An enquiry into the history of Scotland: preceding the reign of Malcom III. or the year 1056. Including the authentic history of that period. In two volumes. By John Pinkerton. ... [pt.2]

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

- CONTENTS OF VOLUME SECOND.

- [halftitle]

- [map]

- AN ENQUIRY INTO SCOTISH HISTORY Preceding the Year 1056. PART IV. The Dalriads.

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

- SECTION I. Irish Origins.

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

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

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

- CHAPTER IV. Extent of the Kingdom of Dalriada.

- CHAPTER V. Catalogue of the Dalriadic Kings.

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

- [halftitle]

- PART V. Piks and Dalriads united.

- CHAPTER I. Union of the Piks and Dalriads.

- CHAPTER II. The Kings from 843 till 1056.

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

- CHAPTER IV. Origin of the name SCOTLAND.

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

- [halftitle]

- PART VI. Ecclesiastic and Literary History.

- CHAPTER I. Ecclesiastic History.

- CHAPTER II. Literary History.

- [halftitle]

- SUPPLEMENT. The Angles, and the Norwegians.

- SECTION I. The Angles.

- SECTION II. The Norwegians. History of the Iles.

- 1. The Orkneys.

- 2. The Hebudes.

- [halftitle]

- APPENDIX To Volume II.

- NUMBER I. Extracts from the Annals of Ulster.

- NUMBER II. The Albanic Duan, with translations. DUAN ALBANACH.

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

- Remarks.

- 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.

- 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.

- NUMBER IV. Kings of Norway.

- NUMBER V. Kings of Denmark.

- NUMBER VI. Kings of Sweden.

- NUMBER VII. Earls of the Orkneys.

- NUMBER VIII. Some themes for dissertations on Scotish history.

- [map]

- GENEALOGY OF KINGS. Vol. II. p. 350.

- TABLES OF KINGS.

- INDEX.

- [map]

- [titlepage]

- PREFACE.

- List of the Chief Books and Editions used.

- CONTENTS.

- Corrections.

- [halftitle]

- 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.

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

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

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

- [halftitle]

- 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.

- CHAPTER II. The Germans were Scythoe. FIRST GRAND ARGUMENT: From Identity of Language.

- CHAPTER III. The Germans were Scythae. SECOND GRAND ARGUMENT: From the testimonies of Ancient Authors.

- CHAPTER IV.

- The Germans were Scythae. THIRD GRAND ARGUMENT: From Similar Manners.

- THIRD GRAND ARGUMENT. The Germans were Scythae from similar Manners.

- CHAPTER V.

- The progress of the Scythians into Scandinavia especially considered.

- Epochs of the First Gothic Progress over Europe.

- Epochs of the Second Gothic Progress from Getia and from Germany over Europe.

- Appendix. Pliny's Description of the Northern parts of Europe; with a translation, and remarks. Hist. Nat. lib. IV. c. 13.

- TRANSLATION.

- TRANSLATION.

- REMARKS.

- Index.

AN ENQUIRY INTO THE HISTORY OF SCOTLAND PRECEDING THE REIGN OF MALCOM III. OR THE YEAR 1056.

INCLUDING THE AUTHENTIC HISTORY OF THAT PERIOD.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

BY JOHN PINKERTON.

'ΗΜΕΡΑΙ ΕΙΠΛΟΙΠΟΙ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΕΣ ΣΟΦΩΤΑΤΟΙ. VERITAS TEMPORIS FILIA.
ADAGIA.

VOLUME II.

LONDON: PRINTED BY JOHN NICHOLS, FOR GEORGE NICOL, BOOKSELLER TO HIS MAJESTY, PALL-MALL; AND JOHN BELL, EDINBURGH.

M.DCC.LXXXIX.

〈1 page duplicate〉

CONTENTS OF VOLUME SECOND.

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.

- 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

APPENDIX TO VOL. II.

- 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

INDEX.

DISSERTATION ON THE ORIGIN, AND PROGRESS OF THE SCYTHIANS, OR GOTHS.

PART IV. The Dalriads.

SCOTIA vel HIBERNIA medii oevi.

AN ENQUIRY INTO SCOTISH HISTORY Preceding the Year 1056.
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 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 tongues[a], it is hoped laborious perusal of the Irish writers in Latin or English will, in this instance, atone for my ignorance of the Celtic.

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 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 Ireland[b]. 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 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 it[c]. 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 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; 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, 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 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 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: 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 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 II[d]. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of thought, of sense. The mythology, and well-known unconquerable character of the people, live, and breath in them 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 Christ[e]. 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 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 nonsense[f]; 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. '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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 '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. 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 Schoepflin[g] 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 a town[h]. 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.

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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 Spain[i]. 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, 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 the Irish, if his whims had turned that way[k]. 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, 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 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. Savage nations were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks, the Feri of the Romans; while the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 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 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 name[m]: 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 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, 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 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 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.

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.

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 Library[n], 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 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 added[o], 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. 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. 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 Scots[p]; and i beg leave to subjoin a hint or two concerning the 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 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'Conor[q] 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'Conor[r] 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 shews[a], 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 book[b] 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 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 adone[c].

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 Degads[d] 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 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 number[e], '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 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 authority[f].'

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 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 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 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 Pikish[g] 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.)

- 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 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. 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 war[h].

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. 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 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, 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 Starkader[k].

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 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 him[l].

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, 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 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 century[m]; to whom we are indebted for the traditional parts. For that they are not more ancient is clear from their being preserved by tradition[n]; 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 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 Ossian[o]. If this 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 chronology[p]. To dwell at length upon this, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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. 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 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 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 wanting[g]. 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, 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.

〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉

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 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 498[a]. 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?

〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉

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 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 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 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 of Argyle. Loarn of the northern part of Dalriada; Fergus of the southern. Upon the death of Loarn, without heirs male[b], 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 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 kingdom[b]; 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 Piks[a]; 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 founded[b]. 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 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 extended up to Ross shire, before the Norwegians seized on the Hebudes; so that the limits of Dalriada[c] 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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 absurd[a]. 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:

- 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 years[b] 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:

- 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. 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. 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—1093[c]. 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 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. 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, 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.

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 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 Loarn[d], was twice married; first to Muredach, father of Murchert, 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 part[e], 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 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 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 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. 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 lists[f]. 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 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 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 work[g].—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 subjection[h]. Indeed Aidan was 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 defeated[i]. 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 Buidhe[k], 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 Buidhe[k], 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.

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 wrong[l].

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. 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 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 Dunolla[m]: 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 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 confuted[n]; and its total absurdity will appear in full 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 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 kingdom[o]. He wasted it's whole territories; took Dunat[p]; 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?

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, died[q] [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;

- 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 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.

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 Ungust[r], who, by the Pikish constitution above explained, 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.

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 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, 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 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 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, 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 person[s]. 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 one[t]. 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, 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.

〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉

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 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 Gothic[a]. 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 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 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 son[b]. 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 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 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 broch[c]. 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 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 horns[d].

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 700[e]. '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 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 silver[g]. 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 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;

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 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.

Henry of Huntingdon was born before the year 1108, as appears from his own work, fol. v. 217[b], 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 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 English[d]. 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 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 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, 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 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.

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, 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.

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, 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 the Latin C is always to be pronounced K, as it was in the early, and in the middle ages[f]. 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 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 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.

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.

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.'

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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 nations[h]; 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 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; 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 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 Innes[a]. The other six kings, 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 Melrose[b]; 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 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 Dunkeld[c] (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 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 Belachoir[d] 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 (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 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 day[f]: 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. 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, 909[g], 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 victory[h] (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; 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 land[i]. His army ravaged even to Dunfoeder and Wertermore[k]: 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 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 Humber[l] 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. (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 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 DUFF[m], 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 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 reign[n] Marcan, son of Breodalaig was slain in the church of St. Michael[o]: (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 history[p]. 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.

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 son[q] (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.

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, 1018[r], 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▪ 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 1026[s]; but the concatenation of 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 Fife[t]; 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 falsehood[u].

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 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 1034[v].

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 Bethoc[w], 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 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. Crinan[x] was perhaps his minister of state, as usual for churchmen in that period, for they possessed all the learning of the times. 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 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 abbots[y]; and always laymen. The son of Malcom III. was abbot of Dunkeld, and earl of Fife[z]. 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 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 Finleg[a], but further of his descent 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.

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:

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, and who, with their leaders, retired into Scotland, when Edward was forced to disband them[c].

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 Northumbria[d]; 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 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 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 century[f], 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 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 Worcester[g] 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 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 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, 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 work[a], 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 ford[b]: 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 Saxon Chronicle, 1125, a 'J. bishop of Lothene' is mentioned[c]. 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 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, 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 Westmoreland[e]; 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 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 century[f]. 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 Dalrymple[g] observes, as not parts of Scotland. 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.

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 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 Northumberland[i], 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 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, 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 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?

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.

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 arose[k]. 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 subjection[l]. 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 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. Wormius[m] says, Frotho, son of Harding, king of Denmark, subdued Germany and Britain. Torfaeus represents the Anglo-saxon kings as tributary to the Danish kings of Northumberland. Regnar Lodbrog subdued Ireland, Pikland, and the Orkneys, and gave them to his friends Siguard and Rathbart[n] 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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, com¦pared 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, '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 this[a]. 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 Spain.....is 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 Usher[b], 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 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; 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 years[d].' 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 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.

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 author[e] 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 time[f]. 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 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. 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, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 Gothic[g]; 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 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 eleventh[h], twelfth, and 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 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.

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 repeated[k] Nennius, in 858, 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, 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 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 genuine[l]. 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 Egypt[m].

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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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, 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 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 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 ink[h]. 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 1056[a]. 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 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 Goths[b]. 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; 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 high[c]. 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 possessor[d]; 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.

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 seem Pikish, and far more ancient, as above mentioned[f].

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 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 residences[s], and winter residences: the former on 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 large[h]. 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. 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 victories[i]; 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 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.

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, 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. 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 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 the week day on which it fell, or on the Sunday following[a]

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 month[b]; 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. Adomnan[c] 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 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 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.

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.

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 Appendix[e]. 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 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 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.

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 instance[g]

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 chief[h], in imitation either of Christ and the apostles; or of Columba and the twelve monks who came with him from Ireland[i]. In the gradual corruption of the monastic order, they married; and left their Culdeeships to their children[k]: 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 monks[l]. Henry I. brought these canons into England; and soon after we find the Scotish sovereigns turning out the Culdees, to make way for 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 1297[m]: 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. 1240[n]. 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 concubines[o]; and it was not till a century after, that their opposition was effectually overcome even in England[p].

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 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 below[z]. He appears to 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.

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.

III. REASONS WHY LEARNING WAS UNKNOWN IN PIKLAND, TILL THE XIIITH CENTURY.

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 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, 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, 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 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 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.

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.

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; 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 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 off[b]; 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, 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.

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 barbarous[c]; 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, 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 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 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 Norway[a], 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 1403[b], 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 Frodi[c], 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.

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 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 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 kingdom[d].

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.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 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 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 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.

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 Maun[f]. 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.

APPENDIX To Volume II.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.
DUAN ALBANACH.

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,

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.

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,

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

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.

Tar es Loairn fhel go ngus

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.

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,

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.

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,

Three years ten Domhnaill the brown,

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉

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.

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.[†]

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.

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.

Ni•e years Constantine eloquent.

A naoi Aonghus ar Albain.

Nine Aonghus on Albain.

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.

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),

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.

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,

seven twenty, over each clan,

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.

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,

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,

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.

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 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.)

Remarks.

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.

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 741[a] obiit Ewain Rex Scottorum, cui successit Murezaut[b] 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 Fortemet[c] mortuus ille fuit.

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

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 Calun[a] vitam vulnere finierat.

879. Rex Scotorum Het occidentur[b]; post quem,

Grig sua jura gerens annis deca Rex fit et octo,

In Dunduren[c] 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 ulum[d] 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.

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 Glannis[b] rapuit mors libera regem,

Sub pede prostratis hostibus ille perit.

Abbatis Crini, jam dicti filia Regis,

Uxor erat Bethoc[c] 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

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 Monodedhno[a],

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.

- 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:

[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.

Malcolomus—Malcolmus.

[WILLIELMUS 1165.]

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.

[ALEXANDER II. 1214.]

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.

[ALEXANDER III. 1249.]

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 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.

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 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.

{inverted ⁂} 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, 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.

- 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.)

- 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.

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.

Guttorm.

Gothurn.

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.

980.

Laudver.

Hlauderver.

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.

Rognvald.

55.

45.

1064.

Paul.

Erlin.

67.

91.

Erlend.

Paul.

67.

91.

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.

{inverted ⁂} 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.

- 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.

〈1 page duplicate〉

PIKIA, indigenis PIHTLAND; vel PIKLAND; (quae et ALBANIA, et post A. 1016. SCOTIA:) ab A. 800 ad 1100.

GENEALOGY OF KINGS. Vol. II. p. 350.

ALPIN.

- 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.

TABLES OF KINGS.

PIKS.

DALRIADS.

NORTHUMBRIA.

Drust I. 414.

BERNICIA.

DEIRA.

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.

DENMARK.

SWEDEN.

IRELAND.

WALES.

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.

Vermund.

Visbur.

Olaf I.

Domald.

Dan.

Domar.

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.

PIKS and DALRIADS.

ENGLAND.

NORTHUMBRIA

NORWAY.

Egbert.

Ella.

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.

DENMARK.

SWEDEN.

IREDAND.

WALES.

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.

Helgo.

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.

INDEX.

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

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

A.

- 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.

- 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.

B.

- 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.

- 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.

C.

- 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 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.

- 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.

D.

- 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 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.

- 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.

E.

- 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.

F.

- 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.

G.

- 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.

- 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.

I.

- 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.

- 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.

K.

- 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.

〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉

L.

- 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.

M.

- 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.

- Music Scotish, its origin Scandinavian, 364. Gothic, 391. praised by Giraldus, II. 145.

- Myreford, where, II. 207.

N.

- 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.

O.

- Obelisques engraven, remarks on, II. 254. late in Scotland, II. 255.

- Ochta and Ebusa, their pretended settlement, 322. II. 286—290. confuted, II. 289.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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, 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.

R.

- Regiam Majestatem, testimony of concerning Lothian, II. 212.

- Religion of the Piks, 373.

- Reuda, (see Riada).

- 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.

S.

- 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 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.

- 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.

S.

- 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 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.

- 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.

T.

- 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.

- 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.

U.

- 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.

V.

- Vacomagi, their situation and towns, 224.

- Valentia, province of, 57. its history, 58. seized by the Piks, 322.

- 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.

W.

- 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.

Notes

a
The Duan in the Appendix to this volume only concerns the Dalriads, whose history is not that of Scotland any more than the history of Wales, is that of England.
↵

b
Nennius knew nothing of Milesius, but only mentions Miles quidam Hispanus, a certain Spanish soldier. Of this Miles the Irish made Milesius; as of Julius Caesar they made Caesara Noah's niece!
↵

c
Jornandes wrote about 530, Procopius about 560 Gregory of Tours, who wrote about 591, mentions the Danes under the year 515, 'Dani cum rege suo Chlochilaicho,' as ravaging Gaul.
↵

d

See Nicolson's Scotish Hist. Lib p. 41. Sir James Turner, a colonel of Charles I. declared that Buchanan's books had alone raised the nation against the King. They were universally redd: and the English argued that if the Scots had power over their kings, they had the same.

↵

e
Edda, apud Torf. Ser. Reg. Dan. Mallet has adopted this puerile opinion.
↵

f

Late writers have attempted to compare Irish names and history, with those of Egypt, Armenia, Otaheite, &c. but not to speak of their gross misquotations and misrepresentations. the same frantic fancy might find resemblance in any objects whatever. In the mental, as in the natural night, all objects are confounded. To shew the Chinese history the same with the Dutch, in names and events, would only require one quality in any writer, a disordered imagination.

↵

g
Vindiciae Celticae.
↵

h
It was a Thracian term. Nicol. Damascen. Hist. in Valesii. Exc. p. 495.
↵

i

The reader will in vain look into geographers for Concani in Spain, or any where else. Camden's authorities are:

Et qui, Massagetam monstrans feritate parentem,

Cornupedis fera satiaris Concane vena.

Sil. Ital.
and Horace: ‘Et laetum equino sanguine Concanum.’ The first authority shews them Goths, as were the other emigrators from Gaul into Spain.

↵

k

Lloyd has, in his total ignorance of the Gothic, mistaken plain Gothic words for Irish and Cantabric. See Lloyd's list compared with the German, by Eccard, in his Origines Germanicae.

↵

l

Thus the Tartaric, Chinese, Japanese, Phoenician, Asiatic, &c. &c. have been paralleled with the Irish. The Dutch with the Malayan, Hebrew, &c. The Welch with the Huron. The English with the Peruvian. The Greek with the Chinese. And the reason of similar words in all languages is certainly very profound, to wit, that all mankind have the same passions, and organs of speech. When, in the Dissertation annexed, Language is put as a grand proof of the origin of nations, it is meant, not that 100 words may be the same, but that 10,000 words, or more, are the same; and that the idioms, or soul, and grammar, or body, of the language are the same. A hundred comparisons of languages would be spared, if a complete comparison of all languages were published, shewing in particular the difference between accidental resemblances, and those shades, which we call dialects, as the English is of the German, the German of the Gothic; the Curlandic of the Polish, the Polish of the Slavonic, &c. But it requires great learning and experience even to conceive those radical differences, tho vast, which discriminate Grand Languages from each other, as the Gothic from the Slavonic, and the Tartaric: and to distinguish those differences from those of mere dialect. As to paralleling a few similar words, from languages radically different, the most ignorant may do it by means of dictionaries; and it is remarkable, that the most ignorant writers are the most apt to fall into this.

↵

m
Vodo-goriacum was a town of the Nervii, Itin. Aug. Tak. Peut. Bodo-briga of the Treveri. The Teuto-Bodiaci were part of the Galatae, who were Germans.
↵

n
Vitellius, A. X.
↵

o

The reader may consult Innes, Vol. II. p. 517. s•qq. for proofs that the Scots were quite a distinct people from the Wild Irish; and conquerors of the later. St. Patrick in his Epistles evinces this. The Scoti, whom he generally marks as Reguli and Nobiles, he uniformly distinguishes from the Hyberionae and Hybernigenae, terms for the commonalty.

↵

p

The origin of the Scots, above given, is confirmed by Ware, who shews that Scythae and Scotti were but different names for the same people; and both are called Scutten by the Germans. Ware quotes Diceto, who says, 'E regione quadam quae dicitur Scythia dicitur Scita, Sciticus, Scotus, Scotia:' and Walsingham, who has the same idea. Reinec•ius, in his Historia Julia, says the ancient name of Scythians is still retained by the Scots. Nay the Welch, as Camden observes, call both Scythi•ns and Scots Y.scot. The old Chronicon Rhythmicum (Innes, App.) says,

Dicitur a Getia Geticus, seu Gothia Gothi;

Dicitur a Scithia Scithicus, sic Scotia Scoti.

Eccard, in his Origines Germanicae, has curious remarks confirming the German origin of the Irish Goths, such as "Restant in Frisiorum et Hibe•norum lingua quae arcte conveniunt, atque in reliquis dialectis vix reperiuntur." The Cauci were in Frisia. An author of the XIth century, Innes, p. 191, says the Scoti were first called Chorisci; query, if the Cher•sci of Germany?

↵

q
Dissertations.
↵

r
Il
•
d.

↵

s

Gildas, whose work is a strange poetical rant, or rather prose run mad, uses vallis for the sea, as Claudian
Nec multo spatii distantibus aequore vallis.
In Ruf. II. 172.

uses a sea of space for land. Thetica vallis is the valley of Thetis goddess of the sea. So firth, 'a plain,' is now applied to sea.

↵

*

Dal, or Dael, is a part in the Gothic, not in the Celtic, in which Dal signifies a tribe (Kennedy, p. 100), and is quite common in Irish history. An easy metonymy. But the Scots of Ireland, it is likely, retained more of their own Gothic words, in their first meanings, in Beda's time, than after.

↵

a
Ogygia vindicated.
↵

b
Genealogical Dissertation on the family of Stuart, 8vo. pp. 249.
↵

c

Toland, in his Nazarenus, ed. 2. London, 1718, 8vo. has some remarks on the controversy between the Irish and Scotish antiquaries. He allows Usher to be in the wrong, and places Riada and the first colony in the third century.

↵

d

Kennedy, p. 69, says, this family was first in Ulster: but about 60 years before Christ they were forced to more into Munster, under Degad: whence they were called Degads of Munster. This Degad, he adds, is the Deachach, in the old Scotish genealogies (Deaga, see Innes, p. 235, table.) it need not be observed that all this is gratis dictum.

↵

e
Number X.
↵

f

Wynne, in his history of Ireland, London, 1773, 2 vols, 8vo. narrates the settlement of the Dalria•ls in Pikland in these terms. "Among the sons of Olliol Olum, there was one known by the distinguished name of Achy Ruada, or Riada, who was permitted by Olliol to raise a sufficient body of forces to establish himself in the province of Ulster. Fer¦gus, then king of that territory, being of the family, favoured him, and his followers, who were of the race of Degad: and, by the assistance Achy Riada procured, he soon settled himself in Ulster, notwithstanding all the opposition of the Irians. And from this circumstance the acquisition they made took the name of Dalriada, or the portion of Riada. But as Achy was one of those that having much, still grasp at more, observing a country over-against his district, which appeared easy of access, he embarked with his followers; and, either by force or treaty, much more likely by the latter, he obtained a settlement there also for his tribe from the British Picts. And that tract of land was afterwards, for many ages, denominated the Albanian Dalrìada, a name given to the inhabitants of Argyle, who were descended from this Irish colony." Wynne errs grossly in making Riada son of Olliol Olum, for he was son of Conary II. king of Ireland, as all the above accounts bear. And this is confirmed by an old piece, published by Innes, p. 772. "Fergus filius Eric ipse fuit primus, qui de semine Chonare," &c.

↵

g
In the time of Aidan, the Irish Dalriada was divided from the British, and reverted to the kings of Ireland. Kennedy; Vita Via Columbae apud Colgan.
↵

h

Some imagine that the present Highland dress represents the Roman military habit. The philibeg was always quite unknown among the Welch and Irish: but I know no Roman name for it. Among the Romans it was a mere ornament, or fringe, to the mail; and they wore braccoe, or breeches, under it. From old illuminated MSS. it appears to have been a dress of the people among the Saxons, who could not afford breeches. See Strutt's Antiquities. I believe it also occurs on Trajan's pillar, as the dress of the common Daci, while the chiefs have braccoe. Its antiquity among the Highlanders is very questionable; and some suppose it not older than Mary's reign. Gildas represents both Piks and Scots of his time as quite naked, with only a piece of cloth tied about their middie. Giraldus Cambrensis mentions trousers as the Irish dress, A. D. 1180. Froissard, tho amazed at the sauvages Ecozsons, as he calls them, takes no notice of this striking peculiarity. Plaids are used by the Wild Clans of Barbary: Shaw's Travels. Tartan is perhaps a late invention: and it is believed passed from the Lowlands to the Highlands. The Highland dress is not ancient, but singular, and adapted to their savage life.

↵

i

In the British Museum, Cat Aysc. 4817, is a fine MS. of Mageoghagan's History of Ireland, written in 1627, where, at the year 267, he says, "Fynne Mac Coyle, the great hunter, and defender of Ireland, beheaded." He gives a long fabulous account of him; and observes that "Osgar Mac Ossyn, Fynn Mac Coyle's grandchild, was a valourous and hardy man.'

↵

k

Starkader annosus poeta erat, et carmina ejus vetustissima censentur eorum quae jam homines memoria tenent. Verel. Goth. et Rolf. Hist. Ramus, in his Nori Regnum, p. 36, gives two fragments of Starkader's poetry, in which he says, 'I was young when dreadful fires destroyed my father and other brave men,' &c. a passage similar to one in Ossian. A poem of Starkader on frugality may be found in Olaus Magnus, V. 3. another on his battles, V. 7. The reader is referred to Olaus for a long and curious account of this hero.

↵

l

Buchanan, in his account of the family of Buchanan, Edin. 1723, 4to. gives an account of the Feans, or militia of Fin, and speaks of 'rude rhimes,' on the actions of Fin Mac Coel, their general, as retained by the Irish, and Scotish Highlanders. This gentleman was well versed in the Gaelic language.

↵

m

The learned Murray, in the Novi Commentarii Societatis Gettingensis, Gotting. 1771, 4to. laughs at Fingal and Temora; and thinks them productions of the XIIth or XIIIth century, under an ancient name, as Klopstock gave his Barditus. And he shews, tom. III. 1773, p. 128, that there was no Lochlin known in Scotland or Ireland till the 8th century, so that Ossian must be a forgery.

↵

n

Were they more ancient, far from being preserved by tradition, the very language would be unknown to the vulgar mouth. Evans, in his Specimens of Welch Poetry, p. ii. observes, with great simplicity, "The language of the Seotish oldest poets, it seems, is still perfectly intelligible, which is by no means our case." No; nor the case of any other nation!

↵

o
Smith observes, in his Gaelic Antiquities, that 'Since the order of the bards has ceased, almost all the ancient Gaelic poems are ascribed to Ossian.' Let me add, and all with equal justice.
↵

p

Lord Kames, in his Sketches of the History of Man, vol. I. has a long argument to prove the authenticity of Ossian. He, Dr. Blair, and one or two more really ingenious men, as Mr. Gray in England, do honour to that side of the question. But i beg leave to ask my reader, if he would take the advice of these gentlemen in any medical case? And are not they just as much physicians, as they are antiquaries? With want of knowlege of the Gaelic, it is as ridiculous to charge the antagonists of Ossian, as his defenders. The later confessedly have no skill in the Gaelic; but argue upon arguments of foolish ingenuity. The question is indeed of mere learning in antiquities, and freedom of mind. Lord Kames argues, that the manners of Ossian belong to the hunting state, the earliest of society; and that no late poet of the XVth century could have forged such manners. What forgery of manners? Were not the highlands in a hunting state of society even in the XVIth century? The little or no mention of cattle, in Ossian, only shews the author's ignorance; for Dio tells us, that the Caledonians drove cattle and sheep in the way of the army of Severus, in order to draw parties into ambuscades. But how argue upon pieces all altered by a modern translator? Could any critic, in any age, reason accurately upon such a work from intrinsic proofs? The noted mythology of Ossian is in fact Norwegian. Odin in his magic, st. 20, mentions the shades of the dead flying over the trees: Runa Cap. apud Haavamal Resenii. Is it not a plain fact, that not even a short poem ever was preserved by tradition for more than three centuries, not a ballad? how then preserve long and numerous pieces for fourteen centuries? Is it not a plain fact that the language of every country becomes obsolete thro time, even to the learned? how then can Gaelic of the third century be preserved in the popular mouth? Is it not a plain fact, that Scotland has no privileges from heaven above other countries; and that he must be the dupe of his prejudices who can suppose that the nature of human affairs is altered in Scotland alone? Lord Kames observes, 'One may venture boldly to affirm, that such a poem as Fingal, or Temora, never was composed in any other part of the world, under such disadvantageous circumstances.' Hear the philosopher! Is Scotland in the world, or not?

↵

g

A late French critic says, "On voit dans les anciens poetes Ecossois qu' Ossian prenoit sa harpe, et chanto•t fur le champ le triomphe, on la mort glorieuse, d'un guerrier: aussi, malgrê l'art du traducteur, je n'ai pu lire sans degout les ouvrages de cet improvisateur barbare. C•est le galamathias d'un energumene: je n'y vois rien de vrai; et ‘Rien ne plait que le vrai, le vrai seul est aimable.’" The want not only of truth, but of verisimilitude, indeed eternally disgusts in every page of Ossian.

↵

a
Tighernac's chronology is often wrong by five years, as the reader has seen in the former part, and will see in the course of this work.
↵

b
Perhaps Loarn left sons, tho not come to maturity; and Fergus seized the occasion of fixing the kingdom in his own family. The descendants of Loarn sometimes held the Dalriadic sceptre, as shewn chap. V.
↵

b

So our old chronicles, published by Innes, ‘Primus in Ergadia Fergus rexit tribus annis.’ and of Kenneth, 'Hic mira calliditate duxit Scotos de Argadia in terram Pictorum.'

↵

a

Walafrid Strabo, who wrote in the ninth century, puts Hyona as on the confines of the Piks:

Insula Pictorum quaedam monstratur in oris,

Fluctivago suspensa salo, cognominis Eo.

This passage is in his life of St. Blaithmac, who was slain in Hyona by the Norwegians: apud Canis. Lect. Ant. tom. vi.

The kingdom of Dalriada certainly never extended over the Hebudes: as our old chronicles alone might evince, for they mark it as reaching from Drum Alban, or Brun-Alban, (Brun, pectus, collis, Old Germ. Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wachter.) on the east; usque ad mare Hiberniae, et ad Inch-Gall on the west. It no more included Inch-Gall, or the Hebudes, than it did the Irish sea: it reached ad, not supra.

↵

b
In the German language Haber is corn: in Scandinavian Hasrar, avenae. Haber-dun, the Saxon name of a place in Bedfordshire, means Oatlands. Archaeol. VIII. 377. The Piks were an agricultural people; the Dalriads not: so perhaps this may afford an argument, tho a trifling one.
↵

c
This name of Dalriada continued to the time of Kenneth son of Alpin at least, as appears from the old chronicle, Innes, App. No. III. p. 783, which, speaking of that king, says, "Iste vero, biennio antequam veniret Pictaviam, DALRIETAE regnum suscepit."
↵

*
Mr. Gibbon observes, vol. V. p. 89, 4to ed. that, in the Byzantine empire, 60 emperors fill 600 years: a proportion, he adds, far below Newton's rule.
↵

a
See them in Innes's Appendix.
↵

b

The Chronicle of Melrose begins where Beda ends, 731: and gives these kings after Edgan as above, only dating Edgan's death 741. But they are inserted in the margin by an Abbot of Dundraynan (as the original MS. in the Cotton lib. bears, mutuavit abbas de Dundraynan) and in the thirteenth century, as the writing shews, being copied from our old lists, and with very faulty chronology, as l•nes remarks, p. 611.

↵

c

The original of this piece is supposed to be in the Psaltar Cashail. It is quoted by Ward in Vita Rum•ldi, p. 372. Colgan, in his Trias Thaumaturga p. 115, published some distichs of it. See an account of it, and translation of part, in O'Flaberty's Ogygia Vindicated, p. 143. Kennedy, p. 150, erroncously says, it rehearses all the Pikish kings.

↵

d
The Chronicon Rythmicum, Innes, p. 808, bears that one Lori led the Scots to Argyle; and Innes is puzzled to divine who Lori is. It seems surprizing that Innes did not learn from O'Flaherty's Ogygia, that Lori was Loarn. Another Loarn, Abbot of Cluona, occurs; Ann. Ult. 765.
↵

e

The first king of Macedon is under a similar difficulty. Herodotus, lib. VIII. says, Perdiccas was first king. Livy and Pausanias make Caranus first king. Justin and Solinus say Perdiccas succeeded Caranus. Chronologers hence conclude that both reigned at first; but that Caranus dying, Perdiccas became first sole monarch.

↵

f

The lists call him son of Ewen. O'Flaherty, finding Tighernac date Eochoid Buide's death at 629, and Connad Keir's at 630, extends Eochoid's reign to 23 years; and reduces Fercar's to less than one year. He appears to be right. Perhaps Fercar and Donal Brec reigned together; and the former, as the son of an unknown Ewen, may have been of the house of Lorn, as was Fercar II.

↵

g

Perhaps this was another Donal Brec. But these Annals, as completed and interpolated 1541, have some mistakes. At 670 we sind Mors Offa filii Etilbrith rex Saxonum: read Oswy. Offa died 796.

In the Musaeum MS. at 685 it is Donald Breoo. At 688 is Mors Catasuidh NEPOS Domnail Bricc; an argument that the grandfather was dead long before.

↵

h

Adomnan, lib. III. c. 3. telling from Cuminius the prophecy of Columba against Aidan's descendants, adds, "Hoc autem vaticinium temporibus nostris completum est in bello Roth, Domnaldo Brecco nepote Aidani sine causa vastante provinciam (i. e. regnum) Domnail nepotis Amureq. Et à die illa-usque hodie adhuc in proclivo sunt ab extraneis, quod suspiria doloris pectori incutit." Hence it is clear that Donal Brec was grandson of Aidan, and reigned in the time of Domnail, grandson of Amureq, that is Donal II. son of Aod, son of Amurec, who died in the year 642, nor was there another Donal king of Ireland till 743.

↵

i
"Bellum Gline Mareson in quo exercitus Domnaldi Brec in fugam versus: et Etain obsidetur." Tighernac ad Ann. 638. "Bellum Gline Muresan: et obsessio Edin." Ann Ult. ad 637.
↵

k
Surely not; for when. Cuminius wrote his life of Columba, about the year 660, the descendants of Aidan had lost the royalty, as Columba prophesied. Cuminii Vita Columbae. cap. 5. 1.
↵

k
Surely not; for when Cuminius wrote his life of Columba, about the year 660, the descendants of Aidan had lost the royalty, as Columba prophesied. Cuminii Vita Columbae, cap. 5. 1.
↵

l
The book of Lecan, written 1380—1417, has, fol. 119, col. 2. the genealogy of Anbkelly, son of Fercar Fada, up to Loarn. O'r lah. Ogyg. Vind. p. 141. The same work has a Commentarius de Antiquitate Albaniae; but is of so late date, as to deserve little credit.
↵

m
This is surely the noted castle of Dunolly in Lorn. Mr. Pennant, vol. III. says that opposite to Kerrera, an ile, remarkable for the death of Alex. II. "On a great rock within land, is the castle of Dunolly, once the residence of the chiefs of Lorn." It is near Dunstafnage, on the south.
↵

n

By Dalrymple, Lord Hailes, in his "Remarks on the History of Scotland." Yet this excellent writer supposes, that, as the double tressure appears on the Scotish arms in William's time, 1165—1214, the league must have been formed at that period. But it is now known to be more than dubious if the fleur de lis appeared in the French arms before 1260: and, at any rate, it is denied that Scotland was so very humble as to borrow any part of her arms from France, as poor esquires have been known to do from nobles. The double tressure is of spear-heads, symbolic of warlike spirit. I assent therefor to the modern French writers, and to Rymer, that there was no league whatever between France and Scotland, till one was formed by John Baliol, which served as a basis for others, dishonourable and destructive to Scotland. See Rymer's Letters to Nicolson, London, 1702, 8 vo. where it is observed that among the papers in the Scotish treasury, 1282, tho there were transacta with England, Norway, Flanders, kings of Maun, there was not a scrap concerning France. Du Cange mentions a league between the French king and Llewellyn prince of Wales, sealed with gold: but we find no league of that antiquity between France and Scotland. Matthew Paris gives the league between Henry III. of E. and Alex. II. whereby the kings of Scotland are bound never to make any league with the enemies of England. The consequences of the French league were not mutual assistance (for Scotland assisted France, while France never assisted Scotland) but the putting of Scotland into French pay, as Swizzerland has since been. Corruption spred even to the throne: and let the battle of Flodden speak the effects. Our weaker writers think this league an honour to the country!

— miserum est aliorum incumbere famae,

Ne collapsa ruant subductis tecta columnis.

The reader who wishes to see the old French opinion of Scotland is referred to Froissart; and the modern to Voltaire on Universal history. Such contemptuous allies could hardly be of service.

↵

o
See the Extracts from the Annals of Ulster in the Appendix.
↵

p
Perhaps Duna in Lorn on the east of Dunolly. See Pont's maps in Bleau's Atlas.
↵

q

The reign of Angus, after Constantine, is given in the Duan as of nine years. But it is not clear that this Angus is the king of Ardgail, in the Annals of Ulster. From 796 to 1252 we find the kings and wars of Airgialla in Ireland, mentioned in these Annals: and perhaps the Ardgail of 811 may be the later.

In the same Annals the kings of Laoaire occur from 796 to 1085: but cannot be confounded with those of Loarn, except by a careless reader. Nor can those of Dalarai, which go from 483 to the 13th century, be mistaken for those of Dalriado, as the names are carefully spelt in the original.

The only difficulty concerns Airgialla, a large province of Ireland, comprizing present Louth, Monaghan, and Armagh, (Ware Scr. Hib. p. 68); and Argyle in Scotland. I will not be positive that the later is ever mentioned in Irish annals, except under the name of Dalriada. But the sept of Argal at 746 could not be applied to the large country of Airgial in Ireland, which no where else bears that diminutive title. And we know from the Duan that an Angus was king of Dalriada at this time.

The history of the Irish Dalriada is very obscure. It is noticed till 1165, in the Annals of Ulster, as in leagues, or battles, with its neighbours of Ullagh, Dalarai, Airgialla, &c. But i sind no kings of it mentioned. It seems to have been subject to the kings of British Dalriada till the Danes invaded Ireland: and, after a period of confusion, was annexed to the domain of the O'Neils, kings of Ulster.

↵

*
Innes, p. 795, f. Echadach f. Echach.
↵

r
The Annals of Ulster, at 748, have Combustio Killemere a Hugone Mac Aongusa. Hugo and Aod: Aongus and Ungust are the same names, as appears from these Annals, our lists, &c. The king of the Piks may have sent his son, to assist one provincial king in Ireland against another.
↵

s
Like errōrs occur in Scandinavian history, from the same cause. See the writings of Torfaeus, possim.
↵

t
In the Register of St. Andrew's, Innes, p. 798, the first is called Heatgan, the later Heoghan. The former seems Het, Ed, or Aod, with an epithet gan. The later is Eoganan.
↵

a

Dr. Macpherson, Dr. Smith, in his Gaelic Antiquities, and others, give long accounts of the manners of the Highlands. Those authors, under the idea of Druidic manners, &c. give us the commonest Norwegian customs, left by them in the Highlands, as appears from the Scandinavian antiquaries, whom they never consult.

It has been long since asserted, and lately repeated, that the Celtic and Tartar languages approximate; but upon looking into the specimens in Chamberlayne's Oratio Dominica, it will be seen at once that there is not the smalle stsimilarity. The names of Tartar chiefs may be easily interpreted, in Celtic, by those ignorant of the true meaning. Any names will bear such interpretation in any speech. See Swift's Etymologies, passim.

↵

b

O'Flaherty regards this succession as merely a guard against minorities. He says, Ogyg. Vind. p. 153, "Neither was there ever a minor king of Ireland; being continually excluded by the law of succession." Fordun III. 4. says, the uncles only ruled, till the nephews came to majority; but IV. 1. he allows that they reigned before them; and i can find no instance of a regency.

↵

c
Collectanea de Reb. Hib. No XI.
↵

d
The shells are small scallop-shells; and in drinking the ball of the thumb is placed on the hinge part. They are only used as liqueur glasses for whisky.
↵

e
Lib. I. c. 13. edit. Messingham.
↵

f
Chorus, instrumentum musicae, Girald. Camb. Et
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in Vet. Test. Septuagint. in Vulgato chorus. So Du Cange; but the form of the chorus i find not.

↵

g
Walker's Irish Bards.
↵

a
This piece is split into two by Innes, p. 773, 782. contrary to the MS. See it in the Appendix to Vol. I. The first part must have been copied from ancient lists: that after Kenneth seems original.
↵

b
Saville Scriptores post Bedam, Lond. 1596.
↵

c

Quinque autem linguis utitur Britannia; Brittonum videlicet, Anglorum, Scottorum, Pictorum, et Latinorum .... quamvis Picti jam videantur deleti; et lingua eorum ita omnino destructa, ut jam fabula videatur, quod in veterum scriptis eorum mentio invenitur. Cui autem non comparet amorem coelestium, et horrorem terrestrium, si cogitet non solum reges eorum, et principes, et populum, deperiisse; verum etiam stirpem omnem, et linguam, et mentionem, simul defecisse? Et, si de aliis mirum non esset, de lingua tamen, quam unam inter caeteras Deus ab exordio linguarum instituit, mirandum videtur. lib. 1. f. v. 171. It is surprizing to find the learned Du Cange (Praef. ad Gloss. ed. Adelung) apply this passage to the English! After the word eorum he inserts (Anglorum). Accuracy!

↵

d
Perficit dominator Dominus de gente Anglorum, quod diu cogitaverat. Genti namque Normannorum, asperae et calidae, tradidit eos ad exterminandum. Lib. VII. f. v. 210.
↵

e
In Bibl. Harl. No. 655.
↵

f

Ruric and Kinaf were the Scandinavian founders of the Russian empire: in Russia th is pronounced f, as Feodor for Theodor, &c. so that Kinath is the real name. Alpin or Elpin is the name of a moneyer on Hardeknute's coins. Elphin was bishop of Winchester in Edgar's reign. Malmsb. de Gest. Pont. Saxon names, beginning with Ken, are numerous, as Kenulf, Kenelm, Kenred, &c. The names of Kenneth, and his father, are purely Gothic.

↵

g
It also means clamor, as our din. Duncan may therefore mean strong voice, a necessary matter in a barbaric leader.
↵

h

Except the Greenlanders, who, as Crantz informs, can all repeat their genealogies for several generations. In the curious MS. lives of Welch saints, Cotton lib. Vesp. A. XIV. of the 12th or 13th cent. is a diverting specimen of genuine ancient Celtic genealogies. St. Cadoc is descended from Augustus, thus: Augustus genuit Octavianum, qui g. Tiberium, q. g. Gaium, q. g. Claudium, q. g. Vespasianum....Nero g. Trajanum, Trajanus g. Hadrianum, &c. The reader may rest assured that the others are of the same stamp, tho not so easily convincible of falsehood.

↵

a
And in the Appendix to vol. I. of this work, to which volume it's greatest number of kings belongs.
↵

b
And in the App. to this vol.
↵

c

Dulblaan is apparently Dumblain; Cluanan, Cluny, above Dunkeld.

In 912 'Maolmor Maclanirk, daughter to Cinaoh Mac Alpin, died.' Ann. Ult.

↵

d
Where? The Annals of Ulster at 864 bear "Tuahal Mac Artgusa, Archbishop of Fortren (Pikland), and Abbot of Duncallen, dormivit." Archbishop is an erroneous translation for chief bishop.
↵

e
See also Supplement, sect. II. The transactions of the Norwegians may be found in the Orcades of Torfaeus. Let the reader beware of consulting the abstract by Pope, at the end of Cordiner's Antiquities. It is even worse than the usual exertions of my countrymen in the Antiquarian liue; and is totally inaccurate.
↵

f

'Ac in nono anno, ipso die Cirici, eclipsis solis factaest." The day of Cyriacus, Largus, and Smaragdus, martyrs, is Aug. 8. That of Cyricus is June 16; and there was a great eclipse of the sun, June 16, 885, just six years before. (L'Art de Verifier les dates). So that the chief argument for Kenneth's death in 860, not 854, arises from the years assigned to the Pikish kings in the Chron. Pict.

↵

g
So the genuine Chronicle, App. to vol. I. Innes has blundered the passage.
↵

h

Simeon of Durham, H•st. S. Cuthberti, col. 73. (Ser. X.) mentions another battle of Constantin against Regnald at Corebridge, in favour of Eldred, son of Eadulf earl of Northumbria, who had been driven out by Regnald a Norwegian, who came with a fleet and seized Northumbria. But that work often errs against chronology, and seems a late forgery.

↵

i
Simeon vel Turgot de Dun. Eccl. inter Scr. X. et idem de Gest. Ang
•
. Gul. Malmsb. &c. &c.

↵

k
Places unknown; perhaps Wertermor sh be Westermor, the Western Sea, or Frith of Clyde.
↵

l
Simeon de Gest, says, this battle was fought at Wendune. Anlof landed in the Humber, Flo. Vig. apparently on the south side.
↵

*
The Ulster Annals at 951 mark "A battle upon Scots (Albanich?) Welch and Saxons by Gentiles," i. e. Danes or Norwegians.
↵

m
In Scandinavian Duf•va is Columba: Dufwen, Languidus. Ihre. But there is room to believe Duff a Celtic epithet.
↵

n

Ann. Ult. ad 970. call him Culen Illuile. In the "Accounts of the Chamberlain of Scotland, 1329, 1350. 1331. with other curious papers," Edin. 1771, 4to. published by a respectable lover of Scotish antiquities, we find a charter, 1227, of Lands in Perthshire, 'virtute gladii parvi, quem Culenus rex•olim symbolice dedit Gillespic Moir.....pro suo singulari servitio.' It was a little silver sword, about two inches and a half long; and after 1743 was produced in the Exchegue•.

↵

o
Not Kirkmichal in Annandale?
↵

p
Torf. Ore. p. 25. May not Leot, be Liot earl of Orkney?
↵

q

Innes has again misprinted the Chron. Pict. See App. to vol. I. Both sentences seem to relate to one expedition into England: Stanmore and Dereham mark its extent. But it was apparently against the Danes of Northumbria, and not against the English.

↵

*

The Reg. St. And. followed by our historians, erroneously terms this king, Grim son of Kenneth son of Duff. But from a more ancient chronicle, written in the reign of William; (Innes, No. IV.) and from the Annals of Ulster; it is clear that Grim was only an epithet of Kenneth, and not his son. Grim is a common Danish name.

↵

r

Carrum, now Carham, is near Werk Castle. Hutchison's Northumberland. 'Carrum ab Anglis Werk dicitur.' R. Hagust. The Annals of Ulster at 1005 mention a great battle between the English and Scots, wherein the later were defeated.

↵

s
See Snorr
•
, the Orneyinga Saga, or Mr. Johnson's Antiquitates Celto-Scandicae,

••

atn. 1786, 4to.
↵

t
Johnson, ibid.
↵

u

Fordun IV. 44. says, Malcom II. founded a bishopric 'apud Murthillach, non procul a loco quo, superatis Norvagensibus, victoriam obtinuit.' But a writer of the 14th century, is no authority for this. Hector Boyce, in his Lives of the Bishops of Aberdeen, gives us three bishops of Murtlac from 1010 to 1124! See Ruddiman's Introduction to the Diplomata Scotiae.

↵

v

In the same Annals at 1020 we find "Finlegh Mac Roaric king of Scotland a fuis occisus;" and at 976 "Aulaiv Mac Aulaiv king of Scotland killed by Cinaoh Mac Donal." Scotland in these passages is surly Scotia, 'Ireland.'

↵

w
Ex dono Radulfi fil. Dunegani et uxoris ejus Bethoc: occurs in a charter to the Canons of Jedburgh by king William, engraven at Edin. 1771, which is only quoted to shew that this name was not peculiar to Malcom's daughter.
↵

x

The Annals of Ulster at 1040 call Duncan Mac Crinan, or son of Crinan. At 1045 is 'A battle between the Scots themselves, where fell Cronan, Abbot of Duncaillen.' It seems Crinan outlived his son; and died in attempting to revenge him. The Cronan of 1045 is surely the Crinan of 1040.

↵

y

Abba Comites,

- 1. Comites et nobiles laici, qulbus datae erant a regibus abbatiae et ecclesiae, jure beneficii sui, ut aiunt, in commendam.

- 2. Abb•tes qui simul erant comites. Du Cange in voce.

Et videantur verba, Abbas Cardinalis, Abbas Comes, Abbas Miles, Abbas Saecularis.

Giraldus Camb. Itin. Camb. II. 4. says, 'Notandum autem quod haec ecclesia, sicut et aliae per Hiberniam et Walliam plures, Abbatem Laicum habet. Usus enim inolevit, et prava consuetudo, ut viri in parochia potentes,' &c. The passage is long, and may be consulted by those who have curiosity.

↵

z
Regist. St. And. and Sir J. Dalrymple's Collections, p. 225.
↵

a
Finva, invenire; lega, merces. Ihre. In David the First's time there was a Macbeth bishop of Rosmarkin: he is a witness to two charters in Spottiswoode's Monasticon Scoticanum, which i have perused in MS. by the favour of the author.
↵

b

A Scandinavian name, Groa. Torf. Norv. II. 204, mentions Groa wife of Dungad, earl of Caithness, about 944. In his Gronlandia Ant. p. 121, the same name occurs. It is also a common name in Icelands Landnama. Macbeth Mac Torsin witnesses a charter of David I. Dalr. Coll. 388.

↵

c
The Annals of Ulster, at 1045, have "A battle between the Scots themselves, where fell Cronan, Abbot of Duncasllen." This was surety Clinan, who thus survived his son the king.
↵

d

See a long and curious account of this gigantic earl in Brompton, sub A. 1054; or in Langebek Scr. Rer. Dan.

In the battle between Siward and Macbeth, 3000 Scots and 1500 Saxeus were slain. Ann. Ult. ad 1034.

↵

e
In the Annals of Ulster he is called Lulach Mac Gillcomgain.
↵

f
Torf. Norv. IV. 289, &c.
↵

g
Malcolmum regis Cumbrorum filium—regem constituit (Siwardus) sub A. 1054.
↵

a
Introd. ad Fordun.
↵

b
In German Twat, brevia seu vada. Jun. Batavia, p. 127.
↵

c
Probably a titular bishop, as not unusual in the middle ages. The bishops of the Orkneys, mentioned by old English historians as in England, were of the same class.
↵

d

It is probable that this Comitatus refers to power, not to territory. Malcom gave up the jurisdiction of the Justiciarius Laodoniae, so far as it extended to the northern counties of England, when subject to Scotland. "Comitatus; Comitis diguitas, jurisdictio, territorium. Apud Anglos locus publicus, "in quo Vicecomes uniuscujusque provinciae....jurisdictionem suam exercet.—Conventus Juridicus in Comitatu, vulgo Assisia.—Territorium urbis: jurisdictio loci alicujus suis tinibus circumscripta.—Dominium, Seigncurie.—Comitatus pro ipsa quae dominii jure pensitatur pr•estatione interdum sumitur.—Facultas, commeatus." Du Cange in voce.

↵

e

The counties omitted in Domesday are Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland; Durham, which seems to have been church-land, the patrimonium Sancti Cuthberti; and Lancashire is put under Yorkshire and Cheshire.

↵

f
See Dalrymple's Annals. Mat. Paris, 1250, says, "Britannia quae complectitur Scociam, Galeweiam, et Walliam." Gough's Topog. I. 62.
↵

g
Collections, p. 141, 218.
↵

h
Ibid, from an ancient charter. The Regiam Majestatem is no doubt an English work: but the passages concerning Scotland have been inserted at an early period.
↵

i
Present Northumberland was surely in the hands of the Scots at the time they took possession of Cumberland. When Duncan, 1035, entered England, Durham was the first town besieged. Simeon Dun.
↵

k
A foreign writer, Guy of Amiens, "en 1058, ecrivit la guerre d'Angleterre en vers." Hist. de Picardie I. 276.
↵

l
Iste rex Hardeknoutus, per totum tempus quo regnavit, regni Scotiae subjectionem pacifice habebat. Ser. X. col. 934.
↵

m
Series Reg. Dan. p. 17.
↵

n
Saxo Gram. Rami Nori regnum. &c.
↵

a
Claudian errs in supposing Ireland a very cold country, glacialis. He only judged from its northern situation.
↵

b
It may be found in Messingham or Colgan. The former's edition i have compared.
↵

c

See many more examples of this century in Usher, Ant. Brit. Eccl. p. 382. where also, and in the Latin epistle of Lynch to Bullay, (at the end of Ogygia Vindicated,) numerous other authorities may be found of the other centuries; no fact in the history of the middle ages being so amply authenticated as this.

↵

d
Aimoinus, a writer of the tenth century, has the same: and Torf. Orc. p. 9. hence argues, that the Scots could not be in possession of the Orkneys: The Scandinavian writers often confound Old Scotland, or Ireland, with North Britain.
↵

e
Mr. J. Macpherson, who in his Introduction to the Hist. &c. says, the English only wished to favour the weakest side.
↵

f
Comment. Hist. Bas. 174
•
, 4to. 392. Add Suhm. ap. Gunlaugs Saga, p. 264. Voltaire, Hist. Gen. and Eecard de Orig. Germ. who says, p. 37. "medii aevi scriptores, quando Scotos nominant, Hibernos intelligere."

↵

g

Torfaeus Hist. Norv. I. 264. mentions Mor Alban in Scandinavia, In German any high hills are called Alben, or Alps. Eccard. Orig. Germ. "Albe pro monte, qui cano jugo conspicuus est, five also, vox est in superiore Germania usitatissima." Id. See also Huetiana, p. 201.

↵

h

Scotland is called Albania by a Welch writer, about the year 1070. See Usher's Epist. Hib. Sylloge. Geofrey of Monmouth, 1150, always calls Scotland Albania, and says it was so called when the Piks came from Scythia to it. After mentioning the Pikish arrival, he says, 'Sed hoc hactenus, cum non proposuerim historiam eorum, SIVE Scottorum, tractare, qui ex illis, et Hiberniensibus originem duxerunt.' This passage shews that in Geofrey's time, the annihilation of the Piks was unknown, and that the modern Scots were considered as Piks.

Caledonii, Picti, Albani, Scoti, were synonymous; as were Attacotti, Dalriadi, Gadeli, Hibernenses; and Belgae, Angli, Saxones, Loegrii. The Welch term Loegr, for the Saxons, seems from Lloeg, merces, as they were at first mercenarie•. See Gildas, Beda, Davis Dict. Kymb.

↵

i

The author of the Gesta Stephani R. Ang. a cotemporary, published by Du Chesne, (Rer. Norm. Sc.) says; "Est autem Scotia, quae et Albania dicitur, regio locis palustribus circumsepta; silvarum fertilium, lactis, et armentorum, copiosa; portubus salubribus, insulis opulentis, circumcincta; sed incolas barbaros habens, et impuros; nec nimio frigore fractos, nec aspera fame detritos; citis pedibus, lenique armaturae confidentes: anxium amare mortis exitum pro nihilo ducentes inter suos domesticos; sed inter sibi extraneos omnes crudelitate excedentes.'

Baldred Bisset, in his memoir to the Pope on Scotish history, 1301, says, "in ejusdemque locum Albaniae successit nomen novum Scotiae:" and after; "Ergadiam adjacentem ipsi Albaniae." Fordun. II. 195, 196. so that Argyle was not even regarded as in Albany or Pikland.

↵

k

If the laws of the Conqueror, published by Selden (Specil. ad Eadmer.) be genuine, the Piks were, even about 1080, regarded as a powerful people. Ingulfus, at the year 948, mentions them as fighting under Constantin. In 985 the Clerici Pictorum occur (Acta Edithae apud Sur.) Radulf Abp. of Canterbury in the 12th century calls the bishop of Candida Casa, episcopus Pictorum. Ser. X. col. 1746.

↵

l
Ruddiman Introd. ad Dipl. Scotiae.
↵

m
Geogr. Nub. Climat. 7. part. 2.
↵

n
Essay on the Origin of Scotish Poetry, prefixt to Ancient Scotish Poems from the Ma
•
tland Collection. London, 1786.

↵

h
With this very passage the Chron. Pictorum begins, only for Scoti is put Picti.
↵

a
The Chron. Pict. mentions that Kenneth IV. gave Brechen to the church. Does this imply that a church was founded there, or that he gave it to a church already founded, as Dunkeld, &c.?
↵

b
See Gunlang's Saga, and the plates in it.
↵

c
See Gordon's Itin. Sept. Pennant's Tour. Archaeologia, vols. V. VI. Cordiner's Antiquities.
↵

d
Dornagilla, a common female name.
↵

f

At Sualsberg near Drontheim, Norway, there is one of these conic edifices. Pennant, II. 437. The castle of Ymsborg, Westrogothia seems another. Dahlberg, Suecia Ant. et Hod. tom. III. But i question if there be any resemblance but in figure: the double walls, galleries, shelves, &c. being wanting.

Much has been lately said, and written, concerning some vitrified forts discovered in Scotland. Some believed that Ossian was the builder; and some that the infernal monarch had baked them with his own fire. At length a letter appeared in the Edin. Mag. Sept. 1787, written, as i am informed, by George Dempster, Esq. whose name implies every praise of a patriot and a man, which discovered that these vitrified forts belong to the thirteenth century. The authority is Sir Robert Gordon, of Gordon stown, in his history of the Sutherland Family, folio MS. p. 5. of the Geographical Description of Sutherland: "Dun Creigh was built with a strange kynd of morter, by one Paull Macktyre. This I doe take to be a kynd of ore; howsoever this is most certaine that ther hath not been seen ane harder kynd of morter." Again, p. 19, of the Genealogie of the Earls of Sutherland: "Paull Macktyre was a man of great power and possessions" (between 1275 and 1297, as appears from dates inserted). "In his time he possessed the lands of Creigh in Sutherland; and built a house called Down Creigh, with such a kynd of hard mort•r, that at this day it cannot be known wherof it was maid. As he was building this house and fortresse, he had intelligence that his onlie son was slain in Catteynes, in company with one Murthow Rea, ane outlaw, and valiant captane, in these dayes; which made him desist from further building, when he had almost finished the same. There are many things fabulouslie reported of this Paull Macktyre. amougst the vulgure people, which I doe omit to relate." Sir Rob. Sibbald's MSS, • d. Lib. have in his Vera Sutherlandiae Descriptio, "Varia sunt hic castella....Down Crigh a quodam Paulo Mactiro extructum suit."

↵

s
Sumer segea, p. 126, 131, &c.
↵

h
Archaeolog, Vol. V. Williams, p. 64.
↵

i

Regnerus saxis rerum gestarum apices prae se serentibus, hisdemque super•e locatis, aeternum victoriae suae monumentum affixit. Saxo IX. Such stones were called Bautestene. Steph. 15. The oldest certain Runic inscriptions in Scandinavia seem of Gormo, king of Denmark, A. D. 910. Ib. p. 203, 204. As for the apices of Regner they seem symbols. Wormius was often imposed on, and his work is full of false inscriptions. A runic forgery of Halpap, Hialmari Historia, imposed on Peringskiold and Hickes, both of whom published it with great pomp and expence.

↵

a
At the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, Asia was forced to follow the European mode; and from that time till 532 all the world kept Easter alike.
↵

b
Usser. Sylloge, p. 34.
↵

c
Lib. l. c. 3.
↵

d
'Fergustus episcopus Scotioe, Pictus,' or 'Fergust the Pik an Irish bishop,' was in the Roman general council A. D. 721. Concil. a Binio Tom. V. but forgeries swarm in these early councils.
↵

e
The monastery of Melrose was apparently ruined by the Danes about the year 800, if not by Kenneth III. about 850. Chron. Pict. It remained in ruins till refounded by David l. 1136.
↵

f

A. D. 801. Ann. Ut. after which the titular abbots seem to have resided in Ireland chiefly, till about A. D. 1080, when queen Margaret rebuilt the church. Order. Vital Some of the present edifice seems of that period. In 980 Aulaf king of Dublin died in pilgrimage at Hyona. Ann. Prior. Ins. SS. Ware's MSS.

↵

g

Regente monasterium abbate, quem ipsi episcopi cum cousilio fratrum elegerint, omnes presbyteri, diaconi, cantores, lectores, ceterique gradus ecclesiastici, monachicam per omnia, cum ipso episcopo, regulam servant. Beda, Vita Cuthb. de Hyona.

↵

h
Keith, pref.
↵

i
Adomnan, ad fin.
↵

k
Keith, Sir J. Dalrymple, &c.
↵

l
Mosheim, Inst. Hist. Eccl. The common canons began in the eighth century; and were a middle order, between monks and secular priests. Ib.
↵

m
Keith.
↵

n
Keith, Dalrymple.
↵

o
Mosheim.
↵

p
Gul. Malmsb, Hoveden, &c.
↵

z
‘’
He gives a description of the world, and abstract of Welch history; and a long account of the virtues of fountains, and natures of different birds: mentions 'urbs Caerloyctoyc;' and concludes in five lines that the author is 'Gaufridus de Monumeta.'
‘scripsit qui libellum, Quem nunc Gesta vocant Britonum celebrata per orbem.’
In his history Geofrey does not mention Merlin the Wild. The prese•t poem is of 52 close pages. Cotton, lib. Vesp. E. IV.

↵

*
It also occurs in Geofrey of Monmouth.
↵

a
Except Jocelin in his life of Kentigern, who mistaking Nennius, implies it the frith of Forth.
↵

b
Decline and Fall of the Rom. Emp. vol. V. p. 345. 8vo.
↵

*
Malmsb. Gest. Pont. fol. v. 155.
↵

c
Angli. et Scotti, et Picti, et caeteri barbari. Ricard. Hagustald. Gesta Steph. Scriptores x. col. 323.
↵

a
So Torfaeus asserts, p. 9, but i cannot find the passages, and believe them imaginary.
↵

b
Published in Wallace's Orkneys, edit. 1700; and from that book in the Orkneyinga Saga.
↵

c
De Islandia, p. 11, edit. Havniae, 1733, 410. See also Theodoricus monachus de reb. Norv. p. 8.
↵

*
Sutherland was taken from the earls of Orkney by Alexander king of Scotland, Charta 1403, supra citat. surely Alex. l. 1107, for in the reign of William there were Scotish earls of Sutherland.
↵

d
Earl of Ross and Lord of the Iles were commonly united titles. In 1461 John bears them in a treaty with Edward IV, of England. Till James V. circumnavigated the iles, and reduced them to order, they can hardly be regarded as subject to Scotland.
↵

e
Late Irish writers say that the Hebrides are so called from king Hiber.
↵

f
Chron. Mann. apud Camden.
↵

*

Mr. Johnstone, in his Antiquitates Celto-Normannicae, has published a translation of extracts from this MS. As it will be found often to differ from this, the editor is forced to say, that he has collated the present extracts three times with the MS. and some passages oftener; that he has also collated Mr. J's once with this; and after with the MS.: and can safely say that the errors rest wholly with Mr. J.

↵

*
Vide quae dicta sunt de Donaldo Brec, pag. 117 hujus tomi: et confer A. 649 et 688.
↵

*
The name of a place. So at 1038 we find "dishonouring Ardmach." An Iricism.
↵

*
After this the text being chiefly Irish, the English translation becomes principal, and is given in Roman letter.
↵

*
Coarb? See An. 926.
↵

*
In the corruption of the middle ages ecclesiastic dignities were often hereditary; and the Coarb is either the heir; or the person who has the title, but not the actual possession. But see also Ware Ant. Hib. c. 17, De Corbis, who suspects a Coarb the same as a lay abbot.
↵

*

Grim was son of Kinat Mac Duff. Reg. St. And. In No. IV. Innes, this king is only called "Chinet fil. Duf." It seems clear that Grim is only an epithet for Kenneth V. son of Duff, instead of being son of that Kenneth.

↵

*
Surdum Sancti Columbae, Sourd abbey, five miles from Dublin, founded by St. Columba.
↵

*
The words untranslated are unknown to the translator.
↵

*
Take this with you.
↵

†
Here the orginal inserts Dungal and Alpin: but they are transposed to their proper place, ver. 79.
↵

*
Here Grig, or Achy, is wanting. The bard probably regarded Grig as an usurper, or no king, (see Chron. Pict.); and Achy as a minor in Grig's power.
↵

*
The Hisicion of Nennius, cap. 12, 13. Eccard in his Orig. Germ. thinks the Hisicion of Nennius Tuisco the father of the Germans; and his Armenon, Arminius.
↵

*
By the Abbot of Dundrainan: in the thirteenth century, as the writing shews.
↵

a
Altius non incipit quia Melrosenses Annales sunt Continuatio Bedae.
↵

b
Murdac.
↵

c
vel Forteivet.
↵

a
In Stratalun.
↵

b
f. occiditur.
↵

c
MS. in Dunduren pb; i. e. probus.
↵

d
MS. ī ūlū hc̄.
↵

a
An nato?
↵

b
Slannis.
↵

c
Bechoc.
↵

a
Alii appellant Monethesoen.
↵

*
The history of Norway being little known, the author was induced to continue the series to the end.
↵

*

The rest is from an abstract of Norwegian history, at the end of Rami Nori Regnum. Snorro ends at Suerir. The history of Norwa• after this is taken from Icelandic histories of different reigns, as Sueris-saga, Hakon saga, &c. and from charters. The fourth volume of Torfaeus begins at Suerir; but his chronology is inaccurate, and he rarely quotes authorities. Norway has no native historian; for Theodoric the monk, who ends at Suerir, was surely a German.

↵

†
Torfaeus is so inaccurate as to call this Hakon II, and the next Hakon VI.
↵

*

The Baglar, a faction raised by the clergy, disturbed Norway much in the 13th century. Magnus V, exclude• the deputis of the people from the National Assembly; which after consisted only of nobles and clergy, so that the power of the king, and of the people, was lost. He also introduced hereditary digniti•s. Magnus VI. living chiefly in Sweden, Norway was left to the power of her nobles, and fell to a condition, from which she never recovered.

↵

*
Torfaeus in his Series, p. 236, here inserts Hroar, Valdar, Harald, Halsdan, as ancestors of Ivar Vidfatme, but not as kings of Denmark, as appears from the after part of his work.
↵

*

It is said, from Icelandic Sagas, that the Danes held Sweden in subjection for a long time; and the kings were generally those of Denmark. From Lagerbring's History of Sweden the following Icelandic series appears. Harald Hildetand, grandson of Ivar by a daughter. Sigurd Ring, nephew of the last. Regnar Lodbrog, son of Sigurd Ring. But this succession is very doubtful.

↵

†
Those in Italic letter are not named by Adam.
↵

*
Ar the end of Orkneyinga Saga is a bad list of the Earls, in which Cormac a monk who preached in the Orkneys, is given as of the number!
↵

*

Here is a defect in the Diploma, evidently owing to the compiler mistaking Harald I. and II. for the same person; a common cause of error in old chronicles. The Orkneyinga Saga, being written so near the time, is full and veracious concerning these omitted earls. It ends with Jon: and the account of Torfaeus after is very lame, so that the Diploma deserves much credit. To Magnus V. he adds an Argisel 1343, who witnesses a charter that year; but had surely only the title; and an Eringisl, 1357, apparently the same person, See Orcades, p. 173.

↵

STATE of NATIONS at the Christian aera.

A DISSERTATION ON THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF THE SCYTHIANS OR GOTHS.

BEING AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY OF EUROPE.

BY JOHN PINKERTON.

LONDON: PRINTED BY JOHN NICHOLS, FOR GEORGE NICOL, PALL-MALL.

MDCCLXXXVII.

PREFACE.

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.

〈1 page duplicate〉

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, 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 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.

A.

- 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.

B.

- 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.

C.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

E.

- 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.

F.

- Frisch Hist. Linguae Slavonicae, Berolini, 1727. 4to.

G.

- 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.

H.

- 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.

I.

- 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.

L.

- 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.

M.

- 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.

- 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.

O.

- 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.

P.

- 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.

R.

- Ravennas Geographus, cum Mela Gronovii. Lug. Bat. 1696. 8vo.

- Richardson's Dissertation on Eastern Manners, &c. presixt to Persian, Arabic, and English Dictionary.

S.

- 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, 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.

T.

- 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.

U.

- Usserii Annales Veteris Testamenti. Londini, 1650. f.

V.

- Valerius Flaccus cum Notis Heinsii. Ultraj. 1702. 12mo.

- Verelii Gothrici et Rolfi Hist. Upsal, 1664. 8vo.

W.

- 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.

X.

- Xenophontis Opera Leunclavii. Francof. 1596. f.

Z.

- Zozimus Cellarii, Cizae, 1679, 8vo.

CONTENTS.

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

〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉

Corrections.

- Page 12, note, for 1634, 4to, read 1648 f.

- Page 14, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

- 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 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 authors[a] 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?

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 Sheringham[a], Pelloutier[b], and Ihre[c].

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 recorded[d] 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.

- 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. Torfaeus[e] 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. '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 are amazing. Cluverius[f] 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 Pomerellia[g], and wanted all the glory of the Goths to his own dear Gothones! Grotius[h] 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 country[i], 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, reason[k], 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; or Scythic Histories: and called the Goths 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: 'all the other Gothic nations, who were also called Scythians in ancient times.'

- 8. Anastasius in Hist. Chronograph. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ‘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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: ‘for that the Scythians are in their tongne called Goths, Trajanus Patricius relates in the history of his own time.’

- 10. Georgius Syncellus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: ‘the Scythians are also called Goths in their own language.’

- 11. Jornandes[o] 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.

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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 Jornandes[a] 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, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉'On this side are the Sarmatae themselves Scythians.' But this passage is a palpable mistake[b], 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 'the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepidae were anciently called Sarmatae and Melanchlaeni: some have also called them Getic nations[c].' 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 possessors[d]. 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, 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 writer[e] 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; 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 another[f] 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 others[g] 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, 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 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) to the east[h]. 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 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) from the Amazons. He also repeatedly tells us that the Scythians denominate such a person or thing by such a name in THEIR language[i]. 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 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 Goth[k], 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 days[l]. 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 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 Bremen[m], 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 Piks[n] into Scotland, 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, Justin[o] 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 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 authorities[p] 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, '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 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 them[q], 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 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. 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 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.

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 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 fabulous[a], 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 years[b]. 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 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 Abydenus[d] fabled that Nebuchadnezzar, having subdued Afric and Spain, brought these Iberi from Spain. Appian[e] 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 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 Scythae[e]. 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, 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 Caspian[f] 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 Tacitus[g], and others. They had followed the same tract with the Medes, easily making way thro 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 totally unknown to the ancients, while from the merchants they knew the coasts to Cochin China, which M. D'Anville[h] shews to be the seat of the ancient Sinae. We know little about them even at present, tho much indebted to Strahlenberg's map[i] 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 them[k]. 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. 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 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 Roman[b], 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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.

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 mountains[c]. Mela and Solinus[d] 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 Italy[e]; but, Cellarius[f] 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 say[g], and touched at Caledonia[h], 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 Celts[i].

- 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,: '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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; '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. 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 Hebudes[k]. From the south of Britain the Cimbri or Cumri expelled the Gael into Ireland, as their own writers, and traditions, bear[l]; 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 appellation[m]. Herodotus[n] mentions the Celts as living near the Pyrenees. Aristorle[o] and many other ancients mention them as in the furthest west, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 'above Spain.' Caesar[p] actually found them confined to the utmost corner of Gaul: the Scythians or Goths having under the name of Belgae restricted them 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 mines[q].

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 slain[r]. 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 Plutarch[s] fables, but by an overflow of enemies, passed into Gaul by the forest of Ardenna, for the Belgae repelled them[t]; and ruled Gaul[u], and ravaged Spain[v], 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, Herodotus[w] 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 Herodotus[x] 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 Herodotus[y]; 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 Scythae[z]; 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 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 pillar[z] instructs us, that Decebalus, king of the Dacic Getae[a] was assisted by Sarmatic cavalry, 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 Pannonia[b]. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;[c]; 'the Getae, a people using the same language with the Thracians:' and Strabo's Getae extend over the whole north-west of the Danube, and Euxine, even to half of Germany[d]. Many ancients call the Getae Thracians; and others call the Thracians Getae. They who wish to see this further illustrated are referred to Ihre[e].

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. 772[f], 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 Hellenes[g], who were Scythae, as shall be 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 Herodotus[h] certainly extended over most of this country. Strabo, p. 207, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 M. de Buat, who, when he steers free of etymology, has great merit, well details what can be recovered of Illyrian history[i]. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pelasgi, was the first name of the Greeks, who afterward bore the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hellenes: and all Greece in the large acceptation above was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hellas. The very name of Greek is unknown to the Greek writers; who indeed very seldom use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or in other words, speak of the Greeks in general, but almost universally tell of Spartans, Athenians, &c. One or two very late Greek writers[k], it is believed, use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, anilis, old womanly, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Ionians were Pelasgi: and, lib. I. c. 57, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 'the Athenains were Pelasgi.' Apollonius Rhodius, and other poets, use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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, a country where every city was as it were a distinct people, some few cities, and some mountaineers and ilanders[l], 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 shewn[m], that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 Pelasgic[n]. In ch. 58, he tells, that the Hellenes used the same speech, and were a part of the Pelasgi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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 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 which does honour to the nation that gave it birth, there is a dissertation of M. de la Nauze[o], 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. Geinoz[p], and of M. Freret[q], 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 Argos[r], 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. 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 Gothic[s]. 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 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 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 truth[t].

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 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 cars[u]: 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 Cyrulic[w] 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.

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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: '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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sea, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Pelasgian, tho the later word be probably from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'Deucalion the Scythian, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 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. Thucydides[v] 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. 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; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (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 Salmasius[w], Junius[x], Meric Casaubon[y], Ihre[z] 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. Bibliander[a] says, that in the German (a dialect of the Gothic) of 2000 radicals, 800 are common to the Greek and to the 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 Athens and Argos, about 1400 years before Christ, were Egyptians: Cadmus, who about 1280, founded Thebes, was a Phoenician. Letters began to be used[b]. 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 invented[c]. 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 allegory and an elegant method into vulgar tradition and superstition, composed regular systems of theogony and mythology. Now, these earlier poets and teachers of religion were all of Thrace. Linus, Orpheus, Musaeus, Thamyris, Eumolpus, were all Thracians; and Eustathius (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) has long ago observed this singularity. If Thracians, they were Scythians or Goths: if Scythians, they could only use Scythic mythology and traditions. For the religions of the Sarmatae, of the Celts, of the Phoenicians, of the Egyptians, were quite remote from the Grecian. Blackwell, in his admirable Enquiry into the life and writings of Homer (Sect. xii.), has well concluded the language of Thrace and of Greece to have been the same; and especially quotes Strabo, who was of Colchis, and who says, 'that the Trojan language had many words and names in common with the Thracian.' The several instances he produces are, as Blackwell observes, generally known Grecian terms, as well as Trojan or Thracian: even the others may have been ancient Grecian, tho unfit for poetry, the only repository of Greek language till Herodotus wrote, or about 450 years before Christ. Herodotus, lib. II. c. 52. says, the Greeks derived their rites and religion from the Pelasgi, who were certainly Scythae of Southern Thrace. Anacharsis, as above observed, said, the Greeks scythicised, or followed the customs, &c. of the Scythae. The Titans, or family of gods, were of Scythia, as mythologists agree. Plato in Cratylo says, the Greek rites are all from the barbarians; that is, as just shewn, the barbarians of Thrace.

The Greeks, fermented into purity by foreign colonies, soon assumed quite a distinct character from their Scythian progenitors and neighbours. Homer also rose from the eastern shore of the Egean, like the sun, upon them; and diffused an intellectual light and warmth which made their souls vegetate with great thoughts, the stems of great actions. So early as about 1000 years before Christ Grecian colonies began to be established in Magna Graecia or the south of Italy, in Sicily, in Africa. Nay in Macedon and Thrace, and among the more distant Scythae, in which later countries, for want of tillage and the arts, barbarism was long to prevail: while, owing to fortunate circumstances above mentioned, the Greeks had admitted such refinement as almost to pass for another people among their own progenitors. A case which may even happen in ruder nations, as we know that the Danes, who came to Northumberland in the Ninth century, were regarded as utter strangers and enemies by their own countrymen the Angli, who in 547 had settled in that province.

IV. Let us now very briefly consider the origins of the ITALIANS, or whole ancient inhabitants of Italy. This country in its early state may be regarded as divided into four parts:

- 1. Graecia Magna, and the whole country south-west of the Apennines up to Hetruria.

- 2. The part northeast of the Apennines, opposite to Illyricum.

- 5. Hetruria.

- 4. The Gallic part, from the Alps down to the Senones in Umbria.

The first part, as appears from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, was peopled by Aborigines from Arcadia, the earliest inhabitants that can be traced of Magna Graecia and of Latium. Dionysius mentions that some Pelasgi afterwards went over; but it is clear that the Arcadians were Pelasgi[d], and M. Freret accordingly shews that the Aborigines and Pelasgi were all one people. The learned look with a suspicious eye upon the pages of Dionysius, who only wrote about thirty years before Christ, and yet details battles, speeches, embassies, &c. between the Pelasgi and Aborigines, as matters of yesterday; while Herodotus and the other ancient Greek writers knew almost nothing of Italy, and Dionysius had not one authority. But it appears, that the Pelasgi, whom Dionysius feigns to have fought with the Aborigines, but to have been vanquished and expelled by them, were some few later Pelasgi from Epirus. Sicily, and this part of Italy, were afterward planted with such numerous Greek colonies, from about 700 years before Christ, and downward, that they may be almost said to be peopled afresh. In Latium, where Rome was founded, there were several little tribes and towns of the Aborigines, as the Sabines, Volsci, &c. Sir Isaac Newton in his Chronology, has actually demonstrated that Romulus could not exist till at least 125 years after the vulgar aera, or the year 627 before Christ. For to the seven kings are given no less than 243 years! And of these seven kings three were murdered, and one expelled! In no history, ancient or modern, will such reigns of seven kings amount to 140 years, much less to 243. But as the Annus Urbis Conditoe is followed by the Roman writers, it would be most eligible to suppose, with some ancients, that Romulus did not found Rome; but that the city was a rude republick, with elective chiefs, for some time before Romulus. However this be, the Latin language is a clear proof of the origin of the people, being merely the Aeolic dialect of the Greek, as Quintilian remarks, and as the learned well know. This Aeolic has but a few variations from the Doric; as the Ionic has but a few variations from the Attic. The Aeolians, a Pelasgic division, peopled Elis and Arcadia, or the western and inland parts of Peloponnesus, which confims the account of Dionysius, that the Aborigines went from these parts. The Dorians, another Pelasgic or Hellenic division, held all the northwest or mountainous part of Greece; and being led into Peloponnesus by the Heraclidae, possessed Argos, Sparta, &c. The Ionians or most polished part consisted of the Athenians, and their colonies, on the opposite shore of Asia: all the Ionians were more refined by Asiatic commerce and arts. The Doric was used in Sicily; and Theocritus has given us an exquisite sample. If Pindar[e] used the Doric, it was certainly from knowing it most adapted to the higher Lyric poetry; for the Boeotians were Aeolic; and from Strabo, lib. viii. we know that their speech was the Aeolic. Theocritus is thought the only Doric writer. In the Aeolic are some fragments of Alcaeus and Sappho. It may easily be shewn, that instead of four dialects in Greek there is but one[f], namely the Doric or Aeolic, for the variations of the latter from the former are so trifling as to deserve no notice, being less than those of the Somersetshire dialect, or the Cockney, from the English. The Attic, with it's 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Ionic variations, is the Greek language used by all their writers but these above mentioned: and can no more be called a dialect than the English is a dialect of the English. The Doric, Aeolic, or old Greek, was spoken in Macedon, Epirus, Italy, Sicily, and over all Greece, save Attica. But the Attic, from superior polish, became the reigning language, while in time the other was universally left to clowns: and the Attic is the Greek of all countries and authors. Homer and Herodotus, Asiatic Greeks, wrote in Ionic or Asiatic Greek, that is the Attic rendered more musical by now and then dropping a consonant or asperate, and adding a vowel, &c. Doric or Aeolic is sometimes sparingly intermixed by some writers as the dialect of their country ran, or to add antique dignity. Milton and Shakspere are full of such Doric English. But of this perhaps more largely elsewhere.

The part of Italy, north of the Apennines, and opposite to Illyricum, was, as plain reason would argue, peopled by Illyrians, who, as shewn, were Scythae. Pliny III. 25, tells us, that Callimachus placed a people called Peuketi[g] in Liburnia of Illyricum. In Italy directly on the opposite shore were the Pikeni; and further south lay the large country of Peuketia, now Apulia, of which much may be found in Strabo. The Peuketi of Liburnia were certainly a part of the Peukini or Basternae, a Scythic division, who had spred from Thrace into Illyricum, and Germany; and of whom is fully treated in the last chapter of this tract.

The Hetrurians, as we learn from Herodotus, whom Pliny, Paterculus, and other of the best ancient writers follow, were a Lydian colony; a circumstance not improbable, if we consider the great riches, and wide commerce of Lydia. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a fabulous historian, tells us, that the Hetruscans were a peculiar indigenal people, resembling no other nation in speech or manners. He informs us that the Hetruscan speech was not Pelasgic, in the most express terms: and yet the learned universally allow the Hetruscan letters, and antiquities, to be Pelasgic, or Ancient Grecian. Indeed those few detached barbaric Pelasgi, who had returned into Greece from Italy, and those who had come from Samothrace, quire puzzled Herodotus, and Dionysius; just as if a few Angli from Anglen had, in the ninth or tenth century, come to England, and the writers of the times had been astonished at their speech not being Anglic, but Danish. The number of books, of all ages and languages, gives the moderns a prodigious superiority over the ancients, in judging of the gradations of speech, and origin and progress of nations. From the ancient Hetruscan inscriptions, and other monuments, the learned pronounce them Pelasgi, looking on Dionysius as no authority against facts. But may we not trust the well informed Herodotus that they were Lydians, who about 1000 years before our aera planted Etruria? For the Lydians, as above shewn, were Scythae of Thrace, as were the Pelasgi: so that a similarity in their ancient remains may be expected. The Lydians were early polished, from their neighbourhood with the Assyrians of Cappadocia; and were probably somewhat mixt with them, so as to tinge their dialect a little, whence the error of Dionysius. They were a polished and opulent people: and the Hetruscans seem to have had skill in the fine arts long before the Latins, as the many ancient pieces preserved shew: a circumstance appearing to confirm the account of Herodotus that they were a Lydian colony. By the testimony of Herodotus therefore the Hetruscans were Lydians, or Scythae: by their monuments they were Pelasgi, or Scythae. At any rate they were vanquished, and their country almost peopled afresh by the Romans, a Grecian, Pelasgic, or Scythic nation.

The Gallic part of Italy alone remains. The Gauls were the latest settlers in Italy. It was 386 years before our aera that they took Rome, but were defeated by Camillus. The old Umbri[h] seem to have been Illyrians, as the Pikeni their southern neighbours; but the Galli Senones, who took Rome, settling in Umbria, the whole Umbri began to be reputed of Gallic extract. We have large ancient copper coins of towns in Umbria, on the Hetruscan and Latin model, certainly struck before the Gauls had any idea of coinage.[i] However this be, it is clear that all the Gauls of Cisalpine Gaul were German Gauls, not Celts. For when Caesar entered Gaul the Celts were confined to the most remote part of Gaul; while Germany bordered on the fountain of the Rhine, and the northern Alps, or in other words on Cisalpine Gaul. The Celts lay within the Marne and the Loire; while all the east of Gaul had long before been seized by the Belgae, Helvetii, Allobroges, and other German Gauls[k]. On the south the whole Provincia Romanorum, otherwise called Gallia Braccata, to distinguish it from Celtic and Aquitanic Gaul, had been possessed by German Gauls before the Romans, as the very name implies; for the Celts did not anciently wear breeches, while breeches were the chief mark of the Scythians or Goths from the time of Herodotus to this moment. For that the German Gauls, as being real Germans, were Scythians or Goths, shall be shewn in the Second Part of this Dissertation. In speaking of Gauls, the Celts, the most distant part of the Gauls, are out of all question. It is not that dastard race who were vanquished by a lieutenant of Caesar with one legion[l]; but the German Gauls, who long occupied all the power of Rome, that claim our notice in the historic page. The Italian Gauls were at any rate vanquished, and their country colonized anew, by the Romans, a Scythian people.

It will be shewn in the Second Part that the Scythae had past to the extremity of Germany and Scandinavia, about 500 years before Christ. On the south of Germany they extended to the extremity of Illyricum, and entered Gaul on that side before that period. The Scythae who peopled Illyricum were of the Thracian division, separated from the Germans by the Danube; and as the same division extended, as just shewn, into Greece and Italy, their population was wholly occupied by these countries, and their Asiatic settlements; so that, pressing to the east and south, they never extended beyond the Adriatic, where they were checked by the Alps. The Celts seem to have possessed all their territories beyond the Adriatic, including Cisalpine Gaul, till about 500 years before Christ, when the Germans arrived, and poured into the north of Italy, and the east, and south of Gaul; the Celts flying before them to the west. But as the Celts were called Gauls by the Romans, and their country Gaul, the name was continued to its new possessors; just as the English are called Britons, as well as the Welch; and as the French are called Galli at this day. But this the reader will find more fully treated when we come to the Germans. The Aborigines or Pelasgi, Illyrians, and Hetruscans, were certainly settled in Italy about 1000 years before Christ. The Galli not above 500.

It is therefore Historic Truth that the Italians were Scythoe.

PART II. The extended Settlements of the Scythians or Goths over all Germany, and in Scandinavia.

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.

WE are now arrived at the last, and most important part of this Dissertation: and a subject upon which the whole modern history or Europe depends. Sensible of its prodigious weight, i shall examine it with all the sedulous care, and minute accuracy, which my purpose permits. The theme is indeed so vast, that large volumes may be written on it; but tho my bounds confine me to the mere outline; yet all attention shall be paid to render it scrupulously exact, so as to enable the reader to form, as from a miniature drawing, a true and just idea of the whole.

The Scythians or Goths have been followed to their Eastern Settlements in Asia, and to their Southern in Europe. Let us now trace their Western progress, or that of our progenitors. If English, Scotish, Irish; if French, Spaniard, Italian, German, Dutch, Swiss, Swede, or Dane, let the reader attend with reverence, as he persues the sacred steps of his ancestors. Here every European is personally interested, save the Sarmatians of Russia and Poland; save the Celto-Welch of England, and the Celt-Irish of Ireland and of the Highlands of Scotland; and save the Fins of Hungary, Finland, and Lapland.

The reader will recollect that the Getae, who extended all over the west of the Euxine, are shewn to have been the same identic people with the Parental Scythians or Goths. On the North-West the Basternae, a German nation, as Pliny and Tacitus shew, bordered on the Getae. On the South-West that division of the Getae, called Daci, bordered with Germany. Pliny, IV. 12. says, Getae, Daci Romanis dicti, 'those Getae called Daci by the Romans.' Strabo, lib. VIII. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'the Getae and Daci have one and the same speech.' Steph. de Urbibus, also says the Daci are the same with the Getae: and to this all antient and modern writers assent. Therefore the Germans bordered, on the East, with the Getae or Parental Goths. So Pliny VIII. 15. Germania Scythiae contermina.

Thus we are come to the very crisis of our research. If we cannot shew the Germans to have been originally Scythae, this dissertation is inept. If we can, a field of wide curiosity and enquiry opens to the learned of Europe. For the origin of government, manners, laws, in short, all the antiquities of Europe, will assume a new appearance; and instead of being only traced to the woods of Germany, as Montesquieu, and the greatest writers have hitherto done, may be followed thro the long descriptions of the manners, &c. of the Scythians and Thracians given us by Herodotus. Nay, even up to the Aboriginal Scythic empire in Persia, beyond which there is no memorial of human affairs, save in Egypt alone; the history of which begins with Menes the first king, about 4000 years before our aera; while the earliest appearance of the Scythians in history is about 400 years after, when Vexores was king of Egypt, and Tanaus of the Scythae. Not to mention the collateral light to be derived from the whole history of the Greeks and Romans, who were Scythae, as just shewn.

Before producing an host of arguments to shew the Germans to have been originally Scythae or Goths, i shall briefly consider the two only[a] other opinions, which have been formed, or can possibly be formed, on this subject.

- 1. That the Germans were Sarmatae.

- 2. That they were Celts.

1. The Germans not Sarmatae. The first of these opinions, namely, that the Germans were Sarmatae, proceeds from such gross ignorance that i am really ashamed to mention, much more to refute it. I have diligently perused most writers on German antiquities, but they had all some degree of reading, and could never fall into an error, which the whole ancient authors, and complete modern knowlege, concur to refute. This unhappy discovery must therefore be assigned to its right owner, and inventor, James Macpherson, Esq. in whose Introduction to the History of Great Britain it first occurs. The author of that strange and truly Celtic work, having, with that overheated rashness, which genius colliding with perfect ignorance can alone inspire, attempted to introduce the most diseased dreams into the History of Scotland, thought he could, behind his Celtic mist, use equal freedoms with the history of Europe! Rash man, and ill advised! The mist of Celtic nonsense he may gild with the beams of real genius; but, with the ignorance of a school-boy, to write on the antiquities of the Germans, in which the learned of all Europe had been ever conversant, was deplorable indeed, and worthy of eternal laughter, did not commiseration for the ingenious translator and composer of Irish poetry move every reader to gentleness. At the same time it is much suspected that his motives entitle him to no excuse: and the high and contemptuous manner in which he treats others annuls all favour. His Ossian shews that he piques himself greatly on being a Celt, and will not admit the English, or French, or Germans, or other paltry modern nations, to that high honour! Indeed the malice and contempt borne by the Celtic savages; for they are savages, have been savages since the world began, and will be for ever savages while a separate people; that is, while themselves, and of unmixt blood; i say the contempt borne by those Celts for the English, Lowland Scots, and later Irish (who are English and Scots), is extreme and knows no bounds. Mr. Macpherson knew that his own dear Celts are, and have ever been regarded as, a weak and brutish people; and in revenge tells us we are all Sarmatae, a people eminently martial and famous, which he forgets; but remarkable, as his express quotations shew, for nastiness! Fielding tells us, that a shallow book may, like a shallow man, be easily seen thro; and i can see nothing, if the design of Mr. Macpherson's book be not to exalt his sweet Celts at the expence of all truth, learning, and common sense.

Quand l'absurde est outré, l'on lui fait trop d'honneur

De vouloir par raison combattre son erreur;

Encherir est plus court, sans s'echauffer la bile.

Fontaine.

Sorry i am, toward the end of the Eighteenth Century, to be shewing, against a British author, that the Germans were not Sarmatae; that is, that a Saxon, or a Silesian, is not a Russian, and does not speak the Sarmatic (Slavonic), but Gothic tongue. For if a German student, in his first year at college, should happen to see this tract, he will conclude me as ignorant as my countryman, Mr. Macpherson; to confute absolute nonsense being surely as ridiculous as to write it. Stung with this reflection, i shall hasten from my aukward situation, after a slight remark or two; for it would be absurd to draw a sword when a straw will do, and i have a champion of far other force to encounter.

The sole authority which Mr. Macpherson can find, for this new and profound idea, is a passage which, with his usual peremptory brevity, he quotes thus: "Gothi, Vandalique ab antiquis Sarmatis originem ducunt. Procop. lib. I." (Introduct. p. 34. edit. 3d.) Not to mention the ignorant oddity of quoting a Greek author in Latin, the reader must be informed there is no such passage in Procopius, nor even one the least like it. This would alone be reckoned a full confutation: but as this work is not a controversial one, but written with the most sincere and sacred design of discovering the truth, i shall produce the real passage in Procopius, to which Mr. Macpherson, or the person he had the above quotation from[b], must have referred. It stands thus in the edition of Procopius, Paris, 1662, e typographia regia, 2 volumes folio, lib. I. cap. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is literally, "Gothic nations many and sundry there were formerly, and are now. But among them the greatest and most highly esteemed are the Goths; and the Vandals; and the Visigoths; and the Gepidae. Anciently they were called Sarmatae, and Melanchlaeni: some have also called them Getic nations." Lest the reader may think that Mr. Macpherson quoted from the Latin translation, it is also added. Plurimae quidem superioribus fuere temporibus, hodieque sunt, nationes Gothicae; sed inter illas Gothi, Vandali, Visigothi, et Gepaedes, cum numero tum dignitate praestant. Olim Sauromatae dicebantur, ac Melanchlaeni: quidam etiam Getarum nomen ipsis tribuerunt. This is certainly an authority; but an authority as light as a feather, compared to any one of the authorities against it. Procopius lived in the time of Justinian, about the year 540: and was secretary to Belisarius, in whose African war he was present. His authority as to events of his own times, (and his whole history is that of his own times, as the title bears,) is very good; but as to origins and names of nations in the West of Europe he could know nothing, and had no opportunity, being a lawyer of Caesarea, in Palestine, the most distant place that ever Greek author wrote in. His horrible ignorance with regard to the West of Europe may be judged from his account of Britain, so famous for its absurdity. The origins, and ancient names of nations, he could only have from the ancient Greek and Roman writers; and when he positively contradicts them, as he does here, he is certainly in error by quoting from memory, and can be confuted now as fully as in his own time, being so very late an author. That the Goths or Getae were never called Sarmatae and Melanchlaeni, as Procopius fables, is clear from ALL writers who mention them, from Herodotus down to his own time: for even Jornandes is not so ignorant as this, but mentions the Sarmatae always as a distinct people from the Getae or Goths. Strabo, who was misled by Ephorus with regard to some Scythae of Asia being Sarmatae, never dreamed that the Getae were Sarmatae, but distinguishes them repeatedly in express terms. The Gepidae, and Vandals, were German nations; the former being a part of the Basternae; the latter so well known in the page of Pliny and Tacitus. Ovid may shew that the Getae were not Sarmatae, for, as above quoted, he learned both Getic and Sarmatic. Now Mr. Macpherson says in his margin, p. 37. "The Sarmatae ancestors of the Germans;" and on this he proceeds thro his work, without once recollecting that Tacitus (a writer whose truth and accuracy every day almost shews more and more to have been perfect) makes the strongest distinction between the Germans and Sarmatae thro his whole immortal Germania. He says the Germans wore tight dress, non fluitante sicut Sarmatae, 'not flowing as the Sarmatae wear:' and mentioning some remote nations, at the end, says, Germanis an Sarmatis adscribam dubito, 'I doubt whether to put them as Germans or Sarmatae.' Why did he think the Germans indigenes, but because he found them totally different from the Sarmatae? Had any resemblance existed, nothing was so natural as to suppose them sprung from the Sarmatae, a great bordering people. That the Sarmatae were a distinct people from the Scythae proper, even Herodotus knew at first, as appears by his mentioning a part of the Sarmatae learning the Scythian tongue; and by the whole tenor of his famous account of the expedition of Darius against the Scythae, in which he places the Sarmatae north of the Scythae. And Herodotus places Scythae in Germany, and Sarmatae to the East of them, as shall presently be shewn. Dionysius distinguishes the Germans and Sarmatae, v. 304. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Prolemy, the geographer, who wrote about forty years after Tacitus, was the first, who, from the ample information then received concerning the earth, as known to the ancients, put down Sarmatia Europaea, and Sarmatia Asiatica, in their full and just extent of all the nations who spoke the Sarmatic tongue; that is all Russia in Europe, and a great part of Poland, for the former; and that part of Russia which lies between the Tanais or Don and the north-east of the Caspian for the latter, or Asiatic Sarmatia. After the times of Tacitus and Ptolemy, all writers, down to the benighted age in which Procopius wrote, mention the Sarmatae as a marked, distinct, peculiar, people. They had a vast country to rove in, whence only a few from the south-west ever attacked the Romans: and tho coins of Constantine I. impudently bear SARMATIA DEVICTA, he hardly ever had a peep at a corner of the country. Those Sarmatae who invaded the Romans at any future time were indeed so few that we find them very slightly mentioned[c]: and they never obtained a settlement in any part of the Roman empire, save a few in Illyricum. For the after-events of the Sarmatae the reader is referred to any history of Russia, or of Poland; in which writers of all ages have begun with them, tho not one has yet been so illiterate as to consider them in the least connected with the history of Germany. Matthias a Michou, who wrote his Sarmatia Europaea et Asiana, about 1520: Guagnin, who, in 1581, published his Sarmatiae Europaeae Descriptio; quae regnum Poloniae, Lituaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Massoviam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam, Livoniam, et Moschoviae Tartariaeque partem, complectitur; (dedicated to the king of Poland, and chiefly comprising the lives and portraits of the Polish monarchs): these authors were, two centuries ago, so superior to Mr. Macpherson, as sufficiently to shew that a man, who writes upon such trying subjects without reading, must only proclaim to the world that he is ignorant. Indeed, Mr. M. had only to look into Cluverius, Cellarius, or any school-book of geography, to see that he was blundering almost beyond possibility. But to conclude this point, i shall shew the reader how little the sole testimony of Procopius is to be relied on, by actually confuting this passage of that author, by another from his own very work, and a part of it wholly geographical, and of course more accurate. This passage occurs in Book IV. chap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is literally, 'To him who passes strait the lake Maeotis, and its mouth, on the shore antiently dwelled the Goths, called Tetraxitae, as i just mentioned. And at a great distance were placed the Goths, and Visigoths, and Vandals, and all the other Gothic nations, who were also called Scythians in ancient times, since all the nations in these parts were in common called Scythic. Some of them were called Sarmatae, and Melanchlaeni, and other names.' The reader will at once fee from this that the Sarmatae could not, even in the opinion of Procopius, be the ancestors of the Goths and Vandals, as Mr. Macpherson states his testimony; seeing that the Sarmatae were but one nation of the many who bore the Scythic name, as Procopius here says: and a few ancient writers certainly did from ignorance, as above shewn, rank the Sarmatea as a Scythic people. Let the greatest of modern geographers, M. D' Anville, put the seal to this idle controversy. In his Geographie Ancienne Abregée, Paris 1768, 3 volumes, 12 mo. speaking of Sarmatia Europaea, Vol. I. p. 322, he thus expresses himself: "Pour donner une idée generale de cette grande nation, et la distinguer de ce qui est Germanique d'un coté, et Scythique de l'autre, il faut dire que tout ce qui parle un langage foncierement Slavon, et ne variant que selon differents dialectes, est Sarmate. Et si on trouve ce meme fond de langage etabli dans des contrées etrangeres a l'ancienne Sarmatie, c'est que, dans les tems qui ont succedé a• ceux de l'antiquité, des essaims de cette nation se sont repandus en Germanie jusqu'a l'Elbe, et au midi du Danube jusqu' a la mer Adreatique."

I beg pardon of Mr. M. for saying he has but one authority that the Germans were Sarmatae. No! He has another! And such another! Suffice it to say that his weight is prodigious, and here he is: 'Praeliis ac rerum penuria Sarmatas Getas consumpsit. Pomp. Laetus in Claudio.' Introd. p. 34[d] What a pity Mr. M. should have no skill in forgery, and did not know that the work given to Pomponius Laetus was written by Julio Sanseverino about 1490[e]! That writer must certainly be an object of perpetual compassion who has tried to overturn the history of Europe, upon the authority of a forgery known to every boy, and even that authority misquoted. Yet who can but langh to see the ingenious father of Ossian building upon a literary fabrication? It is so natural! Laetus and Aug. in Sempron. [f] were fit foundations for his bauble!

II. The Germans not Celts. Let us now proceed to the second opinion, namely, that the Germans were Celts. This has a far other champion than Mr. Macpherson, to wit, Cluverius, a writer of some learning, and who would have regarded a misquotation as the ruin of his character. In questions of this kind, learning and accuracy are all in all. Genius will only mislead by false splendors; but profound learning, cold penetration, and mature judgment will throw the steady light of truth over a subject like this. Unhappily Cluverius had but moderate learning, no penetration, and a judgment cool but not vigorous. He also wrote two centuries too soon: his Germania Antiqua being published in 1616, when the Gothic and Celtic Languages were unknown, no monuments of them being in print; so that he wanted all information, and is but a blind guide at best. Yet has this blind guide been followed by almost all authors down to this day; witness Keysler, in his Antiquitates Septentrionales et Celticae, Hanoverae 1720, 8vo; Pelloutier in his Histoire des Celtes, et particulierement des Gaulois, et des Germains, Haye, 1750, 2 tomes 12mo. and Mallet in his Introduction à l'Hist. de Dannemarc, 1755, 4to. and many others, who, as usual with the run of writers, found it easier to copy than to investigate. But as Cluverius is their guide, he may be considered as the sole champion; for the learning of Keysler and Mallet was so minute as to amount to nothing: Pelloutier is learned, but is a great plagiary from Cluverius; and they all have not even argued the point, but taken it for granted. Far other was the practice of the most learned and ingenious translator of Mallet into English, who has altered his author so far as infected with this gross error, and has in an able preface shewn that it is impossible that the Germans could be Celts. But, tho he has demonstrated this so fully that i might only refer to his work, yet he has not attended to the identity of the Scythians and Goths, nor laid open the real origin of the Germans. As i am glad of such able assistance in this toilsome task, i shall give an abstract of his arguments, and add some of my own.

He observes that all the arguments of Cluverius and Pelloutier, (if they may be called arguments), fall under two heads, Quotations from the ancient Greek and Roman authors, and Etymologies of the names of persons and places. The later he considers first; and well observes that ‘arguments derived from etymology are so very uncertain and precarious, that they can only amount to presumptions at best, and can never be opposed to solid positive proofs.’ At the end he gives specimens of Celtic etymology, from that insane work, the Memoires de la langue Celtique par M. Bullet. Besançon, 1754, 3 vols, folio, from which it appears that a man must be a lunatic who founds any thing upon a language so loose as to take any impression. Such are Northampton (North Hampton) from Nor, the mouth of a river, Tan a river, Ton habitation. Northill (North Hill) from Nor river, and Tyne habitation. Ringwood from Ren a division, •w a river, and bed a forest. Uxbridge (Ouse-bridge) from uc river, and brig division. Risum teneatis? Let me add, that the Irish, and Welsh, and Armorican tongues, the only dialects of Celtic we have, (for the Highland Gaelic is but corrupted Irish) are at this day, and from the earliest MSS. remaining, one half Gothic: and a great part Latin, owing to the Romans living four centuries among the Welch, and the use of Latin in Ireland on the introduction of Christianity. The Gothic words are so numerous, that Ihre calls the Celtic, so reputed, a dialect of the Gothic; falsely, because the grammar and structure, the soul of the language, are totally different: but these Gothic words proceeded from the Belgae, Saxons, and Danes, being intermingled with the Welsh, and Irish. For that these words did not pass from Celtic into Gothic is clear, because all the roots, branches, and relations of the words are found in the Gothic, but in Celtic only single detached words; as we use the French eclaircissement, but not eclairer, &c. The few words peculiarly Celtic, and of which a Glossary, by a person of complete skill in the Gothic, would be highly valuable, have so many significations, that to found etymology on them is worse than madness. In the Irish one word has often ten, twenty, or thirty meanings; gal implies a stranger, a native, milk, a warrior, white, a pledge, a conqueror, the belly of a trout, a wager, &c. This must be the case in all savage tongues, which must be poor and confused. But the Celtic, i will venture to say, is of all savage languages the most confused, as the Celts are of all savages the most deficient in understanding. Wisdom and ingenuity may be traced among the Samoieds, Laplanders, Negroes, &c. but among the Celts, none of native growth. All etymology of names is folly; but Celtic etymology is sheer frenzy. Enough of Celtic etymology! let us leave it to candidates for bedlam, and go on.

As to the Quotations, i must beg leave to differ from the learned Translator of Mallet, who puts a slight value on them. Far from this, had the ancients been against me, i would at once have acceded to their sentiments: for AUTHORITIES ARE FACTS IN HISTORY, and to argue against them is to lose labour, as we must return to them at last. But the learned Schoepflin has so fully shewn, in his Vindiciae Celticae, that the ancients are positive against the Germans being Celts, that he has left nothing to add. He shews that Dio Cassius, a writer of the most suspicious character, as well known, and whose accounts are often contradictory of Caesar, Tacitus, Suetonius, and others the best informed, is the ONLY author who calls the Germans, Celts. And that against Dio are Herodotus, Aristotle, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, Strabo, Dionysius Periegetes, Plutarch, Pausanias, Ptolemy, Athenaeus, Stephanus Byzantinus; and ALL the Latin authors. Dio was indeed another Ephorus; for such writers will arise, and the ancients had ignorant and foolish authors as well as we. Caesar and Tacitus so fully confute Dio in this, as in many other matters, that he is justly regarded as an ignorant fabulist; and Lipsius has well observed, that he must be redd with extreme caution. Indeed Caesar and Tacitus are so direct against the ideas of Cluverius and Pelloutier, that they are eternally opposing their authority; whereas they are the very chief authors we can depend on: Caesar having warred in Gaul and Germany; and Tacitus living, as Procurator Belgiae [g], upon the confines of Gaul and Germany.

The learned translator of Mallet next proceeds to positive proofs, that the Germans were not Celts, but differed from them widely in person, manners, laws, religion, and language.

In Person. From Tacitus in Agricola, cap. 11. who says the inhabitants of Caledonia resembled the Germans in person, while the Britons next Gaul resembled the Gauls; that is, let me add, the south-west Britons, who were Celts not Belgae, resembled the opposite Celtic Gauls.

In Manners. Among the Germans the husband gave a dower to the wife. Tacit. Germ. c. 18. Among the Gauls, the wife to the husband. Caesar Bell. Gall. lib. VI. Add, that we learn from Aristotle, Polit. lib. II. c. 2. that the Celts were the only nation who despised women, as appears also from the Welsh and Irish histories, and their present practice; while the Germans, as Tacitus observes, paid such respect to the sex, as almost to adore them.

In Laws. Among the Germans the meanest peasant was independent and free. Tacit. Germ. passim. Among the Celts, all save the Druids and nobles (equites) were slaves. Caesar. Bell. Gall. lib. VI. Plebs paene servorum habetur numero, &c.

In Religion. Among the Germans no Druids, nor transmigration of souls.

In Language. This is the chief mark of distinct nations; and the most certain and unalterable. Caesar says, that the Celts differed in language from the Belgae, who, he informs us, descended from the Germans. Bell. Gall. lib. I. et II. And, lib. I. c. 47. he tells, that Ariovistus, a German prince, learned the Gallic by a long residence in Gaul. Sueton. in Caligula, c. 47. says, that emperor caused Gauls to be taught German, to attend his mad triumph. See also Tacitus in Germania, passim; as where speaking of the Gothini, he says, Gothinos Gallica lingua coarguit non esse Germanos; 'their Gallic speech proves the Gothini not Germans.' The translator then shews, that the German and Celtic tongues are as distinct as the English is from Welsh or Irish; being radically different in construction, the essence of language. To the GERMAN, a dialect of the Gothic, belong the following:

- I. TEUTONIC, Tudesk, or old German.

- 1. Francic or Franco-Tudesk.

- 2. Swabian.

- 3. Swiss.

- 4. Saxon.

- 5. English.

- 6. Dutch.

- 7. Frisic.

- II. SCANDINAVIAN.

- 1. Danish.

- 2. Norwegian.

- 3. Icelandic.

- 4. Swedish.

- 5. Broad Scotish.

To the CELTIC belong

- I. The old Celtic, quite lost.

- II. Old British (or Cimbric).

- 1. Cornish.

- 2. Armorican.

- 3. Welsh.

- III. Old Irish.

- 1. Manks.

- 2. Highland Erse.

- 3. Irish.

The Lord's prayer is then given in all these tongues, which demonstrates at once that the whole German tongues are of the same construction, and have many words in common; and the Celtic have the same description, but totally differ from the German.

The translation of Mallet was published in 1770; and in the same year appeared at Paris a second and enlarged edition of Pelloutier's Histoire des Celtes, in eight volumes 8vo. published by M. de Chiniac. This edition i have perused with great attention; and as very few study such remote subjects, and others may be misled by the false appearance of reading, and research, in that work, a hint or two shall be given concerning it. It is a bad omen to stumble in the threshold. Our author has not only stumbled, but fallen headlong, for he thus begins his work. 'Les Celtes ont eté connus anciennement sous le nom general de Scythes. C'est celui que les Grecs donnoient a tous les peuples qui habitoient le long du Danube, et au dela de ce fleuve, jusques dans le fond du Nord.' 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He has said it! The very first sentence is an utter falsehold and absurdity; for all the ancients distinguish as widely as possible between the Celts and Scythae, as the reader may long ere now have judged, placing the former in the western extremity of Europe, and bringing the later out of present Persia. Now upon this radical error his whole work turns; and the consequence is, that it is a chaos of complete delusion from the first page to the last. M. Formey, whose eloge of him is prefixt, tells us innocently, p. xxi. 'M. Pelloutier m'a dit qu'il avoit lu l'apres souper, a peu pres comme on lit la Gazette, tous les auteurs dont on trouve la liste a la tete de son premier tome de l'Histoire des Celtes.' Every reader might have seen this: and it is to be supposed that he also wrote after supper, for his work is certainly written between awake and asleep. Tho he has not redd above half what he ought; and his constant attention to his clerical duties prevented his reading, save after supper, when his mind was exhausted to the dregs; yet he appears to have looked into the indexes of many books, and his silent suppression of all the passages of the ancients concerning the Asiatic origin of the Scythae cannot be excused. His over-heated imagination saw the Celts every where; tho, if he could have understood the first page of Caesar, he might have learned that in his time they held but one third part of Gaul. Weakness is excusable; but truth must not be sacrificed to falsehood: and his suppression of all the evidence relating to the Scythae is most illaudable. Indeed he always suppresses what he cannot answer: a plan very easy and very common. His design is to shew Gaul the parent country of modern nations in Europe, and thus to support the French dream of universal monarchy. But it may boldly be said that he who in treating history, the grand instruction of mankind, does not place the evidence against, as well as for, before his readers, he is a propagator of falsehood, and an enemy of society. But let him be judged by the verdict of one of his countrymen: Si l'honneur et la bonne foi sont requises dans toutes les actions de la vie, elles sont indispensables dans la composition de l'histoire. Et l'historien qui manque a ces conditions, et qui deguisse a dessein la qualité des evenements, est un traitre et un faussaire qui abuse de la confiance du public. Fresnoy Meth. pour etudier l'Hist. Tome V. p. 320.

CHAPTER II. The Germans were Scythoe. FIRST GRAND ARGUMENT: From Identity of Language.

THE opinions that the ancient Germans were Sarmatae, and that they were Celts, being shewn to be erroneous, i proceed to establish that they were Scythae, who continued their progress from ancient Scythia, and their extended territories of Getia and Dacia into Germany, the bordering country. It must here be premised, that no author has fallen in my way who has entered into this. Cluverius, and his latest followers, think the Germans Celts. The modest and industrious Boxhorn, and a few others, who put the Germans as Scythae, have been so ignorant as to take the Sarmatae, Celts, and Huns, also for Scythae. So that no solid science could stand upon such vague premises[a]. The Danish and Norwegian, and Swedish, antiquaries used to think that the Goths came strait from the Euxine to the Baltic; and that all the Gothic nations in Europe went from Scandinavia, as Jornandes bears, an author whom they formerly fought for as pro aris et focis. But 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 of late their whole ancient Eddas, Sagas, Chronicles, &c. shewing, on the contrary, that the Goths came to Scandinavia, not many centuries before Christ, but mentioning no prior egression from it, their natural good sense has led them to pass these ideas: but they have not treated on the German origins, while the German writers still generally follow Cluverius. Montesquieu, Gibbon, and other late eminent writers, discuss not the subject, but regard the Germans as aborigines.

The reader's whole attention is therefore requested to the arguments for this grand point; which, as lucid order is studied in this little essay as much as possible, shall now be arranged in numerical battalion, after a remark or two. By the Germans i mean, as the ancients did, the whole nations from the Danube on the South, up to the Northern ocean, or extremity of Scandinavia on the North; and from the Rhine, and German ocean on the West, to the river Chronus or Niemen on the East. For tho the Vistula was generally put as the eastern boundary of Germany, this was owing to the Venedi, and one or two other Sarmatic nations, being found between the Chronus and Vistula: but the whole Germani Transvistulani, or vast division of Germans called BASTERNAE, amounting, as Pliny states, to a fifth part of the Germans, were beyond the Vistula, in present Prussia, Polachia, Masovia, and Red Russia. So that the Chronus or Niemen was certainly the proper boundary between the Germans and Sarmatae, tho the superior course and fame of the Vistula madé it the popular barrier. That the Scandinavians were Basternae, or Transvistular Germans, right reason might instruct us, had we not the positive authority of Strabo, with collateral proofs from Tacitus, Ptolemy, and others, as after explained. For this was the part of Germany which immediately led from the Euxine to Scandinavia; and the passage to Sweden was not long; and was divided by the iles of Gotland and Oeland. The reader must also observe, that tho my proofs that the Germans were Scythae from Asia open a new field, yet heaven forbid that i should make a new hypothesis in ancient history! No. The truth is always old. What shall now be shewn was originally well known, tho afterward lost. I do not discover new opinions; but old facts, that were hid under the soil of error; when they are dug up, they will be found to evidence their antiquity by their fabric.

The learned and judicious Sheringham observes, that there are three ways to judge of the origin of nations.

- 1. From Relation of Speech.

- 2. From accounts preserved in Ancient History.

- 3. From Similar Manners.

But that the first is the chief and most certain of all arguments; Linguarum Cognatio cognationis gentium praecipuum, certissimumque argumentum est. This is indeed common sense, for if we found a people in Japan who spoke French, they must be of French origin; and it is one of these truths which cannot be controverted. Language is a most permanent matter, and not even total revolutions in nations can change it. A philosopher well told Augustus, that it was not in his power to make one word a citizen of Rome. When a speech changes, it is in many centuries; and it only changes cloths, not body and soul. But not to insist on a point universally allowed, it can be proved that the language of the old Germans was Scythic, or (what has been infallibly above shewn to be the same) Gothic, by these following facts.

FIRST GRAND ARGUMENT. The old German and Scythic one and the same Speech. This may be proved as follows.

We have a venerable monument of the Scythic or Gothic language in the gospels translated by Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, in Maesia, in the year. 367[b]. These four gospels, the remains of a• translation of the Scriptures for the use of his people, have been repeatedly published, since the first edition, by Junius, 1665, 4to. down to that of Mr. Lye. Another fragment, containing part of the epistle to the Romans, has been lately discovered in the library at Wolfenbuttle, and published by Knitel, archdeacon of Wolfenbuttle. Other fragments of the Gothic language have also been found, of which see Mr. Lye's notes to his edition of the Gothic gospels. All these remains, as being Gothic, are Scythic, for it has been fully shewn that Goths and Scythae were but synonymous terms for one and the same people.

The consonance of these Scythic remains with the old German is universally known. The Francic is a dialect of the Teutonic, Tudesque or Old German; and the gospels of Ulphilas bear such affinity to the Francic, of which fragments are preserved in the early French historians and elsewhere, that De la Croze, and Michaelis, have pronounced these gospels to be part of an old Francic version, tho Lye, Knitel, and others, have refuted that opinion from history, and comparison of the dialects. Schilter, in his invaluable Thesaurus [c], has given us many large monuments of the Tudesque, or Old German, from the seventh century downward, and it is clear that the Scythic of Ulphilas is the same language. Wachter's learned Glossary of the ancient German also certifies this point. And the skilful Ibre, after hesitating whether the gospels of Ulphilas bear most resemblance of the German or Scandinavian dialect of the Gothic, gives it in favour of the former, adding that some words, as might be expected, are neither found in the old German nor Scandinavian[d]. The Anglo-Saxon, as it is called, but which should be stiled the Anglo-Belgic, is also known by all to be a venerable, and excellent dialect of the Tudesque: and it bears such intimate connection with the Scythic gospels, that the noble work of Lye, the Dictionarium Saxonico et Gothico Latinum, London, 1772, 2 vols. folio, is built wholly upon their identity.

The Scandinavian, of which the oldest reliques are Islandic, and begin with Arius Frodi, in the Eleventh century, is a dialect of the German. The remains we have in it are more modern by four centuries than those of the German, for nothing shall be built on the Runic inscriptions; and those Islandic reliques are more polished, and the words more shortened, (a grand mark of a polished tongue, as long words are of a rude and primitive one[e]) not only because more modern than the German, but because the Islandic was refined by a long succession of poets and historians almost worthy of Greece or Rome. Hence the Icelandic, being a more polished language than the German, has less assinity with the parent Gothic. The Swedish is nearer related to the Icelandic than either the Danish or Norwegian; the two later countries being under one monarch of German extract, and from the proximity of Denmark to Germany, many words have crept in. But that the Swedish is the daughter of the Scythic of Ulphilas is amply known from Ihre's work, the Glossarium Suio-Gothicum. Nor is there occasion to insist upon facts now so universally certified as the identity of the Scythic or Gothic, preserved in Ulphilas and other ancient remains, with the German and Scandinavian tongues.

Even in the darker ages these facts were well known. Rodericus Tosetanus says, Teutonia, Dacia, Norvegia, Suecia, Flandria, et Anglia, unicam habent linguam, licet idiomatibus dignoscantur: 'Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Flanders, and England, have all one speech, tho distinguished by their idioms.' And Walafrid Strabo, who wrote under Louis the Pious Emperor of Germany about 820, observes justly, Gothi, qui et Getae, eo tempore quo ad fidem Christi, lice• non recto itinere, perducti sunt, in Graecorum provinciis commorantes, nostrum, id est Theotiscum sermonem habuerunt [f]. 'the Goths, who were also called Getae, being in the provinces of the Greek empire (the Byzantine) at the time they were brought to the Christian faith, tho not by the right way, (they were all Arians as was Ulphilas their apostle) had our language, that is the Tudesque.' This fact Walafrid must have seen from the translation of Scripture by Ulphilas, mentioned by the ecclesiastic historians, and famous from the first over all christendom.

The modern German, a language spoken in a far greater extent than any other of Europe, and now beginning to be much studied from the number of good books in it, resembles the Gothic gospels, more than the present Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish; and has certainly more ancient stamina. Its likeness to the Asiatic tongues, in harshness and inflexible thickness of sound, is very apparent. In form, structure, and in numerous words, it agrees with the Persian, as all know[g]; and Busbequius shews that the clowns of Crim Tartary, not Tartars, but remains of the old Scythae, speak a language almost German. Charlemagne was first emperor of Germany. Before he conquered it, petty states prevailed. Fragments of Tudesque or German of his age remain. The Francic and Saxon are dialects of it. The former is generally stiled Franco-Tudesque: and the later should be called Saxo-Tudesque, being a different dialect from the Saxon of England, falsely so called, for it was Belgic, and spoken in England by three millions of people three hundred years before Caes•r. The Saxons and Angli never exceeded a hundred thousand, and adopted the tongue of the inhabitants, which they called Saxon or Anglic, as their possessions lay, the former to the south, the later to the north. The Saxons conquered the Angli, and yet the later gave their name to the country[h]. Such was the effect of one book written by an Anglus, Beda's Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. The English is Belgic mixt with Roman, or, as now called, French. The Roman was never entirely spoken in Britain as in Italy, Spain, Gaul. The Welsh tongue sufficiently shews this. Britain was a remote frontier; and the Romans who defended it keeped separate from the people. In Spain and Gaul the inhabitants were wholly romanized; all were Romans. In Britain the Romans were solely the Roman legions. The inhabitants of Gaul, who all spoke Roman, far outnumbering the Franci their conquerors, their tongue, tho spoken of with contempt at first, as the lingua Romana rustica, prevailed over the Francic; and was called Roman, but now French. Such was also the very case in Italy and Spain; where the Romano, and Romance, overcame the rude Gothic, and is now the language. It must also be remarked, that the ancient German has not the smallest similarity to the Celtic, or to the Sarmatic: and that the older it is the greater is the distance[i].

This argument, from identity of speech, is so certain and conclusive, that, from it alone, we might invincibly infer that the Germans were a Scythic progeny: but to place so important a point beyond a shadow of doubt, even to the most ignorant or prejudiced mind, let us proceed to other arguments.

CHAPTER III. The Germans were Scythae. SECOND GRAND ARGUMENT: From the testimonies of Ancient Authors.

IN examining the origin of nations language is justly esteemed an infallible criterion. But in all other ancient facts the authorities of ancient writers form the ONLY evidence we can possibly have. Without them we can know nothing of the subject. Human affairs by no means proceed according to reason, speculation, or philosophy; but depend on various contingencies, which can only be learned from ancient authors. It cannot therefore be too often repeated that AUTHORITIES ARE FACTS IN HISTORY. Lord Bacon introduced experimental philosophy against theories of nature; and in history theory is even more foolish than in natural philosophy, seeing that nature has great laws, which history has not. What we now call the philosophy of history was introduced by Voltaire, and a few other ignorant theorists, unacquainted with that great reading, upon which the experimental philosophy of history must stand. For if we reason upon falsehoods, our reasoning must be false: and in ancient history facts can only be found by the most assiduous perusal of all the writers who state these facts, or throw light on them. If we trust conjecture, or philosophical nonsense, there is no end; for a thousand authors may give us a thousand theories, and we must return to the ancients at last. The migrations of nations are also facts so very ample, and striking, and leave such traces, that even the most ignorant know them; as there is not a peasant in Europe who is to learn that the North American colonies went from Britain. When therefore ancient authors universally agree in such large facts, their testimony is infallible, and presents every evidence of historic truth.

SECOND GRAND ARGUMENT. The Germans were Scythae, from ancient authorities.

The knowlege which the Greek and Roman authors, preceding Caesar, had of Germany, was obscure, and confined. About 450 years before our aera, Herodotus, the earliest writer who can afford us any intelligence on this subject, thought that the Danube rose near a town of the Celts called Py•rhene, not far from the pillars of Hercules[a]: that is, the Pyrenees in Spain. He also tells that the Eridanus, or Po, ran into the Northern ocean, in present Prussia, where the amber always was, and is now alone found, an idea which apparently arose from this, that the amber was brought from Prussia overland to the mouth of the Po, there to be shipped for Greece. About 250 years before Christ, Apollonius Rhodius affords equal marks of ignorance in geography. For he makes the Argonauts, in their return, pass from the Euxine up the Danube into the Cronian, or Baltic sea; thence into the Eridanus, or Po, which, with Herodotus, he supposed fell into the Baltic; a branch of which leads them into the Rhone; an arm of which later would have carried them west to the great ocean, had not Juno cried to them from the Hercynian rock, or Hercynian forest in Germany[b]. This was the course of their voyage: and such was the ignorance of an exquisite and learned poet, who had studied and lived long at Alexandria, in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and had certainly the use of the largest library of ancient times! Polybius, who wrote about 160 years beforè Christ, says in his third book, 'All that country between the Tanais and Narbonne, to the north, is unknown to us, till by curious investigation we learn somewhat concerning it. They therefore, who write or speak otherwise, are either ignorant, or fabulists.' This restriction includes all Germany, Scandinavia, Britain, and the most of Gaul.

But this ignorance of the ancients related chiefly to the geography of these regions; for as to the great divisions of men who inhabited them, namely the Scythae and Celts, they were by no means ignorant. We knew that the Japanese were a Chinese colony, and that the Icelanders had past from Norway, for centuries before we had any thing but fables, as to the geography of these countries: and such was the case with the ancients. One navigation may discover the name, language, and manners, of a distant people: while to give an accurate geography of their country, whole centuries are required; especially in ancient ages, when voyages were only made by ignorant mariners and traders, for the mere sake of gain. The Phoenicians were settled at Gades in Spain, and at Utica in Afric, about 1200 years before Christ, or three hundred years before the building of Carthage, which last was the foundation of a party who had fled to a well known shore, and not an original trading colony. Gaul and Britain were certainly visited by the Phoenicians, long before Germany and Scandinavia were at all known to the Greeks or Romans. But the Phoenicians, as Strabo tells us, carefully concealed all knowlege of these countries, lest other nations might interfere in their trade. The story of the Phoenician ship is well known, the master of which, observing a Roman vessel following his tract in these seas, ran aground on purpose, and thus wrecked his own ship and the Roman that followed him. This act was deemed so patriotic, that he was richly rewarded 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 warded by the senate of Carthage. The part of Germany at the mouth of the Vistula, or present Prussia, was certainly known to the Greeks before the time of Herodotus; and it was the country that supplied all the amber in ancient times, as it does in the present. That Greek merchants travelled there, and had established the mart for it, at the mouth of the Po, there is every reason to believe. And if the natives brought it down to that mart, the merchants would equally learn their name, situation, language, and manners. Herodotus mentions the Marus, or Moraw, of present Moravia, a river to the west of the Vistula; and says it rises in the country of the Agathyrsi, whom Dionysius and other geographers place on the north of Marus, up to the Balric. The Eridanus of Herodotus may well be interpreted the Vistula; for there is no reason why the Greeks should not have given the same name to the two differentrivers, especially while their authors afford many examples of this kind. The description of Herodotus can alone apply to the Vistula, at whose mouth only amber was and is found, and where the region of the Hyperboreans was, as he and other ancients state. And this commerce of amber seems to have opened the connection between the Hyperboreans and the Greeks, so famous in antiquity. M. D' Anville has erred in placing the Hyperboreans in the north of European Russia, a region unknown to the ancients. Ptolemy, and Agathadaemon, who laid down his maps, making the Riphaean mountains run east and west, at the fountain of the river Tanais: and it is only by ancient ideas that we must estimate ancient geography. The east of the Baltic was the Mare Cronium; the Great Northern, or Frozen, Ocean, was quite unknown to the ancients; and indeed how could they get at it, for of Scandinavia, as shewn in the last chapter, they only knew as far as the Wener lake, and lake of Stockholm. But the Greeks know to a certainty,

- 1. That the Celts were in the west of Europe, above Spain; or in Gaul and Britain.

- 2. That in the North West of Europe, or in present Germany and Scandinavia, were the Scythae; and the Celto-Scythae, or those Scythae in Gaul and Britain, who bordered on the Celts, as the Indo-Scythae did on the Indi.

- 3. That the Sarmatae were on the North of Greece, to the east of the Scythae of Germany. All which will clearly appear from the following authorities.

1. Herodotus places the Celts quite to the West, and the pillars of Hercules; whereas in his geography of Scythia, Book IV. ch. 99. et seq. he evidently supposes that the Scythians spred all over the North West of Europe, even to the Northern ocean, or Baltic. The Agathyrsi, and Geloni, he ranks among the Scythian nations, who united in the general league against Darius, ch. 101. Now Dionysius and Ptolemy place the Agathyrsi and Geloni upon the Baltic sea. We learn from this that the ancient Greeks knew that the Scythae extended to the utmost north-west extremity of Europe, or up to Scandinavia.

2. Xenophon, who wrote about 380 years before Christ, says, in his Memorabilia Socratis, lib. II. §. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'In Europe the Scythians bear sway:' shewing that as the Persians were the ruling people in Asia, so were the Scythae in Europe. Had the Scythians of Europe been regarded by Xenophon as confined to Ancient Scythia, he could not have given them this description; but he palpably understood that they extended into the heart and furthest parts of Europe, and bore universal sway in it.

3. Aristotle, in Meteor. I. 13. says, the Ister, or Danube slowed from the Pyrenees, mountains of Celtica: and De Gen. An. II. 8. he speaks of the cold of Scythia, and adds that the country of the Celts, above Spain, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) is also cold. He, as well as Herodotus, knew that the Celts were confined to Celtic Gaul, and to Britain, for he calls the tin which was brought from Britain, Celtic tin: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; 'they say that Celtic tin melts much sooner than lead:' De Mir. Ausc.

4. In the next century, or about 250 years before Christ, Pytheas, Xenophon Lampsacenus, and Timaeus, authors quoted by Pliny, Nat. Hist. IV. 13. all say that the ile Baltia, or Glessaria, a peninsula of the Prussian coast, in which amber is found, 'lay opposite to Scythia, distant a day or two's sail.' Pliny quotes them separately, and they vary in some points, but all agree in this; which shews to a certainty that the Greeks knew the Scythians to extend to Scandinavia, and over all the north of Germany, as before mentioned: while the Celts were confined to Celtic Gaul and Britain. My plan confines me, else i could convince every reader, that the Greeks, five centuries before Christ, had far more accurate ideas of the Scythic and Celtic nations than Pelloutier, a writer of yesterday. But it is the property of an over heated imagination to raise fumes, and darken every subject, while the lumen siccum, or dry light of judgement, penetrates and illustrates all. Fancy blends: judgment discriminates. Fancy finds similitudes; judgment dissimilitudes.

In the century following Polybius is the most eminent writer, but his subject extended to Gaul, not to Germany. Scymnus of Chios, an elegant geographer in verse; who wrote, as Dodwell shews, 127 years before Christ, and addresses his work to Nicomedes, king of Pergamus; tho he quotes many authors, only shews that the Greeks had made no greater progress in geography.

5. At length full day arises upon the west, and a distant splendor upon the North of Europe. Caesar, who entered upon his province of Gaul 57 years before the Christian aera, from personal knowlege, enlarged by the cool penetration and luminous comprehension of his great soul, was to be the fountain of this irradiation. From his admirable Commentaries on the Gallic War it is evident that the Celts, far from being, as Pelloutier idiotically supposes, spred over all Europe, were in fact confined to one third of Gaul, as every school-boy knows who has redd the first line of his work[c], For the North east third was possessed by the Belgae; who, as Caesar informs us, from the best information, that of a neighbouring nation, were of Germanic origin; and their language, manners, and laws, were different from those of the Celts, as Caesar shews, being palpably German. The Aquitani held the south-west part of Gaul; and were also of different language, manners, and laws, from the other two; being Iberi who had passed from Spain, to which they had come from Africacc. Strabo IV. p. 266. says of the Aquitani, 'they resemble the Iberi more than the Galli (or Celts) of whom they have neither the form nor idiom.' Nay in their last refuges, Britain and Ireland, the Celts were a vanquished and confined people. For the Belgae, as Caesar shews, had all the south-east of present England; and the Piks, a Germano-Scandinavian people, as Tacitus and Beda prove, had all the north of Scotland down to the friths of Clyde and Forth. In Ireland, it is clear from Ptolemy, that the Belgae held all the south-east parts, and that they had not proceeded from Britain, but from Belgic Gaul and Germany; for of the Menapii and Chauci, or Cauci, we find no trace in Britain[d], but have them in Ireland, and in Germany, and Belgic Gaul. But of this in the Enquiry into Scotish history, where it shall be shewn that the Belgae were the ruling people in Ireland; and that the Irish, or old Scotish Royal stem is really Belgic, or Gothic. These Belgae are the Fir Bolg of the Irish Annals, with whom their real history begins; and such was their superiority that to this day Bolg in Irish implies a noble man, and also a man of science.

Even in the regions retained by the Celts, which were minute, they were mingled with German Goths; and their speech with German or Gothic words. The old Irish grammarians, as Mr. O'Conor[c] tells, call their Gallic, or Irish tongue, Berla Tebide, or a mixt language. The Welsh, as all know, is, even in it's most ancient remains, full of Danish and English words. The Gallic, Celtic, or Irish, of the Highlands of Scotland, is of all the Celtic dialects the most corrupt, and mixt with Gothic; owing to the neighbourhood of the Piks; and to the Norwegians holding the Hebudes and western coast of Scotland, from the time of Harald Harfagre, or about 880, till 1266, when regained by the Scots; but the Norwegians remained as principal tenants, and the chief families in these parts are all Norwegian. So that in fact the Celtic, far from being a pure speech, is the most mixt and corrupt in the world. For the Celts were so inferior a people, being to the Scythae as a negro to an European, that, as all history shews, to see them, was to conquer them; and as they had no arts, nor inventions, of their own, they of course received innumerable words from other tongues. But the nomenclature of a language is only it's dress, while it's grammar forms the soul and body; and the Celtic grammar is totally remote from that of all Gothic languages. So much so that, by a mode, perhaps unknown to any other speech, they decline nouns beginning with labials, by altering the initials, as the Goths, Greeks, and Romans, altered the termination. Thus Mac is a son; Mhic, (pronounce Wic) of a son, &c. Nay the pronouns alter the beginning of nouns, thus Pen, a head; i Ben, his head; i Phen, her head; y'm Mhen, my head. A strange and horrible absurdity! as it cancels every rule of language; and must shew a confused and dark understanding in the people who use it, nay even to speak it must ex post facto throw a mist over the mind. Yet is it much to be wished that professorships of the Celtic tongue were established in our universities, that such remains as are of that speech might be explained and placed in a just light. We naturally reverence what we do not know[f]; and this may be called the Celtic century, for all Europe has been inundated with nonsense about the Celts. When we come to the truth about them, and Time always draws truth out of the well, the Celtic mist will vanish, or become a mere cloud.

To return. Caesar, by shewing the Celts to be confined to such small bounds, palpably marks that other nations had gained ground on them, so as to confine them to such a contracted space. And in his fine description of the Germans in book VI. and in other passages, he shews them to have totally differed from the Celts. What people then were they? That they were not Sarmatae, all know: and the only other people, whom the ancients know in the north-west of Europe, were the Scythae, as just shewn. It follows then that they were Scythae. The Greek authors had certainly acquired some knowlege of Germany two centuries at least before Caesar, for he says, book VI. Germaniae loca circum Hercyniam silvam, quam Eratostheni, et quibusdam Graecis, fama notam esse video, quam illi Orciniam appellant, Volcae Tectosages occuparunt. And we shall see instantly that Diodorus Siculus, one of the best informed, and most judicious of the Greek historians, and who wrote after Caesar's discoveries, repeatedly calls all Germany, even to the furthest west and north, Scythia. It may be asked, why does not Caesar call the country Scythia? Why this new appellation of Germany? Be it answered, that another country was peculiarly called Scythia, namely, Little or Ancient Scythia on the Euxine. And that tho the Greeks called all that tract, to which the Scythians extended, Scythia, yet those Scythian nations bore different names, as Thraces, Illyrians, &c. Of course Caesar, finding the Germans so called by their countrymen of Belgic Gaul, gives them, most properly, their specific, and not generic name. Nor does Caesar write as a geographer, but as a warrior: he says not a word of their origin, &c. but only describes their manners. Tacitus, in Germ. specially informs, that the name of Germans was a late one.[g].

6. Diodorus Siculus was cotemporary with Julius Caesar, and profited by his discoveries. He tells us, lib. V. p. 354. (edit. Wesseling.) that the people "who inhabit the inner parts above Marseilles, and at the Alps, and on this side the Pyrenees, are called Celts. But THOSE who inhabit BEYOND the Celtic region, and the parts toward the SOUTH, and situated on the ocean; and THOSE toward the Hercynian mountains, and all onward, even to Scythia (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) are called Gauls." Wesseling observes, that this is false, because the Romans called the Celts also Gauls. But Diodorus no doubt knowing that the Celts were not those Gauls celebrated in Roman history, but quite a distinct people, possessing the inner or further part of Gaul, he, with propriety, puts them as different nations. By the Celts Diodorus understands those of Caesar, extending from the north-west extremity of the Alps above Marseilles, into the inner parts of Gaul. Those beyond the Celts, to the south on the ocean, are the Aquitani. Those toward the Hercynian mountains, and onward to Scythia, are the Belgae. His Scythia is palpably Germany: as it is in the following passages. "They (the Gauls) are very fierce on the north, and bordering on Scythia (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉), so that they are said to devour men, as those Britons also do who inhabit Ireland." lib. V. p. 355. Again, speaking of amber he says, it comes chiefly from an iland of Scythia, above Gaul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: ibid. meaning Baltia, or Glessaria, as the above quotations from Pliny shew.

7. In the time of Tiberius, about 20 years after Christ, lived Strabo. His valuable work is full of the Scythae; and he tells us, lib. XI. p. 507. ed. Casaubon. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 'All the nations toward the northern parts, the ancient writers call Scythians, and Celto-Scythians.'[h] Now tho in speaking of Asia, XI. 492, he says, after Ephorus, that some Sarmatae there were Scythae, yet in describing Europe he distinguishes between the Scythic and Sarmatic nations. Thus he says, "above the Getae, are the Tyragetae, and above these the Jazyges Sarmatae;" and he tells us, lib. VII. that Homer, by his Hippomolgi and Galactophagi, Il. XIII. means the Scythae and Sarmatae. So that by the Scythians he means not the Sarmatae. In book I. he says, the earth is divided into four parts, to the furthest east the Indians dwell; to the furthest south the Ethiops; to the furthest west the Celts; to the furthest north the Scythians. And Strabo knew that the Scythae of Germany were the Getae, for book VII. p. 294. he says 'The Suevi hold the south side of Germany which is beyond the Elbe. After them lyes the region of the Getae, narrow on the south toward the Ister, and toward the Hercynian forest, part of whose mountains it comprehends, but extended largely to the north, even to the Tyragetae.' By the Getae Strabo palpably means all the Germans east of the Elbe, namely the Vandali, and Hermiones, and Basternae, of Pliny, being three of his five grand divisions of the Germans: the Basternae actually stretching east to the river Tyras, on which the Tyragetae dwelled. Strabo also, as shall be after shewn, places Basternae in Scandinavia. Hence it is clear that Strabo looked on these three grand divisions of the Germans as Getae, Scythians, or Goths; and of course would have regarded the others as such, had he learned, as we do from Tacitus, that the whole Germans to the furthest extremity were all of one origin, language, and manners.

8. Mela wrote about the year 45. He distinguishes the Scythians and Sarmatae, and gives a separate chapter on each. In b. III. chap. 5, he tells us that the northern Scythae were called Belcae, a name no where else to be found; and ch. 6. he tells us, Thule Belcarum littori opposita est, 'Thule is opposite to the shore of the Belcae.' So that in his opinion the Scythians held Scandinavia, opposite to which Thule is placed by all the ancients.

9. Pliny, the natural historian, wrote in Vespasian's time, about 70 years after Christ. In his fourth book, ch. 12, he tells us, that the Scythian nations, including the Sarmatae, stretched all along the north, and north-west of the Danube; and then adds the following memorable and decisive sentence. Before reading it, let us recollect that Pliny prefixes to his immortal work the contents of each book; and a list of the authors used in that book, from which it appears that his reading was, as his nephew informs us, infinite. No writer in all antiquity ever had such exuberance of information; and the question could not be submitted to a more able arbiter. Hear his verdict. SCYTHARUM NOMEN USQUEQUAQUE TRANSIT IN SARMATAS, ATQUE GERMANOS. NEC ALIIS PRISCA ILLA DURAVIT APPELLATIO, QUAM QUI, EXTREMI GENTIUM HARUM, IGNOTI PROPE CETERIS MORTALIBUS DEGUNT. The name of Scythians is every where changed to that of Sarmatae, and Germans. Nor has that ancient appellation continued, save to the most distant of these two nations, who live almost unknown to other mortals. The Sarmatae, as above explained, were, by some less informed ancients, regarded as a nation of the Scythae; for before Ptolemy's time, who wrote near a century after Pliny, little intelligence had been got about the Sarmatae, a people who occupied a country as large as all the Scythian possessions put together. Their language was totally different, as the Slavonic is from the Gothic or Scythic of Ulphilas. But some Greek writers knowing that the Scythae extended all over the north-west of Europe, had considered the Sarmatae also as a Scythic nation. The name of Scythians, given to the Sarmatae, was but a vulgar inaccuracy, as we term the Americans West-Indians. Distant objects become indistinct, and their appellations of course inaccurate. Yet, tho wrong in denominating the Sarmatae Scythians, the ancients knew they were perfectly right in giving that name to the Germans, after they had discovered that the Sarmatae were quite a different race from the Scythians; seeing that the German language and manners proved them the same people with the ancient Scythians on the Euxine. This is clear even from Strabo, who calls the Germans Getae, as just shewn; and from all the Greek writers after Ptolemy, who name the Germans Scythae. For the whole German nations were called Scythians or Goths in the fourth century; as the vast German division of the Vindili (or Vandali, as some MSS.) of Pliny, the Sucvi, Angli, Langobardi, of Tacitus, &c. &c. &c. are uniformly called Scythians or Goths after that time. For that the Greeks denominated all these nations Scythians, whom the Latins called Goths, has been amply demonstrated in the beginning of this essay. The reader is requested to attend to this important circumstance, for if he falls into the vulgar delusion of the Goths being a paltry tribe of Germany, or of Scandinavia, he will err prodigiously. The Latin name Goths, and Greek term Scythians, belong to the whole barbaric nations from the Caspian to the Adriatic, east and south, to the British channel west, and Scandinavia, and river Chronus or Niemen, north and north east. The Sarmatae are by all writers after Ptolemy placed on the north-east of the Scythae, in present Poland and Russia; and marked as a separate and peculiar, great people. It was from the vast plains of Getia, Gothia, or Ancient Scythia, and of Germany, that the ruder Goths spred over Europe, on the fall of the Roman empire; and not from the bleak and desert mountains of Scandinavia, or from one little district in Germany, as childishly dreamed.

To produce all the other ancient authorities, that the Germans were Scythae, would swell this tract to a folio volume; and what are given will, it is believed, fully suffice. Tacitus thinks the Germans indigenes, for a reason which has deservedly excited laughter, namely, that all the ancient migrations were by sea, not by land! As if the inhabitants of such a region as Germany could be transported by sea, like the little colonies of antiquity! He adds, that no nation would proceed from better climates to people such a country; forgetting, as M. Brotier justly remarks, that necessity and security are the parents of barbaric population. The Norwegians have peopled Iceland, and planted Greenland. But the miracles of Vespasian, the tale of the phoenix, and such remarks as these, only shew that man is composed of inconsistency, and that the strongest on some occasions, are the weakest on others: as the only sublime historian who ever wrote could sometimes sink most profoundly from his elevation. It can even be shewn from Tacitus, that the Germans were Scythae, for we have remains of the language of several nations he mentions in Germany, and these remains are Scythic or Gothic, as is the whole German language at this day. He himself, tho he distinguishes the German speech and manners from those of the Celts and Sarmatae, in the most direct terms, yet no where distinguishes them from those of the Daci, as he, with the Romans, calls these Getae who bordered on Germany. It may be said, the Getae might be a German emigration, as well as the contrary; but against this are ALL the ancients, as every page of this work witnesses, for they all state the Scythians to have proceeded from the east to the west; and the whole tenor of that progress is marked and distinct, from Persia to Britain.

CHAPTER IV.

The Germans were Scythae. THIRD GRAND ARGUMENT: From Similar Manners.

IT must be remarked, before proceeding to the third and last class of arguments, namely, those arising from similarity of manners, that it is, of all others, the most uncertain. For similar stages of society will produce like manners among all mankind. A species of men, capable of the utmost progress that society affords, will, in it's original state, be on a level with another species, incapable of any progress at all. Did we suppose parallel customs proofs of identic nations, the savages of North America are the same with the ancient Germans described by Tacitus. But as, on the other hand, dissimilar manners might argue against the sameness of nations, proofs shall here be produced of perfect similarity in those of the southern Scythians, and those to the furthest north of Germany and Scandinavia, after thus warning the reader not to rely too much on this point; which, were it fully proved, would prove nothing to a cool enquirer. But full and irrefragable arguments that the Germans were Scythae or Goths, having already been submitted, this article may be considered as only a diversion after the task is done. Yet, as this is no work of amusement, let us pass this relaxed part with a few hasty hints.

THIRD GRAND ARGUMENT. The Germans were Scythae from similar Manners.

Herodotus, in his fourth book, ch. 59 to 82, gives us a long account of the manners of the Scythae; and a peculiar happiness seems to have attended this favoured nation, for Tacitus has described those of their descendants the Germans; so that the clearest splendor is thrown on the subject. To run a parallel would swell this essay to a vast size, and they are so like that they need only be referred to. Wormius, Bartholin, and other northern antiquaries, have remarked, that the description given of the Scythae by Herodotus, applies perfectly to the Goths of their country, even down to a late age. The chief difference arises merely from a local circumstance. It is that the ancient Scythae on the Euxine, described by Herodotus, had found their fine breed of Persian horses thrive equally well in their fertile possessions, on the temperate shores of the Euxine; while, in Germany and Scandinavia, the cold was then too severe for that southern race, and the indigenal breed was, as tacitus states, very small. Hence the Ancient Scythae were chiefly cavalry; while the Germans and Scandinavians had little or no cavalry. This difference was a necessary effect of climate; and infers no distinction in the people, any more than the different life led by the British in the East Indies, from what they use here, destroys the identity of the people. In Iceland the Norwegians differed prodigiously in manners from those in Normandy, Calabria, or Sicily. But to instance a few particulars of similar Manners in the Scythae and Germans.

1. Domeslic Life. Both Scythae and Germans lived by hunting, pasturage, and rapine[a]. Both had a few agricultural nations: but the tilled ground, as the pastoral, belonged to the community, or tribe; and they quitted it at the year's end to more to another. Herodotus observes that these Scythae, who were agricultors, did not use the corn for bread, but parched it over the fire; that is, as Pelloutier well explains, in order to use it in broth, and for ale: so Tacitus of the Germans. They drank out of horns[b], so the Germans; or out of the sculls of enemies[c], so the Germans. Ale and meed were the drink of the Thracian Scythians[d], and those of Scandinavia. Both drank healths; and drank before entering on business[e]. Both nations burned their illustrious dead, and buried their ashes in urns, under hillocs or tumuli[f]. Both went almost naked, using only a skin of some wild beast to cover them in winter. The chiefs and rich of both nations used a close tunic, and breeches[g]. The Thracian Scythians pricked and stained their bodies[h]; so did nations in Germany[i], nay, the Belgae of Britain[k], and the Piks of Norway and Scotland[l].

2. Religion. Herodotus says, v. 7. "All the kings and people of Thrace worship Mercury chiefly. They swear by his name, and believe themselves his progeny." The Greek and Roman writers applied the names of their own deities to those of barbaric nations, as the smallest attribute of the idol led them. If a rude image held a scepter, it was Jupiter: if a purse, Mercury; if a sword, Mars. Hence great confusion; for what denoted one attribute with the Greeks and Romans might, with the barbaric nations, mark quite another, as nothing admits of various interpretation more than symbol. Tacitus says of the Germans, credunt Tuistonem deum terra editum et filium Mannum, originem gentis, conditoresque. Herodotus gives the god a Greek name, because, in some symbol, he resembled Mercury. The Gothic historians draw all their kings from Odin. Paulus Warnefridus Hist. Langob. says Wodan, quem adjecta litera Gwodan dixerunt, ipse est qui apud Romanos Mercurius dicitur, et ab universis Germaniae populis ut deus adoratur. But the Gothic mythology being only traditional, and no temples nor statues being found among them, till a late period, Odin became the god of war, and a fabulous hero, who, as the Sagas agree, led the Goths from Scythia on the Danaster, or Tyras, into Scandinavia. This fable shews the universal tradition of their origin; but Odin was merely the name of a deity, or rather an epithet, and they who speak gravely of him as an hero are deceived. It was Odin, Mars, literally war, that opened their progress into the wilds of Scandinavia. The Gothic mythology has been weakly handled, but might, by a complete parallel, be shewn to be the ancient Grecian. The Greek gods were the progeny of Caelus and Terra. Mannus, or Man, was descended of the gods, for in the hymns ascribed to Orpheus, the Greeks are called their progeny: and so the Greek poet quoted by Saint Paul, says men are the offspring of Jove. The ancient Germans had also a Mars, and a Hercules, as Tacitus says. The former, it is likely, was Odin, and Warnefrid may be mistaken: the later was Thor, famous in the Edda and Voluspa for his strength. But he was the Jupiter, or chief god, of northern mythology. In fact, even the Greek mythology is a mass of confusion, as all traditional matters must be, and the several mythologists differ radically in the most essential points: no wonder then that the Gothic is embarrassed. The fables of Tiresias, of Proteus, and other small Greek tales, may be traced in Gothic traditions[m]. The Goths consulted the héart of victims; had oracles; had sibyls; had a Venus in Freya; a Neptune in Nocken; Parcae in the Valkyriar[n]. The Scythians worshipped Mars, whose symbol, for they had no images, was a pile of swords. Herodotus IV. 59. says, they believed the Earth wife of Jupiter. Tacitus tells that the Suevi worshipped Hertha, or the Earth.

3. Government. Herodotus was unhappily no politician, and is quite mute concerning the government of the Scythae. Nor do i find in all antiquity, any description of the Scythic constitutions, so that the full light we receive from Tacitus concerning those of the Germans cannot be formally paralleled with those of their Scythic ancestors. The Greeks have been shewn to be Scythae: let us therefore derive a few rays from them. Family government is always aristocratic, of father and mother, as Locke shews. But as a family differs widely from a community, and as the later is composed of many of the former, the aristocracy of family became instantly democracy, by the fathers of families directing public affairs by joint counsels. Thus it is demonstrable that democracy is the most ancient form of government, for the very idea of a king is unknown to early society. In war one leader was of necessity chosen; and he, in many instances, confirmed his power so as to become a king. Had there been no wars, there would have been no kings: and the mythology of all kings being descended of the god of war is plain truth. But it has not yet been remarked, that, in early society, even monarchy is democratical. The king is but one of the people. In the Greek heroic ages there were kings, because there had been wars, yet the people was free even to licence. Dr. Gillies has, in the second chapter of his history of Greece, made a formal parallel between the Greek government of those times, and that of the Germans, tho he suspected not the real cause of that identity, namely, that they were all one people. He well observes that in freedom of debate in the public assemblies, and the privileges of liberty being preserved to the meanest subject, and other points, there is a perfect resemblance. The only difference he marks is, that beauty of the Greek character, priest and king being united in one person. Yet the earliest Greeks had separate priests, and augurs, as the Germans; so that this can hardly be called a difference. And among the Scandinavians in Iceland, the priest was also the magistrate, and offered sacrifice in the midst of the judicial circle of stones before he sat to judge.

The Feudal System has been treated of by many writers, but so uncommon a quality is penetration, that all of them to this day have confounded two grand divisions in it's history, which are totally dissimilar. These divisions are,

- 1. The Feudal System.

- 2. The Corrupted Feudal System.

The former extends from the earliest account of time, thro the early history of Greece and Rome, till the progress of society changed the manners of these nations: and thro the early history of the Goths and Germans who overturned the Roman empire, down to the eleventh century. At this period commences the Corrupted Feudal System, and lasts till the fifteenth century, when the Feudal System began after it's corruption to dissolve quite away. The Corruption of the Feudal System took place soon after the petty kingdoms of the former ages were united into great monarchies, as the heptarchies in England became subject to our monarch; and so in other countries. This corruption is no more the feudal system than any other corruption is the substance preceding corruption, that is quite the reverse: and yet, such is modern superficiality, that it has been termed The Feudal System, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and all writers estimate the Feudal System by it's corruption only, just as if we should judge of a republic by it's condition when changed into an aristocracy! About the Eleventh century, by the change of small kingdoms into one great monarchy, and by a concatenation of other causes, which it would require a volume to detail, the Feudal System corrupted, (and corruptio optimi pessima) into a state of aristocratic tyranny, and oppression. Before that period no such matter can be found. The greatest cause was, that nobility and estates annexed were not hereditary till that time, so that the great were kept in perpetual awe; and that check was removed, before the cities had attained such privileges and powers, as to balance the nobility. In Ancient Greece and Italy, confined spots, cities were from the first the grand receptacles of society. To the want of cities the subjection of the people to their lords, and all the Corrupt Feudal System is owing. To cities the ruin of that Corrupted Feudal System (generally called the Feudal System), is solely to be ascribed. Of the Corrupted Feudal System nothing shall be added here; as it commenced at a late period, and is foreign to my work; save one or two remarks on Chivalry, an institution quite misunderstood. It was so heterogeneous to the Feudal System, that, had the later lasted pure, chivalry would never have appeared. But as it is often so decreed that, out of the corruption of a constitution, a remedy for that corruption springs, such was the case with chivalry, an institution which does honour to human nature. The knighthood was not hereditary, but an honour of personal worth. It's possessors were bound to help the oppressed, and curb the tyrannic spirit of the hereditary great, those giants of power, and of romance. Had the ridicule of Cervantes appeared three centuries sooner, we must have branded him as the greatest enemy of society that ever wrote. As it is, a sensible French writer[o] well observes, that it now begins to be questioned whether his book be not worthy of execration. All professions have their foibles; but ridicule ought never to be exerted against the benefit of society. Cervantes envied the success of the romances; but ought not to have derided an institution so beneficial, because even fables concerning it had the fortune to delight his cotemporaries. But to give a remark or two on the genuine Feudal System which was purely democratic, as the corrupted was aristocratic.

M. D'Hancarville[p] rather fancifully dates the feudal system from the first Scythic empire, for Justin says, His igitur Asia per mille quingentos annos VECTIGALIS fuit; 'Asia was tributary to them for one thousand five hundred years:' and especially Asiam perdomitam vectigalem fecere modico tributo, magis in titulum imperii quam in victoriae praemium. This last passage is a definition of homage: and the feudal system was that of the Persians, who were, and are, Scythae or Goths, as ancient authors, and their own speech, testify. Xenophon[q] tells us that, when the younger Cyrus came to Cilicia, he was met by Epyaxa, the beautiful wife of the satrap, who, according to the custom of the east, presented her acknowledged liegelord and superior with gold, silver, and other precious gifts. Indeed the feudal system, about which so much noise is made, is the natural fruit of conquest, and is as old in the world as conquest. A territory is acquired, and the state, or the general, bestows it on the leaders, and soldiers, on condition of military service, and of tokens acknowleging gratitude to the donors. It was known in the Greek heroic ages. It was known to Lycurgus, for all the lands of Sparta were held on military tenure. It was known to Romulus, when he regulated Rome. It was known to Augustus, when he gave lands to his veterans, on condition that their sons should, at fifteen years of age, do military service. The reason it did not preponderate and corrupt in Greece and Rome was, that it was stifled by the necessary effects of cities, as abovementioned. In Persia, where there were no cities 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 of any power or privilege, it preponderated and corrupted at an early period.

The feudal system, whether in its original democracy, or corrupted into aristoracy, must limit the power of kings; for men who hold their possessions on military service, must, of course, have arms in their hands: and even in absolute governments the soldiers are free, witness the praetorian bands and armies of imperial Rome, and the Turkish janisaries. By the feudal system every man held arms, and freedom, in his hands. Montesquieu has begun his account of the feudal system with that of the ancient Germans, given by Tacitus; and prides himself in leaving off where others began. A writer more profound would leave off where Montesquieu begins.

The ideas of most writers concerning the English constitution are extremely shallow. It was not found, as Montesquieu states, in the woods of Germany. It peculiarly belongs to a pastoral state of society, as may be inferred from Montesquieu himself[r]. The Scythic progress may almost be traced by similar forms of government prevailing; and it might be argued from this, that it was the constitution even of the first Scythic empire. To England it must have come with the Belgae; for from Tacitus we know that it was that of all the Germans, and the Belgae were Germans. It is found wherever the Goths went. In the woods of Germany every man had a voice in the general council[s]. This was when every man had no trade, save that of soldier: but in a more advanced state of society other occupations arose, upon which men subsisted, and could not neglect to attend to public business. They therefore looked on the chiefs, who had nothing else to do, as their natural representatives, and left public business to them. During this stage of society, the chiefs, and probi homines, men of rank and character, were really regarded as representatives of the community, as implied by the common form in old laws, et tota communitas regni nostri, for how could the community's consent be specified, save by the peers and probi homines, who represented them? When the Goths overturned the Roman empire, they had a fixt aversion to towns, as they had long after; and the towns were left in possession of the old inhabitants, who could hold no part in the constitution of the victors. It is therefore ridiculous to suppose representatives of towns. In a third, and last stage, difference of occupations had, by degrees, introduced trade; and trade introduced towns endued with privileges to protect it, or in other words, burghs. These, we are told, were first founded in Germany, in the tenth century, In other countries they are later. Under the Roman empire there were many privileged towns; but their privileges were annihilated by the conquest of the Goths, who had brought from their woods a contempt and aversion for towns, as receptacles of vice and effeminacy. When in advanced society, the Gothic victors allowed privileged towns, or burghs, the nobles had great enmity to them, and constant contests with the citizens; because, among other privileges, a slave who lived a year and day in a burgh, obtained his freedom, and the nobles thus lost many slaves. Thus arose the first difference of interests between lords and commons; for before this the former had been regarded as natural representatives of the latter. Other representatives were of course necessary, and were constituted accordingly.

This second stage, when the peers represented the commons, has misled some, because the privileges of the commons seem to them to have slept. Mr. Hume, who knew nothing about Goths, nor the Gothic constitution, and who is so shallow, that, far from reaching the bottom, he has not reached the bottom of the surface, but merely skimmed it's top, observes in his own Life, that it is ridiculous to look on the English constitution as a regular plan of liberty before the death of Charles I. A profound remark truly, and most sagacious! Is it a regular plan now? Did regular plans of government ever exist, save in Utopias? Have not all governments, save despotism, been ever totally irregular? While a man has life, his pulse must be liable to irregularities; when he is dead, it is regular enough! Error must attend free will; and irregularity free government: the more irregular, the more free, as in the Greek democracies. Strange that Mr. Hume should forget his own just remark, "Where any power or prerogative is fully and undoubtedly established, the exercise of it passes for a thing of course, and readily escapes the notice of history and annals." Essays, Vol. I. p. 499. This was the case with the privileges of the commons during this obscurer stage. Mr. Hume's history stands solely upon a system, and it is the only history i ever met with in which the evidences against are utterly concealed, and past over as nonexistent. A whig history would be as ridiculous as a tory one: the only point in history is to narrate facts, not to build systems, for human affairs are never systematic. Our old historians, who knew nothing of whig or tory system-building, knew the privileges of the commons well. Let us give one instance, and that from the middle of that very period when the privileges of the commons are considered as asleep. Roger Hoveden, who wrote about 1190, says, that on the death of Edwy, king of the West Saxons, in 959, Edgar, king of Mercia, was elected by the English people king of all England, land, AB OMNI ANGLORUM POPULO ELECTUS[t]. And he was the very first king of all England; so that his successors must abide by his title, and any other claim is that of usurpation.

But, to resume a more immediate consideration of my present subject, i hope to have shewn from Similarity of Manners; from Ancient Authorities; and, above all, from that infallible argument, Identity of Language; that the whole German nations, from Getia and Dacia, to the extremity of Scandinavia, were Scythae or Goths. And every reader, who has attended to the process, must either deny the validity of arguments, universally allowed in other cases to be incontrovertible, or assent that ‘It is therefore Historic Truth, that the ancient Germans were all Scythians or Goths.’

A question remains, At what time the Scythic population may have reached the Rhine, and Northwest extremity of Scandinavia, the furthest bounds of ancient Germany? Thrace, Asia Minor, Illyricum, Greece, were certainly peopled with Scythae at least 1500 years before Christ; Italy at least 1000. Nations that subsist by hunting and pasturage, as the barbaric Scythae require a prodigious extent of territoryto afford means of subsistence; and their speedy progress and population we may judge of from those of the Tartars. But the German Scythae had their way to fight against the northern Celts, a hardy race of men; and a vast region to populate; so that we may allow a very considerable period for their progress. From Herodotus, and other ancients, it is certain that the scythians possessed Germany, nay had driven the Celts to the furthest west of Gaul, at least 500 years before our aera. And there are reasons against placing this event at a much remoter period; so that this may safely be considered as being as near the aera as possible in a case of this nature.

Before closing this chapter, it is proper to add a few remarks on the migrations of Scythians from Germany, before the Christian epoch. Caesar informs us, that the Belgae, the greatest and most valiant part of the Gauls, were Germans; and Strabo confirms this account. The whole Provincia Romanorum, or Gallia Braccata, was also possessed by Germans, as the name Braccata shews, for breeches were the peculiar badge of the Scythae. Caesar indeed instructs us, that the Celts, or old Gauls, were bounded by the Seine on the north, and Garonne on the south. The learned and judicious Schoepflin[u] has sufficiently shewn that the name of Celts was restricted to the Gauls alone; but has unhappily forgotten that only one third part of the Gauls were Celts. Hence his account of the Celtic colonies, is radically erroneous; for all these colonies were of German Gauls. Indeed reason might convince us, that it was impossible for the Celts, who had been expelled and confined by the Belgae, or Germans upon one side, and by the Aquitani, or Iberi on the other, to send out colonies among those very enemies whose superior courage had vanquished them, and seized a great part of their territory. This could be put beyond doubt by a special examination of these colonies, which, tho i have ample materials for, yet i am with reluctance obliged to suppress, as too large for the present design.

But to give a few hints. The reader must ever remember in this question, that the name of Celts was not only given peculiarly and properly to the real Celts, who, in Caesar's time, were confined to one third part of Gaul; but was also given, laxly and improperly, by many ancient writers to all the Gauls. For as the Celts had anciently possessed all Gaul, their name was continued by some, and by the distant Greek writers especially, to all the Gauls: tho the Belgae, and Aquitani, the Galli Braccati, and others, or the far greater part of the Gauls, were not Celts, but expellers of the Celts. The case is the same as that of the English, who are called Britons, not as being old Britons, but as expellers of those Britons, and as living in Britain. So the British of America are called Americans, not as being American savages, but as possessors of that country. Thus the Germans who had seized on most of Gaul, and had come in place of the Celts, are called Gauls by the Romans; and Celts by many of the Greeks, and by some Romans. The question always remains, which Gauls are meant by the former, and which Celts by the later.

The Celts who passed into Spain were certainly of Gallia Braccata, which bordered on Spain; and not real old Celts, who, so far from sending colonies into Spain, were driven from their southern territories by the Aquitani, a Spanish people. These Celtiberi and Celtici of Spain are the only Gaulic colonies which obtain the appellation of Celts in Roman writers, who call the others Gauls. A singularity which proceeded from this, that the Romans received their first intelligence concerning Spain from the Greeks of Marseilles, who called all the Gauls Celts: and thus retained the old name, by which they had found the people distinguished by the Greeks, and perhaps by the Carthaginians.

The Belgae of Britain and Ireland are out of all question; for it is known to a certainly that the Belgae were not Celts but Germans.

The Gauls of Cisalpine Gaul, or of Italy, were infallibly German Gauls. The former region was called Gallia Togata, for it's possessors, from their neighbourhood with the civilized Etruscans, and Greeks of Marseilles, were the first who were civilized, and abandoned their rude dress for that of their polite neighbours: while their brethren further off retained the Gothic braccae, and gave name to Gallia Braccata. The Celts were remote from Cisalpine Gaul; while it was surrounded by Germans on the north, and by other Germans of Gallia Braccata on the west. And that the Cisalpine Gauls were not old Celts who retained possession of the country, is clear from Livy and Polybius, who relate their passage into Italy; and the former dates it in the time of Tarquinius Priscus, about the period of the foundation Marseilles by the Greeks: that is, about 589 years before Christ by common accounts, but by Sir Isaac Newton's rectified chronology of Rome about 500. It is well known that the Roman history, for the three or four first centuries, is very uncertain, because there were neither writers, nor records of any kind: and Livy, in relating this very remote event, gives it as a story of yesterday, with all its circumstances, which sufficiently indicates that he used poetical and fabulous liberty here, as in all the ancient parts of his work. Hence we need only read this tale to deny faith to it's circumstances; tho the ground-work be confirmed by the grave testimony of Polybius; and it is beyond doubt, from many concurring ancients, that the Cisalpine Gauls had passed into Italy at a late period, and were not ancient inhabitants. But Livy in composing his tale concerning an event 500 years old, and of which he could have no circumstantial evidence whatever, found that Polybius, a Greek writer, and perhaps other Greeks of Marseilles, called the Cisalpine Gauls, as they did all the Gauls, Celts. Hence, knowing also, as the passage shews, that the Celts of his time were but a third part of the Gauls, he understood the Celts, laxly so called by the Greeks, to be the Celts proper; and has of course formally derived the Cisalpine Gauls from the Celts proper. Pelloutier draws the names given by Livy, Ambigatus, Bellovesus, Sigovesus, from the Tudesque or German Gothic. But, tho such erymology is uncertain, yet the frequency of similar names among the Germans deserves notice. The Ambi-variti were a Belgic tribe: Ambi-orix was prince of the Eburones, a Belgic people (and the rix is an infallibly Gothic termination, common to this day, Theodoric, Frederic, &c. &c.) The Bello-vassi were a Belgic tribe, as were the Bello-cassi. Sege-stes, Segi-merus, Segi-mundus, are German names in Tacitus. The manners of the Cisalpine Gauls, described by Polybius, II. 4. are German. Diodorus Siculus distinguishes the Senones (who took Rome) from the Celts, and calls them Northern Gauls. They were of the Semnones of Germany.

The Gauls who long contended with the Germans in prowess, and who settled a colony or two in the south of Germany, were German Gauls. Caesar tells us that the Belgae were in continual war with the Germans, as indeed the German nations were among themselves. The Helvetii, Boii, Tectosages, were German Gauls, who had warred with their ancestors, and settled among them. The Germans of Southern Gaul being far superior in civilization to their progenitors, and refined by climate, neighbourhood, and commerce, were of course often superior in war; a circumstance which might have simply arisen from better weapons. The Gallic colonies in Illyricum and Thrace are of the same description. Livy (XL. 57.) tells, that the Scordisci and Taurisci were of one speech with the Basternae, and they were of course German Gauls.

That famous expedition, which founded the kingdom of Galatia in Asia Minor, was also of German Gauls. The people were Trocmi, Tectosages, and Tolistoboii: the leaders Lomnorius, and Lutarius; the later being the German name Lutharius or Lothaire. Saint Jerome[v] puts the German extraction of the Galatians beyond doubt, by telling us, from personal knowlege, that their speech was the same with that of Treveri or Triers in Germany, where he had studied. So much for the German-Gallic colonies, which the bounds of my design forbid me to examine at due length[w]

The Scythians or Goths who slew Cyrus, whom Alexander shunned, and who were the terror of Pyrrhus[x], were in their German seats equally formidable. Not the Samnians, not the Carthaginians, not the mingled nations of Spain, and of Gaul, nor even the Parthians themselves, were so dangerous to Roman power. Carbo, and Cassius, Scaurus Aurelius, and Servilius Cepio, and Marcus Manlius, with their five consular armies, were all taken prisoners or slain by the Teutones and Cimbri, who had fled from the northern Germans. Julius declined the contest with the Germans: Augustus weeped the fate of Varus and his legions. Hardly could Drusus, and Nero, and Germanicus, defend this frontier of the empire, for this was the whole ambition of Rome. In later times they were triumphed over, but not conquered. Under their ancient name of Scythae or Goths, they were soon, by degrees, to seize on the whole western empire; nay to pour over the fertile coasts of Africa. The Vandali, whom Tacitus and Pliny found in the north of Germany, were to fight with Belisarius, in the plains of Numidia. The Suevi were to possess the fragrant fields of Spain. The Langobardi were to enjoy the orange groves of Italy. The Angli, whom Tacitus puts in a list of names, were to give their name to a country eminent in arts and arms, in wisdom and liberty.

CHAPTER V.

The progress of the Scythians into Scandinavia especially considered.

SO much has been written, by many of the most learned men whom Europe has produced, upon the imaginary egression of the Scythians or Goths from Scandinavia, that this part of my subject well deserves a particular investigation. The Scythic or Gothic language, mythology, and manners, have also been so much preserved in the wilds of Iceland, which was colonized from Norway in the Ninth century, and have been so ably illustrated by the erudition of different Scandinavian antiquaries, that the progress of the Scythae into Scandinavia becomes a subject extremely curious and interesting. My particular view, which was to illustrate the history of the Piks, a people who proceeded from Norway to the north of Britain, about three centuries before Christ, likewise concurs to draw my best attention to this point, upon which i hope extensive reading on the subject, and sedulous and minute research, will enable me to throw new lights.

The reader will please to recollect that, before our proofs that the Germans were Scythae, the BASTERNAE attracted attention, as a people situated between the Getae and the Germans. But this vast race of men, called Basternae, not only reached down to the Alpes Basternicae, or Carpathian mountains, and the Danube, but also extended north to that part of the Baltic where present Prussia now lyes, and which is nearest to the Euxine, the early seat of the Scythae; the distance beween the Baltic and Euxine seas, being only about 500 miles, little more than the breadth of the intermediate country of present Poland. Over this tract of ground, about 500 miles long, from the Danube to the Baltic, and about 150 miles broad from the western boundary of the Vistula, to the Chronus, and Borystenes on the east, were stationed the great BASTERNIC nations. For the Sarmatae were not in possession of Poland, till the German nations began to move into the Roman empire; and the river Nieper or Borystenes, and Chronus now Niemen, were the proper bounds of ancient Sarmatia on the west. The west of Poland was a gradual acquisition of the Sarmatae, as the Scythae moved into the Roman empire: and in the fourth and fifth centuries, when the German Scythae were still moving into richer countries, the Sarmatians, or Slavi [a], seized on Pomerania and Mecklenburg on the north; and Bohemia toward the south; which are held by mixt Sarmatians and Germans to this day. The grand distinctions between the Sarmatians and Germans, as marked by the acute and transcendant mind of Tacitus, toward the close of his Germania, were that the Sarmatians lived always on horseback; their families in cars, or small waggons; and wore flowing robes like the Parthians: while the Germans fought on foot, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 having few cavalry; and had fixt huts; and a close dress; but above all, quite a different language. He also ascribes nastiness to the Sarmatae, tho of this the Germans had their share; as all uncivilized nations must have; and the Celts in particular were so filthy that even their cleanliness was the extreme of nastiness[b]. But the Sarmatians were a great and warlike nation; tho it appears, from the little mention of them in Greek and Roman history, that they yielded much to the Scythians in arms; and, from all ancient accounts, were also inferior in wisdom, and such rude arts, as early society affords, tho the peasantry of Poland and Russia be remarkably sensible and acute.

The BASTERNAE, in this large extent of country, became so remarkable to the ancients, that Strabo, book VII. p. 305, classes them with the enormous names of SCYTHAE and SARMATAE, saying that the Scythae, Basternae, and Sarmatae, beyond the Danube, gradually emigrated north. He also informs us that the Basternae were divided into four great nations, ATMONOI, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; the Atmoni, Sitones, Peukini, and Roxolani. Some of them, he observes, remained still in Thrace, and their first habitations; while others moved north. The Peukini, tho they sent out vast emigrations, form a remarkable instance of those who remained. Let us briefly confider the BASTERNAE, of whom the Peukini were a part, in order that the reader may see the progressive evidence of the ancients who have mentioned them concerning both. The first mention we find of the Basternae in history is on account of their assisting Perseus, king of Macedon, against the Romans, 166 years before Christ. Polybius, who was cotemporary, mentions that Perseus was assisted with 10,000 Basternae and Gauls, Livy XL. 57. XLI. 19. misunderstanding Polybius puts the Basternae as Gauls; but says that their speech was the same with that of the Scordisci, who were German Gauls. Upon which Pelloutier follishly concludes them Celts, quite forgetting that the Celts were not Gauls, but only a people of Gaul, and the most distant of all; the whole German Gauls being the people generally called Gauls by the ancients, and being the nearest to the scene of action, and to Italy. Those French authors who finding the Celts peculiarly and originally in Gaul, and therefore sometimes called Gauls, as we call the Welch, Britons, because they anciently possessed the whole country; and who from thence gratify their dreams of universal dominion, by wishing to prove the whole of Europe Celtic, only shew an ignorance and folly beyond all excess. What should we say of him, who, finding the Welch peculiarly called Britons, and that North America was peopled from Britain, should in some future period, dream that all the British inhabitants of North America are Welch? This is exactly the very case.

To return to Perseus and the Basternae. Diodorus Siculus says, Perseus employed Gauls and Celts, not Basternae, if the excerpt be not erroneous. Appian in Macedonicis, p. 1223, calls these assistants of Perseus Getae: and Dion Cassius, who is indeed a contemptible and foolish writer, yet, as he long commanded in Pannonia, was on the very confines of the southern Basternae, if not among them, and therefore in this one instance may deserve some credit, says, lib. XXXVIII. that they were Scythae, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and lib. LI. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dion also informs us, lib. LI. p. 461, 463. that they lived in cars; that is like their neighbours the Sarmatae: but as all the ancients distinguish them from the Sarmatae, and Strabo, lib. VII. inclines to think them Germans, mans, which Pliny and Tacitus[f] afterward from complete information establish beyond a doubt, from their speech, &c. and Dio himself calls them Scythae, and Appian Getae, we must conclude that they were a vast German nation, who were most retentive of the ancient Scythic manners, as their neighbours the Getae, people of Little Scythia, or Parental Scythians, were. The other Germans, being the most distant settlement of the Scythae, and bordering on the Celts, who had by the Greeks of Marseilles been taught many civil arts, had on the contrary advanced one stage further in society than their Scythian ancestors: as we observed before that the Greeks, another Scythian settlement, had, from still greater advantages of situation, advanced even to the height of human perfection, while their ancestors were in primitive barbarism. We afterward in Justin XXXVIII. 3. find Mithridates solliciting their assistance against the Romans: and i shall proceed to my main object, their northern progress, after just mentioning that in Justin XXXII. 3. we find the Basternae defeating their brethren the Daci, probably from superiority in cavalry: and that Dionysius, who was of Corinth and wrote, as Dodwell shews, about the year of Christ 221, in in his Periegesis, after mentioning the Danube pouring it's five mouths around Peuké,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. v. 301. puts the Basternae between the Getae and Daci.

— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. —

Tacitus, Ann. ii, mentions Basternas, Scythasque [g].

Strabo says, that in his time, the Peukini, proper or parental, were that part of the Basternae who lived in the large ile of Peuké in the Euxine sea, at the mouth of the Danube: and Ptolemy remarks the same in his time; and it is likely their descendants still retain their possessions in Piczina, the modern name of Peuke. Mela II. 7. calls Peuké an iland omnium notissima et maxima, the most famous and largest in those parts. The author of the Periplus Ponti Euxini says it equals Rhodes in size. Some think it named from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, picea, a pine tree, because it was perhaps full of such; but it seems as probably to have taken it's name from the Piki a people beyond Colchis, and subject to the Colchian kingdomc; for the antients agree that a colony from Colchis settled on the Ister, in the time of the Argonauts, and it is most likely that it was at its mouth. For tho Apollonius Rhodius book IV, and Justin xxxii. 3. make the Istri on the Adriatic that colony, which by their own accounts of the Colchians sailing up the Danube to the Adriatic, is[h] a complete impossibility, yet Oyid, who lived at Tomi close by the spot, is an undoubted witness in our favour.

Solus ad egressus missus septemblicis Istri,

Parrhasiae gelido virginis axe prenor.

Jazyges, et Colchi, Metereaque turba, Getaeque,

Danubii mediis vix prohibentur aquis.

Trist. lib. II. el. 1.
The Jazyges Eneocadlae, as above shewn, were a small Sarmatic nation, who lived in peace and union among the Getae, on the north of the Tyras, acting it is likely as cavalry in their armies; and it is probable it was of them that Ovid learned Sarmatic. The other nations were also north of the Danube, to the south of which Tomi, the place of Ovid's banishment, stood: and the Colchians here mentioned were, in all probability, the Peukini. For tho the Piki were properly one of the many Scythian tribes between Colchis and the Ceraunian mountains; yet being subject to the great Colchian kingdom they were probably called Colchians, as foreigners call all the natives of Britain and Ireland, English. But leaving this conjecture (for it is little better) to carry it's own weight with the reader, i shall proceed to examine the progress of the Basternae.

The Peukini, or that Basternic nation which emigrated from Peuké, seem to have in process of time transcended all the other Basternic divisions in number. Insomuch that Pliny and Tacitus put the Basternae and Peukini as names of the same nation; tho Strabo, Ptolemy, and others, writing geography and of course more accurately in these points, but the Peukini as only one of the divisions of Basternae. The Roxolani Strabo put by mistake among the Basternae, for it is known to a certainty from Tacitus, Hist. lib. 1. (Roxolani Sarmatica gens, &c.) and many others, that they were Sarmatae. Strabo's mistake arose from the Roxolani being the next Sarmatic nation to the Basternae. The Roxolani were Russians; and that part of Poland on the west, and far from Russia, called Red or Black Russia, took it's name from part of the Roxolani, that pierced to that corner, and settled. Of the other divisions named by Strabo, the Atmoni, if i mistake not, spreading west along the Danube, became the southern Basternae, or those properly and absolutely so called by the ancients: while the Sitones [d] proceeded northward with the Peukini till they arrived at the Baltic sea and Scandinavia. A progress which we are enabled to trace, as clearly as can be expected, after a remark or two on a few southern colonies of the Peukini.

Ancient geographers speak of different remains of the Peukini in Thrace. Such were the Peukest•, a people north of the Scordisci. Pliny III. 25, tells us, that Callimachus placed a people called Peuketi in Liburnia of Illyricum. In Italy directly on the opposite shore were the Pikeni: and further south, lay the large country of Peuketia, now Apulia, of which much may be found in Strabo. Pliny, III. 16. says it was so called from Peuketius brother of Oenotrus; and Dionys. Hal. book 1. p. 10, 11, ed. Hudson, says Oenotrus and Peuketius were the two first leaders of colonies from Greece into Italy. It was the custom of the Greeks always to derive names of nations from ancient kings and chiefs. This was easy etymology, and cost nothing, yet cost as much as etymology of names is worth. Thus the Lydians were from Lydus, the Mysians from Mysus, the Scythians from Scythes, the Celts from Celtes, &c. &c. &c. and the Aborigines of the south west shore of Italy Oenotrians, from Oenotrus, who led them from Arcadia, and those of the east, Peuketii, from Peuketius his brother. The fact seems that these aborigines were Oenotri from the Peloponnesus, who advanced from the south west of Italy, upward along the west shore; while the Peuketii seized on the east side from the opposite shores of Illyricum, where we learn from Callimachus that a part remained. The Pikentii on the west, as they bordered on old Peuketia, were as is likely of the same origin. But these ideas are given as mere conjectures; and i now proceed to examine the northern progress of the PEUKINI and SITONES, which stands upon quite other grounds.

It is allowed that the Peukini received their name, and proceeded, from the iland of Peuké (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in the Euxine sea, at the mouth of the Danube, now Piczina, or Pics ile. This celebrated iland is finely described by Apollonius Rhodius in his exquisite poem, The Argonautics, written about 250 years before Christ. Thus the Peukini certainly came from the very heart of Getia, Dacia, and Maesia; and, if not originally a colony of Colchian Scythae, certainly were a Scythic people, issuing from the very heart of a country, which was in possession of the Scythae about 2000 years before Christ. Jornandes, speaking of Galerius Maximinus Caesar, 'Is ergo habens Gothos et Peucenos ab insula Peuce, quae ostio Danubii Ponto mergenti adjacet[e].' Zozimus calls the Peukini, Peukai, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ammianus Marcellinus names them Pikenses, lib. XVII, as his Amicenses seem the Atmoni of Strabo, both above Maesia. He also calls them Peuki, lib. XXII. where he is speaking of Peuké. The ancient author of the Argonautics ascribed to Orpheus, calls the Peukini Pacti, when he describes the Argonauts in their return sailing up some river, from the Palus Maeotis, to the Cronian sea, as he dreams; and ranges the Pacti with the Lelians, Scythians, Hyperboreans, Ripheans.

Let us now briefly consider the Northern Progress of the Sitones and Peukini, two grand Basternic divisions. Strabo, who wrote about 20 years after our aera, is certainly well informed concerning the north of Germany, as the Greeks actually traded to Prussia for amber. In particular the Estii of present Prussia, from whose coasts the amber came, and where it is yet found in such quantities as to yield a large revenue, were in the confines of the Peukini and Sitones, or Basternic nations on the Baltic, so that the intelligence concerning countries so near that to which the Greeks traded, may be regarded as satisfactory. Now he tells us, book VII. p. 294, that "most think the Basternae live beyond the Germans to the Northward, others that there is only ocean." That the later opinion was false need not be told: but that the former was true, namely that the Basternae possessed Scandinavia, is certain; for Tacitus, who was procurator of Gallia Belgica and had of course all information relating to Germany, and it's neighbourhood, as his admirable Germania shews, places the SITONES whom Strabo had mentioned as one of the three Basternic nations in present Sweden, and finds part of the PEUKINI on the opposite shore, while a part no doubt had passed into Scandinavia with the Sitones their brethren. And it is evident that the Sitones, whom Ptolemy puts on the south of the Baltic between the Viader and Vistula, were a part of the Sitones who remained, while the rest passed into Scandinavia: for migrations of nations were seldom, if ever, complete, a circumstance which enables us to trace their steps.

The PEUKINI in particular, being the largest and most eminent part of the Basternae, as we may judge from their name being often extended to the whole of this vast people, leave such traces behind them from Thrace to the Baltic, that we can follow them step by step. This we are enabled to do from the geography of Ptolemy, who wrote about 150 years after Christ. As one or two Sarmatic tribes extended beyond the Chronus and Borystenes, he improperly puts the Vistula as the boundary between the Germans, and Sarmatae; tho Tacitus, who wrote about fifty years before, had specially mentioned German nations beyond the Vistula, and the vast people of Peukini OR Basternae in particular, whom Pliny puts as one FIFTH part of the Germans. But Ptolemy living at the great distance of Alexandria in Egypt, and probably not even understanding Latin, seems never to have redd either Pliny or Tacitus; but puts his places according to the maps and Itineraries of the generals, and to the Greek geographers. From the later in particular, who drew from the merchants of amber good intelligence as to the present rout, the information seems derived which is to be found in his chapter of Sarmatia Europaea. In his time a part of the Peukini still possessed their original settlement in Peuké while we find another part far north of the Tyras, and above the Getae: and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Peukinian Mountains of Ptolemy are, as Cluverius justly observes, on the south west of present Prussia, near the head of the river Bog; that is within about sixty miles of the Baltic sea. Ptolemy places the Peukini on the north of the Basternae: so that of all the Basternae they were nearest to the Baltic. And that the Peukini actually reached to the Baltic, we know from Tacitus, who in the end of his Germania ranges them with the Venedi and Fenni, whom Ptolemy places near the Vistula upon the Baltic. Tacitus also puts the Venedi between the PEUKINI and Fenni, so that the Peukini must have been on the shore of the Baltic, on the east side of the mouth of the Vistula, or in present Prussia: from which they extended south to their Basternic brethren in the western part of present Hungary: a tract about 400 miles long, and from 100 to 150 broad. With so large possessions it is no wonder that Pliny should put the Peukini as a fifth part of the Germans; and that their name should be used as synonymous with the Basternae.

Having thus shewn that the two Basternic nations of PEUKINI and SITONES extended to the Baltic; and that, as Tacitus and others shew, and all modern geographers agree, a part of the Sitones remained in the neighbourhood of the Peukini, on the south side of the Baltic, while the rest of the Sitones were in Scandinavia; and that Strabo mentions it as the most general opinion in his time that the Basternae were beyond the Germans, or in Scandinavia; i believe it will be granted at once that it is most likely that a part of the Peukini went to Scandinavia with their brethren the Sitones. But, before insisting on this, i shall give the reader some idea of what the Romans and Greeks knew of Scandinavia and the north of Germany.

About 250 years before Christ, Pytheas and others, as we learn from Pliny, spoke of an iland called Baltia in the Cronium mare, or Northern ocean, whence amber was brought. Herodotus had indeed mentioned this 450 years before Christ. The name of the iland was palpably from the Baltic sea very anciently so called; from the Gothic, or old German Belt, a gulf. Amber was never found in Scandinavia, but in Glessaria, a peninsula on the Prussian coast, which afterward received it's name from the appellation which Tacitus tells the Germans gave amber, namely Gles or Glass, which it resembled. Baltia is therefore not Scandinavia but Glessaria. Pomponius Mela, who wrote about 45 years after Christ, mentions the Codanus sinus, and Codanovia, which is in all probability present Zeeland, an ile of the Suiones, in which the capital of Denmark stands; and from whence Dania is by some judged to be contracted. Pliny himself, who wrote about 70 years after Christ, is the first who mentions Scandinavia, tho he tells us, IV. 16. that the iles of Scandia, Dumna, Bergi, and Nerigon, had been noticed by others[f]. Dumna is by Ptolemy ranged among the Orkneys; Scandia may be Funen; and Bergi the country of Bergen in Norway, intersected from Sweden on the south by the Schager Rack, or westerly division of the Baltic, so as to have to those who knew only the southern coast, the appearance of an ile. Pliny adds IV. 16. that Nerigon was the largest of these iles: and as he says he derives his information from various preceding authors sunt qui et alia prodeunt, Scandiam, &c. it is well inferred by the northern antiquaries that Nerigon had from later and better information been put for Bergi; but Pliny finding the same country called by two names, thought them different iles: for Nerigon is surely Norway by it's most ancient, and yet indigenous name Norigé, or the Northern kingdom. But ch. 27, he tells us from himself that Scandinavia is an ile in the Sinus Codanus of undiscovered size, and that the known parts are possessed by the Hilleviones in five hundred pagi, or districts. They are well thought to be of Halland in the south-west corner of Scandinavia.

Being now come to Tacitus, whose Germania is so important to modern history, it will be proper to dwell a little upon the geography of that work, which is in many points grossly misunderstood; and especially that part which concerns our subject, his description of the northern nations. Cluverius, who wrote near two centuries ago, is universally and blindly followed, while his faults are enormous. He was a man of laudable industry; but of contracted and indistinct judgment. If errors be admitted into any branch of science, they commonly remain for centuries, owing to the indolence of mankind, who are ever ready to resign their minds to any guide, and would rather sleep and go wrong, than examine and go right; while in fact they have only to trust themselves more, and others less. Let us lay Tacitus before us, with a map of modern Germany; and put aside Cluverius, Cellarius, and the able D'Anville, who has so often corrected their eastern geography, but has trusted them with Germany, their own country, and thus left Europe in darkness to enlighten Asia. Tacitus, after employing two thirds of his work in describing the manners of the Germans, passes to a description of the nations; and first mentions two colonies which had returned from Gaul into Germany, the Helvetii and Boii. He then puts the Vangiones, &c. on the west side of the Rhine; and the Batavi in the ile formed by its outlets. Beyond the people between the head of the Danube, and the Rhine, he places the Catti, a large nation; and further up on the the Rhine the Uspii, &c.; next the Bructeri; behind them, the Dulgibini; in front, the Frisii, who spred along the north bank of the Rhine and the ocean: and among whom was the Zuyder Zee, ambiuntque immensos insuper lacus, et Romanis classibus navigatos. Tacitus adds, Hactenus in Occidentem Germaniam novimus. In Septentrionem ingenti flexu redit. 'Thus far we know of the west of Germany. It now returns to the north with a great bend;' meaning that it's shore, formerly west, now fronts north, as it does at present Friezland and Groningen. Next is the very large nation of the Chauci: then the Cherusci, and Fosi, the last of whom are foolishly taken for the Saxons by Cluverius, who forgot that the Saxons were an alliance of many nations which like the Franks and Allmans had taken one name. Here in a spot which answers to the mouth of the Elbe, proximi Oceano, dwelled the small and only remains of the Cimbri: parva nunc civitas. This parva civitas geographers spread over all the large peninsula of Jutland, which after Ptolemy, (who only puts a few Cimbri in it, and no less than Six German nations) they call the Cimbric Chersonesus. It was doubtless once inhabited by the Cimbri, but they were reduced to a parva civitas at its southwest corner, long before Roman geography commences.

Tacitus next proceeds to the Suevi, who, he tells us, were not one nation, but many under one title, who held the greatest part of Germany, to wit, all from the Danube to the ocean south and north, and from the Elbe to the vistula east and west. The first are the Semnones, a people of a hundred districts, who are rightly placed in Brandenburg. Proceeding to the north, as is clear from his expression when he passes to the Hermunduri• (ut quo modo paulo ante Rhenum, sic nunc Danubium sequar, for the Rhine runs north, the Danube east) next to the Semnones are the Langobardi, about present Lunenburg. Then follow no less than seven nations, all of which Cluverius has heaped upon one another in present Mecklenburg! The poor man forgot that the whole vast peninsula of Jutland was just in the road of Tacitus, as his text bears that he proceeds north; and that he adds haec quidem pars Suevorum in SECRETIORA Germaniae PORRIGITUR, a description which can only apply to this vast and rich peninsula; and that the Cimbri with whom he fills that large Chersonese were, as Tacitus says, only a small state on the ocean near the Cherusci and Fosi, or at the mouth of the Elbe! Seven nations are piled upon one another in a small province; and a parva civitas is spred over a territory 220 miles long, and from 63 to 95 broad! If this be not absurdity, i know not what absurdity is. But such is human science! Let us place these nations as Tacitus meaned, and all is well. The Reudigni first, and Aviones above them, in present Holstein; the Angli in Sleswick, where the fertile province of Anglen spreads around Lunden it's ancient capital: the Varini above the Angli, for the river Warne is nothing; the Eudoses next; then the Suardones and Nuithones in present North Jutland, the later reaching to it's utmost point where the promontory of Scagen braves the northern ocean. As to the Angli we are certain. The Suardones were perhaps the Swathedi, whom the English historians Henry of Huntingdon, Roger Hoveden, Matthew of Westminster, commemorate among the Danish invaders of England in the ninth and tenth centuries. The Nuithones are, as is likely, the Huithoni of Pontanus in his Descriptio Daniae, that is, the inhabitants of the furthest point of Jutland, the Witland of Bleau's Atlas. The Eudoses are the Yeuton, or people of Yeutland, as the Danes pronounce Jutland, who seem to have been the largest nation holding the middle of the Chersonese, and who now give a general name to the whole peninsula of Northern and Southern Jutland. Let me add, that it is impossible that the whole of this peninsula, as nearer the Roman provinces of Upper and Lower Germany, should not have been far better known to the Romans, than the southern shores of the Baltic.

Accordingly we find Ptolemy, fifty years after Tacitus, places no less than six nations in it, the Sigulones, Sabelingii, Cobandi, Chali, Phundusiii, Charudes, besides the Saxons at it's south part: and the Cimbri, whom Ptolemy ignorantly places at it's northern extremity. Ignorantly, for no man can prefer Ptolemy's testimony, who lived at Alexandria, to that of Tacitus, who lived in Belgic Gaul, and who expressly puts the Cimbri on the seaside of the Fosi, at the mouth of the Elbe. The reader need not be told that the text of Ptolemy is rightly deemed the most corrupt of all antiquity; as indeed a constant series of unknown names, and numbers, must have been lyable to great vitiations of copiers. His account of the names of the German nations often differs from Tacitus; yet Strabo confirms Tacitus, tho he wrote before him, for Strabo's work was not so lyable to vitiation, being narrative, while Ptolemy's only contains geographic tables. The Phundusii seem the Eudoses; the Charudes, the Suardones: the others are yet more corrupt, for those given by Tacitus can be traced in the spot, and in history, but of those assigned by Ptolemy, not one. Yet Ptolemy places none of the nations above mentioned elsewhere, save the Angili Suevi, and it is doubtful if these were the Angli[g]. Tacitus observes of these nations that they are divided by rivers and woods; a description most applicable to Jutland, now so well wooded, and intersected by fine streams. Perhaps it may be said that Tacitus would have mentioned this great Chersonese expressly, had he meant it; but it is doubtful if it was called a Chersonese, save by Ptolemy only; and it's size is so great, that we should as well think of calling Ptolemy's Caledonia, bending to the east, a Chersonese of Britain. Nor does Tacitus name Scandinavia, tho he describes nations in it, as shall presently be seen.

Having thus proceeded to the utmost north of the west parts of Germany, or those commencing from the Rhine as a boundary, Tacitus passes to follow the Danube, as he says, or an east course, and places the nations regularly one after another as Cluverius well puts them in this tract. After mentioning the utmost nations this way, Tacitus returns northward, telling that a large chain of mountains divides Suevia, that is a chain running north and south: beyond which are the Lygii consisting of many nations, the chief being the Arii, Helveconae, Manimi, Elysii, Naharvali. The Lygii are rightly put by Cluverius, in present Silesia. Above the Lygii were the Gotthones rightly put in Pomerellia, at the mouth of the Vistula or Weissel. Protinus deinde ab Oceano Rugii et Lemovii, 'next from thence on the ocean the Rugii,' rightly put in Rugen; 'and Lemovii,' whom Cluverius makes the same with the Heruli, and puts in Pomerania. But the account of Tacitus bears that the Lemovii were west of the Rugii, for he is coming deinde from the Gotthones and Lygii; and Ptolemy expressly shews that three other nations dwelled in present Pomerania, namely the Ruticlii, Sideni, and Pharudini. So that the Lemovii were doubtless west of the Rugii or Rugen, as the text of Tacitus bears, who seems to include the three other nations mentioned by Ptolemy in the general name of Gotthones, and thus to extend them over Pomerania as well as Pomerellia. The Lemovii were of course in present Lubec and Wagerlant.

After this Tacitus proceeds to the Suiones; Suionum hinc civitates ipso in oceano, &c. Modern geographers, following Cluverius, who is by no means accurate, have made the Suiones the present Swedes; and the northern antiquaries seem to allow this, tho to me nothing is more doubtful[i]. For the Sitones, whom Tacitus puts beyond the Suiones, Suionibus Sitonum gentes continuantur; and, after describing them, says, hic Sueviae finis; and passes to the Peukini, Venedi, and Fenni, seem to me infallibly the present Swedes: and the name bears more resemblance to Suitiod, the old name of Sweden. Whereas Suiones resembles more Zee-woners, or dwellers in the sea, whence the noble and fertile iland, which forms the best part of the Danish dominions, is now called Zeeland; the Su appearing to be merely a Roman way of expressing the German sound of Z. in Knytlinga Saga, and other Icelandic books, Zeeland is called Sio-land, a name preserving affinity with Suiones; as Suitiod, the old name of Swedes and Sweden, in these works, does with Sitones. Perhaps Sitones sprung from Sictuna, the old name of the chief civitas in Sweden, near Birca, as Adam of Bremen and others testify. Add to this, that only the most southern part of Scandinavia was ever known to the ancients; and the vast Wener Lake, in present Westroguland, or as the Swedes affect to call it Westrogothia, seems the utmost bound of their real knowlege; they thinking that beyond was the Cronium Mare, or Frozen Ocean; the sea beyond the Suiones, mentioned by Tacitus, which was looked on as the end of the world. I have perused, and re-perused, with indefatigable and minute attention, all that the ancients have said of Scandinavia, and am convinced that the narrower bounds we confine their knowlege of it to, we shall be the nearer to the truth. The Suiones, after the most mature consideration, appear to me infallibly the people of present Zeeland, and the iles around it, civitates in oceano, and part of the Danish territory on the opposite shore of the sound; now Schonen, Halland, and Westrogothia. For, can any man believe that Tacitus should pass to Scandinavia, and take no notice of the noble and rich iland of Zeeland, and the large and fertile iles around it? should fly at once, as is dreamed, to present Norway and Sweden, of which he knew as much as he did of Greenland, as every one, the least verst in ancient geography, must know? should join all Scandinavia, a country, when really known, as large as Germany itself, to a few small states? Was Tacitus utterly absurd, or are his commentators so?

After the Suiones, Tacitus passes to the Aestii, who are rashly enough, from similarity of names, placed in present Estonia, tho Glessaria, the iland of the Aestii, is confessed to be in present Prussia, two hundred miles south-west of Estonia; and it is on the coast of Prussia alone, that such quantities of amber are found to this day. Estonia confessedly means merely east country; and may be a late name, nothing being so common as names of countries from the points in which they lye; as Aestsexia, or Essex in England, &c. &c. &c.[k]. The Aestii were certainly in the peninsula beyond present Dantzic, that is, as Tacitus describes, on the right hand as you sailed up the Suevicum mare, or south part of the Baltic, that was on the north of the Suevi. And he mentions the Aestii before he passes to the Sitones, or Swedes, of the opposite shore, and the Peukini, Venedi, and Fenni; beyond whom he had faintly heard of a people who were covered with skins of beasts, and thence went for beasts with a human face. The Fenni were infallibly, from the account of Tacitus, that they were divided from the Peukini, only by woods and hills, inhabited by Venedi, not the people of Finland, as dreamed, but the FINS, a great aboriginal people, of whom see Mr. Tooke's Russia. The language of Lithuania, or the north of Poland, Samogitia, Courland, Estonia, Livonia, is at this day Finnish, not Slavonic. The Fenni of Tacitus were in Livonia and Estonia. Ptolemy, book III. places Fenni at the Vistula.

From the Aestii Tacitus passes to the Sitones, or Swedes of Smaland, on the opposite shore: and as the Suiones were unquestionably the people of present Zeeland and surrounding iles, with a small part of southern Scandinavia, along the west shore up to the Wener lake, so the Sitones were only a very small part of the Swedes, or Suitiod, namely, those of present Smaland and Easter Gothia. Tacitus, tho he appears to have redd Pliny, from his copying that writer's account of the origin of amber, takes no notice of Scandinavia, but palpably implies it to be partly inhabited by the Suiones and Sitones, and is universally so understood. The Hilleviones, and iles, mentioned by Pliny, as he had procured no intelligence of, he passes in silence. If the reader will with these views read the work of Tacitus, he will find all clear. As commonly understood, nothing but a confusion, unknown to the luminous mind of Tacitus, arises. For he is supposed to pass from the Lemovii about Lubec, up to Sweden, with Suionum hinc civitates (whereas Zeeland is just opposite hinc to the Lemovii as above placed); then flies back to the Estii of Prussia; then flies back toto coelo to Norway, of whose existence he knew nothing; then closes a description of Norway with bie Sueviae finis (his Suevi being but a division of Germans); then flies back again to the Peukini and Venedi and Fenni, nations as remote from Notway as the south-east is from the north-west. Take his text as here stated; and all is clear, and accurate. He passes from the Lemovii about Lubec to Zeeland; thence to the Aesti possessors of Glessaria an opposite peninsula: then crosses the Baltic to the opposite Swedes of Smaland; thence in a right line to the Peukini, Venedi, and Fenni. Add to this, that the remains of the Sitones in Ptolemy, &c. are exactly on the coast opposite to Smaland; and it is certainly more likely that they should move to the opposite shore, than into Norway, a country near 300 miles off, without leaving a trace behind. These cogent reasons may, it is believed, for ever fix the Suiones in Zeeland, and circling iles, with Schonen, Halland, and Westrogothia, their real civitates in oceano: and the Sitones, a part of the Suitiod, or Swedes, in the south-east corner of Sweden, now Smaland and Eastergothia.

Ptolemy, who wrote about 150 years after Christ, is the last ancient worthy to be adduced concerning Scandinavia, for the sickly dreams of Jornandes and Procopius, the last of whom was so ignorant as to take Scandinavia for Thule, tho Pliny and Ptolemy 400 years before might have told him quite the contrary, shall be left to their deluded followers. ‘Nec pueri credunt, nisi qui nondum aere lavantur. Juv. ’

Ptolemy mentions four Scandias; three small, perhaps Funen, Zeeland, and Laland: and one large, or Scandinavia, which he describes, and Agathadaemon lays down in the map, as just of a size to reach to the Wener lake, as Ptolemy's latitudes and longitudes ascertain[l]. It is above mentioned that, beyond this, the ancients imagined there was only ocean, with a few iles in it, as Eningia a part of Finland, Bergi, Nerigon, all however quite unknown to Ptolemy. In the west of Ptolemy's Scandinavia are the Chaedini; in the east the Phavonae, and Phiraesi; on the south the Gutae, and Dauciones; in the middle the Levoni. These names must all have belonged to tribes south of the lake Wener. The Gutae were surely the Gutones of Pliny, the Gothones of Tacitus, who had passed from the opposite shore; and their country is now Eastergothia, which Swedish visionaries imagine the Ostrogothia of the ancients, and Westergothia the Visogothia, tho Jornandes, the god of their idolatry, tells, cap. XIV. that those names originated from the position of the Goths on the Pontus Euxinus, or Euxine sea[m].

After this we find little or nothing concerning Scandinavia, till the sixth century, when Jornandes was to tell his fables about it, knowing that it's distance prevented detection. For tho he quotes Ablavius, who is thought by Grotius to be one living under Constantius II. about the year 340, as mentioned by Ammianus, yet it is only AFTER he describes the Goths as settled in Little Scythia; and we do not even know that Ablavius was not his cotemporary, and as ignorant as himself. Jornandes, and Procopius, who wrote at the same time, mention the Danes; and Scritfinni, or swift Fins, which shews that the south of Finland was now known. As to the other nations placed in Scandinavia, by Jornandes and Procopius, allowing their existence, they only belonged to the south parts. Eginhart, who wrote in the Ninth century, is the first i find, after the Sitones of Tacitus, who mentions the Swedes: and the Normans also began to be well known in this century, when Harold Harfagre rising first sole king of Norway, expelled many petry princes, who with their little armies took refuge in the Orkneys, and Iceland: and one of them Ganga Hrolf, or Rollo the Walker, was after some abode in the Hebudes, to found the dukedom of Normandy.

Could reason account for the ideas of folly, it were a matter of curiosity to enquire how Jornandes came to dream of all the nations in Europe proceeding from a distant and unpopulous country, and to pass Germany and Getia, or Little Scythia, countries overflowing with population? It can only be said that the Goths coming gradually from the north into the empire, it might naturally be imagined that the extreme north, or Scandinavia, was their point of progression: tho indeed it may be suspected that a love of the marvellous and false, so natural to man, might be the sole spring of a fiction, so opposite to common sense, and to all ancient authority.

Having thus shewn what the ancients knew of Scandinavia, let us consider the progress of the Scythians or Goths into it. We have already traced two Basternic nations, the SITONES and PEUKINI, up to the shores of the Baltic. On these shores, close by them, we find the Gotthones, Guttones, or Gythones, as called by Tacitus, Pliny, Ptolemy. How this nation came to hold a name so near that of all the Goths, were difficult to say, were not the name of Gut or Good given to ground, people, &c. supposed the origin of the Scandinavian Gudske latinized Gothlandia: and our Gotthones probably took their name from the same fountain, if not from Gote, a horseman, for they bordered on the Basternae, who like the Sarmatae were mostly cavalry, and it is likely the Gothones were laso cavalry, and so called by the other Germans who had little or none. We also find the Gothini a Gallic nation in the south of Germany; and, as Tacitus says their speech was Gallic, they were probably an original Celtic tribe inhabiting a mountainous country, as the map of Cluverius shews, and allowed to dwell on condition of working the mines, and paying heavy tribute, as Tacitus says they did. Their name Gothini, being probably ironical, good people. Herodotus, book IV. places most of his Scythians in Germany. The Ister or Danube he calls the largest river of Scythia. The Maris or Marus ran into the Ister from the country of the Agathyrsi, ch. 37. His Hyperborei are in Germany, for he makes their presents to Delos come down to the Adriatic sea, and thence to Dodona. In ch. 21. he tells us, that beyond the Tanais are the Sarmatae; and his Scythian nations are chiefly in Germany and Poland: ch. 23. he places far to the north some Scythae who revolted and left the rest. However this be, it is certain from Pliny, that the ancient Greeks extended Scythia even to the Baltic, where amber was alone found: and we learn from Strabo, that it was the general opinion that the Basternae (a Scythic division) held the parts beyond the Germans, or Scandinavia. The Gythones, or Gothones, Ptolemy places on the Baltic shore, between the Sideni, or Sidones, and Peukini, two Basternic nations; and it is most likely that the Gythones were also Basternae. The Sidones, or Sitones, we find in the south of Sweden on the opposite coast; and the Gythones, or Guttones, are surely the Gutae, of the south of Scandinavia, as put by Ptolemy, who had passed over to the ground formerly held by the Sitones on their moving northeast: for on, as Grotius observes, is merely the old German plural, which is sometimes given, sometimes omitted; thus Gutae, Gutones; Burgundi, Burgundiones; Lugii, Lugiones, &c. &c. &c.

It is believed, that no one, the least versed in the subject, will object that the voyage from present Prussia to Scandinavia, was too far, for a people in the rudest state of society. Some modern writers deny early population by sea; as Tacitus and other ancients reject progress by land. As the later forgot that men have feet, so the former forget that they have hands. Sea, far from checking intercourse, makes it easier even to barbarians. Wherever men are found, canoes are found; even when huts, nay cloths are wanting. The Greenlanders and Fins navigate hundreds of miles: and no nation, however savage, has been discovered in any maritime corner of the globe, that was a stranger to navigation. In the South Seas Captain Cook found small iles 400, 500, 600 miles from each other, peopled by the same race of men, speaking the same tongue.

We do not find any traces in Ptolemy, or elsewhere, of any nations passing from the west of Germany into Scandinavia, except perhaps the Levoni of Ptolemy's Scandinavia be the Lemovii of Tacitus in Lubec and Wagerland, where the passage to Scandinavia is very easy. But from the east, to which the Scythic progress was nearer and speedier, we find the Gutae and Sitones had passed: and Strabo expresses it the general opinion that the Basternae held Scandinavia. These circumstances seem to evince, as clearly as the case will bear, that Scandinavia was peopled by the Basternic nations on the east of Germany: and as their progress was as near from Little Scythia, the punctum saliens, to the extremity of Scandinavia, as was that of their brethren to the extremity of Germany, so there is every reason to conclude that Scandinavia was peopled with Scythians as soon as Germany. The Northern Fins, including Laplanders, seem to have been infallibly aborigines of their country; for they are so weak, so peaceable, and their soil so wretched, that they could have vanquished no nation, and no nation could envy them their possessions in climes beyond the solar road.

As we thus find that the Basternae, or those Germans who lived east of the Vistula, were the Scythic division that peopled Scandinavia, it can hardly be supposed that the Peukini, whose name is put by Tacitus as synonymous with Basternae, and whom we have traced up to the very shore opposite to Scandinavia, should have sent no colonies into it. On the contrary we have every reason to believe that they were the first Scythians who passed into it; and moving on in constant progress, left room for their brethren the Sitones to follow; for we find the steps of the Peukini in Ptolemy from Peuké to the Tyras, from thence to the Peukinian Mountains in Prussia[n], in a direct line; while the Sitones moved round by the westward, for in Ptolemy we find remains of them above the Quadi in the south-east of Germany; and others, still further north-west, on the Baltic shore. The Peukini, on the contrary, never crossed the Vistula, but proceeded strait on to the Baltic shore. There they vanish, while the Sitones are found in Scandinavia, on the opposite coast, which, it is surely reasonable to infer, arose from the progress of the Peukini leaving that possession open to the nation whose population followed them. For as Strabo oserves the general opinion that the Basternae possessed Scandinavia, and the Peukini were the largest and noblest name of the Basternae, it seems likely that Strabo should especially refer to them; seeing that we can trace them to the opposite coast in such full population, as to leave their name to a chain of mountains: and that we know the Sitones another Basternic division, whose progress was infinitely slower, as more circulative, held a great part of southern Scandinavia. These reasons appear to me so clear and cogent, as fully to confirm the opinion of the ancients, as related by Strabo, that the Basternic Germans peopled Scandinavia; and also to infer, from every ground of cool probability, that the Peukini were the very first Basternae who passed over, and proceeded north-west till they emerged under the name of Picti, the Pehtar, or Peohtar, or Pihtar, of the Saxon Chronicle, Pehiti of Witichind, and Pehts of ancient Scotish poets, and modern natives of Scotland, and the north of England.

It is therefore Historic Truth, that those German Scythians, who peopled Scandinavia, were the Peukini and Sitones, two divisions of the Baslernae.

Before adding a hint or two on the Piks, who are reserved for my Enquiry into Scotish history prior to 1056, i must remark that i do not build on the above progress of the Peukini, as it is sufficient for me to shew from Tacitus and Beda that the Piks were German Scythians from Scandinavia, and to trace them from Norway to Scotland. Facts, and authorities which are facts in history, are the sole grounds upon which a rational historian can proceed. If he contradicts facts and authorities, he writes romance, not history. In my laborious research into early Scotish history, i was shocked to find that, instead of a foundation, i had not even good ground for a foundation, owing to the carelessness with which the origin of nations has been treated. The toil it has cost me to drain my ground of much watry falsehood, has been equal to that of building my fabric, as the reader may judge. I can safely say the truth has been my sole object; for my labour has been too great to waste any part of it in a bauble of an hypothesis, which falls at the first breath, while truth remains for ever. To proceed to a hint on the Piks, it was not to be supposed that the Northern historians could be ignorant of a nation once so celebrated, and who proceeded from Norway. Accordingly we find the vast history of Norway by Torfaeus, compiled from Icelandic Sagas, &c. quite full of them; but under a variation in the initial letter, the cause of which must be explained.

Grammarians observe certain letters which are called labial because pronounced by the lips: they are b, f, m, p, v; of these the b, f, p, v, put at the beginning of words, are pronounced almost with the same motion of the lips, and are thus often interchanged. In Roman inscriptions we find Bita for Vita; in Greek authors Biturius for Viturius, &c. &c. &c. In Spanish V is pronounced B. The F, or Greek digamma, was pronounced V, as all know. But the interchange change of P, and V, which alone concerns my present investigation, seems peculiar to the Germans, and Northern nations of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, for i cannot trace it in Italian, Spanish, or French. Thus the Germans say Vater for the Latin Pater; Picker is Icelandic for a shipbuilder, from Vig, a ship; &c. &c. The Saxons found the sound of P and V so similar, that they actually adopted the Roman letter P to express V, and W, a modification of V. Thus on coins of William I. and II. of England PILEM is WILEM; and the same occurs in the earliest Saxon coins and MSS, and in the printed Saxon at this day, as all know. Torfaeus observes, in his Series Regum Daniae, that the Vitta of the Saxon genealogists is the Pitta of the Icelandic. I need not produce more instances, but refer the reader, if he wishes for more, to the Glossarium Germanicum of Wachter; the Glossarium Suio-Gothicum (should be Suito-Gothicum) of Ihre; and the Lexicon Islandicum of Andreas. The physical reason of the Northern nations using V for P, or pronouncing P as V, may be, that the cold contracts their organs, for V is only a less open pronounciation of P.

But in the present instance there is no occasion to insist on labial changes, but barely to mention that in the Icelandic, or Old Scandinavian language, there is in fact no such letter as P; and in words of foreign extract the P is always pronounced V, and is from that cause generally so written. Thus papa, a priest, is often written pava. In present Icelandic P is always founded V.

Of the ancient kingdom of VIKA[o], Torfaeus is full; and it is the Vichia regnum of Olaus Magnus which he puts in the list of the most important kingdoms of Scandinavia. Its inhabitants were called VIKVERAR, men of Vik, the Pihtar of the Saxons. It was one of the kingdoms which was reduced by Harold Harfagre, in the ninth century, when he became first king of all Norway. It extended, as Torfaeus informs us, from the Icelandic writers, all over the south of Norway, around Opsloa, an ancient city near the new town Christiania, and opposite the point of the Cimbric Chersonese. It was afterward the large province of Dalvika; and its east side is still known in every map by the name of Viksiden, or the side of Vika, extending down to the north-west outlet of the lake Wener. But of this more elsewhere. It shall only be observed in passing, that this must have been the very progress of the Peukini, if they preceded the Sitones, a part of whose tribes lay continuous with the Suiones, near the Wener lake: tho, had i formed an hypothesis, i should have assented to Cluverius, and all the modern geographers, who place the Sitones in Norway; as in that case to suppose the Peukini, their Basternic brethren, in the south of the same country, would have been more plausible. But as facts are the sole subject of my research, i shall leave hypothesis to those who do not grudge to labour in vain; for an hypothesis only stands till another cancels it, while facts and authorities can never be overcome.

It may be proper, before concluding, briefly to consider the received opinions concerning the Scandinavian origins. Saxo Grammaticus has founded the Danish monarchy in the person of a king Dan, more than a thousand years before Christ. Torfaeus, from Icelandic Sagas, has shewn, that Saxo's system, drawn from old songs, is false; and that Skiold, son of Odin, was the first king of Denmark, a little before our aera. Mallet has, in his history of Denmark, followed the plan of Torfaeus; and as it is much more rational than Saxo's, it promises to stand as to succession of kings; Torfaeus founding on the sole authorities which remain; and it is not to be supposed that any future historian should be so frantic as to contend against his authorities, or that the public should approve such delusion. In Sweden, the tales of Joannes Magnus, the forger, have, for a century, been in utter contempt; and the history rests upon an author of wonderful merit and judgment for his age, Snorro Sturleson, who wrote in the thirteenth century, and whose history extends to two folio volumes, and also relates to Denmark and Norway. It is in the Icelandic tongue; but a Latin translation is given by Peringskiold. He makes Odin cotemporary with Pompey, from whom he flies into the north; and subduing Scandinavia, keeps Sweden for himself, and commences the line of kings. The Norwegian history rests on the diligence of Torfaeus, who from Icelandic chronicles, genealogies, &c. concludes Odin to have come to Scandinavia in the time of Darius Hystaspis, or about 520 years before Christ. Some Northern antiquaries also finding in the Edda that Odin was put as the supreme deity, and that a total uncertainty about his age prevailed in the old accounts, have imagined to themselves another Odin, who lived about 1000 years before our aera; a mere arbitrary date, and which the formers of this system had better have put 500 years before Christ, as Torfaeus the most diligent of Northern antiquaries has done. Mallet, who has taken matters as he found them, supposes two Odins; and looks on the last, who flourished in Pompey's time, as an Asiatic Magician; nay he tells us some believe three Odins! Torfaeus, we have seen, in his Norwegian history, infers him to have lived 500 years before Christ, whom in his Series Regum Daniae he had thought lived only 50!

O caecas hominum mentes! O pectora caeca!

Here is the secret: ODIN NEVER EXISTED. The whole affair is an allegory. Torfaeus, so profoundly versed in the Icelandic monuments, tells us they abound in allegory, insomuch that it is often impossible to distinguish truth from falsehood in them. Strange that he did not see that they all begin with allegorv! Not one of these Icelandic pieces, nor any monument whatever of Scandinavian history, is older than the Eleventh century. What dependence then as to events happening before Christ? Their chronology down to Harold Harfagre, or the end of the ninth century, is also quite confused, insomuch that you will find one man cotemporary to three or four centuries.

The Later Edda, which was also compiled by Snorro in the thirteenth century, fully confirms the idea that Odin was never in life, but was merely the God of War. In this Edda Thor is the son of Odin. Mallet well observes that, thro this whole Edda, Odin the hero, who led the Goths from Asia, is confounded with Odin the God of War, or supreme god of the Norwegians. True: yet is there no confusion. There was but one Odin, the god. The hero is a non-existence. The whole progress of the Goths from Asia under Odin is so palpable and direct an allegory, that he must have little penetration indeed who cannot pierce it. It was the God of War who conducted the Goths; literally, they fought their way against the Celts and Fins. But it may be said, how then came Snorro (for on him the whole rests) to make Odin cotemporary with Pompey? Be it observed on this, that Snorro lived at a late period, the end of the Thirteenth century, and that not an iota about Pompey could occur, till Christianity introduced Latin Learning in the 11th age. The fact is merely this. Snorro found even from his strange genealogy, that the earliest kings of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, of whom tradition preserved the names, could not be dated further back than about 50 years before Christ. These kings, as usual with even Greek and Roman genealogists, when the name of their fathers was unknown to tradition, were called sons of some God; and in the present case Odin the Alfader, and the Mars, was the common sire. Snorro, who, as appears from his work, was considerably tinctured with Latin learning, never reflected that Odin could be only an allegorical father; but simply believes him a real human father; and finding his epoch according to his foolish genealogy of Kings correspond, in this view, with that of Pompey, thinks it a proper place to display his Latin, by connecting his history with the Roman. His work is divided into various Sagas, or historic romances; and as the Icelanders had Sagas on Alexander the Great, on Arthur, on Troy, &c. it is likely they had one on Pompey; in which, as all chronology was confounded in these romances, Odin was brought in as fighting with him. Snorro probably had this saga before him, and so gives the tale. But to shew how very little Snorro can be relied on, we have only to reflect that, in the preface to the Edda, he makes Thor the founder of Troy, and Odin his descendant in the 17th generation; that is, allowing 30 years as usual for a generation, Odin lived 510 years after Thor, whom he makes Tros, from mere similarity of names. Now Tros lived, as chronologers mark, 1360 years before Christ; of course Odin lived 850 years before Christ, and yet was cotemporary to Pompey! No wonder that three Odins were necessary! In truth chronology, as might be expected, is utterly confounded in those romances called Sagas, insomuch that Torfaeus once placed King Hrolf Krak 500 years before Christ, and was afterward forced to put him 500 years after Christ. The story of Odin flying from Pompey is a mere dream of some silly Saga; and he who builds on it must be weaker than a child. Such an event, as the migration of a whole nation from the Euxine to the Baltic, could never escape the Greeks, who had numerous colonies on the Euxine, and who traded to the Baltic for amber. It is however remarkable that all Scandinavian Sagas mention Odin with his Scythians coming to Scandinavia, but not one hints that a single colony went from it to Scvthia; which is another argument against the Goths proceeding from Scandinavia.

If the Northern antiquaries will therefore open their eyes, and see at last that all concerning Odin is a mere mythologic allegory, they will do well. There was but one Odin, the God of War, who was cotemporary in all ages. The kings of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, nay the whole Anglo-Saxon kings, owned him as first father. That is, they were entitled solely to martial prowess for their thrones. As for the genealogy of Odin himself, in which we find him descended from a line of ancestors, as Geta or the father of the Getae, and Pitta or the father of the Piks, &c. it is also allegorical, as much as the Theogonia of Hesiod, and the genealogies of Greek gods and heroes. Mere poetry all; and not history. Odin's progress, as marked from the Northern histories, by Mallet, in his fourth chapter of the Introduction was round by Germany, the Cimbric Chersonese, and Denmark, into Sweden. How could Mallet be so much asleep, as to dream that this event which, according to him, happened in Caesar's time, could be unknown to Caesar? That Odin should pierce thro all the hundred martial nations of Germany, and not leave a trace behind? Should vanquish the Suevi, to whom, as their neighbours said, the Gods were not equal? One is sick of such folly; and to confute it is to debase the human mind. The whole is unchronologic allegory. The Goths by war subdued and peopled Scandinavia, an event that happened at least 500 years before Christ; and was accomplished by different nations, under different leaders, but all under the guidance of Odin the god of war. Varro marks three divisions of antiquity, the dark, the mythologic, the historic. The Northern antiquaries to this day; when such great writers as Schoening, Suhm the illustrious patron of Danish literature, Lagerbring the most acute Swedish historian, rank among them; still confound the mythologic with the historic period. Odin is wholly a mythologic personage; and has nothing to do with history, which only faintly dawns at the reigns of his reputed sons, as the Roman does with Romulus son of Mars. The tales about him, and his Asae, are all poetical allegories; and have no more to do with history than Greek mythology. If he ever existed, it was in the first Scythian empire, 3000 years before Christ. Romulus was the son of Mars, as the Northern kings of Odin: but no writer has been so foolish as to infer that Mars was the human father of Romulus, and reigned in Latium just before him. The great good sense of the Scandinavian antiquaries has already led them to laugh at Jornandes: but one or two still dream of a migration of Goths to Scandinavia under one Odin, about 1000 years before Christ; a second from it to Getia, about 300 years before Christ; and a return under another Odin 70 years before Christ. So hard it is to eradicate prejudice!

A philosophic dissertation on Scandinavian Chronology is wanted; but philosophy has not yet reached Scandinavia; and it's best writers are full of their domestic tales, but strangers to Greek and Roman learning, and to the general history of ancient Europe. Their histories bear only 24 kings, (one more or less,) from 70 years before Christ to Ragnar Lodbrog, who flourished, as appears from Old English writers and other certain accounts, in 830. But in the series of Irish, Pikish, and Heptarchic kings of England, the kings reign but eleven years each at a medium; and Sir Isaac Newton has shewn that even in civilized kingdoms they reign but eighteen. Scandinavia was certainly more ferocious than most other countries, and it's kings must have reigned a shorter, and not a longer, time than the kings in England, Scotland, and Ireland: accordingly most of the early Swedish and Danish kings die violent deaths. Not more than eleven years can be allowed to each reign: and 264 years reckoned back from 830 give the year of Christ 566, for the commencement of the series; and period of the mock Odin. The generations can never be computed by reigns of kings. All history refuses this. Who can believe that the sons regularly succeeded their fathers, and formed generations by reigns? Snorro, &c. are in this respect more fabulous than Saxo. The generations are false; tho the names may be genuine. But even fable ought to bear verisimilitude; and from the year 500 to 900 should be placed the Fabulous part of Danish, Swedish, Norwegian history. All before is dark, and lost even to fable. The total silence of their writers concerning the progress of the Jutes and Angles to England confirms this date, as well as the most certain rules of chronology.

Epochs of the First Gothic Progress over Europe.

ANCIENT Chronology has been ruined by attempting to force it to Scripture, which is surely no canon of chronology; for the Septuagint, translated from MSS. far more ancient than any we have, differs from the present. Hebrew no less than 576 years before Noah, and 880 from Noah to Abraham. The Greek Church, certainly as well instructed as the Roman, dates the creation 5508 years before Christ. Epiphanius, Augustin, and other fathers, follow the Hebrew of their time, which agrees with the Septuagint. But Ancient Chronology ought only to be estimated from ancient authors; and kept quite apart from scriptural chronology. The date of the creation, &c. can never be decided, either from scripture or otherwise; and such speculations are futile. In other points the authority of the learned Usher, now universally allowed the best chronologer, is followed.

In adjusting ancient chronology, it must ever be remembered that in tradition, as in common memory, GREAT EVENTS, tho very remote, are, from the deep impression they make, apt to be blended with small recent incidents. Thus the first Scythic Empire, the victories of Sesostris, &c. were great events preserved in the memory of many generations; but in the historic page these great ancient events appear crouded, and immediately precede lesser incidents, which happened but eight centuries, or so, before our aera. So in old age any affecting incident of childhood appears but of yesterday; while all the intermediate passages of youth, and maturity, have perished. Tradition, like memory, preserves Great matters, and Late matters, in the same vivid manner; the former because they have made deep impression; the later because the impression is recent.

The first dawn of history breaks with the Egyptian. Menes the first king, after the gods and heroes, reigned about,

Before Christ 4000

The Scythians, whom the dawn of history discovers in present Persia, (Epiphan. Euseb. Chron. Paschal.) under their king Tanaus attack Vexores king of Egypt and conquer Asia, (Justin.) 1500 years before Ninus, or about

3660

(The Chinese history begins; and is continued in constant and clear narration, as now allowed by the best orientalists

2500

Ninus, first monarch of the Assyrian Empire, for Belus was a god, (Baal, Bel,) his reputed father, as Mars of Romulus, and Odin of northern kings, establishes that empire on the ruins of the Scythian. The Scythae Nomades of the north of Persia cross the Araxes and Caucasus, and settle around the Euxine (Herodot. Diod. Sic. &c.) about

2160

The Scythians begin settlements in Thrace, Illyricum, Greece, and Asia Minor, about

1800

The Scythians have completely peopled Thrace, Illyricum, Greece, and a great part of Asia Minor, about

1500

Sesostris king of Egypt attacks the Scythians of Colchis with a land army, and leaves a colony of Egyptians, afterward the famous Colchians. He also passes thro Asia Minor, and attacks Thrace (Herodot. Diod. &c.) about

1480

The Scythians peopled Italy[*], about

1000

The Parental Scythians on the Euxine again hold the supreme empire of Asia by vanquishing the Medes; but only for 28 years (Herodot. &c.)

740

The Scythians have peopled Germany and Scandinavia; and a Great part of Gaul, and Spain, about

500

The Belgae pass into the south of Britain and of Ireland, about

300

The Piks pass into the north of Britain, about

300

Epochs of the Second Gothic Progress from Getia and from Germany over Europe[*].

The Rhine and the Danube had been appointed the boundaries of the Roman empire by Augustus; but Trajan was to extend them to their furthest degree, by his conquests in Asia, which were resigned by Hadrian. Yet an acquisition of Trajan beyond the Danube was more permanent, for

103 years After Christ, he subdued Dacia, and erected it into a Roman province; bounded on the north by the Tyras or Neister, on the west by the Tibiscus or Teyss, on the south by the Danube, and on the east by the Euxine; and peopled it wholly with Roman subjects; being a space about 1300 miles in circumference: but which seems to have been diminished by incursions of the Daci and Sarmatae, even so early as the time of Hadrian. The pillar of Trajan at Rome represents this conquest.

173. Marcus Antoninus repells the Quadi and Marcomanni[†].

These transactions are the chief we find in Roman history relating to the Goths or Germans, till the grand aera following.

250. The Getae or Parental Goths pass the Tyras or Neister into the province of Dacia, and ravaging it march on south over the Danube into Thrace. These Goths did not come originally from Scandinavia, as most foolishly inferred from Jornandes, who says no such thing, but that the ancient Scythians or Goths came from Scandinavia, and afterward conquered Asia and Vexores king of Egypt, events that happened about 3660 years before Christ. This ridiculous and absurd tale of Jornandes, tho narrated with such palpable hues of sable as cannot impose on a child, and tho utterly contradicted by the consent of all the ancients, as shewn above in the second chapter of this essay, has yet misled all the greatest authors of Europe to this hour! The fact is, that these Goths who now poured into Dacia were the Getae, a people whom Darius found in the very country whence they now issued 570 years before Christ, as Herodotus shews. They were, as above fully explained, the same with the Scythae, as Jornandes also knew: and that the Scythae came from the southern parts of Asia, the reader has seen by the consent of all antiquity. Soon after we find the Getae, or Goths, laterly so called, divided into Ostrogoths, or Eastern-Getoe, and Vesigoths, or Western-Getoe. The royalty of the Ostrogoths was, as Jornandes shews, ch. 5. in the family of the Amal•; and the neighbouring Scythic nations of the Alani, &c. &c. were generally subject to the Ostrogoths. West of the Boristenes were the Vesigoths, anciently the Tyragetae stretching westward even to the Basternae, another tract of vast extent. The royalty of the Vesigoths was in the family of the Balthi or Baldi: Jorn. ch. 5. The progress of these two vast nations of Ostrogoths and Vesigoths will be shewn in the sequel. These Goths, who poured into Dacia A. D. 250, were palpably the Vesigoths or Western-Getae; for the Ostrogoths were remote from the Roman empire.

251. Decius is defeated and slain in Maesia by the Vesigoths or Western Getae.

252. Gallus purchases peace of the Goths by an annual tribute. They return to their own country.

About 260. The Chauci, Cherusci and C•tti (including the smaller nations B•ucteri, Usipii, Tencteri, Sali•, Ansivarit, Chamavi, Dulgibin•, Chassuarii, Angrivarii) great nations of Germany, form a grand alliance under the name of FRANCI or •ree-men; and bursting thro Gaul, ravage Spain: and a part even passes into Africa. All the above nations are especially named by various ancients as members of the Franci: see Cluver. Germ. Ant. lib. III. where the authorities are produced.

About the same time the A amanni invade Italy and return laden with spoil. This people consisted of several tribes of the vast German nation of the Suevi whocoalescing took the name of All men or men of all tribes, as authors relate. Tho it seems likely the name rather implied their supreme courage, as who•e men, full of virility.

About the same time the Goths seize on the small kingdom of the Bosphorus Cimmerius, which had long subsisted under Roman protection. As this petty kingdom was on the south point of the dominions of the Ostrogoths, while the Vesigoths were at a great distance, there is every reason to believe that the former are meant. After this they in one naval expedition take Trebisond, and ravage the Euxine shores; in a second moving westward plunder Bithynia; and in a third ravage Greece.

269. The Goths, with another naval armament, land in Macedonia. Claudius the emperor advancing, a great battle was fought at Naissus in Dardania, and Claudius conquering obtained the surname of Gothicus.

About 272, Aurelian is forced to yield to the Goths the province of Dacia. The Vesigoths who extended all over the north and west of Dacia are implied.

About the same time the Alamanni invading Italy are defeated by Aurelian.

276. The Alani invading Pontus are defeated by Tacitus.

278. Probus builds a wall from the Rhine to the Danube, about 200 miles, to protect the empire from the German nations.

322. The Western Goths, no longer content with Dacia, pour into Illyricum. Constantine I. repells them.

331. The Vandals who, finding Germany open by the frequent transitions of the Franks and Alamanni south-west, had gradually spred a part of their nation south-east, till it bordered on the Vesigoths, have many conflicts with the latter people. Constantine I. again repells the Goths; and conquers a few Sarmatians.

355. The Franks and Alamanni pass the Rhine, and ravage Gaul. Julian conquers, and repells them.

365. The Alamanni again invade Gaul; and are defeated.

367. Ulphilas, bishop of those Goths who had formerly been allowed by Constantine II. (Philostorg. lib. II.) to settle in Maesia, translates the scriptures into Gothic, a part of which translation yet remains. Before the year •00 most of the Gothic nations in the Roman empire, and on its frontiers, became Christians.

370. The Burgundians, a •andalic race, who app••red under this name on the southwest of Germany, 〈…〉 ••••ce, invade Gaul.

About the same time the Saxons, also of Vandalic origin, and whom Ptolemy first mentions on the mouth of the Elbe, ravage the sea-coasts of Gaul and Britain.

About this time also the Piks, a German-Gothic people of Scandinavia, who had settled in present Scotland about three centuries before Christ, ravage the north of Britain; as indeed Eumenius the panegyrist says they had been accustomed to do before the time of Julius Caesar. Theodosius, the general of Valentinian, found the Piks, and their confederates the Scots, advanced even to London; whence he repelled them: and driving the Piks to their ancient possessions beyond the Clyde and Forth, gained the province which he called Valentia.

About the same time the great Hermanric, king of the Ostrogoths or Eastern Getae, and chief of the race of the Amali, extended his conquests so far and wide, that Jornandes compares him to Alexander. The Vesigothic kings were reduced to take the titles of Judges. The Heruli and the Venedi of Poland, and the Aestii of Prussia, with many other nations, were all subdued by him.

About 375 the HUNS burst at once from Tartary upon the dominions of the Alani and Ostrogoths. As the appearance of this new people forms the greatest phaenomenon in the history of Europe, it will be proper to dwell a little on it. M. de Guignes has, from his knowlege of the Chinese tongue, obliged the world with a complete history of the Huns, in four large volumes: tho unhappily full of errors, because M. de G. was not skilled in Greek and Roman history and geography. The Huns are the Hiong-nou of the Chinese, and their own Tartars: and originated from the north of China. Their wars with the Chinese can be traced back to 200 years before our aera. About 87 years before Christ, the Chinese obtained a prodigious victory over them. The vast Hunnic nations after this fell into civil wars. In process of time the numerous hordes that were vanquished moved west in two divisions, one division settled on the confines of Persia, the other passed north west over the vast river Volga, and poured into Europe in amazing numbers, which no valour could withstand. They first encountered the Alani, whom they overpowered, but admitted as allies. They, and the other Gothic nations, who even to the Caledonian woods of the Piks were of large limbs, elegant and blooming features, and light hair, were astonished at the very forms of these new invaders, distinguished by squat limbs, flat noses, broad faces, and small black eyes, dark hair, with little or no beard, as are indeed the present Tartars. The Ostrogoths yielded to the Hunnic swarms, and were admitted allies on condition of fighting in their armies.

376. The Huns now commanded by Balamir (as they were afterward by three others before the famous Attila) next entered the Vesigothic territory. The Vesigoths seeing all resistance would be vain, against such myriads, were forced to implore the protection of the emperor Valens, who, with more generosity than policy, allowed them settlements south of the Danube. Upon which near a million of the Vesigoths, including wives and children, passed into the Roman territory of Maesia. A remnant of the Ostrogoths also followed. The Goths being denied provisions revolt.

377. The Goths penetrate into Thrace.

378. On the 9th of August was fought the famous battle of Hadrianople, in which Valens was defeated and slain by the Goths. Ammianus says it was another Cannae. But the Goths, falling into intestine divisions, were in the course of a dozen years repelled to Pannonia, and a colony of the Vesigoths was settled in Thrace, while a few Ostrogoths were placed in Lydia and Phrygia. An army of 40,000 Goths was retained for defence of the empire, and are remarkable in the Byzantine writers by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 foederati.

During the rest of the reign of Balamir, and those of his three successors Octar, Roas, and Bleda, the Huns rested satisfied with the territory they had gained, which extended to present Hungary: and Attila did not reign till 430, or about 50 years after this. Vast numbers of the Goths seem to have ravaged and seized on the provinces, from the south west of Germany and Illyricum to Macedon.

395. The Goths unanimously rise under the command of the great Alaric.

396. Alaric ravages Greece.

398. He is chosen king of the Vesigoths. The Ostrogoths remained in the Hunnic territory as allies.

400—403. Alaric invades Italy, and is defeated by Stilicho who was himself a Vandalic Goth.

406. Radagaisus at the head of a large army of German nations, (Vandals, Suevi, and Burgundians), and Gothic auxiliaries, invades Italy. He is likewise defeated by Stilicho. The remains of his army ravage Gaul.

408. Alaric invades Italy. Rome is thrice besieged, and at length pillaged by him in 410. The moderation of the Goths is highly praised by several cotemporary writers. The monuments of art suffered not from them; but from time, and barbarous pontiss. In 410 Alaric dies.

412. Ataulphus, brother in law of Alaric, and his elected successor, makes peace with the Romans; and marches into the south of Gaul, which the Vesigoths possess for a long time.

415. The Suevi, Vandals, and Alani, having in 409 penetrated from the southwest of Germany into Gaul, which they ravaged, were afterward by Constantine, brother in law of Honorius, forced to abandon Gaul, and pass into Spain. Ataulphus, king of the Vesigoths, now led his forces against them. The Vesigoths in three years conquer the invaders; and restore Spain to the Romans. The Suevi and Vandals however still retained Gallicia. The Vesigoths hold Aquitain.

420. The Franks, Burgundians, and Vesigoths, obtain a permanent seat and dominion in Gaul. The first in Belgic Gaul on the north; the second in the Provincia Lugdunensis, and present Burgundy, in the middle; the last in Narbonne, and Aquitain, on the south.

429. The Vandals of Spain pass into Africa under Genseric their king: and establish the Vandalic kingdom of Africa, whch under Genseric, Ungeric, Gundabund, Thrasamund, Hilderic, and Gilimer, lasted till 535, when Gilimer was vanquished by Belifarius, and the Vandalic empire ceased in Africa, after 96 years of duration.

430. The great Attila, king of the Huns, begins to reign about this time. His chief fame sprung from the terror he spred into the Roman empire; his conquests have been ridiculously magnified. On the authority of a vague expression of Jornandes, solus Scythica et Germanica regna possedit [*], some hints of Priscus, and the exaggerations of eastern writers, repeated by M. de Guignes, it is said that his power extended over all Germany, even into Scandinavia. But no German, or Scandinavian, author, or antiquary, shews a single trace of this, and we know it to be false from the names of the nations who followed Attila's standard. On the east the Ostrogoths obeyed him; and the Gepidae, whose king Ardaric was his faithfull counsellor; and the Heruli. On the west, the Rugii and Thuringi are the only nations we find under his banner at Chalons, where his whole force was assembled; and they both moved south long before, and bordered on Bohemia and Hungary. Attila's domains were vast; but he turned with scorn from the barren north, while the south afforded every temptation; and we read of none of his conquests to the north. The cool historian will therefore reject the hyperboles of fancy and fear; and contract Attila's power in Germany to very narrow bounds. The palace and royal village of Attila, described by Priscus and Jornandes, stood between the Danube and the Teyss, in the plains of upper Hungary; and he chose that spot that he might over-run the Romans, and command the south west provinces of the empire.

At this time Theodoric reigned over the Vesigoths in Gaul; and Clodion, the first king in real history, over the Franks; of Pharamond no authentic trace can be found.

449. The Vitae or Jutes arrive in Britain. Mr. Gibbon is certainly right that they were not invited, as dreamed, but were northern rovers, allowed to settle in Kent, on condition of lending assistance against the Piks and Scots. The weak manner in which the ancient history of England has been treated, while by the labours of many learned men that of France and Germany is clear as day, has left confusion every where. The acquisitions of the Jutes, Saxons, Angli, are all huddled together by our superficial dablers! The Jutes seized a corner of Kent in 449: they encreased, and founded the kingdom of Kent about 460. In 477 the first Saxons arrived, and founded the kingdom of South Saxons. In 495 the West Saxons arrived. The East Saxons in 527. Hitherto there were no Angli in Britain. The first Angli who arrived, came under Ida to Bornicia in 547. The East Angles do not appear till 575. Mercia, which Beda says was an Anglic kingdom, but seems to me a Frisian, as we know that the Frisi were of the nations who seized Britain tho omitted by Beda, who was an Anglus, and gives that name most improperly; Mercia was founded in 585. Let me also observe on this great event, that the ideas received into English history concerning it are, in some other respects, mistaken. The Belgic Britons, as Germans, infallibly used the same tongue with their new allies. The Welsh were, even in the time of Julius, confined to Wales and the north: they are his indigenes. The Welsh usurp all the Belgic kings, with whom they have no more to do than with the English. From Cunobelinus to Vortiger not a prince can be given to the Welch. The Belgic Britons no doubt amounted to three or four millions; all of whom were incorporated with their allies, who by all accounts were not numerous, tho warlike. The Belgae were the Villani and slaves of the conquerors; and exceeding them in number, their speech must have prevailed as happened in Spain, Italy, and Gaul, where the lingua rustica Romana obtained. Our old language should be called Anglo-Belgic, not Anglo-Saxon. They who look on the Welch as the only speech of the ancient Britons are widely mistaken: they were called Britons, as being the indigenes; while the Belgic name was lost in the heptarchic states. The Welch and Irish tongues preserve that soul of language the grammar: but are so mixt with Gothic, or German and Latin, that Ihre, not knowing the vast difference of the grammar, pronounces what we call Celtic a dialect of the Gothic. In Gothic we have a monument of the fourth century, the gospels of Ulphila, a book in which the meaning of every word is sacred and marked. In Celtic we have no remain older than the eleventh century; and the interpretation is dubious. The Belgae commanded both in Britain, and Ireland; and, being a later and far superior people, imparted innumerable words to the Celtic. They therefore who derive any English words from Celtic only shew a risible ignorance: for the truth is, that the Celtic are derived from the English.

451. Attila invades Gaul, and besieges Orleans. The grand battle of Chalons, the campi Catalaunici, is fought. This conflict, the most prodigious and important ever joined in Europe, in any age, was between Attila, with his innumerable army of Huns, Gepidae, Ostrogoths, Rugii, Thuringi; and on the other side Aetius with Romans, Theodoric with Vesigoths, the Alani, Saxons, Franks, Burgundians, Armoricans, &c. Attila is totally defeated and forced to retreat, leaving 150,000 of his army on the field, at the smallest computation. Had he conquered, all Europe would now have been Hunnish, or Turkish; instead of Scythic, or Gothic: and from the polygamy, &c. of the Huns; inimical to the Christian faith, it is likely (divine causes apart) we had all been Mahometans. So much may depend on one hour.

452. Attila returns upon Italy, but spares Rome. He is again defeated by Torismond, king of the Vesigoths: Jornandes, ch. 42. He dies next year: and his vast empire being divided among his discordant sons falls at once, like a meteor that passes over half the globe, then in an instant vanishes for ever.

453. Ardaric, king of the Ostrogoths, assisted by the Gepidae, defeats the Huns, whom he had abandoned in Pannonia. The Gepidae under Arcadic, seize the palace of Attila, and all Dacia. All Illyricum falls to the Ostrogoths. The remainder of the European Huns was but very small, (see Jorn. ch. 53.) and afterward nearly extinguished by the Igours of Siberia. In Hungary there is not one Hun, tho the name Hunnivar (Jorn. c. 52.) arose from the Huns. The Hungaric language is Finnish; and the Hungarians proper are Igours, a Finnish people who settled there in the Ninth century. See De Guignes, Peyssonnel, &c.

455. Genseric king of the African Vandals takes Rome.

456. Theodoric king of the Vesigoths defeats the Suevi in Spain.

462—472. Euric, successor of Theodoric, makes conquests in the northwest of Gaul. He subdues all Spain, save Gallicia which the Suevi held; and thus begins the Gothic empire in Spain, which lasted till 713, when the Moors conquered the Goths, and maintained part of their Spanish domain, till the end of the Fifteenth century. The present Spaniards are descended of the Vesigoths, Romans, and Iberians. The Suevi were united to the Gothic empire by Leovigild, about 550.

475. Odoacer at the head of the Turcilingi, Scyrri, Heruli, and other mixt Sarmatic and Gothic tribes, terminates the Roman empire in the west: and reigns at Rome fourteen years.

490. Theodoric, the great king of the Ostrogoths in Pannonia, vanquishes Odoacer, and rules Italy, which was now overwhelmed with Ostrogoths, of whom, Lombards, and the old inhabitants, the present Italians spring.

490—508. The Franks under Clovis subdue the Vesigoths in Gaul, and the Burgundians: an event with which properly commences the French kingdom.

The Lombards also deserve mention. Paulus Diaconus follows Jornandes, the idol of the middle ages, and brings them from Scandinavia. But we prefer Tacitus who finds them in the heart of Germany. Thence they moved southwest, till they settled in Pannonia, about 400 years after Christ, or as i rather suspect after Attila's death, or about 453, when the Gepidae[*], of whom ancient authors call the Longobardi a part, (Grotii Proleg.) seized Dacia. In Pannonia the Lombards remained till about 570, when under Alboin they seized on the north of Italy; and after held almost the whole, save Rome and Ravenna, till 773, when Desiderius, the last king, was vanquished by Charlemagne.

Appendix.
Pliny's Description of the Northern parts of Europe; with a translation, and remarks. Hist. Nat. lib. IV. c. 13.

EXEUNDUM deinde est, ut extera Europae dicantur; transgressisque RIPHAEOS montes, litus oceani septentrionalis, in laeva donec perveniatur Gades, legendum. Insulae complures sine nominibus eo situ traduntur. Ex quibus, ante SCYTHIAM quae appellatur RAUNONIA[*], unam abesse diei cursu, in quam veris tempore fluctibus electrum ejiciatur, Timaeus prodidit. Reliqua litora incerta signata fama. SEPTENTRIONALIS OCEANUS; AMALCHIUM eum Hecataeus appellat a Paropamiso amne qua Scythiam alluit, quod nomen ejus gentis lingua significat Congelatum. Philemon MORIMARUSAM a Cimbris vocari, hoc est Mortuum Mare, usque ad promontorium RUBEAS, ultra deinde CRONIUM. Xenophon Lampsacenus a litore Scytharum, tridui navigatione, insulam esse immensae magnitudinis BALTIAM tradit. Eamdem Pytheas BASILIAM nominat. Feruntur et OONAE in quibus ovis avium, et avenis, incolae vivant. Aliae in quibus equinis pedibus homines nascantur, HIPPOPODES appellati. FANESIORUM aliae, in quibus nuda alioquin corpora praegrandes ipsorum aures tota contegant.

Incipit deinde clarior aperiri fama ab gente INGAEVONUM, quae est prima inde GERMANIAE. SEVO mons ibi immensus, nec Riphaeis jugis minor, immanem ad CIMBRORUM usque PROMONTORIUM efficit sinum qui CODANUS vocatur, refertus insulis. Quarum clarissima SCANDINAVIA est, incompertae magnitudinis; portionem tantum ejus quod sit notum HILLEVIONUM gente quingentis incolente pagis; quae alterum orbem terrarum eam appellat. Nec est minor opinione ENINGIA. Quidam haec habitari ad Vistulam usque fluvium a SARMATIS, VENEDIS, SCIRIS, HIRRIS tradunt. Sinum CYPIPENUM vocari; et in ostio ejus insulam LATRIN. Mox alterum sinum LAGNUM conterminum Cimbris. Promontorium Cimbrorum, excurrens in maria longe, peninsulam efficit quae CARTRIS appellatur. Tres et viginti inde INSULAE Romanorum armis cognitae. Earum nobilissimae BURCHANA, Fabaria nostris dicta a frugis similitudine sponte provenientis. Item GLESSARIA a succino militiae appellata; a barbaris AUSTRANIA; praeterque ACTANIA.

Toto autem hoc mari, ad Scaldim usque fluvium, Germanicae accolunt gentes, haud explicabili mensura, tam immodica prodentium discordia est. Graeci et quidam nostri, XXV. M. passuum oram Germaniae tradiderunt. Agrippa cum Rhaetia et Norico, longitudinem DCXCVI. millia passuum, latitudinem CXLVIII. millium: Rhaetiae prope unius majore latitudine, sane circa excessum ejus subactae. Nam Germania multis postea annis, nec tota percognita est. Si conjectare permittitur, haud multum orae deerit Graecorum opinione, et longitudini ab Agrippa proditae.

Germanorum genera quinque. VANDILI quorum pars Burgundiones, Varini, Carini, Guttones. Alterum genus INGAEVONES, quorum pars Cimbri, Teutoni, ac Chaucorum gentes. Proximi autem Rheno ISTAEVONES, quorum pars Cimbri Mediterranei. HERMIONES, quorum Suevi, Hermunduri, Chatti, Cherusci. Quinta pars PEUCINI BASTERNAE, supradictis contermina Dacis. Amnes clari in oceanum defluunt Guttalus, Vistillus sive Vistula, Albis, Visurgis, Amisius, Rhenus, Mosa. Introrsus vero, nullo inferius nobilitate, Hercynium jugum praetenditur.

TRANSLATION.

After describing the Hellespont, Maeotis, Dacia, Sarmatia, Antient Scythia, and the iles in Pontus Euxinus, proceeding east from Spain; he passes north to the Scythic Ocean, and returns west toward Spain.

We must now depart thence to speak of the extreme parts of Europe; and, passing the Riphaean mountains, 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 pursue the shore of the Northern Ocean to the left, till we come to Gades. Many ilands without names are said to be in that tract. Of which one opposite to Scythia called Raunonia, is distant a day's course, on which, in spring, amber is cast up by the waves, as Timaeus tells. The other shores are marked by uncertain fame. The Northern ocean Hecataeus calls Amalchium, from the river Paropamisus, where it washes Scythia: which name in the language of that people implies Congealed or Frozen. Philemon says it is called Morimarusa, by the Cimbri, signifying the Dead Sea, till it reaches the promontory Rubeas, and beyond that it is called Cronium. Xenophon of Lampsacus relates that, three days sail from the coast of the Scythians, there is an iland of immense size, called Baltia. Pytheas terms the same iland Basilia. The Oonae are also spoken of, in which the natives live on eggs of birds, and on oats. Others in which are men born with horses feet, and thence named Hippopodes. Others of the Fanesii, whose otherwise naked bodies are covered with their vast ears.

Thence clearer accounts begin with the nation of Ingaevones, the first on that side of Germany. There Sevo, an immense range of mountains, nor less than the Riphaean, forms a great bay even to the Cimbric Promontory, which bay is termed Codanus and is full of ilands. Of which the most famous is Scandinavia of undiscovered greatness; the Hilleviones in five hundred districts inhabiting the only part known, who call it another world. Nor is Eningia less in opinion. Some relate that those tracts even to the river Vistula are inhabited by the Sarmatae, Venedi, Sciri, and Hirri: and that the bay is called Cylipenum, and an ile in it's mouth Latris. Then another bay, called Lagnus, adjacent to the Cimbri. The Cimbric Promontory running far into the sea, forms a peninsula, called Cartris. Thence are Twenty-three iles, known to the Roman arms. The noblest of them are Burchana, called Fabaria by our people, from a spontaneous fruit in the shape of a bean. Also Glessaria, so called by our soldiers, from it's amber, but by the barbarians Austrania; and likewise Actania.

Along this whole sea, even to the river Scaldis the German nations dwell, in a space not explicable, the discordance of accounts being so immoderate. The Greeks, and some of us, have related the borders of Germany to be of Twenty-five Hundred miles. Agrippa, including Rhaetia and Noricum, puts it's length at 696 miles, it's breadth at 248, the breadth of Rhaetia almost alone, (subdued about the time of Agrippa's death) being greater than that of Germany [on the South]. For Germany was not known many years after, nor is yet thoroughly so. If conjecture may be allowed, there will not be much wanting of its circumference in the opinion of the Greeks, and of it's length as given by Agrippa.

There are Five divisions of Germans. The Vandili, of whom a part are the Burgundiones, Varini, Carini, Guttones. Another Division is the Ingaevones, of whom are the Cimbri, Teutoni, and nations of Chauci. Nearest the Rhine are the Istaevones, of whom the inland Cimbri form a part. The Hermiones of whom are the Suevi, Hermunduri, Chatti, Cherusci. The Fisth Part is formed by the Peukini Basternae, bordering on the Daci abovementioned. Famous rivers flowing into the ocean are the Guttalus, the Vistillus or Vistula, the Albis, Visurgis, Amisius, Rhenus, Mosa. In the inner parts the Hercynian mountains extend, inferior to none in fame.

[Pliny then describes Batavia, Britain, Gaul, &c.]
Lib. VI. c. 14.

Nunc, omnibus quae sunt interiora Asiae dictis, RIPHAEOS montes transcendat animus, dextraque litori OCEANI incedat. Tribus hic e partibus caeli alluens Asiam, SCYTHICUS a Septentrione, ab oriente EOUS, a meridie INDICUS vocatur; varieque, per sinus et accolas, in complura nomina dividitur. Verum Asiae quoque magna portio apposita septentrioni, injuria sideris rigentis, vastas solitudines habet. Ab extremo aquilone ad initium orientis aestivi SCYTHAE sunt. Extra eos, ultraque aquilonis initia, HYPERBOREOS aliqui posuere; pluribus in Europa dictis. Primum inde noscitur promontorium Celticae LYTARMIS, fluvius CARAMBUCIS, ubi lassata cum siderum vi RIPHAEORUM montium deficiunt juga. Ibique ARIMPHAEOS quosdam accepimus, haud dissimilem Hyperboreis gentem..... Ultra cos plane jam SCYTHAE, CIMMERII, CISSIANTHI, GEORGI, et AMAZONUM gens. Haec usque ad Caspium et Hyrcanium mare. Nam et erumpit e Scythico oceano in aversa Asiae.... Irrumpit autem arctis faucibus in longitudinem spatiosis.

〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉

TRANSLATION.

In describing Asia, after Cappadocia, Armenia, Albania, Iberia, and iles in Pontus, he proceeds to the Nations on the Scythic Ocean.

Now, having described the inner parts of Asia, my mind passes the Riphaean mountains, and traces the shore of the Ocean on the right hand. Which washing Asia on three points of heaven, is called Scythic on the north; Eoan on the east; Indian on the south; and is variously divided into many lesser names from it's bays, and the inhabitants of it's shores. But a great portion of Asia exposed to the north, by the injury of a rigid star, has vast solitudes. From the extreme north toward the north-east are Scythae. Without them, and beyond the beginnings of the north, some place the Hyperborei, whom more ascribe to Europe. Thence first is known the pronontory of Celtica Lytarmis, and the river Carambucis, where, burdened with the force of the stars, the chain of Riphaean mountains fails. There we have reports of Arimphaei, a nation not dissimilar to the Hyperborei.... Beyond them (on the right, or east) are the Scythae, Cimmerii, Cissianthi, Georgi, and Amazons. These reach to the Caspian and Hyrcanian sea. For it bursts out of the Scythic ocean into the back parts of Asia ... It bursts in by narrow mouths but of great length.

[He then describes the Caspian, Media, Hyrcania, and nations on Eoan Ocean, Seres, &c.]

REMARKS.

Pliny's geography of the north is here given, as the most full and curious of all antiquity. It is surprising that Pliny's whole geography has not been printed separate, as far superior to that of Mela and others. Indeed an edition of Pliny by a society of literati is much wanted; for Harduin, the latest editor, was of all men the most unfit for the task, being rash and wrong-headed to a monstrous degree.

The bounds of ancient knowlege on the West and South are fixt and clear. On the East D' Anville has fully settled it, as in the map attending this work. But the Northern, the most important of all to the history of Europe, D' Anville leaves as Cluverius ignorantly puts it; and has thus left a prodigious task to succeeding geographers.

The Riphaean mountains of Pliny (as of Ptolemy) palpably run from East to West[*], as he passes them to go to the Scythic Ocean. It is clear from Ptolemy, that they ran along the head of Tanais; and are often named with Tanais by the ancients, for by all ancient accounts the Tanais rose in them. No such mountains exist in Poland, or Russia. But this is nothing to the matter. The question is what the ancients thought. And it is clear that they often confounded a Forest with a chain of Mountains, as Pliny here does the Hercynian Forest. No wonder then that in civilized times no such Mountains, otherwise Forests, are to be found. The Riphaean Forest, i am convinced, was that now called Volkonski, still 150 miles long from the west, to Moscow on the east. It is also a range of small hills. See Coxe's Travels.

Timaeus, as we learn from other passages of Pliny, called this ile opposite Raunonia by the name Baltia. It is therefore a slip of Pliny when he puts this among the nameless iles.

What river the ancients called Paropamisus is doubtful. There was a mountain and region Paropamisus, at the head of the Indus. The Amalchian was evidently the eastern part of the Scythic Ocean. Present Sarasu, or some other river running north on the east of the Caspian, may be Paropamisus.

The Cimbri, all know, were on the west of the Baltic, a part of the supposed Scythic Ocean of the ancients. The promontory Rubeas seems to me that on the west of the mouth of the river Rubo, or Dwina. being the northern point of present Courland. Cluverius, who puts it in the north of Lapland, shews strange ignorance. The ancients knew no more of Lapland than of America: and were never further north than Shetland (the real ancient Thule, as D' Anville shews) and the south parts of Scandinavia. The Cronian seems here the north-east part of the Baltic: but other ancients supposed the Cronian to extend over all the north parts of their Scandinavia[†].

As Pliny tells us repeatedly in other places that Baltia, or Basilia, was the ile where only amber was found, it is clearly Glessaria of Prussia, not Scandinavia. The iles Oonae, &c. all grant to be those of Oesel, &c. at the mouth of the Finnish gulf. The fables arose from some strange peculiarity of dress.

Pliny then comes west to Germany, and tells us that the Ingaevones are the first German people on that side. A strong proof of his own assertion, that Germany was then little known. For Tacitus found the Basternae on that side, as did Ptolemy. The Ingaevones, according to Pliny's own account, were the Chauci, &c. who were all on the west, not the east, so that he errs toto caelo. Indeed Pliny may be excused if, as Tacitus says, the Ingaevones were all those on the ocean, so as to include the Northern or Scythic Ocean.

Cluverius is so utterly foolish as to put the Sevo Mons of Pliny in Norway; in which childish blunder he is blindly followed, as usual, by Cellarius, and by D' Anville, which last has not examined one tittle of the ancient geography of Germany, tho the most important of all to the history of Europe. Pliny's Sevo Mons is actually that chain between Prussia and Silesia, called Asciburgius Mons by Ptolemy, and now Zottenberg. This is clear from Pliny's words. He mentions the Scythic Ocean, then comes west to the Baltic, and ile Baltia or Glessaria, a peninsula of present Prussia; then speaks of the Hipp•podum insulae, by all granted to be Oesel and Dego at the mouth of the Dwina. 'Thence a clearer account begins to be opened from the nation of Ingaevones, the first of Germany on that side. There the immense mountains of Sevo, not less than the Riphaean, form a vast bay even to the promontory of the Cimbri, which bay is called Codanus and is full of iles. Of which iles Scandinavia is of unknown size,' &c. Nothing can be more clear than this, and the stupidity of Cluverius is amazing. Had the Sevo Mons been in Norway, as he lays it down, it would have formed a strait with the Promontorium Cimbrorum, or north point of Jutland; and not a bay, as Pliny states. And how a range of mountains in Scandinavia could form that bay in which Scandinavia stood, is left to those versant in solecisms to decide. We must ever estimate ancient geography by ancient opinions. Pliny thought that the Sevo Mons reached up from the mountains north of present Bohemia to that great promontory north of Dantzick (called Resehout and Heel, if i mistake not,) and formed the Sinus Codanus extending thence to the north point of Jutland; and which is at present a great bay; being the whole south part of the Baltic; which, from Dantzick, runs north, and not west as before. In the map of modern Germany by Cluverius, this chain of mountains is fully marked, from the east of Bohemia and Silesia up to the Resehout. Tacitus mentions this Sevo Mons, tho he gives not the name, as dividing the Suevi from north to south. Solinus gives the Sevo Mons as Pliny, and puts it among the Ingaevones, to whom he also assigns the Vistula, so that the case is clear. Tacitus, who was far better informed than Pliny, shews that Pliny's statement of the Ingaevones is right here, tho erroneous afterward, for that name included all the nations on the Baltic; and the Vandili of Pliny were Ingaevones. Most ancients regarded the Vistula as the eastern bound of Germany, and the Basternae as a German nation out of Germany; so that the Sevo Mons, as running along the Visstula, was on the eastern extremity of Germany, as Pliny states.

The Scandinavia of Pliny is the larger Scandia of Ptolemy, not reaching beyond the Wener Lake, as before explained. The Hilleviones were in Haland (Hyl or Hal Mons, Isl.) The 'other world', here applied to Scandinavia, is also by Pliny used in speaking of Taprobana, or Ceylon, so that it's weight can be estimated. Eningia may be the south part of Finland, perhaps by the ancients believed another ile in the Scythic Ocean. The Venedi were Sarmatae beyond the Vistula: beyond them Tacitus found the Fins: and the Scirri and Hirri seem Finnish nations, noted in later Roman history, for the southern Fins were not unwarlike. Lithuania is held by them, and they seized on part of Hungary. The Scirri and Hirri were on the Finnish gulf; and known in the Ninth century, as appears from the Periplus 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 of Ohter and Wulfstan. The Hirri gave name to Irland, or Virland in Icelandic accounts, now Reval. Sciringsheal, or the rock or town of the Scirri, seems to have been present Kronstadt, opposite Peterburg[*].

The gulf Cylipenus is apparently that of Finland; Lagnus another name for the south of the Baltic or Codanus. Pliny having various authors before him was confounded with various names for the same subject. Cartris is Wend-syssel on the north of Jutland, a peninsula so called from Wend (our Kent or Cant) a point or head-land. Burchana is Funen, or Zeeland, iles of the Suiones.

Pliny's Divisions of Germans are not unexceptionable. The Vandili were by his own account Ingaevones, as above shewn. Of them the Varini were quite on the West, next the Angli, as perfectly known from Tacitus, and the Leges Warinorum et Anglorum still extant, and published by Leibnitz. The other three were all together, quite on the east. So that Pliny's accuracy is not great. The Cimbri, Teutoni, Chauci, were all on the western ocean; yet Pliny had placed the Ingaevones on the east! The Istaevones were really next the Rhine; but Tacitus found no Cimbri Mediterranei there: The other two divisions are right. But Tacitus is the author to be depended on, as to Germany: Pliny's description is however valuable.

The Second Extract from lib. VI. c. 14. rather concerns the north of Europe than of Asia. The Tanais or Don was the ancient, as the modern, boundary of Asia and Europe. But on the north moderns have extended it to the Uralian Mountains, along the river Oby; while the ancients brought it much farther west, following the Tanais, which runs south-east. The east end of the Gulf of Finland was of course the ancient boundary between Asia and Europe. Here then Pliny begins and goes to the east, along the shores of a nonexistent ocean, the Scythic, till he comes to the river Volga; which, with many of the ancients, he thought was an inlet between the Scythic Ocean and Caspian sea Thus all the nations and places here mentioned are to be sought for in the south-west of present Russia. The Scythae are about Smolenzko: the Hyperborei he retracts, as by other ancients they are placed in present Prussia. Lytarmis which, like his Tabis beyond the Seres in Asia, is a non-existent promontory[*] of mere fable, he puts about present Moscow: as were the Arimphaei. Carambucis seems the river Sura. The other nations lay on the Volga down to the Caspian. The Georgi and Amazons, as well known, were between the Tanais and Volga, above the Alani. The opinion of a Scythic ocean seems to have prevailed in the Eleventh century, for Adam of Bremen says people could sail from the Baltic down to Greece. It seems also the Ocean of Darkness in Eastern writings. I know not if it's existence was not believed in Europe till the Sixteenth century.

〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉

Index.

A.

- Aestii, not in Estonia 168

- Alamani, who 189

- Alani 21, 36

- Albani 35

- Amazons 22

- Angli, original situation of 164

- — in England 195

- Anglo-Belgic tongue 113

- Aquitani 121

- Arimaspi 36

- Asia Minor, Scythic colonies in 56

- Assyrian tongue 27

B.

- Bacchus 32

- Bactriani 36, 37

- Basternae, account of 151

- — divisions of 152

- — peopled Scandinavia 159

- Belgae 121

- Belgae of Britain 113, 146, 195

- — of Ireland 122, 146

- Bosphorus Cimmerius 34

- Braccae 38, 54

- Buat, an etymologist 35

- Burghs, origin of 141

- Burgundians, who 190

C.

- Caledonia visited by Ulysses 46

- Carambucis river 207

- Caspian sea 16, 39

- Celtiberi, who 145

- Celts, who 17, 49

- — tongue 18, 67, 122, 195

- — first savages of Europe 45

- Chatae 36

- Chinese 40

- Cimbri, or Cimmerii 45

- Cimmerii, their incursion into Asia 34

- Cluverius, his ridiculous account of the Goths 9

- Colchis colonized by Egyptians 35

- Chronology ancient, remarks on 186

- Cumri 49

D.

- Dacia 188

- Dahae 37

- D' Anville, his errors 9

- Deluge 33

E.

- England, acquisitions in by the Jutes 194. Saxons 194. Angli 195

- English constitution 141

- Eoan ocean 201

- Ephorus, his character 16

- Etymology, madness of 35, 72, 101

- Europe, its first population 45

F.

- Feudal system misunderstood 137

- Fins, indigenes 175

- — southern 205

- Franci, who 189

- — kingdom of, in Gaul 197

G.

- Galactophagi 6

- Galatae, who 148

- Galli 50

- Gauls of Italy 84

- — and Celts 145

- — Cisalpine 146

- Gaulic colonies 145

- Gepidae 196, 147

- Germans, not Sarmatae 91, 151

- — not Celts 99

- — were Scythae 107, seqq.

- German tongue 110

- — manners 133

- — colonies 144

- Germany, geography of, 162

- Getae and Gothi, same 7

- Gods of paganism Scythic kings 27

- Gothini 50

- Goths. See Scythae — first appearance of the name 6

- — their virtues, praef.

- Gothic tongue 110, 195

- Gothones 173

- Gothland in Sweden 9, 171

- Government, origin of 136

- Greeks 58. seqq. Greek music 74

- — tongue Gothic 75

- — dialects 80

- Grotius erroneous on the Gothic origin 9

H.

- Hellenes 58

- Herodotus in Scythia 16

- Hetruscans 82

- Hippomolgi 6

- Homer's western geography 47

- Hyperboreans 118

- Hyrcani 37

- Huns Moguls, or as vulgarly confounded, Tartars 39

- — account of 191

I.

- Jazyges 55

- Iberi, who 17, 50

- Iberian tongue 18, 121

- Iberi of Asia 35

- Ihre, his errors 19

- Illyrians 57

- Imaus 37

- Jornandes, his account of Scythic origins 21

- Irland 205

- Italians 79

L.

- Lombards 197

- Lytarmis prom. 207

M.

- Macpherson, his blunders 19, 91

- Massagetae 14, 17, 36

- Maesi 53

- Medes 36, 38

- Melanchlaeni, not Scythae 15

O.

- Odin, a mythologic personage only 180

- — errors concerning 181

P.

- Parthi 36, 38

- Pelasgi 58. seqq.

- — not Egyptians 64

- — not Phaenicians 65

- — not Celts 67

- — nor Sarmatae 69

- — were Scythae 71

- Pelloutier, his errors 18

- Persians Scythae 28, 37, 38

- Peuketi 82

- Peukini, account of 155

- — northern progress of 159

- 175

- Phoenicians 117

- Piki 155

- Piks, why name so spelt 23

- — Goths 121

- — in Norway 177

- — in Britain 191

- Pontus 21

R.

- Races of men in Europe 17

- — various 33

- Riphaean mountains 203

- Romans 80

- — later who 187

- Rubeas prom. 203

S.

- Sacae 36

- Sarmatae, who 18, 45, 54

- Sarmatic tongue 18

- Saxons 191

- Scandinavia, by whom peopled 150

- — ancient knowlege of 161, 205

- Scandinavia desert 23, 43

- Scandinavian tongue 111

- — history examined 179

- Scythae and Goths same 11, &c.

- — not Celts 15, 19

- — not Sarmatae 15

- — not Tartars 15, 19, 40

- Scythic names 10

- — tongue 18, 19

- — ocean 207

- Scythae originated from Persia, not from Scandinavia 21 seqq.

- Scythia empire 24, 32

- Scythae, when settled on the Euxine 34, 45

- — their eastern settlements 35

- Scythia intra et extra Imaum 36,

- Scythia intra et extra Imaum 39

- — ancient or Gothia 42

- — Pontica 53

- Sea assists population 174

- Seres 39

- Sevo mons 204

- Sitones Basternae 152, 159

- — Swedes 169

- Slavi 151

- Slavonic tongue 70

- Sogdiani 36

- Spain, Goths in 196

- Suiones Danes 167

T

- Tabis prom. 207

- Tacitus, geography of his Germania 162

- Tartars 40

- Teutones 51

- Thracians 52

- Thyssagetae 14

- Trojans 57

U, V.

- Ulysses, his voyage 46

- Umbri 84

- Vandali, not Vans, nor Wends 151

- — in Africa 193. Northern Germans 201

- Venedi Sarmatae 151

THE END.

Notes

*

The name Tartar, as vague with us as Indian, is in fact of small extent. It is not more ancient than the 12th centurry; and was originally that of a small nation conquered by the Monguls under Zenghizcan; but by a caprice usual in names is given by us to almost half of Asia! The Usbeks are now the chief Tartar nation. The Kalmucs are not Tartars, but Monguls, a vast people of a different language. The Turks are of the same race with the Huns; Monguls, not Tartars, according to De Guignes. The Tungusians, another vast people, are quite distinct from the Tartars. On the east of the Lena the nations are from America, and differ from all the other Asiatics, as the rev. Mr. Tooke shews in his Russia. See De Guignes Hist. des Huns; Tooke's Russia; D' Anville, Geographic, &c.

↵

*
The Count du Buat forcibly expresses this in his first sentence, 'Les anciens peuples de l'Europe que nous appellons Barbares et qui sont nos Peres.' Hist. Ane. des Peuples de l'Europe, Paris, 1772. Tome 1.
↵

*

These, and many similar passages, may be found in the Prolegomena to Grotii Hist. Goth. Single sentences of Idatius, of Victor Vitensis, of the mock Hist. Arcana given to Procopius, weigh nothing against the number of superior witnesses in favour of the Goths. The Romans often shed more blood in one war than the Goths in conquering the Roman empire. Rude conquerors, tho ever so few and merciful, always introduce their laws and manners: but the language of Italy, France, Spain, which is mere Latin corrupted by time, sufficiently shews that very few of the old inhabitants perished. The desolation of some parts of Italy was owing to the seat of empire being removed to Constantinople, and the senators abandoning their Italian villas in order to be near the court. So much in answer to a respectable writer, Dr. Robertson, who in his View of Society prefixt to the history of Ch. V. has fallen into mistakes on this subject.

↵

a
Dio apud Jornand, de rebus Get. c. 5. Herodot. IV. 46. Strabo, lib. VII.
↵

a
De Gent. Angl. Orig. c. 9.
↵

b
Hist. des Celtes.
↵

c
Praefat. ad Glossar. Suio-Goth.
↵

d

AEschylus, who flourished about fifty years before Herodotus, is perhaps the first who mentions the Scythae:

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. In Prometheo.

They are the Galactophagi, or Milk-eaters, i. e. Pastoral people of Homer; as his Hippomolgi are the Sarmatae. Iliad xiii. init. and Strabo. Hesiod has Galactophagi.

↵

e
Hist. Norveg. lib. I. Goté in Icelandic is a horse, or horseman; Glossar. Eddae Saemund. Gata is a wanderer.
↵

f
In Germania Antiq. 1616. fol.
↵

g
He was born at Dantzick, in the heart of the country of the Gothones. Dantiscum .... Cluverii nostri patria. Buno not. ad Cluv. Geograph.
↵

h
Praef. ad Collect. Hist. Goth. 1655. 8vo.
↵

i

Cluverius says it is called Gudske, and Gudland, and Gulland, from the goodness of the soil. But in Icelandic Sagas it is Gosaland, or Gautaland, terra equorum, and was probably so called from its horses, as was the isle Gotland. Prolemy places Gutae in Scandinavia, opposite the Gutones of Prussia, from whom they seem to have sprung. See Part II. The first author Grotius quotes for the name of Gotland it. Sweden, is Baron Herberstein, ante 90 annos!

↵

k
Mem. de l'Acad. des Infer. Tome xxv.
↵

l

So puerile an argument deserves not confutation: else, by collecting all the Scythic and Gothic names, i am convinced it would be seen that many are similar to the German, and Scandinavian and later Gothic. Thomyris, almost the first Scythic name in history, probably belongs to the Gothic names beginning in Tho or Theo, as Theodoric, Theodahat, &c. and ending in ric. But names change thro length of time, as language always does, even among barbarians: and the names are so extremely various, that hardly two similar can be found, so that M. D'A's argument is a mere sophism. Verelius, a better judge, says, the old Scythic names in Trogus, and others, are absolute Gothic. Praef. ad Gethrici et Rolsi Hist. Upsal, 1664. 8 vo.

↵

m
In Excerpt. Legat. Valesii. Paris, 1634. 4to.
↵

n
Ibid.
↵

o
De rebus Get. et De Regn. Suce.
↵

p

Steph. Byz. Aeschylus in Persis calls him Merdis, whom Herodotus and Aristotle call Smerdis. The Alpes Cottiae Procopius styles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Lycophron, v. 1361, calls the Alps, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. See Bryant's Analysis, vol. III. p. 146.

Wormius Ser. Reg. Dan. produces these lines of an old Latin poem on Holgar king of Denmark, in which Gythi, Gothi, Gethae, are synonymous.

Gytharum hic splendor, Gothorum soboles,

Armis est domitor Getha fidelis.

↵

a
De reb. Get. c. 24. De Hunnorum execranda origine. Species pavenda nigridine, sed velut quaedam (si dici fas est) deformis offa, non facies: habensque magis puncta quam lumina, &c.
↵

b

Strabo, lib. vii. p. 302, informs us, that Ephorus called the Sarmatae a Scythic nation; and he it was who misled Strabo. Ephorus was an author of the most inaccurate and fabulous description; and has misled Dionysius of Halicarnassus concerning the Pelasgi. Sene•a, Nat. Quest. vii. 14. fays, Ephorus non religiosissimae fidei, saepe decipi•. He seems to have gloried in contradicting Herodotus, a writer whose information was wonderful, and mostly derived from travelling so that tho now and then fabulous in history, every day gives fresh proofs of his veracity in describing countries and manners. Herodotus had been in Scythia beyond the Danube and Borystenes. Book iv. c. 81.

↵

c
See the passage produced afterward.
↵

d
Still greater errors may be found in such late writers, as to distant nations. Agathias, lib. v. says ‘the Burgundians, a Hunnic nation!’
↵

e
Pelloutier.
↵

f
Macpherson.
↵

g
Gibbon, Richardson, &c. &c.
↵

h
Lib. iv. c. 23, 24.
↵

i
iv. 59
•
&c.

↵

k
He was an Alanus. Ihre, praef. ad Gloss. Suio-Goth.
↵

l

Sed, ut non mentiar, ad triduanam lectionem, dispensatoris ejus beneficio, libros ipsos antehac relegi; quorum, quamvis verba non recolo, sensum tamen, et res actas, credo me integre tenere: ad quas nonnulla ex historicis Graecis et Latinis addidi convenientia; initium, finemque, et plura in medio, mea dictione permiscens. Praef. For the settlement of the Scythae on the Euxine he quotes old songs, and Ablavius, who is thought by Grotius to have written under Constantius II. and was certainly a late author. For the Scythae coming from Scandinavia, he cites no authority; and it was apparently put mea dictione, that is, upon his own dreams. Bayer, in Dissert. de Cimmeriis has ridiculed this mook emigration of the Goths from Scandinavia; and justly asks how Ablavius or Jornandes could know any thing of the matter?

↵

m
Adam Bremen. Hist. Eccles. cap. De Situ Daniae.
↵

n

The name is thus spelt to avoid the double meaning of the word Picti, or Picts as we translate it; and in conformity with the origin of the people who were Piki or Peukeni, (see Part II.) and the name of their country in Norway, which in the Scandinavian and Icelandic histories, &c. is called Pika, pronounced and spelt Vika, for they have no P, and pronounce P as V. But of this in Part II. and in the Enquiry into Scotish History.

↵

o
Hist. lib. I. c. 1. lib. II. c. 3.
↵

p
Strabo may also be adduced, who, lib. xi. p. 507, says, "neither the ancient affairs of the Persians, Medes, Syrians, nor Scythians, have much credit in history." The enumeration of empires is here palpably retrograde: the most modern being put first.
↵

q

Horace describes them as Tacitus does the Germans;

Campestres melius Scythae,

(Quorum plaustra vagas rite trahunt domos)

Vivunt, et rigidi Getae;

Immetata quibus jugera, liberas

Fruges et Cererem ferunt;

Nec cultura placet longior annua.

Ode 24, lib. III.

↵

a

The latest and best Natural Philosophers pronounce the flood impossible; and their reasons, grounded on mathematical truth and the immutable laws of nature, have my full assent. The Jews believed the earth a vast plain, and that the rain came from a collection of waters above the firmament, (Genes. I. 7.) as the earth floated on another mass of waters; (Gen. VII. 11.) both of which were opened at the deluge. As such waters are now mathematically known not to exist; and the earth is found spherical; the effect must cease with the cause. M. de Buffon has shewn that all the earth was at first under sea. And the opinion of a deluge, which Grotius (De Verit. Rel. Christ.) shews to have been common to most nations, certainly arose from the shells found even on the tops of mountains.

↵

b
Herodot. lib. I. and IV. Diod. Sic. lib. II. &c. It is remarkable that the small kingdom of the Bosphorus long maintained itself in the same natural fortification. See a map of the Bosphorus Cimmerius in Peysonel.
↵

c
Colchis received a colony of Egyptians about 1480 years before Christ; and Herodotus tells us, that the speech and manners of the Colchians were Egyptian. The gold mines of Colchis no doubt attracted the Egyptians, as they had done the Argonauts. They are still very rich. See Peysonel, p. 69.
↵

d
Apud. Euseb. preap. Evang. lib. ix, c. 41.
↵

e
In Ibericis, i. e. Hispanicis, init.
↵

e

Lib. II. c. 1.3. he adds the Parthi; but that the Parthians were Sarmatae is clear from the other ancients, and especially from their long and loose dress mentioned by Tacitus, Herodian, &c. The Sarmatae had indeed been called Scythae by some of the ancients. That the Medes were Sarmatae, we know positively from Solinus: but some others have foolishly called the Sarmatae Medes, as if a large barbaric nation could spring from a small refined one!

↵

f

Persae qui sunt originitus Scythae. Ammian. Marcellin. lib. xxxi. and Tertullian de Pallio, c. 2. The present Persian, tho mixt with some Arabic, is actually a dialect of the Gothic, as Scaliger, Lipsius, Boxhorn, and our Burton, whose book was re-printed at Lubec, 1720, have shewn. It has auxiliary verbs, and other radical marks of its Gothic origin, unknown to other Eastern tongues, besides a verbage mostly Gothic, the Farsi is meant; the Pehlavi which was spoken in Media and Parthia, was surely Sarmatic; but has been long since discouraged and lost. See Richardson's Dissertation prefixed to his Persian and Arabic Dictionary, who however, as well as the most learned Jones, forgets the similarity of the Persian and Gothie.

↵

g
Veste destinguuntur non fluitante, sicut Sarmatae ac Parthi. Tac. in Germania. The Persian braccae, or breeches, are mentioned by Ovid. in Trist. those of the Sacae, by Herod. lib. vii. 64.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

↵

*

The SERES were a Grand Race of men, now those of Tibett, Siam, &c. using a peculiar language. Ptolemy's Serica is as large as both Scythias intra et extra Imaum. See a description of Bucharia in that interesting work, which opens as it were a new world to our eyes, Russia, by Mr. Tooke, 4 vols. 8vo. London, 1780.

It is remarkable that in Scythia intra et extra Imaum were Chatae (Catti) Sasones (Saxones) Syebi (Suevi) Tectosaces (Tectofages) Iotae (Iutes) a town Menapia, all coinciding with German names, and which could only spring from identic language. But nothing is founded on this.

↵

h
Mem. de l'Acad. des Inscr. Tome xxxii.
↵

i
In his description of Siberia, a prolix and weak work, of which a translation appeared at London, 1738, 4to.
↵

k

M. de Guignes attempts to shew (Mem. des Inser. Tome xxix.) that the Chinese are an Egyptian colony. It seems certain that the old Egyptian letters and the Chinese are of the same innumerable kind, and originally hieroglyphic. But we are not to believe that what one nation has invented may not be invented by another, in a similar state of society; and no two countries can have more resemblance as to agriculture, &c. than those of the old Egyptians, and the Chinese. But their languages and features shew them quite distinct nations: not to mention their religious opinions, buildings, &c.

↵

a

See a description and maps of this fertile and populous country in Peysonnel. In the Lower Empire there was an Episcopus Scythiae, and an Episcopus Gothiae: the former was of Scythia Pontica, whose capital was Tomi: the latter seems to have been of Crim Tartary. See Chrysost. Epist. 44, ad Olympiad. Orosius says ‘Alania est in medio; Dacia ubi et Gothia; deinde Germania,’ lib. I. c. 2. so also AEthicus. Ammian. Marc. lib. 30. ‘metus totius Gothiae Thracias perrumpentis;’ in all which passages Gothia is Getia. When Rubruquis was sent to the Chan of the Mogols by St. Louis, and traversed Crim Tartary, in 1253, he found Goths speaking the Gothic tongue approaching to the German. Collection de Gerberon, p. 9. 8vo. Barbaro in 1440, (Ramusi, vol. II). and Matthias de Michou 1521, (Gesner, in Mithrid.) witness their observing the same. Grotius says, 'Et quid mireris sunt nunc quoque ad eandem Maeotim iidem Gotthi; et, ut mores linguamque, sic et nomen per tot saecula retinent. Quanquam enim Busbequius, qui in illis locis non suit, dubitat Gotthi sint an Saxones, certos nos fecit is qui in illis vixit regionibus, Josaphat Barbarus, nobilis Venetus; et Gotthos ipsos a semet dici, et terram vocari Gotthiam. Is Capitaneatus Gotthiae dicitur in publicis monumentis tabularii Genuensis teste Petro Baptisto Burgo.' Praefat. ad Historic. Gotth. Nay the Oriens Christianus gives the subscription of a bishop in 1721, Metropolita Gothiae et Caphae. Caffa is in the Crimea, which was long held by the Genoese. Crim is Cimmerius shortened: the town Cimmerium is called Eski Crim, or Old Crim, by the Tartars.

↵

b
Propertius calls the Getae wintry: ‘Hibernique Getae; pictoque Britannia curru.’
↵

c
Hist. Nat. VI. 13.
↵

d
Mela I. 2. Solin. cap. 21.
↵

e
Ephor. ap. Strabon. Plin. Hist. Nat. in Italia. S ius Ital. XII. 131.
↵

f
Geograph. Antiq. Tom. I. in Campania.
↵

g
Ulyssippo, or Lisbon, is by Solinus, and many other ancients, said to have been founded by Ulysses.
↵

h

Tacitus in Germania mentions the tradition that Ulysses had visited the west of Germany, and built Asciburg on the Rhine; and a Northern antiquary has hence dreamed that Ulysses was Odin. Solinus, cap. 25. says Ulysses had been in Caledonia the north of Britain, in quo recessu Ulyssem Caledoniae appulsum manifestat ara Graecis literis inseripta voto. If we trust the description of Procopius, Scotland was the real infernal region of the ancients, to which the souls of the dead passed in Charon's boat from the opposite shore of Germany; and where of course Ulysses must have gone to converse with them. Plutarch Di Defect. Orac. shews, that Elysium was in Britain: or in the Orkneys, as Mr. D'Hancarville supposes. I have not examined if Homer's description of the Elysian Fields fits Scotland; but leave this to some Scotish Rudbeck.

↵

i

Odys. XI. The ideas received by Blackwell and others concerning Homer's western geography are quite erroneous. The Phoenicians had sailed beyond the Straits of Gibraltar before Homer's time; Gades in Spain was founded by them centuries before Carthage. See Huet, Commerce des Anciens; Homer's descriptions will not apply to the contracted scale generally assigned. His Scylla and Charybdis were not near Sicîly, but were two floating rocks, as he says, Odyss. XII. The iland of Circe was one of the Fortunate Ilands, and all the 01 ancient traditions suppose this.

↵

k
See the descriptions of the Hebrides by Martin, Macaulay, &c.
↵

l
Llord, Archaeol. Brit. Praef.
↵

m

Perhaps from proceeding in troops, Cymmar, socius, sodalis. Cymmod concordia, Cymmrodedd concordia: or from their assuming new possessions, Cymmeryd, capere, accipere: or a name of honour, Cymmeryd, dignitas, aestimatio, Cymmeradwy, aestimatus. The words from Davis' Dict. Kimb.

↵

n
Lib. II. et IV.
↵

o
In Meteorol.—De gen. animal. lib. II. c. 8.—De mirabil. auscult.—De Mundo, si modo Aristotelis sit.
↵

p
De bello Gall. passim.
↵

q
Tacit. in Germania.
↵

r
Herodot. lib. IV. et alii.
↵

s
In Mario.
↵

t
Caesar de bello Gall.
↵

u
Ibid.
↵

v
Plut. in Mario.
↵

w
Lib. IV. See D'Anville's Memoir on Seythia. Acad. des Inser. Tome XXXV.
↵

x
Lib. IV. c. 3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.

↵

y
Lib. IV.
↵

z

Justin. lib. IX. c. 2. This very country Ovid describes as possest by the Scythae, whom he in other passages calls Getae. It was the Scythia Pontica of Constantine I. and its bishops were called of Scythia, and so appear in many councils. See Peyssonnel Observ• sur••les peuples ba•b• de l'Euxine. In all ages of antiquity Scythae and Getoe are synonymous as to identity of people. Scylax says 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Mela, 'His [Scythis] Thracia proxima est.'

↵

z
See Bartoli's Colonna Trajana.
↵

a

The Daci, as is clear from Pliny, was but a name for the south-west part of the Getae. Strabo says they were one people with the Getae, and spoke the self-same tongue as the Getae and Thracians. See Part II.—Statius, Sylva 2. lib. I. calls Mars Geticus maritus of Venus: and Thrace is by all the poets assigned to this God. Lib. II. Sylva 2. speaking of Orpheus who resided in Thrace, as all know, he puts Nee plectro Geticas movebis ornos.

↵

b
See Ptolemy, Cluverius, Cellarius.
↵

c
Lib. VII. p. 303.
↵

d
See Part II.
↵

e
Praef. ad Gloss. Suio-Goth.
↵

f
See also Eustath. in locum.
↵

g
Herodot. lib. VII. Strabo, lib. XIV. the latter, lib. VII. p. 295. tells us that the Mysi of Asia came from those of Thrace; and gives us the names of many other nations in Asia of Thracian origin.
↵

h
Lib. V. c. 6. Herodotus tells, that Thrace beyond the Ister was vast and infinite. He also mentions the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
on the Adriatic, from whom the name of Venetians ought to be traced. Polybius, lib. II. says the Veneti had a different speech from the Celts: and that they were frequent in tragic poetry.

↵

i
Hist, des peuples de l'Europe. Tome I. II.
↵

k

Callimachus (apud Strabo. lib. V.) has 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which also occurs in a piece ascribed to Aristotle. The former was of Cyrene, and it is likely bore no good will to the old Greeks. The later cannot be depended on. The Arundelian marbles bear 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a suspicious circumstance. Lycophron, i believe, also uses this new term. But these exceptions amount to nothing, and it is just to say that ALL the Greek writers are strangers to this name. There was a town called Grain in Boeotia, Homer Il. B. Strabo, lib. 3. and the land about it was called Terra Graeca, Thucyd. apud Steph. but it would be ridiculous to suppose this village afforded the Romans a name for the country.

↵

l
Herodotus, lib. VI. c. 138, mentions the disputes between the Athenians and the Pelasgi living at Mount Hymettus and in Lemnos.
↵

m
By M. Geinoz, Mem. des Inser. Tome XIV.
↵

*

Mr. Clarke, in his Connection of Roman and Saxon Coins, p. 73, says, that Salmasius wrote in haste, and mistook Herodotus, who means that the Pelasgi wandered, but the Hellenes never. I suspect Salmastus might return the compliment; for, not to speak of the article 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which all must allow here follows the order of the nations, and every interpreter including Wesseling, the last, has understood accordingly, if Mr. Clarke had read the page instead of the sentence he would have found himself mistaken.

↵

n
Lib. I. c. 57.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.

↵

o
Tome XXIII.
↵

p
Tome XIV.
↵

q
Tome XXI.
↵

r

There is room to believe that these, and many ancients and moderns, have confounded the Argos Pelasgicum, in Pelasgia of Thessaly, with the Argos in Peloponnesus. The former, I am convinced, was the ancient kingdom of Argos. See Homer's Iliad II. The ancient kingdom of Sicyon, as stated by Eusebius, is a vision unknown to earlier writers. Danaus, an Egyptian, founded the kingdom of Argos in Peloponnesus after the termination of the old kingdom of Argos in Pelasgia.

↵

s

To derive Latin words from Celtic is a sure mark of a Celtic understanding, which always judges by the inverse ratio of reason, for the words passed into Welsh from the Romans; and into Irish from Christianity, whose offices and prayers, &c. were all Latin. The roots are all in the Latin, not in the Celtic.

↵

t

It is to the lyes of our Celtic neighbours, that we are indebted for the fables of English history down to within these thirty years, and the almost total perdition of the history of Scotland and Ireland. Geofrey of Monmouth, most of the Irish historians, and the Highland bards, and senachies of Scotland, shew that falsehood is the natural product of the Celtic mind: and the case is the same to this day. No reprobation can be too severe for these frontless impostors: and to say that a writer is a Celt, is to say, that he is a stranger to truth, modesty, and morality. Diodorus Siculus, lib. V. p. 354, remarks the cloudy speech, and intellect, synecdochic phrase, and hyperbolic pride, of the old Celts. Their idiotic credulity was derided by the Roman poet, ‘Et tumidus Galla credulitate fruar.’ Silius Italicus observes, ‘Vaniloquum Celtae genus.’ characters of nations change; characters of savage RACE• never.

↵

u
Justin, lib. IX. c. 2. Strabo p. 752.
↵

v
See Saxo, lib. III p. 41, 46. in the Edda Thor, from his using a car, is called Aukuthor. The Normans used cars in the siege of Paris. Du Cange Script. Norm. p. 39.
↵

w
Frisch Hist. Ling. Slavonicae, 4to; 5 parts; Berolini, 1727—1734. Ludolsi Grammatica Russica, Oxon. 1696, 8vo.
↵

v
Lib. I. p. 3. The Greek instruments of music were from the Scythae, and some of them had Scythic names. Strabo X. 470, 471. Pollux IV. 9, 10. The Three Modes were from the Scythae, Athen. XIV. 5. Pollux, IV. 9, 10. Pliny, VII. 56. The Phrygian and Lydian were of Scythic origin; and Pliny there says, that Thamyris of Thrace was author of the Doric mode.
↵

w
De lingua Hellenist.
↵

x
In praef. ad Evangel. Goth.
↵

y
De vet. Lingua Anglicana.
↵

z
In praef. ad Gloss. Suio-Goth. See also Wallis Gram. Angl.
↵

a
De ratione communi omnium linguarum. The German is, at this day, declined as the Greek.
↵

b

Diodorus Sic. lib. III. and Pausan. in Attic. shew, that the Greeks had letters before Cadmus; and that the Pelasgic, or real ancient Greek alphabet, differed from the Phoenician. An antiquary will find resemblances in things wholly unlike: but the ancient Greek alphabet is not Phoenician. The invention of letters, so ridiculously discussed, is the most simple possible: and at least a dozen nations have all invented letters. It is the common use of letters that attends civilized society. The invention may belong to the rudest. Plato witnesses that the Scythae had letters; and the Pelasgic or Greek were surely Scythic. Of Scythic letters see also Eustathius in II. ζ.

↵

c
So Dionys. Perieg. v. 234.
↵

d

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Herodot. VII. See also Pausan. in Arcad. and Cumberland, Orig. Gent.

↵

e
Suidas says, that Pindar wrote in Doric, which opinion has been echoed by rote as usual. The author, not trusting his own judgement, consulted one of our best Greek scholars, who agreed with him, that Pindar writes in Aeolic, the language of his country. Pindar calls his poetry Doric, (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Olymp. I. &c.) but in other places calls it Aeolic (A

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

). So that Pindar writes in Aeolic, grammatically speaking; that is, in Doric or Aeolic.
↵

f

This is no new discovery. The learned Lancelot, the first who, removing many difficulties of foolish erudition, gave us a Greek grammar, built on the plain simplicity of good sense, tells us, that there are but two Greek dialects, the Attic and Doric. Strabo, lib. VIII. init. had long ago said the same thing. All the author pretends to have discovered is that a language cannot be a dialect of itself. In that mass of folly and inaccuracy, which we call literature, and which stands as much in need of a reform as the christian religion in the time of Luther, it is not philosophy that is wanted, but common sense. Men of learning generally leave common sense at their study door; and argue upon learning, not upon common sense. Others regard literature as a profound thing to be believed; not as what it really is, a matter of severe discussion for every man's judgment; and sheer folly if not reducible to plain sense. Human science is but a small affair, but the learned make it look big by placing it in darkness; and labour all they can to obscure it, while a wife man will ever study to make it clear, simple, and little.

↵

g
The Roman c being the Greek x, and ever pronounced so, it is put k in these proper names for the sake of the English reader.
↵

h

Pliny says the Umbri were the most ancient people in Italy, for a laughable reason: "Umbrorum gens antiquissima Italiae existimatur ut quos Ombrios a Graecis putent dictos quod inundatione terrarum imbribus superfuissent!" Solinus says that one Bocchus thought the Umbri the offspring of the Gauls. He must mean the later Umbri; for it is clear from Pliny that the old Umbri far preceded the Gauls.

↵

i
See Olivieri della fondazione di Pesaro. Si aggiunse una lettera del medesimo al Signor abbate Barthelemy, &c. Pesaro 1757. folio. Passerii de re nummaria Etruscorum Dissertatio, 1767, fol. and others.
↵

k
It is very remarkable, that some remains of Celts still survive among the Alps, for the Lingua Waldensis, of which a specimen is given in Chamberlayne's Oratio Dominica, is perfect Gaelic of Ireland; a singularity which has escaped the notice of antiquaries.
↵

l
Caesar de Bell. Gall. lib. II. ad fin.
↵

a

Tacitus thinks the Germans Indigenes, because no nation could people Germany by sea; forgetting that it might be peopled by the much more easy method of a progression by land. That they were not indigenes this whole dissertation shews.

↵

b

It is thought that some friend has furnished Mr. M. with his quotations; and it is hardly possible otherwise to account for his evidently, on many occasions, not understanding his own quotations; but even adducing them sometimes to contradict his own inferences. Perhaps this plan is Celtic. See instances in Mr. Whiraker's Genuine History of the Britons against Mr. M.

↵

c

So slightly that they make no more figure than any one of twenty Gothic nations. Quidquid inter Alpes et Pyrenaeum, quod oceano et Rheno includitur, Vandalus, Quadus, Sarmata, Alani, Gepides, Heruli, Saxones, Burgundiones, et (O lugenda respublica!) hostes Pannoni vastaverunt. Hieron. Epist. ad Ageruntiam. His enim adfuere auxiliares Franci, Sarmatae, Laetiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Riparioli, &c. Jornand. sub an. 451.

↵

d
Mr. M. cannot even quote his forgeries fairly. The passage in Laetus really is Praeliis ac rerum penuria Sarmatas, Getas, Scythas, Quados, consumpsit. Strange, yea very strange!
↵

e

Julii Pomponii Laeti Compendium Historiae Romanae lucem primum vidit Venetiis, 1498, 4to. De hoc Julio Sanseverino, Sabino sive Picentino, qui Pomponii Laeti nomen adscivit, et Romae Ao 1497, 21 Maii, diem obiit, vide Frider. Hannibalis Stempelii Diss. de societate abbreviatornm Romana, Jenae, 1704, 4to. praecipue vero, Diarium Venetum eruditorum Italiae, Tom. xxii. p. 366. seq. Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina, Hamburgi, 1722, 8vo. Tom. III. p. 554.

↵

f

Aug. in Sempron. twice quoted by Mr. M. is a nonexistence. He sleeps with Ossian! I have hunted thro many a vast Bibliotheca for him without effect: but for all this trouble i sincerely forgive Mr. M. as a good Christian ought.

The author who could foist in the word Angli in a quotation, (p. 350.) from so common a book as Pliny's Nat. Hist. may well be supposed to stick at nothing. This Introduction abounds with such vices as have stained no other work since the world began. It might be pronounced the most false and dishonest book ever written, were it not only the most foolish and ignotant. He who, in the broad day of authors in every body's hands, could act thus, what must he have done in the midnight of his Celtic nonsense, where no eye could espy him?

↵

g
Vita Taciti, operib. praef. ex Plinii Hist. Nat. ni fallor.
↵

a
Brotier, in his excellent edition of Tacitus, Paris, 1771, 4 volumes, 4to, says the Germans were Scythae. But whom did he mean by Scythae?
↵

b
Socrates, IV. 33. Sozomen. VI. 37. Nicephor. XI. 48. Jornandes, c. 51. Isidor. Chron. Goth. sub anno aerae Hispan. 415. Roderic. Toletanus II. 1. says Gudilas episcopus Gothorum literas eis tradidit, quae in antiquis Hispaniarum et Galliarum libris adhuc hodie supersunt, et specialiter quae dicitur Toletana Scriptura.
↵

c
Schilteri Thesaurus Antiq, Teuton, Ulmae, 1728, 3 vols. folio.
↵

d
In Dissert. de Evangel. Gothic. Vide etiam Dissert. de veteri lingua Danica apud Gunlaugi Vermilinguis et Rafnis poetae Sagam. Hauniae, 1775, 410.
↵

e
See Mr. Horne Tooke's sensible and ingenious
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

↵

f
De reb. Eccl. c. 7.
↵

g
Lips. Cent. III. epist. 44. Scaliger. Burton de veteri lingua Perfica. Boxhorn. Praef. ad Orat. Dom. a Chamberlayne, &c. &c. The learned Marsham justly observes, Scythae sunt tum Persae, quam Go•hi, Germanique.
↵

h
The Kingdom of the West Saxons subdued the rest. D'Anville in his Etats formés en Europe apres la chute de l'empire Romain en occident, Paris 1771, 4to, wonders that the name of the vanquished Angli remained to the country: but names are merely accidental.
↵

i
Mallet, London 1770, vol. II. notes.
↵

a
Lib. II.
↵

b
Argonaut. IV. 290.640.
↵

c
Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. Quarum unam incolunt Belgae; aliam Aquitani; tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur. Hi omnes lingua, institutis, legibus, inter se differunt. Bell. Gall. lib. I. init.
↵

cc

The Iberian language survives in the Cantabric and Basque. The old Mauric is little known, and few specimens have been published: there is a dissertation on it at the end of Chamberlayne's Oratio Dominica (De lingua Shilhensi); and some information may be found in Shaw's Travels. It is yet spoken by the Kabyles, or Mountaneer Clans (Kabyl•ah, Arab. Clans) in Mauritania; and is called the Showiah, or Sbillah, being quite different from the Arabic, the general speech of the country. These Kabyles have, to this day, the manners described by Sallust. They are divided into clans, as the Fins, Laplanders, Celts, and other radical savages, who are incapable of progress in society; for clans are peculiar to savage society, and vanish at the first ray of industry and civilization.

↵

d
There was a small town called Menapia in Wales, just opposite to the people Menapii in Ireland, and apparently founded by them. But we find no Menapii in Wales; the people, in whose territory Menapia stood, were the Dimeti, a tribe of the Silures, or Celts of Wales. See Ptolemy and Richard.
↵

c
In his publication of O'Flaherty's Vindication of Ogygia, Dublin, 1775, 8vo. praef. p. xxvii.
↵

f
Ignotis reverentia major. Tacit.
↵

g
It is worth remark, that there was a Persian people called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Germans. Herod. I. 125. There was also a Greek one called Teutani, in Peloponnesus, Pliny III. 8. Steph. Byz. The same Scythic speech produced the same appellations.

↵

h
Strabo says, lib. I. that the names Celtiberi and Celtoscythae 'comprehended, thro ignorance, distinct and separate nations under one term,'
↵

a
See Herodotus, lib. iv and Tacitus in Germania, passim.
↵

b

Xenophon, Exp. Cysi, lib. vi. et vii. Caefar de Bell. Gall. vi. Fragm. Diodori Siculi in Excerpt. Valesii, p. 258. Tacit. Germ. Antiquarii Septent. Wormius, Bartholin, &c. Theopompus observed that the kings of the Paeonians had of those horns which held three or four quarts. Athen. xi. p. 355. Pliny xi. 37. Athenaeus, lib. iv. says, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pour out drink, which properly sigoifies horn the liquor, came from the ancient Greeks their drinking in horns.

↵

c
This gratified both luxury and revenge. See a late example in Paul. Warnef.
↵

d

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
See Priscus in Excerpt. p. 55.

↵

e
Xenophon, Exp. Cyri vi. & vii. So the Persians, Herodot. lib. i.
↵

f
Herodot. Tacit. &c.
↵

g
Herodot. vii. 64. Tacit, in Germ. &c. The Tunic was the carc•calla, which Dio says was close as a corselet.
↵

h
Herodot. v. Strabo, &c.
↵

i
The Arii, Tacit.
↵

k
Caesar de Bell. Gall.
↵

l
Herodian. Claudian. &c.
↵

m
Olaus Magn. lib. iii. Torf. Hist. Norv. lib. i.
↵

n

See Bartholin, Wormius, Mallet, &c. Jofur was a name for the Supreme Being, as Jove. Dryads, Satyrs, and the whole beings of Greek and Roman superstition, may be found in the Scandinavian creed. Superstition is rooted and permanent. Fairies, and the other scenery of romance, were not brought into Europe by the Crusades, as superficially imagined; but belong to Icelandic sagas, written before the Crusades. Tournaments existed in all ages of the Goths. The Ludus Trojanus of the Romans was of them. Isodor. Chron. Goth. mentions them as the favorite diversions of the Goths. See Procop. iii. Ennod. paneg. &c. A fragment of Varro shews them known to the Germans and German Gauls. In the Edda daily tourneys to outrance are the amusement of the gods. The Greeks had tournaments, and armed dances; as were the Salian Armilustria of Rome. Varro de Ling. Lat. v. 49.

↵

o
M. Le Grand, in his curious and amusing Fabliaux ou Contes du xii. et du xiii. Siccle (translated into modern French) Paris 1781, 5 vols, 12mo.
↵

p
Recherches sur les arts de la Grece, Londres, 1785, 2 tomes, 4to.
↵

q
De Exped. Cyri, lib. I.
↵

r
Esprit des Loix. liv. xxx.
↵

s
De minoribus rebus principes consultant: de majoribus OMNES. Tacit. Germ.
↵

t

Rex etiam Westsaxonum Edwius, quatuor annis regni sui peractis, defunctus Wintoniae, in novo monasterio est sepultus: cujus regnum suus germanus, rex Mercensium Edgarus, ab omni Anglorum populo electus suscepit, divisaque regna in unum copulavit. Hoveden an. 959. p. 244. and apud Scriptores post Bedam, Londini, 1596, fol. Hoveden thought this event so important, as to mark it by many epochs.

↵

u
In his Vindiciae Celticae, Argent. 1754, 4to. a pamphlet which may be regarded as a model for enquiries of the kind: the whole authorities are given in chronologic order; and yet the work is brief, as well as accurate, and complete.
↵

v
In praef. Epist. 1. ad Galat.
↵

w

As in America the Europeans not only have vast distinct possessions, but also towns and settlements among the savages, such we may judge was the case with the Scythians among the Celts. In celtic Gaul especially many Belgic tribes and towns may be found; and it may be inferred that the Celtic parts of Britain and Ireland were in the same predicament. Strabo, lib. IV. says that the Veneti on the extreme western shore of Celtic Gaul were Belgae. They were famous for naval power and resistance to Caesar, whom see.

↵

x
Modo autem Getae illi, qui et nunc Gothi, quos Alexander evitandos pronunciavit, Pyrrhus exhorruit, &c. Oros. I. 16. Part of the above paragraph is translated from Tacitus, Germanic.
↵

a

Slava, in the Slavonic, means glorious, noble; hence many Polish names as Ladi slaus, &c. Procopius is, it is believed, the first who mentions the Sclaveni, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Slavons, II. 15. III. 33. in which last passage they make a great figure, passing the Danube in crouds. It deserves especial remark that the Venedi or Wends have been, by transtators of Northern Sagas, and others, confounded with the Vandali, which last are, it is thought, unknown to Northern writers. The Vans, Wends, Venedi, lay in Odin's supposed way from the Euxine to the Baltic; the Vandals did not. This strange error has got even into a royal title, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex (for Venedorum), a title equal to that of Rex Maris et Terrae!

↵

b
Strabo, lib. III. p. 164, says, that the Celts washed their body, and cleansed their teeth, with urine; and that it was kept long in cisterns to give it more strength.
↵

f
Pliny IV. 13. Tacitus in Germ. Leibnitz well observes on the later, 'Sed cum ipse Tacitus subjiciat Pencinos sermone referre Germanos, quaestio ab ipsomet decisa est. Unde enim illis sermo Germanicus nisi ab origine Germanica?' Apud Tac. Germ. a Dithmar, p. 296.
↵

g

The Basternae lived in cars, that is their wives and children did always, whilke the men roved about on foot, or on horseback, and returned to their cars, or little waggons, at night. Herodotus says the same of the Scythae, IV. 121. and Justin. II. Basterna was Francic or Tudesque for a chariot, perhaps covered like a waggon, as we find the chariot of honour on medals of Faustina and others. See Gregor. Turon. III. 26. the word also occurs in Lampridius in Heliogab. Symmachus, and the Capitularia Reg. Franc. and Amm. Marcell. lib. XIV. Vopiscus in Probo, tells that Probus settled no less than 100,000 Basternae in Thrace. In 303 the Basternae are last spoken of as a separate people. Zozim. Orosius, Victor, Eumen. Pan. Const. The Gepidae of later ages seem the Geloni of the former; and from their situation must have been Basternae.

↵

h

Pliny VI. 7. where he treats of the Palus Maeotis, and nations around it, puts the Piki between the Maeotis and Ceraunian Mountains; or in present Circassia. Some editions read Phycari: but Harduin gives us Pici, from four excellent MSS. 1. Reg. 2. Col. 3, 4. Chiffl.—Mela, I. 21, calls them Phicores, Phycari, Phicores, Pici, are but different modifications of the same name, as Pihti, Phichtiaid, Pihtar, Peohtar, are Cumraig and Saxon names of the Piks. Plautus, in Aulularia calls them Picos.

↵

d
A part of the Sithones remained beneath the ile of Peuke, on the west of the Euxine. 'Ponticum litus Sithonia gens obtinet, quae nato ibi Orpheo vate decus addidit nomini.' Solin. c. 16. Virgil has Sithonias nives: Ovid Sithonium aquilonem.
↵

e
Marsigli, in his magnificent account of the Danube, does not go so far east as Peuke, which is in the Turkish, not the German, territory.
↵

f

He also names Eningia, which some would rashly alter to Finingia, but was in all likelihood the south part of Finland, and taken by the ancients for another ile in the Great Northern Ocean. Pliny says, Scandinavia and Eningia were thought other worlds by the inhabitants: but he uses the same extravagant hyperbole in speaking of Taprobane, or Ceylon! VI. 24.

↵

g
These Anglii of Ptolemy are corrupted from Angrii, or Angrivarii, placed by others just where Ptolemy puts the Anglii.
↵

i
The learned Huet, Commerce des Anc. rightly saw that the Suiones must be on the west, from the account of Tacitus; but he errs in placing them in Norway.
↵

k

In the Periplus Wulfstani of king Alfred, published in the book of Arius De Islandia, edit. Bussaei, Hauniae, 1733, 4to. and elsewhere, we are told, 'the Vistula is a very large river, and near it ly Witland, and Vandalia. Witland belongs to the Esti.' It is hence clear that the Esti of Alfred's time were those of Tacitus, on the mouth of the Vistula, and far remote from Estonia.

↵

l
The southern part of Scandinavia is called Skani in the old Icelandic MSS, and it is still Scania. Hence in all appearance the Roman Scandia.
↵

m
Ablavius enim historicus refert quia ibi super limbum Ponti, ubi eos diximus in Scythia commanere, pars eorum qui orientalem plagam tenebant..... dicti sunt Ostrogothae; residui vero Vesigothae in parte occidua. Jorn. de reb. gest. Get. c. 14.
Tho Grotius seems to quote Baron Herberstein among the earliest writers, for the name Gothland in Sweden, yet that name is mentioned by Adam of Bremen about 1080: and it is highly probable, that the Gutae of Ptolemy were those very people by moderns latinized Gothi. The real indigenal name is Gyllen, Oestergyllen, Westergyllen. But writers of the middle ages were fond of approximating old names to modern ones: thus they called the Danes, Daci; Norway, Noricum; the Swedes Suevi: and some Scandinavian writers of last century, as Lyscander and Wormius, call Scanen, Scythia. But the antiquity of the very names Ostrogothia, Westrogothia, if you will, is out of all question. Certain it is, that the Ostrogothi and Visogothi of Roman history came not from that little corner of Sweden, any more than the Franks, Lombards, Heruli, Saxons, went from Scandinavia, as Scandinavian writers dream, Tantus amor patriae! But false history, instead of honouring, disgraces a country; and it is ever seen that the most insignificant countries are the most full of false honours. The Northern kingdoms need not such fame.

↵

n
Paulus Diaconus I, 11, 12. mentions that when the Lombards came to Mauringa, they encountered the AE Pitti or Noble Pitti for so As implies in Gothic.
↵

o

Perhaps it may be thought that the kingdom Vik was so called from Vik, a haven. But Torsaeus and Olaus call it Vicha as often as Vik; and the former does not imply a haven. Nor could all the south of Norway receive so vague a name as The Haven. It is a proper name, as distinct from Vik a haven, as Scot is from scot and lot. (Skot, vectigal. Isl.)

Verelius in his Index Ling. S•yth•-Scand. says Piaekhur is circumcursitator, 'a wanderer.' The Peukini Basternae were such compared to the Germans; and this may be the origin of the name.

↵

*
The later and extended Romans were a mixture of various Gothic nations, Gauls, Illyrians, Germans, &c. using the Latin tongue, and serving in the Roman armies, or having the privilege of Roman citizens, which Augustus extended over the empire.
↵

*
Mr. Gibbon is h
•
re often followed; sometimes corrected by collation with his authorities.

↵

†
The Pillar of An
•
oninus is that of Pius; and only has an engra

•

ed base of an apotheosis and trophies. Vigno
•
ii Columna Ant
•
nini Pii, Romoe 1705, 410.
↵

*
In like manner Eusebius, in Chron. says that Constantine I. conquered all Scythia! And Jornand. c. 23, of Hermanric 'ommbusque Scythiae, et Germaniae, nationibus, ac si propriis laboribus, in peravit!' It is from detail, and not from vague expressions, we mast judge of history.
↵

*

The Gepidae are singular in history; and special dissertations on them, and other Basternic nations, would be interesting. The Geloni are as often mentioned by Claudian, along with the Getae, as are the Gepidae by Jornandes and Procopius: and the geographic situation allotted to them by those writers leaves no room to doubt that they were the same people; and a part of the Basternae.

↵

*
Aliae ed. pro Raunonia unam legunt Bannomanna.
↵

*
So Justin "Scythia, in orientem porrecta, clauditur ab uno latere Ponto, et ab altero Montibus Riphaeis; a tergo Asia, et Tanai flumine." lib. II. Thus the Riphaean Mountains ran parallel to the Euxine.
↵

†
The Oceanus Deucaledonius is, by Ptolemy, accounted an exte
••
sion of the Baltic, or Sarmaticus,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

, vii. 5. and he says expressly, i. 3. that it was on the North (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) of Britain.
↵

*

Mr. Forster, in Barrington's Orosius, followed also by Mr. B. in his Miscellanies, errs so grossly as to take Ohter's Irland for Scotland! Irland was on Ohter's right hand, not on leaving Norway, but as he approached Sciringsheal. There are no iles on the south of Scotland; the iles between Irland and 'this land' are those of Oesel, &c. The sea south of Sciringsheal is the Finnish gulf, to which Gotland is opposite, as Ohter says. But compare the passage; and see Virland in the maps to Snorro, Havnioe, 1777, &c.

↵

*
The Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, however, and Latin promontorium, also signify merely the summit, or the termination, of a chain of mountains.

↵

Information about this book

Title statement

An enquiry into the history of Scotland: preceding the reign of Malcom III. or the year 1056. Including the authentic history of that period. In two volumes. By John Pinkerton. ... [pt.2]

Pinkerton, John, 1758-1826.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/5184

ID [isbn10]

1106021835

ID [isbn13]

9781106021830

ID [TCP]

K106472.002

ID [BIBNO]

cw3301457987

ID [ECHG]

0015200302

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— An enquiry into the history of Scotland: preceding the reign of Malcom III. or the year 1056. Including the authentic history of that period. In two volumes. By John Pinkerton. ..., Pinkerton, John, 1758-1826.. 2v.,plates,tables : maps ; 8⁰. London :: printed by John Nichols, for George Nicol; and John Bell, Edinburgh,. 1789.. [Includes: 'A dissertation on the origin and progress of the Scythians or Goths', with separate pagination, register and titlepage dated 1787.] [Reproduction of original from the British Library.] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT134381.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.