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 writ⯑ten on this ſubject; and this work might be regarded as imperfect, without ſome illuſtra⯑tions upon it, a few ſhall be propounded, with as much brevity as poſſible.

CHAPTER II. The firſt Colony of Old Scots in North Britain, under Riada, about the Year 258; being the DALREU⯑DINI, 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 ob⯑livion; 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 Bri⯑tain. In his ſecond chapter he proceeds to the wars of Julius Caeſar in Britain. Had Beda therefore followed ſtrict chronology, the Scots, by his ac⯑count, muſt have been ſettled in Britain before Cae⯑ſar'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 Ro⯑man 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, [61]Picti, atque Saxones, et Britones. Yet, ch. 3, 4, he gives us the Britiſh origins; ch. 5, the Pikiſh; and ch. 6, he ſays, Noviſſime autem venerunt Scoti a partibus Hiſpaniae ad Hiberniam. But Beda, by giving us the name of the leader of this firſt colo⯑ny, enables us to ſix the date.

The words of Beda are, Procedente autem tem⯑pore, Britannia, poſt Britones et Pictos, tertiam Scot⯑torum nationem in Pictorum parte recepit. Qui, duce Reuda, de Hibernia egreſſi vel amicitia, vel ferro, ſibi⯑met inter eos ſedes, quas hactenus habent, vindica⯑rant. 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 accord⯑ingly 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 cen⯑tury, 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 [60] [...] [61] [...] [62] Antiquitates Eccl. Brit. in 1639, was a bitter enemy of the Scotiſh fables; and in his zeal denied that the Scots were ſettled in Britain till 503. Keat⯑ing, 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 [63]far with the Picts, by his and his childrens aſ⯑ſiſtance, 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 pro⯑duces them. This moſt fooliſh and deteſtable practice prevails to this day in Iriſh writers adone^c.

Mr. O'Conor, in his Diſſertation on the Hiſ⯑tory 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 eſtabliſh⯑ment 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 ſet⯑tled 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 nei⯑ther he, nor his ſon Erc, could obtain a re-eſtab⯑liſhment 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 [64]colony happened two generations before 503, or about 440.

Mr. O'Conor has, on different occaſions, re⯑peated this information. In his publication of O'Flaherty's Vindication of Ogygia, Dublin, 1775, 8vo. he gives ſeveral notes concerning this ſettle⯑ment, 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 con⯑firm 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 Cruth⯑nii, 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 particu⯑lar with the Cruthenians (Piks) of North Britain, among whom our Carbry Riada, the ſon of Co⯑nary 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 [65]celebrated of our Iriſh monarchs, had his authority renounced by the Ultonians, the conſtant enemies of his family. After defeating thoſe rebels in ſe⯑veral engagements, their remains fled for ſhelter into the iſles and continent of North Britain. Supplied with an excellent militia, diſciplined un⯑der the famous Fin Mac Cumhall, his commander in chief, and his ſon-in-law, Cormac fol⯑lowed 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 un⯑der 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 con⯑tiguous 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.'

[66]All this is given, as uſual, without one autho⯑rity or reference! The circumſtances of Mr. O'Conor's tale are alſo diſcordant. Firſt he ſays the ſettlement was owing to force; then he im⯑putes it to treaty; then to force again. Dr. Ken⯑nedy's account, tho brief, ſeems much more ac⯑curate; and he imputes the ſettlement to the per⯑miſſion 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 Lon⯑donderry 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 [67]he found in the old book of Glendalogh that the Cruthini were in Ulſter and Connaught, which laſt province is on the weſt. There is but one people of Cruthini in Ireland, to be found in Adomnan, Tighernac, the annals of Ulſter, and other authentic documents; and thoſe Cruthini were in part of Ulſter, and part of Connaught by Mr. O'Conor's own relation, that is, on the north-weſt of Ireland. The people on the north-eaſt of Ire⯑land, among whom Riada planted his Dalreudini, were the Damnii or Darnii of Ptolemy, a Cum⯑raig people, that had paſt from Scotland upon the arrival of the Piks. The Dalreudini, or tribe of Riada, were certainly led by him from Mun⯑ſter, 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 ſu⯑perior 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 be⯑ing termed Scots peculiarly by Adomnan, Beda, and other ancients. This account of the matter is ſo conſonant to probability, that it would al⯑moſt ſupport itſelf, independent of all the ancient authorities, which are united in its favour. In⯑deed i have always found that the higheſt proba⯑bility 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 [68]ſprung from Carbry Riada. Beda, a ſuperior authority to all the Iriſh annals put together, in⯑forms us, that this very Riada led alſo the firſt co⯑lony 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, ap⯑pears 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 ele⯑ven; 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 men⯑tions 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 accu⯑rate [69]Innes, who alſo ſhews the firſt colony of Iriſh Scots in Britain to have ſettled in the third cen⯑tury, as here ſtated, has not examined the gene⯑rations 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 Dalri⯑ada, 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.)
• [70]4. Fiachra Taithmail.
• 5. Fergus Ulladh.
• 6. Aengus Fear.
• 7. Eocha Munremor.
• 8. Erc.
• 9. Fergus.

Thus the Iriſh inſerts two names, between Eocha Riada and Fiachra, not found in the Scotiſh; and likewiſe a Fergus Ulladh not in the Scotiſh. And the Scotiſh has eight names not in the Iriſh. The four laſt names are alone con⯑cordant. 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 pro⯑vincial Britains, who were Cumraig, to the Dal⯑reudini. 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 ſtruc⯑ture 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 Atta⯑cotti, Britannos aerumnis vexavere continuis. And then at the year 368, Picti in duas gentes diviſi, Dicaledones et Vecturiones; itidemque Attacotti, belli⯑coſa hominum natio; et Scotti; per diverſa vagantes multa populabantur. And from St. Jerome we learn [71]that the Attacotti were a nation of Britain. Thus quite a new nation appears in Britain at this pe⯑riod. 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 unfortu⯑nately 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 proba⯑bility told us, as we are ſtill fully enabled to diſ⯑cover, 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 Dalreu⯑dini 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 four⯑teenth 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 poſi⯑tion. [70] [...] [71] [...] [72]He places the Attacotti on the north of the Frith of Clyde; and the Damnii Albani juſt above them. And theſe two nations form the only addition he makes to Ptolemy's map. Now Beda places the Dalreudini, on their firſt arrival, exactly in that very region. Eſt autem ſinus ma⯑ris 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 vide⯑licet 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 co⯑lony 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, be⯑longed 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. Cer⯑tain it is, that Theodoſius, in 368, repelled the Piks, Scots, and Attacotti, from the Roman provinces in Britain; rebuilt the wall of Antoninus be⯑tween Forth and Clyde; and founded the pro⯑vince of Valentia. The Attacotti, finding no employment for their arms, might be tempted to enter into the Roman armies; for it was the Ro⯑man [73]policy in later ages to levy as many foreign troops as poſſible, and to oppoſe barbarians to barbarians. Perhaps the Attacotti were ſubdued and forced to furniſh levies. Perhaps theſe bo⯑dies 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. [74]But how the Scots alone came to term him Fin⯑gal, is not ſo eaſily ſhewn. In the old Iriſh wri⯑ters, 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 ap⯑pearance in 795; as Duf Gal, or Dugal, Black Strangers, is the peculiar name of the Norwegians. Mr. Thorkelin, a learned native of Iceland, in⯑forms 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 com⯑plexions, 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 anachro⯑niſms. Later Iriſh MSS. and traditions, and poems, both of Ireland and the Highlands, re⯑preſent 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 un⯑der 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 Val⯑lancey 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 [75]been commanded by Fion Mac Cumbal, and its re⯑nowned 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 Fin⯑nii 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 ana⯑chroniſms 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 anachro⯑niſms appear in the Northern Sagas, concerning Starkader, the Fin or Arthur of Scandinavia. Torfaeus, in his Norwegian hiſtory, has a diſſer⯑tation 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 ſynchro⯑niſms 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, [76]and is a mere apology for the anachroniſm of tra⯑dition. 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. Starka⯑der, 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 Den⯑mark 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 repre⯑ſents 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 [77]to have been a rude imitation of the Roman le⯑gions 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 occa⯑ſion, juſtly to queſtion whether we be yet ſavages or not. For that the moſt civilized and benevo⯑lent 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 preju⯑dice 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, [78]ever appear, in the world of literature. Their general manner is ſuch, that it is no wonder they impoſe. When very young, and immerſt in Greek and Roman reading, i had a firm opinion of the falſehood of Oſſian's poems; becauſe it appeared, at firſt glance, that their preſervation was an impoſſible fiction. This was before i had redd them; but, upon peruſal, my ſentiments to⯑tally 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 charac⯑ter, 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 ef⯑fect of envy, or of national prejudice. But be⯑ginning 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, there⯑fore, from my own experience, that as ſoon as hiſtorical antiquities, the moſt manly and import⯑ant 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 be⯑ing made a dupe, yet, upon full conſideration of this point, i am convinced that one half, or per⯑haps 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 tra⯑dition of other poems, and paſſages. But this very tradition will, to any impartial mind, pre⯑ſent [79]a clear proof that the original parts are of a late age. And it appears to me, that ſome poet, or poets, of ſuperlative genius, flouriſhed in the Highlands of Scotland, in the Fourteenth or Fif⯑teenth 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 traditionⁿ; and from the total confuſion of all hiſtory that pervades them. The tales of Fin, and his heroes, were always famous among the Iriſh, and their deſcendents the Scotiſh High⯑landers; 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 re⯑preſented 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 Chriſ⯑tianity.
• 3. Becauſe the manners are of genuine hue.

The firſt of theſe arguments is nonſenſe. The ſecond fooliſh. The third utterly falſe. Had [80]Oiſin, ſon of Fin, and father of Oſkir, compoſed any poetry, this circumſtance could never have eſcaped the whole Iriſh antiquaries. Any one the leaſt verſt in the Gothic, or other poetry of the middle ages, muſt know that nothing was ſo uſual as to compoſe poetry in the name of an eminent perſon. Lodbrog's death-ſong is one in⯑ſtance of an hundred. Arioſto quotes Turpin as his author; and Cervantes has his Arabic autho⯑rity. 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 re⯑verence. 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 pe⯑riod, 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 [81]tranſlator would leave his Celtic hyperboles for a moment, and deſcend from the ſtilts of his extra⯑vagant impudence, merely to inform the republic of letters, in which the leaſt are his equals, few not his ſuperiors, what is traditional, what interpo⯑lated in theſe pieces, it would be better for him. As it is, the manifeſt intention he ſhews to de⯑ceive, 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, writ⯑ten laſt year, in which the whole mythology of the Edda was kept up; as it is indeed always fol⯑lowed, ſave in hymns alone, by the Icelandic ſkalds. Beſides, the Norwegians, who ſeized the Hebudes and weſt of Scotland, in the ninth cen⯑tury, were not Chriſtians; and their Celtic ſub⯑jects 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 ac⯑curacy 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 produc⯑tions of the Northern ſkalds, were all written be⯑fore 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, [80] [...] [81] [...] [82]would be foreign to my purpoſe. Fin, an Iriſh general, is metamorphoſed into a king of Scot⯑land; as Arthur, from a Roman general, became, in Welch tradition, king of Britain To ſee Mr. Macpherſon, who betrays ſuch irrational preju⯑dices 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. [83]But ignorance is a ſtrange affair! The very name of Lochlin was unknown in Ireland, or the High⯑lands, till the ninth century, when the invaſions of the Scandinavians began. The name means pirates; and Mr. M. puts it as a name of Scandi⯑navia. 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 de⯑ſtroys a whole poem, that of Temora, in Eight Books; which i am convinced is wholly Mr. Mac⯑pherſon's own, ſave parts of the firſt book, which he at firſt publiſhed ſeparately. The car of Cuchul⯑lin has been regarded as a mark of ancient man⯑ners. 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 Ire⯑land in the ſixth century, we know from Adom⯑nan. But, from the old tales, an Highland poet of the fifteenth century might eaſily have de⯑ſcribed 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-er⯑rantry was invented. To knight-errantry belong alſo the halls and towers, while, in Oſſian's time, there were only palaces built with wattles, and [84]all on one floor in Ireland. The mail alſo, or ſteel habergeon, perpetually mentioned in Oſſian, ſhews the ignorance of thoſe who fight for his an⯑tiquity; 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 lea⯑ther, 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 argu⯑ment. How ridiculous would it be to uſe argu⯑ments 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 [85]Highland Celts alone remained; and for the firſt time thruſting their noſes into the world of letters, they have, from the darkneſs of their own minds, judged of an enlightened age. For how can an ignorant and abſurd mind conceive the light and accuracy of ſcience; or have any idea of the dan⯑ger of inſulting it? Alas! they know no better. To their miſty underſtandings tradition's ſillieſt tales, and the dreams of the darkeſt night of ig⯑norance, 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! In⯑ſtead of arguing againſt ſuch infatuation, pecu⯑liar to a ſecond ſighted people of diſordered ſenſes, we can only expreſs the deepeſt regret at ſuch a proſpect of mental miſery, at ſuch cala⯑mitous 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 epi⯑ſodes, eternal ladies in mail, where no mail was known, ſicken one at every turn. The machi⯑nery, [86]imagery, and phraſeology, are queſtionleſs fine; and ſome paſſages ſuperlative. The phra⯑ſeology is indeed often perfectly ſcriptural, be⯑cauſe 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 hiſ⯑tory, 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 obli⯑terate all pleaſure, in peruſing ſo ignorant and in⯑ſane 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, Bu⯑chanan, &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 in⯑cident may be regarded as fixt, and univerſally allowed. But its preciſe epoch, and circumſtances, deſerve conſideration.

Gildas, after mentioning the letters of the Bri⯑tons 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 impu⯑dentes 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 af⯑fords a ſtrong implication, it remains to confirm it by the Iriſh and Scotiſh accounts.

[88]The Iriſh account, as above ſtated, bears that it was in the time of their leader Eochad Munre⯑var, father of Erc, father of Loarn and Fergus, who, in 503, re-eſtabliſhed the Old Scots, that their retreat took place. That is, two genera⯑tions 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 ac⯑count 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 ex⯑pulſion; 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 Dal⯑riadic kingdom, will, to any one the leaſt verſed in Iriſh hiſtory, or our own old chronicles, illuſ⯑trated by Innes, be as openly evinced as any date of Greek or Roman hiſtory. Nor is this circum⯑ſtance to be wondered at, when the importance and lateneſs of the event are conſidered. Mait⯑land, and ſome other weak and ignorant writers, perſiſt, in ſpite of all truth, learning, and com⯑mon 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 [89]thoſe of Spain, France, England, nay Ireland, which Maitland begins at Leogaire, the firſt Chriſtian king. Thus the date 403 is very con⯑venient; 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 king⯑dom, 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 hiſ⯑tory, 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. Whe⯑ther 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 bro⯑ther, was the firſt king of Dalriada?

[90]The firſt queſtion is of ſmall importance in an event of this nature, the difference being only five years. The author of the ſynchroniſms is, by Mr. O'Conor, called Flan of Bute, and placed in the tenth century. The learned Uſher calls him non novitius autor, 'no late author.' The queſtion therefore lies between him and Tighernac. The author of the ſynchroniſms, by ſuch extracts as are given of his work, appears a writer of conſi⯑derable learning and accuracy, who ſtudiouſly en⯑deavoured 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 Fer⯑gus to the death of Aidan, which by all accounts was in 605: namely, Fergus 3, Dongard 5, Con⯑gal 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 doubt⯑ful if ſo meant by the author; or if he, in other words, marks preciſely the firſt year of Symma⯑chus. 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, Tigher⯑nac 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 [91]this event not to the preciſe firſt year of Symma⯑chus, 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 pal⯑pably trembles when aſſerting plain truth and au⯑thority againſt ignorant prejudice and falſehood, paſſes Loarn in utter ſilence; as he has paſt the evidence for the retreat of the Scots from Al⯑bany 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 ma⯑thematical 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 pre⯑judice 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 Dal⯑riada.

The ſilence of the old Scotiſh liſts upon this point is not to be wondered at, for they are to⯑tally 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 [92]liſt of any provincial kings in Ireland: an ad⯑vantage which their detached ſituation afforded. But the Scotiſh liſts are, after all, right, that Fer⯑gus 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 Tene⯑gus,' which laſt word is a not uncommon corrup⯑tion 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 in⯑ſula, 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 Gae⯑lic 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 [93]Dalriadic hiſtory remaining, deſerves the greateſt credit in this as in other points. The Highland Scots are allowed by their own late writers to have been an illiterate people. The celebrated monaſ⯑tery 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 learn⯑ing as was then in vogue. So that it is from the Iriſh writers that we muſt expect genuine memo⯑rials of the Dalriadic kingdom; and the proxi⯑mity and identity of the Old Britiſh and Iriſh Scots, and conſtant intercourſe between them, lend theſe memorials every degree of authenticity and cre⯑dit. In any other hiſtory ſuch teſtimonials would bear no doubt; and it would be a mark of deplo⯑rable 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 ſepa⯑rate parts; the former of Lorn, which, as uſual with Iriſh countries, retains his name; the later [94]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 ge⯑nealogiſts, thus appears at once. From Tigher⯑nach 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 Argyle⯑ſhire. From the figure which they make in hiſ⯑tory, 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 ſup⯑poſing one man from each family, and each fa⯑mily 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 Pto⯑lemy; 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 Nor⯑wegians, on their ſeizing the Hebudes about the year 800. When this tract was ceded to the Dal⯑riads, ſuch of the Epidii as chuſed to remain, it [96]may be inferred, had that privilege; but were ſoon loſt in the new language of the colony.

Certain it is, from all the ancient teſtimonies, that the kingdom of Dalriada, in the whole period of it's duration, or from 503 till 843, did not ex⯑ceed 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 Dalria⯑dic kingdom^b; for, ſpeaking of Kenneth, the fabled conqueror of the Piks, he ſays,

But it appears that Loch Linny was the northern boundary of Dalriada. For Mull remained to the [97]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 an⯑cient 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 Dal⯑riadic 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, Auguſ⯑tus, and George. Beyond this, on the north-weſt [98]of Scotland, there are only ſmall creeks and crowded hills, which afford no grand natural boundary. The old deſcription of Scotland, ſup⯑poſed to be by Giraldus Cambrenſis; and Win⯑ton, 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: ex⯑tending 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 in⯑cluded 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, pub⯑liſhed by Innes, it alſo appears that in the 12th century Argathelia was regarded as a large pro⯑vince. But this impropriety aroſe after the Nor⯑wegians ſettled in the north and weſt of Scot⯑land 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 Stra⯑loch'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 Tigher⯑nac. But both being tranſlated Argyle, confuſion aroſe. There is however no proof that the Gael [99]extended up to Roſs ſhire, before the Norwegians ſeized on the Hebudes; ſo that the limits of Dal⯑riada^c have nothing to do with thoſe of Arga⯑thelia.

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 ſeem⯑ing 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 fide⯑lity, 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 Scot⯑land: 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 [101]Scotland, down to 843 at leaſt, if not after; this line of Dalriadic princes becomes of no more importance, than that of ſo many Dukes of Ar⯑gyle. Such being the caſe; and philoſophy mak⯑ing 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 indivi⯑dual, can undergo.

The ſucceſſion of Dalriadic kings extends from 503 till 843, when Kenneth aſcended the Pik⯑iſh 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 philo⯑ſophy, 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 [100] [...] [101] [...] [102]but fair to aſſign them rather ſhorter. If we put them therefore at ten years a-piece, the reigns of thirty-four kings will juſt fill 340 years, or an⯑ſwer 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 Hep⯑tarchic 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 Dal⯑riads 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 pre⯑ceding 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, be⯑cauſe 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 cen⯑tury, both anſwer as to names of kings, com⯑mencement 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: [103]

• 1. Eochod 16 years. Began to reign 605
• 2. Kinat Keir 3 months 621
• 3. Fercar 16 years 621
• 4. Donal Brec 14 years 637
• 5. Malduin 16 years 651
• 6. Fercar Fada 21 years 667
• 7. Eochoid Rinneval 3 years 688
• 8. Armkelleth 1 year 691
• 9. Edgan 13 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 ano⯑ther 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 falſi⯑fied liſt from the death of Aidan, 605, till Ken⯑neth's acceſſion to the Pikiſh throne, 843, ſtands thus: [104]

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

Innes has ſufficiently ſhewn the perverſions, and interpolations, of the former part of this mock liſt; and this later part has alſo it's ſhare. Connad Keir is placed before Eochoid, or Euge⯑nius 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 Euge⯑nius V. is interpolated, equally unknown both to the Iriſh and Scotiſh accounts. Ed Fin is placed before Eogan, againſt the ſame authentic cata⯑logues. And a falſe Convallus is interpolated. [105]The cauſe of interpolating kings is ſelf-apparent, namely, to ſwell the liſt, and bring it into ſome conformity with chronology: and Fordun's power of creating kings is too well known. But what purpoſe that ignorant dreamer had in view, by merely altering poſitions of kings, and putting the laſt firſt, is not ſo eaſily ſeen. This flaw ſeems indeed to have ſprung merely from an ex⯑traordinary 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 in⯑ſulted 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 Tig⯑hernac 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 un⯑tenable 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 palpa⯑bly 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 pub⯑liſhed by Innes.

Fordun's liſt, followed by all our writers to this day, is indeed the utmoſt perfection of hiſto⯑rical falſehood; for it is a falſification of the old Latin liſts, which are themſelves falſe. It is a ſuperfetation of falſehood: falſehood again fal⯑ſified. 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. [106]Their particular chronology is no leſs erroneous. Connad Keir died in 630: the liſts put 621. Amkellach died 719: the liſts ſay 692. Selvac began to reign 719: the liſts date 744. Murdac began his reign 733: the liſts ſay 705. And the well-known reign of Kenneth, who aſcended the Pikiſh throne, is antedated by theſe old liſts near thirty year!

Fordun's liſt, blindly followed by Major, Boyce, Leſly, Buchanan, and to our own times by Maitland, Guthrie, and other dablers in our hiſtory, being ſo totally falſe and erroneous, as to be out of the queſtion; the only point that re⯑mained was whether the Latin or Gaelic liſt de⯑ſerved preference. The Pikiſh ſeries, in the eſſen⯑tial 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 lan⯑guage, have ever regarded it's authenticity as un⯑queſtionable. It is believed to have been written by the Highland court-bard of Malcom III. and [107]has no marks of having been written in Ireland. The beginning of this celebrated Duan, or ſhort poem, is,

Ye ſkillful men of Alba, ye comely hoſts of the yellow treſſes, know ye the firſt tribes who poſſeſ⯑ſed Albanian lands? Then the bard gives us the fable of Albanus and Brittus, from Nennius, who wrote in 858, knowing nothing of Locrine, Alba⯑nactus, and Camber, ſons of Brutus, as Geoffrey fabled about 1150. Next he mentions that the Nemedians, under Erglan, ſettled in Albany, af⯑ter 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 ele⯑giac 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. [108]Without this old Gaelic Duan no ſeries of the princes of Dalriada could have been given; for many of them are not found either in the Latin liſts, or in the Iriſh Annals. Both the Latin liſts and Iriſh Annals, however, concur to certify this Duan; and lend it every degree of hiſtoric faith. Indeed, as the moſt ancient piece of Dalriadic hiſtory preſerved by near two cen⯑turies, this Duan would by every rule of hiſtoric authority have merited the preference, indepen⯑dently 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 num⯑ber 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 be⯑ginning 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 igno⯑rant 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 con⯑trary, [109]merely becauſe they find this later part un⯑tenable, as in the years aſſigned it contradicts the beſt and moſt numerous authorities. Inſtead there⯑for of granting that the years of the former part may be as erroneous as thoſe of the later, they at⯑tempt 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 begin⯑ning to end. And as our old Latin liſts are cer⯑tainly 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 reign⯑ed appears not to have been recited on theſe occa⯑ſions, 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 num⯑ber 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 mat⯑ters. 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 Chro⯑nicle 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.

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

• 1. That the number of Thirty⯑four kings, given in the Duan, is conformable to the general chronology of the neighbouring bar⯑baric 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 [111]by his notorious credulity in fabulous periods, has with much care preceded me in this labour. His Dalriadic ſeries is in fact the beſt part of his work, for here he was a ſpectator, and not a party. Si ſic omnia! But i ſhall beg leave to differ from him in many points; and as his authorities, namely, the Gaelic Duan, with a literal tranſlation, and extracts from the tranſlation of the Annals of Ulſter in the Muſaeum, are now on my table, i hope i ſhall not be blamed for uſing my own eyes and thoughts. It muſt be premiſed that the An⯑nals of Ulſter ſeem accurate in Iriſh affairs; as ap⯑pears 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, ſome⯑times 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 An⯑gus, another brother of Loarn, poſſeſſed the iland Ilay: O'Fl. Erca, daughter of Loarn^d, was twice married; firſt to Muredach, father of Mur⯑chert, [112]king of Ireland, 513; next to Fergus, ſon of Conal, and couſin-german of her firſt huſ⯑band, to whom, among other ſons, ſhe bore Fed⯑lim, 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 out⯑living 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 Fede⯑lina, 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 be⯑tween 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. Tig⯑hernac, at the year 560, ſays, Mors Gaurani filii Domangardi, et Albadi, a Brudeo filio Milchuonis, Rege Pictorum, in fugam converſi; Dermitio rege [113]Hiberniae poſtrema Temorenſia comitia celebrante. 'The death of Gabran, ſon of Domangard, and of Albad, put to flight by Brudi, ſon of Milchuon, king of the Piks; while Dermod king of Ireland was celebrating the laſt aſſembly at Temora.' apud O'Fl.

6. Conal I. ſon of Congal, ſucceeded his uncle, A. C. 560, and reigned fifteen years, Duan: four⯑teen, 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 ob⯑tulit 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 An⯑nals 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 An⯑nals 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, Co⯑lumba long deferred, having a predilection for Aidan's brother Eogenan. Thus there were both [114]commotions and delay between the death of Conal, and complete unction of Aidan as king; and in all probability our bard dates from the laſt epoch, and not from the death of Conal, which may well have happened ſome years before. One of the old liſts alſo makes Aidan's reign to be of twenty-four years, while two others give thirty-four. This Aidan is the moſt noted of all the Dalriadic kings: and Adomnan, Beda, and the Iriſh Annals, throw con⯑ſiderable 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 tranſla⯑tion of Drumkeat. Here Columba interceded for the Iriſh bards, whoſe diſorders provoked notice, and they were only reſtricted to Ulſter and Dal⯑riada: 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 [115]brother of Aidan died: Ann. Ult. It is likely he is the Eoganan of Adomnan, whom Columba pre⯑ferred to Aidan. In 603, Aidan appears in the page of Beda, under the name of Edan rex Scotto⯑rum 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. Do⯑mangard, 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, falſifi⯑cation 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, For⯑dun. [116]The Iriſh accounts bear, that he was ſon of Eochoid, the laſt king; which is improbable, as Eochoid was a young ſon of Aidan, and a child after his father came to the throne, as appears from Adomnan; and Fercar, ſon of Connad Keir, inſtantly ſucceeded him. Eochoid could not be above fifty-three when he died; and how could he have a grandſon fit to reign? The Duan, cited by O'Flaherty to this purport, ſays no ſuch thing. The old Liſts mark Connad Keir as the ſon of Conal, probably the king in 560. Tig⯑hernac 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 Ardco⯑ran. 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 Fea⯑oin. 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 ſlaugh⯑ter 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 Do⯑nal Brec, more noted in hiſtory, that the later muſt have ſucceeded about 630. Of courſe not [117]more than eight years can be allowed for the reign of Fercar. The numbers in the Duan are often falſe, and the Dalriadic ſeries cannot be ex⯑pected to reſemble the Pikiſh in clearneſs; but muſt be digeſted from various materials, and re⯑conciled to general chronology. Torfaeus, in arranging the ſeries of Daniſh kings, now univer⯑ſally 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 Mu⯑ſaeum 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 interpo⯑lated paſſages in the annals of Ulſter, manu recen⯑tiore, 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 valu⯑able 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 [118]the ſame Annals. Donal, ſon of Ed, king of Ireland, died in 642, at Ardfothaig, in the 14th year of his reign, as Ware informs. Adom⯑nan alſo tells us, that Donal Brec was grandſon of Aidan, and was defeated at Roth (Moy-Roth) by Domnail, grandſon of Amurec; for Aid, fa⯑ther 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 ſin⯑gularly 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, de⯑feated Congal, and forced him to take refuge in Britain. Here Congal gained aſſiſtance, and eſpe⯑cially 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 Do⯑nal 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 [119]the only great prince that Dalriada had; and it is clear from the annals of Ulſter, that, after this, the little kingdom declined almoſt to annihilation, before 843, when Kenneth came to the Pikiſh throne. In 638 there was a battle at Glen Mure⯑ſan, in which Donal Brec was again defeatedⁱ. In 642 he was ſlain at Fraith Cairvin, fighting againſt Hoan, in all probability a king of Strat-Clyde.

12. Conal II, Began to reign 642; and the ſurvivor Conal reigned ten years: Duan. Conal, according to O'Fla⯑herty, 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'Fla⯑herty, 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. accord⯑ing 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 miſ⯑take, 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 re⯑giſter 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.

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

16. Fercar II. Fada, or Tall, A. C. 682, reigned twenty-one years. Duan, and Old Liſts. This prince was the firſt of the houſe of Loarn, and in the eighth generation from Loarn, as O'Flaherty ſays, and indeed is right, running a parallel with the houſe of Fergus. That Fercar II. began a new houſe is clear from all the old Latin liſts, in which his father's name appears not, tho that of all the reſt be marked. After this alſo Tighernac, and the Annals of Ulſter, mention frequent conflicts between the houſes of Lorn and Argyle; ſometimes the one gaining the ſove⯑reignty, 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. Do⯑mangart 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 or⯑der; their other faults ariſing from omiſſion. [121]The Duan is alſo defective, and wants two reigns here. But the reign of Selvac is ſo marked by the Iriſh Annals, as to be very clear. In 700 Selvac deſtroyed Dunaila; Ann. Ult. this was before he was king, if the Annals err not by a few years, as not unuſual. But they ſeem right here, as they date the death of Adomnan and of Alfred, king of Northumberland, in 703. After this we find no more of Selvac for thirteen years. He is then of⯑tener mentioned than Aidan, or any other Dal⯑riadic 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, con⯑cerning 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 thou⯑ſand to one that they are right.
• 2. Thoſe two erroneous articles ſtand ſingle, and without conſe⯑quences, 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, concern⯑ing him, in theſe very Annals, as above ex⯑plained; 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 rea⯑ſons will, it is believed, be found more than ſuf⯑ficient to fix the reign of Selvac here; and to [122]ſhew that the old liſts are, in this one reſpect, not only defective, but diſordered.—Let us now at⯑tend 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 bro⯑ther, 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. Amb⯑kellach 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 pro⯑cured 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 bat⯑tle againſt Duncha Beg, or Duncan the little, of the houſe of Argyle, but king only of Cantire; Selvac having apparently ſeized that part of Ar⯑gyle 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 Cle⯑ricatus Selvaich, or that Selvac went into a mo⯑naſtery. But this life, undertaken probably in penance for the murder of his brother, ſuited not his temper; and he ſeems to have aſpired to ſo⯑vereignty again. For in 724, 5, or 6, was ano⯑ther battle in Argyle between Selvac, and the clan of Echtach, grandſon of Domnail. Duncha Beg [123]died in 720: and this Echtach was perhaps his ſon, and grandſon of Domnail, or Donal II. Duin; and the ſame who ſucceeded Selvac; for Echtach and Eochoid ſeem but one name differently ſpelt. Three years after this battle Selvac died: ſay 726, tho the Annals of Ulſter put 729. The fratricide of Selvac was puniſhed on his race ſoon after, as ſhall be ſhewn.

20. Eochoid III. or Achy, began to reign A. C. 726, and ruled about ten years, as appears from the dates of Selvac his predeceſſor, and of Murdac his ſucceſſor. This king is alſo loſt along with Selvac, in the Duan. This is the laſt Achy in the Dalriadic ſeries: and there is none in the Pikiſh; nor in the United ſeries; ſo that this is the famous Achy, who, according to our fables, made à league with Charlemagne, who was yet unborn. That ſilly fiction has been amply con⯑futedⁿ; and its total abſurdity will appear in full [124]light from this whole work. Charlemagne could not know the exiſtence of the kings of Argyle. The kings of North Britain were thoſe of the Piks. But the reges Scottorum, who, according to Eginhart, were at his obedience, were thoſe of Ireland; from which country different men of ſaintly learning adorned his court and capital.—This Achy, who ſucceeded Selvac, is called Eochal Annuine in the old liſts, tranſlated Achaius in the modern: Annuine is in ſome of theſe liſts, as that in the chronicle of Melroſe, tranſlated Veneoſus, 'Poiſonous;' and he has certainly poiſoned our hiſtory with nonſenſe. There was an old king of Ireland called Achy Apthach, or 'poiſonous,' becauſe there was a great mortality of his ſubjects in his reign. The old liſts, finding it neceſſary to pervert genealogy in perverting or⯑der, 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 [125]ancient documents, they can only be credited by people as weak and ignorant as themſelves.

21. Murdac, ſon of Ambkellach, began to reign, A. C. 736, and continued three years. Duan, Liſts. Tighernac, at 733, Muredachus filius Anbkellachi regnum generis Loarni aſſumit. The ſame year Tighernac informs us, that Dun⯑gal, 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 Dal⯑riadic kingdom^o. He waſted it's whole territo⯑ries; 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 Dal⯑riada. After this, the hiſtory of Dalriada is al⯑moſt annihilated in Tighernac, the Annals of Ul⯑ſter, and other authentic documents.

THESE events call for a pauſe, in order to in⯑veſtigate a curious and important point in our hiſ⯑tory, namely, What line of princes held the Dal⯑riadic ſceptre at the time the kings of Dalriada are ſaid to have acceded to the Pikiſh throne?

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

A^o 746. Death of Dunlaing, ſon of Duncan, king of the ſept of Argyle. [Argal.]

A^o 780. Fergus, ſon of Eachah, king of Dal⯑riada, died.

A^o 791. Doncorcai, king of Dalriada, died.

A^o 806. The killing of Conal, ſon of Aoain, at Kintire.

A^o 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 Al⯑pin, king of the Piks, is marked.

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

• 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 ap⯑pear 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 Ken⯑neth, 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. Dun⯑can Beg died about 720; Dunlaing, 746; An⯑gus, 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 Dun⯑can 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 [128]642, Kenneth 857; include Donal, and the ſpace will amount to about 257 years, and for this we have eight generations, by the laſt account, or 240 years, which is fair. But alas! all is out of order. Kenneth and Alpin are undoubted. Achy Rinne⯑val 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 ſuffi⯑cient 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 Ar⯑gyle 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 con⯑clude 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 queſ⯑tion is yet more ſtrongly anſwered in the negative, by all the liſts and genealogies.

[129]As Kenneth was certainly neither of the houſe of Lorn, nor of Fergus, it remains to examine how his anceſtors came to the throne of Dalriada; or rather of Lorn; for Argyle ſeems to have re⯑tained 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 Fe⯑rach, 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 be⯑long 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, [130]could not aſcend the Pikiſh throne, as his father had reigned. Unguſt certainly had ſons arrived at manhood, at the time of conquering Dalriada; for in the very year of the firſt conqueſt, and cap⯑tivity 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 cir⯑cumſtance ſpeaks a new and firm power. It was na⯑tural 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 pro⯑bable 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 fra⯑tricide 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.

[131]Another ſingular circumſtance deſerves atten⯑tion. 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 ſup⯑poſed 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. Ca⯑nul and Conal ſeem the ſame. The name of Conſtantin is not to be found in the Iriſh or Dalria⯑dic 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 Un⯑guſt, 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 An⯑nuine, 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 Dal⯑riadic 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 Ken⯑neth. 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 [132]ſuch name appears in either the Iriſh or Dalriadic liſt of kings. Is not this alſo an additional proof that Kenneth was really of Pikiſh extract? Tig⯑hernac and Caradoc of Llancarvon, mentioning his death in 857, call him ſimply, ‘king of the Piks,’ without one hint of any acquired domi⯑nion. 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 ſuc⯑ceeded his father Alpin in the kingdom of Dal⯑riada, an inferior Pikiſh monarchy ſince the days of Aod Fin: and that taking advantage of the in⯑ternal 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 cer⯑tain. 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 La⯑tin 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, [133]repeated by a Highlander at the coronation of Alexander III. 1249, has the ſame. This ſtrange account has run thro Fordun down to Buchanan, and our own times; yet is as palpably falſe, and ignorant, as could be expected even from a High⯑land genealogiſt. For, as above ſhewn, Achy An⯑nuine 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; be⯑ing 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, be⯑come ſelf-apparent. This Achy, who ſucceeded Selvac, is the laſt in our hiſtory. There are three Eochoids (pronounced Achys) in the Dalria⯑dic 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 [134]Fin, who did not reign till ten years after his death. Dungal, ſon of Selvac, who is never called king of Dalriada, and it is certain never reigned, they make the ſame with Dungal, pre⯑deceſſor 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 con⯑ſult 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 be⯑longed 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 ac⯑knowlege 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 co⯑lour the falſehood. To this Achy V. he cannot [135]aſſign even one year's reign. The three genera⯑tions 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 Dalria⯑dic 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 be⯑ing 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 Dal⯑riadic 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, [136]the hiſtory of Dalriada would have been more and more important, and notorious; while, in fact, after it's conqueſt by Unguſt, it ſinks to nothing at once. The Pikiſh affairs, on the con⯑trary, 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 appa⯑rent, 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 per⯑verſion, 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 be⯑tween them, to prevent the two Eogans from jar⯑ring 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 imme⯑diately 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 tranſcrip⯑tion, [137]while additions can never ſpring from this ſource; which is an additional argument for the larger ſeries. But from 739 till 843 is therefore the OBSCURE part of Dalriadic hiſtory: and no pains ſhould be ſpared to inveſtigate it.

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

THE manners and language of the Ancient Britiſh Scots, being the ſame with thoſe of the Iriſh Scots, their progenitors, little need be ſaid on this ſubject. Both are Gothic mingled with Celtic. Ancient writers repreſent the Iriſh Scots, and their progeny the Attacotti, as ſavages in the extreme. Theſe accounts are confirmed by the long deſcription of the Iriſh given by Giral⯑dus Cambrenſis; by the conſtant epithets of feri and ſylvicolae, given to our Highlanders, by our wri⯑ters; and by the infallible evidence of preſent ob⯑ſervation. 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 diſ⯑tinction prevailed as above ſhewn; but ſoon after the term Scots became general to all the inhabi⯑tants 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 Hi⯑bernus were by no means ſynonymous; and it [139]ſeems thence certain that they were not ſo in the Third century, when Riada led his colony of Scots (not Hiberni) to Pikland; nor ſo ſoon after Patrick's time as 503, when Loarn and Fergus re-eſtabliſhed the colony. Beda calls Aidan 603, rex Scottorum in Britannia; and it is appa⯑rent 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 com⯑pared 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 man⯑ners were, and are, rather Celtic than Gothic^a. And in lazineſs, filth, and every ſpecies of ſavage⯑neſs, they have been always hardly diſtinguiſhable from the ſavages of Ireland. In all ages of our hiſtory they are marked as the ſavages of Scot⯑land; and uniformly mentioned as ſuch by fo⯑reigners, 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 [140]the people of Normandy. Their hilly habitation alone could not occaſion this difference; for the inhabitants of the Alps; Apennines; Pyrenees; mountains in the north of England, and in Ire⯑land; 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 moun⯑tainous country. Had the Celtic part of our countrymen been in the eaſtern plains, the caſe would have been the ſame: as the Fins, for in⯑ſtance, are in a plain country, while the Norwe⯑gians 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 po⯑pulation 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 Ork⯑neys 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 [141]of Hyona muſt have been of this ſort; and it was burnt by the Danes in the ninth century. The preſent ruin is not older than the thirteenth. In the twelfth century Saint Bernard repreſents a ſtone church as quite a novelty even in Ireland.

As to the language of the Dalriads, the only difference between it and the Iriſh, at preſent, is that the former has rather more Gothic words. Anciently they were quite the ſame, as indeed they are very nearly ſo now: the difference not be⯑ing 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 heredi⯑tary, and there is no proof of election. The kingdom of Dalriada indeed differed radically from that of Ireland, which conſiſted in a ſove⯑reignty 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 [142]Iriſh periods and writers. And their very eſſence implies hereditary government, a mode uſed by different Gothic nations in the moſt ancient times. The Pikiſh monarchy was confined to one royal race: but it deſcended by the female, not by the male line: and the ſon of a king was always ex⯑cluded; while in Dalriada the caſe was in both points reverſed. Hence the Pikiſh ſtrikes us as a mere elective monarchy, the Dalriadic as heredi⯑tary. 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 com⯑mence 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 con⯑cerning 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, lan⯑guage 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 [143]only ornamental. The dreſs of old Iriſh kings, as appears from monuments, was a cloſe veſt; long trowſers down to the ancle; and a long looſe robe over all, that reached to the ground, was brought over the ſhoulders, and faſtened on the breaſt, by a very large claſp or broch^c. This dreſs is abſo⯑lutely 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 in⯑fantry, 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. Dio⯑dorus 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 cer⯑tain 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 con⯑clude 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 [144]Attacottic feaſts were more innocent, and conſiſted chiefly of veniſon and other game. Their drink i do not find much illuſtrated. Ale they could not have, without agriculture. Ireland was always famous for bees; and mead would be a common liquor of courſe. The poor would, as now, uſe butter-milk. As to uſquebaugh, or aqua vitae, i agree with Ware, that it is of late times. The Sarmatic diſtillation from corrupted milk could not be known in Ireland; nor had they mares enough to procure it. To the Germans, and other Goths, it was unknown. Nor could the Iriſh diſtill from oats, while agriculture was hardly in uſe. In the mountains of Argyle there was no room for agriculture; and wine was ſurely unknown, as there was no commerce. When whiſky became known in the Highlands, perhaps three centuries ago, it was, as it is now in poor houſes there, drunk out of ſhells, inſtead of li⯑queur glaſſes. Theſe whiſky-ſhells the learned fa⯑bricator 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 re⯑paired 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 bre⯑thren, an Iriſh poet came up to them, and, after ſome converſation, departed. Upon which the brethren ſaid to the ſaint, Why did you allow [145]Coronan to depart, without aſking him to ſing us ſome ſong in modulation, according to the cuſ⯑tom 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 con⯑ſtruction 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 ta⯑bor; 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 ſil⯑ver^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.

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 pe⯑riod, 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 Ken⯑neth 843. On this period Adomnan, Beda, Tig⯑hernac, &c. throw much light.
• 3. The Middle [149] [...] [150]Period, from 843 till 1056.
• 4. The Clear Pe⯑riod, 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 pre⯑ceding: 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 in⯑cline 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. In⯑deed, over all Europe, as is well known, the ninth and tenth centuries form the deepeſt night, be⯑tween 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,

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 examina⯑tion. I am therefore induced to treat it with the minuteneſs and prolixity of a ſpecial diſſertation. The late prevalence of the names Scot and Scot⯑land, 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 un⯑known till about the year 1016 or 1020) was im⯑poſed by the Iriſh monks and clergy, the only literati whom the country then had. A conſe⯑quence 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 coun⯑trymen 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 Chro⯑nicon Pictorum ^a, we find the conqueſt of the Piks by Kenneth aſſerted. That venerable piece ends [152]at the year 992: and tho the years of Kenneth IV. whom it cloſes with, be left blank, which might induce ſome to ſuppoſe it written in his reign, yet it's cloſing words, Hic eſt qui, &c. "this is he who, &c." ſtrongly imply, that it was written ſome time after. However, there is every reaſon to conclude, from intrinſic proofs, and from it's antique and barbaric manner, ſo diſſimilar to our fragments of the twelfth century, that the conclu⯑ſion 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 van⯑quiſhed the Piks. Delere ſtrictly means to de⯑ſtroy; but alſo ſignified in the middle ages to ra⯑vage, or to conquer. Thus in the annals of Tig⯑hernac, 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 Ork⯑neys; 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 inter⯑vened between Kenneth's time, and the firſt ap⯑pearance 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 Chroni⯑cle, N^o 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.

[153]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 be⯑ing 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 common⯑place morality from them. It is ſuperfluous to con⯑firm 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 men⯑tioned the deſtruction of the Piks, by ſome pre⯑tended 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 con⯑founds 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 Mau⯑rus; 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 hiſ⯑tory appeared a mere fable."^c And adds, on the [154]occaſion, a ſage reflection upon the inſtability of human glory: which reflection he ſeems to have wanted an occaſion to make; and has thus in⯑vented the occaſion, in order to make his reflec⯑tion 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 centu⯑ries 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 igno⯑rance concerning the north of Britain is not won⯑derful, when we reflect on his ignorance concern⯑ing 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 exiſt⯑ing 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 [155]Piks is undoubted. But as it mentions the Pikiſh line to have cloſed in Conſtantin 821, which is demonſtrably falſe, no dependence can be placed on the Gaelic bard's knowlege of the Pikiſh kingdom, nor in courſe of the great event now treated. Yet he mentions no conqueſt of the Piks by the Dalriads, ſo that he was a ſtranger to the fables about to be conſidered. The words of Gi⯑raldus, 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, prae⯑dicto Nello Hiberniae monarchiam obtinente, ſex filios Muredi Regis Ultoniae, in claſſe non modica, Boreales Britanniae partes occupaſſe. Unde et gens ab iis pro⯑pagata, et ſpecificato vocabulo Scotica vocata, uſque in hodiernum, angulum illum inhabitant. Sed quibus ex cauſis buc advenerint, qualiterque, et quantis pro⯑ditionibus, potius quam expeditionibus, Pictorum gen⯑tem, pervalidam, armis quoque et animoſitate longe praeſtantem, a partibus illis expulerunt, cum notabi⯑lem illam Britanniae Topographiam declaravimus enu⯑cleatius 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 Topogra⯑phy of Britain." This Topography never ap⯑peared, 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 impor⯑tant office, to narrate in ſolemn terms the [56]conqueſt of the Piks by the Dalriads, are pretended Scots. For in thoſe times the few Scotiſh writers always followed and imitated the Engliſh, as few or no other manuſcripts then found their way into Scotland. Thus Fordun and Winton follow the Polycronicon in plan; and the Regiam Majeſtatem is a mere exſcript of Glan⯑ville. Geoffrey of Monmouth furniſhed Fordun with half his fables. William of Malmſbury, and Henry of Huntingdon, are alſo familiar to For⯑dun, 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 paſ⯑ſage 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 ſettle⯑ment 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, [157]divides this corner into ſeven kingdoms; and only ſays modeſtly, Kenneth in Pictinia regnavit, 'reigned in Pikland,' without one hint of con⯑queſt.

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 paſ⯑ſages 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'Fla⯑herty laugh at this total extinction; for it tran⯑ſcends 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, ve⯑rum etiam ſtirps et genus adeo, cum idiomatis ſui lin⯑gua, defeciſſe legitur, ut quicquid ex eis veterum re⯑peritur 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 writ⯑ings of the ancients is believed by moſt to be feigned, fabulous, or apocryphal.' Braviſſimo! Does not this confirm the aphoriſm formerly [158]given, WHEN FALSEHOOD IS RECEIVED AS TRUTH, THE OPPOSITE TRUTH MUST OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY PASS FOR FALSEHOOD? The names Scot and Scot⯑land 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 pre⯑tended 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 na⯑tion for five centuries? Fordun has exerted all his little powers of fiction to adorn the cataſtrophe of the Piks. Kenneth uſes a moſt ſagacious ſtrata⯑gem, to encourage his chiefs to this great con⯑queſt, 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 re⯑main, from which it is clear, that this very Ken⯑neth 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 ex⯑tirpating 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 can⯑did 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.

[159]The name of Scotland not being given to North Britain till about 1020, as after ſhewn; that is near two dark centuries after Kenneth, it is out of the queſtion. The Iriſh churchmen, re⯑ceiving more and more encouragement, as Chriſ⯑tianity 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 Scy⯑thic origin of the firſt Scots. As more informa⯑tion 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, im⯑plied only the Dalreudini; in the eleventh cen⯑tury 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 be⯑tween, had their own lords, and retained the Pikiſh name. Now it is clear that the Piks, againſt whom Alpin and his ſon Kenneth fought, [160]were thoſe of Galloway only. The tales of For⯑dun, 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 peni⯑tus 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 Gal⯑wegians to it; and it happened afterward that the Galwegians were peculiarly termed Piks, af⯑ter that name had ceaſed in the real Pikiſh king⯑dom. 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 hiſ⯑tory, totally different from what is commonly ſuppoſed.

That the language of the Scotti, the Iriſh, pre⯑vailed 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 be⯑long to the times when the Norwegians drove them from the Hebudes, and weſtern coaſt. They alſo naturally ſpred into the north of Scot⯑land, after the Norwegian power failed there, be⯑ing the neareſt inhabitants; and adapted by na⯑ture and cuſtoms to mountainous and barren re⯑gions. Their ſpeech had indeed a great advan⯑tage over the Pikiſh, in being a written and cul⯑tivated 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.

[161]The queſtion then remains entire, whether the union of the Piks and Dalriads, falſely called Scots, was not effected by a complete conqueſt of the later, by the former, under Kenneth their own proper king? Tighernac, and Caradoc of Llancarvon who wrote a century after Tigher⯑nac, 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 extin⯑guiſhed. That of the Piks is more and more known. The Iriſh writers would naturally favour the Dalriads; yet it is from them that theſe cir⯑cumſtances 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, ap⯑pears againſt them. In Pikland there are great battles, and the Danes gain no footing. The Norwegians about 880 ſeize moſt of the territo⯑ries 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 autho⯑rity, 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 fa⯑bles, [162]and that the Piks conquered the Dalriads. Nor would this Celtic perverſion of hiſtory want example in Welch, or in Iriſh hiſtory. Had not Gildas and Beda remained, Arthur's conqueſt of England might be ſtill believed; tho the poor fa⯑thers 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 Cel⯑tic fablers make the former the Scotti, while the later are the Scotti. As it is to Highland ſena⯑chies and Iriſh churchmen, that we owe the con⯑queſt of the Piks by the Dalriads, there is per⯑fect 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 Wir⯑dech, A. D. 763, by Hoveden called Cynoth, as [163]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 ſena⯑chies, who had all the little learning then known in Pikland, is too certain; and hence Iriſh epi⯑thets. Yet theſe names are not Iriſh, tho, if ſome were, foreign cauſes might occaſion them. For the churchmen, who were Iriſh, might, by per⯑miſſion 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 Dal⯑riadic. 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 [164]are: Domald was one of the ancient kings of Sweden. The Conſtantins are Pikiſh: the firſt Conſtantin king of the Piks in 792 is well known. Ed ſeems the Pikiſh Wid. Grig, Indulf, Odo, Culen, Grim, are all Gothic names, direct, and without Celtic vitiation. Thus only four names remain, Malcom, Duncan, Macbeth, Lulach. The former is ſurely Pikiſh; Brudi, the well⯑known 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 ſigni⯑fies 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 [165]Engliſh writers call him Macbetad; and i queſtion if his name be not Maheth; or if the mac prefixt be not a fall of letters, not implying the Iriſh mac. The mac may be found in Gothic, nay in Latin names, as Macrinus, Macrobius; and i have heard of the later's being taken for a Scotiſh name. What ſeems to confirm that Macbeth does not mean ſon of Beth is, that his father was Finleg; and he is called Macbeth, filius Finleg, in our old liſts. Now the grandfather's name is never put in theſe liſts; and there ſeems no room to believe it the caſe here. In the Duan Mac⯑beth is called abſolutely the ſon of Finleg; and his name not put at his own reign. As to Lu⯑lach, 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 conceſ⯑ſion.

Upon the whole, as the Iriſh churchmen and bards had, after the union of the Piks and Dal⯑riads, 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 al⯑lowance would not imply either conqueſt, or ſu⯑periority 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 queſ⯑tion; 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.

[166]1. Nennius, as is well known from different chronological calculations in his work, wrote in 858. Samuel, who made additions to it, was his friend and cotemporary; and the authority of both is equal. An authority nearer the time can⯑not be expected. His words, ch. 5. are, Poſt in⯑tervallum annorum multorum, non minus DCCCC, Picti venerunt, et occupaverunt inſulas quae Orcades vocantur. Et poſtea, ex inſulis affinitimis, vaſtave⯑runt non modicas et multas regiones; occupaveruntque, eas in ſiniſtrali plaga Britanniae; et manent uſque in hodiernum diem. Ibi tertiam partem Britanniae te⯑nuerunt, et tenent uſque nunc. "After an interval of many, not leſs than 900, years, the Piks came and ſeized the ilands called Orkneys. And after⯑ward, 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 Dal⯑riads; for he mentions the former as lords of the northern THIRD of Britain, a term of diviſion al⯑moſt 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.

[167]3. Aſſer wrote his life of Alfred about the ſame time; and he mentions the Danes as ravag⯑ing 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 revolu⯑tion in Pikland. Ethelwerd and Ingulphus, wri⯑ters of the eleventh century, mention the Piks eſpecially, as warring under Conſtantin, their king, in 937.

5. Tighernac wrote about 1088; and has pre⯑ſerved 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 con⯑trary, 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.'

[168]8. The Gaelic Duan gives no hint of any revo⯑lution 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 revo⯑lution in Pikland, under Kenneth, ſon of Alpin; elſe it could not have eſcaped all writers of Eng⯑land, Ireland, and Wales, the three neareſt coun⯑tries.
• 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 op⯑poſe 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 ſucceſ⯑ſion. The Duan, and our old liſts, together with the regular inheritance after his time, ſeem to im⯑ply that there muſt have been ſome novelty. Per⯑haps 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 Ken⯑neth, 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 uſurpa⯑tion. 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 cer⯑tainly [169]ceaſed in Pikland before Kenneth's time. For uſurpation we have no authority, nor even cauſe of ſuſpicion; Kenneth was the ſon of Al⯑pin, 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 inherit⯑ance.

Allowing this, only three queſtions can, in ap⯑pearance, 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 Pik⯑iſh 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 hiſ⯑tory than that the kingdoms of Pikland and Dal⯑riada 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 [168] [...] [169] [...] [170]Gaelic Duan, written in the eleventh century, marks all the kings from Fergus and Loarn to Malcom III. 1056, as of the race of Erc. This only ſhews that the Highland ſenachies had uſed the common Celtic ſkill in fabricating genealo⯑gies; 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 learn⯑ing. The new name of Scots, impoſed before the Piks had any literature among them, and the name of Piks reſtricted to the inimical Galwegi⯑ans, 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 ſu⯑periority of the Old Scots, their nominal anceſ⯑tors. 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 capa⯑city than their fondneſs for genealogy; a ſcience unknown to, or deſpiſed by, all other nations^h; [171]and when protracted, of ſuch notorious uncertainty and falſehood, as to diſguſt every ſound mind. It is well known what toil and induſtry it has coſt men of real learning, to detail a genealogy of the firſt imperial and royal houſes in Europe, even up to the twelfth century: how then lend any faith to an ignorant Celtic ſenachy, utterly a ſtranger to truth and hiſtory? O'Flaherty has been forced to cut and mangle the Iriſh genealogies at plea⯑ſure; 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 au⯑thentic 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 cer⯑tainty that Kenneth did not belong to that gene⯑alogy 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 co⯑gent 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 [172]falſehood another; and a medial opinion may, abſtractly conſidered, be thought to be neither true nor falſe; yet in human teſtimony there is generally ſuch a mixture of falſehood in truth, and of truth in falſehood, that the medial point has always been conſidered as that of truth, wiſdom, and virtue. Medio tutiſſimus ibis, is a maxim ap⯑plicable 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 Dal⯑riada, 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 ſcep⯑tre 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 Ken⯑neth; 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 mo⯑dern 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, Hec⯑tor Boyce. The very name Ferguſia ſpeaks this; [173]and that Achy never exiſted, as fully ſhewn above. In 839 Uwen, or in Iriſh Eogan (pro⯑nounce 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 govern⯑ment, 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 [174]far ſuperior to the Pikiſh, as being a written, and of courſe a more poliſhed and exact lan⯑guage.

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 imme⯑diate ſucceſſors, appears to beſt advantage, being preſerved in the brief but valuable Chronicon Pic⯑torum, publiſhed by Innes^a. The other ſix kings, [176]from Conſtantin IV. 992, to Malcom III. 1056, or for a ſpace of ſixty-four years, are in more ob⯑ſcurity. A few faint rays are however to be found in the liſt N^o IV. publiſhed by Innes; in that of the Regiſter of Saint Andrew's N^o V.; in the Chro⯑nicon Elegiacum, publiſhed at the end of the Chro⯑nicle of Melroſe^b; and in the Engliſh and Iſlan⯑dic 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 blend⯑ing 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 dig⯑nity. Upon the acceſſion of James VI. to the Engliſh throne, it would have been abſurd to con⯑ſider 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 Dal⯑riadic 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 [177]Hyona, to a new church which he built in Pik⯑land (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 Strat⯑clyde 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 Fe⯑bruary 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-in⯑cidence with the Engliſh writers in other mat⯑ters: 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 [178]time the Gaël, or Dalriads, obtained a confirma⯑tion of the old laws aſſigned them by Ed Fin (Chr. Pict). The laws forged by Boyce, in auk⯑ward imitation of thoſe of the Twelve Tables, and imputed to Kenneth III. are too groſs an im⯑poſition 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. N^o 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. Pa⯑trick, 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 re⯑mained a whole year in Pikland. (Chr. Pict. Ann. Ult. 874.) But Eyſtein, ſon of Olave, was killed [179] (Ann. Ult.) In 871, ſay 874 or 875, Artga, king of the Britons of Stratclyde, was killed by advice of Conſtantin III. king of the Piks (Ib.). Con⯑ſtantin died 882, being, by the Annals of Ul⯑ſter, 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 in⯑vaders, men inured to arms and perpetual war. After this reign the Piks changed the ſcene, and generally repelled the invaders with great ſlaugh⯑ter. 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 Scandi⯑navian hiſtory, that during this period the Nor⯑wegians ſeized the Orkneys and Hebudes, with preſent Sutherland, Caithneſs, and moſt of Roſs⯑ſhires, 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 [180]former was ſon of Ku, king of the Stratclyde Britons, who was ſon of Kenneth III. (Chr. Pict). The ſame venerable monument adds that Achy was the real king, tho ſome put Grig, who only governed in his name; and i ſuppoſe Achy was a minor. But it ſeems beſt to reconcile all ac⯑counts 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 Al⯑pin. 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 tre⯑mendous whale! Seriouſly the condition of Eng⯑land 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 in⯑terfere. [181]And Tighernac, who wrote in 1088, did not even know of Grig's exiſtence.

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

83. CONSTANTIN III. ſon of Ed, A. C. 904, reigned 40 years by all accounts. This reign is remarkable for length, and for action. In his third year, 906, the Norwegians ravaged Dun⯑keld, and all Pikland (Chr. Pict.). The follow⯑ing year, 907, they were ſlaughtered at Fraith⯑hemi. 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 civita⯑tem 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 Scot⯑land: Hybernenſes for the Iriſh. But the paſſage may have been tranſcribed from an older Chronicle, in which Scotti here implied the Iriſh. Yet if Con⯑ſtantin 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 [180] [...] [181] [...] [182] pariter cum Scottis is a barbarous phraſe, to expreſs that the king and Kellach took this vow, at ſame time and on the ſame footing, with the na⯑tional 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 Ken⯑neth 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 Con⯑ſtantin III. was famous for two remarkable bat⯑tles. The firſt happened in his eighteenth year (Chr. Pict.), or 921: the Annals of Ulſter, al⯑ways 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 God⯑fred; [183]the two next by different earls and chiefs: the fourth and laſt by Reginald. Conſtantin de⯑feated 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 vic⯑tory. 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. Conſtan⯑tin, 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, re⯑ſenting Conſtantin's conduct, in 934 (Ann. Sax. Sim. Dun. &c.) attacked his dominions by ſea and landⁱ. His army ravaged even to Dunfoeder and Wertermore^k: his fleet to Caithneſs. Con⯑ſtantin, not expecting this ſudden invaſion, was unprepared for reſiſtance; but as to any ſubmiſ⯑ſion or homage paid by him on this occaſion, the Saxon Annals and Simeon, that is, the oldeſt Engliſh writers, are mute; tho Hoveden, and [84]William of Malmſbury, aſſert the matter gr [...]tis. But of theſe mock homages in next chapter. The Engliſh army and fleet after this revenge retired. Conſtantin, reſolving to wipe off this inſult, formed a powerful confederacy againſt Athelſtan, conſiſting of Anlaf king of Ireland, Conſtantin's ſon-in-law; the Norwegian prince of the He⯑budes; and Eugenius, or Owen, king of Cum⯑berland, 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 Bri⯑tons; but the allies by landing at Bruneburg, now, it is believed, Brugh on the Humber^l evi⯑dently 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 hiſ⯑torians. 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. [185] (Ib.) The venerable chronicle laſt quoted men⯑tions 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 chrono⯑logy 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 Cum⯑berland 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 [186]invaſion, as the author of the Chr. Pict. con⯑cludes, was not done by Malcom, but by Con⯑ſtantin'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 Mo⯑ray, 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 Sumer⯑lid 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 lan⯑guage 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 [187]Perthſhire, now the ſeat of Lord Rollo. In that battle fell Duchad, Abbot of Dunkeld; and Dubdou ſatrapas, or Murmor of Athol (Chr. Pict.) The Annals of Ulſter ſeem to refer to this engagement, as happening the year before Odo's death, 'A. 964; battle between Scotſmen about Etir, were many ſlain about Donoch, abbot of Duncalten.' Next year, or 965, Odo was ſlain by his people (Ann. Ult.) Theſe Annals begin about this time to date right, omitting the ante⯑date 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 Re⯑giſter has many fables.

87. CULEN, ſon of Indulf, A. C. 965, reigned 5 years. The Chr. Pict. gives only private events in this reignⁿ Marcan, ſon of Breoda⯑laig 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 Scot⯑iſh 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 Re⯑giſter of St. Andrew's, which the Chron. Eleg. fol⯑lows, is again fabulous concerning his death.

[188]88. KENNETH IV. ſon of Malcom I. A. C. 970, reigned 22 years (Innes, N^o 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 de⯑feated; 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 Weſt⯑minſter, 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 tell⯑ing us, that Kenneth gave Brechen to the church: 'Hic eſt qui tribuit magnam civitatem Brechne do⯑mino.' 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 wri⯑ters.

[189]89. CONSTANTIN IV. ſon of Culen, A. C. 992, reigned only 1 year, and ſome months. He was ſlain at Rathveramoen, by Kenneth, a ſon of Mal⯑com 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 Cumber⯑land (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 Uch⯑tred, the Earl of Northumberland, a title ſuc⯑ceeding to the regal, and with regal power. Eu⯑genius Calvus, or Owen the Bald, kinglet of Lo⯑thian, aſſiſted Malcom. Hoveden, and other Eng⯑liſh hiſtorians, by their ſilence concerning its event, ſeem to imply it to have been an indeci⯑ſive 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 Sumar⯑lid, Einar, Bruſi, and Thorfin, were Earls of Orkney. (Orkneyinga Saga, Torf. Orc.) This Sigurd was ſlain in the famous battle of Clontarf▪ [190]near Dublin, 23 April, 1014, fighting againſt Brian Borowe, king of Dublin. An event which gave riſe to the celebrated Icelandic poem, ſo finely tranſlated by Mr. Gray, in his Fatal Siſters. Upon Sigurd's death, Malcom gave his grand⯑ſon Thorfin inveſtiture of the earldom of Caith⯑neſs 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 ac⯑cuſtomed 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 Scot⯑land. 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 Ork⯑neys, ravaged piratically the coaſts of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, about 1018; as did Kalf, ſon of Arna, about 1026^s; but the concatenation of [191]names ſhews that they keeped on the weſt: and indeed would not think of landing in Mo⯑ray, 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 ano⯑ther 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 no⯑toriouſly 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 ſub⯑jects 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 re⯑moved to Aberdeen, is aſcribed to Malcom II. but Ruddiman who argues this becauſe Malcom conquered the Norwegians at Murtlach, accord⯑ing 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 [192]at 1033 (ſay 1030), mention that the ſon of Mac⯑boete 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:

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 fa⯑bles of Fordun and his followers, concerning Malcom's dying in a conſpiracy, have not a ſha⯑dow 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. Don⯑chath 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 ab⯑thanus de Dul, ac inſularum ſeneſcallus: "Crynyn Abthane of Dul, and ſteward of the iles!" No iles were then ſubject to Scotland. To ſupport this [193]nonſenſe he brings more nonſenſe; and tells us Abba is father, and thana is reſpondens vel numerans; and that the Abthane was a chamberlain, who managed the king's rents and treaſury! Even Bu⯑chanan is miſſed by this puerile ſtuff, for the ho⯑nour of Scotland! I know of no proof that the title of thane was ever known in Scotland, till Mal⯑com 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 Den⯑mark the herſes were equivalent to Engliſh thanes. In Scotland Murmor was the term, as above men⯑tioned. 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 go⯑vernor of the province whoſe title he bore? It is needleſs to dwell on this ſilly tale. Both the Re⯑giſtrum St. And. and the Chronicon ElegiacUm, as preſerved in the original of the Chronicle of Mel⯑roſe 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. [194]But it is very likely that the marriage took place before Malcom came to the throne. The French hiſtory, after Charlemagne, has many ſuch in⯑ſtances. Alfred the Great was the ſon of Ethel⯑wulf 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 mid⯑dle ages, are well known. Even till the council of Rheims, 1148, monks might marry; and it coſt many a ſtruggle before the later popiſh ſyſ⯑tem took effect. The abbots were eſteemed ante⯑rior 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 heredi⯑tarily, 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 [195]Diederic abbot of St. Vincent at Metz to wear pontifical ornaments. In the tenth century the emperor Otho made even dukes and counts vaſ⯑ſals 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 digni⯑fied clergy in the dark ages, is referred to the hiſ⯑torians of the times, and to the antiquaries of all countries in Chriſtendom.

As the monks were all laymen till a late pe⯑riod, in Britain and Ireland till the eleventh cen⯑tury, it is no wonder that the abbots were lay⯑men. 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 [196]be Ab-thanes as well as Abba-Comites; but we muſt abide by the old teſtimonies, and infer Crinan to have been Abbot of Dunkeld. Had Fordun, like many others, had a little more learning, he needed not recourſe to lyes for the honour of Scot⯑land. Certain it is that Crinan, abbot of Dun⯑keld, 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 cer⯑tainty.

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 pur⯑ſued the victory even down to Fife. But this fa⯑ble needs only to be redd to be rejected. And ſuch groſs fictions ſhew what might be expected, that thoſe Icelandic ſagas, compiled from old ro⯑mantic poems, are mere romances, and claim lit⯑tle 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 chro⯑nology: whereas if we date his reign four years later, as uſual, the expreſſion of Simeon is erro⯑neous. Duncan was ſlain by Macbeth, ſon of Fin⯑leg, 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 pur⯑ſued the victory even down to Fife. But this fa⯑ble needs only to be redd to be rejected. And ſuch groſs fictions ſhew what might be expected, that thoſe Icelandic ſagas, compiled from old ro⯑mantic poems, are mere romances, and claim lit⯑tle 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 chro⯑nology: whereas if we date his reign four years later, as uſual, the expreſſion of Simeon is erro⯑neous. Duncan was ſlain by Macbeth, ſon of Fin⯑leg, 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 [197]we know not. Finnleikr Scota Jarl is mentioned in Olave Tryggueſon's Saga, about the year 990, as fighting againſt Sigurd, before he married Malcom's daughter, This 'Finleik the Scotiſh earl' may have been our Finleg; but in ſagas one knows not what to truſt. Torfaeus Orc. p. 27, calls him Finnleicus Scotorum comes. It would ap⯑pear 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 Chartu⯑lary 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, N^o 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 bene⯑ficent 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 prac⯑tice 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.

[198]Simeon of Durham, and Roger Hoveden, tell us, at the year 1050, Rex Scotiae Machetad Romae argentum ſpargendo diſtribuit. Sir David Dalrym⯑ple, in his Annals, ridicules thoſe who thence in⯑fer 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 Kon⯑gen, 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 Den⯑mark, 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 com⯑mon: and ſuch being the caſe, there is no rea⯑ſon to wreſt the plain ſenſe of the words concern⯑ing 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,

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 do⯑meſtic 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 ca⯑lumniate him. Large quantities of the coin of Canute have been found in Scotland; but ſcarce any of elder kings; and it is probable that Ca⯑nute'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 com⯑panion, ſurrendered their caſtles, and, by permiſ⯑ſion of earl Leofric, paſſing through his earldom to Scotland, were received by Macbeth king of Scot⯑land. 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, [200]and who, with their leaders, retired into Scot⯑land, 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 Scot⯑land, 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 chro⯑nicles in the Cotton and Harleian libraries, Siward, earl of Northumbria, died in 1055. So that the matter admits of no doubt. The chronicle of Mal⯑roſe 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 ſup⯑preſs 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 wan⯑der into poetry when ſpeaking of him. He, Leo⯑fric, earl of Mercia, and Godwin, earl of Kent, were powerful as kings; and, had they not ba⯑lanced each other, the throne of Edward, ſo much ſhaken by Godwin, muſt have fallen. Much fa⯑ble has attended the death of Macbeth; but all we know with certainty is, that it happened at Lunfanan, Aberdeen ſhire (Reg. St. And.). The [201]old Engliſh writers, in their uſual ſtyle of uſurpation toward Scotland, ſay, that Siward, by Edward's command, ſlew Macbeth, and placed Malcom on the throne. But this was not ſo eaſily done. Siward was dead before Malcom aſcended the throne; and there is room to doubt if Edward at all interfered, Malcom being kinſman of Siward, as ſhall pre⯑ſently 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. For⯑dun calls him conſobrinus, or couſin-german of Macbeth; a mother's ſiſter's ſon, or father's ſiſ⯑ter'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 ſur⯑named 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 re⯑bellion 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 [202]of England was too much occupied with the war againſt Griffin and Algar, to attend to foreign matters: and there is no room to ſuſpect that he interfered in Malcom's ſucceſſion; ſo that the old Engliſh writers are as unlucky as uſual in their uſurpations upon Scotland. To the conſent and approbation of the Scotiſh chiefs and people, Malcom was ſolely indebted for his dignity, due indeed to his heriditary right. Lulac was ſlain at Eſſeg in S [...]rathbogy by Malcom's adherents. Reg. St. And. Chron. Eleg. Both Macbeth and he were buried at Hyona, as well as the legal race. Ib.

95. MALCOM III. 1056. After this our hiſtory is clear: but ſome matters concerning this reign require notice. Sir David Dalrym⯑ple, 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 thir⯑teenth century^f, and he might be anointed, and proclaimed king the year before, even by For⯑dun'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 [203]certainly ſlain near Alwick, 6 June, 1093. Now by ALL our old liſts he reigned 37 years, and ſome months. So that his reign muſt of courſe have begun in 1056. As to Fordun's date, it is but one of the many forgeries of that weak writer: and to ſet his authority againſt ſix or ſeven, more ancient, would be the heighth of abſurdity.

Another point is, that Malcom III. is commonly reputed ſon of Duncan, king of Scotland; but there is room to ſuſpect that he was his grand⯑ſon. 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 to⯑tally 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 wri⯑ters reconciled. Duncan, grandſon of Malcom II. was put in poſſeſſion of Cumberland by him, be⯑fore his death. Wil. Malmſ. Malcom II. was up⯑ward 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 Flo⯑rence and Hoveden, was unmoleſted by Macbeth; who had no immediate heir, and was content [204]with his other poſſeſſions. This Duncan of Cum⯑bria, 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 rela⯑tion, 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 be⯑lieved the reader will ſee grounds to infer that Malcom III. was ſon of Duncan king of Cum⯑bria, 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 conſide⯑ration of the Norwegians in Scotland, (Supple⯑ment, 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 ac⯑quiſitions, 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 Northum⯑bria for about a century. No trace can be found in any old Engliſh writer that the Angli ever re⯑gained 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 [206]970, when conquered by the Piks: but in 756 it paid homage to Edbert the Northumbrian, and Unguſt the Pikiſh king.

The later part of the hiſtory of Northumbria is obſcure: but certain it is that domeſtic broils, and the arrival of the Danes at the beginning of the ninth century, muſt have effectually prevented any enlargement of the Northumbrian territory, in the Anglic times. The Daniſh period of Northum⯑brian hiſtory remains to be conſidered; and is un⯑happily 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 Northum⯑bria, expreſſly ſays, that Northumbria reached from Humber to Tweed; and that Deira extend⯑ed from Humber to Teiſe, Bernicia from Teiſe to Tweed. Roger of Cheſter tells that Kenneth, aſcending the Pikiſh throne, acquired all the ter⯑ritory 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 monar⯑chy; 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, [207]burned Dunbar and Melroſe, uſurpata, which had been 'uſurped' by the Angli. This word ſhews that Lothian, or the ſouth-eaſt of Scotland, be⯑tween Forth and Tweed, was regarded as a poſ⯑ſeſſion of the Pikiſh crown; and a ſettlement, or two, of the Angli as uſurpations. In 934 Athel⯑ſtan waſted Scotland even to Dunfeodar and Wer⯑termore. Theſe names unhappily cannot be ad⯑juſted.

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 unde⯑ſignedly 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 Deſcrip⯑tio Albaniae falls into it; and taking Scottiſwath for Scottiſwatre, makes the Forth the boundary be⯑tween 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 Wil⯑liam 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 Aberne⯑than, 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 [206] [...] [207] [...] [208]laſt term has alſo given riſe to a blunder; and as d and th are often interchanged in Gothic dialects, Mireford ſometimes appears Mireforth; and has been interpreted to apply to the river Forth. John of Wallingford mentions the Caſtrum Puel⯑larum as at the northern extremity of Northum⯑bria. 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 Mal⯑com departed with his army out of Scotland into Lothene in England, and there remained.' Flo⯑rence of Worceſter, relating the ſame, calls the place Provincia Loidis. In the continuation of the [209]Saxon Chronicle, 1125, a 'J. biſhop of Lothene' is mentioned^c. John of Wallingford places Lou⯑thian 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 rea⯑ſon to believe that the preſent county of North⯑umberland was anciently called Lothene, or Lo⯑den, before the great name of Northumbria, which anciently included all England north of the Hum⯑ber, was reſtricted to that petty county. The cir⯑cumſtances of Lothene's being joined to New⯑caſtle, 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 bi⯑ſhopric. 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 Ken⯑mor 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 coun⯑try 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 [210] Loheneis, p. 574, though he had called the Eng. liſh territory Loidis.'

Hiſt. vol. II. notes. Indeed thoſe old Engliſh writers who inform us that Mal⯑com 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 Northumber⯑land 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 diminiſh⯑ed, and paſſed north: the former being a Scotiſh term, the later an Engliſh; and, as ſociety ad⯑vanced, 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 ad⯑junct in England, for there is no example in that work, or any other monument of Engliſh hiſtory, [211]where the name of a country is put, with the ad⯑junct that it was in England; a ridiculous informa⯑tion, 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, bound⯑ed 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 pro⯑vincia 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 obſcu⯑rity, for William of Malmſbury obſerves that, from Beda's time to his, that is, from the eighth till [212]the twelfth century, no general writer had ariſen; and this period is unfortunately the moſt obſcure, and on which we want moſt light, as the paſſage from ancient to modern times. To proceed: in 1018 an Eugenius Calvus rex Lutinenſium is men⯑tioned, 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 conſider⯑ed. It was rather unfair in the Scotiſh writers, who aſſert Lothian as a part of Scotland, to con⯑ceal 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 Scot⯑land. [213]In ch. 8. it mentions, as two diſtricts, the Citra Mare Scoticum, and the Ultra in Laodonia. And, even in the reign of David II. 1330—1370, there was a Juſticiarius ex parte Boreali, and a Juſ⯑ticiarius 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, Nor⯑thumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Weſtmor⯑land, muſt be regarded as part of Scotland, be⯑cauſe 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 mo⯑narchs.

[214]So much for a Lothian in England: and i hope the reader will do me the juſtice to believe that, had not there been proofs that the Lothian given up to Scotland, was not preſent Lothian, i would, with the utmoſt pleaſure, have fought for truth againſt the prejudices of my countrymen. But, upon full examination, the prejudice here appears to be on the other ſide, and to reſt with theſe weak writers, Carte, and others, who have hither⯑to 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 ap⯑pear in the light that ability lends to truth. It is a matter of the mereſt curioſity, and of no more im⯑portance 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 Lodo⯑nies, '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, Nordanum⯑brenſes, 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 [215]is therefore no wonder that they are thus emi⯑nently diſtinguiſhed, and ſpecially named; tho they formed a part, and a very ſmall one, of the Lodonenſes.

Beſides Lothene in England, or preſent Nor⯑thumberlandⁱ, the Scotiſh monarchy alſo, during this period, acquired CUMBERLAND. This acqui⯑ſition 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 Strat⯑clyde 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; be⯑ing 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 men⯑tioned, 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 pre⯑tended homage paid by the kings of Scotland to thoſe of England during this period. The ſitua⯑tion [216]of theſe two kingdoms in the ſame iland was ſuch as naturally to ſuggeſt to the writers of the larger and more powerful an idea of inferiority and dependance in the ſmaller, which had no neigh⯑bour 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 Northumber⯑land, about the year 640, who is termed Impera⯑tor 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 hu⯑man 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 pal⯑pable, that it becomes needleſs to remark, that if the other kings in Britain acknowleged his ſu⯑periority, it muſt have been in his ſaintly charac⯑ter, 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, [217]and that they paid tribute to the Northumbrian kings till 685, when Brudi IV. conquered and ſlew Egfrid.

Such is the only claim of the kingdom of Northumbria upon Pikland: and it deſerved mention here, before proceeding to the period, eſpecially under view, from 843 till 1056. The kingdom of Northumbria, which alone could pretend any ſuch miracle as to Pikland, ſoon after declined before the Pikiſh power, and be⯑came 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 accord⯑ingly 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 Al⯑fred 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 Ed⯑ward the Confeſſor 1054.

1. The Saxon Chronicle ſays, that, in 924, Ed⯑ward 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, to⯑gether with the whole Scotiſh nation. Edward was certainly a great and victorious monarch, and ſubjected Northumbria for a time: but Conſtan⯑tin 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 van⯑quiſhed Reginald in 923, or juſt the year before this ſuppoſed homage, it might be that he met Ed⯑ward to form a league againſt the common enemy. The Chron. Pictorum, tho particular concerning this king's reign, is quite mute as to this inter⯑view; and the circumſtance, that all the Scots [218]joined in the homage, ſeems ſufficient to ſtamp it as a mere glorious fable.

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

3. Edred ravaged Northumberland 950, but as to the gratuitous ſubmiſſion of the Scots it is hard to believe. Even Northumbria was not yet ſub⯑ject to England, but furniſhed its kings full em⯑ployment. 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 im⯑poſſibility 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 ap⯑pear 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?

[219]4. Edgar founded no leſs than 48 religious houſes: and the tales of eccleſiaſtic writers, con⯑cerning 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 circum⯑ſtance 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 pa⯑negyric 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 ex⯑iſtance as king of England. The Chronicon Picto⯑rum repreſents Kenneth as invading England, in⯑ſtead of paying homage. The Annals of Tigher⯑nach, 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 Eng⯑land; and it is no wonder that his amity was courted by the other kings in Britain.

[220]5. Canute in 1031, according to the Saxon Chronicle, went to Scotland; and Malcom king of Scots, and two other kings, Maelbaeth and Jehmarc, became ſubject to him. But William of Malmſbury ſays, that Malcom only permitted Duncan, his grandſon and heir, who was poſſeſſed of Cumberland, to pay homage for that province. This plain account ſufficiently refutes the uſurpa⯑tive 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 Scot⯑land, 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 Eng⯑land, they were ſtung with the degradation of their countrymen, under their Daniſh and Nor⯑man 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 ob⯑ſerves, that the Saxon Annals never mention any battles loſt by the Engliſh. Brompton ſays, Hardeknute held Scotland in conſtant and peace⯑able 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 [221]renders the reſt ſtill more ſuſpicious, if it does not ſtamp them utterly falſe. How is all this? Scotland was always ſubdued, always to ſubdue; always making homage to England, always mak⯑ing 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 al⯑ways 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 for⯑geries 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 ho⯑mage; and to queſtion if any homage was paid for them till the time of Canute. They ſeem ac⯑quiſitions by conqueſt: and examples of ſuch gifts are not found in the hiſtory of any other country. But as Henry I. gave leave to Alexan⯑der 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 oc⯑curs; and one Daniſh king was taken priſoner, and forced to pay it. But Germany being ſur⯑rounded 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 wri⯑ters 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 Bri⯑tain. Torfaeus repreſents the Anglo-ſaxon kings [222]as tributary to the Daniſh kings of Northumberland. Regnar Lodbrog ſubdued Ireland, Pikland, and the Orkneys, and gave them to his friends Si⯑guard and Rathbartⁿ Geoffrey of Monmouth ſays, Arthur conquered France, Germany, Norway, &c. &c. &c. Fordun's Gregory the Great con⯑quered Ireland, and moſt of England. And of the ſame kind are the Engliſh claims over Scot⯑land.

CHAPTER IV. Origin of the name SCOTLAND.

THAT the name Scotia, or Scotland, origi⯑nally 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 cen⯑tury, 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 ap⯑pellation 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 Ammia⯑nus Marcellinus at the year 360, and not as be⯑longing to moſt ancient times, as Eumenius men⯑tions that of Picti; but as preſent and immediate [222] [...] [223] [...] [224]under that year: In Britanniis cum Scotorum Picto⯑rumque, 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 popu⯑lation to Scotland, was quite inviſible to the Ro⯑mans: 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 Pik⯑land, 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 pe⯑riod; and ſays, Hibernia a Scotorum gentibus coli⯑tur, '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 mo⯑vit, [225]'when the Scot moves all Ireland.' No rea⯑der 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 over⯑weening ſelf-love from which it really ſprings, is a ſpecies of madneſs. A ſchool-boy would be whipped for ſuch an interpretation; and fo⯑reigners may perhaps ſuſpect that i am in jeſt with my Scotiſh valley known to Claudian: but alas it is too true!

4. In the next century Oroſius has, Hibernia inſula inter Britanniam et Hiſpaniam....a Scoiorum gentibus, colitur. 'Ireland an iland between Bri⯑tain and Spain.....is inhabited by the Scotiſh na⯑tions.' 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, ſuffici⯑ently 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 [226]Britain.' Adomnan, in his life of Columba, con⯑firms 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 Sco⯑tia appellatur.

8. In the ninth century, Eginhart, in his life of Charlemagne, ſays Norwegi Hiberniam, Scoto⯑rum 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 Ire⯑land. That emperor procured learned men from Ireland; but did not probably know even the ex⯑iſtence 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 in⯑ſula, 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 ſae⯑cularibus, et in ſacris ſcripturis, incomparabiliter cruditos. 'It happened that two Scots of Ireland came to the French coaſt, with Britiſh merchants; [227]thoſe men were incomparably ſkilled both in ſae⯑cular 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 Hi⯑bernia 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 Ire⯑land, is vanquiſhed by the Scots.' Rhegino ſpeak⯑ing 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, tri⯑butarii efficiuntur; 'The Scots are rendered tribu⯑tary 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 Norwegi⯑ans at this time. The ſame hiſtorian, at the year 848, Scothi ſuper Northmannos irruentes, auxilio Dei victores, eos e ſuis finibus propellunt. Unde rex Sco⯑thorum ad Karolum, pacis et amicitiae gratia, legatos cum muneribus mittit, viam ſibi petendi Romam con⯑cedi [228]depoſcens. This was Melachlin king of Ire⯑land, 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 Cam⯑brenſis 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? No⯑thing: except the moſt ſhameful ſubterfuge, and falſehood; and the moſt impudent railing. Fight⯑ing, 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 anti⯑quiſts. Their productions are indeed ſo poor that they never reach foreign notice; but only hu⯑mour 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 inte⯑grity would daſh it on the ground, before their altars.

[229]Iriſh writers are certainly prejudiced on the one ſide; but it is the right one: and Scotiſh writers on the other; but it is the wrong. Foreigners however muſt be impartial, and they uniformly give it againſt the Scotiſh. Bozius an Italian; Molanus, Miraeus, Caniſius, Gretſerus, Germans; Sirmond a Frenchman; nay, Major and Buchanan, Scotiſhmen too learned for ſuch ignorant prejudi⯑ces; 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 de⯑ſtinguer 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 nu⯑merous [230]and clear teſtimonies, required no penetra⯑tion, but only a free mind to ſettle. This fanati⯑ciſm 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 hav⯑ing 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 re⯑tained their old name; and poſſeſſed the moſt fer⯑tile 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 reſi⯑dence 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 Cheſ⯑ter ſays, Edinburgh is in terra Pictorum, 'in Pik⯑land;' 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. [231]Indeed, even on the north of Forth and Clyde, the Norwegians held Caithneſs, Sutherland, the Ork⯑neys, 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 Locha⯑ber, 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 Picto⯑rum, 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 Ger⯑man ocean eaſt. When the reader reflects how it after paſſed, without conqueſt, to the reſt of Scot⯑land, 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 be⯑gan; 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 Middle⯑ſex ſex have not called themſelves Saxons, but Eng⯑liſh, [230] [...] [231] [...] [232]for theſe eight centuries; and yet nothing is more certain than that they called themſelves Saxons down to the tenth century. Theſe people indigenally, and vulgarly, called Dalriadach, were alſo termed Scoti Britanniae, Scoti in Britannia, by ſuch of their own writers, and others, as uſed Latin; as for inſtance Adomnan uſes the firſt ex⯑preſſion, Beda the later. Indigenally the Dalriadi alſo termed themſelves Gaclach, as their Iriſh an⯑ceſtors 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 Burgun⯑dians, &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 (pro⯑nounce 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 pa⯑tronymics, called them, after their firſt king, Cru⯑then, by the name of Cruitnich. Their country they termed Tir Cruitnich, The Land of the Cruit⯑nich, and from the royal reſidence Fortrin, as the Welch called the king of England king of Lon⯑don. The Icelanders called it Petland; the Eng⯑liſh Peohtlond; natives Pehtland.

But there can be no queſtion that Albani was an appellation alſo belonging to the Piks, and in every [233]probability indigenal. Alban was as would ſeem the name which the Piks gave to Britain, or at leaſt to their part of it; for i can never find it ap⯑plied to preſent England, either in ancient or mo⯑dern times; and they who upon this occaſion dream of the Greek name Albion, ſhould be re⯑ferred 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 gene⯑ral, as Bret-tan was by the Belgae; and that the Piks finding their country ſo called by its firſt in⯑habitants, retained the appellation. Thus as they were not only Piks, by a peculiar and proper ap⯑pellation, but alſo Britons as inhabitants of Bri⯑tain, 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 coun⯑tries 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 Cel⯑tic highlanders. Adomnan tells us, that Drum Al⯑ban, or Dorſum Britanniae, as he tranſlates it, lay between th [...] Scots in Britain and the Piks. If [234] Alban be thus tranſlated Britain, or if confined to North Britain, it is equally clear that the Dalreu⯑dini who held ſo ſmall a corner, had no claim to the ſtyle of Albanach by eminence. On the con⯑trary, 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 them⯑ſelves 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 Bri⯑tain, 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 be⯑cauſe 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 ſyno⯑nymous, in writers of the eleventh^h, twelfth, and [235]thirteenth centuries. Roger Hoveden, 1190, de⯑ſcribing the war of the Standard 1138, ſays Excla⯑mavitque ſimul exercitus Scottorum inſigne patrium; et aſcendit clamor uſque in coelum, Albani! Albani! The Duan, and the Deſcriptio Albaniae, fully con⯑firm this. Yet, however it may ſuprize the read⯑er, 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 eaſ⯑tern 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 di⯑vide 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 ele⯑venth century, and of this day, are quite a differ⯑ent 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 [236] Deſcriptio Albaniae reſtifies; ſo that neither the country, nor its inhabitants, received their names from our highland Albanach, who uſe the Celtic tongue only. For the real Alban was in the eaſt, and poſſeſſed by the Piks. The Welch fables, concerning Camber, Locrine, and Albanact, alſo infer the Piks to have been the Albani, as the Saxons were the Locrini, or Loegr. The Elegiac Chronicle of our kings, written in the 13th cen⯑tury, 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 De⯑ſcriptio Albaniae ſays it was firſt called Albania, then Pictavia. Upon the whole it appears that the Piks called their country Alban, and them⯑ſelves 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.

[237]The names Scoti, and Scotia. Scot and Scot⯑land, claim next and laſt conſideration. Tho the Dalreudini were, as above-mentioned, termed by writers in Latin Scoti in Britannia, and Scoti Bri⯑tanniae, 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 ri⯑diculous fables concerning their conqueſt of the Piks have been amply expoſed before; and no⯑thing 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 teſti⯑monies invincible, even by thoſe who ſet all re⯑gard 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 ap⯑pear by the name of Caledonians or Piks, from the time of Tacitus down to the tenth century. Ta⯑citus, Ptolemy, Dion Caſſius, Eumenius, Clau⯑dian, Gildas, Adomnan, Beda, Nennius, Aſſer, Tighernae, form a chain of indiſſoluble autho⯑rities on this matter: and as their teſtimonies have been ſeparately quoted in this work, they need not be here repeated^k Nennius, in 858, [238]deſcribes the Piks as quite in the ſame power and ſituation as Beda found them. King Alfred, in his paraphraſes of Beda, Oroſius, &c. would have noted any change had any occurred ſince Beda's time. Aſſer, who wrote his life of Alfred in the beginning of the tenth century, tells us that the Danes, 875, preyed on the Piks and Stratclyde-Welch, from their camp in Northumberland. Not one writer before the eleventh century affords the ſmalleſt hint of any change in Pikland. The Saxon Chronicle, written in the eleventh or twelfth century, ſometimes calls Ireland Scotland, and ſometimes gives North Britain the ſame ap⯑pellation of Scotland; but laterly. In it is pre⯑ſerved 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 Ire⯑land, 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 mari⯑ners;' and dwells almoſt entirely on the Scots or Iriſh, and Nordmans, or Scandinavians. Conſtan⯑tin, [239]it terms Nord Conſtantinus, 'the Northern Conſtantin;' but never calls him Scotiſh, or his men Scots. The poem alſo ſays,

'The Northern men under their ſhields with ſpears.' This expreſſion ſeems to apply to Con⯑ſtantin's ſubjects, as he is himſelf called Nord; and in all other places the Scandinavians are called Nordmanna, not Norderna. The North Bri⯑tons 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 ſub⯑jected to the Norwegians, as Du Cheſne's hiſto⯑rian ſays; or that in 937 Olave was our king, as the Icelandic writers bear. In the other Icelandic poems, and traditions, relating to events preced⯑ing 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 Grammati⯑cus fabulouſly ſays Ragnar Lodbrog ſubdued Sco⯑tia and Petia; that is, Ireland, and Pikland or preſent Scotland. But there not being an Icelandic or Scandinavian piece extant preceding the ele⯑venth 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 Scot⯑land.

There being thus not one authority for the pre⯑ſent Scots being known by that name, till the [240]eleventh century, none but mere dreamers and romancers can aſſert the contrary, in deſpite of plain truth and reaſon, and every rule of hiſtory. But that the name of Scots was uſed in its pre⯑ſent acceptation in the eleventh century is cer⯑tain; 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 ele⯑venth 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 Bri⯑tanniae, 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 ne⯑gative; for the Scots of the eleventh century were as different a people from thoſe of Adomnan [241]and Beda, as the Hungarians are from the Huns, or the Marcomanni of Tacitus from the Marco⯑manni of Rabanus Maurus. The old Scots uſed the Celtic tongue, and came from Ireland to Dal⯑riada 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 mid⯑dle 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 cer⯑tainly 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 cor⯑rupt. 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 moun⯑tains 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, Gal⯑weienſes, who were all afterward called Scots. So alſo in the Chron. Pictorum the Dalreudini, or Scots of Beda, are called Gadeli, as a ſpecial diſ⯑tinction [240] [...] [241] [...] [242]from the Scoti, the name there given to the eaſtern people or Piks. This ſhews the radical miſtake of our fabuliſts, who confound the old Scoti with the later; as Olahus, and other Hun⯑garian 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 Low⯑land 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 ap⯑pearance of the later name of Scots, the High⯑landers, or old Scots of Beda, are ſpecially diſtin⯑guiſhed 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 [243]fully examined them, i hope every reader will ac⯑quit 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 lan⯑guage, 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 Eng⯑land, 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 fur⯑niſhed 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 be⯑lieve 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, [244]and conſtant intercourſe with that kingdom, be⯑came 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 natu⯑rally 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 church⯑men did not receive this novelty from the vulgar, but gave riſe to it themſelves. For diſcovering from Beda, and others, that the Piks were Scy⯑thae, 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 oc⯑curred 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 PEHI⯑TORUM 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 ob⯑tained no notice Perſonal vanity might alſo in⯑duce 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 hiſ⯑tory is eternal and irremediable. The new Scots [245]were however more properly ſo, than the old, as they preſerved their Scythic or Gothic lan⯑guage: and the name was ſo far curious as in Ire⯑land, 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 plau⯑ſible conjecture, but actually reſts upon an ancient and valuable monument of our hiſtory. For the Chronicon Regum Pictorum, whoſe perfect concord⯑ance 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 in⯑digenal 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 vene⯑runt." Then the arrival of the Britons is noted, in the words of Nennius, as is that of the Scots or [246]Scythae in Ireland. It is added, Gentes Scitiae albo crine naſcuntur, ab aſſiduis nivibus; et ipſius capilli color genti nomen dedit, et inde dicuntur Al⯑bani; 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 Iſi⯑dorus. 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 perver⯑ſion 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 ſen⯑tence ruined the hiſtory of Pikland; Scoti propria lingua nomen habent a picto corpore, eo quod aculeis ferreis cum atramento variarum figurarum ſtigmate an⯑notantur. Orig. lib. IX. p. 120, edit. Paris, 1601, fol. 'The Scots are ſo called in their own lan⯑guage, 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, con⯑cerning 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 tem⯑per 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, pre⯑ceding the reign of David I. 1124. Abernethy, Dunkeld, and St. Andrews, were founded before 843, as formerly narrated; and it ſeems remark⯑able 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 pe⯑riod, can only be ſtudied in thoſe of the Scandi⯑navians, to be found in different Icelandic au⯑thors; and which we may ſafely regard as pa⯑rallel to thoſe of their brethren in Pikland. But [248]ſo much has been ſaid upon this ſubject in the former volume, that i ſhall not enlarge upon it here, but ſhall content myſelf with adding a few remarks upon ſuch ancient monuments in Scot⯑land, 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, fur⯑niſhed 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 conſtruc⯑tion quite ſingular. The walls, as they yet re⯑main, are often from thirty to forty feet high; [249]and the central area of as great diameter. There are two walls; the inner of which riſes erect; the outer, generally at the bottom four or five feet diſtant from the other, gradually verges inward, till it joins. The outer wall has no windows, or holes at all, except a ſmall door. The inner has windows, ſometimes large, with ſtone ſhelves running acroſs, ſometimes very ſmall. Between the walls is a rude ſtaircaſe, running to the top; and two or three galleries five or ſix feet high paſs above each other all around, between the walls, except where interrupted by the rude ſtair⯑caſe. 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 ex⯑tremity, 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 ap⯑peared, 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.

[250]Mr. King regards theſe edifices as the rudi⯑mental 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 thir⯑teenth centuries, muſt have introduced the com⯑plete 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 al⯑ways uncertain, if not always falſe; and it is even beneath a ſevere writer once to mention it. There is one circumſtance, which ſtrongly indi⯑cates 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 ex⯑actly in thoſe very parts which were held by the Norwegians. A local invention might take place among the Norwegians in Scotland; and not ex⯑tend 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 founda⯑tions 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 [251]ſeem Pikiſh, and far more ancient, as above men⯑tioned^f.

A great ſingularity attending theſe edifices is, that in Glenelg, on the weſtern extremity of In⯑verneſs-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 garri⯑ſoned againſt an enemy, or reſidences of chiefs, this proximity is alike puzzling; and contrary to the practice of all ages and countries. If garri⯑ſons, they could neither have been placed ſo [252]near, nor have ſtood in glens, the very worſt ſitu⯑ation. 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 Ger⯑mans 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 propor⯑tion 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 ſta⯑bles 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 reſi⯑dences^s, and winter reſidences: the former on [253]the hills; the later in ſheltered glens, and ſome⯑times ſo near each other, as to form little towns. Friendſhip, family connections, and mutual de⯑fence 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 pro⯑perty. 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 of⯑ten 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 communicat⯑ing with the large^h. Theſe were apparently for more numerous ſervants and flocks, belonging to the owner. Caſtle Troddan, Glenelg, has a ruin⯑ous building fronting the door, and opening to⯑ward 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; per⯑haps 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 Eng⯑land, is a mere improvement of a Pikiſh dun. [254]But as Yorkſhire was in antient Northumbria, the great ſeat of the Danes, i take Coninſburg to be Daniſh, and not Saxon, as Mr. King infers.

Another claſs of monuments, ſome of which are perhaps as ancient as this period from 843 till 1056, are the engraven obeliſques. Saxo tells us, that Regnar Lodbrog, about 840, erected ſuch ſtones in honour of his victoriesⁱ; and thoſe in Scotland are ſometimes aſcribed to the Danes. During the diſaſtrous reign of Conſtantin II. 864 —882, the Danes indeed ravaged in the very vi⯑tals of Pikland. In 867 Olave waſted Pikland from New Year's Day till 17th March. About 878 the Danes remained a whole year in Pik⯑land. 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 mo⯑numents of their rapine. In England, and eſpe⯑cially 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 [255]other inſtances, tho the Northern antiquaries have ſeldom thought thoſe without inſcriptions worth publiſhing. And indeed the want of letters among the Piks cannot be enough regretted on every occaſion of their hiſtory. It muſt alſo be added, that if theſe ſtones had been memorials of enemies, the inhabitants would have eagerly de⯑ſtroyed ſuch trophies of their ſhame.

In Scandinavia ſuch ſtones are found of as late erection as the fifteenth century; which is evi⯑denced by their dates, and there is room to infer that thoſe in Scotland are far later than is gene⯑rally imagined. Upon looking into Mr. Cordi⯑ner'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 inſcrip⯑tions. The obeliſque near Forres is the moſt re⯑markable, and has been publiſhed by Mr. Cor⯑diner with laudable care. Perhaps it was erected by Malcom IV. upon his victories over the Mo⯑ravians. 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 ele⯑venth century. The dreſs of the common Saxons is quite the ſame with that of the Scots on the obeliſques at Forres. The want of inſcrip⯑tions 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.

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 hiſ⯑tory upon the perpetual baſis of ancient authori⯑ties, 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 exiſt⯑ence of our hiſtory depends.

[260]In this chapter on our ancient Eccleſiaſtic Hiſ⯑tory, 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 con⯑verſion 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 diſ⯑trict, and were converted to chriſtianity during their exile in Ireland, from 446 till 503. Their converſion was beneath notice. That of the inha⯑bitants 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 Pa⯑trick was to the Iriſh. I queſtion if the very ex⯑iſtence 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 re⯑quires 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. Je⯑rome, [261]who lived at this time, calls the hereſy of Pelagius pullis Scotorum, 'Scotiſh potage;' and rails at it as peculiarly Scotiſh, that is Iriſh. Some Counſels alſo admoniſh againſt the pultis Scotorum. The reader has ſeen above, from the conſent of all antiquity, that the name Scoti belonged to the Iriſh alone, till the eleventh century; at which time, by a caprice of chance, it paſſed to the Piks or preſent Scots. That Celeſtius was an Iriſhman follows of courſe; and he became ſo illuſtrious a propagator of this hereſy that, as Auguſtin in⯑forms, it's followers were in his time called Celeſ⯑tians, 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 there⯑fore 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 Ire⯑land, for the ſame purpoſe; appointing him biſhop of all the Scoti, or Iriſh, who believed in Chriſt. [262]Germanus, having performed his commiſſion, re⯑turned 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, name⯑ly, 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 an⯑tiquiſts 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 ſub⯑ject, 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 Scot⯑land; 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 [263]in ſuch a ſtate of barbariſm, that he left it in order to acquaint the pope with its almoſt pagan condi⯑tion, and to procure aſſiſting miſſionaries. How⯑ever 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 an⯑cient writers are numerous; and none of us has yet imagined that Patrick was ſent to preſent Scot⯑land: 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 Scot⯑land, 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 ob⯑ſerved 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 diffe⯑rence between the Roman and Eaſtern church only conſiſted in ſix days at moſt; and the only queſ⯑tion was, whether Eaſter was to be celebrated on [264]the week day on which it fell, or on the Sunday following^a

Very different was the diſpute between the Ro⯑man 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 tech⯑nical 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 Bri⯑tiſh and Iriſh churches, was not known till Au⯑guſtin 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 Euſe⯑bius, 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 [265]the Scots or Iriſh, nor Piks or preſent Scots were; ſeeing that the former were in the fourth century perfectly agreed with the Romans, and the later two nations were converted by the former. The variations of the Roman church were of far poſ⯑terior 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 Gram⯑pian 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 tem⯑pore. The time when Ninian lived, is eaſily ad⯑juſted 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. Mar⯑tin at Tours, &c. Floruit tune temporis beatiſſimus Martinus, Turonicae civitatis epiſcopus, cujus vita, miraculis glorioſa, jam ab eruditiſſimo viro ſancto Sul⯑picio deſcripta, &c. Beda alſo informs us that Ninian dedicated the church he built to St. Mar⯑tin; 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 [266]ſouthern Piks converted by Ninian to have been in Galloway, becauſe Beda ſays the church and epiſcopal ſee of Ninian was at Whithern in Gal⯑loway. 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 country⯑men 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 ex⯑plained 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, con⯑taining very little as to his Pikiſh miſſion, and in civil hiſtory only mentions one Tudwald a Cum⯑raig 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.

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

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

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

715. Ceolfrid writes his famous letter to Ne⯑than III. Beda. Nethan deſires architects to be ſent to build a church; Id. perhaps that of Aber⯑nethy.^d

815. Conſtantin king of the Piks builds the church of Dunkeld. Reg. St. And. Fordun, Win⯑ton.

827. Unguſt II. ſon of Verguſt, founded Kil⯑remont, afterward called St. Andrews, as the ſame authors teſtify. The clergy of St. Andrew's after⯑ward invented the legend of Regulus, the appari⯑tion 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, be⯑cauſe 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 goſ⯑pels. Chron. Pict.

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

The ſucceſſion of abbots of Hyona, and ſome other trifles concerning this period, may be found in extracts from the Ulſter Annals in the Appen⯑dix^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 dor⯑mivit, 'Tuahal ſon of Artgus, archbiſhop of Pik⯑land, 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 [269]churches ceaſed, the abbot of Dunkeld was for a time regarded as ſupreme of the Pikiſh church. Certain it is that St. Andrew's had no title to be regarded as ſupreme church in Pikland, till erec⯑ted into a biſhopric. And there is reaſon to be⯑lieve 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 un⯑der 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 ec⯑cleſiae 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. An⯑drews 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 ſuſ⯑pecting 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 Scandi⯑navians 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 [270]old ſpiritual maſters the Iriſh. Our native clergy, being however diſtant from the then chief ſeats of learning, France and Germany, were long ſo deficient that our kings were glad to have clergy from England; as the examples of Turgot and of Eadmer, both biſhops of St. Andrews, may witneſs. And to this local ſituation was it owing, that while Ireland and England from proximity to France, and afterward Scandinavia from proxi⯑mity 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 be⯑hind 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 ſuc⯑ceeded 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 be⯑lieve 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 pil⯑grimage of Macbeth was merely to Rome as a holy city, as others went pilgrims to Jeruſalem. Scotland was too poor for papal rapacity or uſur⯑pation. 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.

[271]This chapter ſhall be cloſed with a few hints concerning the Culdees. It is well known that a violent diſpute was long carried on, by the preſ⯑byterian 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, Stil⯑ling 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 credu⯑lity: 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 Eu⯑rope, about the year 380, their rigid life acquired them high eſteem. In a ſhort time the biſhops were chiefly choſen from their order: and after⯑ward, uſurping the right of the people, they be⯑gan to chuſe the biſhops from among themſelves. Hence, in the middle ages, almoſt every mona⯑ſtery had its biſhop, almoſt every biſhopric its monaſtery. Nay the abbot, or chief of the mona⯑ſtery, was ſometimes eſteemed ſuperior in dignity to the biſhop; that is in every thing not immedi⯑ately belonging to the epiſcopal function. Of this the monaſtery of Hyona, the ſeminary of Chriſti⯑anity in North Britain, affords a noted inſtance^g

[272]Hence the abbot of Hyona was in effect primate of Scotland, till the ninth century. When Hyona had been ravaged by the Danes, Dunkeld was the primatial ſee, till the reign of Grig and Achy, A. D. 883, from which time St. Andrews held that ſupremacy. But the high rank of the abbots of Dunkeld, one of whom was the father of a royal race of Scotland, and another, Ethelred, the ſon of Malcom III. ſufficiently marks the eſtima⯑tion 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 at⯑tention.

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 Irelandⁱ. In the gradual corruption of the monaſtic order, they married; and left their Culdeeſhips to their children^k: and, after the ha⯑vock introduced by the Danes, uſurped the rank of ſecular clergy. In ſhort, they were merely cor⯑rupted monks, ſuch as abounded in all the coun⯑tries 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 ſove⯑reigns turning out the Culdees, to make way for [273]theſe canons. The various modern ſort of mona⯑ſtic names and orders, it is well known, did not begin till the twelfth century.

The Culdees thus united in themſelves, the diſ⯑tinctions 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 conſti⯑tuted with their prior, the dean and chapter till about A. D. 1240ⁿ. It is well known what ſtruggles it coſt the popes to reform the monks; and to prevent them and the clergy from marry⯑ing; even in the ſouthern countries of Europe: and we are not to wonder that in ſo remote a cor⯑ner as Scotland, the ſuppoſed abuſes remained long incorrigible. Till the decree of Gregory VII. 1074, all the clergy might marry, or have concu⯑bines^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 con⯑tracted, that very little can be ſaid upon it. It is a melancholy truth that the Piks did not pro⯑duce 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 concern⯑ing learning among,

• 1. The Stratclyde Welch;
• 2. The Iriſh clergy in Pikland: as alſo,
• 3. Rea⯑ſons 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 pre⯑vailed 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 fa⯑ther Calphurnius, he appears to have been of Ro⯑man 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 cer⯑tainly a man of extraordinary talents, for the [275]time and country. His firſt and greateſt care was to teach the Iriſh the uſe of letters, as the prime mean of making their converſion permanent. Would that he had alſo been the apoſtle of the Piks, or that Ninian and Columba had ſhewn ſuch care! The ſupreme veneration, in which the Iriſh always held, and ſtill hold Patrick, is moſt deſerved and juſt: while it is no wonder that Ninian and Columba were forgotten among us. Two genuine epiſtles of Patrick are pre⯑ſerved, 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 per⯑haps 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 curi⯑ous 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 [276]have been a melancholy viſionary, who by living in the woods, and other ſingularities, acquired the reputation of a prophet. Fordun, III. 31. has a long tale concerning Kentigern, and Merlin the Wild.

I know not if any fragments of Welch poetry, written in Stratclyde or in Cumbria, remain. But indeed there is great room to queſtion the anti⯑quity 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 con⯑verts the uſe of letters.

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

Adomnan, abbot of Hyona, 679, compoſed a long life of Columba in three books, publiſhed by Caniſius, from an imperfect copy; for that in the king's library is larger. He alſo wrote an ac⯑count 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 de⯑fect 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 lan⯑guage in the very firſt place. Bollandus has ob⯑ſerved 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 coun⯑tries, that he did not know what to think of them. But this was the natural fruit of that ſtrange cre⯑dulity, and weakneſs of mind, peculiar to the [278]Celts. The lives of Ninian and of Columba ſwarm with ſuch puerile miracles, as are really impious, nay blaſphemous; while every thing that is rational, wiſe, and truly virtuous, is forgotten. Such Celtic apoſtles were not calculated to en⯑lighten 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 be⯑ing 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 per⯑formed 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 in⯑ſtruct 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 re⯑garded 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, [279]and his ſucceſſors. The inſtitution of Hyona, an Iriſh ſeminary, as ſupreme church of Pikland, was, and is, without example in eccleſiaſtic hiſ⯑tory. 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 ſub⯑jects 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 ſu⯑perior opportunities and learning, and from an⯑cient veneration and cuſtom, ſtill held the com⯑mon 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 Pik⯑land, 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 ex⯑treme countries of Europe, Scandinavia was only ſeparated by a narrow ſea from Germany, a country full of ſchools, learning, and authors, [280]before Scandinavia was converted. England and Ireland were in the ſame ſituation, with reſpect to France, another learned country. Whereas Pik⯑land 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 con⯑tinent 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 in⯑tercourſe.

5. Want of commerce was another cauſe; for a nation cannot be learned without books. Af⯑ter 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 four⯑teenth. 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 Pik⯑land had none at all. England, Ireland, Scandi⯑navia, were all frequented by foreign merchants; while the remote ſituation of Pikland, and its want of materials for commerce, rendered it un⯑viſited, and almoſt unknown.

6. The warlike ſpirit of the Piks, and conti⯑nual 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 [281]quiet among theſe commotions. Very different was the caſe in the ninth century, when foreign enemies ravaging Ireland, baniſhed all its learning at once. But Pikland, not being a detached country, like Ireland, but acting on perpetual offence or defence againſt a foreign foe, was al⯑moſt in conſtant war, or preparation; a ſtate to⯑tally inimical to learning.

7. The natural poverty of the country pre⯑cluded 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. An⯑drew'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 en⯑creaſed. 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 remark⯑able 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 [282]ſtrong and acute; and it is no wonder that the abſurd ſuperſtition, and fooliſh reading, of the clergy, during the darker ages, met utter ſcorn from their ſevere wiſdom. Ragnar Lodbrog's ex⯑preſſion 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 be⯑ginning 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 ac⯑count 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.