnish a native clergy. Instead of which all the churches were in utter subjection to Hyona, a foreign seminary; and their clergy furnished and commissioned from thence. Thus the interest of religion was sacrificed to the meanest avarice and ambition: and Hyona may be regarded as the Rome of Pikland, supporting its own power and interest, by keeping the sub­jects of its church in ignorance. When the church of St. Andrew's was made metropolitan by kings Achy and Grig, at the end of the ninth century, it was long before a native clergy could be formed; and the Irish clergy from su­perior opportunities and learning, and from an­cient veneration and custom, still held the com­mon offices of the church, even down to the twelfth or thirteenth century. Interest, national spirit, and ecclesiastic party, long maintained them; and they were only supplanted by degrees, as the natives from advanced society, and visiting foreign universities, began to acquire learning; and to shake off those bonds of ignorance, in which remote situation, and the selfishness of the Irish clergy, so long held them. Hyona was indeed no longer the seminary; but as the Irish clergy had been settled in the churches of Pik­land, and married among themselves, like the tribe of Levi, the only change was, that there were many Irish seminaries instead of one.

4. The local situation of Pikland was inimical to the learning of its natives. Of the other ex­treme countries of Europe, Scandinavia was only separated by a narrow sea from Germany, a country full of schools, learning, and authors, [Page 280]before Scandinavia was converted. England and Ireland were in the same situation, with respect to France, another learned country. Whereas Pik­land was the most remote corner in Europe; and less known of course than any country in it; not being mentioned by any writers on the con­tinent during the middle ages. The learning of Ireland, such as it was, the Irish clergy, from special motives above explained, did not impart to the Piks. That of England was intercepted by mutual enmity, and by the Danes, who, seizing the North of England, debarred all in­tercourse.

5. Want of commerce was another cause; for a nation cannot be learned without books. Af­ter the Saracens seized Egypt, in the seventh century, manuscripts became extremely scarce, as no papyrus could be had. Paper made of silk, and of cotton, was not invented till the eleventh century: our common paper not till the four­teenth. Parchment had never been common, as it was always dear, and only used on important occasions. The books that swarmed in Greek and Roman times, almost as much as now, were written on papyrus, a grand article of Egyptian commerce. When this failed, books became extremely scarce, and continued so till paper was invented. But while, for want of books, even the learning of Greece, Italy, Germany, France, was at a low ebb; it was no wonder that Pik­land had none at all. England, Ireland, Scandi­navia, were all frequented by foreign merchants; while the remote situation of Pikland, and its want of materials for commerce, rendered it un­visited, and almost unknown.

6. The warlike spirit of the Piks, and conti­nual occasions for its exertion, were inimical to learning. In Ireland, at the time clerical learning flourished there, domestic wars abounded; but the parties reverenced the clergy, who enjoyed [Page 281]quiet among these commotions. Very different was the case in the ninth century, when foreign enemies ravaging Ireland, banished all its learning at once. But Pikland, not being a detached country, like Ireland, but acting on perpetual offence or defence against a foreign foe, was al­most in constant war, or preparation; a state to­tally inimical to learning.

7. The natural poverty of the country pre­cluded learning, as it did other advantages. For learning belongs to ease; and in a poor country and early society conjoined, constant labour must be employed to procure subsistence. Even the church was poor, and had not above three grand establishments, Abernethy, Dunkeld, and St. An­drew's: whereas in Ireland the establishments, from the earliest period, were very numerous, as the fertility of the country invited. Among so few churchmen, it is no wonder that learning was scarce; as the chance was so much smaller than in other countries. Hence, even among the Irish clergy of Pikland, very few had any talents or learning. The whole inhabitants of Pikland did not exceed a million; for they do not exceed that number now, and the population is surely en­creased. The chance of one man of learning arising in that number, at a time when Germany, France, England, produced but one or two, was next to nothing; and it is no wonder that it never took place; but on the contrary a miracle must have happened, if it had.

8. The northern Goths of Scandinavia, of whom the Piks were a branch, were long remark­able for contempt of letters; and regarded them as one of the effeminate pursuits of ease, beneath the notice of warriors. This contempt had a greater effect than indocility could have had; and was radically inimical to learning: for what is despised can never be an object of pursuit. The plain sense of these people was indeed remarkably [Page 282]strong and acute; and it is no wonder that the absurd superstition, and foolish reading, of the clergy, during the darker ages, met utter scorn from their severe wisdom. Ragnar Lodbrog's ex­pression of a mass of weapons, shews the greatest contempt of the then Christian superstition, and its professors. And as they despised the literati of the time, so they scorned letters, and regarded arms as the sole object of pursuit.

9. At the time the Scandinavians began their ravages in Europe, the Irish clergy of Hyona were the sole churchmen in Pikland; and keeped the people in ignorance, as above explained. But those ravages, so inimical to French and English literature, totally extinguished the Irish; so that even the sole fountain, whence clerical learning could have flowed into Pikland, was dried up. And Pikland itself was repeatedly ravaged by the Scandinavians, in the ninth century; which must have checked learning, if any was then be­ginning to bud. The Irish clergy, after this, produced no Cuminius or Adomnan. Nor, till the thirteenth century, was any thing written by these only literati we had; save a few lists of our kings, untinctured with any reading, except that of Nennius and Isidorus. The ravages of the Scandinavians may therefore be regarded as a grand cause, that delayed the commencement of literature in Pikland to a late period: as other causes above-mentioned prevented its taking place before those ravages.

Almost any of these causes may sufficiently ac­count for the very late appearance of learning among the Piks, or present Scots; but when all are jointly considered, it is believed they will be found fully satisfactory.


SUPPLEMENT. The Angles, and the Norwegians.

SECTION I. The Angles.

TO render this work more complete, it is necessary to consider the possessions of the Angles, and those of the Norwegians, in present Scotland. The nations, who in the fifth and sixth centuries settled in present England, were three; the Jutes, who fixed in Kent, the Saxons who held the rest of the south; and the Angles who possessed the country north of the Humber, and some other tracts on the north of the Saxons. The Jutes arrived in 449; the first Saxons in 477; the first Angles in 547. The Jutes were originally in the north of present Jutland, to which they af­terward gave a general name. The Angles were in the south of present Jutland. The Saxons ex­tended from the south of Jutland, to the Rhine. The Jutes and Angles were Scandinavian Goths, and of those who expelled the Cimbri about 110 years before Christ. The Saxons were German Goths.

[Page 286]The Celts of Britain and Ireland called all these three nations by the general name of Saxons; and the Jutes and Angli are termed Saxons by Gildas, Nennius, Tighernach, and other Welch and Irish writers. Beda, on the contrary, who was an Angle of Northumbria, gives them the general name of Angli, which has since prevailed. But by a strict enquirer, the three nations must be considered apart; and not in the confusion of a general name. Hence it will occur, that the Angles who held the north of present England, and especially first set­tled in Northumbria, the oldest Anglic kingdom, are the only nation of the three who could hold possessions in present Scotland.

But a fable must here be discussed. Nennius, who wrote in 858, calls the people who, in 449, came to Kent under Hengist and Horsa, by the general name of Saxons, tho from Beda's express testimony they were Jutes. Among others of the most childish and unchronologic fables Nennius tells cap. 37, that after the marriage of Vortiger and Rowena, or about 453, Hengist prevailed on Vortiger to permit Ohta his son, and Ebissa son of Horsa, to settle in the north near the walls. That they came with forty ships; navigated a­round the Piks; wasted the Orkneys; et occupa­verunt plurimas regiones trans mare Fresicum, i. e. quod inter nos Scotosque est, usque ad confinia Picto­rum; 'and occupied many countries beyond the Fresic sea, or that between us and the Scots, even to the confines of the Piks.'

This tale of Nennius fell into the hands of William of Malmsbury*, a respectable historian; but, as he wrote about 1150, he is yet a worse authority than Nennius for so remote an event. Malmsbury says, Lib. I. c. 1. 'Hengist, abusing the king's imprudence, persuaded him to call his brother and son, brave men, from Germany; [Page 287]that, as he defended the country on the east, so they might bridle the Scots on the north. So the king conniving, they, after sailing around Britain, went to the Orkneys; and involving these nations in the same calamity with the Piks and Scots, they then and after settled in the northern part of the iland now called Northumbria. Yet none there used the royal badge, or name, till Ida, from whom the lineage of Northumbrian kings grew. But of this below.' Accordingly c. 3. he proceeds, 'We have above said in few words, and now repeat, that Hengist, having confirmed his kingdom in Kent, sent his brother Otha, and son Ebusa, men of bold and tried experience, to oc­cupy the northern parts of Britain. They pro­ceeding, as commanded, had a fortune agreeable to their endeavours. For fighting often with the provincials, and defeating those who resisted, they allured the rest by receiving their fidelity in quiet. Tho they thus gained some power by their own arts, and the favour of their subjects, yet they as­sumed not the style of kings, nor did their first successors. For a hundred years all but one, the Northumbrian leaders, content with common dress, lived private, under the dominion of the kings of Kent. But in the year 547, and 60 after the death of Hengist, the dukedom was changed to a king­dom; and Ida reigned there first: but whether he seized the kingdom, or was elected, is unknown.'

Selden in his Titles of Honour, Lib. II. c. 5. tells us that the dignity of Ealdorman, or Earl, was both feudal and hereditary, from the very first arrival of the Saxons; and quotes the above last passage of Malmsbury to confirm it. Selden knew more of Syriac and Arabic, than of the history of his country, or antiquities of the middle ages; and tho learned in Syrian mythology, was in the history of his country, and middle antiquities, a mere dabler. Indeed had he paid due attention to the later, he could have found no time to at­tend [Page 286] [...] [Page 287] [...] [Page 288]to eastern learning. The account of Malms­bury, which he founds on, is a mere fable grafted on a fable of Nennius, and confutes itself. The sailing around Britain; the invasion of the Ork­neys, in order to obtain a settlement in Northum­bria; the title of dukes and dukedom; the feudal subjection of Northumbria, a country four times the size of the kingdom of Kent; the hereditary succession of dukes, a matter unknown then ex­cept of kings; the ignorance concerning Ida, who, as we know from Beda, and the Saxon Chronicle, was the very first leader of the Angles to Britain; all these circumstances brand this ac­count as a gross and absurd fiction. And as Beda, the Saxon Chronicle, Ethelwerd, Florence of Worcester, or all the writers preceding Malms­bury, except Nennius only, know nothing of this colony; it is clear that Malmsbury's testimony on so remote an event amounts to nothing. But Nennius deserves examination.

The work of Nennius and Samuel is deservedly considered as the weakest, that ever bore the name of history. Its fables are so childish and gro­tesque, as to disgrace the human mind. Yet weak as it is, it has not reached us in its original state, but is full of corruptions and interpolations. No man therefore of the smallest reflection would found an historic fact on the sole testimony of such a work. But Nennius is palpably the sole autho­rity of William of Malmsbury. It is remarkable that at the end of Nennius, we find genealogies of Northumbrian kings, confessedly not by Nennius, but by some Northumbrian writer. And it seems probable that this account of Ohta and Ebisa is interpolated by the same Northumbrian hand, in order to raise the antiquity of that settlement, to a par with the earliest of the others. But allowing the passage to be of Nennius or Samuel, their work is so grossly fabulous, that its testimony can­not be weighed against Gildas and Beda, who are [Page 289]quite silent as to this memorable event; nor even against later, but authentic writers, the Saxon Chronicler, Ethelwerd, Florence of Worcester. The passage of Nennius is unintelligible; for the Mare Fresicum a is not mentioned by any other writer, but is quite unknown. It cannot be the frith of Forth, because it is clear, from Beda, that the Jutes or Saxons possessed no tract beyond that aestuary; nor could Nennius have added 'even to the confines of the Piks,' for they held all down to the wall of Severus after 426, as above shewn from Beda and others. It cannot be Solway frith, for it was not between the Welch and Scots, as Nennius says; nor did Beda know of any Jutes or Saxons in Galloway. The Scoti of Nennius are infallibly the Irish; and the Mare-Fresicum, must be that between England and Ireland, anciently called Vergivium. The Welch have no V, but always use F for it: and i doubt not but some transcriber has put Fresicum for Fergicum. This sea not only passes between Ireland and Wales, inter nos Scotosque, but forms a vast bay between Wales and the north of England, so that a settle­ment on the south of the wall of Gallio, would be trans mare Fresicum, respecting Wales. This is clearly the meaning of Nennius, as he also says that the regions demanded by Hengist for his son and nephew were, juxta murum qui vocatur Gual. But it is needless to explain the meaning of a fable, for such this whole story certainly is, for the following reasons.

  • 1. Gildas, the most ancient British writer, knew nothing of this settlement.
  • 2. Beda not only knew nothing of it, but is a decisive witness against it; for tho living in Nor­thumbria, and particular as to its history, he men­tions no Jutes there, nor Saxons; but on the con­trary tells us, I. 15. that the people of Northum­bria [Page 290]were Angles, and those of Kent Jutes.
  • 3. Nennius and Samuel were posterior to these two.
  • 4. Their work is full of monstrous fables.
  • 5. It is corrupt and interpolated beyond example.
  • 6. Later authentic writers, the Saxon Chronicle, Ethelwerd, Florence of Worcester, know nothing of this settlement; and a posterior author Malms­bury only copies, and adds to, Nennius.
  • 7. This is the only settlement which left not a trace be­hind it, insomuch that Mr. Gibbon says, that it must have been soon cut offb; but in fact it never existed.
  • 8. The account of Malmsbury is absurd, and self-contradictory, as above shewn, nay im­possible, as it is incongruous with the manners of the times; and Selden confesses he could find no other example of feudal and hereditary leaders; and as it contradicts common sense to suppose that Northumbria, a country four times as large as the Kentish kingdom, should be a mere earl­dom dependent of it.
  • 9. The Saxon Chronicle tells us in express terms, that Ida arrived in Bri­tain, with his people the Angles, in 40 ships, only the year he became king 547; so that he had no connection with those imaginary Dukes, as Malmsbury supposes.

This fable overturned, little remains for this section. The Angles were of Scandinavian ex­tract, but had seized on the south of present Jutland; whence, in 547, the first colony of them came to Britain under Ida, a great and va­liant leader. The Saxon Chronicle says they came in XL ships, John of Wallingford in LX. This colony could not exceed 10,000 or 12,000; and it conquered and settled among the Piks, who, as formerly shewn, held now all the tract down to the Humber. Ida seized on the north part of Northumbria, and founded the kingdom of Bernicia; reaching in his reign, or soon after, [Page 291]from Teise to Forth. The kingdom of Deira, or present Yorkshire, was founded by Ella, also an Anglic prince in 559; but only lasted forty years, when Adelfrid king of Bernicia conquered it, and erected all Northumbria into one king­dom; being the most important and famous of the heptarchy. Beda, and the other literati of the heptarchy, were all of Northumbria; and yet its history is obscure.

In 685 Egfrid, king of Northumbria, ravag­ing Pikland, was defeated, and slain by king Brudi, son of Bili; upon which the Piks reco­vered dominion of the south east of present Scot­land, down to the Tweed. Trumwin, Anglic bishop of the Piks of Lothian, was forced to leave Abercorn and fly. After this, as Beda says, the Northumbrian power gradually declined till his time, 731, nay after, till the extinction of the Anglic kingdom about 840. Till this last event however the Angles retained all the country south of Tweed, from its mouth to its fountain, and so in a line to the Irish sea. Melros and Whithern, the south of Galloway, and perhaps Cuningham and Kyle, remained theirs, till the fall of the Northumbrian kingdom. About 850, Kenneth, king of the Piks, burned Melrose, as an usurpa­tion on his states; and about the same time the Piks seized on the Anglic possessions in Gal­loway. Baldulf, 790,* was the last Anglic bishop of Whithern; which had no more till 1154. Melrose remained in ruins till 1136, when re­founded by David I. The Chronicle of Melros was written in that, and next century; the part after Beda being a mere extract from Turgot, Florence of Worcester, the Saxon Chronicle, and other English writers; there being no Scotish his­torians to copy after, and the monks being Eng­lish Cistertians from Reval, and strangers to Scotish affairs.

[Page 292]Thus in the beginning of the ninth century, the Angles lost all ground in present Scotland. The population was Pikish; and the Piks only recovered the dominion, not the possession, as fully shewn before. The Angles who ruled in Northumbria, being the men at arms, were mostly cut off by the Danes; while the common inha­bitants remained: and there is room to question if 10,000 real Angli were left in England, in the tenth century. It is remarkable that English writers of the twelfth century mention the Angli as barbarousc; and this singularity seems to have sprung from the barbarity of the Piks of Northum­bria, compared to their southern brethren, who had been polished by the Romans, and communi­cated their arts to the Saxon conquerors.

SECTION II. The Norwegians. History of the Iles.

A Great part of the Pikish dominions was seized by the Norwegians before the year 1056, a circumstance which entitles them to a place in this work. These Norwegian acquisi­tions consisting of the Orkneys and part of the north of Pikland, and the Hebudes with part of the west, this section falls of course into two arti­cles. But as our historians, with their usual ig­norance, follow the dreams of Fordun, and sup­pose both the Orkneys and Hebudes to have been only yielded to Magnus king of Norway, by Do­nald Ban in 1099, it becomes necessary to establish the fundamental facts in the first place.

Concerning the cession of the Orkneys in 1099, even our own writers hesitate; and Buchanan restricts that cession to the insuloe occidentales, 'western iles,' or Hebudes. Simeon of Durham says, that in 1098 Magnus seized the Orkneys. But this acquisition of Magnus is quite misun­derstood by our writers. He did not make any conquest from the Scots, but merely forced to his homage the Norwegian lords; who, more than two centuries before, had seized on the Ork­neys and Hebudes, and assumed independency. This essential fact is so deeply rooted in Scandi­navian history, that the testimony of so late a writer as Fordun can never shake it. Icelandic writers, from the eleventh century downward, afford such simple and unbiassed evidence, that the Norwegians possessed the Orkneys and He­budes, [Page 294]from the time of Harold Harfagre, that to reject their credit, would be to violate every law of history.

As to the Orkneys, Torfaeus, a writer of the most laudable industry, affords full illustration, in the thin folio volume he has published on their history. It is evident however that he has ante­dated the reign of Harold Harfagre about thirty years. For by his account Harold conquered the provincial kings of Norway, and assumed the sole government in 875, yet reigned till 933, that is 58 years, besides his provincial reign! Tor­faeus was a very bad chronologer; and it is evident that Harold must have become sole king of Nor­way about, or after, the year 900. And by the Orkneyinga Saga, and other accounts, it was Harold Harfagre that seized on the Orkneys and on the Hebudes, whereas Torfaeus dates this event in 880. But if it happend during the reign of Harold Harfagre, it could not take place till about 910. The Scandinavian chronology preceeding the year 900, when the real history of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, begins, is in­deed very fallacious; and the reigns of kings ridi­culously extended.

But the Icelandic accounts bear that before Harold subdued the Orkneys and Hebudes, they had become receptables of Norwegian pirates, who had often ravaged his territories; and that he made expeditions against them in revenge. And from more certain records of British, Irish, and French history, it is well known that the Normans or Norwegians began, in the end of the eighth century, to ravage Ireland. In 801 they burned the church at Hyona; and 805 slew many of the monks. In 838 they invaded Pik­land: and during that century often ravaged it. Particularly the reign of Constantin II. 864 to 882 was most calamitous by their invasions, and almost total conquest of the country; and it is [Page 295]during this reign that i incline to fix the settle­ment of the Norwegians in the Orkneys and He­budes. But even from the beginning of that century, these iles were more in the Norwegian than in the Pikish possession; being the first re­ceptacles of those pirates, who from them chiefly carried on their ravages into Ireland and Pikland. Even in 865 the Annals of Ulster mention Nor­wegians of Ireland and of Albain or Pikland; so that they must have held a part of Pikland by this time. And from this period the Hebudes are called Inch-Gall, or Iles of Foreigners, by Irish writers. Nor is there a single hint in our frag­ments that the Orkneys, or the Hebudes, were at all subject to the kings of the united Piks and Dalriads, who had no fleet to attack the Scandi­navians; and could of course neither defend those ilands, nor resume them.

Such being the case, we may safely say that from 850, at least, the Orkneys and Hebudes were held by Norwegian pirates, till about 910 when Harold Harfagre subdued them, and ap­pointed Earls; and a regular government and habitation followed. As after 900 the Scandi­navian history becomes clear and authentic, the names and succession, and many actions of the earls of Orkney, are perfectly preserved. And that the Hebudes also were possest by the Norwe­gians, by that time, if not before, is also authen­ticated from the most ancient records of their history; while we have not one hint to shew that they belonged to Pikland. It is needless there­fore to say that that our writers betray gross igno­rance when they imagine the Orkneys and He­budes to have belonged to Scotland, till 1099. They have only the testimony of Fordun, a writer of the end of the fourteenth century; while against them are twenty or thirty writers preceding that time. The Chronicon Manniae is also clear against them, seeing it begins with Godred king of Mann [Page 296]and the Hebudes in 1066. The records of Mann are said to be still preserved among the episcopal archives at Drontheim in Norway. Mr. Sache­verel informs us that in 960 Guttred was king of Maun and the Hebudes: and after him Reginald, Olave, Olan, Fingal, then Godred 1060. But the expeditions of Harold Harfagre against the Norwegian pirates of Shetland, the Orkneys, and Hebudes; and his establishment of regular go­vernment in the two later, are confirmed by the whole of Scandinavian history. Among a cloud of other authorities are Thiodolf the Scald or Poet of Harold Harfagre, whose verses are preserved by Snorro; Snorro, who gives a particular ac­count of these expeditions; the Landnama book of Iceland, which contains the names and fami­lies of many Norwegians, who went from the Hebudes to settle in Iceland, in the tenth century; the Codex Flateyensis, one of the most ancient and authentic records of Scandinavian history; the Orkneying a Saga; Niaga Saga: and the other Icelandic monuments. Aimoinus and Robertus de Monte, two ancient foreign writers quoted by Torfaeus, avouch that the Orkneys, and north of Scotland and the Hebudes, were subjected to Norwaya, before the time of Harold Harfagre.

Such being the case, it is believed no doubt can remain on this radical fact, of the early sub­jection of the Orkneys and Hebudes to the Nor­wegians: and a few hints shall now be given on the history of these iles. The reader has already seen that the idea he is to form of the Orkneys, during this period, is that of a Norwegian Earl­dom; and of the Hebudes, that of a Norwegian Kingdom.

1. The Orkneys.

The Piks, in their progress from Scandina­via, seem to have entirely neglected the Orkneys, as Solinus, who wrote about the year 240, says they were desert in his time. The very name is according to Torfaeus derived from Ork, a de­sert. But after the Pikish tribes were united into one monarchy, and extensive power, about the year 400, the Orkneys were peopled by them. This appears from an authentic record of Tho­mas bishop of the Orkneys, dated 1403b, in which we are told, that when the Norwegians conquered the Orkneys, they found them posses­sed, duabus nationibus, scilicet Peti et Pape, 'by two nations the Pets and Papas.' The first of these nations was palpably the Piks, called Pets by the Scandinavians, as Saxo's Petia, or Pik­land, and the name Petland fiord for Pikland frith, in Icelandic writings, may witness. The Papas, by the usual confusion of long tradition here called a nation, were clearly the Irish papas or priests, long the sole clergy in the Pikish do­mains; and who, speaking a different language from the Piks, were by the Norwegian settlers, regarded not as a distinct profession only, but as remains of a different nation. Thus Arius Frodic, who wrote about 1070, tells us that the Norwe­gians, who colonized Iceland, found there Irish papas, who were driven out, but left their Irish books, baecr Irscar, behind them. Papey, one of the Orkneys, in all likelihood, derives its name from being a chief residence of the Papas.

[Page 298]Wallace also tells, that by Orcadian tradition, the Pechts were the first inhabitants; and many circular buildings in the Orkneys are called Pechts Houses. Those Piks who possessed the Orkneys, from remote and distinct situation, used to set up kinglets of their own, and affect independency. About 590, as appears from Adomnan's life of Columba, there was a regulus Orcadum, or king­let of the Orkneys, at the residence of Brudi II. the Pikish king. In 681 the Orkneys having again rebelled, were wasted by Brudi IV. as we learn from Tighernach and the Annals of Ulster.

In the ninth century they were seized by Nor­wegian pirates, as above explained. About 910 Harold Harfagre, king of Norway, irritated by the incursions of those pirates on his kingdom, proceeded against them; and subduing them, ap­pointed earls, and regular government in the Orkneys. Harold offered Rognwald the earldom, but that chief was in such favour with the king, and so extremely opulent in great possessions in Norway, that he entreated Harold to give the investiture to Sigurd his brother, which was done. This Sigurd the first earl is called Eystein­son, or the Elder, to distinguish him from the se­cond Sigurd, surnamed the Gross, who fell at Clontarf 1014. The Orcadian history after this may be found in Torfaeus; and it is sufficiently clear and exact, if we except the fable of a Kalius, king of Scotland, at the time Duncan reigned there. But this one fable, grounded on old bal­lads only, does not injure the rest; for if we reject ancient history, because one or two fables have crept in, what history could stand? A list of the earls of Orkney may be found in our Appendix. It shall only be observed here, that the Norwegi­ans in the Orkneys were converted to Christianity about 980. That the Norwegian earls continued till about 1330, when they failed in the person of [Page 299]Magnus*: and the Orkneys and Caithness fell to Malis earl of Strathern, the next heir. Malis had two daughters, one married to Weland de Ard who had Caithness, and their son Alexander de Ard sold that county to Robert II. king of Scotland. The other was married to William Sinclair, lord Sinclair, in whose family the Ork­neys long remained. Malcom II. gave Thorfin 1030—1064 investiture of the Orkneys. But in 1098 Magnus Barefoot king of Norway, accord­ing to Simeon of Durham, conquered the Ork­neys. And Icelandic accounts bear, that he de­posed the earls Paul and Erland, and gave the Orkneys to his own son Sigurd. But in 1103 Magnus being slain in Ireland, Sigurd went to Norway to assume the kingdom; and Magnus, son of Erland the late Earl, came from Scotland, and became Earl. After which there is no hint that the Earls were subject to Norway; but they were independent. In 1320 Magnus earl of Ork­ney signs the famous letter to the Pope, along with the other Scotish peers.

This earldom, besides the Orkneys, comprized a great part of the north of Scotland. The Norwegian accounts exaggerate in their own fa­vour, as usual in all countries. Sigurd the first earl, 920, is said to have subdued Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, and Moray. It seems certain however that the Moravienses were the furthest people, on the north-east, who acknowleged the Scotish king; and even they were often in arms against him. Thus the Norwegians held all down to Murray Frith on the east. On the west they seem to have held all present Ross-shire. Caithness and Sutherland belonged to the earl­dom of Orkney, as all grant: and Sutherland [Page 300]took its name from its southern situation in re­spect to Caithness and the Orkneys. As to Ross, it can only be said that the Icelandic accounts bear, that it belonged to that earldom, but that the Descriptio Albaniae regards Ross and Moray as belonging to Scotland. Ross is however so moun­tainous and barren a district, that it seems to have been neglected by all parties, and left to the Wild Irish of Argyle: and it was generally a province of the Hebudian kingdomd.

The Shetland iles must also not be forgotten. They are called Hialt-land in Norwegian, signify­ing the land of Hialt (a man's name). This word we corrupted to Yetland, the original name sounding Yaltland. By another corruption Yet­land, laterly became Shetland. These iles are by D'Anville, and others, regarded as the real anci­ent Thule; and were perhaps formerly one iland, afterward broken by the force of the waves. Of the Shetland iles we find little account in the Icelandic writers; tho from them Torfaeus has drawn a complete history of the more distant Fareys; which, as a picture of barbaric society, is a curious piece. The Shetland iles were sub­ject to the earls of Orkney, as we learn from Torsaeus.

2. The Hebudes.

There is no special history of the Hebudes in Icelandic, as there is of the Orkneys; and their history is of course more obscure.

[Page 301]Our writers are so ignorant concerning them, that they have even, for more than two centuries, perverted the very name in an odd manner. For since the publication of the notorious History of Hector Boethius at Paris, 1526, folio, our writers have called these iles Hebrides. I have taken some pains to detect the origin of this blunder. The edition of Pliny 1469, folio, Venetiis, bears Ebudes. That of Solinus, 1473, folio, ib. also bears Ebudes. The Solinus of Aldus, 1518, 8vo. has Haebudes; as have all the editions of Pliny and Solinus since. Ptolemy's work has Ebuda, [...]; not Aebudae as Buchanan and others put, upon no autho­ [...]ity whatever. But Pliny and Solinus were the writers whom Boethius followed; and i was be­ginning to impute his Hebrides to an error of himself, an amanuensis, or the printer Badius Ascensius. However i chanced upon an edition of Solinus, in which the very source of this error appeared. Its title is, Solinus de Memorabilibus Mundi, diligenter annotatus et indicio alphabetico prenotatus. In a wooden print is the name of the bookseller Denis Roce, Parisiis: and on the back of the title is a dedication by Badius Ascensius the printer to John De Falce, dated ad idus Julias, M. D. III. The book was printed that year, 1503, as appears from this date and from its whole form, agreeing with the rude Paris press of the end of the fifteenth century, and beginning of the sixteenth century, before the Stephani arose. This edition is so full of typographic errors, that it is a disgrace to printing. The first word is Cym for Cum. But in names especially, Succinus for Sevo; Horistenes for Boristenes; Hecareus for Hecataeus; are [...]all specimens of its gross perversion. Among of as, [...]n folio xxii, excipiunt EBRIDES insulae, qu [...]nque numero, appears in the text; and on the margin Ebrides; as also in the index prefixt, Ebri­des. Yet once in f. xii. Sed Orcades ab EBUDIBUS porro, &c. occurs; so that Ebrides was but one [Page 302]chance, and Ebudes another with the printer. And in same page appears Ad Arcadibus Thylen usque, for Ab Orcadibus Thulen usque. As Boethius studied at Paris, whence he was called to a professor's chair at Aberdeen, it seems evident that he had picked up this edition of Solinus; and having no other to consult in Scotland, took his Hebrides from this clear fountain. Such being the case, and the name Hebrides e a mere blunder, the con­dition of learning, and of antiquarian studies in particular, among us of Scotland, may be more easily guessed at from this simple circumstance, than from any argument. With us a mere typo­graphic error remained, and passed among all our writers, save Buchanan, for more than two centuries and a half. In any other country such a matter would have been detected at once. And i should not wonder to see our writers persist in Hebrides, from mere shame; as the old priest re­tained his Mumpsimus for Sumpsimus. But our error is confined to ourselves, for all foreign writers ever put Hebudes.

In the history of these iles, the Pikish kingdom first appears, which began there; as from them the Piks first spread over Scotland, as fully shewn above. Solinus describes the state of this king­dom, about the year 240 when he wrote. In 565 the Hebudes still belonged to the Piks; for in that year Brudi gave Hyona to Columba, as Beda tells. Adomnan, in his life of Columba, gives some hints as to their then state. But the He­budes seem to have been left almost desert, when the Piks gained Valentia, and other fertile posses­sions on the south: and we find not that Columba tried to convert their inhabitants. Nor in Irish history or sanctology is any of these ilands men­tioned, (except Hyona) as the scene of any action whatever. Their subjection to the petty kings of [Page 303]Mann is another proof of their being almost un-peopled. Upon these grounds i am convinced that after the Piks began to move south, the He­budes were left almost desert. Nay that the Nor­wegians who settled in them must have been few, else they would not have submitted to the petty kings of Mann, but have had separate earls or kings. In 1266 the Hebudes were ceded to Scot­land; and as no inhabitants could leave the conti­nent for such rude and remote habitations, crouds of wild Irish were permitted, if not invited, to settle among the Norwegians, who remained. For as the Irish detested the English yoke, so they were ever on good terms with the Scotish kings; owing to the inrercourse, and sameness of language, between them and our Dalriads. That this was the case, appears from the peculiar freshness of their Irish origin to be traditionally found among those ilanders at present; and from their language being more perfectly Irish than that of our high­landers; as well as from the evidence of historic facts. The chief families are however Norwegi­ans, who remained as principal tenants: and the people have more of the Norwegian largeness of limbs, and redness of hair, than our highlanders. But our kings hardly regarded them, or the high­landers, as subjects: and in the grand contest with Edward I. both traitorously allied themselves with the enemy. Hence they, as well as the high­landers, are unknown in Scotish history; nor are once mentioned, save in assrays and crimes.

About 912 Ketil was made lord of the Hebudes by Harold Harfagre, and usurped independency. Torf. Orc. I. 5. Perhaps the kings of Mann de­scended from him. In 989 Godfrey, son of Ha­rold, king of the Hebudes, was slain by the Dal­riads. Tigh. Ann. Ult. About 1012 Gill, an earl of the Hebudes, is mentioned. Torf. I. 11. In the time of Magnus the good king of Norway, 1035—1047, Duggald was king of the Hebudes. Torf. Hist. Foerey. ad sin.

[Page 304]Torfaeus, Orcad. I. 10. shews that the northern Hebudes were tributary to the earls of Orkney. In 1098 Magnus Barefoot king of Norway, after subduing the Orkneys, passed to the Hebudes: and first conquered Liodhus, now Lewis. Then subduing the rest, took captive Lagman, son of Gudrod king of the Hebudes, evidently Lagman son of Godred king of Maun, in the Chronicon Manniae.

The Ile of Maun attracts particular notice, as the seat of this kingdom. It is the Monaeda of the ancients; as Anglesey is Mona. It was held by the Irish in the time of Orosius. About 620, Ed­win king of Northumbria conquered the Mevaniae insulae, as Beda says; that is Anglesey and Maun, the former ever after retaining the name of Angle­sey, or English ile. But in the ninth century Maun was seized by the Norwegian pirates; who held it till Harold Harfagre, about 910 expelled them. It is clear, from their speech, that the in­habitants came chiefly from Ireland: and it is likely that the kings of the Hebudes were Nor­wegians from Ireland, then over-run with Scandi­navians. In 1075 we find the people of Maun sending to the king of Dublin, to desire him to appoint a king of Maunf. This Irish origin ac­counts for that odd circumstance of Maun, a de­tached and distant ile, being the regal seat of the Hebudian kinglets.

APPENDIX TO The Second Volume.


NUMBER I. Extracts from the Annals of Ulster.

THESE extracts are from a MS. in the British Mu­seum, Cat. Ayscough, No 4795, entituled, An­nales Ultonienses ab an. 431. ad an. 1303; but it wants from 1131 to 1156. The Latin is original; the Irish parts are translated into English. The hand-writing is of the beginning, or middle, of last century*.

431. Palladius ad Scotos, a Celestino urbis Romae Episcopo, ordinatus episcopus, Aetio et Valerio Coss. primus mittitur in Hiberniam.

[Page 308]432. Patricius pervenit ad Hiberniam, 9o anno The­odosii Junioris, primo anno Xisti, 42 Episcopi Ro­manae Ecclesiae. Sic enumerant Beda et Marcellinus in Chronicis suis. [in 12 anno Laogarii Mac Neil. manu recentiore.]

438. The Great Chronicle was written.

452. Hic alii dicunt nativitatem S'tae Brigidae.

457. Quies senis Patricii, ut alii libri dicunt.

461. Alii quietem Patricii dicunt.

464. Angli venerunt in Angliam.

471. Praeda facta Saxonum de Hibernia.

482. Bellum Oche, in quo cecidit Ailil Molt. A Concob filio Nesae usque ad Cormac fil. Aod anni 308. A Cormac usque ad hoc bellum 206, ut Cuana scripsit.

491. Dicunt Scoti Sanctum Patricium Archiepisco­pum defunctum.

492. Patricius Archiep. quievit, 120 anno aetat, suae.

504. Mors Bruidi Mac Maelcon. (sic: l [...]ge, Nativitas.)

518. Nativitas Columbkille.

522. Quies Sanctae Brigidae aet. 70.

525. Dormitatio Brigidae aet. 70.

537. Mors Comgail Mac Domangart [Ri Alban, manu rec.] 35 anno regni.

544. Mors Comgail Mac Domangart, ut alii dicunt.

548. Dormitatio Ciaran, filii artificis, an. 37 aetatis suae. Tighernach Cluanois.

557. The feast of Tarach by Dermott Mac Cerbail. Et fuga ante filium Maelcon; et mors Gabrain Mac Do­mangart.

559. Battle of Cuildremme, upon Dermot Mac C [...]rbail, Fergus and Donel, the two sons of Erc: Ai miere Hedna, and Nanidh Mac Duah were vanquishers.

562. The battle of Moindore Lothair upon the Cruthens, by the Nells of the North. Baedan Mac Cin, with two [other chiefs] of the Cruthens, fought it against the rest of the Cruthens. The cattle and booty of the Aeolargs were given to them of Ti [...] connel and Tirowen, conductors, for their lead­ing as wages.

573. Bellum Tola et Fortola, in regionibus Cruithne. Mors Conail-Mac Comgail, an. regni sui 16, qui ob­tulit insulam Hy Columcille.

574. Magna concio Drumacet, in qua fuit Columb­cille et Aodh Mac Amirech.

575. Bellum de Loro in Kintire, in quo cecidit Duncath Mac Conail Mac Comgail; et alii multi de sociis filiorum Gauran ceciderunt.

[Page 309]579. Bellum Droman Mac Erce, ubi Comgal filius Domnail filii Morierti cecidit: Aod Mac Amirech victor extitit. The .... of Onc with Aodan Mac Ga­bran. Cenelath Rex Pictorum moritur.

581. Bellum Manan, in quo victor erat Aodhan Mac Gauran.

583. Mors Brude Mac Maelcon, Regis Pictorum.

589. The Battle of Leithvedh by Aodan Mac Gauran.

590. Defectio solis: mane tenebrosum.

594. Quies Columbcille, 5 Idus Junii, anno aet. suae 76. Mors Eugain Mac Gauran.

595. Jugulatio filiorum Aodhain, Bueim et Doman.

600. Terrae motus in Bairnohi.

605. Mors Aodhan Mac Gauran.

612. Bellum Caire Legion, ubi sancti occisi sunt, et cecidit Solon Mac Conaon Rex Britannorum.

623. Nativitas Adomnani abatis. [marg [...] Alii libri Mors.]

626. Bellum Arda Coran, Dalriadi victores erant; in quo cecidit Fiachna filius Demain.

628. Bellum Duin Cethirni, quo Congal Caoch fu­git, et Donal Mac Aod victor est. Bellum Fedha Evin, in quo Maolcaich Mac Skanlain, Rex Cruithne, victor fuit: ceciderunt Dalriada; Coind Ceni Rex Dalriada cecidit. Buidhe regis Pictorum per filios Aodhain. (sic)

630. Bellum Perlacartle: et mors Cinedhou filii Lu­threni Regis Pictorum.

631. Bellum Cathloen, Regis Britonum, et An­frith.

632. Bellum Indris, Regis Britannorum.

634. Ecclesia Rechran fundata est. Mors Gartnai Mac Foith. Bellum Hegaise, in quo cecidit Lactna Mac Nechtain, cum Fotha Cumascach Mac Eneasa, et Gartnaith Mac Oith.

636. Bellum Rath, et bellum Saltire, in uno die facta sunt. Caol Mac Maolcova, socius Donaldi, victor erat, de genere Eugain.

637. Bellum Gline Muresan, et obsessio Edin.

638. Bellum Ofabali, regis Saxonum.

640. Mors Maoilvidhir Caoio, Regis Orientalium. Mors Bruidi filii Foith. Naufragium scaphae famil. lae. Obsessio Rithae [et] combustio.

641. Mors Domnail Mac Aodha, Regis Hiberniae, in fine Januarii. Postea Domnall, in bello Fraithe Cair­vin, [Page 310]in fine anni m. Decembri interfectus est; et an. xv. regnavit. Bellum Offa apud Britones.

643. Loceni Mac Finin, Rex Cruithne obiit.

645. The wounding of Scannal Mac Becce Mac Fiach­rach, king of Cruithne.

648. The war of the Huodhams and Gartnaith Mac Accidana.

649. Bellum Offa per Pante. Mors Cathusaidh Mac Domnail Bric.

650. Jugulatio Oisein Mac Oseirg.

651. Obitus Segeni, abbatis lae, filii Fiachra.

652. Mors Ferith Mac Tuathalan, et Dolairg Mac Foith Regis Pictorum.

655. Bellum Pante regis Saxonum Offa victor erat. (sic)

656. Mors Dolargain Mac Anfrith, Regis Pictorum.

657. Mors Guiret, Regis Alocluothe.

662. Mors Gartnaidh filii Donaldi, et Donaldi filii Tuathalani.

663. Bellum Ludhofeirn. i. in Fortrin.

665. Maolcasich Mac Scannail of the Cruithis..... Maolduin Eoch larlaith, rex Cruithne, moritur.

667. Bellum Feroh, between Ulster and the Cruithens, ubi cecidit Cathasach Mac Lurgeni. Navigatio filiorum Gartnaidh in Hiberniam, cum plebe Sceth.

668. Venit genus Garnart de Hibernia.

670. Mors Offa filii Etilbrith, Regis Saxonum.

671. Expulsio Drosti de regno.

672. Jugulatio Demangart Mac Daniel Bricc, Regis Dalriada.

674. Mors filii Pante.

675. Conal Mac Maolduin jugul.

677. Mors Drosto filii Domnail. Interfectio generis Loairn apud Firrin. Bellum apud Calaros, in quo victus est Domnal Brecc*.

680. Combustio regni in Dun, viz. Dungal Mac Scannail Rex Cruithne, &c.

681. Jugulatio Cinfaola, Regis Connaght. Bellum Rathmore apud Maghline, contra Britones; ubi cecidit Caethasao Mac Maoiledum, Rex Cruithne, et Ultan Mac Dicolla; et jugulatus Muirin Ammaon. Obitus Svivne, filii Mailuva, principis Corca. Orcades de­letae sunt a Bruide.

[Page 311]685. Bellum Duin Neshtain, vicesimo die mensis Maij, sabathi die, factum est; in quo Ecfrith Mac Offa rex Saxonum, 15 anno regni sui consummato, magna cum caterva militum suorum, interfectus est. Et combussit Tula aman (sic) Duin Olla. Talorg Mac Acithen, et Daniel Breoo Mac Eacha, mortui sunt.

686. Adomnanus captivos reduxit in Hiberniam LX.

687. Occisio Canan Mac Gartna. Finachta clerica­tum suscepit.

688. Finachtae ventitus ad regnum. Mors Cata­suidh, nepotis Domnail Bricc. (vide an. 649.)

691. Dalriadae populati sunt a Cruithne et Ulster.

692. Bruide Mac Bile, Rex Fortren, moritur. Mors Ailphin Mac Nechtain. Jugulatio Ainfith et Pieth­nell, filiorum Boeno. Mors Dergairt Mac Fingaire. Bellum contra Pante.

693. Mors Ferchair Mac Conaoth Cirr. Daniel Mac Avin, Rex Alocluathe, moritur.

694. Comnat uxor Ferchair moritur.

695. Jugulatio Domnaill filii Conaill.

696. Taracin de regno expulsus est. Ferchar Fada, id est Longus, moritur. Adomnanus ad Hu insulam pergit, et dedit legem Mocentium populis. (sic)

697. Bellum apud Feymna, ubi cecidit Concuvar Mocha Mac Maileduin, et Aod Rex Dalaraidhe. Bel­lum inter Saxones et Pictos, ubi cecidit filius Bernith qui dicebatur Brechtra. Expulsio Ainfcella, filii Fer­chair, de regno; et vinctus ad Hiberniam vehitur.

699. Fianamoil, nepos Duncha Rex Dalriada, et Flan Mac Cinfoala Mac Suivne, jugulati sunt.

700. The Destruction of Dunaila by Selvach. Jugulatio generis Cathboth.

702. Bellum Campi Cuilni, inter Ulster et Britones.

703. Adomnanus 78 anno aet., suae abbatiae, pausat. Aldfrith Mac Offa, sapiens Rex Saxonum, moritur.

705. Brude Mac Derile moritur.

706. Duo terrae motus in eadem septimana, in aqui­lonari parte Hiberniae.

707. Canis Cuarain, Rex Cruithne, jugulatus.

709. A skirmish given by the Conels, where the two sons of Nechtain Mac Doirg [...]rta. (sic) Jugulatus Fiachra Mac Dungarte a Cruithne.

710. Strages Pictorum in campo Manan, apud Sax­ones, ubi Finguin filius Delaroith in mala morte fini­vit. Congressio Britonum et Dalriada, apud Longeco­leth, ubi Britones devicti.

[Page 312]711. Coide episcopus Iae pausat.

712. Cinio Mac Derili, et filius Mathgennan jugu­lati. Tolarg, filius Drostani, ligatur apud fratrem suum Nechtain Regem.

713. Dun Olla construitur apud Selvaon, and de­stroyed by his daughter Alena.

715. Jugulatio Regis Saxonum Direct fil Aldfrith nepotis Offa. Garrat filii Deliroith mors. Fogartach nepos Cerua iterum regnat.

716. Duncha Mac Cinfaola, abbas Iae, obiit. Ex­pulsio familiae Iae trans Dorsum Britanniae, a Nectano Rege. Congressio Dalruda et Britonum, in lapide qui vocatur Minmro, et Britones devicti sunt.

718. Jugulatio Drostan. Bellum Fingline, inter duos filios Ferchair Fada; in quo Anfcellach jugulatus est v. feria Idus Septembris. Maritimum Ardanesse in­ter Dunca Beg, cum genere Iavrair, et Celvecum cum genere Loiarn; et versum est contra Selvacum, pridie Nonas Sept. die VI. feriae: in quo quidam comites ee­ciderunt.

720. Little Duncha, king of Cintire, dies.

721. Bile Mac Eilphin, Rex Alocluaithe, moritur. Ferdacrich Mac Corgula obiit. Felim principatum Iae obtinuit.

722. Clericatus Selvaich.

723. Faolon Mac Doirhene, abbas Iae, dormit. Cil­linus Largus hic (sic) in principatum Iae successit.

724. Filius Druis constringitur. Congal Mac Ma­ille anfa Brecc Fortren, et Oan princeps Ega, mortui.

725. Netan Mac Derile constringitur a Drost Rege. Tolargan Maphan moritur.

726. Airgialla inter Selvacum, et familiam Egchtagh nepotis Domnail. Reliques of Acomnan transferred into Ireland, and the law renewed.

727. Bellum Monacrib inter Pictos invicem, ubi Eneas victor fuit; et multi ex parte Elpini Regis pe­rempti sunt. Bellum lacrimabile inter eosdem gestum est, juxta castellum Crei, ubi Elpinus effugit.

728. Bellum Monacurna, juxta stagnum Loga, inter hostem Nechtain, et exercitum Angusa: et exactatores Nechtain ceciderunt, viz. Riceat Mac Moneit, et filius ejus. Fingain Mac Drostain, Fenach Mac Fin­gair, et quidam Mudti, cum familia Aongusa, trium­phaverunt. Bellum Droma Derg Blathug, in regioni­bus [Page 313]Pictorum, inter Aongum et Drost Regem Picto­rum; et occidit Drost.

729. Reversio reliquarum Adomnani de Hibernia. Bran filius Eugain, et Selvach, mortui sunt. Oithecta Mac Aithecta, fil. Biath, et Aongus Mac Boie Bairch­quire, interfectio.

730. Bellum inter Cruithne et Dalriada, apud Mar­builg, ubi Cruithne devicti. Bellum inter filium Aon­gusa, et filium Congusa; sed Bruide vicit, Talorcon fugiente.

732. Dungal Mac Selvaich dehonoravit Forai* cum Brudonem ex ea traxit; et eadem vice insulam Sigi in­vasit. Muireoch Mac Imfcellai regnum generis Loairn asseruit.

733. Talorg Mac Congusa, a fratre suo victus est, et traditur in manus Pictorum; et ab illis magna demer­sus est. (sic) Talorgan filius Drostani comprehensus, alligatur juxta arcem Olia. Don Lethfin destruitur. Post et in Hiberniam a potestate Aongusa fugatus est.

735. Aongus Mac Fergusa, rex Pictorum, vastavit regiones Dalriada: et obtinuit Dunat, et combussit Greio; et duos filios Selvaich catenis alligavit, viz. Dongal et Ferach. Et paulo post Brudeus Mac An­gusa Mac Fergusa obiit. Bellum Twini Ouirbre [at Calaros upper line: sic MS. interpolatio] inter Dalriada et Fortrin; et Talorgan, Mac Fergusa, Mac Aimcellai fugientem, cum exercitu persequitur. In qua congres­sione multi nobiles conceciderunt.

738. Talorgan Mac Drostan, Rex Ahafoitle, demer­sus est ab Aongus.

739. Cubretan Mac Congusa moritur.

740. Bellum Droma Cathvaoil, inter Cruithne et Dalriada, a Jurechtach. Percussio Dalriada ab Eneas Mac Fergusa.

746. Ruman Mac Colmain, poeta optimus quievit. Death of Dunlaing Mac Dunchon, king of the Sept of Argal.

748. Jugulatio Cathaisai Mac Aillila, at Ruhbehech, king of the Cruithines. Combustio Killemore a Hugone Mac Aongus.

749. Bellum Cato hîc inter Pictones et Britones; in quo cecidit Talorgan Mac Fergusa frater Aongusa.

751. Mors Cillim Drochti, anchoritae Iae.

753. Slevene abbas Iae in Hiberniam venit.

[Page 314]760. Mors Aongusa Mac Fergusa Regis Pictorum,

762. Bruide Rex Fortren moritur.

763. Mors Cormach Mac Aillila abbatis monasterii Buti. (et an. 766, Buite.)

765. Loarn Abbas Cluona quievit. Suivne abbas Iae in Hiberniam venit.

767. Batt [...]e at Fortren between Aod and Cinaoh. ...... (defect in M.)

768. Quies Murgailc Mac Inea, abbatis Rechraine.

771. Mors Suivne abbatis Iae.

772. Aod Mac Cairbre, princeps Rechrain, mort.

773. Flahruo Mac Fiachrach, Rex Cruithne, mort.

774. Mors Cinaon Regis Pictorum.

775. Bellum Druing, iterum in eodem anno, inter Dalnarai; in quo cecidit Cineoh Clairge Mac Cahasai, et Dungal O Fergusa Fortrain. Tomaltach Mac Ju­rechtai, et Hacha Mac Fiachna victores erant.

779. Combustio Alocluohe in Kalen. Jan. Eilpin king of Saxons died.

780. Fergus Mac Eachach king of Dalriada died.

781. Dustalorg, Rex Pictorum citra Monah, mort.*

788. Battle between the Pightes, where Donall Mac Teige was vanquished, yet went away; and Constantin was conqueror.

789. The battle of Donall and Constantin is written here, in other books.

791. Doncorcai, king of Dalriada, died.

793. The wasting of all the islands of Britain, by the gentiles.

794. Burning of Rechrain by gentiles.

795. Died Offa, the good king of England.

797. Spoils of the sea, between Ireland and Scotland, by the gentiles.

799. Belliolum inter genus Laoire, et genus Ardgail, in quo cecidit Fiangalach Mac Dunlaing. Conel Mac Nell, et Congalach Mac Aongus, victores erant.

800. Bresal Mac Segeni, abb. Aoi (Hyona) anno princi­patus sui xxx. dormivit.

[Page 315]801. Aoi of Columcille burnt by the gentiles.

805. Familia Aoi occisa est a gentibus ad lxviii.

806. The killing of Conall Mac Aoain at Kintire. The building of a new cittie of Colum Cillies at Kelle.

807. Killing of Aod Mac Conor, in the land of Cova, by the Cruithins.

811. Aongus Mac Dunlaing, king of kindred Ard­gail, died.

812. Charles king of France, emperor of whole Eu­rope, in peace died.

814. Cellach Mac Congail, abbot of Aoi, died.

815. Conan Mac-Ruorah, king of Britons, died.

816. Maolduin Mac Cinfaola, chief of Rathboh, of the family of Colum Cille, died. The men of Columb Cille went to Tarach to curse Aod. Malduin king of Ossory died.

819. Constantin Mac Fergus, king of Fortren, died.

820. Coinulf king of Saxons died.

824. The martirizing of Blahmac Mac Flain, in Aoi Colum Cille, by the gentiles.

828. Diarmaid, abbot of Aoi, went into Scotland, with Columcille's reliques.

830. Diarmaid came into Ireland, with Columcille's reliques.

833. Aongus Mac Fergus, king of Fortren, died.

837. Subite morte vitam finivit Maolcron Rex Lochl [...]in.

838. Battle by the gentiles upon Fortren men; wherein fell Owen Mac Aongus, and Bran Mac Aon­gus, Aod Mac Boan, et alii poene innumerabiles.

848. Jurastach, abbot of Aoi, came into Ireland with Colum Cille's oathes, or sanctified things.

850. "white Fingalians."

851. Battle between the white gentiles and black gentiles.

852. Aulaiv, king of Lochlin, came into Ireland; and all the foreigners of Ireland submitted to him, and had rent from the Irish.

853. The heir* of Colum Cille, sapiens optimus IV. Idus Martii apud Saxones martirizatus est.

855. Aclon flight by Aod Mac Neil upon the Fng­lish-Irish, and great slaughter of them. Lorm, king of the black gentiles, killed by Marai Mac Meirmin, king of Wales.

[Page 316]856. Cuhal-Fin, with his English-Irish, put to flight by Ivar.

857. Cinaoh Mac Ailpin king of Pights, and Adulf king of Saxons, mortui junt.

860. Gormlaih daughter to Donogh, amenissima re­gina Scotorum, post penitentiam obiit.

861. Donal Mac Ailpin, king of Pights, died.

864. Tuahal Mac Artgusa, archbishop of Fortren, and abbot of Dun Callen, do [...]mivit.

865. Aulaiv and his nobilitie went to Fortren, to­gether with the foreigners of Ireland and Scotland; and spoiled all the Cruthens, and brought their hostages with them.

866. Battle on the Saxons of the north at the citie Euroc (York) by the black foreigners, wherein fell Ailli king of Saxons of the north.

869. Obsessin Ailcluahe a Nordmannis: id est Aulaiv et Ivar, duo [...]eges No [...]mannorum, obsinerunt are [...]m illum; et destruxer [...]nt, in fine IV. mensium, arce [...], et praed [...]verunt.

870. Aulaiv and Ivar came again to Dublin out of Scotland; and brought with them great booties from Englishmen, Britons, and Pights, in their two hundred ships, with many of their people captives.

871. Artga king of Britains of Strah-Cluothe, con­silio Constantini Mac Cinaoch, occisus est.

872. Ivar, Rex Nordmonorum tot [...]us Hiberniae et Bri­tannioe, vitam finivit. Flaivertagh prince of Dun Caillin mort.

874. The coming of the Pights upon the Black Gals, where great slaughter of the Pights was had. Ostin Mac Aulaiv king of Nordmans was [slain?] by the Albanich.

875. Const [...]ntin Mac Cinach, Rex Pict [...]rum, mort.

876. Roary Mac Murmin, king of Britons, came into Ireland, for refuge from Black gentiles.

877. Roary son of Murmin, king of Britons, killed by Saxons. Aod Mac Cina [...]h Rex Pictorum a sociis suis occisus est. The shrine of Colum Cille, and his oathes or reliques, brought into Ireland, for refuge from the gentiles.

879. Ferach Mac Cormaic abbot of Aoi died.

890. Flan Mac Maoiledrin abbot of Aoi in pace dor­mivit.

899. Daniel Mac Constantin, king of Scotland, died.

903. Ivar chivar killed by the men of Fortren, with a great slaughter about him.

[Page 317]912. Maolmor Mac Lanirke, daughter to Cinach Mac Ailpin, died.

917. Maolthsin, prince bishop of Rosorde; Egnech prince of Arain; Daniel of Elnon, Cairbhe a great Chronicler, in pace do [...]mivit. The gentiles of Loch­eachaoch left Ireland, and went for Scotland. The men of Scotland, with assistance of the North Saxons, prepared before them. The gentiles divided themselves into four battles, viz. one by Godfrey Oh Ivar; ano­ther by the two earls; the third by the young lords; and the fourth by Ranall Mac Bioloch, that the Scots did not see. But the Scots overthrew the three they saw, that they had a great slaughter of them about Ottir and Gragava. But Ranall gave the onset behind the Scotts, that he had the killing of many of them; only that neither king, nor murmor, of them was lost in the conflict. The night discharged the battle. Ealflech fam [...]sissima regina Saxonum mort.

926. Maolbride Mac Dormain Coarb* of Patrick, and Colum Cille, felici sen [...]ctute quievit.

927. Baochin, Coarb of Brenainbuor, quievit.

923. "Coarb of Comgal."

930. "Coarb of Ciarain." 931. "Coarb of Fechin­favair."

937. Dubharh, Coarb of Colum Cille et Adomnan, in pace quievit.

938. Adalsten king of Saxons, the most majestical father of the western world, secura morte moritur. Fi­nechta Mac Cellay, Coarb of Daire, quievit.

949. Aiel king of Wales died.

951. Constantine Mac Aod king of Scotland [died.] A battle upon Scots, Welch, and Saxons, by gentiles.

953. Maolcolum Mac Donal, king of Scotland, kill­ed. Revartach Coarb of Columcill and Adomnan, pau­savit.

958. Duvduin Coarb of Columcill mo [...]t.

964. Battle between Scotsmen about Etir, where many slain about Donoch abbot of Duncalten.

966. Duv Mac Maolcolum, king of Scotland, killed by Scotsmen themselves.

[Page 318]970. Culen Illuile, king of Scotland, killed by Bri­tons in open battle.

974. Hector [Edga] Mac Edmond, king of Saxons, mort. Daniel Mac Owen, king of Wales, in pilgrimage.

976. Aulaiv Mac Alaiv, king of Scotland, killed by Cinaoh Mac Donell.

979. Mugron, Coarb of Columbeill in Scotland and Ireland, felicem vitam finivit.

985. The foreigners came into the borders of Dal­riada in three ships; where 140 of them were hanged, and the rest banished. Columcill rifled on Christmas eve by the foreigners, who killed the abbot, and 15 of the learned of the church.

986. The battle of Manan by Mac Aralt, and the foreigners, ubi mille occisi sunt.

988. Gofry Mac Aralt, king of Inse Gall, killed by Dalriada. Duncha O Robucan, Coarb of Columcill, mort. Dubdalech, Coarb of Patrick, took the Coarb Patrick upon him, by advice of Ireland and Scotland.

944. Cinaoh Mac Maolcolum, king of Scotland, killed per dolum. Donach Patrick rifled by gentiles of Dublin.

996. Maolaohum Mac Daniel, king of North Wales, died.

997. Patrick, Coarb of Columcill, in the 83d year of his age, died.

1004. Maolbryd O Ryneve, abbot of Aoi, mor. A battle between Scots at Monedir, where the king of Scotland, Cinaoh Mac Duiv*, was slain.

1005. Battle between Scotsmen and Saxons, where Scotsmen were discomfitted, with a great slaughter of their good men.

1006. Mureah Mac Crithan renounced the Coarbship of Columcill for God.

1008. Clothna Mac Aongus, chief poet of Ireland, died.

1009. Maolonham o Cervall, chief learned of Ire­land, [and] Martan Mac Cinedy, Coarb of Columcill, died.

1014. Hic est 582 annus ab adventu Sancti Patricii ad baptizandos Scotos. Maoluin Mac Eocha, Patrick's [Page 319]Coarb, went to Sord Columcill* with learned men, and reliques; and brought from thence the body of Bryan, &c. and buried them in Armagh.

1020. Finlogh Mac Roary, king of Scotland, a suis occisus.

1023. Henrich king of the world died.

1027. Doncha Mac Gillmochona, Coarb of Sechnail, sapientissimus Scotorum in Colonia quievit.

1028. Sitrick Mac Aulaiv, king of Galls, and Flana­gan Cellai, king of Bregh, went to Rome.

1029. Maolbride O Brolohan, Chief Mason of Ire­land, died.

1030. Cumara Mac Liag, chief poet of Ireland, died.

1032. Maolbryd, Murmor of Mureve, burnt with 50 men about him.

1033. The son of Mac Boet Mac Cinaoh, killed by Maolcolum Mac Cinaoh. Hugh Mac Flavertai O Nell, king of Ailech, and heir of Ireland, post penitentiam mort. in St. Andrewes eccl.

1034. Maolcolum Mac Cinaoh, king of Scotland, died. Maenia O Huchtan, lector of Kells, drowned coming from Scotland with Culevar Columcill's book, and 3 Mms (sic) or Sroearnis, reliques of St. Patrick, and 30 men with them. Suivne Mac Hugh, king of English-Irish, aliter Fingall, mort.

1035. Cnut Mac Suain, king of Saxons, died. The Sord of Columcills burnt by Conor O Maolechlan in revenge.

1038. Battle between Luana king of Allaxons, and Odo king of France, where a thousand and more pe­rished.

1039. Iago king of Britain a suis occisus. Macina, Coarb of Buth, episcopus, et plenus dierum, ob.

1040. Malmure O Huchtan, Coarb of Columcill, dormivit. Doncha Mac Crinan, king of Scotland, a suis occisus est. Aralt king of Saxons of Gills ob.

1045. Battle between the Scots themselves, where fell Cronan abbot of Duncaillen.

1050. Maolay lector of Kells, sapientissimus omnium Hibernensium, obiit.

1054. A battle between Scots and Saxons, where 3000 of Scots, and 1500 of Saxons were slain, with Dolfin Mac Finlor.

[Page 320]1056. Flan of Monaster, Arch Lector, and Chief Chronicler, of Ireland, in vita eterna quievit.

1057. Rovertach Mac Donell, Coarb of Columcill, in Domino dormivit.

1058. Lulach Mac Gillcomgain, Archking of Scot­land, killed by Maolcolumb Mac Duncha in battle.— Magbethai Mac Finloich, Archking of Scotland, killed by Melsechlin Mac Doncha in battle.

NUMBER II. The Albanic Duan, with translations.

A eolcha Alban uile,
O ye learned Albanians all,
A shluagh feta foltbhuidle;
ye host learned yellow haired;
Cia ceud ghabhail an eol duibh,
who first possessed to knowledge their,
Ro ghabhsadar Alban bhruigh.
they possessed Albanian lands.
Albanus ro ghabh lia a shlogh, 5
Albanus possessed with his army;
Macsein oirdhearc Isiacon,
The son noble of Isiacon,
Brathair do Bhritus gan bhrath
Brother of Britus without*
O raitear Alba eathrach.
as it is said Alba between.
Ro ionnarb a bhrathair bras
He banished his brother Bras
Britus tar mhuir Nicht namhnus. 10
Britus across the sea Nichtean.
Ro ghabh Britus Albain ain,
possessed Britus Alban the same,
Go rinn fiadhnach Fothudain.
to the plains of the hunter Fothudain.
Foda iar mBritus mblaith mbil,
long after Britus flourished mildly,
Ro ghabhsad clanna Nemhidh;
possessed the sons of Nemidius,
[...] [...]
[Page 322]Erglan iar dteacht as a luing,
Erglan after coming out of his ship,
Do aithle toghla tuir Conaing.
tower of Conaing.
Cruithnigh ro ghabhsad iardain,
The Picts possessed
Iar dtiachtain a hEreann mhuigh.
after they came from Ireland plains.
Dech righ, tri fichid righ, ran,
Ten kings, three twenty kings, reigned,
Ghabhsad diobh an Cruithean chlar:
they possessed to themselves the Pictland plains:
Cathluan an cedrigh dhiobh soin,
Cathluan the first king of them —,
Aisneidhim dhibh go demhin;
of them most certainly;
Rob e an righ dedhionach dhibh
He was the king last of them
An cur calma Cusandin.
the champion famous Constantine.
Clanna Eachach, ina ndiaidh,
The children of Eochy, them after,
Ghabsad Albain iar nairdghiaidh,
possessed Albany after by their high power,
Clanna Chonaire an chaomh fhir,
The children of Chonaire the gentle man.
Toghaide na tren Ghaodhil;
Raised the strong Irish;
Tri mic Eirc, mhic Eachach ait,
three sons of Erc, the son of Eachach the great,
Triar fuair beannachtain Phadraic;
the three got the blessing of Patrick;
Ghabsad Albain ard a ngus;
Possessed Alban the great likewise;
Loarn, Fergus, is Aongus.
Loarn, Fergus, and Aongus.
Dech mbliadhna Loarn ler bladh
Ten years Loarn flourished
I bhflaitheas iarthair Alban.
in the government of West Albany.
[Page 323]Tar es Loairn fhel go ngus 35
After Loarn a space likewise
Seacht mbliadhna ficheat Fergus.
seven and twenty years Fergus.
Domhanghart, mac dFheargus ard,
Domhangart, son of Fergus the great,
Aireamh chuig mbhadhan mbiothgharg.
reckoned five years in troubles.
A ceathair ficheat, gan troid,
four t [...]enty, without wars,
To Chomhghall mhic Domhanghairt. 40
to Chomgall the son of Domhangairt.
Da bhliadhain, chonnail gan tar,
two years close and even, without reproach,
Tar eis Chomhghaill do Ghabhran.
After Chomhghaill to Ghabhran.
Tri bliadhna fo chuig, gan roinn,
Three years by five without division,
Ba righ Conall mhic Comhghaill.
was king Conall the son of Comhghaill.
Cethre bliadhna ficheat thall, 45
Four years twenty over,
Ba righ Aodhan na niolrann.
He was king Aodhan of extended plains.
Dech mbliadhna fo sheacht, seol ngle,
Ten years by seven, space bright,
Ibhflaitheas Eachach buidhe.
reigned Eochach the yellow.
Conchad cearr raithe reil blath.
Conchad — quarter ruled happily.
A se deg dia mhac Fearchair. 50
Sixteen after the son of Fearchair.
Tar eis Fearchair, feaghaid rainn,
after Fearchair as the poets sing,
Cethre bliadhna deg Domhnaill.
Four years ten Domhnaill.
Tar eis Domnaill bhric na mbla
After Domnaill spotted the flourishing
Conall, Dongall, deich mbliadhna.
Conall, Dongall, ten years.
Tri bliadhna deg Domhnaill duinn, 55
Three years ten Domhnaill the brown,
[...] [...]
[Page 324]Tar eis Donghail is Chonuill.
After Donghaill and Chonaill.
Maolduin, mhic Conaill na gcreach,
Maolduin, the son of Conaill of the hostages,
A seacht deg go dlightheach.
seven ten — lawfully.
Fearchair fada, (feagha leat),
Fearchair the long, (look with yourself) *
Do chaith bliadhain ar fhicheat. 60
He spent one year on twenty.
Da bhliadhain Eachach na neach;
two years Eachach of the horses,
Ra ba calman an rightheach.
He was powerful in his houshold.
Aoin bhliadhain ba flaith iardain
One year was chief after
Ainbcheallach maith, mhic Fearchair. 64
A [...]nbhcallach the good, the son of Fearchair.
[Selvac and Achy wanting.]
Tri bliadhna Mureadhaigh mhaith.
Three years Mureadhaigh the good.
Triochod do Aodh na Ardfhlaith.
Thirty to Hugh the high king.
Aceathair ficheat, nior fhann,
Four twenty, without weakness,
Do bhliadnaibh do chaith Domhnall. 70
of years he spent Domhnall.
[Fergus and Doncorcai wanting.]
Dha bhliadhain Conaill ceim ngle.
Two y [...]ars Conaill step c [...]eur.
Sa ceathair Conaill ele.
and four Conaill other.
Naoi mbliadhna Constantin chain. 75
Ni [...]e years Constantine eloquent.
A naoi Aonghus ar Albain.
Nine Aonghus on Albain.
[Page 325]Ceithre bli [...]dhna Aodha ain.
Four years Hugh musical.
Sa tri deg Eoganain.
and three ten Eoganain.
Seacht mbliadhna flaith Dunghal den.
seven years the chief Dunghall the brown.
Agus a ceathair do Alpen. 80
and four to Alpin.
Triocha bliadhain Chionaoith chruaidh.
Thirty years Chaoinaoth the hardy.
A ceathair Dhomhnaill dhreachruaid.
Four Dhomnaill ruddy countenance.
Triocha bliadhain, gona bhrigh,
Thirty years with his power,
Don churaidh do Chonstantin.
to the champion to Constantine.
Da bliadhain, (ba daor a dhath), 85
two years, (was hard complexioned times),
Da bhrathair do Aodh flionnsgothach*.
to his brother to Hugh the fair haired.
Domhnall, mhic Constantin chain,
Domhnall, the son of Constantine the eloquent,
Ro chaith bliadhain fa cheathair.
Spent years one and four.
Constantin ba calma a ghleac,
Constantine was powerful and expert,
Ro chaith a se is da fhicheat.
He spent six and forty.
Maolcholum ceithre bliadhna. 90
Maolcholum four years.
Iondolbh a hocht airdriaghla.
Iondolph eight high ruler.
Seacht mbliadhna Dubhoda den.
Seven years Dubhoda the brown.
Agus a ceathair Culen.
And four Culen.
A seacht fithcheat, os gach cloinn, 95
seven twenty, over each clan,
[Page 326]Do Chionaoth mhic Maoilcholuim.
to Chinaoth the son of Maolcholim.
Seacht mbliadhna Constantin cluin.
Seven years Constantine —.
Agus a ceathair Macduibh.
And four Macduff.
Trocha bliadhain, breacaid rainn,
Thirty years, spotted reign,
Ba righ Manaidh Maolcholaim. 100
was king — Maolcholaim.
Se bliadhna Donnchadh ghlain gooith.
Six years Donchadh clean breath.
Seacht mbliadna deg mac Fionlaoich.
Seven years ten the son of Fionlaoich.
Tar is Micbeatha go mbloidh
After Macheatha —
Seacht mbliadhna i bfhlaitheas Lulaigh.
Seven years in power Lulaigh.
Maholum, a nosa as righ, 105
Maolcho [...]um who is king,
Mac Donnchaidh datha drechbhi.
The son of Donchaidh —
A re nocha nfhidir neach,
And how long he'll reign no one knows,
Acht an teolach as eolach.
But the knower of knowledge.
Dha righ for chaogad cluine
Two kings by fifty —,
Go mac Donnchaidh dreachruire, 110
to the son of Donchaidh pleasant countenance,
Do shiol Eirc, ardghlain, an oir,
of the seed of Eirch, high, and clear of gold,
Ghabhsad Albain, a eolaigh. 112
possessed Albany, O ye learned.

A free transtation of the same, with some remarks, by Mr. O'Conor.

Ye knowing men of Alba, ye comely hosts of the yellow tresses, know ye the first possessions of that country?

Albanus of the numerous combatants was the first possessor. He was the son of Isiacon*. From him is derived the name of Alba. Britus was his brother. Britus banished his brother across the Ictian sea. Bri­tus seized upon Alba, to the limits of the hunter Fo­thadan.

Long after the celebrated Britus the Nemedians settled here, under auspices of Erglan. It was after the siege of Tor Conang.

In a latter period Cruthnidh, (pronouncè Crunii) i. e. the Picts, seized upon Alba, after quitting Ireland. Seventy of their monarchs reigned over Cruthenland (North Britain), from Cathluan to the valiant Con­stantin.

After that period the descendants of Conary the mild, (king of Ireland, A. D. 220) settled in that country. And in later time the grandsons of Achay, (surnamed Munrevar,) enlarged their borders after a signal victory. They were the three sons of Erk; Loarn, Fergus, and Angus, who obtained the bene­diction of St. Patrick. Memorable were those victo­rious Gaedhils, (pronounced Gaëils.)

Loarn, of the shining countenance, ruled 10 years over the west of Alba. After him Fergus 27 years. Domangard son of Fergus 4 years, in turbulence. Comgal his brother 24 years in peace. Gauran son of Domangard reigned 2 years, without reproach. Conal, son of Comgal 15 years. Aedan, of the ex­tended territories, reigned 24 years. Achay the yellow, or swarthy, 17 years. Concad Kerr (the silent) three months; and Ferchar his son 16 years. Domnald sur­named Breac, or the speckled, 14 years. Conal and [Page 328]Dongal jointly 10 years. Domnald Duin 13 years. Malduin son of Conal 17 years. Ferchar Fada (the tall) 21 years. Achay the valiant 2 years. Anbkel­lach son of Ferchar 1 year. Muriach 3 years. Aodh 30. Domhnald 24. Conal 2: and another Conal 4. Constantin the good 9. Angus 9. Aod 4. Eoganan 13. Dungal 7. Alpin 4.

KENETH the hardy 30 years. Domnald the ruddy complexioned 4. The hero Constantin 30. Aodh the fairhaired, Constantin's brother, 2. Domnald son of Constantin 5. Constantin son of Aodh 46. Malcolm 4. Indolph 8. Dubhoda 7. Culen 4. Keneth son of Malcolm 27. Constantin 7. Macduff 4. Malcolm 30. Donchad 6. The son of Finlauch (Macbeth) 17. Lulach, 7 months.

Malcolm, son of Donchad, is the present king. God alone knows how long he is to reign.

To the present time, of the son of Donchad the lively faced, 52 kings of the race of Erk have reigned over Alba, (or Albany.)


Of the Nemedians, and the siege of Tor-Conang, (a strong place on Tiry island, in the county of Dona­gall,) an account, mostly fabulous, is given in the Irish book of Invasions. A more credible account is there given of the settlement of the Cruthnii, or Picts, in North Britain, some ages before the Christian aera.

Conary the mild, king of Ireland, A. D. 220, was a prince of the part of Munster now called the county of Kerry. He left three sons. The eldest Carbry Riada, or the long-armed, assisted his cousin-german, Cormac king of Ireland, in his invasion of North Britain: and, on concluding a treaty with the Picts, the Irish mo­narch obtained in that country a settlement for Carbry Riada, his cousin, about the year 260.

The defects and derangements in the Duan are only visible from the year 719 to 895. The loss of a genuine copy of the whole is to be regretted. Thus far Mr. O'Conor.

[Page 329]Only one ancient copy of this poem has yet been found; from which a number of modern copies have been made. Mr. O'Flaherty's copy was equally defec­tive with Mr. O'Conor's. After Anbkellach, Dungal and Alpin were inserted by transposition; and Mr. O'Conor thinks the poem corrupted and modernised after that time. But a gentleman, well versed in the Irish, informs me that it seems all equally ancient, and by one hand; so that there is room to suspect many of the errors to be mistakes of the bard who composed it.

This poem is quoted in the last century by Ward in his Vita Rumoldi, p. 372; by Colgan in his Trias Thau­maturga, p. 115; and by O'Flaherty often in his Ogygia. Sir George Mackenzie refers to it, p. 150, of his De­fence of the Antiquity of the Royal line. A copy of it is said to be in the Psalter of Cashel, now missing, but thought to be in the Irish college at Paris.

NUMBER III. The succession of Scotish Kings, inserted in the Chronicle of Melrose; * comprizing the Chronicon Elegiacum. Gale et Fulman Scriptores Angl. Oxon. 1684, tom. I. ad finem, p. 595—598.

Anualibus Melrosenfis Coenobii (MS. in bibl. Cotton.) sequentia suis locis inserta sunt, alia manu.

ANNO 741a obiit Ewain Rex Scottorum, cui successit Murezautb filius ejus.

744. Obiit Murezaut Rex Scottorum, cui successit Ewain filius ejus.

747. Obiit Ewen Rex Scottorum, cui successit Hed Albus filius ejus.

777. Obiit Hed Rex Scottorum, cui successit Fergus filius ejus.

780. Obiit Fergus Rex Scottorum, cui successit Sel­vad filius ejus.

804. Obiit Selvad Rex Scottorum, cui successit Eokal Venenosus.

834. Obiit Eokal Rex Scottorum, cui successit Dun­gal filius ejus.

841. Obiit Dungal Rex Scottorum: Alpinus filius Eokal ei successit.

843. Obiit Alpinus Rex Scottorum, cui successit Ki­ned filius ejus; de quo dicitur:

Primus in Albania fertur regnasse Kinedhus,
Filius Alpini, praelia multa gerens.
Expulsis Pictis regnaverat octo bis annis;
Atque Fortemetc mortuus ille fuit.

Iste vocatus est Rex Primus, non quia fuit, sed quia primus Leges Scoticanas instituit, quas vocant Leges Mac Alpin.

[Page 331]859. Obiit Kinedus Rex Scotorum, cui successit Dovenaldus; de quo dicitur:

Rex Dovenaldus ei successit quatuor annis;
In bello miles strenuus ille fuit.
Regis praedicti frater fuit ille Kinedi;
Qui Sconae fertur subditus esse neci.

863. Obiit Dovenaldus Rex Scottorum.

Fit Constantinus, post hunc, Rex quinque terannis;
Regis Kinedi filius ille fuit.
In bello pugnans Dacorum corruit armis;
Nomine Nigra Specus est ubi pugna fuit.

878. Occiditur Constantinus Rex Scotorum. [Fit] Rex Scotorum Hed frater ejus.

Ejusdem frater regnaverat Albipes Edhus,
Qui Grig Dofnalidae saucius ense perit.
Hic post quam primum Regni compleverat annum,
Justam Caluna vitam vulnere finierat.

879. Rex Scotorum Het occidenturb; post quem,

Grig sua jura gerens annis deca Rex fit et octo,
In Dundurenc morte retentus erat.
Qui dedit Ecclesiae libertates Scoticanae,
Quae sub Pictorum lege redacta fuit.
Hujus ad imperium fuit Anglica tota peracta;
Quod non leva dedit sors sibi bella terens.

897. Obiit Grig Scottorum Rex.

Post hunc in Scotia regnavit Rex Dovenaldus,
Hic Constantino filius ortus erat.
In villa fertur Rex iste perisse Forensi,
Undecimo Regni sole rotante sui.

908. Periit Dofnaldus Rex Scottorum; post quem,

Constantinus idem, cujus pater Hed fuit Albus,
Bis deca Rex annis vixerat, atque decem.
Andreae sancti fuit hic quinquennis in urbe,
Religionis ubi jure fruens obiit.

943. Obiit Constantinus Rex Scottorum.

Huic rex Malcolmus successit ter tribus annis,
Regis Dofnaldi filius ille fuit.
Interfecerunt in ulumd hunc Moravienses,
Gentis apostaticae fraude doloque cadit.

952. Rex Scottorum Malcolmus interficitur.

Post hunc Indulfus totidem regnaverat annis,
Ens Constantini filius Edsaydae.
In bello pugnans, ad fluminis ostia Collin,
Dacorum gladiis protinus occubuit.

[Page 332]961. Rex Scottorum Indulfus occiditur; post quem,

Quatuor et semis Rex Duf regnavit aristis,
Malcolmo natus Regia jura gerens.
Hunc interfecit gens perfida Moraviensis,
Cujus erat gladiis caesus in urbe Fores.
Sol abdit radios, ipso sub ponte latente,
Quo fuit absconsus, quoque repertus erat.

965. Rex Duf Scottorum interficitur. Post quem,

Filius Indulfi totidem quoque Rex fuit annis,
Nomine Culenus, vir fuit insipiens.
Fertur apud Lovias illum truncasse Radhardus,
Pro rapta nata quam sibi rex rapuit.

969. Rex Scottorum Culenus perimitur. Post quem.

Inclytus in Scotia fertur regnasse Kinedus,
Malcolmi natus, quatuor et deca bis.
Iste Fotherkernae telis fit et arte peremptus,
Natae Cuncari Fimberhele fraude cadens.

994. Rex Scottorum Kined occiditur; post quem,

Rex Constantinus, Culeno filius ortus,
Ad caput amnis Aven ense peremptus erat,
In tegalere; regens uno Rex et semis annis,
Ipsum Kinedus Malcolonida ferit.

995. Rex Scottorum Constantinus necatur. Post quem,

Annorum spatio Rex Grim regnaverat octo.
Kinedi n....a qui genitus Duf erat.
Quo truncatus erat Bardorum Campus habetur,
A nato Kined nomine Malcolomi.

1003. Rex Scottorum Grim necatur. Post quem,

In vico Glannisb rapuit mors libera regem,
Sub pede prostratis hostibus ille perit.
Abbatis Crini, jam dicti filia Regis,
Uxor erat Bethocc nomine digna sibi.

1034. Obiit Malcolmus Rex Scottorum; et Dunca­nus nepos ejus ei successit. Iste Malcolmus non habuit filium, sed filiam, quae erat uxor Abbatis Duncaneli Crini; et,

Ex illa genuit Duncanum nomine natum,
Qui senis annis Rex erat Albaniae.
A Finleg natus percussit eum Macabeta;
Vulnere lethali Rex apud Elgin obit,

1039. Obiit Duncanus rex Scottorum, cujus regnum Macbet sibi usurpavit.

Rex Macabeda decem Scotioe septemque fit annis,
In cujus regno fertile tempus erat.
Hunc tamen in Lufnant truncavit morte crudeli,
Duncani natus nomine Malcolmus

[Page 333]1055. Lulach quatuor menses et dimidium regnavit.

Mensibus infelix Lulach tribus extiterat Rex:
Armis ejusdem Malcolomi cecidit.
Fata viri fuerant in Stratbolgin, apud Esseg:
Heu sic incaute Rex miser occubuit!
Hos in pace viros tenet insula Iona sepultos,
In tumulo Regum Judicis usque diem.

1056. Malcolmus filius Dunecani suscepit regnum Scoliae jure haereditario.

Ter deca sexque valens annis, et mensibus octo,
Malcolmus decus Rex erat in Scotia.
Anglorum gladiis in bello sternitur heros:
Hic Rex in Scotia primus humatus erat.

1093. Dovenaldus regnum Scotiae invasit: de quo dicitur:

Mensibus in regno sex regnavit Dovenaldus,
Malcolmus Regis frater, in Albania.
Abstulit hinc regnum Duncanus Malcolomides;
Mensibus et totidem rex erat in Scotia.
Hic fuit occisus Mernensibus in Monodedhnoa,
De male vivendo plebs premit omnis eum.
Rursus Dofnaldus, Duncano rege perempto,
Ternis Rex annis regia jura tenet.
Captus ab Edgaro, vita privatus; at ille
Roscolpin obiit, ossaque Iona tenet.
Post hunc Edgarus regnavit ter tribus annis;
Rex Edenburgo fertur obisse probus.
Regis Alexandri regnum duravit aristis
Quinque bis et septem, mensibus atque octo.
In Scotia tota postquam pax firma vigebat,
Fertur apud Strivelin mors rapuisse regem.
Bis deca Rex annis David fuit atque novenis,
In Scotia, caute provida prospiciens.
Postquam castellis regnum munivit, et armis,
Rex Carduillae fertur obisse senex.
Inclytus in Scotia regnavit Malcolomus Rex,
Bis senis annis, mensibus atque tribus.
Non satis in regno jam tunc pax firma vigebat:
Fertur apud Gedewrhe Rex sine labe mori.
Quattuor hi Reges jam tunc in pace sepulti,
In tumba resident Rex ubi Malcolomus.

Various readings and additions of the MS. Successio Regum Scotorum (Bib. Bodl. C. IV. 3.) with that published in Gale and Fulman, Scriptores Quindecim. The MS. is Saec. XIII.

Fulman, p. 595.
  • Line 1. Kynetus.
  • Line 3. bis—sex.
  • Line 4. Fortemet—Sterthemoth.
  • Line 7. Kynedi—Kyneti.
  • Line 8. Sconae—Scociae.
  • Line 9. quinque ter annis—bis ter in annis.
  • Line 10. Kinedi—Kyneti.
p. 596.
  • Line 1. Albipes Edhus—Allipes Ethus.
  • Line 2. Grig Dofnalidae—Girt Dungalide.
  • Line 4. Calun—Calim.
  • Line 5. Girg sua vita gerens annis deca tetra et octo.
  • Line 6. In terundurne probus.
  • Line 7. Qui—hic.
  • Line 9. Anglica—Anglia.
  • Line 12. Hic—qui.
  • Line 15. Idem—item. Hed—Edh.
  • Line 20. Dofnaldi—Donaldi.
  • Line 21. Interfecerunt hunc ulrum Moravienses.
  • Line 24. Edsaydae—Ethaide.
  • Line 25. Collin—Colli.
  • Line 27. Semis—Senis. Aristis—arestis.
  • Line 35. Lovias—Lemias.
  • Line 37. Kinedus—Kynedus.
p. 597.
  • Line 1. Iste Forchirkern telis et arte peremptus.
  • Line 2. Cuncari Fimberhele—Cumcari Fimglene.
  • Line 4. Aven—Amon.
  • Line 5. In Tegalere—Jus regale. Annis—anno.
  • Line 6. Malcolonida—Malcolomida.
  • Line 7. Grim—Grym.
  • Line 8. Kyneti natus quem genuir Duf erat.
  • [Page 335] Line 9. campus habetur—tempus habetur.
  • Line 10. Kined—Kyneth. Iceni Malcolmus deca ter regnavit aristis; In pugnis miles bellicus, atque probus.
  • Line 11. Glannis—Glamnes. Libera—improba.
  • Line 12. prostratis—paratis. perit—ruit.
  • Line 13. Abbatis—Albertis.
  • Line 14. Bethoc—Betholk.
  • Line 17. Finleg—Finleth. Macabeta—Machabeda.
  • Line 18. Vulnere—Funere. Elgin—Elgyn.
  • Line 19. Macabeta—Machabeda.
  • Line 21. Tamen in Lufnant—in Lumphanan.
  • Line 23. Lulach—Lutatus, or Lucatus.
  • Line 25. Esseg—Essy.
  • Line 26. occubuit—opprimitur.
  • Line 29. sexque—quinque.
  • Line 30. decus—dictus.
  • Line 34. Malcolmus—Malcolmi.
  • Line 35. Malcolomides—Malcolomido.
p. 598.
  • Line 1. fuit—erat. Mernensibus—Mermensibus. Monodedhno—Monehedne.
  • Line 2. De—Set.
  • Line 3. Dofnaldus—Dovenaldus.
  • Line 5. Edgaro—Edgario. Vita privatus—visu privatur.
  • Line 6. Roscolpin—Roscolbyn.
  • Line 8. Edinburgo—Edingburgo.
  • Line 9. aristis—arestis.
  • Line 10. octo—tribus.
  • Line 11. firma—form.
  • Line 12. regem—virum.
  • Line 16. Carduillae—Cadimille.
[DAVID I. 1124.]
Istius in regno quidam fuit insidiator,
Quem cum cepisset, lumine privat eum.
Hunc ex pane cibat: cui regis nata solebat
Currere ludendo; quam fodit ultor atrox.
Cum videt natae pregnans regina cruorem,
Ille comes fuerat Henricus, ductor ad arma;
Malcolmi, Wilhelmi pater, atque David:
[Page 336]
[MALCOM IV. 1153.]
Conditus in Kelton prevenit morte parentem.
Malcolmi laudem vita pudica perit.
Hic successit avo tractando regia septra.
Bis senis, &c. as line 18; the 17th being omitted.
  • 20. Gedewrhe—Gewdte.
  • 21. tunc—sunt.
  • 22. tumba resident—tumbaque jacent.


Flos regum, regnique vigor; decus omne virorum,
Wilelmus, celum, rex probus, ingreditur.
Annis in regno jam quinquaginta peractis,
In Strivilino mors rapit atra senem.
Pridie rex obiit Nonas, in pace, Decembris:
Qui Prodocensi conditur almus humo.
Tunc agitur regimen facientis regia septra
Regis Alexandri, nobilis et pii.
Cleri protector; rigidi quoque juris amator;
Munificusque dator; inclitus iste fuit.
Ter deca, cum quinque, regni cum fecerat, annis.
Fuit in Ergadia: set sine fine manet.
Fine caret jure, cujus probitatis honestas
Per famam vivit; per bona facta viget.
Ergadia moritur Octo cum fecerat I dus
Julius. Ac Melros ossa sepulta tenet.

Nomen habet patris; utinam patris acta sequatur Filius, Albani qui modo sceptra tenet.

NUMBER IV. Kings of Norway.

THE history of Norway has had a singular fate; for while in that of Denmark, and Sweden; writers and materials are wanting, till a late period, the Norwegian, on the contrary, labours under an excess of materials; owing to the number of I celandic Sagas, chiefly relating to Norway, the parent country of Ice­land. Snorro's history, in particular, is merely that of Norway; tho his first book contains the Swedish kings, down to the conquest of Sweden by Ivar Vidfatme king of Denmark, about the year 760; because those princes, who gained the command of all Norway, were descended from the Swedish race. The work of Snorro is very prolix, and full of private anecdotes; being, like the other Sagas, Memoirs, and not History.

Twenty, or more, petty monarchies prevailed in Norway, till the ninth century. About the year 760 Ingiald, king of Sweden, was vanquished by Ivar king of Denmark. Olaf, son of Ingiald, retired to the north­west of Sweden; and founded a kingdom. His son Halfdan Whitbein, by the help of many Swedish re­fugees, subdued a great part of the south-east of Nor­way, about present Christiana. To him succeeded Eystein, his son, king of the said part of Norway, an­ciently called Raumarik and Westfold. His son was Halfdan; and Halfdan's son Gudreyd; next Olaf son of Gudreyd, and Ragnvald son of Olaf; all successive kings of the same territory. Then followed Halfdan Swart brother of Olaf, and son of Gudreyd, with whom the real history of Norway dawns. It is remarkable that Snorro, who gives the above account, makes every king father and son, till the real history begins; when no such succession is found, but various contingencies happen. Now as it is impossible that succession should be regular in a barbaric kingdom, and irregular as it became civilized, Snorro's genealogies are certainly false, till the real history dawns. The names may be [Page 338]real: but that every king succeeded his father is ficti­tious in itself; and inconsistent with all real accounts of the barbaric government of the Goths.

About 870 Halfdan Swart, king of Westfold and Raumarik, subdued two or three other petty kingdoms.

About 900 HARALD I. Harfagre succeeded his fa­ther Halfdan Swart: and about 910 conquering the several petty kingdoms, became master of all Norway. He died in 936.

936. Eric l. Blodox, a son of Harald, attempted to seize the kingdom; but was forced to retire to England.

937. HAKON I. the Good, a son of Harald, who had been educated in England by king A thelstan, was cho­sen king. He was a Christian, but could not convert his subjects; and was slain in 963, after reigning 26 years.

963. HARALD II. Grafeld, son of Eric Blodox, and his brothers, got the sovereignty. But Hakon, a power­ful earl, held Drontheim, the province in which the capital ftood, since Norway became one kingdom. In 970 earl Hakon was forced to fly to Denmark. King Harald was slain in 977.

978. Hakon was made EARL of Norway by the Da­nish king, upon homage. This earldom lasted till 996, when Hakon was slain.

996. OLAF I. Trygvason, a descendant of Harald Harfagre, coming from Ireland, assumed the kingdom. Tho he reigned only four years, he is much celebrated by northern history. He was certainly a great prince; and with much courage and conduct forced his whole subjects to become Christians. Iceland was also con­verted; and Vinland a part of North America disco­vered; during this short, but glorious reign. He was killed in a sea sight, against the kings of Denmark and Sweden, in the year 1000.

1000. Norway was partly subject to Denmark and Sweden; partly to earl Eric, son of earl Hakon. In 1012 earl Eric went to England.

1014. OLAF II. the Saint, a relation of Olaf Tryg­vason, coming from England assumed the scepter of Norway. This saint was of the church militant, for his long reign is full of incidents, and enterprize; and occupies a fourth part of Snorro's work. Olaf was slain fighting against the Danes, August 1030. He is the patron saint of Norway.

[Page 339]1030. Swein, son of Canute the great, king of Eng­land and Denmark, ruled Norway till 1035; when he fled to Hardaknut his brother in Denmark.

1035. MAGNUS I. the GOOD, son of Olaf the saint, was chosen king of Norway. Having agreed with Har­daknut, king of Denmark, that he who survived should inherit the dominions of the other, in 1041 Magnus the good became KING OF NORWAY AND DENMARK. He died in 1047: and Swein, a descendant of Canute the Great, acquired the crown of Denmark.

1047. HARALD III. Hardrad, brother of Olaf the Saint, became king of Norway. After reigning 19 years, he was slain in a battle against Harold king of England, 25 Sept. 1066.*

1067. OLAF III. Kyrre, or the Peaceable, son of Harald Hardrad, began his reign. In 1069 he founded Biorgen or Bergen; and built a stone church there; and improved the old wooden one. In 1077 he built a stone church at Nidaros, now Drontheim, and placed the relics of St. Olaf in it. He died 22 Sept. 1093, after a happy reign of 26 years.

1093. MAGNUS II. Baerfetta, son of Olaf Kyrre be­came king. Hakon was however chosen king of part of Norway, but died in 1095. In 1098 Magnus under­took his famous expedition to the Orkneys, and He­budes, which he subdued. In 1102 he went on another expedition: and was slain in Ireland in 1103.

1103. SIGURD I. Jorsalafar, EYSTEIN, and OLAF, the three sons of Magnus Baerfetta, reign together. Si­gurd is famed for his expedition into the Mediterranean, and valiant actions in distant realms, 1107—1111. In 1116 Olaf died. Eystein in 1123. Sigurd in 1130.

1130. MAGNUS III. Blinda, son of Sigurd, became king of Norway. But half of the kingdom was assigned to Harald Gil, son of Magnus Baerfetta. In 1134 Ha­rald is defeated by Magnus; but returning with assist­ance from Denmark, he takes Magnus captive, castrates him, and puts out his eyes.

1135. HARALD IV. Gil, reigned one year; and was slain in a conspiracy.

1136. SIGURD II. and INGI I. sons of Harald Gil, are made kings. In 1142 EYSTEIN, another son of Harald Gil, coming from Scotland is also made king [Page 340]with his brothers. In 1153 Eystein ravaged the eastern shores of Scotland and England, burned Aberdeen, &c. Drontheim or Nidaros was, in 1152, made an archie­piscopal see by the Pope. In 1155 Sigurd was slain, in a battle with Ingi his brother. Eystein fell in 1157; and HAKON was chosen in his stead. Ingi was slain in 1161.

1161. HAKON II. Herdabreid, son of Sigurd, be­comes king of Norway: slain in 1162.

1162. MAGNUS IV. son of Erling an earl, was cho­sen king. Sigurd, son of Sigurd, reigned over a province or two. In 1175 the famous faction of the Birkabeins appeared in Vika, or the south-east of Norway; and continued long to give, and take away, the royalty. In 1176 they made Eystein, son of Eystein, king: who being slain in 1177, they appointed SVERIR in his stead.

*⁎* Thus far from the chronology of the Three First Vo­lumes of Snorro, l [...]tely printe [...] at Copenhagen. *

1177. SUERIR was elected king by the Birkbeins; after great tumult, and many battles with E [...]ling, and Magnus son of Erling, he at last became king of Nor­way. He was long infested by the Baglar, a powerful faction, whom he at length suppressed. He reigned 25 years; and died in 1202.

1202. HAKON III. son of Suerir, reigned 2 years; died 1204.

1204. GUTHORM Sigurdson, grandson of Suerir, an infant of four years of age. Hakon Galin, and Peter Steiper, governed for him. Died 1205.

1205. INGI II. Baa [...]son, infested by Erling chief of the Baglar, and by Philip who succeeded Erling. He gave part of his kingdom to Philip; and so appeased the Baglar. Reigned 12 years. Died 1217.

1217. HAKON IV. Hakonson, a boy of thirteen. He gave part of his kingdom to Earl Skuli, his father­in-law, [Page 341]to avoid sedition: but the Earl rebelling, Hakon crushed him; and after reigned in peace. He carried on a war against Scotland, with little success: died on the expedition; and was buried at Drontheim or Nidaros, 1263, after reigning 47 years.

1263. MAGNUS V. son of Hakon, had been de­clared king in 1259, four years before his father's death. His virtues equalled his father's. He cultivated peace, and reformed the laws; whence he was called Lagebetter, He died 1280, after reigning 21 years.

1280. ERIC II. son of Magnus, carried on a long war against the Danes. Reigned 19 years: died 1299.

1299. HAKON V. another son of Magnus, continued the war with the Danes: reigned 20 years; died 1319.

1319. MAGNUS VI. Smeck, son of Eric, made king of Norway and Sweden, when a child; and added to his realm the province of Sconen in Denmark. He gave Sweden to his son Eric; and Norway to his son Ha­kon. Eric having died, the Swedes rebelled against Magnus; and put him in prison, in the 46th year of his reign. Being delivered by his son Hakon in 1371, he passed the remainder of his life in Norway. He perished in passing the bay of Bomelfiord, 1374.

1374. HAKON VI. son of Magnus, had Norway during the life of his father: whom to redeem from captivity, he carried on a long war against the Swedes. He took to wife Margaret, daughter of Waldemar king of Denmark: and died in 1380, after reigning 25 years.

1381. OLAF IV. son of Hakon VI. was first chosen king of Denmark, 1376, and on the death of his father acceded to Norway, 1381. He died without children 1387: and thus left both his kingdoms to his mother Margaret; who added a third by conquering Albert king of Sweden. Sweden was delivered from the Danes by Gustaf Wase, 1523: but Norway has, ever since 1387, remained attached to Denmark.*

NUMBER V. Kings of Denmark.

IT may safely be denied that even the fabulous part of Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian history, can be carried to an earlier date, than the year 500 after Christ. The number of kings, of whom (according to the soundest principles of chronology), not more than ten years, at a medium, can be assigned to each; instead of thirty, or a generation, as absurdly put by the northern antiquaries; serves to ascertain this epoch. The Sla­vonic nations of Poland and Russia, who had writers rather before the Scandinavian kingdoms, are yet con­tented to begin even their sabulous history in the se­venth and eighth centuries. In digesting this series of Danish kings, Torfaeus is followed, as to the names, preceding the ninth century; his arguments against Saxo, concerning that period, being conclusive. But that part is sabulous, not historical: and when Torfaeus comes to the ninth century, he errs by supposing that his Islandic sagas, of sufficiently fabulous faith to check the fables of Saxo, could be set against Eginhart, Adam of Bremen, and others, who wrote centuries before any of these Islandic Sagas were imagined. Adam of Bre­men given the succession of many Danish and Swedish kings, of the ninth and tenth centuries: and his autho­rity is here followed, as a far nearer writer, both in time and place, than those Sagas; which being written in Iceland, shew a peculiar ignorance concerning Den­mark, the most southerly of the Scandinavian king­doms. As Adam is confessedly right in his account of Swedish kings, he is certainly so in that of the Danish; nor is to be supposed that he took kings of Jutland for those of Denmark, as some Danish antiquaries dream; for he distinguishes Jutland by its own name, or by that of Dania Cismarina, as distinct from Denmark, or Sealand, whose kings he mentions. And as he precedes Saxo by a whole century, and the Islandic sagas by two, and had his accounts from Swein II. king of Denmark himself; he deserves more faith, by every rule of his­toric authority, than any later writer.

From Torsaeus and Mallet.
  • [Page 343]Skiold, say about A. D. 500.
  • Fridlef I.
  • Frodi I.
  • Fridlef II.
  • Havar.
  • Frodi II.
  • Vermund.
  • Olas I.
  • Dan.
  • Frodi III.
  • Halfdan I. about A. D. 610.
  • Fridlef III.
  • Olaf II.
  • Frodi IV.
  • Ingiald.
  • Halfdan II.
  • Frodi V.
  • Helgo.
  • Hrolf Krak about A. D. 700.
  • Interreign of uncertain length, the kingdom being split in divisions.*
  • Ivar Vidfatme 750.
From ancient French and German writers, Eginhart, Adam of Bremen, &c.
  • Heriold, (perhaps the same with the Harald Hyldet­and of Icelandic sagas), A. D. 770.
  • Sigfrid, 776: (perhaps the Sigurd Ring of Icelandic accounts.)
  • Godfrid, 800.
  • Heming, 810.
  • Heriold and Reginfrid, 812. (This last is perhaps Regnar Lodbrog, who must have flourished about 820; as in 870 his grandsons slew St. Edmund the king. Adam of Bremen, p. 14. mentions Inguar filius Lodparchi, about 865, as ravaging France.)
  • [Page 344]Horic I. 827.
  • Horic II. 854.
  • Sigifrid 870.
  • Helgo.
  • Olaf king of Sweden conquered Denmark, about 895.
  • Ehnob, his sons.
  • Gurd, his sons.
  • Sigeric.
  • Hardegon of Norway.
  • Hardeknut.
After this all accounts agree.
  • Gurm, or Gormo, 920.
  • Harald Blaatand, 945.
  • Swein I. 985.
  • Canute the Great, 1014.
  • Hardaknut, 1035.
  • Magnus the Good, 1041.
  • Swein II. 1047 to 1074.

NUMBER VI. Kings of Sweden.

The more ancient Swedish kings are from Snorro; who goes down to Ivar Vidfatme, about A. D. 760, in a clear succession. After which they are drawn from Adam of Bremen; from scattered parts of Snorro; and from the Series Regum Daniae of Torfaeus; the Swedes having no native history, till the fourteenth century. Odin and Niord are mythologic, and have no place here.

  • Fiolner, cotemporary with Frodi I. king of Den­mark, about A. D. 520.
  • Svedger.
  • Vanland.
  • Visbur.
  • Domald.
  • Domar.
  • Dyggvi.
  • Dag.
  • Agni, about A. D. 600.
  • Alrek, together.
  • Eirek, together.
  • Alfr, together.
  • Yngvi, together.
  • Hugleik.
  • Haki.
  • Jorund.
  • Ani.
  • Egil.
  • Ottar.
  • Adils, cotemporary with Hrolf Krak according to Snorro, about A. D. 700.
  • Eysten.
  • Yngvar.
  • Aunund.
  • Ingiald.

[Page 346]Ivar Vidfalme, king of Denmark, conquers Sweden about A. D. 760, and Snorro's series closes; he now proceeding to Norwegian history. Adam of Bremen begins with Biorn A. D. 829: and from Ivar Vidfatme to Biorn the series is very obscure. Snorro does not even mention one king of Upsal or Sweden, after Ingiald, till the time of Harald Harfagre king of Norway, or about the year 910 when Eric occurs*

From Adam of Bremen.
  • Biorn I. 829.
  • Amund I. 840.
  • Olaf I. 850.
  • Biorn II. 855.
  • Eric I. 870.
  • Olaf II. 890, conquers Denmark. Adam, p. 16.
  • Eric II. 908.
  • Ring, 920.
  • Eric III.
  • Amund II. 950.
  • Stenkil I.
  • Eric IV. 970.
  • Olaf III. Skotkonung, 990.
  • Amund Jacob, 1019.
  • Hakon, 1041.
  • Stenkil II. 1059.
  • Ingi the Pious, 1066.

After this the series is clear, as the Danish is after Gormo 920.

NUMBER VII. Earls of the Orkneys.

THE first number on the right hand is the page of Torfaeus, and the second that of the Orkneyinga Saga, in which the history of each may be found*.

From Torsaeus, and the Orkn. Saga.From the Diploma in Wal­lace's Orkneys.
Ab. 920.Rognwald.Rognald.7.3.
920.Sigurd I.Sivard.12.3.
 Hallad. 17.
 Einar Torf.Egvard Turffeid.18.3.
936.Arnkell. 22.3.
936.Erlend. 22.3.
940.Thorfin Hausa­kliufur.Thurwider Ged­clevar.24.3.
970.Arnfin. sons of Thorsin. 24.5.
970.Havard. sons of Thorsin. 24.5.
970.Liot. sons of Thorsin. 24.5.
970.Skuli. sons of Thorsin. 24.5.
996.Sigurd II. slain 1014.Sivard.27.5.
1014.Sumarlid. sons of Sigurd. 45.5.
 Einar. sons of Sigurd. 45.5.
 Brusi. sons of Sigurd. 45.5.
 Thorfin, made Earl about 1028.Thursin, son of Sigurd II. by a daughter of Malcom, king of Scotland.51.5.
1099.Erling.Erlin II.116.
Ab. 1103.Hacon.Hacoin.90.141.
 Magnus I. (Sanctus) slain by Hacon 1110.Magnus I.86.132.
1115.Harald I. to 1136. 91.141.
 Paul. to 1136. 91.141.
 Koli, or Rognvald 113—1159.Roland.98.169.
 Erlend to 1158.Eric.129.327.
 Harald II. son of Madad, Earl of Athole, 1150—1198.Harild*.113.231.
 Harald III. Ungi, 1190—1191. 145.407.
1198.David, to 1215.John.  
 Ion, to 1231.John.154.419.
1231.Magnus II.Magnus II. from whom Alex. took Sutherland.163. 
1239.Gibbon.Gilbert I. 165.
1256. Gilbert II.  
1267.Magnus III.Magnus III. 172.
1274.Magnus IV.Magnus IV. 172.
1284.Ion.John. 172.
1305.Magnus V.Magnus V. Malis Comes de Stratherne.  

NUMBER VIII. Some themes for dissertations on Scotish history.

*⁎* Scotland is certainly that country in Europe, if we only except Ireland, in which national history, and antiquities, are most neglected. If any taste for the subject should ever arise, such themes as the following may be expected to be treated in Latin, the universal language of the learned. On the continent there is not a country, which cannot boast of many of the kind.

  • De primis Scotiae habitatoribus.
  • De regno Strathelydensi.
  • De regno Cumbriae.
  • De origine Caledonum vel Pictorum.
  • De nomin [...]bus montium, fluminum, oppidorum in Scotia.
  • De Provincia Vespasiana.
  • De regiae successionis jure apud Pictos.
  • De stirpe regali Pictorum.
  • De chronologia regum Pictorum.
  • De lingua Pictica.
  • De moribus Pictorum.
  • De origine Dalriadorum.
  • De Attacottis.
  • De regno, et regibus, Dalriadorum.
  • De anno quo Selvacus regnum accepit.
  • De defectione stirpis regalis Dalriadinae, circa A. D. 740.
  • De genealogia Kennethi filii Alpini.
  • De parte obscura historiae Dalriadinae, ab A. D. 740, ad A. D. 843.
  • De moribus et lingua Dabiadorum.
  • De unione Pictorum et Dalriadorum, sub Kennetho Alpini filio.
  • De anno quo Kennethus Alpini f. mort [...]us est.
  • D tempore quo Norvegi Hebudes et Orcades occuparunt.
  • De rebus gestis Malcolmi Secundi.
  • De anno quo Mach [...]thus occisus est.
  • [Page 350]De patre Malcolmi tertii.
  • An Laudonia ad Angliam vel ad Scotiam pertinebat?
  • Cur et quando Pictinia nomen novum Scotiae accepit?
  • De conversione Pictorum, vel Scotorum hodiernorum.
  • De fundatione ecclesiae Abernethensis.
  • De historia Hebudum.
  • De abbatibus Hyonae.
  • De Culdeis.
  • Cur literae tam sero inter Pictos, vel Scotos hodiernos, ortae sunt?
  • Topographia Scotiae medii aevi.
  • Origines Edinburgenses, &c. &c. &c.
PIKIA, indigenis PIHTLAND; vel PIKLAND; (quae et ALBANIA, et post A. 1016. SCOTIA:) ab A. 800 ad 1100.


  • 1. Kenneth III. 843.
    • 3. Constantin II. 864.
      • 6. Donal II. 864.
        • 8. Malcom I. 944.
          • [...] ▪ Odo 961.
            • [...] ▪ Kenneth V. 993.
          • 12. Kenneth IV. 970.
            • 15. Malcom II. 1001.
              • Bethoc — CRINAN, Abbot of Dunkeld.
                • 16.Duncan, 1031.
                  • Duncan, king of Cumbria.
                    • 17. Malcom III. 1056.
    • 4. Ed 882. Daughter (Malmora?)
      • 7.Constantin III. 904.
        • 9.Indulf 953.
          • 11. Culen 965.
            • 13. Constantin IV. 992.
    • 5. Achy 883. Ku K. of Stratclyde.
  • 2. Donal I. 860.
    • 5. Grig 883.


Talorc II. 452.   
Nethan I. 458.   
Drust II. 481.Loarn 503.  
Galan I. 511.Fergus 503.  
Dadrust 523.Domangard 506.  
Drust III. 524.Congal 511.  
Drust IV. 524.   
Garnat III. 535.   
Gailtram 542.   
Talorc II. 543.Gabran 545.Ida 547. 
Drust V. 554.   
Galan II. 555.   
Brudi II. 557.Conal I. 560.Adda 559.Ella 559.
Garnat IV. 587.Aidan 575.Clappa 564. 
Nethan II. 598. [...]ochoid I. 605.Theodulf 571. 
Kenneth I. 618.Conad Keir 622.Freothulf 572. 
Garnat V. 637. [...]ercar I. 622.Theodoric 579. 
Brudi III. 641.Donal I. 630.Athelric 588.Edwin 589.
Talorc IV. 646.Conal II. 642.Athelfrid or Alfrid 593.
Talorgan I. 658.Dungal I. 642.Edwin 617.
Garnat VI. 662.Donal II. 652.Osric 634.Eanfred 634.
Drust VI. 669.Malduin 665.Oswald 634.
Brudi IV. 676.Fercar II. 682.Oswi 642.Oswi 644.
Tharan II. 697.Eochoid II. 703. Adelwalt 652.
Brudi V. 701.Ambkellac 705. Alfred 660—67 [...]
Nethan III. 712.Selvac 706. 
Drust VII. 727. Egfrid 670.
Elpin I. 727.Eochoid III. 726.Alfred 685.
Ungust I. 732.Murdac 736.Eandulf 704.
Brudi VI. 761.Osred 704.
Kenneth II. 763.Aod 743.Kenred 715.
Elpin II. 775.Donal III. 773.Osric 717.
Dru [...]t VIII. 779.Fergus II. 777.Ceolwulf 728.
Talongan II. 784.Doncorcai 782.Egbert 736.
Canul 786.Conal III. 789.Oswald 756.
Constantin I. 791.Conal IV. 791.Ethelwald 757.
Ungust II. 821.Constantin 795.Alred 768.
Drust IX. 833.Angus 804.Ethelred 779.
Talorgan III. 833.Aod II. 813.Athelwold 784.
Uven 836.Eoganan 817.Osred 796.
Vered 8 [...]9.Dungal II. 830.Ethelred again 797.
Brudi VII. 842.Alpin 837.Eardulf 801. Alfwold. Eandre [...]
Kenneth III. 843.Kenneth 841.Ethelred. Redulf. Osbert 840.


  Dathy 405. 
  Leogaire 428. 
  Ailil 463. 
Skiold about 500. Lugaid 483. 
Fridlef I. Moriertac 513. 
Frodi I.Fiolner about 520.  
Fridlef II.   
Havar.Svedger.Tuathal 534. 
Frodi II.Vanland.Dermid I. 544. 
Olaf I.Domald.  
Frodi III.Dyggvi.Fergus 565. 
 Dag.Donald I. 565. 
  Amirach 566. 
Halfdan I. about 610.Agni, about 600.Beotan 569. 
 Alrek.Eochan 569.Cadwan about 600.
Fridlef III.Eirek.Ed I. 572. 
Olaf II.Al [...]r.Ed II. 598.Cadwallon about 617.
Frodi IV.Yngvi.Colman 598. 
Ingiald.Hugleik.Ed III. 604. 
Halfdan II.Haki.Maelcob 612.Cadwallader about 665.
Frodi V.Jorund.Suibnè 615.
Helgo.Ani.Donald II. 628. 
Hrolf Krak, about 700.Egil.Cellac 642.Ivar 680.
 Ottar.Conal 642.Edwal I. 680.
 Adils, about 700.Dermid II. 658.Roderic I. 720.
 Eysten.Blathmac. 658. 
Interreign.Yngvar.Secnesac 665. 
 Aunund.Coenfelad 671.Conan 755.
Ivar Widfatme about 750.Ingiald.Finsa 675. 
 Sweden conquered by Ivar.Loingsec 695. 
Heriold I. 770. Congal 704. 
Sigfrid 776. Fergal 710. 
  Fogertach 723. 
  Cinaod 724. 
Godfrid 800. Flahertac 728.Mervin 817.
Heming 810. Ed IV. 734. 
Heriold II. 812. Donald III. 743. 
Reginfrid 812. Nial 763. 
Horic I. 827.Biorn I. 829.Donach I. 778. 
 Amund I. 840.Ed V. 797. 
  Concobar 820. 
  Nial Cail 832. 


Kenneth III. 843.Ethelwulf 838.Ricsig I. 860. 
Donal 860.Ethelbald 858.Egbert 871. 
Constantin II. 864.Ethelbert 858.Guthrun. 
 Ethelred I. 866.Ricsig II. 894. 
Ed 882.Alfred 872.Regnald 903. 
Eochod 883. Nial 903. 
Grig 883. Sihtric 914. 
Donal II. 894. Inguald 919.Harald I. Harfagre, about 900.
Constantin III. 904.Edward I. 900.Guthfert 926. 
 Athelstan 925.Anlaf I.Eric I. 936.
Malcom I. 944.Edmund I. 941.Anlaf II. 940.Hakon I. 937.
Indulf 953.Edred 948.Eric 948—950. 
Odo Duff 961.Edwi 955.last king.Harald II. 963.
Culen 965.Edgar 959.  
Kenneth IV. 970.Edward II. 975.  
Constantin IV. 992.Ethelred II. 979. Olaf I. 996.
Kenneth V. Grim 993.   
Malcom II. 1001.Edmund II. 1016. Olaf II. 1014.
 Canute 1017.  [...]wein 1030.
Duncan 1031.Harold I. 1036. Magnus I. 1035.
Macbeth 1037.Hardaknut 1039. Harald III. 1047.
Lulac 1054.Edward III. 1041.  
Malcom III. 1056.   


  Melsehlin I. 846.Roderic II. 844.
Hōric II. 854.Olaf I. 850.Ed VI. 862.Anaraud 876.
 Biorn II. 855.Flan 879.Edwal II. 913.
 Eric I. 870. Howel Dha 913.
Sigfrid 870.   
Olaf, king of Sweden, 895.Olaf II. 890.  
Ehnob.Eric II. 908.  
Gurd.Ring 920.  
Sigeric.Eric III.Nial 916.Ievaf 948.
Hardegon.Amund II. 950.Donach II. 919.Iago 948.
Hardaknut I.Stenkil I.Congelac 944. 
Gormo 920.Eric IV. 970.Donald IV. 956. 
Harald 945.   
 Olaf III. 990.  
  Melsehlin II. 980.Howel II. 972.
Swein I. 985.  Cadwallon 984.
   Meredith 986.
  Brian Boro 1002—1014.Edwal III. 993.
Canute 1014.Amund Jacob, 1019. Aedan 1002.
Hardaknut II. 1035. Melsehlin again to 1023.Llewelin 1015.
 Amund III. 1035. Iago 1025.
Magnus 1041.Hakon 1041.Interreign.Griffith 1037.
Swein II. 1047. Dermid III. 1044. 


⁂ Volume I. has no distinction: Vol. II. is ex­pressed thus, II. 1, &c.

This Index does not take in the Preface, Introduc­tion, nor Appendixes.

  • ABBOTS, their dignity in the middle ages, II. 193.271. lay, II. 195. of Hyona, II. 268. of Dunkeld, II. 268.
  • Aber, meaning of, 147.
  • Abercorn, seat of a bishopric, 335.
  • Abernethy, church of, when founded, 257.296. II. 267.
  • Abernith, where, II. 207.208.
  • Adomnan, his testimony concerning Strat-Clyde, 61. his injunction to transcribers, 62. his account of the boundary between the Piks and Dalriads, 316. tes­timony concerning Eochod Buide, II. 115. Donal Brec, II. 118. story of Coronan, an Irish bard, II. 144. his life of Columba praised, II. 267. when he wrote, II. 277.
  • Agricola, his conquests, 9. his forts, 45. Calphurnius, 58. Roman camps, &c. wrongly imputed to him, 215.222. campigns, 218. fortifies Galloway, 219.
  • Aidan, his reign, II. 113. greatest of the Dalriadic kings, II. 114.118. defeated, II. 115. his death, and sons, II. 115.
  • [Page]Ailred's life of Ninian, 66. II. 266.
  • Albani, a name of the Piks, II. 232.246. whence, 236.
  • Albania, a name of Scotland, II. 233. synonymous with Pikland, II. 234.236. described by an ancient writer, II. 235. was the east of Scotland, II. 236.
  • Alcluid, 61. seqq. subdued, 77. burnt, ib. not Carlile, 84. strength of, 337.
  • Ale, the drink of all the Goths, 277.393.
  • Alexander III. his genealogy, 252.
  • Alpin or Elpin, Pikish king, 304. another, 308. II. 131. father of Kenneth, II. 132. name Gothic, II. 161.
  • Ammianus, his description of Britain lost, 117. II. 71.
  • Angli, painted themselves, 326. who, II. 285. when they first came to Britain, II. 288.290.
  • Anglo-Saxon language Belgic, 356. specimen of, 362.
  • Angus son of Erc, II. 92.
  • Annals of Ulster, praise of, 77. coincide with the Chro­nicon Pictorum, 260. mistakes, II. 111.117.
  • Antiquaries good, rarer than good historians, 400. rash, 404. difference between the British and continental, II. 12.30.
  • Antiquities poetical or historical, 164. remarks on the study of, 398. necessary to history, ib. of Britain Celtic or Gothic, 400.404. form a distinct science, 400. cannot be illustrated without history, 415. mi­serable state of the study in Scotland, II. 52.
  • Antoninus, wall of, 46.55.
  • Arderyd, or Atterith, battle of, 74.
  • Argyle, ancient limits of, II. 98. not in Scotia, II. 235. nor in Albania, II. 236.
  • Armorica, extent of, 188.
  • Artga, king of Stratclyde, 78.
  • Arthur, fabulous, 76. places named from him, 77.
  • Asmund, king of Vika, story of, 177.
  • Athelstan, king of England, defeats Constantin III. II. 183.
  • Attacotti, unknown to Ptolemy, 40.210. their lan­guage, 136. mixt, 137. were the Dalriads, II. 70. seqq. distinguished in the Notitia Imperii, II. 72. number, II. 95. said to eat human flesh, II. 142.
  • Authorities, ancient, sole foundations of history, 107.162.
  • [Page]Bag-pipe, used by the Greeks and Romans, 391. mo­dern in Scotland, 392.
  • Baily M. censured, 401. confuted, 402.
  • Bal, meaning of, 150.
  • Ballads, earliest poetry, 390.
  • Barbaric arts interesting, 411. monuments how erected, 412. nations different from savage, II. 35.
  • Barrows or tumuli, 393.412.
  • Beda, his account of the Piks, 119.188.190. of the Pikish royal election, 261. explained, 271. neglects chronolgy, II. 60. account of the Dalriads, II. 61.
  • Belgae Germans, 21.24. possessed the south-east of Bri­tain, 22. their boundaries, 27. seqq. colonies among the Celts, 31.411. fathers of the English language and people, 32.208. when settled in Britain, 201. II. 35. their language, why called Anglic, 356. dis­covered to be Saxon by Sir. J. Clerk, 365. progress, 403. of Ireland, II. 29. (see Ireland.)
  • Berigonium, fabulous, 224.
  • Bernicia, extent of, 73.327.334. II. 206.
  • Bethoc, daughter of Malcom II. II. 192.
  • Bilé, king of Stratclyde, 77.
  • Boats covered with skins, 375.
  • Borlase, his Druidic monuments, 409.
  • Boroughs in Scotland possessed by the English, 345. origin of, 346.
  • Brechen given to the church, II. 188.247.268.
  • Brets, 80.
  • Brigantes seem Germans, 30. numerous, 40.
  • Brigantia, her statue, 40.
  • Britain little known to the Greeks, 4. Caesar's account of, ib. that of Diodorus Siculus, 5. of Strabo, 6. possessed by two races of men in Caesar's time, 22. population of, little illustrated by ancient writers, 23. name Gothic, 31. produced no Latin author in Ro­man times, 33. affairs of obscure, 104. II. 71.
  • Britons, origin of the southern, 21. wall built by, 46. a general name for all the people of Britain, 103. why given especially to the Welch, 104. provincial, 112. of Beda the Welch, 120.
  • Brothers preferred to sons in regal succession, 263.
  • [Page]Brudi, a name, 286. I. his reign, 288. son of Meilo­chon, or II. 299. IV. defeats Egfrid king of Nor­thumbria his brother-in-law, 332.
  • Brun-Alban, II. 97.
  • Bruneburg, battle of, II. 183.
  • Caesar, his description of Britain, 4. account of its people, 23. of Gaul, 24.
  • Calchuth or Calcot, council of, 325.
  • Caledonia, country so called by Tacitus, 107.
  • Caledonians, (see Piks): called Britons, 103. same with the Piks, 105. proved from ancient writers, 107. called [...] by Ptolemy, 107. by Dio, 108. why so called, 113.220. account of by Tacitus, 184. weapons German, 186. defend the Maeatae, 216. name peculiar to those of North Britain, 220.
  • Camden misled concerning the Piks, 121.198.
  • Camelon, fabulous, 224.
  • Canons, their origin, II. 272.
  • Cantae, their situation, 225.
  • Canut, Pikish king, 293.
  • Car, if Celtic, 226.
  • Carausius wars in North Britain, 43.
  • Careni, their situation, 228.
  • Carlile, people of, 86.
  • Carnonacae, their situation, 228.
  • Carrick, Irish spoken in, 73.
  • Carrum, battle of, II. 189.
  • Cassiterides, Britain and Ireland so called, 3.
  • Castles Pikish, 415.
  • Castra Alata, where, 224.
  • Castra Puellarum, Dunfries, II. 208.
  • Catrail, what, 49.
  • Caves, retreats in war, 415.
  • Caunus, king of Stratclyde, 63.
  • Celestius, an Irishman, II. 260.
  • Celts, ancient inhabitants of Europe, 13. reduced to the west, ib. earliest inhabitants of Scotland, 14. their speech half Gothic, 17. were savages, 17. II. 48. made no conquests, 23. did not paint themselves, 131. the Celtic language, 132. II. 33. mixt with Latin and Gothic, 134.358. originally poor, 137. [Page]etymology, censure of, 138.157. enemies to cultiva­tion, 172. despised women, 268. easily conquered, 385. their poetry simple, 388. melancholic, 389. they, and the Goths, the only nations to be traced in Britain, 399. Celts had no monuments, 407. of Spain, II. 22. language changes names, II. 47.
  • Cerones, or Kerones, their situation, 228.
  • Chamberlayne, his Oratio Dominica praised, 362.
  • Chess, a favourite game of the Goths, 396.
  • Children, exposition of, 392.
  • Chronicon Pictorum, 243. its accuracy, 244.248. when written, II. 152.245. accounts for the origin of Scoti, II. 245.
  • Chronology of the Pikish kings, 275. of the Dalriadic, II. 101.
  • Churches few in Pikland, II. 247.
  • Cimbri, Celts, 13. first inhabitants of Scotland, 16. and Teutones, their habitations, 170. conquests, 171. remains, 202.
  • Circles of stones, places of judgment, 413. and for other uses, 415. II. 255.
  • Classernis, judicial circle at, 415.
  • Claudian, his error concerning the Piks, 187.
  • Claudius first began the conquest of Britain, 8. fable concerning his conquering the Orkneys, 8.
  • Clergy, their power, II. 194. of Scotland foreigners, II. 270. of the Piks, Irish, II. 278.
  • Clerk, Sir J. a good antiquary, 365. first observed that the Belgic Britons spoke Saxon, ib. mistaken that the Piks were Saxons, 366.
  • Clyde river, in Scotland and Wales, 70.
  • Columba St. his route to the Pikish court, 316. his fa­ther, II. 112. apostle of the Piks, II. 266. his re­liques, II. 267. account of him, II. 276.
  • Comitatus, meaning of, II. 210.
  • Conare, king of Ireland, II. 61.
  • Connad Keir, king of Dalriada, his period, II. 104.116.
  • Constans, his expedition to Britain, 117.
  • Constantinus Chlorus wars in North Britain, 43.114.
  • Constantin I. king of the Piks, 309. Osbald flies to him, ib. II. his unfortunate reign, II. 178. III. his reign, II. 181. fights the battle of Tinmore, II. 182. of Bruneburg, II. 182.238. retires to a monastery, II. 184. dies, ib. IV. his reign, II. 189.
  • Cornavii, their situation, 225.227. sab [...]e of Richard concerning, 225.
  • [Page]Courts of Justice, Gothic, 408.413.
  • Creones, their situation, 228.
  • Crinan, abbot of Dunkeld, II. 192. father of a race of kings, II. 196.
  • Cruthen, his name, 286. reign, 287. sons, 288.
  • Crutheni, or Piks of Ireland, 290.337. II. 66.
  • Culdees, account of, II. 271. duration, 273.
  • Culen, his reign, II. 187.
  • Culros, church at, 257.303.
  • Cumberland, not in Domesday book, 91. acquired by Scotland, II. 215. by conquest, II. 221.
  • Cumbria, kingdom of, 83. if same with Stratclyde, ib. different, 87. boundaries, 91. history, 93. yielded to Malcom I. 93. II. 185. gave title to the heir appa­rent of Scotland, 94. Fordun's hints concerning it, ib. Scotish princes of, 95. Welch, 96.
  • Cuminius, remarkable passage of, 331. when he wrote, II. 277.
  • Cumri or Welch, confined to the west of Britain, 31. tribes in Scotland, 34. second colony in Britain, II. 34.
  • Cumraig, or Welch names in Scotland, 14.
  • Cunningum of Beda, if Cunningham, 328.
  • Cyil campus, if Kyle, 328.
  • Dal, meaning of, II. 61.
  • Dalriads, defeated by Ungust I. 306. their kingdom destroyed, ib. called Gatheli, 308. settlement, 321. progress from Ireland to Britain certain, II. 51—60. first colony, II. 60. Beda's account, II. 61. Irish ac­counts, 62. Scythae or Scoti, II. 67. their early chiefs, II 69. same with the Attacoti, II. 70 situation, II. 72. repelled to Ireland, II. 87. Second colony, II. 88. its date, II. 90. kings insignificant, II. 91. his­tory to be drawn from Irish writers, II. 93. extent of their kingdom, II. 95. that of present Argyle, II. 96. northern boundary, II. 97. continuance of the name, II. 99. their kings, II. 100. uncertainty of the series, ib. 103 109. Fordun's forged and con­fused, II. 105. why the series in the Duan preferred, II. 110.136. their power broken, II. 118. house of Lorn ascend the throne, II. 120. when the genealogy [Page]of their kings fails, II. 124. kingdom destroyed by Ungust I. II. 125. its new line of princes, II. 125. list of later kings, II. 127. were Pikish, II. 131. why Latin lists perverted, II. 133. series of kings falls into two parts, II. 135. obscure part, II. 137. Manners, &c. II. 138. language, II. 141. government, ib. manners, II. 142. bards, II. 144. music, II. 145. fable of Giraldus concerning their origin, II. 155. series of kings not that of North Britain, II. 176. real ancient name of the highlanders, II. 231. not the modern Scoti, II. 235.237. when converted, II. 260.266.
  • Damnii, their situation and towns, 37.
  • Damnii Albani, 39. unknown to Ptolemy, ib.
  • Danes did not introduce their language into Scotland, 347. when their name first appears, II. 7.
  • D'Anville says Piks and Caledonians the same, II. 229.
  • David, prince, his inquisition concerning the lands of the see of Glasgow, 64.
  • Degads, their country, II. 63.
  • Denmark, when peopled from Scandinavia, 203. kings elective, 265.
  • Deucaledonius Oceanus, 118. on the north, 119.228.
  • Dicaledones, 117. who, 118.315.
  • Diodorus Siculus first mentions any place in North Britain, 5.
  • Donal Brec, his reign, II. 117. errors of the Ulster annals concerning, ib. unfortunate, II. 118.
  • Donal, king of Stratclyde, 77.
  • Donal I. his reign, II. 177. II. his reign, II. 181.
  • Dorsum Britanniae, or Drum Alban, 316.
  • Dragon the Scythic and Scotish banner, 385.
  • Drapa, the longest sort of Gothic poetry, 389.
  • Dress of the Goths, 394. of the highlanders, II. 73. of the Piks, or later Scots, II. 255.
  • Drowning, a common punishment, among the Gothic nations, 307.
  • Druids, confined, 17. of Phoenician origin, ib. 405. none in Germany nor in Caledonia, 18. nor Ireland, ib. no Druids among the Belgae, 24.404. nor in Caledonia, ib. groves destroyed, 406. Druidesses, ib. had no temples, 407. monuments ascribed to them, 409.
  • Drum Alban, 316. II. 96.
  • Drumkeat, council of, II. 114.
  • [Page]Drust the Great, the Pikish history begins with, 275. king of all the Piks, 277.283.295. meaning of name, 285.
  • Duan, or Gaelic poem, II. 92. II. 100. gives ten more Dalriadic kings than the lists, II. 101. account of, II. 106. its curiosity, II. 107. its years often erro­neous, II. 108. why, 109.
  • Duff, (see Odo).
  • Dun, meaning of, II. 258.
  • Duncan, his reign, II. 192.
  • Dun Dornadilla, II. 249.
  • Dunkeld, church of, 257.309. II. 267.
  • Dunmail, king of Cumbria, 93.
  • Dunwallo, king of Strat-Clyde, 69.78.
  • Easter, contests concerning, II. 263.
  • Ecclesiastic history of the Piks, II. 259.
  • Echuvislaid, or Echniuslaid, king of the Piks in Ireland, 338.
  • Ed Fin, remarks on his reign, II. 130. his laws, II. 178.
  • Ed, king of the Piks, II. 179.
  • Edbert, king of Northumbria joins Ungust I. 329.
  • Edgar, monkish fables concerning his power, II. 219.
  • Edin given up to Indulf, 79. II. 186.
  • Edmund ravages Cumbria, 93.
  • Election of kings, manner of among the Piks, 261. usual in Gothic kingdoms, 264.
  • Eneon, his story, 97.
  • English, numerous in Scotland, 344. towns possessed by, 345. did not introduce their language, 347. speech, origins of, 353.356.365. gained ground in Scotland, 360. seven centuries added to their history, 365. history, when obscure, II. 212. neglected, II. 214. old writers unjust to Scotland, II. 220.
  • Ensigns of the Goths, 385.
  • Eochoid, I. II. 115. II. II. 120. III. II. 123. only three of this name, II. 133. king of the Piks, II. 179.
  • Etymology, absurdity of, 138.358.368. II. 26.27.
  • Eumenius first mentions the Piks, 108. the passage ex­plained, 109. translated, 111. another passage, 113.
  • Europe, its north and west parts little known to the Greeks, 4.
  • [Page]Falsehood, why preferred to truth, 231.
  • Female line the most noble among the Piks, 261. as in some other nations, 263.
  • Fergus, son of Erc, his epoch, II. 88. first joint king of the Dalriads, II. 92. sole king, II. 94. reign, II. 111.
  • Fin Mac Cual, or Fingal, II. 65. account of, II. 73. why called Fingal, II. 74. his epoch, ib. mentioned by Jocelin, II. 75.
  • Findan St. a passage from his life, 319.
  • Finleg, the Scotish earl, II. 197.
  • Finbolg, fable of discussed, II. 5. Belgae, 6.
  • Food of the Scandinavians, 393.
  • Fordun, his hints concerning Cumbria, 94. list of Pikish kings, 243. error concerning the Pikish suc­cession, 267. superfluous Pikish kings, 294.312. forged the Dalriadic series, II. 103.105. fable con­cerning the destruction of the Piks, II. 157. and his followers fablers till 1056, II. 176. fable concerning Crinan, II. 192.
  • Fortren, a name of Pikland, 302.
  • France, the Scotish league with, confuted, II. 123.
  • Gabran, his reign, II. 112.
  • Gadeni, their situation. 35.224.320.
  • Gael first peopled Britain, 22. number of at present in Scotland, 351. the Irish so called, II. 20. remarks on the name, II. 32. driven to Ireland, II. 34.
  • Gaelic tongue, 15. corrupted, 135. full of Gothic words, 137.
  • Galgacus, meaning of, 286.
  • Gallio, his wall, 47.
  • Galloway, independent, 79. Piks of, 89. forts of Agri­cola in, 219. seized by the Piks, 329. II. 291. in­dependent, 330. history obscure, 335. why so called, 337. wild Scots of, ib.
  • Garnard, an usurper, 304.312.
  • Garnat I. his reign, 293. II. or Uber, 293.
  • [Page]Hyona or Icolmkil, monks of, 303. burial place of Scotish kings, II. 178. succession of the abbots, II. 268. their power in Pikland destroyed by Grig, II. 269. the Rome of Pikland, II. 270.279. power of the abbots, II. 271. prevented learning from arising in Pikland, II. 279.
  • Icelandic language, specimen of, 362. republic, 381. fables sensible, II. 14. colony, II. 252.
  • Ida, first leader of the Angli, II. 288.
  • Ierne, the Greek name of Ireland, II. 225.
  • Inch Gall, a name for the Hebudes, II. 295.
  • Indulf, his reign, II. 186.
  • Innes, his remark on the Maeatae, 43. account of the walls, 45. radical error of his work, 122. why ne­glected, 240. praise of, 314. account of the southern extent of the Pikish territories, 320. blamed for in­attention to the Dalriadic series of kings, II. 100.
  • Jocelin, his life of Kentigern, written to gratify the bishop of Glasgow, 65.
  • Jornandes, his dreams, 190.
  • Ireland, history of, remarks on, II. 5. fables in how ancient, II. 6. contemptible, II. 13. falsely compared with the Scandinavian, II. 14. must be abandoned not qualified, II. 16. its claim to the early use of letters considered, II. 16. to early civilization con­futed, II. 18. not peopled from Britain, II. 21. rea­sons why from Spain, II. 22. confuted, II. 23. from Gaul, II. 25. if any Iberian colonies, II. 26. whence its name, II. 27. tribes in, their names, II. 28. none from Spain, II. 30. nor Phoenicia, II. 31. from Bri­tain, II. 34. original population completed, II. 34. alien colonies, ib. Cumri in, ib. Gothic colonies in, ib. seqq. when the Belgae arrived, II. 35. colonies, II. 37. if any Scandinavians, II. 38. denied, II. 43. history of is that of the German colonies, II. 44. (see Scots): names of ancient kings Gothic, II. 47. last receptacle of the Celts, II. 47. chief families in Go­thic, II. 48. conquered by the Goths or Scots, and kingdoms erected, II. 49. kingdom of, the most an­cient in Europe, II. 50. the ancient Scotia, II. 223. when christian, II. 261.
  • [Page]Irish tongue mixt, 135. origins, II. 1. fabulous, 5. real, 20—51. antiquaries censured, II. 11. letters, II. 17. MS. II. 20. language, why not studied, ib. Celtic, not Iberian, II. 23.25. dress, II. 142. ar­mies, II. 143. language did not prevail in Scotland, II. 160. were the ancient Scoti, II. 238. writers in Pikland, II. 276.
  • Isidorus, his etymologies ruined the history of Ireland, and Scotland, II. 246.
  • Itinerarium Antonini, 11.
  • Jutes had landed by chance in Kent, 324. form an alliance with the Piks, ib.
  • Iverni of Ireland, II. 27.
  • Kalius, a fabulous king, II. 196.298.
  • Kellach, bishop of St. Andrews, II. 181.267.
  • Kelydhon, Welch name of Caledonia, 368.
  • Kenelath, Pikish king, 299. (see App.)
  • Kennedy Dr. his account of the Dalriads, II. 62.
  • Kenneth (see Kiniod) son of Alpin, his genealogy un­certain, II. 127. was king of the Piks, II. 158. sights against the Galwegians, II. 160. name Go­thic, II. 163. his accession considered, II. 168. reign, II. 176. actions, and death, II. 177. IV. his reign, II. 188. V. or Grim, his reign, II. 189.
  • Kentigern, his life, by Jocelin, 65. II. 267.
  • Ketil, lord of the Hebudes, II. 303.
  • Kings of the north, who, 70. denominated from the capital, 71. of Britain after the Romans, 72. lists of ancient, how preserved, 251. succession of Pikish, 260. similar among other nations, 263. lists of, how preserved by tradition, 272. how long they reign at a medium, 277. II. 101.
  • Kiniod or Kenneth, son of Luthrin, his reign, 279 (see Appendix). 300. son of Derili, 303. II. son of Wirdech, 308. Alcred, king of Northumbria, flies to him, ib.
  • [Page]Language of a country that of its population, 349. difference of German and Scandinavian, 353. speci­men of Icelandic, Tudesque, &c. 362. of different countries easily paralelled, II. 30. changed, II. 44.
  • Latin little used in Britain, 32.
  • Lay abbots, dignity of, II. 195.
  • Learning, why unknown in Pikland, II. 277.
  • Letters, remark on, in the Gothic dialects, 353. the Irish, II. 17.
  • Libraries public, much wanted in Scotland, 242.
  • Literary forgery the fruit of ignorance, II. 80. history of North Britain, II. 274.
  • Lloyd Mr. takes the Piks to be Welch, 122. confuted, 125.
  • Lluyd Humfrey, his account of the Strat-Clyde Welch, 68. his fables, 98.199.
  • Loarn first king of the Dalriads, II. 91. Scotish ac­count of, II. 92. king of Lorn only, II. 93. his reign, II. 111. his descendants accede to the Dalri­adic throne, II. 120.
  • Loch (Saxon Luh) a Gothic term, 145.
  • Lochleven, church of, 257.303.311. II. 267.
  • Loegr, whence derived, II. 235.
  • Lollius Urbicus, author of most Roman works beyond the wall of Antoninus, 215.223.
  • Lora, battle of, II. 113.
  • Lori, who, II. 111.
  • Lothian the Provincia Pictorum, 335. its people speci­ally called Piks, 335. given up to Kenneth IV. II. 188. a king of, II. 189.212. subject to the Piks, II. 205. 207. various English accounts, II. 208. if Lothene, ib. a name of present Northumberland, II. 209. ac­quired by conquest, II. 221. of the Regiam Majesta­tem, II. 212. Scotish, II. 214. its people famous, ib. 230.
  • Lowlanders of Scotland, a different race from the high­landers, 340. II. 139. two thirds of the people, 341. their number, 351. received their written language from the English, 361. manners barbarous, II. 247.
  • Lulac, his reign, II. 201. slain, II. 202.
  • [Page]Mac, implies not always a Celtic name, 350.
  • Macbeth, his name, II. 164. reign, II. 196. prosperous, 198. at Rome, ib. receives Osbern, II. 199. slain, 200.
  • Macphersons make the Piks Gael, 123. confuted, ib. censure of, 240. II. 54. Dr. an enemy to historic truth, 241.
  • Maeatae, first appearance of, 41. not mentioned after the peace of Caracalla, 43.58. revolt, 216.
  • Malcom I. his reign, II. 185. ravages England, ib. ac­quires Cumbria, ib. slain in Mearns, II. 186.
  • Malcom II. his reign remarkable, II. 189. gives Thor­fin Caithness, II. 190. his Danish wars fabulous, ib. laws, II. 191. died a natural death, II. 192.
  • Malcom III. son of the king of Cumbria, 94. II. 203. when he began his reign, II. 202. was grandson of Duncan king of Scotland, II. 203.
  • Manners of nations, what, 371.
  • Mare Scoticum, II. 213. Fresicum, II. 288.
  • Marriage-present, what, 392.
  • Maun, records and traditional history of, II. 296. re­marks on its history, II. 304.
  • Melbrig the Scotish earl, II. 187.
  • Melrose ruined and restored, II. 268. chronicle of, II. 291.
  • Merlinus Caledonius, account of, II. 275.
  • Mertae, their situation, 225.
  • Milesians of Ireland fabulous, II. 8. Irish account of, II. 9. Scotish, ib. radical difference between them, II. 11.
  • Monaeda, or Ile of Maun, 229. (see Maun.)
  • Monarchy, its origin and progress among the Piks, 284.382. originally democratic, 382.
  • Monuments barbaric in Britain, if Celtic or Gothic, 404. arguments that they are not Celtic, 407.
  • Moray, Moref, or Muref, people of Piks, 348. its ex­tent, II. 98.
  • Morken, king of Stratclyde, 74.
  • Mountains in Scotland, their names, 145.
  • Mull possest by the Piks, II. 96.
  • Murmor, a title of honour, II. 185.
  • [Page]Music Scotish, its origin Scandinavian, 364. Gothic, 391. praised by Giraldus, II. 145.
  • Myreford, where, II. 207.
  • Names of places in Scotland, 132. of rivers, 140. of mountains, 143. of towns, 145. mostly Gothic, 155. of persons perverted in Celtic, II. 47. of Scotish kings considered, II. 162.
  • Navigation, state of, among the Piks, 375. common among the savages, II. 21.
  • Nennius, when he wrote, 92. his account of the Piks, 193. fable concerning Ochta, II. 286.
  • Nethan I. said to have founded Abernethy, 296. II. or grandson of Erp, 300. III. 303.
  • Newton Sir I. his remark on genealogies, 274. com­putation of reigns, 277. II. 101.
  • Nicolson, bishop, his remarks on Irish and Scandina­vian fables, confuted, II. 14.
  • Ninian Saint, 74. did not convert Galloway, 74. first apostle of the Piks or present Scots, II. 265. whom he converted, II. 266. blamed, II. 277.
  • Nobility, its origin, 381.
  • Normandy, origin of the dukedom of, 183.
  • Northumberland present, a late appellation, II. 211.
  • Northumbria, its people Piks, 325. why called Angli, 334. history obscure, II. 206. boundaries, ib. 208. history, II. 290.
  • Norway, its history unknown before Harold Harfagre, 178.
  • Norwegians slay king Uven, 311. seize part of Scot­land, II. 179. their rich men, II. 252. history of in Scotland, II. 293.
  • Notitia Imperii, list of stations, 11. (see App.)
  • Novantae, their situation and towns, 37.
  • Obelisques engraven, remarks on, II. 254. late in Scot­land, II. 255.
  • Ochta and Ebusa, their pretended settlement, 322. II. 286—290. confuted, II. 289.
  • [Page]O'Conor Mr. his account of the Dalriads, II. 63. discordant, II. 66.
  • Odin, a mistake concerning, 383. Snorro dates him in the time of the Roman emperors, 384. mythologic, ib.
  • Odo Duff, his reign, II. 186. slain, 187.
  • O'Flaherty gives an unfair account of the Dalriadic settlement, II. 62. gives a good series of Dalriadic kings, II. 100. but corrigible, II. 111.134.
  • Oisin, or Ossian, absurdity of the poems ascribed to him, 388. despirited, 389. son of Fin, 73. his epoch, 74. discussion of his mock poems, II. 77—86. feast of shells, II. 144.
  • Olave ravages Pikland, II. 178.
  • Opinion, the result of ignorance, II. 58.
  • Orcas prom. mentioned by Diodorus Sic. 5.
  • Orkneys first mentioned by Mela, 8. fable that Clau­dius conquered them, ib. left by the Piks, 281. first inhabited, 282. subject to the Piks, 318. language, 362. seized by Norwegians, II. 293. history of, II. 297—300. when converted; 298.
  • Ossian, (see Oisin.)
  • Oswald St. emperor of Britain, 331. II. 216.
  • Oswi subdues the Piks, 333.
  • Otadeni, their situation and towns, 39.
  • Owen king of Cumbria, 93.95. another, 97.
  • P, a foreign letter in the Scandinavian tongue, 353. pronounced V. ib.
  • Palladius sent to the Irish, II. 260. his death, II. 262.
  • Papae of the Orkneys, II. 297.
  • Patrick St. his mission, II. 263. converts the Dalriads, II. 266. account of, II. 274.
  • Peanvahel meaning of, 147.357.
  • Pelagius, II. 260.
  • Pelloutier, his error, 404.
  • Peohtas, how sounded, 367.
  • Persian kings, fabulous length of their reigns, 276.
  • Pehts, the Piks so called, 367.
  • Petia, Pikland so called, 251.369.
  • Pets, Norvegian name for the Piks, 319. H. 297.
  • [Page]Peukini, the Piki of Colchis, 165. their progress into Scandinavia, 167.
  • Phenicians, no colonies of, in Britain or Ireland, II. 31. their trade to Britain, ib.
  • Pherecydes, his genealogies, 274.
  • Picardy, origin of the name, 183.
  • Picti, remarks on the name, 368.
  • Pikish language, 340. progress of, 355. mingled with English, 360. manners, 371. government, 372. se­nate, 373. nobles, ib. religion, 373. war, ib. navi­gation, 375. poetry and music, ib. 390. marriages, 376. burials, 377. food, ib. houses, 378.396. dress, ib. occupations, 379. arts, 380. manners common with other Goths, 380. antiquities, 412.
  • Piks, the same with the Caledonians, or northern Bri­tons, 103. why called Britons, 105.124. proofs that they were the same with the Caledonians, 107. first appearance of the name Picti, 108. of Norway, 113. mentioned by Ammianus, 116. Beda's account of, 119. mistakes concerning their origin, 121. not Gael, 122. called Phichtiaid by the Welch, 125. of Ireland, ib. 337. II. 40. painted as other Gothic nations, 126. seqq. 378. Scandinavians, 150. not Welch nor Gael, ib. not Welch from various authorities, 160.199. 385. nor Gael, from Adomnan's, 160. of Scandina­vian origin, 163. poetical origin, 165. historical ori­gin, 168. of Norway, 169. Norwegian name, 173. situation, 174. not Vikingur, 179. traced to Scot­land, 184. account of by Tacitus, 184. Claudian's error, 187. Beda's narrative, 188.190. other autho­rities that they came from Scandinavia, 193. called Goths by Giraldus, 195. errors of modern writers, 200. time of their settlement, 201. easy navigation from Norway, 203. hints concerning in the Roman times, 216. in the Roman army, ib. invite the Van­dals into Spain, ib. tribes, 218. ancestors of the present Scots, 234. reasons why the list of their kings au­thentic, ib. why exchanged for the Dalriadic, 236. number of, 243. curtailed, ib. series authentic from many arguments, 246. seqq. 275. nature of regal suc­cession among, 260. II. 142. royal race, 261.285. kingdom elective, 264. son never succeeded to fa­ther, 266.285. chronology how to be adjusted, 275. history begins with Drust the Great, ib. series of kings falls into two parts, 276. catalogue of kings, [Page]281. first progress, ib. origin and progress of their monarchy, 284.382. names of kings Gothic, 285. kings in Ireland, 289. Vortigern's guard, 296. suc­cession first violated, 310. again, 311. extent of their dominions, 314. originally only to Loch Fyn and Tay, 320. seize Valentia, 322. advance to the heart of Britain, 323. defeated in Kent, 324. seize all down to the Humber, 325. defeat Egfrid, 330.332. sub­dued by Oswi, 333. of Ireland, account of, 337. history, 338. name of Piks, remarks on, 367. had their wives in common, 376. but only the great, 377. buried their dead, 377. used drinking glasses, 377. wore skins of beasts, 379. their valour, 385. why not attacked by the Scandinavians, till lately, II. 41. continuance of the name, II. 238. houses, II. 248—254. conversion, II. 260.265.
  • Piks and Dalriads united, II. 149. enquiry into that union, II. 150—175. fable concerning the conquest of the Piks by the Dalriads, 152. confuted, II. 158. 166. why called Scots, 159. kings, II. 175. extent of the united territories, II. 205. manners and anti­quities, II. 247. why learning unknown among, II. 277.
  • Poetry, remarks on the Gothic, 386. artful and obscure, 387.
  • Polybius, the north of Europe unknown in his time, 4.
  • Primitive people, dreams concerning, 400.
  • Procopius describes Britain as the land of souls, 104.
  • Provincia, meaning of in the middle ages, 317.
  • Psalter of Cashel, when written, II. 6.
  • Ptolemy, his grand error respecting the north of Britain, 10.35.228. his Caledonians, 107. his Oceanus Deucaledonius or Sarmaticus, 119. wrote after Ves­pasiana was a province, 222. only errs in Caledonia, not its seas and iles, 230. geography of Ireland ac­curate, II. 36.
  • Pultis Scotorum, what, II. 261.
  • Regiam Majestatem, testimony of concerning Lothian, II. 212.
  • Religion of the Piks, 373.
  • Reuda, (see Riada).
  • [Page]Riada leads the old Scots from Ireland to Pikland, II. 61. seqq. his genealogy, II. 68.
  • Ricardus Corinensis, or Richard of Cirencester, 11. differs from Ptolemy, 35. his account of Vespasiana, 209. had seen most writers concerning Britain, 223. his fable concerning the Cantae, 225.
  • Rime, when used in Scandinavian poetry, 389.
  • Rivers in Scotland, their names partly Cumraig, 144. partly Gothic, ib.
  • Rodere king of Strat-Clyde, 61. dies at Pertmet, 71. genealogy, 75.
  • Rollo, first duke of Normandy, 183.
  • Roman road in Scotland, 213. remains in the north of, 214. not imputeable to Agricola, 215.
  • Roy General, his Roman antiquities in Scotland, 49.214.
  • Royal race of the Piks, 261. of different other Gothic nations, 262.
  • Russian empire, its origin, 181.
  • Sagas, anachronisms in, II. 75. romantic, II. 196.
  • Saint Andrew's, church of, 257.294.309. II. 267. the earliest bishopric in Scotland, II. 268. bishops of, II. 270.
  • Saints, lives of, are historic authority, 60. no Pikish, 256. remark of Bollandus on the Irish and Welch, II. 277.
  • Savage colonies, remarks on, II. 20. nations differ from barbarous, II. 35.
  • Saxon chronicle, 63.357.
  • Scalds or bards, historians, 273.
  • Seandinavia, ancient accounts of, 169. sent out few colonies, 181. II. 42. called Scythia in the middle ages, 192. fleets of, 204. history, 265. language, 352. three grand stages of its government, II. 43.
  • Scots ancient of Ireland, first mentioned by Ammianus, 116. II. 223. when the old Scots in Britain ceased, 307. name of considered, II. 44. were Scythae, II. 45.49. adopted the Celtic language in Ireland, II. 47. conquer it, and erect kingdoms, II. 49. old, of Britain, (see Dalriads): folly of supposing that they passed from Scotland to Ireland, II. 52—59. their [Page]manners and language Gothic mingled with Celtic, II. 138. were Belgae, II. 164. did not come from Britain, II. 242.
  • Scots, Modern of Britain, the genealogy of their kings begins with Alpin, II. 142. (see Piks and Dalriads united): periods of their history, II. 149. when the name began, II. 151. not the Dalriads, or high­landers, II. 235.237.240. same with the Piks, II. 241.246. did not come from Ireland, II. 242. quite different from the old Scots, II. 243. why the name given, ib.—246. II. 269.
  • Scotia the ancient name of Ireland only, II. 57. autho­rities, 223. when given to present Scotland, II. 151. 223.237.240. confined, II. 213.230. at first to five provinces, II. 231. its origin examined, II. 240.
  • Scotish history, general view of errors received in, 232. mistaken for these five centuries, 238. line, 239. fate of history, 240.247.252. antiquities, why neglected, 242. language, grammar of, English, 359. remarks on, 363. ballads similar to the Danish, 364. music Scandinavian, ib. forgers useful to society, II. 14. arms, II. 123. kings not of Irish extract, II. 135. writers imitated the English, II. 156 ancient dress, I. 255. history why defective, II. 270.
  • Scotland, number of its people, 351. its literature late, II. 159. royal houses of, II. 196. homage to Eng­land, II. 215. (see homage): origin of the name as presently applied, 223—247. name of Ireland in king Alfred's writings, II. 227. and in Scandinavian, II. 239. when first used as at present, II. 240. why, 243—246. when converted to christianity, II. 263. by Ninian and Columba, II. 265.
  • Scotiswath and Scotiswatre, II. 207.
  • Scuta-Brigantes, 41.
  • Scythia of Beda, 190.
  • Scythians or Goths had subdued Europe, 31. fabulous origin of, 191. real origin and progress, ib. atten­tion to women, 269. their wisdom, 395. in Ireland called Scots, II. 44.
  • Sea promotes savage colonies, 15.203. II. 21.
  • Selden, an error of, II. 287.
  • Selgovae, their situation and towns, 37.
  • Selvac, his reign, II. 120. actions, II. 122.
  • Severus, his expedition, 42. wall ascribed to him, 46. dubiously, 48. really built by Gallio, 54. seq. his death, 216.
  • [Page]Riada leads the old Scots from Ireland to Pikland, II. 61. seqq. his genealogy, II. 68.
  • Ricardus Corinensis, or Richard of Cirencester, II. differs from Ptolemy, 35. his account of Vespasiana, 209. had seen most writers concerning Britain, 223. his fable concerning the Cantae, 225.
  • Rime, when used in Scandinavian poetry, 389.
  • Rivers in Scotland, their names partly Cumraig, 144. partly Gothic, ib.
  • Rodere king of Strat-Clyde, 61. dies at Pertmet, 71. genealogy, 75.
  • Rollo, first duke of Normandy, 183.
  • Roman road in Scotland, 213. remains in the north of, 214. not imputeable to Agricola, 215.
  • Roy General, his Roman antiquities in Scotland, 49.214.
  • Royal race of the Piks, 261. of different other Gothic nations, 262.
  • Russian empire, its origin, 181.
  • Sagas, anachronisms in, II. 75. romantic, II. 196.
  • Saint Andrew's, church of, 257.294.309. II. 267. the earliest bishopric in Scotland, II. 268. bishops of, II. 270.
  • Saints, lives of, are historic authority, 60. no Pikish, 256. remark of Bollandus on the Irish and Welch, II. 277.
  • Savage colonies, remarks on, II. 20. nations differ from barbarous, II. 35.
  • Saxon chronicle, 63.357.
  • Scalds or bards, historians, 273.
  • Scandinavia, ancient accounts of, 169. sent out few colonies, 181. II. 42. called Scythia in the middle ages, 192. fleets of, 204. history, 265. language, 352. three grand stages of its government, II. 43.
  • Scots ancient of Ireland, first mentioned by Ammianus, 116. II. 223. when the old Scots in Britain ceased, 307. name of considered, II. 44. were Scythae, II. 45.49. adopted the Celtic language in Ireland, II. 47. conquer it, and erect kingdoms, II. 49. old, of Britain, (see Dalriads): folly of supposing that they passed from Scotland to Ireland, II. 52—59. their [Page]manners and language Gothic mingled with Celtic, II. 138. were Belgae, II. 164. did not come from Britain, II. 242.
  • Scots, Modern of Britain, the genealogy of their kings begins with Alpin, II. 142. (see Piks and Dalriads united): periods of their history, II. 149. when the name began, II. 151. not the Dalriads, or high­landers, II. 235.237.240. same with the Piks, II. 241.246. did not come from Ireland, II. 242. quite different from the old Scots, II. 243. why the name given, ib.—246. II. 269.
  • Scotia the ancient name of Ireland only, II. 57. autho­rities, 223. when given to present Scotland, II. 151. 223.237.240. confined, II. 213.230. at first to five provinces, II. 231. its origin examined, II. 240.
  • Scotish history, general view of errors received in, 232. mistaken for these five centuries, 238. line, 239. fate of history, 240.247.252. antiquities, why neglected, 242. language, grammar of, English, 359. remarks on, 363. ballads similar to the Danish, 364. music Scandinavian, ib. forgers useful to society, II. 14. arms, II. 123. kings not of Irish extract, II. 135. writers imitated the English, II. 156 ancient dress, I. 255. history why defective, II. 270.
  • Scotland, number of its people, 351. its literature late, II. 159. royal houses of, II. 196. homage to Eng­land, II. 215. (see homage): origin of the name as presently applied, 223—247. name of Ireland in king Alfred's writings, II. 227. and in Scandinavian, II. 239. when first used as at present, II. 240. why, 243—246. when converted to christianity, II. 263. by Ninian and Columba, II. 265.
  • Scotiswath and Scotiswatre, II. 207.
  • Scuta-Brigantes, 41.
  • Scythia of Beda, 190.
  • Scythians or Goths had subdued Europe, 31. fabulous origin of, 191. real origin and progress, ib. atten­tion to women, 269. their wisdom, 395. in Ireland called Scots, II. 44.
  • Sea promotes savage colonies, 15.203. II. 21.
  • Selden, an error of, II. 287.
  • Selgovae, their situation and towns, 37.
  • Selvac, his reign, II. 120. actions, II. 122.
  • Severus, his expedition, 42. wall ascribed to him, 46. dubiously, 48. really built by Gallio, 54. seq. his death, 216.
  • [Page]Shells, feast of, II. 144.
  • Sibbald, Sir R. says the Piks were Goths, 366.
  • Sigurd I. earl of Orkney, marries Malcom's daughter, II. 189. doubtful, II. 196. the Elder, II. 298.
  • Silures, 27.
  • Simon Brec, fabulous account of, II. 10.
  • Siward assists Malcom III. 94. II. 100. his power, ib. dead before Malcom ascended the throne, II. 201.
  • Snorro the Norwegian historian follows the scalds, 273.
  • Solinus, his account of the Hebudian kingdom, 284.
  • Songs ancient, heroic or amorous, 390. specimen of a Scandinavian love song, 391.
  • Spears with hooks, used by the Scandinavians and Piks, 375.
  • Staining, or painting the body, used by the Piks, and many other Gothic nations, 126. seq. 378.
  • Starkader, the Scandinavian Fingal, 177. II. 75. and Offian, II. 76.
  • Stilicho, his fortifications, 46.
  • Stone-henge, remarks on, 400. was the supreme court of the Belgae, 414.
  • Strabo, his account of Britain, 6. his error concerning Ireland, 7. ignorant concerning the north of Bri­tain, 8.
  • Strat-Clyde, kingdom of, 60. distinct from Cumbria, 61. authorities concerning, 61. Stratclutenses, 63. Stratclwyd in Wales, 67. if the kingdom in Wales or Scotland, 67. proved to have been in Scotland, ib. extent of, 73.81. history of, 76. termination, 78. but the people after-mentioned, 80. speech, 81. rea­sons for its long existence, 82.336. Stratclyde-Welch, 98. later kings Pikish, II. 182. people of slay Culen, II. 187. war with Kenneth IV. II. 188. not mentioned after, ib. their learned men, II. 274.
  • Strath, meaning of, 147.
  • Sumerlid pirates, II. 186.
  • Sweden, kings of, their power restrained by the people, 266.
  • Tacitus, the father of Scotish history, 9. his account of Britain, ib. 26. adds little to British geography, ib. account of the Caledonians, 184.
  • Talorc I. his reign, 293.
  • [Page]Talorgan, son of Congust, defeated, and drowned, 306.
  • Texali, their situation and towns, 224.
  • Thanes, when they first appear in Scotland, II. 193.
  • Tharan I. his reign, 291.
  • Theodosius, wall of, 46.
  • Thiodolf, scald to Harald Harfagre, 273.
  • Thulé, mentioned by Tacitus, 9. Ptolemy, 229.
  • Tin, called Celtic by Aristotle, 3.
  • Tinmore, battle of, II. 182.
  • Tividalenses, or people of Teviotdale, famous, II. 214.
  • Toland, his credulity, II. 17.
  • Torfaeus praised, 173. no chronologer, 276.
  • Towns in Scotland, their names, 145. nature of an­cient, 146. possessed by the English, 345.
  • Tribes, barbaric, nature of, 222.
  • Truth firmest on the ruins of error, 404.
  • Tuath de Danan of Ireland, 16. remarks on, II. 7.
  • Tudwald, a British king, 74.
  • Tweed the boundary of Northumbria and Pikland, II. 206.208.
  • Ungust I. conquers at Monacrib, 304. at Crei, ib. de­feats Nethan's army, 305. defeats and kills Drust VII. 305. subdues Alclyde, ib. 334. cruel, 306. his son defeats Talorgan son of Congust, ib. and Talor­gan son of Drustan, ib. destroys Don Lethfin, ib. ravages Dalriada, and puts its princes in chains, 306. defeats the Dalriads, ib. orders Talorgan son of Drustan to be drowned, 306. again defeats the Dal­riads, and destroys their kingdom, 307. II. 125. his brother falls in battle, 307. he dies, ib.
  • Ungust II. founds the church of St. Andrew's, 309.
  • Ur, meaning of, 289.
  • Urien, king of Cumbria, 96.
  • Usher confused, 106. unfair, II. 62.
  • Uven, Gothic name, 286. falls in battle, 311.
  • Vacomagi, their situation and towns, 224.
  • Valentia, province of, 57. its history, 58. seized by the Piks, 322.
  • [Page]Vecturiones, who, 118.315. name Norwegian, 369.
  • Venicontes, their situation and towns, 223.
  • Ver, in names, 285.
  • Vered, son of Bargot, charter addressed to, 310.
  • Vergobret, meaning of, 286.
  • Vespasian commanded in Britain, 9.
  • Vespasiana, when lost, 42. account of, 209. extent, 210. itinerary, 211. reasons for its existence, 212. duration, 214. established before Prolemy's time, 222. tribes in, 224.
  • Vika in Norway, account of, 174. story of a king of, 176. its history obscure, 178. why so called, 179. name once wide, 180. remarks on its name, 369.
  • Vikingur, or pirates, 179.
  • Vitrified forts of late date, II. 251.
  • Walls Roman, in Britain, 45. not the utmost bounds of Roman possession, 49. seqq. 116. stations at, 51.
  • Waregori, founders of the Russian empire, 181.
  • Weapons of the Piks, 374.
  • Welch history, when it begins, 92. bards not authen­tic, 97. II. 276. why called Britons, 104. language mixt, 134. fables far superior to the Irish, II. 13. Celts superior to Irish, II. 48.
  • Whitaker, fanciful, 27.228. mistakes the Oceanus Deucaledonius, 119. errors concerning Welch words in the English, 138. concerning Caledonia, 220. confutes Macpherson, II. 56.
  • Whithern, last Anglic bishop of, II. 291.
  • William II. of England, rebuilds Carlile, 86.
  • Winton, his history, 238.243.
  • Wives in common among barbaric nations, 376.
  • Women despised by the Celts, 268. adored by the Goths, ib. shared the government, 270.
STATE of NATIONS at the Christian aera.







BEING occupied with a most laborious research into the history of Scotland, preceding the year 1056, the author found it incontrovertibly settled from Tacitus, Beda, and the whole ancient accounts, that the Caledonii or Picti, the ancient and still chief inhabitants of that country, came to it from German Scythia, or Scandinavia. This led him to enquire how the Scythians came to give their name even to the most northern parts of Ger­many, from the earliest days of Grecian literature, down to a very late period. He found that the first Greek authors had certain knowlege that the Scythians had proceeded from Little, or Ancient, Scythia on the Euxine, even to the extremity of Germany, peopling the whole intervening country; and that the Latin classics had the same knowlege. But that the reason why Isidorus, Beda, Paulus Diaconus, the Geographer of Ravenna, and in­numerable writers of the middle ages, call Scan­dinavia peculiarly Scythia, was that Jornandes, who wrote about 530, had imagined that the most ancient Scythians proceeded from it about 4000 years before Christ. Hence, in the darkness of the middle ages, Scandinavia was regarded as the true Scythia, or Scythia Antiqua.


[Page iv]As the author was resolved, if a Spanish proverb may be used, to leave nothing in the inkhorn, knowing that, without going to the very bottom of a subject like this, no point of it can be clear, he began a course of reading all the authors that could anywise illustrate the early population of Europe. Proceeding chronologically thro the Greek and Roman writers, and the most important ones of the middle ages, he reserved modern authors to the last, that they might minister no matter of prejudice; for truth can only be had pure in it's fountains. 'This great labour, as indexes were never consulted, save in moral authors, as Aristotle, Plato, &c. or others who could have almost no­thing on the subject, consumed more than a year tho eight hours a day were almost constantly alloted to it; and such close attention goes a great way in a little time. After this course of ancient reading he proceeded to the moderns, and found himself in quite a new world indeed! For a subject, so capa­ble of superabundant illustration from the multi­tude of authorities, if industry alone, with some degree of clear judgement, be applied, has been totally lost in a mass of superficiality and error. For error is the constant, and inevitable, produce of superficiality. The truth is always at the bot­tom; and if a man does not know all upon an an­tiquarian subject, he knows nothing: nay less than nothing, inasmuch as error is worse than ignorance. When all is redd upon such a theme, it is also a great pleasure to reflect that the truth must be known; for ancient authoritics are facts in history, [Page v]and incontrovertible: one may be opposed to another; but when all concur, for any modern to oppose is in utter frenzy to dash his head against the wall of a castle. After reading all upon such a subject one is therefore thoroughly master of it; and no information can remain that can infringe the absolute knowledge acquired. Antiquarian re­searches, when complete, are infallible; for no new facts can occur in antiquity. To talk of opinion, upon such subjects, is to talk as a child; for opinion can never alter facts: a man may opine that snow is black, or that a Scythian is a Celt; but he will be left to his delusion, while the facts remain to eternity.

Perhaps a more arduous task never was under­taken than what is here submitted to the reader. The materials collected would have composed a vast volume; but this was foreign to the author's intention. The toil of compressing was far more great, than that of dilating would have been. A vast volume might have been written in half the time employed in these few pages. But great ad­vantages attend the progress of science, from con­centrating into one strong focus a number of scat­tered beams. Error is melted by the fierce light; and vanishes beneath it's power. Would to heaven we had fewer large books, and more small ones! No greater advantage could arise to science, than if authors would follow the example of Tacitus, who, as Montesquieu well observes, ABRIDGED ALL BECAUSE HE SAW ALL.

[Page vi]The learned have on no subject fallen into so numerous, and gross, errors as with regard to the Scythians. They have been confounded with the Celts, tho all the ancient writers oppose this; and distinguish no two races of men more widely than Scythians and Celts. They have been taken for Sarmatians, tho all the ancients also oppose this; and, from the days of Herodotus, especially di­stinguish the Scythians from the Sarmatians. They have been, by late authors of the first fame, con­founded with Tartars, an error of all others the most ridiculous: for the Tartars were absolutely unknown to the ancients, till the Huns, who were indeed strictly speaking Monguls not Tartars*, appeared and seized on the countries of the eastern Scythae. These points are discussed in this essay. But, that the reader may proceed to it with clear and precise ideas, he may be here told, what he will find fully displayed in it, namely, that the [Page vii]Scythians were neither Celts, Sarmatians, nor Tartars, no more than a horse is an elephant, a lion or a tiger, but a horse; so the Scythians were Scythians, a distinct, peculiar, and marked people, first called Scythians by the Greeks, who retained that name for them till the destruction of Constantinople in the 15th century; while the Latins, upon forming a disagreeable acquaintance with them, called them Goths, as they also called themselves.

Now, tho almost all Europe be possessed by the descendents of the Goths, a people from whom, as shall be shewn, the Greeks and Romans also sprung; and the Goths transcended, even when barbarians, all nations in wisdom and war: yet such is our ignorance, who are at present but slowly eloping from barbarism, that the name of Goth, the sacred name of our fathers*, is an object of detestation! This school-boy idea prevails to this hour in the first writers; so true is the remark of Dryden, ‘Men are but children of a larger growth.’ It springs solely from our love for Rome, (itself a Gothic state,) which we draw from Roman writers at school; and our knowlege that the other Goths destroyed the Roman empire. Instead of turning our admiration to that great people, who could annihilate so potent an empire; instead of blessing [Page viii]the period that delivered all kingdoms from the dominion of one; we execrate our progenitors, to whom we are indebted for all our present happi­nesss! We look on the Goths as enemies of science, without once reflecting that wisdom is at any time superior to science; and that the Goths only de­spised the science prevalent on the decline of Rome, which was folly, and is regarded as such by us at present.

How different was the opinion entertained of the Goths by the Greeks and Romans! What ap­plause of the justice, of the fortitude, of the tem­perance, of the wisdom, of the Scythians, in the Grecian page, from Herodotus to the latest period! What applause of the same virtues of the same people, under the names of Scythians or Goths, in the Roman works, even after they had seized the Roman empire! Let us attend to the last a little, as more immediately concerning us, and that we may know how shockingly we err in our puerile disesteem of our fathers. Read Augustin de Civitate Dei, lib. I. capp. 1, et 7. on their cle­mency; and lib. III. 29. where he says that the Goths on taking Rome spared so many of the sena­tors that it is more a wonder that they slew some. Orosius, lib. VII. tells, that, tho desirous of prey, they abstained from blood: and c. ult. calls Alaric 'the mildest of kings.' See the whole fifth and seventh books of Salvianus de Gubernatione Dei. Hear Theodoric, the Gothic king himself, dic­tating to his secretary Gassiodorus, Epist. lib. II. 23. and you hear the voice of such kings as render [Page ix]themselves gods to mankind. 'Favout justice. Employ courage in the defence of innocence: that, amid the crimes of other nations, you may shew the justice of the Goths.' And in the same book, Epist. 34. 'Do you imitate our Goths, whose courage in battle can only be equalled by their domestic modesty.' And Epist. 43. 'Let the wars of other kings be crowned with the spoils, and ruin, of captured cities. It is our purpose, with the help of God, so to conquer, that our subjects shall only grieve that they acquired our protection so late.' And, to pass many such, book VIII. epist. 14. 'This is the praise of the Goths, to preserve inviolate the laws of humanity*.' Rome, Rome, what were thy laurels to these? Great and divine people! it is no wonder that the few virtu­ous Romans should, as Salvianus says, fly to you their enemies, for protection: and that heaven [Page x]should, in your favour, have delivered the world from the tyrannic dotage of Rome.

Such virtues prevailed among the whole Goths, from the extremity of Scandinavia to the Vandals in Africa; the last of whom, tho debased by an enervate clime, are yet the chief objects of the praise of Salvianus. Hospitality was particularly sacred. The Burgundian laws enact, 'Whoever refuses his house or fire to a stranger, let him pay a large fine. If any man travelling on his busi­ness ask lodging of a Burgundian, and it can be proved that he has shewn the stranger the house of a Roman, let the Burgundian pay the same fine to the Roman, and an equal fine to the public trea­sury.' A remarkable instance of regard to hospi­tality also occurs in Procopius Hist. lib. III.cap. 35, and lib. IV. c. 27. concerning the Gepidae, a celebrated Gothic nation on the west of present Hungary. An abstract of it follows. According to Lombardic institutions the crown of Lombardy was, after the death of Vaces, to pass to Ildisgal. This prince being however expelled by intrigues retired to the Gepidae. Audouin, who had seized the throne of Lombardy, sent to demand Ildisgal of the Gepidae his neighbours. The emperor Justinian sent an embassy to support the request. Torisin king of the Gepidae, who had just made peace with the Lombards and Romans, called a council, and shewed the danger of refusing. But the council resolved unanimously, That it would be better for the whole nation, wives and children, to perish, than commit such a sacrilege against the laws [Page xi]of hospitality. That this continued the case among the uncorrupted Goths of Scandinavia appears from Adam of Bremen, a writer of the eleventh century, who says all the people of Scandinavia, Danes, Normans, Swedes, are most hospitable; especially the Swedes, with whom no reproach could be greater than to refuse lodging to a stranger; and Grotius tells, that Charles, an ancient king of Sweden, made a law, that the house which refused a stranger should be burnt to the ground.

Of their wisdom let Herodotus speak: and Dio, who calls them the wisest of mankind. Of their courage let their enemies tell; and we, their sons, who are here enjoying the countries which their swords won from the Romans their civilised bre­thren, who had conquered all nations yet yielded to them. Of their learning, when, by circumstances, they advanced in society in different countries, as after explained, let the Greeks, their eldest pro­geny who enjoyed these circumstances, declare; the Romans next; and the modern Europaeans, the last, but not least, of their sons. But their learning even in unsocial wilds, and circumstances of society which precluded attention to elegance, while necessity was the law, is a curious subject, and shall be briefly touched.

Herodotus, lib. IV. c. 46, says, the Scythians were both learned and wise. Zamolxis, the early lawgiver of the Goths, is well known; and so is Dicenens. Anacharsis was the next Scythic phi­losopher: he was of the royal family, his brother Cadreda, and nephew Indathyrsus, being kings [Page xii]of the Getae, or Parental Goths, peculiarly so called. He lived with Solon, 590 years before Christ. Menander, the celebrated founder of the new comedy, and whose drama was called the school of wisdom, was a Goth of Getia, as Strabo, book VII. tells us from his works, and gives us the lines, apparently from one of his prologues.

For all the Thracians, but the Getae chief,
(From whom I glory to derive my birth,)
Have never yet been cold to female beauty.

Toxaris, a Scythian, was a learned physician, whom Lucian introduces as chief interlocutor in his admirable dialogue entituled Toxaris, or, On Friendship; which is not only the most virtuous, but the most entertaining, of Lucian's works, be­ing enlivened with many tales and anecdotes. They who would know the virtues of the ancient Scythians are also especially referred to it.

As to the later Scythians or Goths, who sub­verted the Roman empire, the historian of English poetry, shewing our mistakes as to their hatred of learning and the arts, well observes, that, 'their enemies have been their historians.' Such learning and arts as were then in vogue were, indeed, worthy of their contempt, as of our's now. The Goths knew that a learned king was useless in their then situation of war: and the sole example [Page xiii]that can be found of their imagined contempt of letters sprung from this idea. It occurs in Pro­copius, Hist. Goth. lib. I. c. 2. where queen Ama­lasuntha, wishing to teach her son Alaric letters, the Gothic chiefs object to it, that arms, and not letters, had been formerly taught to their kings. Surely this passage, so often brought as a proof of their ignorance, was a proof of their wonted wis­dom as events shew. For Theodoric, who was unlearned, was the best and greatest of kings: Theodahat, who was learned, brought the first Gothic empire in Italy to utter ruin.

We look at the Goths thro a most false and im­perfect medium, that of the Roman writers of a barbarous age. And we have lost the noblest mo­numents of their Gothic history, as Pliny's Twenty Books on the German war: the Gothic history of Dio: and that of Dexippus, of which Photius, Cod. 83, gives a brief hint. Yet even the most barbarous writers, in the dotage of Rome, bear sufficient witness of the Gothic glory. The very generals, who alone succeeded against the Goths, were their countrymen. Stilicho was a Vandal, or German Goth. Belisarius was a Goth of Thrace. See Claudian and others for the first; Procopius de Bello Vandal. lib. I. c. II. for the last. Instead of imitating the barbarous Roman writers in their contempt of the ruder Goths, let us imi­tate the Goths in their contempt of doting Rome; and hear them express it. "When we would brand an enemy with disgrace, we call him a Roman, comprehending under this one name of Roman [Page xii] [...] [Page xiii] [...] [Page xiv]whatever is base, is cowardly, is covetous, is false, is vicious." Luitprandi Legatio, apud Muratori, Script. Ital, Indeed the contempt we bear to the Goths resembles that of a spendthrift heir to a great and prudent father. It is as foolish as that of the Por­tuguese for the Castillans, so well held out by Melchior de Santa Cruz, who tells, that a Cas­tillan going into a shop in a Portuguese village, a boy ran and told his mother to come and speak to a Castillan. Upon which his mother chid him severely for affronting the gentleman with such a name; while the Spaniard knew it to be his highest honour.

It shall only be further observed, in this pre­face, that the author's attention to his quotations has been most accurate and sacred. Most of them he has compared repeatedly with the originals. This became the more necessary, as inaccurate quotations are the grand defects of the literature of this century; if we except Germany and Scan­dinavia only, where, if an author were to quote falsely, he would go near to endure the character of a scoundrel and a liar. Indeed no literary crime is equal to this, for public faith attends an author; and infamy ought always to attend his intentional abuse of it: nay in part his careless­ness; for a man is a very bad member of society who teaches it error, compared to which even ignorance itself is knowlege. The misquotations and misconstructions of Pelloutier, and many others, upon similar subjects, must shock every reflecting [Page xv]mind, for most readers take quotations on trust. The author has seldom, if ever, taken a quotation on trust; but has commonly verified those few which struck him at second-hand with the origi­nals. This plan he earnestly recommends to such readers as wish to attain complete and immediate knowlege of the important facts here developed. For this end a list of the books and editions used is prefixt. This list may also serve as a directory for those who chuse to study the subject in it's fountains; and will save much trouble; for had the author put down the other books he has pe­rused for this design, to no purpose, as there was nothing in them, the number would have been doubled. The author can safely pledge his whole character in life, that he has never intentionally altered, or omitted, a single letter in a quotation; nor ever given it the least bias from it's open direct meaning. No toil has been spared to guard against mistakes: this little work has been revised, and re-revised, and revised again: but our own errors singularly escape our eyes. Yet can there be no mistake touching the grand, and leading, facts, which stand on the authorities of all anti­quity. The author's toil was too enormous for him to trifle with any hypothesis, and thus lose his labour, or any part of it. He sought for facts alone. The sole pleasure surely in a research of this kind is purely mathematical, the delicious delight in reposing one's mind upon truth. For tho the truth in historic research be far from [Page xvi]mathematical, yet that highest probability, here called Historic Truth, consists in this, that tho you cannot demonstrate it true, yet you can prove all opposite opinions to be false; so that, as truth is one, and no two opposite opinions can be both true, this remains Historic Truth.

List of the Chief Books and Editions used.

  • ADAMI Bremensis Hist. Eccl. apud Lindenbrog. Script. Germ. Sept. The Caput de Situ Daniae is also in the Dania, the best of the Elzevir Republics.
  • Aethici Cosmographia apud Melam Gronovii, Lugd. Bat. 1696. 8vo.
  • Agathias de rebus gestis Justiniani, Paris, 1660. f.
  • Ammianus Marcellinus Gronovii, Lugd. Bat. 1693. f.
  • Anastasii Bibliothecarii Historia Ecclesiastica, Paris, 1642. f.
  • Apollonius Rhodius, cum Scholiaste, Francof. 1546. 8vo.
  • Appiani Opera Stephani, Paris, 1592. f.
  • Aristotelis Opera, 1597. 4 vols, f.
  • Arii Polyhistoris Libellus de Islandia, Bussaei, Hauniae; 1733. 4to.
  • Arriani Tactica; Acies contra Alanos, &c. Blancardi, Amst. 1683. 8vo.
  • Ausonius Variorum, Amst. 1671. 8vo. Scaligeri, Lugd. Bat. 1612. 8vo.
  • Bartholinus de Causis Contemptae a Danis Mortis, Havniae, 1689, 4to.
  • Bayeri Dissertationes de Scythis, de Cimmeriis, &c. in Act. Acad. Petropol. Tom. I. et seqq. This author, in his love of Russia, and ignorance of ancient history and geography, makes the Scythae, &c. Fins, and other nations of the Russian empire! His errors are so gross as to be beneath notice in this work.
  • Bedae Opera, Basil. 1563. 8 vols, f.
  • Bibliander de Ratione communi omnium Linguarum, Tiguri; 1548. 4to.
  • Blackwell's Enquiry into the Life and Writings of Homer, London, 1736, 8vo.
  • Buat, M. le Compte du, Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de l'Europe. Paris, 1772. 10 tomes, 8vo.
  • Burton de veteri Lingua Persica. Lubecae, 1720, 8vo.
  • Busbequii Opera, Elz. 1633, 12mo.
  • Caesar Scaligeri, Elz. 1635, 12mo.
  • Cellarii Geographia Antiqua. Lipsiae, 1731. 2 vols. 4to.
  • Chronicon Paschale (al. Fasti Siculi vel Chron. Alexandrinum) a Du­cange. Paris. 1688. f.
  • Chamberlayne Oratio Dominica in omnibus fere Linguis. Amst. 1715. 4to.
  • Chrysostomi Opera a Montfaucon. Paris, 1718. 13 vols. f.
  • Claudianus Heinsii. Elz. 1650, 12mo. Gesneri. Lipsiae, 1759. 8vo.
  • Clementis Alexandrini Opera, Potteri Oxon, 1715, f.
  • Cluverii Germania Antiqua. Elz. 1616. f.
  • — Geographia, Bunonis, &c. Londini, 1711, 4to.
  • Curtius. Elz. 1670, 12mo.
  • D'Anville, vide Memoires de l'Academie.
  • — Geographie Ancienne Abregée. Paris, 1768, 3 vols. 12mo,
  • — Etats formes en Europe apres la Chute de l'Emp. Rom. Paris, 1771, 4to.
  • [Page xviii]Davis Dictionarium Kymbraicum seu Wallicum. Londini, 1632. f.
  • De Guignes Histoire des Huns. Paris, 1756. 4 tomes, 4to.
  • D'Hancarville Recherches sur les Arts de la Grece. Londre, 1785. 2 vols. 4to.
  • Diodorus Siculus Wesselingi. Amst. 1746, 2 vols. f.
  • Dion Cassius Reimari. Hamburgi, 1750, 2 vols. f.
  • Dionysii Periegesis a Hill. Londini, 1688, 8vo.
  • Dionysius Halicarnassaeus Hudsoni. Oxon. 1704, 2 vols. f.
  • Edda Resenii, 1665, 4to. and in the translation of Mallet.
  • Epiphanii Opera Valesii. Colon. 1652, f.
  • Eusebii Hieronymi et Prosperi Chronica ad 28 MSS. et 8 Edit. emend. a Pontaco. Burdigalae, 1604. f.
  • Eustathius in Homerum, Basil. 1560. 3 vols. f.
  • Excerpta Legationum Ursini. Ant. 1582. 4to. et Pars Secunda eorundem Hoeschelii Gr. Aug. Vind. 1603, 4to. Cantoclari Lat. Paris 1609. 8vo. This second part is extremely scarce, and should be reprinted with the first. It is also in Labbe, Appar, ad Hist. By [...]. edit. Reg. 1648. f.
  • Excerpta de Virtutibus et Vitiis Valesii. Paris, 1634. 4to.
  • Frisch Hist. Linguae Slavonicae, Berolini, 1727. 4to.
  • Geographi Graeci Minores a Hudson, Oxon. 1698, 4 vols. 8vo.
  • Gibbon's Roman History. London, 1783. 6 vols. 8vo.
  • Gillies's History of Greece. London, 1786. 2 vols. 4to.
  • Grotii Historia (vel potius Collectio Hist.) Gothorum. Amst. 1655. 8vo.
  • Helmoldi Chronicon Slavorum Bangerti, Lubecae, 1659. 4to.
  • Herodotus Wesselingii. Amst. 1763. f.
  • Hieronymi Opera. Paris, 1693, 5 vols. f.
  • Historiae Augustae Scriptores Variorum. Lugd. Bat. 1661, 8vo.
  • Homeri Ilias. Londini, 1747, 2 vols. 8vo.
  • — Odyssea. Genevae, 12mo.
  • Horatius, Baskerville. Birm. 1762, 12mo.
  • Huet Hist. du Commerce et de la Navigation des Anciens. Paris. 1716, 8vo.
  • Ihre Glossarium Suio-Gothicum. Upsalae, 1769, 2 vols. f.
  • Jornandes Vulcanii. Lug. Bat. 1597, 8vo. et in Grotii Hist. Goth.
  • Isidori Chronicon Gothorum, ib.
  • Justinus Vossii, Elz. 1640, 12mo.
  • Lagerbring, Sammandrag af Swea Rikes Historia. Stockholm, 1775, 8vo.
  • Lipsii Opera, Antw. 1614. 8 vols. 4to.
  • Livii Historia Sigonii. Vene [...] 1555. f.
  • Lloyd Archaeologia Britannica. Oxon. 1707, f.
  • Luciani Opera Benedicti, Salmurii, 1619, 2 vols. 8vo.
  • Mallet's Northern Antiquities. London, 1770, 2 vols. 8vo.
  • — Abregée de l'Hist. de Dannemarc. Copenhague, 1760, 12mo.
  • Macpherson's Introduction to the History of Britain and Ireland. London, 1773. 4to.
  • Marsham Canon Chronicus. Lipsiae, 1676, 4to.
  • [Page xix]Mela Gronovii. Lugd. Bat. 1696, 8vo. Olivarii. Lug. Bat. 1646. 12mo.
  • Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 41 vo­lumes, to 1780.
  • Montesquieu Oeuvres de. Amst. 1772, 7 vols. 8vo.
  • Olahi Hungaria et Attila. Vindob. 1763, 8vo (script. 1536).
  • Orosius Havercampi. Lug. Bat, 1738, 4to.
  • Orphei Opera Gesneri. Lipsiae, 1764. 8vo. It is surprising that the age of these pretended poems of Orpheus, to Musaeus his son, has not been examined. Some lately ascribe them to an Onoma­critus, upon no grounds whatever. They are palpably forgeries of the first, or second, century; but as near the Homeric language as any modern poet could forge an imitation of Chaucer. They are not earlier, because unknown to all writers preceding that time. Plato, in Cratylo, quotes one line of Orpheus; Diodorus Siculus I. 11, 12, two; but they are not found in the present. Orpheus was indeed the Zamolxis, the Zoroaster, the founder of their religion, to the Greek priests, and they had forged a hymn or two in his name before. But these poems to Musaeus are first quoted by Justin Martyr in the second century; and seem to have been forged to support the Pagan faith against the Chris­tian, then rapidly advancing, when the Carmina Sibyllina were forged on the other side. They relate to Pagan mysteries; and the Argonautics form a mock gospel of Orpheus.
  • Ovidii Opera, 3 tom. Amst. 1717, 12mo.
  • Panegyrici Veteres. Norimbergae, 1759, 2 vols. 8vo.
  • Pauli Warnefridi Diaconi Hist. Langobardorum, apud Grotii Hist. Goth.
  • Pausanias Kuhnii. Lipsiae, 1696. f.
  • Pelloutier Histoire des Celtes. Haye, 1750, 2 vols. 12mo. Paris, 1770, 8 vols. 8vo.
  • Peyssonnel Observations sur les Peuples barbares du Danube et du Pont Euxine. Paris, 1765. 4to.
  • Photii Bibliotheca, 1612, f.
  • Platonis Opera Ficini. Lugduni, 1550, 5 vols. 12mo.
  • Plinii Historia Naturalis Harduini. Paris, 1723, 2 vols. f. Genevae, 1601, 3 vols. 12mo.
  • Plutarchi Opera apud Stephanum, 1572, f. 13 vols.
  • Pollucis Onomasticon Variorum. Amst. 1706, 2 vols. f.
  • Polybii Historia Casauboni. Amst. 1670, 3 vols. 8vo.
  • Procopii Opera. Paris, 1662, 2 vols. f.
  • Prolemaei Geographia a Mercatore, 1605. f.
  • Ravennas Geographus, cum Mela Gronovii. Lug. Bat. 1696. 8vo.
  • Richardson's Dissertation on Eastern Manners, &c. presixt to Per­sian, Arabic, and English Dictionary.
  • Saxo Grammaticus Stephanii, Sorae, 1644, f.
  • Scaliger Diss. de Linguis in Merulae Cosmographia.
  • Schilteri Thesaurus Ant. Teuton. Ulmae 1728, 3 vols. f.
  • Schoepflin (pronounce Shufflin) Vindiciae Celticae, Argent. 1754, 4to.
  • Schoening Diss. variae in Act. Acad. Hafn.
  • Sheringham de Anglorum Gentis Origine. Cantab. 1670. 8vo.
  • Sidonius Apollinaris Savaronis. Paris, 1598, 8vo.
  • Snorronis Sturlonidis Hist. Regum Septent. a Peringskiold. Stock­holm, [Page xx]1697, 2 vols. f. a Schoening Hauniae, 1777, only 3 vols. published, last 1783.
  • Solinus apud Aldum, 1518, 12mo. Delrionis, L. Bat. 1646, 12mo. Salmasii, cum Exercitationibus Plinianis. Ultraj. 1689. 2 vols. f. Goezii, Lipsiae, 1777, 12mo.
  • The time when Solinus wrote could not be discovered by Erasmus, the Scaligers, Lipsius, Grotius, Salmasius, &c. in short, by all, from the revival of letters to this hour. There must be witchcraft in the case, for nothing is more easy. Solinus, c. 38, speaking of Judaea, says, Judeae capui fuit Hierosolyma, sed excisa est. Suc­cessit Hiericus; et hoec desiit, Artaxerois bello subacta. Who does not know that this war of Artaxerxes happened in the time of Alexander Severus, about the year 230? See Lampridius, &c. Salmasius, on this passage, calls Solinus a fool, and dreams about the old Artaxerxes! Solinus also mentions Byzantium, simply, not as Constantinople, so that he wrote before 330. But he also mentions the Getae, not by the name of Gothi, given them on their invasion 250, nor does he hint at that invasion; so that he clearly wrote between 230 and 250, say 240. The last edition by Goezius is the worst we have of any classic. Solinus deserves a better fate, for had Pliny perished, how great must have been his value! As it is, his book is not a mere abstract of Pliny, but has valuable additions.
  • Statii Opera. Paris, 1530, 12mo.
  • Stephanus Byzantinus de Urbibus et Gentibus, Berkelii. Lug. Bat. 1674, 8vo.
  • Strabo Casauboni, Lutetiae. 1620. f.
  • Suhm, Danmarks, Norges, og Holsten's Historie, Kiobenhavn, 1781, 8vo.
  • Suidas Kusteri. Cant. 1705. 3 vols. f.
  • Syncelli (Georgii) Chronographia. Paris, 1652. f.
  • Tacitus Boxhornii. Amst. 1661, 12mo; a Brotier. Paris, 1771, 4 vols. 4to.
  • — Germania Dithmari commentario. Francos. ad Viadrum, 1766, 8vo.
  • Tertullianus de Pallio Salmasii. L. Bat. 1656, 8vo.
  • Theophanis Chronographia. Paris, 1655. f.
  • Thucydides Dukeri. Amst. 1731. f.
  • Tooke's Russia. London, 1780, 4 vols. 8vo.
  • Torfaei Historia Norvegiae Hafniae. 1711, 4 vols. f.
  • — Series Regum Daniae. ib. 1702, 4to.
  • Usserii Annales Veteris Testamenti. Londini, 1650. f.
  • Valerius Flaccus cum Notis Heinsii. Ultraj. 1702. 12mo.
  • Verelii Gothrici et Rolfi Hist. Upsal, 1664. 8vo.
  • Wachter Glossarium Germanicum. Lipsiae, 1737, 2 vols. f.
  • Wittichindi Saxonis Gesta Saxonum. Basil. 1532. f.
  • Wormii Series Regum Daniae, Hafniae, 1642. f.
  • — Monumenta Danica. Ib. 1643. f.
  • Xenophontis Opera Leunclavii. Francof. 1596. f.
  • Zozimus Cellarii, Cizae, 1679, 8vo.


PART I, The identity of the Scythians, Getae, and Goths— Whether they proceeded from Europe into Asia, or from Asia into Europe—Their real origin, and first Progress—Their settlements in the East; and between the Euxine and Mediterranean seas.
  • CHAPTER I. The Scythians, Getoe, and Goths, all one people Page 3
  • CHAPTER II. Whether the Scythians or Goths pro­ceeded from Scandinavia into Asia, or from Asia into Europe p. 15
  • CHAPTER III. The real origin, and first progress of the Scythians or Goths; and their Eas­tern settlements p. 32
  • CHAPTER IV. The Western settlements of the Scy­thians or Goths, between the Euxine and Mediterranean seas p. 42
PART II. The extended settlements of the Scythians, or Goths, over all Germany, and in Scandinavia.
  • CHAPTER I. The Germans not of Sarmatic, nor Celtic origin page 89
  • CHAPTER II. The Germans were Scythoe. First Grand Argument, from identity of language p. 107
  • CHAPTER III. The Germans were Scythoe. Second Grand Argument, from the testimo­nies of Ancient Authors p. 115
  • CHAPTER IV. The Germans were Scythoe. Third Grand Argument, from similar man­ners p. 131
  • CHAPTER V. The progress of the Scythians into Scan­dinavia especially considered p. 150
  • Epochs of the First Gothic progress over Europe p. 186
  • Epochs of the Second or Last p. 188
  • Appendix. Pliny's description of the north of Europe, with a translation and remarks p. 198


  • Page 12, note, for 1634, 4to, read 1648 f.
  • Page 14, for [...], read [...].
  • Page 15, n. for speceis, read species.
  • Page 40, l. 25, for Southern and Northern, read Northern and Southern. (essential.)
  • Page 42, n. for Gerberon, read Bergeron.
  • Page 49, n. and 67 for Hebrides, read Hebudes.

It seems fated to this word to rest an error of the press. There are no such ilands as Hebrides. Pliny IV. 16. calls them Hoebudes, or as some MSS. Hebudes: as does Solinus, c. 25. Prolemy, [...], Ebudoe. Hector Boethius, Hist. Scot. Paris, 1526, fol. is the great father of Hebrides; but after looking over the editions of Pliny and Solinus preceding Boethius to no purpose; as they bear Ebudes and Hebudes, i at last happened on one of Solinus, Paris, 1503, 4to. full of typographical errors, and among them, f. xxii. Ebrides appears in text and margin, as in index, for Ebudes, as also Arcades, once for Orcades. This is palpably the very fountain of the mistake, for Boethius studied at Paris, where he must have used this edition, without consulting any other. German and Scandinavian writers at this day always put Hebudes.

  • 53, for Nic, read Nec.
  • 63, for Illyriana, read Illyrians.
  • 74, The Greek and Roman dress, being an article of manners, is omitted in considering the origin of these nations. But it may be hinted that the warlike was Gothic, a tunic and mantle, and often femoralia. The domestic was Phoenician, and not flowing as the Sarmatic.
  • 99, note f, for (p. 350) read (p. 330) essential.
  • 202, for pronontory, read promontory.

PART I. The identity of the Scythians, Getae, and Goths—Whether they pro­ceeded from Europe into Asia, or from Asia into Europe—Their real origin, and first progress—Their set­tlements in the East; and between the Euxine and Mediterranean seas.

A DISSERTATION ON THE Origin and Progress of the Scythians or Goths.

PART I. The identity of the Scythians, Getoe, and Goths —Whether they proceeded from Europe into Asia, or from Asia into Europe—Their real origin, and first progress—Their settlements in the East, and between the Euxine and Mediterranean seas.

CHAPTER I. The Scythians, Getoe, and Goths, all one people.

THE subject meant to be briefly treated in this dissertation is so extensive, and im­portant, that two vast volumes might well be occupied with it alone. For upon it, as a wide and perpetual basis, stands the whole history of Europe; excepting only that of Russia, Poland, and Hungary. All the rest is in the hands of the progeny of the Goths, or as we may justly say of the Goths: and there actually exists in Europe, at [Page 4]this moment, a sixth supreme empire, equal to the Scythian, Assyrian, Persian, Grecian, or Roman. For the colonies and dominions of the Europeans in America, and Asia, may surely be put as equivalent, at least, to those of the Romans in Asia and Africa. This Sixth Empire is not in­deed under one head; but neither was the Gre­cian, save for the short reign of Alexander. Nor let us, deceived by vulgar blindness, esteem it a disgrace to be called by our real name of GOTHS, but rather exult in the glorious title. For, as shall afterwards be shewn, the Greeks themselves were Goths, being originally Pelasgi, a Scythic or Gothic colony: and the Romans also were of the same stem. And tho we, misled by a puerile love of the Romans, revile the ruder Goths, our fathers, as despisers of learning and the arts; be­cause they scorned the sophistical reading, and fan­tastic arts, prevalent on the decline of the Roman empire, which we at present scorn; yet, as shewn in the preface, the Goths were the friends of every elegant art, and useful science; and when not constrained to arms alone by the inevitable situa­tion, and spirit, of their society, they carried every art and science to heights unknown before; as the ancient Greeks and modern Europeans might wit­ness. In wisdom, that perfection of human nature, ‘And tho no science fairly worth the seven,’ ancient authorsa call the rude Goths the first of mankind. And in arms what people equalled those who conquered the Romans, who had con­quered all? who, without military discipline, overcame the greatest military discipline in the world? who rushing at once, as lightning from heaven, dashed the strong and deep-rooted oak of Roman power to pieces; and scattered the nume­rous trophies, that adorned its branches, over the surrounding fields?

[Page 5]Before proceeding further i must apologise to the reader for compressing my own materials for the present disquisition, and which might have filled a large quarto volume, into such contracted bounds. For tho i am a declared enemy to large books, yet to the learned reader it may seem au­dacious, even to attempt so vast a theme in such small compass. But he will consider that the pur­pose of this work, into which my researches into Scotish history led me, forbids my entering into the subject so fully as its importance warrants. As M. de Guignes has obliged the world with an History of the Huns, in Four Quarto Volumes; fraught with all that information, which his great learning in the Eastern tongues enabled him to give; so it is earnestly to be wished that some writer of eminent learning, industry, and ability, would give us an History of the Scythians, at as great, or greater, extent. Such a work would be of the utmost advantage both to ancient, and modern history. Yet, tho confined to brevity, every toil has been exerted to render the present attempt veracious, accurate, and distinct.

It is proper first to shew that Scythae, Getae, Gothi, were but different names for one and the same people; as we call them Spaniards, whom the French call Espagnols; the Italians, Spagnuoli: or as the French call the English Anglois; the Italians, Inglesi. The learned reader will smile at my think­ing it necessary to explain a matter so well known, as the identity of the Scythians, Getae, and Goths; but this tract is meant for the public at large, and it is always better to tell a reader what he may per­haps know, than run the risque of obscuring a whole work by omitting what he may not know. I shall however be very brief on this article; re­ferring those who wish for more information upon it to Sheringhama, Pelloutierb, and Ihrec.

[Page 6]Of the Scythians we find a most ample account given by Herodotus; and which occupies almost all his Fourth Book. In the same book he also mentions the Getae, telling us that Darius subdued them in advancing against the wandering Scythians, who lived on the other side of the Ister, or Danube; and adding a remarkable circumstance that the Getae believed in the immortality of the soul, and that they were the bravest, and most just, of the Thracians. Thus from the earliest periods of history we find mention of the Scythae and Getae, as only divided by a river; but this is quoted solely to shew that these names are thus early re­cordedd After this we find them mentioned by almost every Greek writer, even familiarly; for Geta is a common name for a slave in Greek comedy, and in Terence's translations: the Greeks procuring many slaves from these their barbarous brethren, either by art or force.

But the name of Goths is not near so ancient; the very first mention of it being in the time of the emperor Decius, in the year of Christ 250, as Mr. Gibbon shews. At which time a part of them burst from Getia into the empire, under Cneva: and Decius, attempting to repell them from Thrace, was conquered and slain. After this we find them as frequently in the Latin authors by the names of Getae, or Gothi, as formerly the Scythians in the Greek; and, as Mr. Gibbon well observes, all the Greek writers after this period still uniformly call those Scythae, whom the Latin authors denomi­nate Gothi.

For the more exactness it shall now be shewn,

  • 1. That the Getae and Gothi were the same.
  • [Page 7]2. That the Getae or Gothi were the same with the Scythae.

I. The Getae and Gothi the same. This might almost admit of proof from the identity of the word, and identic situation of the people, were there not other irrefragable evidences at hand. The reader will please to remember that the Ro­mans, as the Greeks, and as the modern Ger­mans, Scandinavians, and many other nations, never gave the letter G a soft found, but always pronounced it hard, as we do in go, get, &c. not as we use in german, gesture, &c. Now, in the Grecian dialects, the vowels are often changed, and aspiration omitted; and it is probable that the name [...] is merely the name properly borne by the nation, and as pronounced by them, to wit Gothi, softened to the delicacy of Greek pronunciation, as the Italians soften English to Inglesi. We use as much freedom, nay often more, ourselves, in many names of countries, as French for François, &c. and especially change the e and o in the same verb to get, he got. Torfaeuse indeed observes that Get and Got is the same identic word, implying an­ciently, as he says, a soldier.

But, not to insist further upon this, the following authorities will infallibly prove that Getae and Gothi are synonymous words.

  • 1. We learn from Suidas that Dio entitled his history of the Goths [...], or the Getic His­tory. Dio wrote his Roman History under Alex­ander Severus, about the year 230; but probably lived to see the attack of the Goths upon the em­pire in 250, and wrote this work, now unhappily lost, in consequence of the public curiosity raised by that event.
  • 2. Spartian, who wrote under Diocletian, about the year 300, or within fifty years of the first ap­pearance [Page 8]of the name Gothi, is alone a complete evidence. For in his life of Antoninus Caracallus, n. 10. p. 419 of the Hist. Aug. Script. ed. var. 1661, 8vo. he says Gotti Getae dicerentur, ‘the Goths were then called Getae.’ And again, in his life of Antoninus Geta, n. 6. p. 427, Geticus quasi Gotticus; 'Geticus as we would now say Gotticus.'
  • 3. Claudian always calls the Goths Getae, and entitles his poem on the Gothie war, De Bello Getico.
  • 4. Sidonius Apollinaris in his poems frequently calls the Goths Getae; and in the epistle to Trige­tius he calls the Ostrogoths Massagetae.
  • 5. Ausonius, Idyl. 8. speaking of the Goths says,
    Quae vaga Sauromates fibi junxeral agmina Chunis;
    Quaeque GETIS fociis lstrum adsultabat Alanus.
  • 6. Orosius, lib. I. c. 6. says Getae qui et nune Gothi, 'the Getae, who are now also called Gothi.'
  • 7. Saint Jerome, in praef. Epis. 2. ad Galat. says, that the Goths were anciently called Getae. And in his own Epist. 135, he uses Getae for Gothi.
  • 8. Ennodius, in his Panegyric to Theodoricus king of the Goths, Nam illud quo ore celebrandum est quod GETICI instrumenta roboris, dum provides ne interpellentur [...]tia nostra, custodis?
  • 9. Procopius, [...]. 'For they say the Goths are a Getic race.'
  • 10. Jornandes entitles his history De Getarum, sive Gothorum, origine et rebus gestis; and con­stantly uses Getae and Gothi as synonymous. In his work De Regn. Success. he says Decius bellantibus Getis occubuit.
  • 11. Isidorus, Origin. lib. ix. c. 2. says the Getae, and Gothi, are the same.

There is not even a shade of an authority on the other side; tho, within these two centuries, the blunders of superficial learning on this subject [Page 9]are amazing. Cluveriusf led the van, by asserting, on his own authority, that the Gothi were the Gutones, or Gothones, of Pomerellia, who went and ate up the Getae,—because Cluverius was himself a native of Pomerelliag, and wanted all the glory of the Goths to his own dear Gothones! Grotiush fol­lowed, who asserted on his own authority that the Goths went from Gothland in Sweden, a name un­known till the Thirteenth, or Fourteenth century, and rising merely from some property of the coun­tryi, and ate up the Getae, about three centuries before Christ—because Grotius was embassadour from the Queen of Sweden to France, and bound, as he says in his preface, to do all in his power for the honour of that kingdom. Such infants are men of learning! Grotius has had his followers; and of late D'Anville follows Cluverius, from whose works he is indeed a frequent plagiary: and adds this only, and sapient, reasonk, that the Goths were Germans, because the names of their princes, &c. resemble the German, not the Scythic or Getic. But he ought to have known that the Greeks, from whom alone we have any Scythic or Getic names, totally perverted all barbaric names, nay often translated them for Ardshir they give us Artaxerxes, &c. Agathyrsi, Amazones, &c. are mere Greek translations, or rather metamorphoses. The names which D'Anville must allude to are [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10]those in ric, &c. as Theodoric, and the like, to which similar names may be found among the Germans, as Orgetorix, &c. This the Greeks seem in Scythic names to have changed into ris as Toxaris, &c. But in fact the formal music of Greek composition forced their authors to change all bar­baric names into a Greek form, a circumstance which escaped M. D'Anville, but which over­throws his argument; which, to say the best of it, is a castle in the air, of which such fluctuating mat­ters as words, and of them the most fluctuating, names, are formed. A Frenchman calls London, Londres, where is the Gothic dun l? Such is the case with foreign pronunciation among all nations. But this is an age of etymological frenzy; and we pay such attention to words that facts escape us. No author, before Cluverius, ever dreamed that the Goths differed from the Getae. Even in the darkest ages their identity was clearly seen. The Goths in the year 250 came from the very same ground where Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, Dionysius the Geographer, and all the writers from the first century down to that very time, had placed the Getae. The Romans before 250 only knew the Getae by Greek report, and gave them of course the Greek name: in 250 when they actually saw, and fought with, them, they called them by their proper name Gothi; as they studied not music nor accents in prose, as the Greeks did, but put the name as spoken, only with a Latin termination. [Page 11]Dio, who wrote about 250, calls them still Getae, as we have seen. Succeeding writers expresly explain that the Getae and Gothi were the same; as common sense might convince us: for how could the prodigious nation of Getae, so remark­able in ancient authors, vanish at once? The Goths came from the very territory of the Getae; and no authority would be required for any one of the smallest penetration to pronounce them the same people. But in science it seems doubtful whether the most falsehood arises from the weak prejudices and caprice of the learned, or from the superficiality of the ignorant. Suffice it to say, that AUTHORITIES ARE FACTS IN HISTORY; and that any one of the above authorities would overturn any theory at once. But where all the ancients agree in a point, as they do in this, for any modern to oppose his theoretic dreams is equally absurd, as it would be to attempt to prove by modern arguments that all the Greek and Roman history is a fable.

From these proofs therefore we must regard it as Historic Truth, that the Getae and Goths were the same people.

II. The Getae or Goths the same with the S [...]ythians. This will as plainly appear from the following evidences.

  • 1. Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, all rank the Getae as Scythae.
  • 2. Justin, or rather Trogus, says, Tanaus king of the most ancient Scythae fought with Vexores king of Egypt. Valerius Flaccus lib. V. calls the same Tanaus king of the Getae.
  • 3. Trebellius Pollio, in Gallieno: Scythae autem, id est pars Gothorum, Asiam vastabant. The same, (in Claudio Gothico) Scytharum diversi populi: Peu­cini, Trutungi, AUSTROGOTHI, praedae, &c.
  • 4. Dexippus, who as Grotius thinks wrote in the reign of Gallienus, entitled his history of the wars between the Romans and Goths, [...]; or [Page 12]Scythic Histories: and called the Goths [...] Scythae. See Photius, Cod. 83.
  • 5. Priscus uses Scythians and Goths synonymously. saying 'they besieged the Goths. There the Scythians labouring under want of victuals, &c.'m
  • 6. Eunapius calls those Goths whom Valens planted in Maesia Scythians n.
  • 7. Procopius, lib. IV. c. 5. [...]: 'all the other Gothic nations, who were also called Scythians in ancient times.'
  • 8. Anastasius in Hist. Chronograph. [...]. ‘When many Scythians, who are called Goths, had past the river Ister, in the time of Decius, they wasted the Roman empire.’
  • 9. Theophanes, under the year 370, [...]: ‘for that the Scythians are in their tongne called Goths, Trajanus Patricius relates in the history of his own time.’
  • 10. Georgius Syncellus, [...]: ‘the Scythians are also called Goths in their own language.’
  • 11. Jornandeso always speaks of the Goths, Getae, and Scythae, as one people, and uses the names synonymously.
  • 12. Isidorus thus begins his Chronicle of the Goths in Spain, Gothorum antiquissimum esse regnum certum est, quod ex regno Scytharum est exortum.
  • 13. procopius repeatedly calls the Foederati, so well known in the Lower Empire, Goths. Suidas in voce calls them Scythae.
  • 14. Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. xxxi. mentioning the death of Decius who fell in the battle against the Goths, or Getae, calls them Scythicae gentes.

[Page 13]There is not a shadow of any authority whatever on the other side of the question. The dreams of Cluve­rius and Grotius, above mentioned, only merit laugh­ter; as any modern must ever do, who chuses to ad­vance his futile speculations against ancient authority. For, as there can be no special revelation in such cases, without the ancients we know nothing of the mat­ter; and, if we strive to extinguish their lights, must remain in utter darkness. But, if modern names may weigh, Salmasius de Lege Hellenist. p. 368, says, [...], is but the same word differently pronounced. Indeed the S in Scythae is but a servile letter, as in many other Greek words, where it is put or omitted at pleasure, as Skimbri for Kimbri, &c.p This ancient name Scythae seems Guthae with an S prefixt, and the G altered to K, as no word in Greek begins with SG, which is in­deed almost unpronounceable in the beginning of a word; but in SK (or SC) are many words in the Greek. Mr. Gibbon justly observes that the Greek writers, after the appearance of the name Gothi among the Latin, still use Scythians as a synonymous word. This was owing to the Greeks retaining the name by which they had ever called them, while the Romans, to whom the people was un­known save in ancient history and geography, gave them on their first nearer acquantance with them, not the Greek name, but their own proper appellation. It is also worth remarking that Odin was the great god of the Scandinavian Goths, and the Icelandic Eddas and Sagas say that Odin led his people into Scandinavia from Scythia on the [Page 14]Danastrom; that is the Danaster, Dniester, or Tyras.

These synonymous names Scythae, Getae, Gothi, all appear sometimes in local, sometimes in exten­sive, meaning among the ancients. Herodotus puts the Getae on the south of the Danube, and the Scythae on the other side. Pliny and Strabo ex­tend the Getae all over the west of the Euxine, and the later thro half of Germany. Herodotus, lib. IV. c. 121, mentions the Thyssa Getae to the north of the Euxine, and in the heart of Scythia; and lib. IV. c. 11. the Massa Getae on the north and east of the Caspian. Procopius lib. I. c. 2. says the whole Scythae were anciently called [...], Getic nations. Jornandes uses the words Scythae, Getae, Gothi, as quite synonymous. Some, as may be seen in the above authorities, call the Getae, or Gothi Scythians: others call the Scythians Getae, or Goths. The words are absolutely synonymous: nay, to all appearance, but one and the same name, differently spelt.

From these proofs it is Historic Truth that the Scy­thians, Getae, Goths, are one and the same people.

CHAPTER II. Whether the Scythians or Goths proceeded from Scandinavia into Asia; or from Asia into Europe.

THIS is a most important and curious inquiry; and, for want of sufficient attention to it, pro­digious errors have crept into the works of almost all modern writers, even of the highest account.

It must here be premised, that the term Scythians is often, by modern writers, used in a most lax and indefinite sense; but is never so employed by the an­cients, whose ideas upon the subject were accurate and distinct. Herodotus carefully distinguishes between the Scythians and the Sarmatae. In book IV. c. 57, he says, that beyond the Tanais to the north 'are not Scythae, but Sarmatae:' c. 101. he mentions that the Melanchlaeni (a Sarmatic nation) are beyond the Scythae twenty days journey, having said c. 20. that the Melanchlaeni are not Scythae: and lib. IV. c. 117, he tells that some of the Sar­matae were taught the SCYTHIC tongue by the Amazons. He also distinguishes the Scythians from the Celts; and places the later far to the west. The Tartars were unknown to the ancients, till the Fifth century, when the Huns, who were Tartars, burst into Europe: and Jornandesa sufficiently marks the great difference between the Scythians and the Huns; as we can at this day by comparing the large shape, blue eyes, and fair hair, of a German, [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16]with the small stature, small black eyes, and black hair of a Tartar. These differences are found in the other ancient writers, who fully knew that the Scythians were neither Sarmatae, Celts, nor Tar­tars; but a race of men peculiar, fixt, and distinct. It is to modern ignorance, or superficiality, which is worse than ignorance, that we are indebted for any confusion upon this matter. There are how­ever two exceptions to this general rule, which, as it is the intention of this treatise to lay every thing before the reader in the most open manner, must not be forgotten. The first is that of Strabo who, in describing Asia, lib. XI. p. 492, says [...]'On this side are the Sarmatae themselves Scythians.' But this passage is a palpable mistakeb, and may be confuted from many others of Strabo himself; who, in describing Europe, clearly and repeatedly distinguishes the Sarmatae from the Scythae. Indeed the ignorance of Strabo concerning the Caspian sea, and the nations to the east of it, is well known. Nor is it a wonder that he who supposed the Caspian a gulph of the Northern Ocean (VII. p. 294), from which it is near a thousand miles distant, was so mistaken as to take the Asiatic Sarmatae for Scythae. But this single passage of Strabo has no weight, when all the other ancients, from Herodotus down to Jornandes, are clear and direct against it; and prove it a mere error into which Ephorus led him. The other exception is that of Procopius, who says [Page 17]'the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepidae were anciently called Sarmatae and Melanchlaeni: some have also called them Getic nationsc.' This can also be shewn a mistake of Procopius, for the Melanchlaeni were a Sarmatic nation, so called from their black robes; and, not to name all the ancients, Jornandes a writer of his own time marks the Goths as warring with the Sarmatae: and Hero­dotus, Strabo, Mela, Pliny, Ptolemy, with many others, mark the Scythae or Goths as quite a distinct people from the Sarmatae. The same Procopius, with the ignorance of his benighted age, says the Huns were anciently called Massagetae, M [...]. While the fact was that the Huns, or Tartars, had conquered the Massa­getae, a Scythic nation, and seized their territories, whence Procopius confounded the Huns who, from that quarter, poured into Europe, with the Massa­getae the ancient possessorsd. Herodotus, Dio­dorus Siculus, Ptolemy, and other ancients, fully instruct us that the Massagetae were a Scythic nation; and Diodorus says they were a colony of the Scythians on the Euxine. These two are perhaps the only ancient writers who confound the Scythae with the Sarmatae, or with the Tartars. Not one of the ancients confounds the Scythae with the Celts. Strabo's Celto-Scythae were those Scythae who bordered on the Celts; as the Indo-Scythae were those who bordered on the Indi.

The reader, to obtain a clear and precise view of our subject, must bear in mind that there were in ancient Europe only four Grand Races of men; namely,

  • 1. The Celts, the most ancient inhabitants that can be traced; and who were to the other races what the savages of America are to the European settlers there.
  • 2. The Iberi of Spain and Aquita­nia, [Page 18]who were Mauri and had past from Africa. These Two Races were few in number; the Celts being mostly destroyed by the Sarmatae and Scythae; and few of the Iberi having come into Europe.
  • 3. The Sarmatae, who were in all ap­pearance originally possessors of south-west Tartary, but expelled by the Tartars. For their speech, the Sarmatic or Slavonic is remote from the Tartaric; and their persons, full of grace and majesty, are dif­ferent from those of Tartars: so that they are not of Tartaric origin.
  • 4. The Scythians, who originated, as shall presently be seen, from present Persia; and spred from thence to the Euxine, and almost over all Europe.

In the ancient authors these grand races of men are marked and clear; and that chief distinction of the four languages still remains to certify them. The Celtic is spoken by the Irish and Welch. The Iberian still partly survives in the Gascunian or Basque, and Mauritanic. The Sarmatic is the vast Slavonic tongue. The Scythic comprehends the other nations; but especially the Germans and Scandinavians, whose speech is less mixt. No di­visions can be more accurate and precise, from present proofs, as well as from ancient writers. It is to modern authors, and some of them illustrious, that we owe any confusion upon this subject, aris­ing from a very simple cause, to wit, that good authors are rarely antiquaries, and that men of great talents are seldom so industrious as to go to the bottom of a subject, where alone however the truth is to be found. Thus we find one modern writere gravely pronouncing that the Scythians were Celts, because he was a Frenchman, and wanted to make France the parent of all nations, which he easily proves; for he was enabled to shew, from all the ancients, that the Greeks, Italians, Germans, &c. &c. were infallibly of Scythic origin; [Page 19]and, as he says, the Scythians were Celts, it fol­lowed that all the nations of Europe were Celtic. Unhappily he forgot that the antients distinguish more widely between the Scythians and Celts than between any other Grand Races of men; for, from the days of Herodotus to the latest voice of anti­quity, the Scythians are marked as proceeding from Asia, and the Celts as confined to the utmost west of Europe. Nor can any tongues be of more different form than the Celtic and Gothic. Thus we find anotherf telling us upon his own authority, that the Goths were Sarmatae, without once re­flecting that all the antients are direct against him; and that a nation speaking the Gothic tongue can no more be the same with one speaking the Slavonic, than a Swede can be a Russian. Thus we find othersg calling the Scythae Tartars, and the Tartars Scythae, forgetting that the ancients did not even know the existence of the Tartars till the Huns appeared; and that they distinguish the Scy­thae from the Huns in the most positive manner; forgetting that the Scythae spoke the Gothic tongue, a language as remote from the Tartaric as possible.

Ihre, a man of industry and skill in the Gothic, but of small learning and still less penetration, in the preface to his Suio-Gothic Glossary, observes the danger of attempting to trace Scythic words, given us by ancient writers, in the Gothic; because, says he, it appears that the Scythians had anciently different tongues. For Herodotus says that in Scy­thia were Seven languages. Strabo, lib. X. p. 503, says the Alani, a Scythic nation, had twenty-six languages. Mithridates king of Pontus, we are told, learned Twenty-two tongues, to converse with his own subjects, who were chiefly Scythic, or at least in the old seats of the Scythae. Lucian says, Tiri­dates, a successor of Mithridates in those parts, [Page 20]requested a Pantomimus from Nero, as a general interpreter of gestures to his subjects, not being able to understand so many tongues. The Scho­liast of Apollonius Rhodius IV. 321. says, there were Fifty Scythian nations. Ihre remarks justly that the ancients comprized all the nations in the oblique ascent from the Caspian sea up to the far­thest point of Scandinavia under the general name of Scythians; and, let me add, for a good reason, because they were so, all save the Sarmatians, whom some ancient writers only called Scythae, before it was fully discovered that the Sarmatae were of quite a distinct race and language, as known in the time of Tacitus and Ptolemy. Let me observe upon this that the whole is a superficial misrepresentation. Herodotus does not say that there were seven languages in Scythia, but that there was one Scy­thic nation, the Argippae, called also Phalacri, or Bald Scythians, who lived at a vast distance ( [...]) to the easth. He observes there was a number of countries and regions be­tween them and the others; and adds, 'the Scythae who go to them pass by seven interpreters, and as many tongues.' Herodotus is on the contrary a clear witness that the Scythae had but one speech; for, lib. IV. c. 117, he tells that some of the Sarma­tae learned the SCYTHIC tongue ( [...]) from the Amazons. He also repeatedly tells us that the Scythians denominate such a person or thing by such a name in THEIR languagei. Strabo's testimony concerning the Alani, a small nation of the Scythae, having twenty-six languages, is mat­ter of laughter, not of authority; being only likely to be true when the Caspian sea was a gulf of the Northern Ocean, as Strabo tells; and akin to the men with dogs heads, or horses feet, and other impossible fictions of travellers, which imposed on grave authors of antiquity. If Mithridates learned [Page 21]Twenty-two tongues, it was not to converse with his subjects, but from his love of learning; and the number is no doubt vastly magnified, as usual in such cases. Lucian's tale is a risible and good one; but did Ihre think it a matter of fact? That the Alani, as a scattered nation bordering on the Sar­matae and on the Tartars, had many dialects, we may well believe. So we may that in the kingdom of Pontus, comprizing Galatae or German Gauls, Asiatic Scythians, Syrians of Cappadocia, Sarma­tians, Colchians, Chaldaei, Greeks; there were three radical languages, the Scythian, Sarmatic, and Assyrian, which might well ferment into many dialects. The Scholiast of Apollonius says nothing of languages, but only shews the vast extent of the Scythae.

This point required attention because a diversity of tongues would have argued the term Scythoe an indefinite appellation; and it is believed the reader will now see that there is no authority whatever for such an idea. That some Scythic words mentioned by the ancients should not now be found in Gothic, is less surprizing than that several should, of which instances may be found in Ihre, Sheringham, and others. Languages change by time; many words drop into desuetude, and others supply their place. He must be a sanguine antiquary indeed who would expect to find every Scythic word in the remains of the Gothic which we have! It may therefore be reasonably concluded that, as the Scythae are a most marked and distinct people in ancient accounts, so they had but one general speech, the Scythic, or Gothic; tho perhaps divided into dialects as dif­ferent as the English and German are now.

Let us now proceed to that important question, Whether the Scythians came originally from Scan­dinavia into Asia, or from Asia into Europe?

1. That the Scythians originated from Scandinavia, we have one authority, that of Jornandes, who wrote about the year 530. Jornandes was himself a [Page 22]Gothk, but is thought only the abridger of a large history of the Goths by Cassiodorus, who was his cotemporary. If this was the case, the abridgment must be inaccurate, being solely from memory after a reading of three daysl. But it appears from the words of Jornandes, underquoted, that he fol­lowed Cassiodorus, but added some things from Greek and Roman writers. However this be, Jor­nandes puts Scandinavia as the ancient Scythia, from which the Scythians, afterward called Goths, came; for he rightly thro his whole work uses Scythae, Getae, and Gothi, as synonymous words. He makes them pour from Scandinavia down to the Euxine; thence into Asia, which they subdue down to Egypt, where they conquer Vexores, as an­tient writers say the Scythae did about 3660 years before Christ. He then gives the history of the Amazons, or Scythian female warriors; a fable in all probability grounded on real history, and arising from two sources.

  • 1. That the Scythian women often fought along with their husbands.
  • 2. That the name of a Scythian nation, Amazons, unhappily signified in Greek without breasts.

After this we find some account of the learning of the Scythians or Goths, their manners, &c. and he next passes to Maximin the emperor, who was a Thracian [Page 23]Goth; the irruption of the Goths in the time of Decius, &c. &c.

Such is the line which Jornandes persues: and his account of the origin of the Scythae was blindly followed by Isidorus, by Beda who calls Scandina­via Scythia, by Paulus Diaconus, by the geogra­pher of Ravenna, and by innumerable others in the dark ages. Nay such an effect may even a very weak writer (for such Jornandes is) have upon literature, that one sentence of Jornandes has over­turned the very basis of the history of Europe. This famous sentence is in his fourth chapter, Ex hac igitur Scandia insula, quasi OFFICINA GEN­TIUM, aut certe velut VAGINA NATIONUM, cum rege suo nomine Berig Gothi quondam memorantur egressi. Upon this one sentence have all modern historians, nay such writers as Montesquieu, Gib­bon, and others of the first name, built! Now it can clearly be shewn that Scandinavia was down to a late period, nay is at present, almost over-run with enormous forests, where there was no room for population. Adam of Bremenm, who wrote in the Eleventh century, instructs us that even in Denmark, at that time, the sea coasts alone were peopled; while the inner parts of the country were one vast forest. If such was the case in Den­mark, we may guess that in Scandinavia even the shores were hardly peopled. Scandinavia is also a most mountainous region; and, among a barbaric and unindustrious people, the mountains are almost unpeopled. In fact, the sole colonies that ever went from Scandinavia were the Piksn into Scotland, [Page 24]the opposite shore; the Danes into Denmark: and at the late period the Normans into France; and a few small colonies into Iceland, and the neighbour­ing iles.

But to discredit for ever this dream of Jornandes, who is in fact the sole authority on that side of the question; for other writers down to our times, tho they might be reckoned by hundreds, all stand upon his foundation alone; let us proceed to evince beyond a doubt that the Scythians came from Asia; and that of course Scandinavia must have been al­most the last point of their population, instead of the first, or punctum saliens.

II. That the Scythians originated from Asia can be proved by many authorities, even the least of them superior to that of Jornandes.

1. Trogus Pompeius in the reign of Augustus, with sedulous diligence and great ability, compiled an universal history, afterward in the reign of Antoninus Pius abstracted by Justin, who dedicates his work to that prince. From Trogus, Justino tells us that the Scythians contended with the Egyptians, then esteemed the earliest of nations, for antiquity: and that Asia was conquered by them, and tributary to them, for no less a space than Fifteen Hundred years, before Ninus, founder of the Assyrian Empire, put an end to the tribute.

The ideas of the ancients concerning this first Supreme Empire were, as might be expected, very confused. Trogus and Justin say the Scythians conquered Vexores king of Egypt, fifteen hundred years before the time of Ninus. Isaac Vossius, in his notes on Justin, wonders that Trogus should say the Scythians conquered Sesostris; while Hero­dotus, Dicaearchus, Diodorus Siculus, and others, say that Sesostris vanquished the Scythae. Vossius did not see that Sesostris was out of all question; and that it is Vexores whom Justin bears, as dif­ferent [Page 25]a name, and person, from Sesostris as can well be imagined. Vexores lived about 3660 years before Christ: Sesostris about 1480! But Vossius is not the only learned man who, from want of common discernment, has even confounded this First Scythic Empire with an eruption of the Scythae into Asia, about 1600 years after Ninus; while the Great Scythic Empire was terminated by Ninus after lasting more than 1500 years. In the works of the Lipsii, Scaligeri, Salmasii, Vossii, Grotii, one finds every thing but common sense, without which every thing is less than nothing. Trogus, who was in civil history what Pliny was in natural history, an indefatigable compiler of the whole knowlege that could be found in preceding authors, discovered this earliest empire, as Time draws truth out of the well. The war of Sesostris against the Scythae, about 1480 years before Christ, narrated by Hero­dotus and Diodorus Siculus, must by no means be confounded with events that happened 1500 years before Ninus, as Justin states, or 3660 years before Christ. From Justin it is apparent that the Scythians, fixt and resident in present Persia, per­haps 2000 years before Ninus, carried on a war against Vexores 1500 years before the time of Ni­nus, and subduing the west of Asia made it tri­butary, till Ninus delivered it by establishing the Assyrian Empire on the ruins of the Scythian.

In fact, we have good authoritiesp to compare with Trogus, and to confirm that the First Grand Scythian Empire was in present Persia. For that most learned Father of the Church, Epiphanius, in his work against Heresies, near the beginning, divides religious error into four great periods.

  • 1. Barba­rism.
  • 2. Scythism.
  • 3. Hellenism, or Grecian [Page 26]error.
  • 4. Judaism. He also says the Scythians were of those who built the tower of Babel: and his Scythism extends from the flood to this later event.

Eusebius, in his Chronicle, p. 13, puts the Scy­thians as the immediate descendants of Noah down to Serug his seventh descendant; that is, a space of about 400 years, as generations are computed at that period of longevity. This was the Scythian age, the most ancient after the flood; the Scythism of Epiphanius, for his barbarism was the period pre­ceding the flood. Eusebius also says [...], 'from the deluge to the building of the tower of Babel Scythism pre­vailed.'

The Chronicon Paschale, p. 23, makes Barba­rism precede the deluge, then Scythism, Helle­nism, Judaism, as Epiphanius.

Perhaps it may be thought that these ecclesiastic authorities prove too much, as they mark the whole immediate descendents of Noah as Scythians; and of course might prove all the nations of the globe Scythians, as by Scripture account they all sprung from Noah. But it is the line of Shem down to Serug, and not of Ham or Japhet, who are marked as Scythians; and Shem was reputed the father of Asia, as Ham of Africa, and Japhet of Europe. The flood is now generally reputed a local event; but accept these authorities any way, and they shew that the Scythians originated in Asia. The coin­cidence of these writers with Trogus is fixt, and strong. Ninus is reputed the founder of the tower of Babel; which was followed by the dispersion of mankind. He was the founder of the Assyrian em­pire whose capital was Babylon, and the dispersion of the Scythians followed. Of the race of Ham, by scripture account, was Nimrod thought Ninus, and Ashur thought father of the Assyrians, to which race also belong the fathers of nations along the east end of the Mediterranean, the Arabic gulf of Red [Page 27]sea, and thro all Arabia. Certain it is that the Arabic is a dialect of the Grand Assyrian language, as are the Syrian, Phoenician, Hebrew, Chaldee, Coptic, Abyssinian, &c. all sister dialects; and the Assyrians, who overturned the Scythian empire, formed one great language or race of men, extend­ing along the east end of the Mediterranean and Arabian seas, to the Erythraean sea, gulf of Per­sia, and river Euphrates. From them the Egyp­tians and White Ethiopians must also have sprung, as their language and situation declare.

From these smaller lights, compared with Tro­gus or Justin, it will appear as evident as so very remote an event can well be, that the Scythian Empire was the first of which any memory has reached us. And it is a plausible opinion, adopted by late mythologists, that Saturn, Jupiter, Bac­chus, &c. were monarchs of this first empire, whose glorious actions procured them divine honours from their subjects after their death. This empire was perfectly barbarie, and the seat of war, not of arts. All nations, save the Egyptians, were then pastoral; and the Scythians, as described by Hero­dotus, on the Euxine were certainly more advanced in society than when holding the empire of Asia; for agriculture was then known to one or two na­tions of themq, which there is no room to think they knew at all in their first empire. This wan­dering state of pastoral society will at once account for so many of the Scythae leaving their domi­nions, on the Assyrian conquest, that eastern tra­dition reported the dispersion of men to have followed that event. But no doubt vast numbers still remained in Persia, and submitted to their new lords. Herodotus, Diodorus, only mention [Page 28]the Scythae Nomades of the north of Persia to have past the Araxes; and the Scythae in the south remained, and were ever known by the name of Persians, as at this day.

It may be asked how the memory of this vast empire escaped Herodotus, and yet was preserved by later writers? But we must reflect that it is always time that discovers the truth: that Hero­dotus might not be versed in the eastern languages or history: and that Homer himself says not a word of Ninus, Babylon, or the Assyrian empire, nor of the Median. Many of the most important facts in ancient history were recovered after the time of Herodotus, by writers who lived in the countries where they happened. Nor let it be imagined that what Herodotus says, lib. IV. c. 5. with regard to the Scythians, their boasting of be­ing the newest of nations, and not existing above a thousand years before Darius, son of Hystaspes, be considered as evidence against the existence of the Scythian empire. For not to mention the well-known fabulous disposition of Herodotus, whose work has been rightly called the shade be­tween poetry and history; and who, from his love of the marvellous and new, might ascribe this idea to the Scythians; we may well reconcile his authority with that of other ancients, by saying that the Scythians, tho the most ancient people of which history preserves remembrance, were yet new in the seats they held in the time of Herodotus, who speaks especially of the Scythae on the west of the Euxine. Because, after being expelled by Ninus, some centuries must have past before they came to the west of the Euxine and down to the Danube, where Herodotus finds the Scythae he dwelt on; and between Ninus and Darius about 1800 years occur.

2. Herodotus himself is a sufficient witness that the Scythians did not originate from Scandinavia, but from present Persia. For he tells us, book IV. [Page 29]ch. 11. that they passed the Araxes, and entered the Bosphorus Cimmerius. The Araxes, it is well known, is a large river of Armenia, running into the Caspian sea. Herodotus IV. 40. men­tions 'the Caspian sea, and the Araxes running to the east.' Hence it is clear that, even by the account of Herodotus himself, the Scythians passed up from Persia to the Euxine. He there­fore affords a collateral proof of the existence of the first Scythian empire, by making his later Scythians ascend from the country where other ancients place it; and at the same time is an abso­lute witness that the Scythae could not come from Scandinavia, seeing their course was in direct op­position, proceeding from the south-east to the north-west, instead of the contrary.

3. Diodorus Siculus confirms the account of He­rodotus, telling us, lib. II. p. 155, that the Scythian Nomades were at first a small nation on the Araxes, whence they spred to Caucasus, and the Palus Maeotis. He also greatly strengthens the narra­tive of Trogus; tho he confounds the first em­pire of the Scythae with their later invasion, and ascribes to this late invasion a protracted empire, and many great kings; in which he contradicts the best and earliest writers. And had not Justin, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and the Chronicon Pas­chale, remained, we might to this hour confound two vast events, the invasion of Egypt by the Scythae from their original seats 3660 years before Christ, and their later invasion 640 years before Christ; so uncertain is traditional chronology!

As brevity is much studied in this dissertation, and every reader will at once allow any one of the above authorities sufficient to overturn that of Jornandes; i shall not insist further, but sum up this article by observing,

  • 1. That we have suffi­cient authorities, direct and collateral, for the Scythian empire in present Persia being the first [Page 30]in the world; the Assyrian, generally reputed the first, only succeeding it. And it is believed no man will be so much the dupe of hypothesis as to suppose that the Scythians ascended from Scandinavia, and dropped down in the plains of Babylon, or in opposition to Epiphanius, Eusebius, and the Chronicon Paschale, to assert that even those first Scythae were of Scandinavia; or, in other words, that Noah and the first reputed inhabitants of the earth came from Scandinavia.
  • 2. That Herodotus, Diodorus, and indeed all writers who have occasion to mention the subject, down to the Sixth century, when Jornandes the first monastic historian wrote, and darkness, error, and ignorance, surrounded the world, are in direct opposition to Jornandes. These early writers of enlightened times uniformly make the Scythae pass, from the south of Asia, up in a North West direc­tion, till they spred over all Europe: and to op­pose the single testimony of Jornandes to such au­thorities would be absurd beyond all absurdity. Gro­tius, who maintains it, from a silly wish of honour­ing Sweden, has been forced totally to garble and alter it, by bringing those Goths from Scandinavia about 300 years before Christ, whom Jornandes brings thence about 4000 years before Christ. But this hypothesis is contradictory to all ancient ac­counts, as has been, and shall be shewn, in the course of this tract; and deserves laughter, not re­futation. Grotius is no authority at all; it is Jor­nandes who, from his antiquity, merits confutation from other authors yet more ancient and far better informed. Indeed simply to ask by what special miracle Jornandes discovered a matter not only unknown to, but contradictory of, all the ancients, would be full confutation in such a case. He lived in no Augustan age when science was at its height; but in all the darkness of ignorance: and would not have even merited confutation, had he not misled so many.

[Page 31] It is therefore Historic Truth, that the Scythians, otherwise called Goths, came from present Persia into Europe by a North West progress: and that Scan­dinavia, instead of being the country whence they sprung, must in fact have been almost the last that re­ceived them.

CHAPTER III. The real origin, and first progress, of the Scythians or Goths: and their Eastern Settlements.

WE have already seen that the Scythian Empire, in present Persia, is the most ancient of which history has preserved any memo­rial. This very curious subject shall not be here enlarged on, but is left to some future Historian of the Scythians. This empire seems to have extended from Egypt to the Ganges; and from the Persian gulf, and Indian sea, to the Caspian. The conquests of Bacchus, reputed a king of this Scythian dominion, in India, are famous in an­tiquity: he introduced the vine, or the use of wine, into his dominions, and was deified as the god of wine by his subjects. The bacchanalian feasts of the Thracians, and other Scythae, are noted by classic authors; and from the Thracians they are mentioned to have past to the Greeks. The wine of barley, ale, supplied the want of the grape; and Bacchus retained his honours. But, to enter more certain ground, the real Scythians of this original empire seem to have been bounded by the Euphrates on the west, and the Indus on the east. The Arabians, Syrians, &c. were cer­tainly not Scythae. We find Indo-Scythae on the Indus, and other remains on the Erythraean sea: but none beyond the Indo-Scythae. On the north the original Scythae extended to the Caspian. Due klowledge of this empire would remove those em­barrassments [Page 33]which the learned have fallen into, from ancient accounts of the wars between the Scy­thae and Egyptians, while Scythia on the Euxine is so remote from Egypt. Most of the ancient authors only knowing Scythia on the Euxine, as the early seat of the Scythae, have misrepresented some of those wars as carried on at such prodigious distance, while the first Scythian empire really bordered on the Egyptian kingdom.

It has been shewn above that ecclesiastic authors of chief account even regarded the Scythians as the very first inhabitants of the east after the deluge. If any reader inclines to look upon the deluge as fabulousa, or as at most a local event, and desires to learn whence the Scythians came to present Persia, he need not be told that it is impossible to answer him. With their residence in Persia com­mences the faintest dawn of history: beyond, altho the period may amount to myriads of ages, there is nothing but profound darkness. It is a self-evident proposition, that the author of nature, as he formed great varieties in the same species of plants, and of animals, so he also gave various races of men as inhabitants of several countries. A Tartar, a Negro, an American, &c. &c. differ as much from a German, as a bull-dog, or lap-dog, or shepherdd's cur, from a pointer. The differences are radical; and such as no climate or chance could [Page 32] [...] [Page 33] [...] [Page 34]produce: and it may be expected that as science advances, able writers will give us a complete system of the many different races of men.

The First Progress of the Scythians was, as above shewn from Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and other ancients, out of the north of present Persia, over the river Araxes, and the vast moun­tains of Caucasus, which run between the Euxine and Caspian seas. And their first grand settlement, after this emigration, was upon the east, north, and west, of the Euxine, in the tract described as Ancient Scythia by Herodotus and many others; and which, including the northern half of the Euxine, formed, as Herodotus represents, almost a square. A part of the Cimmerii, or ancient Celtic inhabitants of all Germany and up to the Euxine, naturally fortified in a corner of the Tauric Chersonese, by surrounding waters, long withstood the Scythians, or were neglected by them; and were not expelled till about 640 years before Christ, when passing the Cimmerian Bosphorus, they made their way into Asia over the mountains of Caucasus. The Scythians pursued them, and again conquered great part of Asia, but retained it only for about thirty yearsb. This later expedition, some ancients have confounded with the first Scythic empire.

But, if we except this small corner of the Tauric Chersonese, the Scythians may be regarded as possest of all ancient Scythia, at least two thousand years before Christ. Expelled from northern Per­sia by Ninus, about 2200 years before our aera, they could not take more than two centuries to cover ancient Scythia, if their numbers did not fill it at first. This will further appear from the progress [Page 35]of the Scythae, detailed in the rest of this disser­tation.

From Scythia on the Euxine, which, with the antients, let us call Antient Scythia, as being the Parent Country of the European Scythians, the Scythae gradually extended to the East, around the northern shores of the Caspian. Dionysius, the geographer, v. 798, and other ancients, instruct us that the regions, between the Euxine and Caspian, were all peopled by Scythae. Pontus c, Armenia, Iberia, Albania, were of the Scythic set­tlements. The Iberi here had, as plain sense might dictate, nothing in common with the Iberi of Spain, but the name; tho Strabo, i. 61. xv. 687, says they came from Spain, and Abydenusd fabled that Nebuchadnezzar, having subdued Afric and Spain, brought these Iberi from Spain. Appiane tells us, in direct terms, that their language, man­ners, &c. were totally different. They had in­deed no more connection than the Albani here with the ‘Albanique patres, et altae moenia Romae,’ with Albania, the mountainous western part of Macedon, or with the Albani or Highlanders of Scotland. Such coinciding names are mere falls of letters; and he, who builds any hypothesis on them, as M. de Buat, and others, have done, should be taught to study the etymology of Hellebore. But etymology, and single words, and names, have converted the literature of the eighteenth century into a tissue of visions; and we daily see history built upon what no man of sound mind would even [Page 36]build a fable. Solinus, c. 20, says, the Albani of Asiatic Scythia have white hair, blue eyes, and see better by night than by day. See also Pliny, VII. 2. Aul. Gell. ix. 4. Between the mouths of the Tanais and Rha were the Alani, a Scythic people, cele­brated in the Alanica of Arrian, and Toxaris of Lucian, who were generally leagued with the Ostrogoths, and in time came to have settlements in Gaul and Spain. On the north of the Caspian, as appears from Herodotus, who did not, like Strabo, take the Caspian for a gulf of the Northern Ocean, were the MASSAGETAE, a great and renowned na­tion, whose queen Thomyris slew Cyrus, and de­stroyed his army. The Massagetae extended to the east of the Caspian; and they and the SACAE were the Scythae Intra Imaum, which Ptolemy begins from the Rha or Wolga on the west; as the Chatae, and fabulous Arimaspi, belonged to Scy­thia extra Imaum, which Ptolemy marks as a very narrow tract, and it certainly did not reach above two hundred miles to the east of the Caspian. We learn from Diodorus Siculus, lib. ii. c. 43. that the Scythians coming over the Araxes, and moun­tains of Caucasus, to the Palus Maeotis, from thence, after some time, extended their conquests and settlements beyond the Tanais; and that from them the Massagetae, Sacae, Arimaspi, and several other nations sprung. The Bactriani, Justin says, were Scythaee. That the Sogdiani, between the Massagetae to the north, and Bactriani to the South, were Scythae, is clear from Strabo, and the description of their manners given us by Curtius, [Page 37] lib. vii. c. 8. Strabo XI. 511. says the Bactriani were Sacae; and it would seem that the Sogdiani also were. Sacae was indeed a general name given to the Scythae by the Persians as Herodotus tells. The Bactriani were old Scythae, who extended so far during the Scythic Empire in Persia, for Ninus made war on them: Diodor. ii. Justin i. The Alani, who bordered on the Massagetae on the west, are also called Massagetae by one or two late Latin writers. The Hyrcani were also Scythae; and the Dahae, [...], Steph. Byz. and Pliny IV. 17. The Margiani were of the Massagetae, as Ptolemy shews, who places Massa­getae in Margiana: and Dionysius, the geogra­pher, v. 740. and Eratostenes, in Strabo, lib. ii. extend some Massagetae into Bactriana. Indeed Strabo mentions, that SACAE and MASSAGETAE were general names for the Asiatic Scythae on the east of the Caspian; and Herodotus and Pliny say that the Persians called those Scythae by the general name of Sacae. The Sacae also made later incursions into Hyrcania, and so far as Ar­menia, where Sacapene, a district, was called by their name; Ptolemy; Strabo lib. ii. Sacae and Massagetae, among the Persians, seem equivalent to Scythae and Getae, among the Greeks. A region at the fountains of Oxus and Jaxartes is still called Sakita, from the Sacae; and the Scythia extra Imaum was called Gete and it's people Getes, in the time of Tamerlane, as appears from his life, written in Persian. See M. de Anville's Memoir on the Getae in those of the Academy, Tome XXV. and on the mountains of God and Magog (which to me seem those of Imaus), Tome XXXII.

My purpose forbids my dwelling on these eastern Scythae. The ancient and modern Persians certainly were, and are Scythae, who remained in the southern parts, when the Scythae Nomades of the north passed the Araxes to enjoy that freedom in other regions which they could not retain under [Page 36] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page 38]the Assyrian power; for northern nations have al­ways been fond of liberty while the southern pre­ferred the delights and ease of their climate. The Assyrian empire followed the Scythian 2200 years before Christ; the Median succeeded to the Assyrian, 860 years before Christ; the Persian commenced 530 years before our aera. The Par­thian kingdom began 248 years before Christ. Ardshir, or Artaxerxes, restored the Persian 210 years after Christ, which lasted till the invasion of the Arabs in 636; the Persian line was restored in the Tenth century; but the people remained, and remain much the same. The Persians, who re­founded the empire, 530 years before our aera, seem to have been the old Scythae of Persia, strengthened by accessions of the Indo-Scythae, and from the Scythian territories on the east of the Caspianf The Assyrians formed one great language, or race of men, as above mentioned. The Medes, we know, from Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Solinus, and others, were Sarma­tae, who had pierced thro the Scythians, and passed the Caucasus by the Sarmaticae Pylae, into Media. The Parthians were also Sarmatae, as appears from Tacitusg, and others. They had followed the same tract with the Medes, easily making way thro [Page 39]the Alani, and other Scythic nations, who were scattered around the mountains of Caucasus.

Procopius, who wrote about 530, is so ignorant, as above shewn, as to call the Massagetae Huns, be­cause the Huns had seized on the lands of the Mas­sagetae, and from that quarter poured into the em­pire. But when Herodotus wrote, and down to the Christian aera, as is clear from M. de Guignes, the Huns were on the north of China. When they appeared in the west, Jornandes well marks the prodigious difference between them and the Scythae; the same as that between a German and a Tartar. The famous SCYTHIA INTRA ET EXTRA IMAUM was, if compared to Tartary, as a drop in the ocean. Geographers preceding this century, not knowing the shape of the Caspian, have erred prodigiously; but none more than Cluverius, a most inaccurate writer. Ptolemy's longitudes of Asia, now proved to be false to excess, have also misled. M. D'Anville shews, that the mouth of the Ganges, placed by Ptolemy in 148 degrees, has, by actual observation, been found to have but 108! Another place he gives 177o, which really bears 118o! an error of fifty-nine degrees or about 3000 miles! Strahlenberg observes, that Ptolemy gives a place in the extremity of Serica a latitude extending to the borders of China, which, in fact, is but a hundred and twenty miles east of the Cas­pian sea! Ptolemy's Seres, which he places be­yond Scythia extra Imaum, were in the east of present Bucharia* These inland parts were [Page 40]totally unknown to the ancients, while from the merchants they knew the coasts to Cochin China, which M. D'Anvilleh shews to be the seat of the ancient Sinae. We know little about them even at present, tho much indebted to Strahlenberg's mapi and other works of this century. The Tar­tars were absolutely unknown to the ancients till the Huns appeared: and they express the greatest surprize at such new features of human nature. The Scythians were neither Tartars, nor of Tar­taric origin, as some late writers imagine; who, astonished at the vast extent of Tartary, and for­getting how thinly that extent is peopled, make Tartary the storehouse of nations, as if the author of nature had peopled the world from the most desert part of it! Even the Chinese and Japanese are not Tartars, as their language and history de­clare: the former are infallibly a Grand Aboriginal nation, and the later a colony of themk. The East Indians are not Tartars, but a race and language of men by themselves. The Persians are another. The Arabs another. The Turks are a mixture of a few Tartars, with numbers of Arabs, Greeks, Syrians, &c. Some writers observe a difference between the Southern and Northern Tartars. This rises solely from the former re­maining unmixed, while the later are intermingled with the inhabitants of all the kingdoms they con­quered. [Page 41]For in agricultural and industrious regions, the lords change, but the inhabitants remain. The Chinese are the same people, tho often subdued, and ruled by Tartars; and in all the above Scy­thic settlements, as the Huns came not in upon them till the fourth century, there is every reason to conclude that the inhabitants, then far advanced in society, remained in their possessions. The Goths, who came into the Roman empire, are counted by thousands; those who remained may be reckoned by millions. The Ostrogoths and Alani, in particular, formed a league with the Huns, and joined them in arms; and their territories certainly remained unmolested. Busbequius, and others, shew that the peasants of Crim Tartary still speak the Gothic.

CHAPTER IV. The Western Settlements of the Scythians or Goths between the Euxine and Mediterranean seas.

FROM their settlements on the Euxine, the Scythians, Getae, or Goths, gradually extended over most of Europe; and the Greeks and Romans were, as shall be presently shewn, certainly Scy­thians, tho refined by adventitious circumstances. The station, whence the innumerable and vast Scythic swarms advanced, is now Little Tartary, formerly called Ancient, or Little, Scythia.a It's [Page 43]maritime situation, encircling the sea, had, no doubt, advantages as to population. For it is well known, that sea coasts teem with progeny, owing to the inhabitants living on fish, a food at once salacious and prolific; whence they, who love to moralize ancient fables, may well illustrate the birth of Venus herself from the sea. The Greeks, accustomed to a hot climate, regarded Ancient Scythia as very cold, for such ideas are comparative; an African regarding Italy as cold, an Italian France, a Frenchman Britain, a Briton Iceland. But plain reason dictates, that this country, from it's situation, must be blest with a temperate cli­mate; and it's amazing vegetation, at present, de­clares this. Countries beyond the Sixtieth degree of latitude, in any part of the globe, are almost desert; nor can population thrive in such extreme cold. Ancient Scythia, lying between the For­tieth and Fiftieth degree, is in that happy tem­perature, between heat and cold, where philosophy, and actual observation, evince, that population is greatest. Poland, a country bordering on Ancient Scythia, is the most populous in Europe for it's size; and, were it not for a tyrannic government, and total depression of the people, would be twice as populous. Far the greatest part of Scandinavia lies beyond the Sixtieth degree; and is, from real, and not comparative, cold, al­most desert: and all Iceland, tho nearly equal to Great Britain in size, only contains about forty thousand people; while Poland, a country little larger, has fifteen millions. This difference be­tween the comparative cold ascribed by the dweller of a hot climate, to a temperate one, and that real cold which checks all vegetation and life, has been little attended to by modern writers; to whom a region which, to a Greek or Romanb, [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44]seemed cold, would, in fact, prove warm, com­pared with Britain or France. We read of battles on the ice of the Danube in Roman times; but that prodigious river was then surrounded with enormous forests, which shaded and chilled all around. It is believed also, that Ovid is the sole witness of such battles, and we must not take poetic exaggeration for solid truth; especially, seeing the poet wished to represent the country in the most dreadful colours, that he might, if possible, procure a mitigation of his banishment. In England the Thames is often frozen, and yet the country is one of the most fertile and populous in the world. Let us not therefore shiver at Greek and Roman descriptions of Thracian and of Scy­thian cold. Dionysius, the Geographer, gives us, v. 666, to v. 679. of his Periegesis, a dreadful description of the coldness, and storms, of Ancient Scythia. "Where Tanais," says he, "rolls over the Scythian fields, the North Wind rages, and condenses the ice. Unhappy they who build their huts around! For perpetual to them is snow, with the frosty gale. The horses, mules, and sheep, die before the piercing wind. Nor do men bear the blast unhurt; but fly on their cars to another region; leaving the land to the wintry winds, which, rushing with horrid uproar, shake the fields, and piny hills." This poetic account of the cold, in the northern parts of Ancient Scythia, is merely comparative, between it, and Greece; and a British poet would, perhaps, as much ex­aggerate the heat of that country. The tempera­ture was singularly adapted to population; and, perhaps, as some kinds of animals are infinitely more prolific than others, so also may certain races of men, as the Scythae, or Goths, undoubtedly were. This ancient Scythia was the real fountain of almost all European nations; and was so esteemed by the ancients, till the dreams of Jor­nandes, in a benighted age, ascribed to a country [Page 45]which, by facts and philosophy, ever has been, and is now, very thinly peopled, honours which belonged to quite another clime.

If we place the reign of Ninus, as Chronologers do, about 2200 years before Christ, we may sup­pose the Scythians, who retired from his power, to have been settled in Little or Ancient Scythia, extending down the shores of the Euxine, to the mouth of the Danube, about 2000 years before Christ. Europe at that time, seems to have been thinly inhabited by a few wandering Celts, who were to the Scythae, what the savages of America are to the Europeans. The Sarmatae appear not then to have emerged from Asia, that mother of nations, wisdom, and arts; for the Scythae far preceded the Sarmatae in their progress. The Celts, from the Euxine to the Baltic, were called Cimmerii, a name noted in Grecian history and fable; and from their antiquity so obscure that a Cimmerian darkness dwells upon them. From the ancients we learn to a certainty, that they were the same people with the Cimbri; and that they extended from the Bosphorus Cimmerius, on the Euxine, to the Cimbric Chersonese of Denmark, and to the Rhine. Posidonius, apud. Strab. lib. viii. informs us, that the Cimmerii were the same with the Cim­bri; and that they had extended from the Western, or German, ocean, to the Euxine. Which ac­count is confirmed, in both points, by Plutarch in Mario. Diodorus Siculus, lib. ii. says the Cim­bri were esteemed the same people with the Cim­merii. Herodotus IV. 12. says, that when the Cimmerii on the Danube had heard of the entrance of the Scythae into Europe, they were in great consternation: and it is clear from his account, that the Cimbri were the ancient possessors of Ger­many. Claudian calls the ocean, opposite the Rhine, the Cimbric:

— Te Cimbrica Tethys
Divisum bifido consumit, Rhene, meatu.

[Page 46]On the north they seem to have reached the east of the Baltic, if the word Celticae be not slipt from the margin of some copy of Pliny into the text, promontorium Celticae Lytarmis, which he places at the northern extremity of the Riphaean mountainsc. Mela and Solinusd mention Cim­merii in the furthest north on that direction, and no doubt from ancient Greek authors. In Greece the writers were so fond of representing the people as autochthones, that no inhabitants preceding the Pelasgi, or oldest Greeks, who were Scythae, as shall presently be shewn, can be traced. Italy lay in the way of the Gallic Celts, or Celts proper; not of the German Celts, or Cimmerii. Ephorus, Pliny, and Silius Italicus, mention a town of Cimmerii in Campania of Italye; but, Cellariusf justly observes that this is a mere fable, founded on Homer Odys. XI. at the beginning, where Odysses, or Ulysses, is said to have sailed from Circe's abode, to the land of the Cimmerii in one day. Let me add that this day was a day of Circe's magic, and to magic every thing is possi­ble; for Homer represents Odysses as having reached the very extremity of the ocean in that day. During that magic day, he visited Portugal, as the ancients sayg, and touched at Caledoniah, [Page 47]then passed to the opposite shore of Germany, the real land of the Cimmerii, where he descended to the infernal shades. The time he took to return is not specified; but we may infer it to be equally magical. That the Cimmerii were the same with the Cimbri, the name and situation might instruct us, were we not positively informed of this by the ancients. That the Cimmerii, or Cimbri, were Celts, is as certain as so very remote and obscure a subject will bear: for.

  • 1. Upon the first appearance of the Cimmerii in Homer, we find them placed in those very extreme western regions, where other ancients place the Celtsi.
  • 2. Upon their first ap­pearance in Herodotus, and Greek history, we find the Scythae made war upon them, when they entered Europe; so that the Cimmerii were not Scythae, but original inhabitants of Germany; nor were they Sarmatae, as all know, so must be Celtae, the only other people known to the ancients in these parts.
  • 3. Pliny mentions Lytarmis, a pro­montory of Celtica, on the east of the Baltic; and Mela and Solinus place a remnant of Cim­merii in that direction; hence it seems clear that they were the Celts who gave name to the promon­tory.
  • 4. Appian is a witness that the Cimbri, or Cimmerii, were Celts; for lib. i. de bello civ. p. 625, he says, [...], [Page 48] [...],: 'Apu­leius published a law for dividing the grounds, which, in the country now called Gaul by the Romans, the Cimbri, a people of Celts, had possessed.' And again in Illyr. p. 1196. [...]; 'those Celts, who are called Cimbri.'
  • 5. Several names of rivers, and moun­tains, in Germany, are Celtic; which shew that Celts once possessed the country: and that the Germans themselves were, from the earliest dawn of history, Seythians, not Celts, shall be fully shewn.
  • 6. We find the Cimbri, or Cimmerii, mentioned in early times, as extending from the Euxine to the German ocean; and, in the first century, we find those Cimbri, or Cimmerii, re­duced to a small state upon the German ocean; in like manner, as we find the Celtae, the ancient possessors of Gaul, pent up in the extremity of Gaul, when Caesar entered that country.
  • 7. Taci­tus mentions the Aestii, a nation on the Baltic in present Prussia, as speaking a language nearly British, that is, Cumraig, or Welsh. These were evidently remains of the old inhabitants confined in that remote situation.
  • 8. Posidonius, Strabo, Plutarch, state that the Cimbri, or Cimmerii, came from the German ocean to the Euxine; so that they originated from the north-west; and we know, from all the ancients, that the utmost north-west was held by Celtae; so that it follows that the Cimbri were Celtae.
  • 9. The name of Cumri, or Cumbri, by which the Welsh still call themselves, is palpably a grand generic name, as the Tartars call themselves Tatars, and the Irish Celts, Gael or Gauls.

And there is every reason to believe, that the Welsh name Cumri or Cumbri is that ancient one Cimmerii, or Cimbri, pro­nounced by the Greeks and Romans, Kimmerii and Kimbri. That a part of the Celtic Britons was called Cimbri, we learn from Ricardus Cori­nensis. [Page 49]And it is reasonable to conclude, that the north and east of Britain were peopled from Ger­many, by the Cimbri of the opposite shores, who were the first inhabitants of Scotland that can be traced, from leaving Cumraig names to rivers and mountains, even in the furthest Hebudesk. From the south of Britain the Cimbri or Cumri expelled the Gael into Ireland, as their own writers, and traditions, bearl; and the oldest names in Wales as in other parts south of Humber are Gaelic, not Cumraig. It is therefore with great justice now allowed by English antiquaries that the Cumri or Welch are remains of the Cimbri: and that the Welch are Celts, and their speech a Grand dialect of the Celtic, is known to all.

All Germany, nay from the Euxine to the German ocean, was therefore originally possest by the Cimmerii, or Cimbri, one of the two Grand Divisions of the Celts. The furthest west, or Gaul, was held by the Celts, properly and pecu­liarly so called, and of whom the Cumri were ap­parently the offspring, who spreading into another region had assumed a new appellationm. Herodo­tusn mentions the Celts as living near the Pyrenees. Aristorleo and many other ancients mention them as in the furthest west, [...], 'above Spain.' Caesarp actually found them confined to the utmost corner of Gaul: the Scythians or Goths having under the name of Belgae restricted them [Page 50]from the north and east; while the Iberi, a Mau­ric race, who had passed from Africa to Spain, had seized on the south-west part of Gaul, where they bore the name of Aquitani. The famous Galli of the Romans were German Gauls, not Celts; as is clear from the names of their leaders, and from the position of their country, from which the Celts were quite remote, while it joined to Germany. But of this when we come to the Germans. That the Celts were the most ancient possessors of Gaul is so universally known, that it would be vain to il­lustrate so clear a subject. But whether any Celts ever were in Italy seems as uncertain, as if any Cimmerii were in Greece. In truth, those little mountainous corners called Italy and Greece were very insignificant to a vast pastoral people; and the spacious plains of Gaul and Germany, over which they could range without restrictions of hills and seas, must have been the grand seats of such little population as then prevailed in Europe. The passage of the Gael and Cumri to Britain ap­pears to have been in consequence of the Scythic pressure from the east. However this be, it is cer­tain that the Grecian, and Roman, fables have hid all memory of any Celts ever being in Greece, or Italy: and it is most likely they were not, as these countries were in the extremity of either Celtic pro­gress, from Gaul, or from Germany, so that it would appear that both the Celts and Cumri were forced to recoil by the Scythae, before they had reached so far. Tacitus mentions the Gothini, a people in the south of Germany, as using the Gallic or Celtic tongue; and it is probable they were re­mains of the Celts proper who had reached so far in that direction, and being in a hilly situa­tion were employed by the Germans in working minesq.

[Page 51]From the vast forests which even the Romans found in Gaul and Germany, and from other marks, it is evident that the population of the Celts and Cumri was very thin, and scattered. When the Scythae came into Europe, the Celtic savages, soon finding their inferiority, seem generally to have fled to the extremities; and Britain and Gaul appear to have been the final receptacles of almost all the Celts. The earliest Scythae also carried on very cruel war, distinguishing themselves chiefly by the number of enemies they had slainr. And, the Celtic nations being pastoral, the evacuation of their possessions by the vanquished must have been complete as among the Huns and other pastoral nations, save only in a mountainous or retired corner or two. But when the Celts arrived at the extremities, which was not for fifteen centuries, as the Scythae only enlarged their territories with their population, and consequent necessities, the Scy­thae had by a natural progress acquired more ad­vanced society, and treated the Celts with some humanity. In Gaul the Belgae seem to have ming­led much with the Celts, and assisted their wars and counsels against the Romans their common enemy. In Germany, a few Cimbri remained on the western ocean, every where surrounded with the Scythae, till little more than a century before Christ, when the Scandinavian Scythae, a more barbaric race, as being remote from civilization, poured down upon these Cimbri, and not only drove them, but the Teutones a German people, before them; and the southern Germans permitted both to pass thro their territories in search of new habitations. The Cimbri and Teutones not ex­pelled by the ocean overflowing their lands, as Plutarchs fables, but by an overflow of enemies, passed into Gaul by the forest of Ardenna, for [Page 52]the Belgae repelled themt; and ruled Gaulu, and ravaged Spainv, for some years, till turning upon Italy they were almost extinguished by the sword of Marius, 102 years before our aera.

Having thus mentioned the state of Europe, when the Scythians entered it, let us now attend to their progress, which has six grand stages;

  • 1. Thrace;
  • 2. Illyricum;
  • 3. Greece;
  • 4. Italy;
  • 5. Ger­many;
  • 6. Scandinavia. In other words, let us now shew that the Thracians, Illyrians, Greeks, Italians, Germans, Scandinavians, were all SCYTHAE, or GOTHS.

I. We have seen the Scythae, Getae, or Goths, settled in Ancient Scythia, upon the Euxine, about two thousand years before Christ. This An­cient Scythia, Herodotusw describes as reaching down to the Ister, or Danube, on the south-west; and all the nations above the Danube, Herodotus calls Scythae and Sarmatae, as shall be seen in the Second Part of this essay, where the northern pro­gress of the Scythians into Germany and Scandi­navia is treated. At present the nations south of the Danube, call our attention: and of these, the first which occurs, is that of the THRACIANS, whom Herodotusx mentions as the most numerous people in the world, save the Indi. On the north of Thrace was a small nation, who bore the Gene­ric name of Getae, in the time of Herodotusy; an appellation afterward found to belong to the whole Scythae, and especially the Parental Scythae upon the Euxine. In the time of Philip of Macedon we find these Getae, south of the Danube, called [Page 53]Scythaez; and they indeed formed the shade be­tween the grand Generic name of Scythae, or Getae, and the Specific name of Thracians, which had attended the Scythians in passing into a dis­tinct country, separated from Ancient Scythia by a broad and deep river, the Danube. Those speci­fic names are no more to be considered, than as the names of counties in England; and the petty tribes, into which the specific nations were divided, only resemble our towns, tho upon a far larger scale; as, among barbaric nations, the people are scattered in separate huts over a wide country, which, in advanced society, would form a city. Herodotus includes the Mysi, or Moesi, under the name of Thracians; and Strabo, lib. vii. says, that many Greek authors did the same. The Moesi were a vast people extending all along the south of the Danube, from it's mouth to Illyricum. When Macedon was conquered by the Romans, their country was erected into two provinces Upper and Lower Moesia. In Lower Moesia stood Tomi, the place of Ovid's banishment, on the Euxine; and, we learn from his Tristia, that he there wrote a poem in the language of the country, and that the language was the Getic or Gothic.

Ah pudet et Getico scripsi sermon [...] [...]e [...]um, &c. De Ponto, lib. iv. ep. xiii.
Nam dedici Getice, Sarmaticeque loqui.
Nic te mirari si sint vitiosa, decebit
Carmina quae faciam pene poeta Getes.
Ib. III. ii.

From innumerable passages in his Tristia, and [Page 54]in his books De Ponto, we learn, that the Getic or Scythic was the language spoken in Moesia; and he never, it is believed, mentions the Moesi, but by the name he heard them give themselves, that of Getae, or Goths.

Threicio Scythicoque fere circumsonor ore,
Et videor Geticis scribere posse modis.
Trist. III. ult.
Vulgus adest Scytharum, braccataque turba Getarum. Ib. IV. vi.

For the braccae, or breeches, were in all ages the grand badge of the Scythae or Goths: ‘Pellibus, et laxis, arcent mala frigora, braccis. Ib. V. 7. and speaking of a Greek colony which, in consort with the natives, founded Tomi, he says, ‘Pro patrio cultu Persica bracca tegit. V. x. He calls himself Geticus senis: and his whole poe­try written there shews, that he found but two barbaric tongues in the vast regions around him, namely, the Getic or Gothic, and the Sarmatic or Slavonic. For the Scythae lived upon the best terms with the neighbouring Sarmatae, insomuch, that we seldom read of any war between them, but, on the contrary, find them almost in constant al­liance. Herodotus mentions the Sarmatae as join­ing the Scythae against Darius; and in Roman his­tory we find them frequently in united arms. Trajan's pillarz instructs us, that Decebalus, king of the Dacic Getaea was assisted by Sarmatic cavalry, [Page 55]with both man and horse, in complete habergeon. Mutual advantages caused this alliance, for the wes­tern Goths had little or no cavalry, and the Sarmatae were all cavalry, as is clear, from all ancient wri­ters who mention them. Hence several Gothic tribes of the frontier settled among the Sarmatae; and several Sarmatic tribes among the Goths. Of the last the Jazyges in particular had three settle­ments among the Scythae, quite remote from the other Sarmatae, and every where surrounded by Scy­thic possessions. These were the Jazyges Eneocadlae on the east of the mouth of Tyras; and the Jazy­ges Moeotoe on the north of the Moeotis; and chiefly the Jazyges Metanastoe between the Danube and Teiss above Pannoniab. This peculiar name of Jazyges, given to the Sarmatae, who settled among the Goths, seems to have implied some quality they stood in to the Goths, as auxiliaries, or cavalry, &c. Besides these detached settlements of Sarma­tae, it would appear, that they often visited the Greek towns on the Euxine to sell their furs, &c. to the merchants, and that Ovid thus learned the Sarmatic; for there were no Sarmatic settlements, marked by any geographer, within less than an hundred, or an hundred and fifty, miles of Tomi. But as the Moesi formed only a division of the Thracians, let us return to consider the later in general.

That all the Thracians were Scythae or Getae, and spoke the Scythic or Gothic tongue, is clear. Vopiscus says of Probus, Thracias, atque omnes Ge­ticos populos aut in deditionem, aut in amicitiam, re­cepti. The speech of the Moesi was, as Ovid testifies in many passages, the Getic or Scythic. Strabo gives us the same information in direct terms, [...];c; 'the Getae, a people using the same lan­guage [Page 56]with the Thracians:' and Strabo's Getae extend over the whole north-west of the Danube, and Euxine, even to half of Germanyd. Many ancients call the Getae Thracians; and others call the Thracians Getae. They who wish to see this further illustrated are referred to Ihree.

From Thrace large colonies of the Scythae passed the Bosphorus Thracius, and Hellespont, into Asia Minor. Such were, as Strabo, lib. VII. mentions, the Bithyni [...]ns, and Phrygians, and Mariandyni. Dionysius, v. 758 to 798, reckons among the Scythians, and who, from their situa­tions, had clearly past from Thrace, the whole nations of the kingdom of Pontus, on the south of the Euxine; namely, besides the Bithynians and Mariandyni, the Rhoebi, and Pophlagonians, and Chalybes, and Tibareni, and Mossynoesi, and Pei­leres, and Macrones, and Bechires, and Byzeres, and Chalcedonians. So that, excepting only the Cappadocians, who were Assyrians, as Dionysius says, v. 772f, the whole nations all around the Euxine were Scythians. The Lydians were also Scythae, for the Mysians were surely from Moesia often called Mysia: and Herodotus, lib. I. says, that Lydus and Mysus, whence these names, were brothers of Caris, whence the Carians. Besides, the river Halys, the eastern boundary of Lydia, was afterward that of Phrygia Major, so that the Phrygians formed a great part of the Lydian king­dom, and also held Galatia before the German Gauls seized it, 277 years before Christ. The Lycians and Pamphylians were also branches of the Hellenesg, who were Scythae, as shall be [Page 57]shewn. As to Cilicia, the only other country in Asia Minor, there is no authority for the origin of its inhabitants; but as they bordered on the Assy­rians, and Cappadocia, there is reason to believe them Assyrians. Of these countries many are highly famous. About 550 years before Christ, Craesus, the opulent king of Lydia, is celebrated; and coinage is rationally supposed to have been invented in his kingdom. Midas, the rich king of Phrygia, is much more ancient, but he belongs to fable. Pliny, lib. VII. c. 57, informs us from Aristotle, that Lydus, a Scythian, found the art of melting and tempering (temperare) brass: a mythologic method of saying that art was invented in Lydia. But, above all, the people of Phrygia Minor, or Trojans, are celebrated over the whole globe with the loudest trump of fame. Many learned men have been puzzled at the Trojan names of men, places, &c. being Greek, while we have no authority for Troy being founded by Greeks; but this wonder will vanish, when we shall see presently that the Greeks and Trojans were originally the same people, and used the same Scythic tongue. All the settlements of the Scythae yet mentioned appear to have been thus dilated in less than five centuries, or about 1500 years before Christ.

II. The ILLYRIANS were also Scythae. Illyri­cum is here understood as reaching all along the north side of the Adriatic, from Macedon to Gaul, and including Noricum and Pannonia; or all south of the Danube; bounded by Macedon and Moesia on the east, Germany on the north, the Adriatic on the south, and Gaul on the west. The vast Thracian nations of Herodotush certainly ex­tended over most of this country. Strabo, p. 207, [Page 58]says the Iapydes, a people between Illyrium and Gaul, were partly Celts, partly Illyrians, so that the Illyrians were not Celts. Horace, Ode xi. Book II. instructs us, that they were Scythae.

Quid bellicosus Cantaber, et Scythes,
Hirpine Quinte, cogitet Adria
Divisus objecto, remitras, &c.

The history of this great people is not a little ob­scure, tho Appian has written [...] M. de Buat, who, when he steers free of etymology, has great merit, well details what can be recovered of Illyrian historyi. Philip of Macedon vanquished and imposed conditions on them; and from the account of this war, preserved by ancient authors, it is clear, that the Illyrian manners were absolutely Scythic, and similar to the Macedonian or Greek. Illyricum submitted to Rome about 227 years be­fore our aera. The Thracian Scythae, who peopled Illyricum, had spred chiefly to the east, as we have seen; and they also peopled Greece and Italy, as shall be shewn: so that this population extended no further west. The Celts retained all Cisalpine Gaul, and their other Gallic possessions, till about 500 years before Christ, when the Germans, or northern Scythae, poured in, as after explained.

III. Beneath the Thracians and Illyrians were the GREEKS. The denomination of Greece is here used in the large sense of the ancient Hellas, as including Macedon, and extending from Thrace and Illyricum, to the Cretan and the Ionian and Sicilian seas, and Asiaric shore of the Egean; in­cluding the surrounding iles, and especially all those in the Egean sea. This article is so curious and important, as to deserve being a little en­larged upon.

It is universally allowed by the learned that [...], Pelasgi, was the first name of the Greeks, who afterward bore the name of [...], Hellenes: and all Greece in the large ac­ceptation [Page 59]above was called [...], Hellas. The very name of Greek is unknown to the Greek wri­ters; who indeed very seldom use [...], or in other words, speak of the Greeks in general, but almost universally tell of Spartans, Athenians, &c. One or two very late Greek writersk, it is believed, use [...], or Greek, from the Roman Graecus, or, poetically, Graius. How the Romans came to give this name to the people is inexplicable, if it were not from the Greek word [...], anilis, old womanly, from [...] an old woman; a deriva­tion which the Latin poetic term Graius seems also to infer. It must therefore have been given in the supreme contempt of a warlike for a learned people, and is itself a proof how little names im­port, while we use Greek, alias old woman, as a term of supreme honour.

There is not the smallest trace to be found in the ancients of any people possessing Greece be­fore the Pelasgi. That the Pelasgi were Scythae, or Goths, shall now be shewn: and if any Celts ever came as far as Greece, which was in the very extremity of their western progress, the whole ancient writers are totally silent concerning them; nor was it likely that such a fact could have escaped Homer, if in the least known to Greek tradition.

Pelasgi and Hellenes were the sole universal names by which the Greeks ever were known [Page 58] [...] [Page 59] [...] [Page 60]among themselves. For Herodotus, lib. II. says, that all Greece was formerly called Pelasgia. Stra­bo, lib. V. p. 337, and lib. VII. p. 504, says, the Pelasgi over-ran all Greece. Herodotus, lib. II. c. 52, says, the Greeks derived their rites and re­ligion from them. The scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius says the Argives were called Pelasgi. Herodotus, b. VII. and Pausanias in Arcad. in­form us, that the Arcadians were Pelasgi: and the Arcadians, from their inland situation, were re­puted the most ancient and unmixt of all the Greeks. Herodotus, lib. I. c. 57, acknowledges his uncer­tainty about the Pelasgi; but, lib. VII. c. 95, he says, [...], the Ionians were Pelasgi: and, lib. I. c. 57, [...], 'the Athe­nains were Pelasgi.' Apollonius Rhodius, and other poets, use [...], for Greece, as a name of reverence and antiquity; and so also Virgil, Statius, and other Latin poets, use Pelasgi, and Pelasgiam, for Greeks and Greece, just as if a Scotish poet should put Pikland for Scotland.

Dr. Gillies, in his excellent History of Greece, observes, vol. I. p. 5. from Herodotus, lib. I. Dionys. Hal. lib. I. and Pausanias, lib. VIII. that 'the colo­nies of the Pelasgi continued, in the fifth century be­fore Christ, to inhabit the southern coast of Italy, and the shores of the Hellespont. And, in those widely separated countries, their ancient affinity was re­cognised in the uniformity of their rude dialect, and barbarous manners, extremely dissimilar to the customs and language of their Grecian neighbours.' But this just remark militates not in the least against the Greeks being Pelasgi, and their tongue Pelasgic, as their own writers uniformly say. For the Greek tongue had been thrown into a ferment by a slight mixture of Phoenician, and had been purified with all the art and attention of the wisest and most ingenious men in the world. It was the Pelasgic, but the Pelasgic refined, as the English is from the Saxon. No wonder that in Greece, [Page 61]a country where every city was as it were a distinct people, some few cities, and some mountaineers and ilandersl, should have retained the old dialect, and that it was as dissimilar from polished Greek as Saxon from English: and should also, from de­tached situation, have kept up the old barbaric manners. Besides, it has been lately shewnm, that the [...], mentioned by Herodotus, as Pelasgic, was not in Italy, but in Thessaly; and that Diony­sius Halicarnassaeus had mistaken it's situation by reading Croton for Creston as the text of Herodo­tus actually bears. So that the old Pelasgic was, as might be expected, only to be found in some de­tached corners of Greece. And these separate Pelasgi were either some who had returned from Italy, after being defeated by the Aborigenes about the time of the Trojan war, if we credit Dionysius of Halicarnassus; or others who, according to Herodotus, had lately come from Samothrace. So that these scattered fragments of Pelasgi must not be confounded with the later Greeks, being only remnants of old colonies expelled from Italy, or late migrations of small parties from Thrace, the parent country of the Pelasgi; and that they re­tained their primitive barbaric speech and manners, was a necessary consequence of their late arrival from remote and uncultivated regions. This plain account at once reconciles all the Greek writers, who uniformly affert the whole Greeks to be Pelasgi, with the three above mentioned, who state some Pelasgi as different in manners, and speech, from the refined Greeks. These later Pelasgi had lately come from Italy, and Samothrace, and retained their old speech and manners: and this singularity puzzled Herodotus, who knew that, by all ac­counts, the Greeks were Pelasgi, as he himself re­peatedly [Page 62]mentions, yet found that a few detached Pelasgi did not speak Greek, but the old Scythic tongue.

To proceed: Herodotus, lib. I. c. 23. tell us, that the Athenians were Pelasgi, and the Spartans Hellenes. The last, he says, came from Pthiotis, then down between Ossa and Olympus, then to Pindus, then to Dryope, then to Pelopponesus: that is, they descended from the north-east, or Thrace, into Greece. He also adds, that the Athenians, or Pelasgi, never wandered: but the Hellenes did*. So far did a silly prejudice of making the Athenians [...] overcome the truth! Strabo, lib. XIII. p. 922. and Dion. Hal. lib. I. p. 14. say truly, that the Pelasgi wandered very much. Lesbonax in Protrept. p. 173, says, all the Greeks wandered from place to place, but the Athenians alone never. Wesseling in vain endea­vours to save Herodotus, by saying, he only means that the Pelasgi of Athens never wandered. In fact, Herodotus had difficult game to play: had the Athenians not been Pelasgi, they could not be ancient; had they wandered as pelasgi, they could not be [...]. There was the dilemma! After escaping from it as he can, Herodotus tells us, that some Pelasgi dwelled on the Hellespont, that is, in Thrace a country uncivilized, and used a barbarous tongue: however, adds he, the original Attic must have been Pelasgicn. In ch. 58, he tells, that the Hellenes used the same speech, and were a part of the Pelasgi, [...] [Page 63]Thucydides, lib. I. c. 28. says the Hel­lenes were originally a small tribe in Thessaly. Eusta­thius, in his commentary on Dionysius, observes that Homer mentions Pelasgi near Cilicia in Troas; calls Lesbos Pelasgic; and the Jupiter of Dodona Pelasgic Jove: and that Crete and Lemnos were also Pelasgic, as were Argos; a part of Thessaly; and Arcadia. Dionysius, v. 534, calls Samos the Pe­lasgic seat of Juno. Justin, lib. XIII. c. 4. men­tioning the division of the east among Alexander's generals, says Tleptolemus had the Persians, Peucestes the Babylonians, Archos the Pelasgi, Arcesilaus Mesopotamia. This is the most singu­lar passage i have met with concerning the Pe­lasgi; as, if there be no error in the name, which is suspected, there must have been a whole nation of them in the east unknown to all other writers. Carmania is not mentioned by Justin in his long enumeration; and the inhabitants of that country were also called Pasargadoe and Parsiroe, one of which words may have been corrupted to Pelasgi, a name familiar to transcribers. After all, perhaps Justin meaned Pelasgia of Thessaly; for in the beginning of his list he is very erratic, giving us the Illyriana between the Cilicians and Medians; then Susiana; then Phrygia: the only difficulty is, that in no less than fifteen names before, and one after, being the last, he gives us only eastern na­tions; and the Pelasgi of Thessaly would hardly deserve mention among such large names, so that a corruption of the text may well be suspected, and that the Pasargadae ought to be read; for that there was no nation called Pelasgi in the east, we know to a certainty, from all the ancient historians and geographers.

Thucydides, lib. I. c. 3. says, 'before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, the Pelasgi spred all over Greece.' They held Peloponnesus, Hero­dot. lib. VII. c. 93. et seq Dionys. Hal. p. 9. 14. Stephanus de Urbibus, p. 166. 630. 635. Attica, [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64]Herodorus I. 57. II. 51. VIII. 44. Thucydides, IV. 109. Strabo, XI. p. 397. and the iles; as Lemnos, Herodot. VI. 137. Thucyd. IV. 109. Scyrus, Steph. de Urb. p. 676. Eubaed, formerly called Pelasgia, Schol. Apoll. p. 105. The Cyclades Dionys. Hal. p. 14. Crete and Lesbos, Dionys. ib. Homer Odyss. XIX. Diodor. Sic. IV. 183. V. 238. Strabo, V. 221. X. 475. Asia Minor, Dio­nys. Hal. p. 14. Caria Mela I. 16. Aeolis and Troas, Schol. Apollon. p. 5. Strabo V. p. 221. Ionia, Herodot. VII. 93.94. Strabo XIII. p. 621. and see Homer Iliad II. ad fin. Cyzicus, Dion. ib. Diod. Sic. V. 239. Steph. de Urbib. p. 426. Pliny, V. 31. Eustath. ad Dionys. v. 537.—Herodotus I. 56. VII. 94.95. says, the lonians, Aeolians, Do­rians, that is, all the Hellenes or Greeks, de­scended of the Pelasgi. Hybrias Cretensis apud Athen. XV. 14. makes an old Pelasgus of Crete boast that his arrows were his riches, for with them he seized all. In short, not to heap autho­rities unnecessarily, these two points are, from the universal consent of all the Greek writers, as clear and positive as the most luminous part of human history: namely,

  • 1. That all the people of Hellas, or Greece, in the large acceptation above given, were Pelasgi.
  • 2. That Hellenes was but a later name of the same People who had been formerly called Pelasgi; the Hellenes being a paltry tribe of the Pelasgi, who chanced, by being the last who came into the country, to give their name to the whole.

Let us now consider very briefly,

  • 1. Who the Pelasgi were not.
  • 2. Who they were.

1. They were not Egyptians, BECAUSE all the Greek writers remark two small colonies of Egyp­tians, who settled in Athens and Argos in the ear­liest times, and specially distinguish them as quite a different people from the Pelasgi. Besides, who can dream of Egyptians peopling all Hellas, the Iles, Asia Minor, and entering Italy, as the [Page 65]Pelasgi did, who were of barbaric speech and manners, while the Egyptians were so small and so civilized a people? BECAUSE the Pelasgi had none of the Egyptian speech and manners, else Homer and Herodotus, who had been in Egypt, would have remarked this. BECAUSE no ancient has ever dreamed of their being Egyptians and the obscurity of the Pelasgic origin shews they were quite a barbaric people, while the Egyptian co­lonies in Greece, and elsewhere, are quite marked and distinct. BECAUSE the Greek mythology is as remote from the Egyptian as possible. BECAUSE the Greek has no affinity with the Coptic or old Egyptian; which is a dialect of the Grand Assy­rian language, while the Greek is a mere refined dialect of the Gothic, as the learned well know.

2. They were not Phoenicians, from all the rea­sons above urged respecting the Egyptians. He­rodotus, lib. V. c. 58. specially mentions, that the Phoenician colony, led by Cadmus to Thebes, changed their speech, being surrounded by the Iones, whom he mentions as Pelasgi, and as Hel­lenes.

Such have been the origins ascribed to the Pe­lasgi by some men of learning; and, did we not daily see that learning is but another name for want of common understanding, what must be our surprize to find the Pelasgi, whom all the ancients state as a barbaric people, derived from the Egyp­tians and Phoenicians, the nations in antiquity that arrived the first at civilization, and whom the an­cients represent as polishing those very Pelasgi, by settling little colonies among them? Can absur­dity be greater? A barbaric nation never can spring from a refined one. It is an impossibility. A refined nation always springs from a barbaric one.

In the Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions, a work replete with true and solid literature, and [Page 66]which does honour to the nation that gave it birth, there is a dissertation of M. de la Nauzeo, at­tempting to shew, that the Pelasgi and Hellenes were different nations. But that gentleman wrote upon a mere theory, without having employed one quarter of the study he ought to have done, and the dissertations of M. Geinozp, and of M. Freretq, so amply refute him, as to leave nothing to add. True it is, that Ephorus, Apollodorus, and Diony­sius of Ha [...]carnassus, represent the Pelasgi as sprung from Pelasgus, son of Inachus, king of Argosr, and, of course, as originating in Pelo­ponnesus. This Pelasgus is only mentioned in a verse of Hesiod, preserved by Strabo; and these authors seized the name as a good father for the Pelasgi: but he is a mere being of poetry, and the three authors, who follow this opinion, are of fabulous fame. Dionysius telling us all the bat­tles, &c. between the Pelasgi and Aborigines in Italy, as a matter of yesterday, while he had not a shadow of ground for one sentence on the sub­ject. To oppose such writers to Herodotus, Thucy­dides, and the other most eminent names of Greek antiquity, is therefore ridiculous; and M. Geinoz, and M. Freret, have amply shewn that the Pelasgi came from Thrace.

But, had the Grecian origins been ever exa­mined with much attention, there are two barbaric nations who might, with far higher probability than Egyptians or Phoenicians, have been sup­posed the progenitors of the Pelasgi, or Greeks. [Page 67]These are the Celts and the Sarmatians. Yet the Pelasgi belonged not to either of these nations.

3. They were not Celts, BECAUSE they can be absolutely shewn to be Scythians; a people who originated from the east, as the Celts did from the west. BECAUSE the earliest Greek writers describe the Celts as confined to the furthest west; whereas Greece was surrounded by Scythae. BECAUSE the very form and structure of the Celtic tongue are as remote from the Greek as possible; the Celts changing the beginning of nouns in many in­flexions, while the Greeks uniformly change the end. What we now call the Celtic is half Gothic; owing to the Belgae, Danes, and Norwegians, be­ing mixt with all the Celtae in France, Britain, and Ireland; but especially in the Highlands of Scot­land, where the Celtic is the most corrupt, because the Norwegians were possessors of the Hebrides, and western coast, from the reign of Harold Har­fagre, about 880, till so late as 1263, and their descendants remain to this day. The words, thought Greek by dablers in the Celtic, are all Gothics. But the real Celtic is as remote from the Greek, as the Hottentot, or the Laplandic. BECAUSE the manners of the Celts, as described by Greek and Roman authors, are totally unlike those of the earliest Greeks; the people among the former being slaves, among the later extremely free. Dr. Gillies has shewn that the most ancient Greek man­ners perfectly resembled those of the Germans, which Caesar and Tacitus mark as being as unlike those of the Celts as possible. Of the Celtic my­thology we know nothing: the Druidic system being mentioned by Caesar as a late invention, con­fined [Page 68]to the south of Britain and north of Gaul: and it is clear from all the ancients, that it was no where else to be found. It was totally extinguished by Tiberius Pliny XXX. 1.—Suetonius in Claudio, and Aurelius Victor, say by Claudius. It is palpa­bly of Phoenician origin, having been taught by the Phoenicians to the Britons of present Cornwall, where they traded for tin; and had thence spred north to the extremity of present Wales, and south to the Garonne; beyond which bounds there is not a shadow of it's existence in any ancient writer whatever. They who speak of Druids in Germany, Caledonia, or Ireland, speak utter nonsense, and have not a single authority to support them. Druid, in the Celtic, implies originally a wise or cunning man; and the name was naturally given by the rude vulgar to the priests of the new doctrine: but the name will be found in it's original mean­ing where Druids never were known. Druidic an­tiquities there can be none, except there be any oak-trees two thousand years old. Those childishly called Druidic are all Gothic; and are found in Iceland, and other countries, where the very name of Druid was unknown. The Celts had no monuments any more than the savage Americans or Samoiedes. From Diodorus Siculus, and others, it is clear that the manners of the Celts perfectly resembled those of the present Hottentots. The god Baal, Bell, or Belenus; the transmigration of souls; their cosmogony and theogony are wholly Phoenician: what their own mythology was we know not, but it in all probability resembled that of the Hottentots, or others of the rudest savages, as the Celts anciently were, and are little better at present, being inca­pable of any progress in society. But it is un­necessary to insist further upon this, as the Pelasgi can be shewn to be Scythae; and M. Pelloutier, who alone takes them for Celts, clearly proves them Scythae, that is, as he dreams, Celts; for he was so [Page 69]ignorant as to take the Celts and Scythae for one people, in spite of all the ancients who mark them as literally toto coelo different, and in spite of our positive knowledge here in Britain, who know the Celts to be mere radical savages, not yet ad­vanced even to a state of barbarism; and if any foreigner doubts this, he has only to step into the Celtic part of Wales, Ireland, or Scotland, and look at them, for they are just as they were, inca­pable of industry or civilization, even after half their blood is Gothic, and remain, as marked by the ancients, fond of lyes, and enemies of trutht.

4. The Pelasgi, or Greeks, were not Sarmatae, BE­CAUSE there is every reason to doubt that the Sar­matae entered Europe above a thousand years be­fore our aera: for they were far behind the Scythae in their progress; and it is clear, that upon their entry they found the greater part of Europe occu­pied by the Scythae: and the Sarmatae were bounded by Scythae on the west, north-west, and south of Europe. BECAUSE the manners of the earliest Greeks, as described by Homer, were totally unlike the Sarmatic; and especially in that [Page 70]grand feature, that the Sarmatae were, like the Tar­tars, all cavalry; while the Greeks fought on foot, and in cars; and we know the later to be peculi­arly Scythic, Philip having in his Scythic victory taken a vast number of carsu: and the Belgae, and Piki, or Caledonians, two Gothic nations in Bri­tain, fighting in cars, which were also used in Scandinavia down to the Eleventh or Twelfth cen­tury.v No cars are to be found among the Celts, or the Sarmatae. BECAUSE the Sarmatic or Sla­vonic language is as unlike the Greek as can be, in grammar, structure, and nomenclature. Some imagine the Slavonic to be modern Greek, because written in Greek character. They might as well suppose the Celtic Latin, because written in Ro­man character. The Slavonic, whose chief daughters are the Polonic, Russian, and Bohemian, was anciently written in Latin characters; but in the Ninth century one Constantine Cyrillus, a Greek, first used the Greek capital letter, which remains; and he invented characters for sounds incompatible with Greek. From him the Slavonic character is called Cyrulic; and, after being cor­rupted by scribes, was called Glagolitic; the Russians only use the Cyrulicw But the Slavonic has not the slightest affinity with the Greek. That remarkable feature of the Greek, the dual, used in speaking to, or of, two persons, is found in the Gothic, and Icelandic; but not in the Slavonic, which has a tetral used in speaking to, or of, four persons or less.

Let us now proceed to shew who the Greeks really were.

[Page 71] The Polasgi, or Hellenes, or Greeks, were Scy­thians of Thrace. This plain sense might argue at once, because the Greeks were every where sur­rounded by Scythae, and the sea; and no other nation was near them: but let us illustrate it a little. From the Greek authors above adduced it is clear that all the Greeks were originally called Pelasgi; but that the Hellenes, originally a small tribe in Thessaly, being the last of the Pelasgi who came into Achaia, or Lesser Greece, they by a chance equal to that of the name of America, and many other great names, gave their appellation to the whole country. Some late Greek fables say that Pelasgus, the grandson of Inachus, king of Argos, from whom, as they falsely state, the name Pelasgi is derived, lived before the deluge of Deucalion, by which most of the Pelasgi were swept away. Hellen, the son of Deucalion, proceeded with fresh recruits of Pelasgi into Greece: and the Greeks in gratitude took his name, and ascribed the renewal of human kind to Deucalion. But Herodotus, Thucydides, and others of the best Greek authors, knew nothing of this; they repre senting the very same identic people as being first called Pelasgi, then Hellenes. In Homer's time (II. ß 683) Hellas was a town of Pelasgic Argos. To prevent all doubt, however, let us first shew that the Pelasgi were Scythae; and then that the Hellenes were Scythae.

1. The Pelasgi were Scythae. This may be shewn from different arguments, tho the Greek writers have shaded the subject much by the foolish desire of making their nation aboriginal, or sprung from the ground on which they lived. It is a pity they saw not so far as the philosopher Antisthenes, who used to tell the Athenians that such praise belonged to snails, and not to men. But that the Pelasgi were Scythae appears from this, that they certainly descended from the north-east into Greece; and the Scythae spred over all these parts. For we [Page 72]find settlements of the Pelasgi on the Hellespont: and in Thessaly, a country to the north-east of Greece, a large country was specially called Pelasgia in the days of Homer, and far later. Trogus Pompeius, in Justin, lib. VII. c. I, says expressly, that the people of Macedon were an­ciently called Pelasgi. Strabo, lib. VII. p. 222, says that the Thracians under Eumolpus colonized Attica; and Herodotus calls these Thracians, Pelasgi, as above shewn. Plutarch in Romulo says, [...]: 'The Pelasgi, as they say, roving over the greatest part of the world, and having subdued the inhabitants, resided in the country which they had conquered.' This can only refer to the Scythae. Pausanias, lib. X. c. 5, shews the oracle at Delphi to have been founded by Scythae Hyperborei; and ancient Greek poets also call it Pelasgic. Inachus, the first fabulous king of the Pelasgi, is by some mythologists said to have come into Greece by sea. But i am con­vinced that this idea arose solely from the similarity of the words [...], the sea, and [...] a Pelas­gian, tho the later word be probably from [...] overwhelm, because the Pelasgi over-ran so many countries; or more probably from some Assyrian (Egyptian or Phoenician) epithet given to the old inhabitants by the few Egyptians and Phoenicians who settled among them; if it be not a Scythic or Gothic appellative. Indeed we cannot be too cautious against being misled by etymology, or by similar or identic words; for in early and tradi­tional history they form the very rocks and sands upon which many an antiquarian ship has foundered. And the danger is so great, that it is best never even to approach them.

Ihre is so convinced that the Pelasgi were Scythae, that he seems to think the point does not even need proofs; yet it were to be wished that he had dwelt [Page 73]more upon so very interesting and curious a sub­ject. Herodotus, Thucydides, Strabo, assert the Pelasgi to have come from Thessaly into Greece; and Thessaly was anciently esteemed a part of Thrace, so that the Pelasgi were Thracians, that is, Scythae, Getae or Goths.

The term Hellas, or Greece, is differently extended by writers; some excluding Macedon and Epirus from it, as Demosthenes, Philip. III. The Hellenes or Greeks, severely speaking, were Pelasgi who went from Macedon, anciently called Pelasgia, as Trogus shews, down into Greece proper. That Epirus was also inhabited by Pelasgi is clear, for Dionysius Halicarnassaeus makes the Pelasgi of Italy pass from Epirus, and the celebrated oracle of Dodona, called Pelasgic, was in the extreme north of Epirus. It is well known that the Epirian and Macedonian language was the Doric dialect of Greek. So that, excluding Macedon and Epirus from Hellas or Greece, the argument is the same. Ancient Pelasgia included Macedon, Epirus; and afterward that part in later times called Hellas, or Greece. Perhaps the Thracians who filled this chersonese were called Pelasgi by their northern brethren, because every where surrounded by the sea (Pelagos), save on the north.

But as it is now universally allowed by the learned that Pelasgi and Hellenes were but differ­ent names for one and the same people, let us pro­ceed to shew that the Hellences, anciently called Pelasgi, were Scythae. They who wish for fuller information on the Pelasgi may consult Geinoz, Freret, and others.

2. The Hellenes were Scythae. Even mythology might persuade this, for it is well known that Hellen, reputed father of the Hellenic name, was the son of Deucalion; and Lucian de Dea Syra, p. 882. edit. Benedicti, 1619, Vol. II. says expressly, that Deucalion was a Scythian, [...]; 'Deucalion the Scy­thian, [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [...] [Page 74]in whose time happened the great flood.' Deucalion was the son of Promethens; Apollon. III. 1086, &c. Prometheus was king of the Scythae; Schol. Apollon. Argonaut. II. 1252. The Titans, or family of the gods, were of Scythia, according to Greek mythologists: the hymns ascribed to Orpheus, which are ancient, tho not his, expressly call the Titans the forefathers of the Greeks. But leaving mythology, which is as distant from history as fable can be from truth, let us advance to surer ground. Thucydides, lib. I. c. 28. is an incontrovertable authority that the Hellenes were originally a small tribe in Thessaly; and Herodotus and Strabo fully confirm this. And that the Thessalians were Thracians is clear, for Thucydides, lib. II. c. 29. informs us, that the Thracians ex­tended even down to Phocea. Strabo calls the Athenians Thracians, whom Herodotus calls Pelasgi of Thessaly, which was the country be­tween Thrace and Attica. Eusebius, p. 7, and the Chronicon Paschale, p. 49, mark the Ionians as Scythae. Epiphanius, adv. Heres. lib. I. p. 6, says, that all the people south of the Hellespont were Scythae, that is, the Macedonians and Greeks.

The language and manners of the whole of Hel­las from Thrace to the Ionian sea were Thracian, Scythic, Getic, Gothic. No ancient hints any diversity of speech, save as to refinement between Peloponnesus, Attica, Epirus, Thessaly, Macedon, Thrace. Thucydidesv well observes that in Homer's time the name of barbarians was not given to the Thracians, but that these barbarians and the Hel­lenes spoke one tongue. Diodorus Siculus, lib. II. [Page 75] p. 92, says, the Scythae Hyperborel, or most distant Scythae, used a speech akin to that of Athens and Delos; that is, as Ihre well explains, Pelasgic or Scythic. Anacharsis, the Scythian philosopher, pronounced the Greeks Scythic, as he must have learned from their language and manners; [...] (apud Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. I. p. 364). Even in the time of Xenophon, (Exp. Cyri, VII.) tho the Greek was then so refined, that he was obliged to use an interpreter at first in conversing with Seuthes a Thracian prince; just as a modern Anglus would need an interpreter to converse with an Anglus of Anglen in Denmark, or with a German; there was nevertheless such clear affinity observed between the Thracian and Grecian manners and language, that kindred was given as the military word, im­plying their common origin. Nay Ovid is a wit­ness of the similarity between the Greek and Gothic tongues:

Exercent illi SOCIAE commercia linguae,
Graiaque quod Getico victa loquela sono est.
Trist. V. x.

And in modern times Salmasiusw, Juniusx, Meric Casaubony, Ihrez pronounce the Gothic and Greek to be merely dialects of the same tongue; tho these writers are grossly mistaken in deriving Gothic words from the Greek, while the reverse is the truth: for the old Icelandic is full of Greek words, tho the Icelanders hardly knew that the Greeks existed, and could have no correspondence with them. Bibliandera says, that in the German (a dialect of the Gothic) of 2000 radicals, 800 are common to the Greek and to the [Page 76]Latin; which last is merely the Aeolic dialect of the Greek, as all know. Now of all marks of the origin of nations, that of language is the most infallible.

From all these proofs, it is as clear as so remote a subject can be, that the Pelasgi, the ancestors of the Greeks, afterward called Hellenes from a small tribe of the Pelasgi who were the last that came in, were at first settled in Macedon and Thessaly. That they were Thracians. That the Thracians were Scythae, Getae or Goths.

It is therefore Historic Truth that the Pelasgi, Hellenes, or Greeks, were Scythians or Goths.

Chronologers place the reign of Inachus, the first of the Pelasgic stem, about 1800 years before Christ: and Deucalion and Hellen about 1500. But the Argonautic expedition 1263 before Christ forms the first faint dawn even of traditional history in Greece; all preceding this belonging to mytho­logy. The Siege of Thebes 1225, and that of Troy 1184, together with that expedition, are the immortal themes of poets; but fairy ground to historians. The revolution caused by the Hera­clidae in Peloponnesus, 1104, is blended with my­thology. And from thence down to Lycurgus, or about 880 before our aera, hardly an incident can be found. If we therefore suppose the Scythae to have been in possession of Greece and it's iles about 1500 years before Christ, we shall not greatly err. Tho the kingdom of Pelasgic Argos in Thessaly, the earliest in Greece, may well have existed 300 years before this population was complete, as chro­nologers state it about 1800 B. C.

The Pelasgi, afterward called Hellenes, were improved by the situation of Greece, their new settlement: for that favoured country, surrounded every where by the sea, save on the north, proved an attractive centre to small colonies from Egypt, and from Phoenicia, realms famous for early civili­zation. Cecrops and Danaus, who settled in [Page 77]Athens and Argos, about 1400 years before Christ, were Egyptians: Cadmus, who about 1280, founded Thebes, was a Phoenician. Letters be­gan to be usedb. Cecrops and Danaus had, it is likely, introduced tillage from the practice of Egypt; a country unfit for hunting or pasturage, and where, from necessity, sowing of grain seems first to have been inventedc. Thus Egyptian agriculture, and the arts of Phoenicia, soon po­lished this branch of the Scythae, while their northern brethren were lost in barbarism. But these colonies adopted the Pelasgic or Hellenic lan­guage; and conformed to the Pelasgic or Hellenic rites, and customs; as Dr. Gillies shews from the best authorities, particularly Herodot. V. 59. and VII. passim. Herodotus especially mentions V. 58. that the followers of Cadmus changed their speech, being surrounded by the Ionians an Hellenic tribe. And it might be shewn that the Greek mythology is but an improvement of the Scythic; the gods being mostly illustrious princes of the first Scythic empire, who were deified by their subjects; a custom continued to a late period among the Goths. Many ideas of Greek mythology may also be found in the Gothic; but this ground must not be lightly trodden, and is left to him who can em­ploy a large work upon it, after a remark or two. It is well known, that the most ancient Greek poets were the sole teachers of the people, and were the first who, by introducing a portion of