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

AN ENQUIRY INTO SCOTISH HISTORY Preceding the Year 1056.

PART IV. The Dalriads.

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

THE remote origin of the Irish settlers in North Britain, little concerns the history of Scotland. But as much has been 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.

SECTION I. Irish Origins.

At this moment, when entering on a subject essential to ancient Irish history, i feel myself as much a native of Ireland, as of Britain. Far from violating the reverence due to the antiqui∣ties

of that noble iland, i should be happy to support and illustrate them, as far as lay in my power. But having treated the antiquities of my own country, with all the freedom of an ardent en∣quirer after truth, i must beg leave to assert the same philosophic privilege in respect to other realms.

It may be imagined that i, who confess no further knowledge of the Celtic language, than is picked up from a few grammars and dictionaries, am but ill qualified to discuss a subject, whose evidences are wrapt up in that language. But from complete and repeated perusal of most Irish and other writers, who have treated this matter in Latin or English, certainly all the information necessary on this point may now be had. The works of Mageogaghan, Stanihurst, Colgan, Usher, Ware, Keating, Maccurtin, Kennedy, O'Flaherty, O'Conor, &c. &c. derived from all the monuments in the Irish language, surely af∣ford full and sufficient materials, and as complete knowlege of the original evidence, as can be procured from that evidence itself. I hope there∣fore to escape any charge of rashness, while i exa∣mine this important part of Irish history, upon the testimony of Irish writers. Were i writing on the history of Ireland, or Wales, in a total igno∣rance of the Irish and Welch languages, there would be room for as much laughter, and utter derision, as if one should attempt to paint without colours, or to build without materials. But as i am only occupied with the history of Scotland, of which there is not one monument in the Celtic tonguesa 1.1, it is hoped laborious perusal of the Irish writers in Latin or English will, in this instance, atone for my ignorance of the Celtic.

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Fir bolg. It is unnecessary to sicken the reader by any detail of these fables. The Fir-bolg, according to Irish antiquaries, came to Ire∣land about 1500 years before Christ. The Tuath de Danan about 250 after. The Milesians about 1000 years before our aera. Simply to enquire how the memory of these events was preserved, in an illiterate country, is a sufficient confutation of those childish fables. He who believes them is incapable of reason, or conviction. It would therefore be labour lost to confute absurdity; for

the foolish cannot be convinced; and those indued with the smallest portion of common sense would only have recourse to laughter.

In this fable the name alone is just; for it is now allowed that the Fir-Bolg were the Belgae, placed by Ptolemy, the geographer, in the South of Ire∣land. But these Belgae, as appears by the Disser∣tation annexed, could not be there till about 300 years before Christ, so that the reality of the name, as preserved in Irish tradition, palliates not the fable; which ought to be wholly set aside, espe∣cially as it precedes the Milesians, a race entirely and utterly fabulous. It is indeed clear that those dreaming compilers, who mention the Fir-bolg and Tuath de Danan, have erred grossly in placing the Milesians after them. None of those Irish fablers are older than the Thirteenth century, and have altered the real series of the fables in order to make their favourite Milesians the last, and conquerors of all the former. Nennius, who wrote in 858, and used the Irish accounts then existing, says nothing of the Fir-bolg, nor Tuath de Danan; but only tells of the Spanish (or Milesian) colo∣nies as the first inhabitants of Irelandb 1.2. So also Giraldus Cambrensis, who wrote about 1170. The Psalter of Cashel, which seems the very fountain of these visions, is by some Irish antiqua∣ries said to have been written by Cormac, king of Ireland, about the year 260. Others ascribe it to a Cormac king and bishop of Cashel, about the year 900. Mageogaghan, who details a long account of the matter, gives it to king Brian Borowe's time, about the year 1008. I have redd many quota∣tions and extracts from it, and it seems a collec∣tion of poetical romances on Irish history, compiled

in the Thirteenth century, at the earliest, and kept and found at Cashel, whence the name.

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

An ingenious Irish author, who is writing an history of Ireland, and whose judgment despises what even fancy cannot believe, is inclined to think that the Tuath de Danan were the Danes. Certain it is that Danan was, and is, the Irish for a Dane. But it is also certain that the name of Dane was unknown till the Sixth century, when Jornan∣des and Procopius first mention itc 1.3. The Danish writers allow it not to have been the ancient name, but to have proceeded from a king called Dan, or from Daun, our down, 'Low country,' as Den∣mark is to Scandinavia. And from a complete series of writers, and geographers in particular, it is perfectly known that the name was not existent till the Sixth century. Like the name of Saxons, Franks, Alamans, Slavons, it seems to have arisen at a late period, from some adventitious circum∣stance. That no Scandinavians nor Danes pro∣ceeded to Ireland till the end of the eighth century, shall be presently argued. Had the Tuath de

Danan been Danes, how came they to be totally unmentioned in the Annals of Ulster, or more an∣cient writers, till the Eighth century? To them who know the nature of tradition, and of Celtic tradition in particular, it will not indeed be sur∣prizing that ignorant bards of the Twelfth and Thirteenth centuries should confound all chrono∣logy, so far as to make the Danes, who arrived in Ireland in the Eighth century, settle there more than a thousand years before Christ. In this view, but in no other, the Tuath de Danan may be the Danes. But as the Milesian frenzies follow these Tuath de Danan, there is no reason to discrimi∣nate them, or the Fir-bolg, from the mass of fable, merely because the names may be real and traditional, while that of Milesians confessedly is not. If the Irish antiquaries, as they have from the beginning daily changed their ground, will change it once more, and put the Milesians first, and the Fir-bolg and Tuath de Danan after, some plausible discussion might follow. But as the case stands, the Firbolg, Tuath de Danan, and Mile∣sians, form one lump of fiction.

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

As this Milesian Tale is the grand object of religi∣ous faith, and reverent research, among the Irish an∣tiquaries;

and of eternal laughter, and utter scorn, among those of all other countries; it is hoped that a short acount of it will not be unacceptable. There are two systems of this deplorable piece of absurdity: that of the Irish authors, and that of the Scotish. The later, as Father Innes shews at great length, is by far the more rational of the two; and is also the most pure and ancient, being in consonance with Nennius, and other early wri∣ters, while the Irish is perverted and corrupt, and more foolish than folly.

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

The Scotish account, as given by Fordun, Win∣ton, Boyce, &c. runs thus. Niul, the twentieth from Japhet, went from Scythia to Greece. GA∣THELUS, Niul's son, went to Egypt, where he married SCOTA, the daughter of Pharaoh; and, after the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea, he proceeded to Spain, and founded a kingdom. EBER, the son of Gathelus, discovered Ireland, and called it Scotia, in honour of his mother; and it was also called Hibernia from the discoverer. But he founded no kingdom there, returning immediately to Spain. MILESIUS, whom the blundering transcribers of Fordun call Micelius,

Winton, Milet, was the thirteenth from Gathelus, and reigned in Spain. Heremon, Partholm, and Hybert, sons of Milesius, led a colony to Spain; and the two last remained there, but assumed no kingly title. Heremon returned to Spain, where he succeeded his father. Winton makes no men∣tion of any colony being led by the sons of Milesius; but puts him barely in the list of the successors of Gathelus. The seventeenth in a right line from Mi∣lesius was the famous SIMON BREC; who, by the Scotish tale, brought the noted stone from Spain to Ireland; and founded the monarchy there. Winton says that Fergus, son of Erc, who brought the stone to Scotland, and founded the Scotish monarchy, was in the Fiftieth and Fifth degree of descendance from Simon Brec. With this illustri∣ous founder of the Irish monarchy, according to the Scotish account, Old Sir Simon the King, the later Irish antiquaries are so angry, that, to prevent the Scotish tale from prejudicing Heremon, they have some of them hanged Simon Brec, and others have torn him in pieces, for some pretended crime, of which they cannot at this day produce any evi∣dence. As a Scotishman, i must loudly, in the name of my country, protest against this gross in∣justice, of hanging a man without hearing his de∣fence: and wonder that Mr. Goodal, or some such zealous Scotish author, has not written "A Defence of Simon Brec, alias Old Sir Simon the King, against the bloody, atrocious, and crying slaughter, committed on him after he was dead, by certain Irish antiquaries: with some reflections from the book called God's revenge against mur∣der."

But to be serious if possible. The Scotish ac∣count is more coherent and plausible than the Irish, as Father Innes shews at great length. To add to the absurdity of the later Donald O'Neal, king of Ulster, in his letter to Pope John XXII. in the year 1317, informs the Pontif, that it was

then about 3500 years since the three sons of Mile∣sius settled in Spain: that is, they were there about 2200 years before Christ's birth. But the grand and radical difference, between the Irish and Scotish account•• is that the former commences the Mile∣sian monarchy with HERE••ON the eldest son of Milesius, and, as stated by O'Flaherty, about 1000 years before Christ: whereas the Scotish relation begins that monarchy in the person of SIMON BREC, the sixteenth in degree from Heremon, and yet about 1200 years before Christ. By the old genea∣logy there are fifty-eight generations, from Simon Brec, down to Fergus, son of Erc; tho Winton makes but fifty-five. Of these generations there are twenty-four from Simon to Forgo, the mock Fergus I. of Scotish dreamers: and thirty-four from Forgo to Fergus, son of Erc. Allowing 30 years, as usual, to each generation, fifty-eight generations extend to 1740 years. Twenty-four generations make 720 years from Simon to Forgo; and thirty-four make 1020 from Forgo to Fergus, son of Erc. Fergus, son of Erc, ascended the Scotish throne about 503 years after Christ; and of course, by the Scotish account, Simon Brec lived about 1200 years before Christ: and Forgo about 500, instead of 330, as Fordun, Boyce, Bucha∣nan date him, merely to make him cotemporary with Alexander the Great.

Such are the two Milesian systems, that of the Scotish, and that of the Irish writers. Since the Sixteenth century the Scotish authors have totally dropt it on their part; or mentioned it merely as a weak fable. But the Irish writers persist in it to this hour; and regard those who despise it as ene∣mies of their nation, and invidious of it's honour! Deluded madmen! they are themselves the worst enemies of their country; and the real and unmer∣ciful destroyers of it's honour, of it's character among all nations. For from the writers of any country, a judgment is often rashly formed con∣cerning

the knowlege and wisdom of the country at large. In the present case no error can be greater: as, out of two millions in Ireland, not a thousand have even heard of those lamentable delusions; and of that thousand, nine hundred utterly despise them. True it is, that the crazy and mercenary bards and sennachies thought to get money, and favour, by giving genealogies of their patrons, carried up to Heremon and Milesius, nay to Adam, and far beyond. And the Irish antiquists, as O'Connor the translator of Keating and others, the true heirs of the madness of the sennachies, and in fact, mere modern sennachies, attempt to continue the imposture, by tracing all the chief families of Ireland up to Milesius, in order by this pitiful trick, to engage them all under the banners of folly. But these families having solid claims of respect, do generally contemn these poor delusions; and are content, as other noble families of Europe, to close the genealogy at the first shade of uncertainty; for falsehood, far from adding honour, is infa∣mous in itself, and can only bring infamy and de∣rision. Men of reading are in their closets, apt to dream of opinions being national, which are in fact confined to a few visionaries. Antiquarian matters are, as i humbly conceive, never national; as there are seldom above a dozen antiquaries in a nation; and in the British empire, where alone antiquary and visionary are synonymous, the nation only laughs at it's antiquaries. On the continent indeed, where an antiquary is a sacred and most important cha∣racter, that of a man of profound and solid learning, who confers honour on his country by a most labo∣rious research into it's genuine antiquities, and intro∣ducing them to the most rigorous discussion of the whole republic of letters, the highest respect is paid to antiquaries; and their province is justly regarded, as by far the most difficult, and, of course, the most honourable in the whole circle of science. But even there, antiquarian matters are not na∣tional:

but only known to the thinking and learned few. It is therefore merely the vanity of authors that dreams of nations being interested in support of their opinions; while not above one in ten thousand of the nation has ever heard any thing of the matter. With these views, tho i have the most sincere respect for the Irish nation, yet i scruple not to hold to due contempt the Irish sennachies and modern antiquists, which last would be called children, and not antiquaries, on the continent: and believe that every sensible native of Ireland will see, that to expose the ab∣surd enemies of the true honour of that country, is to do a service to its cause. For, if i am rightly informed, in Ireland, as here, and in the rest of Europe, the very name of Milesians is a jest; and the acceptance of any part of the fable is esteemed an infallible criterion of an insane writer. Indeed as there is no credit due to any account of Irish kings, or their actions, preceding the Christian aera, the very mark A. M. or Anno Mundi in Irish affairs, is well interpreted Asinaria Maxima by fo∣reigners, and affords perpetual laughter.

These fables shall be dismissed with a remark or two, naturally arising from the subject. The whole tale of the Milesians, and the history of the monarchs of that mock line, preceding our aera, or for a thousand years, is the most deplorable piece of nonsense, that ever stained the annals of mankind. The fables of the other Grand Celtic race, the Welch, as delivered to us by the de∣servedly infamous Geoffrey of Monmouth, and de∣duced from Brutus, great grand son of Eneas, who, as they tell, came to Britain about 1000 years before Christ, are sober and sapient, com∣pared to the Irish fictions. In the page of Geof∣frey of Monmouth may be found an Imogen, a Locrine, and Guendolen, with their daughter Sabra; a Bladud; a Lear, and his daughters; a Gordobuc; a Belinus; a Lud; an Arthur; all

non-existences, yet well known in the regions of poetry and romance. But the whole Irish historic fictions are not only beneath contempt, as history; but beneath contempt, as fictions. To read them is to be condemned to a disgust, and pity, the same with that arising from the conversation of a mere idiot. Zealous as i am for what little truth can be found in history, were i a native of Ireland, and could evidence the veracity of these tales to all Europe by irrefragable proofs, i would give my vote for their being left in utter oblivion, lest they should dishonour my country. Destitute of the smallest charm of fiction, they are not only lies, but disgusting and nauseous lies. Boyce, Bucha∣nan, and the other Scotish forgers, made their fic∣tions lessons to monarchs; and it is to their false∣hoods that we owe the death of Charles I. and ab∣dication of James IId 1.4. The tales of the Welch and Scotish forgers had an influence on the whole his∣tory of Europe: those of the Irish never had nor can have any effect, being wholly contemptible even to imagination. Bishop Nicolson, in his Irish historical library, has most facetiously at∣tempted to bring the Irish fables into a similar point of view with the Islandic. On the very plan he has followed, a comparison might also be drawn of the Hottentot traditions with the Gothic: and he seems totally to have forgot that the power of the human mind is no where better distinguished than in fiction, it's own creation. The Gothic tales are often ingenious, always vigorous, some∣times sublime. Even the wildest of them has al∣ways strong marks of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of thought, of sense. The mythology, and well-known unconquerable character of the people, live, and breath in them

all. The Irish legends are in all points the re∣verse. The Milesian fable is connected with Pha∣raoh; and bears other palpable marks of being in∣vented long after Christianity was established in Ireland. Odin was the god of war; and can be traced in most writers of the middle ages, long before the Icelandic monuments were written. Snorro, who wrote in the thirteenth century, places the arrival of Odin in Scandinavia, about seventy years before Christe 1.5. Donald O'Neal, in the fourteenth, placed the arrival of the sons of Mile∣sius, who were never heard of before, about 2200 years before Christ! Beda, who wrote in 731, mentions Odin; but, tho intimate with many of the most learned men of Ireland, had never heard a syllable of the Milesian tales, but puts Ireland as the patria, or first habitation of the Scots. Let any one read the Northern sagas, and he will find manly judgment, and fine imagination, while the Irish tales are quite destitute of these quali∣ties. The Scandinavians we know had letters, and yet their antiquaries build not on this: the Irish we know had none, till converted by Patrick, and yet their writers are forced, as one absurdity includes another, to build their fairy mansion upon the use of letters, among a people marked by the Greek and Roman writers as utterly savage. Bi∣ship Nicolson's parallel only shews the infallibility of the axiom that fancy will find resemblances any where; while to discriminate is the peculiar pro∣vince of judgment. Others have said that there are fables in early Greek and Roman history, and why not allow the Irish to pass as such? With all my heart; but observe at the same time that the Greek and Roman fables vary a little from the Irish; the former being produced by great and able writers, and deservedly admired for many

centuries; the later the weak effusions of silly sen∣nachies, and only fit for the flames. The argu∣ment is modest and Celtic; but there is, as is generally believed, a difference in fable; some slight shade of dissonance between the history of Tom Jones, and that of Tom Thumb. There are also degrees in nonsense; some nonsense is risible; other nonsense, as the old Irish history, is super-superlative, and extra-soporific. As history or as fiction, it is equally absurd. Allegory is the last apology for nonsensef 1.6; but even John Bunyan could not allegorize Milesian history. Late Irish writers say, that Fenius Farsa was a name for the Phenicians; Simon Brec for Sampson, who broke the heads of the Philistines, &c. There is one in∣famy yet greater than telling a lye, and that is, to make an apology for that lye. The more plausible the apology is, it is the more scandalous. So much the better, so much the worse. For to im∣pose on society is one crime; but to colour that imposition afresh, and to dress falsehood in the holy robes of truth, is a far greater crime. No modi∣fication, or apology of any kind, can be accepted. The point is utterly to give up these abominable fables; and till this be done, the Irish antiquaries will have them all to themselves, without one rival. For how can the literati of Europe converse with those who give evident signs of madness, of a mad∣ness unknown to any other nation?

Before proceeding to consider the real and genuine origins of Irish history, it becomes neces∣sary to notice the claim, which some Irish anti∣quaries pretend their country has to the use of letters

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

The old characters, which the Irish pretend to, are the Beth-luis-nion, the different kinds of Ogum, Bebeloth, &c. The Beth-luis-nion is the common Saxon, or lower Roman alphabet, changed in the order of letters, by the whim of the sennachies. The different kinds of Ogum are merely sorts of short-hand-writing, used in the middle ages. The Bebeloth is another contracted mode of writing, well known to the learned by the name of Notae Longobardicoe. The Helsing Runes,

consisting of conic marks, variously disposed, have also, i believe, been found in Ireland, so long possessed in part by the Danes; and have, as usual, been regarded as letters older than christianity, while they were used in Denmark in the Twelfth century. It is in vain to strive, not only with folly, but with utter ignorance. If those Irish antiquists will study the antiquities of Europe, and compare them with their own, they may acquire sobriety. As it is, when an Usher, or a Ware, arises in Ireland, they regard those matters as mere dreams; and pass at once to the time when chris∣tianity and letters first appeared in Ireland. The cause of folly is only supported by ignorance; and no writer cares to answer what all know to be puerile. The contest between those Irish writers, and the literati of all Europe, is the most risible in the world. The former say, their country was highly civilized, had letters and academies, as the Greeks and Romans. The latter say, the Greeks we know, and the Romans we know, but who are ye? Those Greeks and Romans pronounce you not only barbarous, but utterly savage. Where are your authorities against this? In the name of that degree of rationality, which even some beasts have, where are the slightest marks of ancient civi∣lization among you? Where are ruins of cities? Where inscriptions? Where ancient coins? Where is the least trace of ancient art or science in your whole iland? The old inhabitants of your country, the Wild Irish, the true Milesian breed, untainted with Gothic blood, we know to be utter savages at this day. Can a nation, once civilized, ever become savage? Impossible! Such a nation may be lost in effeminacy, as the modern Italians and Greeks; but will ever bear marks of the ex∣cess, not the want, of civilization.

Father Innes has at great length examined, and completely confuted, the Irish claim to letters, be∣fore St. Patrick introduced them, along with chris∣tianity,

about the year 440. That the Irish had letters so early, and many writers soon after, is surely enough; and more than several great na∣tions of Europe can pretend to. The Germans, Scandinavians, Polanders, Russians, have by no means such early claim; but stand later by near four centuries. In the name of heaven, what would those Celtic gentry have? But, like the dog in the fable, by grasping at the shadow, they lose the substance; and the fictions of early Irish his∣tory bring contempt upon the whole. From such friends and assertors, may heaven defend my country! We are told of many abstract terms in the old Irish language, as a proof that the people were civilized. Yet no such terms are produced, and, if they were, how old are they? The use of Latin abstract terms is quite modern In the old German, Anglo-belgic, &c. the abstract terms are peculiar to the speech, as godhede for deity, &c. There is not one Irish manuscript extant, older than the Eleventh century, long after metaphysics, and other nonsensical learning, had been success∣fully studied there. What wonder then at abstract terms? The Irish antiquists, as i have found from experience, are so ignorant, as not to know a MS. of the Fourteenth century; but will repeatedly call such a one of the Third, Fourth, or Fifth, as they please to baptise it. They do not know what is known to all; yet pretend to know what is un∣known to all. Vague references to MSS. of vague antiquity form the main chicane of Irish authors; who are so stupid, as not to discern that this is never allowed in such questions; but that if a MS. be quoted, it's age, place where kept, page, and column, are always accurately marked by the antiquaries of all other countries, and the words themselves always produced, with a literal transla∣tion. But the Irish MSS. are ashamed of the light; and it is no wonder that they shun it. Of Ice∣landic MSS. we have above Five Hundred now in

print. Of Irish not one. The consequence is, that the language cannot be studied, and is but imperfectly known, even to those Irish writers, who use these MSS. as is clear from the various and vague interpretation, given by different Irish writers, of one and the same passage. They are perpetually accusing each other of not understand∣ing the tongue; and i do believe they are all in the right. Were the MSS. published, the language would be studied by different literati; and it's principles and vocabulary fully settled. At present who will study a language, in which there is not one book published?

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

It is universally known, that the Wild Irish, re∣mains of the old inhabitants, call themselves Gael, and their language Gaelic, and that they are Celts from Gaul. Much labour has been wasted in at∣tempting to shew that they must have past from Britain, the nearest shore. To me it is apparent, that they actually passed from the North-west of Gaul to Ireland; tho great numbers might join them from Britain. The manner in which pro∣found scholars treat human affairs is often highly risible. They judge of them upon mechanical principles! A sensible French writer has ruined a learned dissertation, by supposing that barbaric nations have no navigation, but always proceed

by land! Tacitus more wisely thought there could be no progress but by sea! But both were wrong, for want of one simple reflection, namely that even savages have generally hands as well as feet. No savages have yet been discovered over the whole globe, who had no navigation. From the North Pole to the South Pole, where there were men, there were canoes. The invention, if it may be so called, is so utterly simple, that every untaught infant throws his cork upon the water; and, if he had a cork large enough, would jump on it, to have a sail himself. If we except eating and drinking, there is certainly no art so primitive as rude navigation. Where cloths are not invented, where huts are not invented, still there are canoes. And, from the late discoveries in the South Sea, we know, that even the rudest savages will venture on a voyage, at open sea, of four or five hundred miles, or more. Let us therefore judge of human affairs, not by mechanical learning, but by com∣mon sense; and allow, for instance, that it is quite uncertain whether Ireland or Britain was first peopled from Gaul. The passage over the straits of Dover is Twenty-four miles: that from the North-west of Gaul to Ireland is about Two Hun∣dred. The probability is certainly that Britain was first peopled; but it by no means follows that Ireland must have been peopled from Britain. For the vast forests of Britain, and three hundred miles of breadth, were far more difficult to pass, than two hundred miles of open sea, which a fleet of savages, in canoes, might pass on a summer day. The sea, as now perfectly known, far from separating nations, is the grand mean of comm••∣nication between them. It is land, and not sea, that is difficult for civilized nations, as for savages, to pass.

That the old Irish did not originate from Spain, can never be argued from the distance, which is but four hundred miles of open sea: but from

other urgent reasons. I once inclined to think that they did originate from Spain; chiefly be∣cause Tacitus thought the Silures, who were in that part of Britain opposite to Ireland, a Spanish colony: and because he mentions that the ports of Ireland were, in his time, more frequented than those of Britain. Other reasons also concurred. For it might reasonably be supposed, that, as the Celts held Germany and Gaul, so they also pos∣sessed Spain, before the Iberi came over from Africa and expelled them. That the Irish were not Iberi, is certain from their speech, which is Celtic, not Iberian, or Cantabric. If they came from Spain, they must therefore have been Celts from Spain. And it was highly plausible to sup∣pose that the Iberi drove the Celts out of Spain, on the East, over the Pyrenees; but that, on the west, the Celts were confined between the Iberi and the sea, and had no recourse but to escape by sea: and that, as all the coast of Gaul and Britain was filled with their Celtic brethren, they would naturally pass to the nearest uninhabited land, which was Ireland. Facts also seemed to corrobo∣rate this theory. We find may Celtic nations in the North of Spain, as described by ancient writers. The Verones, a people of present Biscay, were Celts, as Strabo tells, lib. III. p. 245. In Asturia there were also Celts, as Pliny informs us, lib. III. cap. 3. But above all, and what was most to the purpose, in Gallicia, that very point of Spain which fronts Ireland, and to which it was natural to suppose that the Celts would be driven, the an∣cients actually place Celts. Cape Finisterre was called Promontorium Gelticum, not Ibericum, by the ancients; and Pliny describing the nations around it, or in Gallicia, puts Celtici cognomine Nerioe, and Celtici cognomine Proesamarci, lib. IV. c. 20. Strabo also, lib. III. p. 230, tells, that the region around this promontory was inhabited by Celts. And there is every reason to believe

that the Gallaeci, who are here placed by Pliny, and other ancients, and who gave name to present Gallicia, were Gauls, and bore the Gallic name accordingly. In this scheme of Irish origins i much exulted; as it would give me no small pleasure to support the Irish antiquaries, in their favorite Spanish origin.

But unhappily all this theory was forced to yield to ancient facts. In the dissertation annexed, it is shewn that the Celrici and Celtiberi of Spain were not Celts proper; but German Gauls, who, as new possessors of Gaul, the ancient domain of the Celts, acquired the name of Celts, as the English in Britain are termed Britons, in America, Americans. Yet the Celtiberi were on the East, and the Celtici on the South of Spain; so that these northern Celts of Spain might have been re∣mains of the old Celts. But the authority of Strabo is direct on the other side, and admits of no answer, or palliative. For he shews that both the Verones and the Celts of Gallicia were of the same race with the Celtici and Celtiberi, that is, German Gauls; and that, far from being old possessors of the country, they had only gained their territories in the same late expedition with the Celtiberi and Celtici. Of the Verones, he says, lib. III. p. 245: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 'Inhabit to the parts north of the Celtiberi, the VERONES, neigh∣bours of the Cantabrian Conisci, and they also were of the Celtic expedition.' And lib. III. p. 230, speaking of the Promontorium Celticum, which was also called Nerium, he says: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 'Furthest dwell the Artabri, at the promontory, which is called Nerion, and which is the bound of the northern, and of the western side of Spain.

The Celtici inhabit around it, of the same race with those on the river Ana.' Those on the Ana were the Celtici, peculiarly so called; and who are shewn to have been Gothic, or German Gauls, in the annexed Dissertation. Whether they were Celts or Goths is indeed nothing to the purpose: for it is clear that these northern Celts of Spain were all of one expedition with the Celtici and Celtiberi; who had lately past from Gaul into Spain, as appears from Lucan, Silius Italicus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Appian. So that they were not ancient inhabitants of the country, but late immigrators from Gaul, who had conquered possessions for themselves from the Iberi. What time this expedition happened is uncertain; but from the strong memory of it, in all the above authors, it was certainly late; and the learned and accurate Schoepfling 1.7 only says, that it must have hap∣pened before the Second Punic War, as Livy, XXII. 21. and Silius Italicus III. 350. mention the Celtiberi as engaged in that war which broke out 216 years before Christ. It is shewn in the Dissertation, that the Celts proper, or old savages of Gaul, were so far from sending colonies into other countries, that they could not defend their own; and in particular the Iberi gained all Aqui∣tania from them; so that their conquering Iberian possessions would have been a phaenomenon indeed. That the Gauls, or Celts, so called, of Gallia Bracata were Gothic, or German Gauls; and that as they lay on the North of Spain, while the other Gauls were at a distance, there is no room to doubt that they were the Celts, so called, who seized various possessions in Spain. This further appears from the names of their towns in Spain, of which many begin, or end, with brig the German berg, or town, so usual at this day. Strabo, lib. VII. and Steph. de Urb. say that bria, or briga, signifies

a townh 1.8. This it does in no Celtic dialect: but in the Gothic it retains that meaning. Among the Celts of the North of Spain we find Flaviobriga, (now Bilboa) or Flaviusberg; and Flavium Bri∣gantium, (Ferrol). But not to rest the argument even upon this truth, it cannot at any rate be ever imagined that the few Celts who migrated from Gaul into the north of Spain, at a late period, could be those Celts who peopled Ireland. Ware, and other cool Irish antiquaries, who argue that the Irish came from Spain, always conclude them Iberi, the real ancient inhabitants of Spain; and that the name Ibernia sprung from the Iberi. But this opinion is wholly untenable, because the Irish language, the Gaelic, is as remote from the Ibe∣rian, or Cantabric, as possible; and is well known to be a grand Celtic dialect. The ancients are totally silent concerning any Celtic aborigines in Spain; and uniformly regard the Iberi as the most ancient inhabitants: so that it is certain that the old Irish, as Celts proper, could not pass from Spain, a country never inhabited by Celts proper, but must have passed from Gaul, a nearer country, and known to have been originally wholly possest by Celts proper.

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

But tho it be thus certain that the Gaelic Irish, the Irish peculiarly so called, or Wild Irish, were Gael, or Celts of Gaul, it remains to enquire if any Iberian colonies settled among them. For tho the prevalence of the Gaelic tongue shews that the Celts formed the grand population of the country; yet Iberian colonies might arrive, and their own speech be lost, as usual, in that of the more numer∣ous inhabitants. The whole idea of the popula∣tion of Ireland from Spain seems to have arisen from the proximity of the names Iberni and Iberi: and the absurd etymologies of Isidorus, and other writers of the middle ages, surely led the way to all the dreaming connection between Ibernia and Iberia, between Ireland and Spain. To those who know how often great events spring from little causes, it will not appear wonderful that the prox∣imity of the words Ibernia and Iberia has converted the ancient history of Ireland into a mass of folly never mentioned but with laughter. What foolish ideas did not the Iberi of Asia, and those of Spain, lead even sensible ancients into! Strabo, and others, thought the former sprung from the later: Pliny and others, on the contrary, thought that the Iberi of Spain proceeded from those in Asia. Etymology, and approximation of names, one would imagine, were two rocks of Syrens in the ocean of literature, that deprived even sensible writers of common understanding. For is any matter so sim∣ple, so universally known, as that identic names will happen from mere falls of letters, and from the greatest variety of causes? Did Pendennis in Asia Minor bear the same origin as Pendennis in Corn∣wall? Cannot a hundred instances be given of identic names, in languages that have no relation? And in the same languages, is not the same word often used in various meanings; and the same name given to nations of quite distinct origins, because it implies some common quality? I assent to Pelloutier that the name Iberi is from the

Gothic, Uber, beyond; but think that the Goths of Asia gave it to their own brethren Beyond the mountains, that run between them and the Iberi of Asia; and those of Gallia Bracata also gave the very same name to quite a different people Beyond the Pyrenees. We term the Scotish high∣landers, Mountaineers, and the Swiss Moun∣taineers; and if, in the simplicity of ancient times, Mountaineers had become a national term, it might have been argued that the Swiss and Highlanders were of one name and origin. No writer of the smallest pretension to common rationality ever ought to found any thing on etymology or identity of distant names; and too strong detestation can∣not be exprest against this childish frenzy, which has tainted and utterly spoilt innumerable works of this century, and corrupted them into mas∣ses of learned madness, the disgrace, mortifica∣tion, and contempt of human reason.

The Roman names of Ireland, Hibernia, Iverne, Ierne, are now thought to have sprung from the Cumraig, or old British Yverdon, or Western Ile; tho perhaps from the Gothic Uber-Ey, or Iber-Ey, 'the further iland,' in respect to Britain. The indigenal name Erin has the same meaning; but the Romans received the name from the Britons. The old etymology of Iberni from Iberi is accord∣ingly now abandoned on all hands. But it deserves notice, that there was a tribe called peculiarly Iverni, in the south of Ireland, as appears from the Palatine MS. which contains the genuine text of Ptolemy, far more free from corruptions than any other. The common editions bear Uterni; but that Iverni is the genuine reading is clear from the Palatine MS. and from Richard of Ciren∣cester. It may therefore be argued, that as the Gallic, and other merchants, would naturally touch at the South of Ireland, and enquire the name of the first people they traded with, the name of this

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

tribe might come to be given to the iland. This derivation is indeed as probable as any other; and in a matter so uncertain, every one may follow his own mind. Of what extract these Iverni were, it is difficult to say. Their town was Ivernis, or, as we would say, Inverness, upon the river Iernus, now Kenmare. To the East of them were the Vodii: to the North-west, the Luceni and Velabri. Iver, or Inver, is not unfrequent in Scandinavian and German names of places; but as no such people as Iverni can be found in Britain, Gaul, or Spain, it is impossible to determine the origin of the Iverni. To the Luceni and Velabri, on the West of them, similar names are found on the North of Spain: the Luceni, or Lucenses, of Lucus, now Lugo in Gallicia, (Plin. III. 3.) and the Velienses, of Biscay (ib.) The Auteri of Ireland approxi∣mate to the Autrigones of Biscay (ib.) The Gangani of Ireland, Camden and Ware derive from the Concani in Spaini 1.9. There were also Caucenses in present Leon of Spain, as there were Cau••i in Ire∣land; but the Caucenses were but the inhabitants of Cauca, a small inland town; so that they are as much out of the question, as the Caucones of Pon∣tus. Ptolemy mentions seven towns in Ireland; two Rhegias, Rhaiba, Laberus, Macolicum, Du∣num, Ivernis. Of all which names i can find no trace in ancient Spain. He also gives fifteen rivers; Logia, Argita, Vidua, Ravius, Libnius, Ausoba, Senus, Dur, Iernus, Daurona, Bargus, Mo∣donus,

Oboca, Buvinda, Vindarius; and three iles, Odrus, Limnus, and Ricina. Of these names i only find a river Durus in Spain; and there was also a Durius in Devonshire, and Durius in Italy; as there was a Deva, or Dee, in Asturia. There was a river Bargus that fell into the Hebrus. (Pliny IV. 11). Of all the names therefore given us by Ptolemy, the Luceni, Velabri, and Auteri, alone approximate to the Spanish names, Lucenses, Ve∣lienses, and Autrigones. But there were also Leuci and Leuaci; Velo-cassi; and Atrebates; names as similar in Belgic Gaul. Autricum was a city of the Carnuntes. Velavia, or De Veluwe, is the ancient name of a large part of Guelderland. And the pro∣bability is much in favour of the Belgic names, for three reasons.

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

Nor can any Cantabric, or Iberian words be found in the Irish language; while it abounds with Gothic terms. For the spe∣cimen of Lloyd only shews the dissimilarity of the very words he chuses; and he might have easily found more English words, or German words, with greater resemblance of the Cantabric, than

the Irish, if his whims had turned that wayk 1.10. The Japanese, as has lately been shewn, bears more resemblance to the Irish, than the Cantabric does; and if one seeks resemblance of single words, in this way, one is sure to find them; for it would be a miracle indeed, if out of 60,000 words, all pro∣duced by the same organs, there were not 100 alike, in any two languages whatever l 1.11. It will therefore, upon the whole, not be accounted rash to say, that there is not the slightest proof to be found that any colonies ever came from Spain to Ireland: but that, as such events always leave traces behind them, and none such are to be found in ancient writers, nor in the language of the peo∣ple, there is firm reason to infer the contrary.

On the continent, an antiquary is a man, who examines ancient matters upon ancient authorities,

and solid reasoning. In Britain an antiquary is a visionary, who details superficial dreams to the public, upon no ancient authority at all, and upon the most silly and irrational ratiocination. Hence what no foreign antiquary, what no man of sound learning, would even imagine, has been seriously advanced among us lately; to wit, that the Phoe∣nicians settled colonies in the south of Britain, and in Ireland! That traces of the Phoenician lan∣guage may be found in that of the Wild Irish! Seriously this is too bad! this is pushing learned folly to an extreme degree! Do reflect, sweet gentleman dablers, that the Phoenicians were a people equal to the Greeks and Romans in every art, and refinement. That the traces of their colonies in Africa, in Spain, are fixt, and deci∣sive; and throw light all around them. That, if they had held even the smallest settlement in Bri∣tain, or Ireland, so striking a circumstance, so dis∣tinguished a mark of their extended power and na∣vigation, could never have escaped all the ancient writers. It is well known that the Phoenicians traded to Britain and Ireland, from their Spanish colonies, perhaps a thousand years before our aera. Strabo tells us, they imported to Britain earthen vessels, salt, iron and copper goods; and exported skins, but above all tin; and Diodorus Siculus informs us that it was the people of Cape Belerium (Cornwall) that digged the tin. From Ireland they could only export skins; certainly a branch of commerce that no nation ever thought of settling for, when the supply depended on the hunting, &c. of all the inhabitants of the country. Had the Phoenicians settled in any part of Britain or Ireland, their usual splendor would have attended them. A few Phoenician coins may perhaps be found in Britain and Ireland, a circumstance na∣turally to be expected from their trading there; but, had there been any settlements, there would have been ruins, and numerous coins struck at the

settlement, as at all those in Spain. But not to waste time in answering the dreams of folly, the total silence of all the ancients on this head is a complete negation. The proximity of the Gaelic to the Phoenician is no greater than that of the Gaelic to the Japanese, or to the Shilhic, or to the Malayan, as we now know from specimens of all. It is perfectly understood by every man of the least reading, that any two given languages will afford such specimens. A learned German has shewn, that all tongues whatever have such resem∣blances. It is the grammar, and form, and whole mass of a language; not a similarity of a few words, that is the criterion. The Irish being a language quite in the dark, no wonder that it appears a bear, a tyger, a calf, a lion, a man, a ghost, or what you please, in the midnight around it. Let us await with patience till other antiquaries with new whims find Japanese, African, Malayan, Tar∣tarian colonies in Ireland; and then the cool reader will answer them all at once, with the single word nonsense.

Having now, it is hoped, past the morasses of folly, let us proceed on solid ground. The reader has seen that the first population of Ireland was, in every probability, from Gaul. The Wild Irish, confessedly the original inhabitants, call themselves Gael, and their speech Gaelic. Caesar informs us, that Kelts was the indigenal name; Gauls, a name given by the Romans. It is therefore apparent that the primitive Irish called themselves Kelts, and their speech Keltic: and i am told there are woods in Ireland, called Coit Keltich, or Keltic Woods, at this day. The origin of names is quite uncertain, and especially in the Celtic language, which is so lax, vague, and indefinite: but a ques∣tion arises, how the wild Irish droped the indigenal name Kelts, and assumed the Roman appellation, Gael, or Gauls? On many occasions, as is well known, nations and societies exchange the name

they give themselves, for a general foreign term, tho even of reproach. Thus sprang the names of Arabs, Quakers, Hugonots, &c. Indeed this is necessarily the case, for it is needless to retain a name only known to a particular nation, or so∣ciety, while all its neighbours concur in giv∣ing it another; and it is forced, in every inter∣course with it's neighbours, to adopt the general term. There is a confusion of words in the Celtic language, naturally arising from the confused and misty ideas, well known to be peculiar to the peo∣ple. Thus the most opposite terms almost coa∣lesce: Ear is the East, Iar is the West: Gal is a foreigner, Gaël, a native. The confusion arising from this proximity may easily be guest. Galli, or foreigners, must have been the name originally given by the Celts to the Germans, who poured into their country. Gaël seems the word which the Greeks, who in their musical language perverted all foreign names sadly, altered to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Celtic G is indeed so sharply pronounced, that it approaches to K. Gaël and Kelt may therefore be the same word, differently pronounced; while the Roman Gallus may be Gal, a foreigner. If this be granted, the question is answered. But if Kelt, actually so pronounced, was the old indigenal term, and Gael be Gallus, the Roman appellation; the name must have been assumed from the Ro∣mans in Britain. To the former opinion i rather incline; for the Irish language was much softened by the bards, as all their antiquaries agree: and Ghaëlt may have been the old name softened by Greek and Roman pronunciation to Kelt, and by the progress of the Irish language to Gaël.

The first colonies that followed the Gauls to Ire∣land, seem to have been from Britain. Lloyd tells us the general tradition among the Welch, that the Cumri expelled the Guidhil from Britain into Ireland, a tradition confirmed by several of the oldest names of rivers, mountains, &c. in

England and Wales being Gaelic, not Cumraig. The Celts of Gaul may be infallibly concluded, from proximity, to have been the first tenants of Britain. The Cumri, or German Celts, seem to have arrived at a much later period: and in all probability in consequence of the Gothic progress from the east. The Cumri, or Northern Celts, were far superior to the Gallic Celts in prowess; as is clear from their conquest of Gaul in the time of Marius; not to speak of the constant superior hardiness of northern nations. The Guidhil, or Gael, fled before them; and Ireland received them. Population was then very thin; but perhaps as many Gaël proceeded on this occasion to Ireland, as had formerly passed from Gaul. They were one identic people with the first colonies, who, no doubt, with open arms received such a reinforce∣ment of brethren. This event closed the original population of Ireland: and the Wild Irish are thus partly from Gaul, partly from Britain.

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

So much for the Celtic, or savage, colonization of Ireland. We now come to the colonies of rude Goths, then a barbarous people, but always ad∣vancing in society, while the Celts remained as they were. A barbarous people is indeed as much superior to a savage one, as a civilized to a bar∣barous.

Savage nations were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Greeks, the Feri of the Romans; while the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Barbari, they some••imes gave to nations as polished as themselves. Of savages there can be no history; while that of barbarians is often preserved; and is most interesting, as it marks the history of man, the progress of society. As the history of North America, is the history, not of the savage natives, but of the English there; so the history of Europe is that of the Goths in Europe; that of Ireland is that of the Goths in Ireland.

That the Goths had arrived at the extremity of Germany, and penetrated into Gaul, about 500 years before our aera, is shewn in the annexed Dissertation. That the Belgae, a part of these Gorths, had past to Britain, and peopled all the south and east of present England, is clear from Caesar, who came to Britain 54 years before the Christian epoch. From the full state of that popu∣lation, and other incidents mentioned by Caesar, it seems certain that not less than two, or three, centuries could possibly effect it; and it may there∣fore be safely argued, that the Belgae had begun to colonize Britain, at least 300 years before Christ's birth. That they had past to Ireland much about the same time may be thus shewn. From Ptolemy's description of Ireland, written about 150 years after Christ, it is clear that the Menapii, a people of the coast of Belgic Gaul, held at that time large possessions in the south of Ireland; as did the Cauci, a people of Germany, originally on the coast north of the Rhine. Now it seems certain that these nations could not have past to Ireland either in Roman times, or even in times of which the memory was recent, when Caesar came to Britain. For Caesar, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Mela, Pliny, Tacitus, who all describe Ireland, Gaul, Germany, could never have been silent about this event, while they so

minutely detail the origins of any nations that they could discover. Commerce rendered Ireland well known to the Romans of Ptolemy's time, as is clear from his geography of it, which is very accu∣rate for the age. Tacitus indeed observes that, in his time, the ports of Ireland were more visited by merchants, than those of Britain: the cause of which seems to me to have been, that the commer∣cial articles of Britain were now consumed by the home-trade of the Romans, actually living in Bri∣tain, so that merchants applied to Ireland for the skins, &c. The imports must also have been much lessened; because the Roman manufacturers supplied the natives with copper and iron, earthen ware, &c. while the consumption of those articles in Ireland, where there were no Roman manufac∣turers, must have remained in full force. By this trade with Ireland that country, in Ptolemy's time, was as much known to the Romans, as Japan, or any country traded to by Europeans, is to us. Had the Menapii and Cauci past from Germany and Belgic Gaul to Ireland, in Roman times, it seems impossible that this event could escape so many writers. Pliny in particular, that curious investigator, had served in Germany, and written Twenty Books on the German Wars, before he began his Natural History, yet had not heard of this colonization. Caesar, who describes Ireland, Gaul, and Germany, knew nothing of it, tho from his work it be plain that he was verst in the traditional history of the Gauls and Germans. I be∣lieve it will therefore be granted that this coloni∣zation must have been much more ancient than Caesar's time; and, that if we allow it to have hap∣pened two or three centuries before that time, we shall be as near the truth as possible in a case of this kind. The Belgae, and the Cauci their neigh∣bours, seeing the success of their brethren in Bri∣tain, woud naturally be instigated to similar ex∣cursions. The passage to Ireland was longer, but

the acquisition easier, as the Cumri or Northern Celts of Britain were the victors of those very Gael, or Southern Celts, who held Britain. The Goths had in Britain to encounter the victors: in Ireland the vanquished. As this was the case, perhaps the Gothic settlement in Ireland even preceded that in Britain; for such affairs do not proceed on a fanciful mechanism. But as no cer∣tainty can ever be acquired on either side in this question, it seems most proper, with the allow∣ance usually made in such cases, to date both events about one and the same time, 300 years before our aera.

That the Menapii and Cauci were not the only Belgic or German nations, that then passed to Ire∣land, there is every reason to infer. In Britain there were Belgae proper, and many tribes of Belgae with various names, not found on the con∣tinent. In Ireland the Eblani, on the north of the Cauci proper, seem a Caucic tribe. The Luceni seem to have been of the Leuaci, who lay next to the Menapii in Belgic Gaul; Leuac and Luc being similar, and en only the German plural. The Au∣teri may have been Atrebates; also a people near the Menapii, in their original seats. The Vela-bri may have been of the Velo-cassi on the shore of Belgic Gaul, the last syllables being varied epi∣thets. The Vodii apparently bear a German namem 1.12: and the Iverni from their situation and name seem to have been Belgae. Mr. O'Conor allows that hardly one of Ptolemy's names admits of a Celtic derivation; and the probable inference is, that the chief nations were not of Celtic origin. The greater part of Ireland was certainly subdued by the Belgae; and rude towns and forts erected by them to maintain the conquest. The Celts, having

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

now no further refuge, could not fly from the con∣queror; but remained the numerous population of the ile; and their language of course in time prevailed. But the power of the Belgae even Irish history and tradition imply. For Bolg signi∣fies to this day a nobleman, and also a man of science; and there are many old fortified hills still called Dun Bolg, or forts of the Belgae.

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

Thus were the Belgae and German Goths estab∣lished in the south of Ireland. A most curious and important question now arises, namely, if any Scandinavian Goths seized on the north of

Ireland in early times? This is a hinge upon which the whole history of Ireland turns.

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

What seems totally to negative the question at first is, that there is no mention of the Scan∣dinavians, of any Danes or Norwegians in Ireland, before the eighth century, in Tighernac, the annals of Ulster, or other authentic documents of real Irish history. In Cumineus, Adomnan, writers of the seventh century, not a trace of Scandinavian invasion can be found. The prophecies of Co∣lumba could hardly pass such an evil, had he foreseen what had never happened. Gildas, Nen∣nius, Beda, are also quite silent. Sir James Ware therefore rightly says, that, in 795, primum, for the FIRST time, the Northern nations infested Ire∣land, as the Irish annals bear. It may be thought that as the Piks came from Norway to the He∣budes; and entered upon their conquest of pre∣sent Scotland on that side about 300 years before Christ; their Gothic brethren of Norway and Denmark might naturally be imagined to have made other incursions that way. But history does not bear such analogical reasoning; and human affairs proceed not upon mechanical, or upon the∣oretic, principles. In fact the effect was in this instance destructive of the cause. For the Pikish and Danish colonies were so large, that they may well be inferred to have exhausted the Scandina∣vian

population so much as to leave no occasion for emigration, for a long time. This was the case with the Angli, Saxons, &c. In ancient times the Lydians, as Herodotus states, formed an emigration of one half of the nation; but no more Lydians went to Hetruria afterward. The Danes were themselves but a late Scandinavian colony; and their population must have been a long time only sufficient for their own territory. The Vitae and Angli seem the first colony they sent out; and that only in the fifth and sixth centuries. They are therefore out of the question. The Scandinavians were exhausted by the Pikish and Danish colonies. The former they might also, in these dark ages, regard as possest of all the iles on the west, and have of course no temptation to invade their own countrymen. Certain it is, that no trace can be found of Danes, or Norwegians, invading Scotland, till the ninth century. Nor a single trace in all the Irish annals of any northern nations, by any name whatever, assailing Ireland till 795. About 210 years after Christ, as ap∣pears from the Pikish chronicle, a large colony of Piks settled in the north of Ireland; and they are remarkable to a late period in Irish annals, &c. by the name of Cruthneans, the Irish term for the Piks. They had their own kings, and are a marked people, till the ninth century. Had any Scandinavians been in that tract, there is reason to question if the Piks could have effected a set∣tlement. It is indeed no wonder that the Scan∣dinavian sagas and histories, silent about the Piks, Vitae and Angli, should be silent about this; and if any saga should speak of invasions of Ireland or Scotland, prior to the eighth century, no cre∣dit can be paid to those pieces written many cen∣turies after, and in which early chronology is quite confounded. Concerning Prolemy's names of na∣tions in the north of Ireland, Darnii (or D••mnii, as Richard from older and better MSS. reads), Ve∣nicnii,

Robogdii, Nagnati, Erdini, i have consulted a learned Northern antiquary, who informs m•• that they are not Scandinavian names. Had the Scandinavians made any invasions on Ireland, they would also, as in later times, have attacked the western shores of Britain; while there is not a hint of this to be found in Roman writers, who only mention the Scots of Ireland as invading the western shore, and Saxons the east. It may fluc∣tuate in the minds of some, that as the Piks, 300 years before Christ, came from Scandinavia to the Hebudes, and thence conquered and peopled pre∣sent Scotland; so it seems probable that other in∣vaders would follow that tract to the north of Ire∣land, long before the year 795 after Christ. But the fact is, that this same large colony of Piks would be, of necessity, the very cause of prevent∣ing similar invasions in that course, till the me∣mory of it had expired. For Caledonia, and the north of Ireland, were filled with Piks, or, in other words, with Scandinavians, which no doubt the Scandinavians perfectly knew from the inter∣course of single ships, or trading vessels. So that they would never think of attacking their country∣men, till length of time had extinguished all such considerations. In future times they did not at∣tack Iceland, lately colonized, but Scotland, whose connexion was lost. It may be said that England presents an exception to this remark, the Angli having only arrived in 547, and being at∣tacked by the Danes in the beginning of the ninth century. But the Angli, tho of Scandina∣vian origin, as the Danes, were quite a distinct nation, not only from the ancient Danes, but from the Iutes, their northern neighbours. The Iutes had their own kings; and so had the Angli; as appears from Suhm's history of Denmark, and other works. So late as 830, Regnar Lodbrog, king of Denmark, was occupied in conquering the Iutes. The Angli were still more remote from

Denmark than the Iutes. The Danes, in attack∣ing the Angli of Britain, warred against a people always distinct from themselves: while the Scan∣dinavians and Piks were divisions of the same identic people. Besides the cases are, in another view, not parallel: for the Angli were only the conquerors who settled among the inhabitants of Northumbria, and were soon lost among the in∣habitants. The Piks, on the contrary, were the people of Caledonia. The Piks formed a great colony; and doubtless, as the Islandic, brought wives and family with them, or sent for them when the ground was secured. Like the Lydians of Hetruria, they may have been a vast discon∣tented party, or indeed like many modern colo∣nies. On the first arrival of the Goths in Scandi∣navia, as they had enemies to subdue, they must have proceeded in armies, and have formed large states under one government, as appears from Ta∣citus in his account of the Suiones or Danes, and Sitones or Swedes; all the former of whom obeyed one king, the later one queen. Of course, in these early times, the emigrating parties must have been very large, and in proportion to the states. But in time, when the danger of the grand Ge∣neric foe, as the Fins for instance, was abated, the warlike spirit of the Goths broke out often among themselves, and split them into numerous petty kingdoms and states; as we know was the case in Norway till the ninth century, and in Denmark and Sweden, tho not quite so long. In Britain the Piks were kept together, from constant danger of the Cumri, their southern neighbours; so we learn of no divisions among them, save con∣tentions for the crown. But in Scandinavia the Fins being driven beyond the Bothnic gulf, and the Vends inhabiting only the south of the Baltic, the Goths were secure from Generic foes, and often immersed in domestic wars, and split into con∣tending states. Those domestick wars weakened

them much, till seven or eight centuries after Christ, when monarchs of superior talents subdued the rest, and formed again into one powerful state, what security from foreign foes had divided, soon after the Generic foe was subdued. Attention to all these circumstances becomes necessary to form a proper judgment upon this question. The rea∣der must reflect on the three grand stages of Scan∣dinavian government:

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

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

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

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

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

It is shewn, in the annexed Dissertation, that SCYTHAE was the grand generic name of the furthest Germans on the west. And that SCOT is synony∣mous with SCYTH, and was the name originally, and generically, borne by the Belgae and Germans, who conquered Ireland, will appear from the fol∣lowing arguments.

• 1. All the Irish accounts bear, that the Scots landed in the south of Ireland, and from thence subdued the old inhabitants; a de∣scription only applicable to the Belgae and Ger∣mans.
• 2. The Scots infested Britain from the eastern shore of Ireland; which, we know from Ptolemy, was held by the Germans and Belgae.
• 3. The Celts of Gaul and of Britain were easily subdued by the Romans; and gave them no fur∣ther disturbance. The Scots of Ireland were ever making incursions into the Roman provinces; a conduct not at all according with the Celtic cha∣racter.
• 4. King Alfred, in his translation of Beda, and an Anglo-Belgic poem on the Danish wars in the Cotton Libraryn 1.13, with other writers of that time, use Scytisc for Scotish familiarly; so that Scyt and Scot were synonymous: and the only Scythae implied must be the Belgae and Germans; for the Piks of the north of Ireland, are out of the question, not settling there till about A. D. 210, long after the Scotish monarchy was established in Ireland; and being possessed of but one corner.
• 5. By all the Irish accounts the Scots were the people who came last to Ireland on the south, before Christianity; and vanquished the old in∣habitants: a description only applicable to the Belgae and Germans. Late Irish writers distin∣guish the Belgae, or Fir-Bolg, from the Scots; but represent the later as leagued with the former in vanquishing the Tuath de Dannan. The Fir Bolg were a part of the Scots, as the Angli were of the Goths, who came to England. The mention

• of a particular name argues not that name to be of a different generic people.
• 6. The Irish writers uniformly say that the Scots were Scythians, and so Nennius tells us expressly; and the Belgae and Germans were the only Scythians we find at the time in Ireland; so that the Belgae and Germans must have been the Scots.

Diodorus Siculus re∣peatedly names the very country from whence the Cauci went, 'Scythia above Gaul;' as shewn in the Dissertation added. If we deny the Scots to have been Scythians, we must reject all the Irish accounts, ancient and modern. But, if Scythians, they could only come from the Scythic territories in Germany and Gaul. For the Gothic colonies in the north of Spain are out of the question, the Gothic nations in Ireland identifying their Belgic and German origin by their names, Menapii, Cauci, &c. Other arguments might be addedo 1.14, but it is believed that these may suffice to shew that the Scots were those Scythae, namely the Belgae and Germans, who vanquished Ireland. The reason why Nennius, and other writers of the middle ages, who expressly tell us, that the Scots were Scythae, yet represent them as coming from Spain, was that absurd etymology of Ibernia from Iberia. But it is now granted on all hands that Hibernia is a name arising from the western situation of this fine iland; and that Scotia is an appellation arising from the Scots settling in it. So that this opinion of the Scots having come from Spain, or Iberia, sprung from a ridiculous etymology; and is be∣neath all notice, being of a piece with the Brutus of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The names of the Scotish kings in Ireland are also Gothic, not Celtic.

Such is Leogaire the first Christian king, for who is ignorant that Leogaire is also the name of a Francic king; and is a German name, Leof-gard, 'a keeper of love,' as Leopold, Leonard, &c.? Some of the names of Scotish or Irish kings are no doubt Celtic epithets, given them by their peo∣ple; but others are mere Gothic names. Such are Conary, or Conrad, Hugh, Hugony; Nial is quite a Gothic name, familiar in Runic monuments, and Icelandic sagas. Are not the O'Brians from the Briani of Belgic Gaul? The Celtic language changes almost all words to it's own form; and even in the Irish bible the names are forced to be changed and accommodated to that odd speech. Thus Alexander can only be put Alisdair; Adam is Adhamh; Andrew is Aindra; Bartholomew is Par∣tholan; Daniel is Donuil; David is Dabhi; Gideon, Gide-eon; James, Semis; John, Eoin; Peter, Phedair; Samuel, Somhairle: &c. &c. &c. Such being the case, the strange perversion of Gothic names in the Celtic language is easily accounted for. My present subject forbids my entering at full length into this point; but from perusal of the Annals of Ulster i am fully convinced that the names of not only the Irish monarchs, but of most of the provincial king∣lets, are Gothic.

But long before Christianity was settled in Ire∣land, perhaps indeed before the birth of Christ, the Scots, or Scythae, who conquered Ireland, had lost their speech in that of the greater number of the Celts, the common people, as usually hap∣pens. From England and Scotland the Celts had crouded to the west, and vast numbers had past to Ireland. The mountainous north and west of Eng∣land, the friths of Scotland, had formed barriers between the Goths and Celts. But in Ireland, the grand and last receptacle of the Celts, and whither almost their whole remains finally flowed, it is no wonder that the Gothic conquerors, the Scots, lost their speech in that of the population.

In Britain, the Celts who remained were much improved by Roman intercourse; and the supe∣riority of the Welch to the Irish Celts appears in the laws of Howel Dha, in their historic fables, in the superior accuracy of their language, and in the name they gave, and give, the Irish Celts, Guydhil, or Wild Men. Originally indeed the Northern Celts, or Cumri, were superior to the Southern, or Gael, in strength of mind and body; as the conquests of the former over the later prove. The Wild Irish are at this day known to be some of the veriest savages in the globe; and seem by nature intended as a medial race between beasts and men. The chief families in Ireland, and the industrious and civilized part of the people, are all of Gothic descent, as Scots, Danes, Norwe∣gians, and laterly English and modern Scots. What interest they can have therefore in support∣ing the Celtic visions, which, far from honouring, really disgrace their country, it were difficult to say; did not we see national prejudice, another name for national madness, often swallow up every spark of discernment. The English, till the present century, were fighting for the Welch anti∣quities, as doing honour to their nation; and the Scots are following the same tract to this day. The bards, and sennachies, authors of all this perdition to the history of Great Britain and Ire∣land, were strollers of the genuine Celtic breed.

So much for the origin of the Scotsp 1.15; and i beg leave to subjoin a hint or two concerning the

early Irish history, which is that of the Scots, or Goths in Ireland. That they subdued Ireland with united arms, and divided it as usual among their chiefs and soldiers, is apparent from all Irish writers ancient and modern; and inferable from others, as Orosius, Beda, &c. who represent Ire∣land as fully possest by the Scots. The nature of the acquisition would, in all likelihood, render the several divisions monarchic; and one monarch or other would be acknowledged superior; as, we learn from Caesar, was the case among the states of Gaul. In other countries, vanquished by the Goths, the Celts totally retired apart, as did the Welch when the Saxons came here; and the vic∣tors sometimes formed monarchies, sometimes re∣publics; being all freemen, and having no con∣quered subjects to keep under. But in Ireland, that grand refuge of Celtic population, the states could not be republican, as three quarters of the subjects could form no part of the government; so that it must in all appearance have remained military, that is monarchic. In this all the Irish accounts agree; and in 432, when Patrick went to Ireland, we find Leogaire Rex Hiberniae, king of Ireland by eminence. The idea asserted by Maitland, and some others, that Leogaire was the first king of this supreme title, is chi••dish and in∣vidious. We might as justly reject all the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian annals, prior to Chris∣tianity's

being established in those countries. How far back the kings of Ireland can be named with certainty, becomes not me to say, who have not seen the original documents. This is therefore submitted to the antiquaries of that kingdom. Mr. O'Conorq 1.16 dates the commencement of the genuine list at the establishment of the palace of supreme royalty, at Emania in Ulster, seven gene∣rations, or about 210 years, before our aera. The Pagan period of Irish history seems to fall into two divisions; The OBSCURE, from the arrival of the Scots, till the reign of Tuathal the Acceptable, about 137 years after Christ: and The DAWNING, from the reign of Tuathal, till Patrick's arrival in 432, after which all is clear. Mr. O'Conorr 1.17 re∣marks that Tuathal's reign forms a new and cer∣tain epoch in the progress of Irish history. Fo∣reigners may imagine that it is granting too much to the Irish to allow them lists of kings more an∣cient than of any other country in modern Europe: but the singularly compact and remote situation of that iland, and it's freedom from Roman con∣quest, and from the concussions of the fall of the Roman empire, may infer this allowance not too much. But all contended for, is the list of kings, so easily preserved by the repetition of bards at high solemnities; and some grand events of history. For to expect a certain detail, and regular order, in the pagan history of Ireland, were extravagant. The Irish antiquists will, on the other hand, ex∣claim against this rejection of so many fables, which they call, and perhaps, if the human mind can be so debased, really think history. Mr. O'Conor says that the period from Tuathal to Leogaire is the most useful and important of the whole heathen history of Ireland. In which he is certainly right: and the traditions and bardish rhymes, with the early attention of the Irish, after

conversion, to such learning as was then in vogue, promise considerably veracity to this last pagan pe∣riod. Sir James Ware was confessedly ignorant of the Irish language; so that his rejection of all the pagan history of Ireland was at best rash. But indeed the Irish writers, like the dog in the fable, lose the substance, by grasping at the shadow: and their falsehoods are so wild, that it is no wonder they nauseate the public against the whole. The claim of letters in Ireland, preceding Christianity, is alone sufficient to cause the rejection of the whole early history of that country, by all the literati of Europe: and he who asserts such a glaring false∣hood is the bitterest enemy of his country, and in his madness disgraces, when he means to honour. But it is the duty of a cool enquirer after truth not to allow the frenzy of such writers to hurt any cause, which they either attack, or defend.

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

IT is with infinite concern, that toward the close of the Eighteenth century, i am forced to contend against modern errors in Scotish antiqui∣ties, that would have disgraced the Thirteenth. Superficiality is the parent of error: and in anti∣quities, a subject requiring the utmost labour, and most profound and exuberant reading, it is no wonder that the fruit of superficiality is monstrous. Classical learning, as it is called, that is, a little dabbling in Greek and Roman classics, has in all ages formed the sum total of Scotish literature. In the present especially, even our little learning has gradually lessened; and philosophy, or really reasoning ignorance, supplies it's place. If philo∣sophy has not extinguished common sense among us, we must know that human history proceeds upon no theoretic principles, but upon facts

eternally contradictive of all theory; and that these facts can only be found in ancient authorities. To judge of antiquities upon a slight acquaintance with the classics, and with philosophic theory, is so absurd, that to mention such an idea is to ex∣cite laughter. Yet it is a lamentable truth, that such is the plan of examining Scotish origins, among all our writers of this century, save Innes. The authors of the middle ages, the genuine foun∣tains of information, are not even known by name to our puerile scribblers. The gold of truth, which is hid deep in the soil, they look for upon the sur∣face of classic reading, and in the open day of phi∣losophy. Antiquities, the severest of all studies in learned countries, are in mine the amusement, as they call it, of mere boys, who would any where else be sent to school. Puerile errors have begot puerile prejudices; and, in the frenzy of those prejudices against a respectable nation, the Irish, it is risible to see our antiquists forget that, even judging by those prejudices, it is more dis∣graceful to the Scots to have been the fathers of the Irish, than the contrary. For is it more dishonour∣able to have a foolish father, or a foolish son?

It is needless to enter into any discussion of that absurd question, Whether the old Scots proceeded from Ireland to North Britain, or from North Bri∣tain to Ireland? That progress is detailed in the two following chapters. All that can be said to our Scotish antiquists is, Read: and read as on any other subject, without prejudice. A few hints shall however be given, after premising that the origin of the PRESENT Scots, or people so called after the Eleventh century, is not here discussed, but reserved for after-consideration. It is that of the old Scots in Britain, otherwise called Dalriads, which is here examined. The origin of the opi∣nion that the old Scots proceeded to Ireland from North Britain, may well be supposed Celtic, that is in the inverse ratio of reason, and is accordingly

to be first found in Lloyd's Archaeologia, printed in 1707, tho only in general terms concerning the progress of the Guydhil, or Gaël, from Britain to Ireland. Dr. Mackenzie, in the preface to his Scotish Writers, published in 1708, greedily pur∣sued this scent; and, like a young hound, yelped much, but caught no prey. Gordon followed in a most impudent and lying section of his Itinerarium Septentrionale, London 1726, folio. Yet Innes, whose book was published in 1729, seems to have looked on this new opinion as beneath notice; for he says nothing of it. This favourite plant of ignorance still thrived, and assumed fresh vigour, in Maitland's History of Scotland, 1757; and in Goodal's Introduction to Fordun, 1759. And lastly the two Macphersons have dunged it afresh, in recent publications. In vain did Robert∣son and Hume testify against it. A new plan of investigating antiquities was introduced for Scot∣land exclusively. Other countries rest ancient facts totally upon ancient authorities; but for Scotland all authorities were to be cut down. The word of command was, "Put out the candles that we may see the clearer!"

It was my design to have laid before the reader a numerical abstract of all the arguments advanced by Maitland, Goodal, and the Macphersons, against the Irish extract of the old Scots of Britain; and to give answers in like order. But, after care∣ful and repeated perusal of those doughty cham∣pions, i was forced to relinquish the design, lest the reader should imagine that i was sporting at his ex∣pence; and fighting with shades of utter ignorance and folly, of my own creation, in order that my great wisdom should appear conspicuous in the victory. Another grand reason was that i really could not find one argument used by these writers, that would bear a repetition. To any man who, with Democritus, delights in laughing at the madness of mankind, there cannot be a greater

feast than the perusal of the Scotish and Irish con∣test on their origins. Much cunning upon one side, much weakness on the other, while that su∣preme goddess Ignorance sits umpire, and deals out her equal favours in the largest proportion to both parties. On the Irish side nothing can be charged, but a shameful credulity and obduracy in ancient fable. But our Scotish antiquists, ignorant themselves, and writing in a country remarkable for ignorance of antiquities, are like other rogues, emboldened by darkness; and venture on tricks, that the most unprincipled man of learning would, in a learned country, tremble at, as if the pillory stood before him. This censure may be thought severe; but Truth whispers me, that it is not suffi∣ciently severe for the occasion.

These four Scotish champions of falsehood have had the honour to introduce quite a new style of composition. The only arguments they use are of two kinds: 1. Railing against all ancient autho∣rities, which, by a madness unknown in any other country, they think they can confute! 2. Assertions totally false, and impudent. Far from being learned, they have not even those ideas which lead to learning; and thus their arguments, far from being accurate, are unscientific, nay irrational, and such as never were used before in any literary question whatever. Their heat is so extreme as to excite utter disgust; and to merit being repressed by all the indignation of insulted science. The Ossian Macpherson in particular uses a most extra∣vagant style. He says he has finally decided the question, a question of ancient facts and circum∣stances, from his dabling in modern Gaelic, while there is not one MS. in Gaelic upon the matter! A boy at school would know that a man may be able to speak, nay read, English; and yet not de∣cide upon English origins. But such are Celtic understandings! The style of the later writer is indeed peculiarly Celtic, hyperbolic, and bom∣bastic.

Genius in Ossian was well; but in a ques∣tion of this kind it is frenzy. The only powers of mind to be exerted are learning, clear and cool comprehension, veracity, and penetration. But Mr. Macpherson pretends to build a house with a sword: and he has only wounded himself. A book like his is indeed sufficient to decide a question; for if ignorance and falsehood be on one side, it follows that learning and truth will be on the other.

These strange writers have betrayed me into a style perhaps unworthy of my purpose, but which they deserve. Good manners are not to be shewn to all; else what difference between the worthy and unworthy part of society? Indignation belongs to virtue, and to science also. And how answer writers who childishly take the Hibernia of the an∣cients for Scotland; the Ierne of Greek and Ro∣man writers for Stratherne; the Mona of Caesar, for Aemona, in the frith of Forth; Tethyca valliss 1.18 for Menteith, &c. &c. &c.? May that power, from whom the holy right of reason springs, pre∣vent mine from being debased so far! Not content with assertions absolutely false, such as that the Highlanders call their country Caeldoch, that the Irish call their language Gaelich Eirinach, &c, &c. &c. they refer most falsely to authorities, which when examined, confute them: nay totally per∣vert, interpolate, and mangle those authorities which they quote. What name shall we apply to such practices, happily quite unknown in other countries? Indeed i am apt to think that, in some countries, the antiquaries form an exception to the

national character. My countrymen are deservedly noted for probity; their antiquaries are just the reverse. Their sacrifice of all truth, to what they call the honour of Scotland, is proverbial. Deluded men! Can any honour spring from falsehood? The people of England are solid and sensible; their antiquaries generally most visionary. The French are gay and frivolous; their antiquaries grave and solid. Let us then leave the lana caprina of confuting these writers to oblivion, that silent confuter of such attempts. Mr. Macpherson has been happily confuted by Mr. Whitaker, who has set nonsense against nonsense. For Ossian, and Richard of Cirencester, are the authors upon whom Mr. Whitaker confutes the father of Ossian. Ossian and La Morte Arthur, which last Mr. W. ranks against Gildas and Beda, and gives a long history of king Arthur from it, were just fit to produce that nonsense which would counterpoize any other nonsense. So that Mr. M. and Mr. W. and perfectly matched in judgement and skill; and we are much obliged to Mr. W. for proving to us that Mr. M's theory could not stand against non∣sense itself.

Risu solvantur tabulae, tu missus abibis.

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

One point deserves consideration. Mr. Macpher∣son has most ingenuously and ingeniously observed, that on the first mention of the Scots by Ammianus Marcellinus, at the year 360, we find them in Britain; and ergo the Scots were settled in Britain before they were in Ireland. By the same rule as Ammianus, at the year 369, mentions the Saxons in Britain, they were also settled in Britain. But the fact is, that Ammianus, in both places, is speak∣ing of the nations that invaded the Roman pro∣vinces

in Britain. This is a specimen of the argu∣ments of those Scotish antiquists; and the rest are of the same stamp; so that the reader may judge whether they deserve answer, or only laughter. Mr. M. is however forced to yield to that glaring and invincible truth, supported by all antiquity, that the name of Scotia was long borne by Ireland, before given to Scotland. The truth is, as after fully shewn in this work, that, from the Fourth Century to the Eleventh, the names Scotia and Scoti belonged solely to Ireland, and the Irish. In the reign of Malcom II. or take at a medium the middle of this reign, and say about the year 1020, the name Scotia was first applied to North Britain; but from its first appearance to that time, it belonged to Ireland alone. No foreigner has been misled by the pitiful prejudices and falsehoods of our Scotish dablers. Cellarius, Eccard, Schoep∣flin, D'Anville, the learned editors of the Histo∣riens de France, Suhm, &c. &c. &c. have all agreed in this point. But of this afterward. If therefore priority of name argues priority of pos∣session, the Scots must have come from Ireland to Scotland. But this inference is not beyond con∣troversy. For the people may have gone from Scotland to Ireland, some will say; and the name of Scots have been there given them, yet after∣ward, by some strange contingence, have reverted to the parent country. That such a contingence is quite unknown to any other history, would not be a sufficient answer, for analogy, tho useful in such cases, is not absolute proof. If any writer were to attempt to prove that Greece, far from being the parent country of Magna Graecia, was actually peopled from it, in what way is he to be confuted? The probability is indeed equal on both sides (to speak for once as a Scotish antiquist), and the grand mark, that of identic language, may be applied either way. It is certain therefore that the only information we can have on this, or

any other subject of ancient history, is that de∣rived from ancient authorities; and in this pe∣culiar and great instance, from the Tradition of the people themselves. Now all writers, English, Scotish, and Irish, from Beda down to this supersicial century, agree in this point, that the Ancient Scots of North Britain were a colony from Ireland. And in all ages the Scotish highlanders have assented: and the lowlanders, from Barbour in 1375, to this moment, call the highlanders Irishry, and their language Irish, Erish, or Erse. This clear inference is fully confirmed by all the ancient accounts of the progress of the old Scots in Britain, now about to be detailed; and is so firmly rooted in the whole ancient history of Britain and Ireland, that nothing but ignorance joined with frenzy could attempt to shake it. Indeed igno∣rance, the deepest ignorance, was necessary to such an attempt; for profound ignorance judges of others by itself; and thinks that dark and dubi∣ous to all, which is dark and dubious to itself alone, while others see it in the brightest day. An ignorant man will talk of opinion in the mathe∣matics, because he can form no idea how certain they are. Opinion is the safe harbour of ignorance; and a benighted mind flies to it as a covert from utter shame. He who would call it matter of opinion, whether the Greeks proceeded from Magna Graecia, or to it, would be regarded as a mere ignorant; and the progress of the old Scots from Ireland, is far more clear, and rests upon more numerous grounds than the former. Before i had in the least examined this subject, i saw it in the dark, and thought it doubtful; nay really bellived, from general theory, that the Irish Scots had past from Scotland. When i had exa∣mined it, i saw that i had been totally wrong; and that the contrary was from ancient writers, and innumerable other lesser lights and cir∣cumstances, only acquirable in a thorough exami∣nation, as clear as day. Let those who doubt

therefore only read, and examine, with a mere desire of knowing the truth, and satisfying their own minds; and no arguments need be used. The proofs are so numerous, clear, and consistent, that they afford a perfect blaze of truth; as many small lights will, at night, make a chamber as bright as noon.

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

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* 1.19.'

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

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Antiquitates Eccl. Brit. in 1639, was a bitter enemy of the Scotish fables; and in his zeal denied that the Scots were settled in Britain till 503. 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 shewsa 1.20, from his zeal against the antiquity of the Scots in Britain, and his wish to appropriate to the Irish Scots all the actions against the Romans; so that he denies all settlement of the Scots in Britain till 503. And, in his "Vindication of Ogygia against Sir G. Mackenzie," he insists that the Dalreudini were only settled in the north-east corner of Ireland, till a part passed in 503 to Scotland. Still later Irish writers have, it is believed, in their prejudice against Scotish antiquity, followed the fame tract; but from the greater candour of others the truth has appeared in this century.

Kennedy, whose bookb 1.21 was published at Paris 1705, and tho brief, is the most accurate known on Irish history, as he generally quotes MS. page, and column, first laid open the fact, that a colony of Scots, under Riada, settled in Pikland. He tells us, p. 104, "Our books of antiquity, giving an account at large of the children and race of Conar Mac Mogalama king of Ireland, mention that he had three sons, Carbre Musc, Carbre Baskin, and Carbre Riada: and that the first was by another name Aengus; the second Olfill; and the third Eocha." And p. 107, "Our writers unanimously tell us that Carbre Riada was the founder of the Scotish sovereignty in Britain; but they make him only a captain, as venerable Beda does, or conductor, who ingratiated himself so

far with the Picts, by his and his childrens 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 adonec 1.22.

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 Degadsd 1.23 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

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 numbere 1.24, '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

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 authorityf 1.25.'

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

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

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

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 Pikishg 1.26 still they are the immediate ancestors of the Dalriadic or Old Scotish line. I shall here put down this genealogy according to the ancient Scotish account, and the Irish, as given by Kennedy.

The Scotish is,

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

The Irish follows:

• 1. Eocha Riada.
• 2. Kinta.
• 3. Fedlim Lave-dhoidh-cuige (hand that burns a province.)
• ...

• 4. Fiachra Taithmail.
• 5. Fergus Ulladh.
• 6. Aengus Fear.
• 7. Eocha Munremor.
• 8. Erc.
• 9. Fergus.

Thus the Irish inserts two names, between Eocha Riada and Fiachra, not found in the Scotish; and likewise a Fergus Ulladh not in the Scotish. And the Scotish has eight names not in the Irish. The four last names are alone 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

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.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

He places the Attacotti on the north of the Frith of Clyde; and the Damnii Albani just above them. And these two nations form the only addition he makes to Ptolemy's map. Now Beda places the Dalreudini, on their first arrival, exactly in that very region. Est autem sinus 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

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 warh 1.27.

The time when the Attacottic colony arrived in Pikland, was certainly that in which flourished the celebrated Fion Mac Cumhal (pronounce Fin Mac Cuwal) as all the Irish historians agree: and therefore a few words shall be added concerning that hero, who has had so singular a fate in our time. In Scotland he is also called Fingal; and is mentioned under that name by Barbour in 1375: but this name is unknown to the Irish. That Fingal was the same person with the Irish Fin Mac Cuwal, is clear from the identic name of the father Cuwal, the son Oisin, the grandson Oskir; and from the old Scotish poets, who sometimes call this personage Fingal, sometimes Fin Mac Coul. The names of his companions Gaul, son of Morni, &c. also coincide both in Irish and Highland tradition; so that the identity of Fin Mac Cuwal and Fingal is demonstrative.

But how the Scots alone came to term him 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

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 conserunti 1.28, &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,

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 Starkaderk 1.29.

Almost every nation has had a champion of this sort: the Persians, Rustan; the Greeks, Hercules; the Scandinavians, Starkader; the Welch, Arthur; the Irish, Fin; the French, Charlemagne, &c. Of these the Welch Arthur is now known to be a nonexistence, being only a Cumraig epithet Ard ur, 'The Great Man,' for Aurelius Ambrosius, their Roman leader against the Saxons. And of the Irish Fin the less that is said in history the better; and the Irish antiquaries act judiciously in this respect. He seems however to have been a man of great talents for the age, and of celebrity in arms. His formation of a regular standing army trained to war, in which all the Irish accounts agree, seems

to have been a rude imitation of the Roman 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 himl 1.30.

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,

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

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 centurym 1.31; to whom we are indebted for the traditional parts. For that they are not more ancient is clear from their being preserved by traditionn 1.32; 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

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 Ossiano 1.33. If this

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 chronologyp 1.34. To dwell at length upon this,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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.

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

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

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 wantingg 1.35. 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,

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.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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

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 498a 1.36. 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?

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

The first question is of small importance in an event of this nature, the difference being only five years. The author of the synchronisms is, by Mr. O'Conor, called Flan of Bute, and placed in the tenth century. The learned Usher calls him non novitius autor, 'no late author.' The question therefore lies between him and Tighernac. The author of the synchronisms, by such extracts as are given of his work, appears a writer of 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

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

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

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

of Argyle. Loarn of the northern part of Dalriada; Fergus of the southern. Upon the death of Loarn, without heirs maleb 1.37, 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

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 kingdomb 1.38; for, speaking of Kenneth, the fabled conqueror of the Piks, he says,

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

But it appears that Loch Linny was the northern boundary of Dalriada. For Mull remained to the

Piksa 1.39; and it is not to be conceived that it was detached from their other dominions, but on the contrary must have adjoined to them. So that Morven, and the rest of that part of present Argyleshire, which lies north of Loch Linny, was in every appearance possest by the Piks: as was the rest of the north of Scotland. The name Loch-Aber given to the north-east part of Argyle implies, i am told, The Lake of Strangers; and seems to mark a limit; but on this nothing can be foundedb 1.40. 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

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

extended up to Ross shire, before the Norwegians seized on the Hebudes; so that the limits of Dal∣riadac 1.41 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

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* 1.42. Now 24 kings, at 11 years each, give but 264 years instead of 340. And it is perfectly known that the Dalriadic kings were engaged in constant wars, and dissentions, above any, either in Britain or Ireland; so that, instead of granting them longer reigns than the neighbouring princes, it is

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

but fair to assign them rather shorter. If we put them therefore at ten years a-piece, the reigns of thirty-four kings will just fill 340 years, or 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 absurda 1.43. 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:

• 1. Eochod 16 years. Began to reign 605
• 2. Kinat Keir 3 months 621
• 3. Fercar 16 years 621
• 4. Donal Brec 14 years 637
• 5. Malduin 16 years 651
• 6. Fercar Fada 21 years 667
• 7. Eochoid Rinneval 3 years 688
• 8. Armkelleth 1 year 691
• 9. Edgan 13 yearsb 1.44 692
• 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:

• 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.

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.

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—1093c 1.45. 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

has no marks of having been written in Ireland. The beginning of this celebrated Duan, or short poem, is,

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

Ye skillful men of Alba, ye comely hosts of the yellow tresses, know ye the first tribes who 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.

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,

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.

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

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 Loarnd 1.46, was twice married; first to Muredach, father of Mur∣chert,

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 parte 1.47, 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

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

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

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.

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 listsf 1.48. 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

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

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 workg 1.49.—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 subjectionh 1.50. Indeed Aidan was

the only great prince that Dalriada had; and it is clear from the annals of Ulster, that, after this, the little kingdom declined almost to annihilation, before 843, when Kenneth came to the Pikish throne. In 638 there was a battle at Glen Mure∣san, in which Donal Brec was again defeatedi 1.51. 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 Buidhek 1.52, 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 Buidhek 1.53, 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.

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 wrongl 1.54.

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.

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

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 Dunollam 1.55: 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

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 1.56; and its total absurdity will appear in full

light from this whole work. Charlemagne could not know the existence of the kings of Argyle. The kings of North Britain were those of the Piks. But the reges Scottorum, who, according to Eginhart, were at his obedience, were those of Ireland; from which country different men of saintly learning adorned his court and capital.—This Achy, who succeeded Selvac, is called Eochal Annuine in the old lists, translated Achaius in the modern: Annuine is in some of these lists, as that in the chronicle of Melrose, translated Veneosus, 'Poisonous;' and he has certainly poisoned our history with nonsense. There was an old king of Ireland called Achy Apthach, or 'poisonous,' because there was a great mortality of his subjects in his reign. The old lists, finding it necessary to pervert genealogy in perverting 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

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 kingdomo 1.57. He wasted it's whole territo∣ries; took Dunatp 1.58; 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?

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, diedq 1.59 [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* 1.60; and thus adds one generation. Donal Brec, died

642, Kenneth 857; include Donal, and the space will amount to about 257 years, and for this we have eight generations, by the last account, or 240 years, which is fair. But alas! all is out of order. Kenneth and Alpin are undoubted. Achy 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.

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 Ungustr 1.61, who, by the Pikish constitution above explained,

could not ascend the Pikish throne, as his father had reigned. Ungust certainly had sons arrived at manhood, at the time of conquering Dalriada; for in the very year of the first conquest, and 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.

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

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,

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

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

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,

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 persons 1.62. 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 onet 1.63. 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,

while additions can never spring from this source; which is an additional argument for the larger series. But from 739 till 843 is therefore the OBSCURE part of Dalriadic history: and no pains should be spared to investigate it.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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

THE manners and language of the Ancient British Scots, being the same with those of the Irish Scots, their progenitors, little need be said on this subject. Both are Gothic mingled with Celtic. Ancient writers represent the Irish Scots, and their progeny the Attacotti, as savages in the extreme. These accounts are confirmed by the long description of the Irish given by 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

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 Gothica 1.64. 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

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

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 sonb 1.65. 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

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

only ornamental. The dress of old Irish kings, as appears from monuments, was a close vest; long trowsers down to the ancle; and a long loose robe over all, that reached to the ground, was brought over the shoulders, and fastened on the breast, by a very large clasp or brochc 1.66. 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

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 hornsd 1.67.

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 700e 1.68. '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

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 chorusf 1.69; 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∣verg 1.70. 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.

Notes

• a 1.1

  The Duan in the Appendix to this volume only concerns the Dalriads, whose history is not that of Scotland any more than the history of Wales, is that of England.
• b 1.2

  Nennius knew nothing of Milesius, but only mentions Miles quidam Hispanus, a certain Spanish soldier. Of this Miles the Irish made Milesius; as of Julius Caesar they made Caesara Noah's niece!
• c 1.3

  Jornandes wrote about 530, Procopius about 560 Gre∣gory of Tours, who wrote about 591, mentions the Danes under the year 515, 'Dani cum rege suo Chlochilaicho,' as ravaging Gaul.
• d 1.4

  See Nicolson's Scotish Hist. Lib p. 41. Sir James Tur∣ner, a colonel of Charles I. declared that Buchanan's books had alone raised the nation against the King. They were uni∣versally redd: and the English argued that if the Scots had power over their kings, they had the same.
• e 1.5

  Edda, apud Torf. Ser. Reg. Dan. Mallet has adopted this puerile opinion.
• f 1.6

  Late writers have attempted to compare Irish names and history, with those of Egypt, Armenia, Otaheite, &c. but not to speak of their gross misquotations and misrepresenta∣tions. the same frantic fancy might find resemblance in any objects whatever. In the mental, as in the natural night, all objects are confounded. To shew the Chinese history the same with the Dutch, in names and events, would only require one quality in any writer, a disordered imagination.
• g 1.7

  Vindiciae Celticae.
• h 1.8

  It was a Thracian term. Nicol. Damascen. Hist. in Valesii. Exc. p. 495.
• i 1.9

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

  Et qui, Massagetam monstrans feritate parentem, Cornupedis fera satiaris Concane vena. Sil. Ital.

  and Horace:

  Et laetum equino sanguine Concanum.

  The first authority shews them Goths, as were the other emi∣grators from Gaul into Spain.
• k 1.10

  Lloyd has, in his total ignorance of the Gothic, mistaken plain Gothic words for Irish and Cantabric. See Lloyd's list compared with the German, by Eccard, in his Origines Germanicae.
• l 1.11

  Thus the Tartaric, Chinese, Japanese, Phoenician, Asiatic, &c. &c. have been paralleled with the Irish. The Dutch with the Malayan, Hebrew, &c. The Welch with the Huron. The English with the Peruvian. The Greek with the Chinese. And the reason of similar words in all languages is certainly very profound, to wit, that all mankind have the same passions, and organs of speech. When, in the Dissertation annexed, Language is put as a grand proof of the origin of nations, it is meant, not that 100 words may be the same, but that 10,000 words, or more, are the same; and that the idioms, or soul, and grammar, or body, of the language are the same. A hundred comparisons of languages would be spared, if a complete comparison of all languages were pub∣lished, shewing in particular the difference between accidental resemblances, and those shades, which we call dialects, as the English is of the German, the German of the Gothic; the Curlandic of the Polish, the Polish of the Slavonic, &c. But it requires great learning and experience even to conceive those radical differences, tho vast, which discriminate Grand Languages from each other, as the Gothic from the Slavonic, and the Tartaric: and to distinguish those differences from those of mere dialect. As to paralleling a few similar words, from languages radically different, the most ignorant may do it by means of dictionaries; and it is remarkable, that the most ignorant writers are the most apt to fall into this.
• m 1.12

  Vodo-goriacum was a town of the Nervii, Itin. Aug. Tak. Peut. Bodo-briga of the Treveri. The Teuto-Bodiaci were part of the Galatae, who were Germans.
• n 1.13

  Vitellius, A. X.
• o 1.14

  The reader may consult Innes, Vol. II. p. 517. s••qq. for proofs that the Scots were quite a distinct people from the Wild Irish; and conquerors of the later. St. Patrick in his Epistles evinces this. The Scoti, whom he generally marks as Reguli and Nobiles, he uniformly distinguishes from the Hyberionae and Hybernigenae, terms for the commonalty.
• p 1.15

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

  Dicitur a Getia Geticus, seu Gothia Gothi; Dicitur a Scithia Scithicus, sic Scotia Scoti.

  Eccard, in his Origines Germanicae, has curious remarks confirming the German origin of the Irish Goths, such as "Restant in Frisiorum et Hibe••norum lingua quae arcte conve∣niunt, atque in reliquis dialectis vix reperiuntur." The Cauci were in Frisia. An author of the XIth century, Innes, p. 191, says the Scoti were first called Chorisci; query, if the Cher••sci of Germany?
• q 1.16

  Dissertations.
• r 1.17

  Il••d.
• s 1.18

  Gildas, whose work is a strange poetical rant, or rather prose run mad, uses vallis for the sea, as Claudian

  Nec multo spatii distantibus aequore vallis. In Ruf. II. 172.

  uses a sea of space for land. Thetica vallis is the valley of Thetis goddess of the sea. So firth, 'a plain,' is now applied to sea.
• * 1.19

  Dal, or Dael, is a part in the Gothic, not in the Celtic, in which Dal signifies a tribe (Kennedy, p. 100), and is quite common in Irish history. An easy metonymy. But the Scots of Ireland, it is likely, retained more of their own Gothic words, in their first meanings, in Beda's time, than after.
• a 1.20

  Ogygia vindicated.
• b 1.21

  Genealogical Dissertation on the family of Stuart, 8vo. pp. 249.
• c 1.22

  Toland, in his Nazarenus, ed. 2. London, 1718, 8vo. has some remarks on the controversy between the Irish and Scotish antiquaries. He allows Usher to be in the wrong, and places Riada and the first colony in the third century.
• d 1.23

  Kennedy, p. 69, says, this family was first in Ulster: but about 60 years before Christ they were forced to more into Munster, under Degad: whence they were called Degads of Munster. This Degad, he adds, is the Deachach, in the old Scotish genealogies (Deaga, see Innes, p. 235, table.) it need not be observed that all this is gratis dictum.
• e 1.24

  Number X.
• f 1.25

  Wynne, in his history of Ireland, London, 1773, 2 vols, 8vo. narrates the settlement of the Dalria••ls in Pikland in these terms. "Among the sons of Olliol Olum, there was one known by the distinguished name of Achy Ruada, or Riada, who was permitted by Olliol to raise a sufficient body of forces to establish himself in the province of Ulster. Fer¦gus, then king of that territory, being of the family, fa∣voured him, and his followers, who were of the race of De∣gad: and, by the assistance Achy Riada procured, he soon settled himself in Ulster, notwithstanding all the opposition of the Irians. And from this circumstance the acquisition they made took the name of Dalriada, or the portion of Riada. But as Achy was one of those that having much, still grasp at more, observing a country over-against his dis∣trict, which appeared easy of access, he embarked with his followers; and, either by force or treaty, much more likely by the latter, he obtained a settlement there also for his tribe from the British Picts. And that tract of land was af∣terwards, for many ages, denominated the Albanian Dal∣rìada, a name given to the inhabitants of Argyle, who were descended from this Irish colony." Wynne errs grossly in making Riada son of Olliol Olum, for he was son of Co∣nary II. king of Ireland, as all the above accounts bear. And this is confirmed by an old piece, published by Innes, p. 772. "Fergus filius Eric ipse fuit primus, qui de se∣mine Chonare," &c.
• g 1.26

  In the time of Aidan, the Irish Dalriada was divided from the British, and reverted to the kings of Ireland. Ken∣nedy; Vita Via Columbae apud Colgan.
• h 1.27

  Some imagine that the present Highland dress represents the Roman military habit. The philibeg was always quite unknown among the Welch and Irish: but I know no Ro∣man name for it. Among the Romans it was a mere orna∣ment, or fringe, to the mail; and they wore braccoe, or breeches, under it. From old illuminated MSS. it appears to have been a dress of the people among the Saxons, who could not afford breeches. See Strutt's Antiquities. I be∣lieve it also occurs on Trajan's pillar, as the dress of the common Daci, while the chiefs have braccoe. Its antiquity among the Highlanders is very questionable; and some sup∣pose it not older than Mary's reign. Gildas represents both Piks and Scots of his time as quite naked, with only a piece of cloth tied about their middie. Giraldus Cambrensis mentions trousers as the Irish dress, A. D. 1180. Froissard, tho amazed at the sauvages Ecozsons, as he calls them, takes no notice of this striking peculiarity. Plaids are used by the Wild Clans of Barbary: Shaw's Travels. Tartan is perhaps a late invention: and it is believed passed from the Lowlands to the Highlands. The Highland dress is not ancient, but singular, and adapted to their savage life.
• i 1.28

  In the British Museum, Cat Aysc. 4817, is a fine MS. of Mageoghagan's History of Ireland, written in 1627, where, at the year 267, he says, "Fynne Mac Coyle, the great hun∣ter, and defender of Ireland, beheaded." He gives a long fabulous account of him; and observes that "Osgar Mac Ossyn, Fynn Mac Coyle's grandchild, was a valourous and hardy man.'
• k 1.29

  Starkader annosus poeta erat, et carmina ejus vetustissima censentur eorum quae jam homines memoria tenent. Verel. Goth. et Rolf. Hist. Ramus, in his Nori Regnum, p. 36, gives two fragments of Starkader's poetry, in which he says, 'I was young when dreadful fires destroyed my father and other brave men,' &c. a passage similar to one in Ossian. A poem of Starkader on frugality may be found in Olaus Magnus, V. 3. another on his battles, V. 7. The reader is referred to Olaus for a long and curious account of this hero.
• l 1.30

  Buchanan, in his account of the family of Buchanan, Edin. 1723, 4to. gives an account of the Feans, or militia of Fin, and speaks of 'rude rhimes,' on the actions of Fin Mac Coel, their general, as retained by the Irish, and Scotish Highlanders. This gentleman was well versed in the Gaelic language.
• m 1.31

  The learned Murray, in the Novi Commentarii Societatis Gettingensis, Gotting. 1771, 4to. laughs at Fingal and Te∣mora; and thinks them productions of the XIIth or XIIIth century, under an ancient name, as Klopstock gave his Bar∣ditus. And he shews, tom. III. 1773, p. 128, that there was no Lochlin known in Scotland or Ireland till the 8th century, so that Ossian must be a forgery.
• n 1.32

  Were they more ancient, far from being preserved by tradition, the very language would be unknown to the vul∣gar mouth. Evans, in his Specimens of Welch Poetry, p. ii. observes, with great simplicity, "The language of the Seotish oldest poets, it seems, is still perfectly intelligible, which is by no means our case." No; nor the case of any other nation!
• o 1.33

  Smith observes, in his Gaelic Antiquities, that 'Since the order of the bards has ceased, almost all the ancient Gae∣lic poems are ascribed to Ossian.' Let me add, and all with equal justice.
• p 1.34

  Lord Kames, in his Sketches of the History of Man, vol. I. has a long argument to prove the authenticity of Os∣sian. He, Dr. Blair, and one or two more really ingenious men, as Mr. Gray in England, do honour to that side of the question. But i beg leave to ask my reader, if he would take the advice of these gentlemen in any medical case? And are not they just as much physicians, as they are antiquaries? With want of knowlege of the Gaelic, it is as ridiculous to charge the antagonists of Ossian, as his defenders. The later confessedly have no skill in the Gaelic; but argue upon ar∣guments of foolish ingenuity. The question is indeed of mere learning in antiquities, and freedom of mind. Lord Kames argues, that the manners of Ossian belong to the hunting state, the earliest of society; and that no late poet of the XVth century could have forged such manners. What forgery of manners? Were not the highlands in a hunting state of society even in the XVIth century? The little or no mention of cattle, in Ossian, only shews the author's ignorance; for Dio tells us, that the Caledonians drove cattle and sheep in the way of the army of Severus, in order to draw parties into ambuscades. But how argue upon pieces all altered by a modern translator? Could any critic, in any age, reason accurately upon such a work from intrinsic proofs? The noted mythology of Ossian is in fact Norwegian. Odin in his magic, st. 20, mentions the shades of the dead flying over the trees: Runa Cap. apud Haavamal Resenii. Is it not a plain fact, that not even a short poem ever was pre∣served by tradition for more than three centuries, not a bal∣lad? how then preserve long and numerous pieces for four∣teen centuries? Is it not a plain fact that the language of every country becomes obsolete thro time, even to the learned? how then can Gaelic of the third century be pre∣served in the popular mouth? Is it not a plain fact, that Scot∣land has no privileges from heaven above other countries; and that he must be the dupe of his prejudices who can suppose that the nature of human affairs is altered in Scot∣land alone? Lord Kames observes, 'One may venture boldly to affirm, that such a poem as Fingal, or Temora, never was composed in any other part of the world, under such disadvantageous circumstances.' Hear the philosopher! Is Scotland in the world, or not?
• g 1.35

  A late French critic says, "On voit dans les anciens poetes Ecossois qu' Ossian prenoit sa harpe, et chanto••t fur le champ le triomphe, on la mort glorieuse, d'un guerrier: aussi, malgrê l'art du traducteur, je n'ai pu lire sans degout les ouvrages de cet improvisateur barbare. C••est le galama∣thias d'un energumene: je n'y vois rien de vrai; et

  Rien ne plait que le vrai, le vrai seul est aimable.

  " The want not only of truth, but of verisimilitude, indeed eternally disgusts in every page of Ossian.
• a 1.36

  Tighernac's chronology is often wrong by five years, as the reader has seen in the former part, and will see in the course of this work.
• b 1.37

  Perhaps Loarn left sons, tho not come to maturity; and Fergus seized the occasion of fixing the kingdom in his own family. The descendants of Loarn sometimes held the Dal∣riadic sceptre, as shewn chap. V.
• b 1.38

  So our old chronicles, published by Innes,

  Primus in Ergadia Fergus rexit tribus annis.

  and of Kenneth, 'Hic mira calliditate duxit Scotos de Ar∣gadia in terram Pictorum.'
• a 1.39

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

  Insula Pictorum quaedam monstratur in oris, Fluctivago suspensa salo, cognominis Eo.

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

  The kingdom of Dalriada certainly never extended over the Hebudes: as our old chronicles alone might evince, for they mark it as reaching from Drum Alban, or Brun-Alban, (Brun, pectus, collis, Old Germ. Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Wachter.) on the east; usque ad mare Hiberniae, et ad Inch-Gall on the west. It no more included Inch-Gall, or the Hebudes, than it did the Irish sea: it reached ad, not supra.
• b 1.40

  In the German language Haber is corn: in Scandinavian Hasrar, avenae. Haber-dun, the Saxon name of a place in Bed∣fordshire, means Oatlands. Archaeol. VIII. 377. The Piks were an agricultural people; the Dalriads not: so perhaps this may afford an argument, tho a trifling one.
• c 1.41

  This name of Dalriada continued to the time of Kenneth son of Alpin at least, as appears from the old chronicle, Innes, App. No. III. p. 783, which, speaking of that king, says, "Iste vero, biennio antequam veniret Pictaviam, DAL∣RIETAE regnum suscepit."
• * 1.42

  Mr. Gibbon observes, vol. V. p. 89, 4to ed. that, in the Byzantine empire, 60 emperors fill 600 years: a proportion, he adds, far below Newton's rule.
• a 1.43

  See them in Innes's Appendix.
• b 1.44

  The Chronicle of Melrose begins where Beda ends, 731: and gives these kings after Edgan as above, only dating Ed∣gan's death 741. But they are inserted in the margin by an Abbot of Dundraynan (as the original MS. in the Cotton lib. bears, mutuavit abbas de Dundraynan) and in the thirteenth cen∣tury, as the writing shews, being copied from our old lists, and with very faulty chronology, as l••nes remarks, p. 611.
• c 1.45

  The original of this piece is supposed to be in the Psaltar Cashail. It is quoted by Ward in Vita Rum••ldi, p. 372. Colgan, in his Trias Thaumaturga p. 115, published some distichs of it. See an account of it, and translation of part, in O'Flaberty's Ogygia Vindicated, p. 143. Kennedy, p. 150, erroncously says, it rehearses all the Pikish kings.
• d 1.46

  The Chronicon Rythmicum, Innes, p. 808, bears that one Lori led the Scots to Argyle; and Innes is puzzled to divine who Lori is. It seems surprizing that Innes did not learn from O'Flaherty's Ogygia, that Lori was Loarn. Ano∣ther Loarn, Abbot of Cluona, occurs; Ann. Ult. 765.
• e 1.47

  The first king of Macedon is under a similar difficulty. Herodotus, lib. VIII. says, Perdiccas was first king. Livy and Pausanias make Caranus first king. Justin and Solinus say Perdiccas succeeded Caranus. Chronologers hence conclude that both reigned at first; but that Caranus dying, Perdiccas became first sole monarch.
• f 1.48

  The lists call him son of Ewen. O'Flaherty, finding Tig∣hernac date Eochoid Buide's death at 629, and Connad Keir's at 630, extends Eochoid's reign to 23 years; and reduces Fercar's to less than one year. He appears to be right. Perhaps Fercar and Donal Brec reigned together; and the former, as the son of an unknown Ewen, may have been of the house of Lorn, as was Fercar II.
• g 1.49

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

  In the Musaeum MS. at 685 it is Donald Breoo. At 688 is Mors Catasuidh NEPOS Domnail Bricc; an argument that the grandfather was dead long before.
• h 1.50

  Adomnan, lib. III. c. 3. telling from Cuminius the pro∣phecy of Columba against Aidan's descendants, adds, "Hoc autem vaticinium temporibus nostris completum est in bello Roth, Domnaldo Brecco nepote Aidani sine causa vastante provinciam (i. e. regnum) Domnail nepotis Amureq. Et à die illa-usque hodie adhuc in proclivo sunt ab extraneis, quod suspiria doloris pectori incutit." Hence it is clear that Do∣nal Brec was grandson of Aidan, and reigned in the time of Domnail, grandson of Amureq, that is Donal II. son of Aod, son of Amurec, who died in the year 642, nor was there another Donal king of Ireland till 743.
• i 1.51

  "Bellum Gline Mareson in quo exercitus Domnaldi Brec in fugam versus: et Etain obsidetur." Tighernac ad Ann. 638. "Bellum Gline Muresan: et obsessio Edin." Ann Ult. ad 637.
• k 1.52

  Surely not; for when. Cuminius wrote his life of Co∣lumba, about the year 660, the descendants of Aidan had lost the royalty, as Columba prophesied. Cuminii Vita Columbae. cap. 5. 1.
• k 1.53

  Surely not; for when Cuminius wrote his life of Co∣lumba, about the year 660, the descendants of Aidan had lost the royalty, as Columba prophesied. Cuminii Vita Columbae, cap. 5. 1.
• l 1.54

  The book of Lecan, written 1380—1417, has, fol. 119, col. 2. the genealogy of Anbkelly, son of Fercar Fada, up to Loarn. O'r lah. Ogyg. Vind. p. 141. The same work has a Commentarius de Antiquitate Albaniae; but is of so late date, as to deserve little credit.
• m 1.55

  This is surely the noted castle of Dunolly in Lorn. Mr. Pennant, vol. III. says that opposite to Kerrera, an ile, remarkable for the death of Alex. II. "On a great rock within land, is the castle of Dunolly, once the residence of the chiefs of Lorn." It is near Dunstafnage, on the south.
• n 1.56

  By Dalrymple, Lord Hailes, in his "Remarks on the History of Scotland." Yet this excellent writer supposes, that, as the double tressure appears on the Scotish arms in Wil∣liam's time, 1165—1214, the league must have been formed at that period. But it is now known to be more than dubi∣ous if the fleur de lis appeared in the French arms before 1260: and, at any rate, it is denied that Scotland was so very humble as to borrow any part of her arms from France, as poor esquires have been known to do from nobles. The double tressure is of spear-heads, symbolic of warlike spirit. I assent therefor to the modern French writers, and to Ry∣mer, that there was no league whatever between France and Scotland, till one was formed by John Baliol, which served as a basis for others, dishonourable and destructive to Scot∣land. See Rymer's Letters to Nicolson, London, 1702, 8 vo. where it is observed that among the papers in the Scotish treasury, 1282, tho there were transacta with England, Nor∣way, Flanders, kings of Maun, there was not a scrap con∣cerning France. Du Cange mentions a league between the French king and Llewellyn prince of Wales, sealed with gold: but we find no league of that antiquity between France and Scotland. Matthew Paris gives the league between Henry III. of E. and Alex. II. whereby the kings of Scotland are bound never to make any league with the enemies of England. The consequences of the French league were not mutual assist∣ance (for Scotland assisted France, while France never assisted Scotland) but the putting of Scotland into French pay, as Swizzerland has since been. Corruption spred even to the throne: and let the battle of Flodden speak the effects. Our weaker writers think this league an honour to the country!

  — miserum est aliorum incumbere famae, Ne collapsa ruant subductis tecta columnis.

  The reader who wishes to see the old French opinion of Scotland is referred to Froissart; and the modern to Voltaire on Universal history. Such contemptuous allies could hardly be of service.
• o 1.57

  See the Extracts from the Annals of Ulster in the Ap∣pendix.
• p 1.58

  Perhaps Duna in Lorn on the east of Dunolly. See Pont's maps in Bleau's Atlas.
• q 1.59

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

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

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

  The history of the Irish Dalriada is very obscure. It is noticed till 1165, in the Annals of Ulster, as in leagues, or battles, with its neighbours of Ullagh, Dalarai, Airgialla, &c. But i sind no kings of it mentioned. It seems to have been subject to the kings of British Dalriada till the Danes invaded Ireland: and, after a period of confusion, was an∣nexed to the domain of the O'Neils, kings of Ulster.
• * 1.60

  Innes, p. 795, f. Echadach f. Echach.
• r 1.61

  The Annals of Ulster, at 748, have Combustio Killemere a Hugone Mac Aongusa. Hugo and Aod: Aongus and Ungust are the same names, as appears from these Annals, our lists, &c. The king of the Piks may have sent his son, to assist one provincial king in Ireland against another.
• s 1.62

  Like errōrs occur in Scandinavian history, from the same cause. See the writings of Torfaeus, possim.
• t 1.63

  In the Register of St. Andrew's, Innes, p. 798, the first is called Heatgan, the later Heoghan. The former seems Het, Ed, or Aod, with an epithet gan. The later is Eoganan.
• a 1.64

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

  It has been long since asserted, and lately repeated, that the Celtic and Tartar languages approximate; but upon look∣ing into the specimens in Chamberlayne's Oratio Dominica, it will be seen at once that there is not the smalle stsimilarity. The names of Tartar chiefs may be easily interpreted, in Cel∣tic, by those ignorant of the true meaning. Any names will bear such interpretation in any speech. See Swift's Etymo∣logies, passim.
• b 1.65

  O'Flaherty regards this succession as merely a guard against minorities. He says, Ogyg. Vind. p. 153, "Neither was there ever a minor king of Ireland; being continually excluded by the law of succession." Fordun III. 4. says, the uncles only ruled, till the nephews came to majority; but IV. 1. he allows that they reigned before them; and i can find no instance of a regency.
• c 1.66

  Collectanea de Reb. Hib. N^o XI.
• d 1.67

  The shells are small scallop-shells; and in drinking the ball of the thumb is placed on the hinge part. They are only used as liqueur glasses for whisky.
• e 1.68

  Lib. I. c. 13. edit. Messingham.
• f 1.69

  Chorus, instrumentum musicae, Girald. Camb. Et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Vet. Test. Septuagint. in Vulgato chorus. So Du Cange; but the form of the chorus i find not.
• g 1.70

  Walker's Irish Bards.