|
It is a well-known fact that most of
the writers who have dealt with the early history of Scotland state that
Scotia, the
ancient name of this country, was a name
applied to Ireland only till the eleventh century. A few writers have
maintained that Scotland was the only Scotia; but the opinion seems to be
gradually gaining ground, and is now almost universally adopted, that when
Scotia is mentioned in the works of writers who lived before the eleventh
century, the country they refer to is Ireland.
Incredible as it may seem to some
persons, the foundation for this belief is very unsatisfactory. It almost
entirely rests upon the assumption that Ireland was always called
Hibernia; but this is not the case. It is doubtless asserted to have been
always so called in a few works of questionable authenticity; but there
is, fortunately, plenty of trustworthy testimony to establish the fact
that before the eleventh century the island now known with the name of
Ireland, and Hibernia were different countries. In addition to this we
have the distinct statement of the only early English annalist whose work
has apparently escaped the ravages of manipulatinq monks, Ethelwerd, that
Ireland was first so called at the beginning of the tenth centnry, and
that since the time of Julius Caesar till then it was known by the name of
Bretannis. It might be granted
that Hibernia and Scotia were names ajplied to one country before the
eleventh century without believing that Ireland was ever called Scotia,
but there is no trustworthy evidence to show that even this was the case.
The writings in which they are made to appear as synonymous names for
Ireland, such as Adamnan’s "Life of St. Columba," and Bede’s
"Ecclesiastical History," can be shown to have been manipulated for this
purpose.
When Ireland first became known by
the name of Hibernia it may now be impossible to ascertain but there are
good reasons for believing that
it was not so called till the
twelfth century, when the Roman Church first obtained supremacy there.
In the work ascribed to Richard of
Cirencester entitled "De Situ Britaunhe," it is certainly distinctly
stated that Hibernia was an ancient nanic of Ireland, thus
:—" Having
now finished our survey of Albion, we shall describe the neighbouring
country, Hibernia or Ireland, with the same brevity. Hibernia is situated
more westerly than any other country except England," &c. It was at first
believed, on the authority of the compiler, that this was the work of a
monk of the fourteenth century, compiled from materials left by a Roman
general but it was not published till the year
1757, and it seems never to have been heard of
during the 400 years since it was said to have been written. On account of
the late date at which it was made known, Pinkerton in his " Enquiry"
received it with distrust, but he sometimes quoted it as an authority.
Many other writers accepted its information without the shadow of a doubt
as to its authenticity. Burton, the author of the "History of Scotland,"
seems to have been among the first to expose its real character; and it is
now generally believed to be a fabrication of the eighteenth century. Dr.
Skene considers it an impudent forgery; and he adds, that Horsley’s
Britannia Romana" was published in 1732,
before this imposition was practised on the
literary world, but the Roman part of Pinkerton’s Enquiry, "Roy’s Military
Antiquities of the Romans in Britain," published in 1793,
and Stuart’s Caledonia Romana," are all
tainted by it. The reason for
publishing the "De Situ Britannia" may have been because Sibbald’s "Essay
on the Thulo of the Ancients," which identified Claudian’s lerne with
Strathearn in Scotland, and raised some awkward questions as to how the
early history of Scotland had been manipulated, was published sonie time
before it. The essay may be seen at the end of Gibson’s edition of
Camden’s "Britannia," and the arguments produced there in favour of the
identification referred to will be found to be sound and to the point. But
although the untrustworthy character of Richard of
Cirencesters work has been thoroughly exposed, it is still believed that
lerne, Hibernia, and Scotia were ancient names of present Ireland, and
that the Scots came from that country to Scotland. These beliefs are
strongly supported by the "De Situ Britannia;" and it is remarkable that
they were not looked upon with suspicion when the
work was found to be a forgery.
Ancient Scottish history has been otherwise unfairly
treated. It has been seized upon by the anrialists of England, Ireland,
and Wales, and even the historians of the Continent of Europe have
apparently nibbled now and again at this inviting morsel. This is not all.
The best of the early historians of Scotland, Fordun, or his continuator
Bower, and Boece, or an authority whom he frequently quotes, Veresnund,
have surrounded the history of their native country with such a mist of
fiction and perverted names, that it is difficult to get at the clear and
unclouded truth. There is a possibility, however, of reaching many of the
fragments which have been taken hold of by other countries, and after
divesting them of the falsehood in which they are generally embedded, to
place them in their right position. It is also possible to eliminate much
of the fiction from the pages of the native historians, and to identify
many of the Perverted names which appear in their works; and thus the
early history of Scotland can in some degree be reconstructed on a more
sound foundation.
Thomas Innes, in his Essay on the "Ancient Inhabitants
of Scotland," was the first who effectually assailed the fabulous history
put into shape by Fordun or Bower, and Boece or Veremund, and exposed
its real character. Pinkerton
in his "Enquiry" was the
first to attempt a reconstruction, and he was followed by Chalmers in his
"Caledonia," but both these works were still partly founded on
untrustworthy materials. The latest and most successful attempt will be
found in Robertson’s "Scotland under her Early Kings," Burton’s History of
Scotland," vols. i. and ii., new edition, and especially in
Dr. Skene’s "Celtic Scotland." The last writer has perhaps
done more than all the other writers named put together to place the early
history of Scotland on a sounder basis; and his opinion on some of the
difficulties connected with the task, on the spurious materials which have
been circulated as Scottish history, and on the way in which the works of
the ancient annalists have been manipulated, is valuable and interesting.
Some of these opinions are given below:-
What may be called the Celtic period of Scottish
history has been peculiarly the field of a fabulous narrative of no
ordinary perplexity; but while the origin of these fables can be
very distinctly traced to the rivalry and ambition of ecclesiastical
establishments and church parties, and to the great national controversy
excited by the claim of England to a feudal supremacy over
Scotland, still each period of its early history will be found not to be
without sources of information, slender and meagre as they no doubt are,
but possessing indications of substantial truth, from
which some perception of its real character can be
obtained!
The following passage seems to indicate that the
Continental historians have appropriated a part of the early Scottish
history. The statement by Gildas that the Saxons came on the
invitation of a leader of the Britons, who is called
Guorthegirn by later writers, "seems to find its counterpart in the
invitation given to
the barbarians to invade Gaul and Britain by Gerontius, a
Count of Britain in the service of Constantine, in the year 407;
and in the later form of the tradition they are certainly
identifled." Gaul was the ancient name of a part of the country to the
north of the wall of Antonine; and when Constantine revolted, or usurped
the command of the Roman troops in Britain, he is said to have been
besieged by one of Stilicho’s generals in Valentia, which is supposed to
have been on the Continent. But there was a Valentia in Britain also; and
there is good reason for believing that it was the name for the district
north of the wall of Antonine, and that it included Gaul, where
Constantine is said to have landed after his revolt. Is it not more
likely, then, that this was the Gaul and Valentia where Constantine’s
exploits were carried on? There can be no doubt regarding Gildas’
statement about the invasion of the Saxons; it is corroborated by every
later writer who touches upon the subject. And therefore it may be
reasonably concluded that this episode in the history of Scotland has been
appropriated by the Continental historians, unless we are to believe that
the same series of events was happening at the same
time on the Continent and in the neighbourhood of the Firth of Forth.
The following passages show how the early Scottish
history has been manipulated:-
By all the chronicles compiled subsequent to the
eleventh century, Alpin, son of
Eochaidh, is made the last of the
kings of Dalriada; but the century of Dalriadic history which follows his
death in 741 is suppressed, and his reign is brought
down to the end of the century by the insertion of spurious kings. The
true era of the genuine kings who reigned over Dalriada can be ascertained
by the earlier lists given by Flann Mainistroch and the Albanic Duan
in the eleventh century, and the annals of Tighernac and of Ulster, which
are in entire harmony with each other.
. . . There is, unfortunately,
a hiatus in the Annals of Tighernac from
the year 765 to the year
973.’
The list of Pictish kings in the later chronicles bears
marks of having been manipulated for a purpose also.
In his work on "Celtic Scotland," Dr. Skene usually
quotes the "Annals of the Four Masters" for the events in Irish history
which concern the history of Scotland, as it is the most complete
chronicle which Ireland possesses; but as it was compiled as late as the
seventeenth century, and the authority for some of the events is not
given, he does not accept it as an independent authority, and considers
the events which are not found elsewhere open to suspicion. As an instance
of the latter, he says, The Annals record the death of Somhairle
MacGiliadomnan, Ri Innsigall, at 1083. This was Somerled, Hegulus of
Argyll, whose death really took place in 1166." Several instances are also
given of the appropriation of early Scottish history as Irish history by
this work. One of the best is the battle between Aedh and Ciniod, recorded
by the Ulster Annals to have taken place in Fortrenn in Scotland. The
Annals of the Fonr Masters record this as a battle between Aedh and
Cinaedh, son of Flann, Leinster men, where Aedh was slain; but there was
no place called Fortrenn in Leinster."
Another instance of the perversion of Scottish history
by this work may be given from Reeves’ edition of "Adamnan’s Life of St.
Columba." It is as follows:-
"The earliest authentic account of anything like
diocesan episcopacy in Scotland is the entry in the Four Masters at 961:
‘Fothadh, son of Bran, scribe, and bishop of Innsi-Alban;’ that is, of the
Isles of Scotland." This entry is supplied by the Four Masters only. The
Pictish Chronicle has, 'Fothadh episcopus pausavit.’ In the supplement to
Fordun is an account of the bishops of Kilreymonth or St. Andrews, where
we find the following: ‘Primus, ut reperi, qui Fothad,’" &c. Which are we
to believe? the "Four Masters," an Irish work of
the seventeenth century, on the one side, or "
Fordun’s Annals," an earlier and a Scottish work, and the Pictish
Chronicle, a still earlier authority, on the other side ?
PINKERTON’S PROOFS IN FAVOUR OF IRELAND
BEING CALLED SCOTLAND REVIEWED.
In most of tHe histories of Scotland, it is affirmed
that the name of Scotia or Scotland originally belonged to Ireland, as
already stated, and that present Scotland was not so called till the
eleventh century. Most of the historians are content with the simple
statement that such was the case, without giving any proofs in support of
the assumption. One recent writer on the early history of Scotland does
indeed give a few proofs; bUt the best array of them is found in
Pinkerton’s "Enquiry into the History of
Scotland Preceding the Reign of Malcolm ill.;" and it is possibly on the
basis supplied by him that the writers who believe that Ireland was once
called Scotia rest their faith. Examined by the light of recent research,
however, these proofs do not hear the interpretation put upon them; and it
is necessary in the interests of justice that their fallacious character
should be exposed. In doing so, each proof will be examined by itself.
The proofs are brought forward in the "Enquiry" in a
chapter devoted to the origin of the name Scotland.’ They all proceed upon
the assumption that Hibernia was the ancient name of Ireland, although
only one of the authors cited, Orosius, identifies the western island with
the country he designates Hibernia. But this writer cannot be taken as an
authority on such a matter unsupported by more reliable evidence.
Pinkerton’s first duty was to prove that Hibernia was the ancient name of
the country now known by the name of Ireland, before he undertook to prove
that Scotia was an ancient name for the same country. In the first volume
of the "Enquiry," when speaking of the references in early Greek and Roman
writers to Britain, he does attempt to do this, but the proofs he brings
forward in support of it are by no means clear; in fact, they are
contradictory, as will be shown below, when an endeavour will be made to
prove that Iceland or Scotland was the ancient Hibernia. There is
apparently reason for believing that Hibernia was sometimes called Scotia,
or vice versa, by early writers; but it is quite a different
assertion to say that present Ireland was also called Scotia. The chapter
containing the proofs begins thus :—
"That the name Scotia or Scotland originally belonged
to Ireland, and continued to belong to that country alone till a late
period, begins now to be acknowledged even by the most prejudiced Scottish
writers. This fact clearly appears from the following numerous
authorities, while that the names Scoti, Scotia, were ever applied to the
present Scots and Scotland before the reign of Malcolm II. or beginning of
the eleventh century, not one authority can be produced. The first mention
of the name Piks is by Eumcnius the panegyrist, who says, as fully quoted,
part iii. chap. i., that before the time of Julius Ceasar, Britain, that
is, the part of Britain south of the Forth and Clyde, or Roman Britain,
was only invaded by the Piks and Irish, Pictio mode et Hibevitia.
This was written in the year 296 and the
name of Scots was still unknown. For as the Britons, before they knew the
indigenal appellation of the Picts, termed them Caledonians: so before
they knew the indigenal name of that superior people in Ireland whose
warlike spirit burst upon them, they called them Hiberni or Irish, from
the name of the island. So in later times the pirates of
Scandinavia were all called Normans before the indigenal names of Danes,
Norwegians. Swedes came to be known."
This opening passage requires several comments. In the
first place, it shows that his arguments are based upon false premises.
That the Irish were known by the name of Hiberni, or that their country
was called Hibernia, when Eumenius wrote, is assumed to have been the case
without any good authority, Of course in the interpolated writers and the
legends of the bards it is made to appear that Ireland was called Hibernia
soon after the creation, but no reliable authority can be got for the fact
earlier than the twelfth century. Besides, we have the distinct assurance
of a writer of the eleventh century, Ethelwerd, that Ireland previously to
that period was called Bretannis. With regard to the name Hibernis being
an indigenal name for the Irish at the time Enmenius wrote. Pinkerton is
wrong also. In most, if not all, the ancient Irish MS., when the natives
are alluded to, they are called men of En or Erin. Hibernis was not even a
foreign name for the Irish before the twelfth century. Several Roman,
Spanish, and English writers appear to use it in this connection, but
their works have evidently been tampered with; and they are contradicted
on this point by writers who escaped that plague, who all place
Hibernia to the north of Britain.
Continuing his proofs,
Pinkerton adds:-
"But the name of Scots is
first mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus at the year 360, and not as
belonging to most ancient times, as Eumenius mentions that of Picti but as
present and immediate under that year. In Britaniis com Scotorum,
Pictorumqu, gentiam ferarum cecurus, &c. Thus on the very first
mention of the name Scotti, it is joined with that of Picti, just as
Hiberni had been sixty-four years before by Eumenius. This, cornpared with
the subsequent authorities, affords a clear inference that, from the very
first, Hiberni and Scotti were synonymous; that Ireland was Scotia, and
the Irish Scoti. Indeed it is risible to see some of our writers suppose
that such a small country as Scotland could suffice for two grand nations,
the Piks and Scots while England had but one, the Britanni; Gaul but
Galli; Spain only Hispani. Do they imagine that the noble island of
Ireland, a country superior in size, and far more in fertility and
population to Scotland, was quite invisible to the Romans, or that by
another miracle the inhabitants of a country so very near Britain never
invaded this island? At 364 Ammianus mentions Picti Saxonesque et Scotti
et Attacotti. At 368, Picti, Attacotti, and Scotti. The former passage no
more implies the Scots to have been settled in Britain than the Saxons.
And the Attacotti, or, as shown above, those Scots who settled in
Pictland, are specially distinguished from tho Scotti proper, or those of
Ireland."
Here again we have a fine
example of arguing in a circle. The inference from the passages cited,
compared with later writers’ sayings, that Hiberni and Scotti were
synonymous names for the same people, is just and true; but neither the
words of Emenius nor those of Amminnus give any ground for concluding that
"Ireland was Scotia, and the Irish Scoti." It is scarcely worth while to
notice the nonsense that follows about the grand nations. Nobody surely
irnagines that Ireland was unknown in the time of Ammianus, but some
people believe and say that ancient Irish history has been so obscured by
a mass of fables that the true name and condition of its inhabitants at
that period have been lost sight of, Ammianus’ mention on the Saxons at
364 might certainly give colour to the suggestion that is thrown out
regarding it; but it might also imply that the Picts were not settled in
Britain either. As he mentions both Picts and Scots together at 360, 364,
and 368, while he only names the Saxons once, this goes far to support the
belief that the Picts and Scots were both settled in North Britain at the
time of which he is writing.
Our author’s second proof
is easily disposed of. It is as follows :—"Ethicus, the cosmographer, or
whoever wrote the work in his name, belongs to time same period; and says,
Hibernia a Scotorum. gentibus Coliture’, ‘Ireland is inhabited by
the nations of the Scots." This is open to the same objection as the
preceding. Although there is no reason to disbelieve Ethicus’ assertion
that Hibernia was inhabited by Scots at the time he wrote, this does not
necessarily imply that Ireland was also peopled by them. It is very likely
that Iceland was inhabited by Scots at
the time Ethicus wrote, as an opportunity may
afterwards be taken to show, and that this was the Hibernia of that
writer.
His third proof tells against;
rather than in favour of, his theory:-
Claudian also, about the year 390, has this line,Scotorum
cumulos flevit glacialus Ierne,’ Icy Ireland wept the slaughtered
heaps of Scots.’ And again, ‘
Totum cum Scotus lernum movit,’
When the Scot moves all Ireland.’
No reader needs to be told that Ierne is the Greek name of Ireland;
and all interpreters, Barthius, Gesner. &c., agree in this.
Note—Claudian errs in supposing Ireland a very cold country. He only
judged from its northern situation. Those among us who have dreamed of
Strath-Erne, a valley in Scotland, only show that national prejudice, like
that overweening self-love from which it really springs, is a species of
fanaticism."
It has to be remarked here that an
author living in the eighteenth century convicts an author of the fourth
century of a mistake in describing lerne as icy or cold. Writers of
Claudian’s time no doubt made mistakes like other people, but it is
probable that many of those attributed to them are only erroneous
conclusions of people who cannot possibly have anything approaching to the
opportunities of knowing the names and condition of countries in ancient
times which they had. But let us try to find out whether Claudian was
really mistaken when he called lerne cold. Strabo, a contemporary of
Julius Ceasar, and an eminent Greek geographer, says, as quoted below,
that the temperature of lerne was so cold that it was scarcely possible to
exist in it, and that the people who lived there "lived miserably and like
savages on account of the cold." We learn from" Chambers’s Encyclopedia"
(Art. Strabo) that Strabo makes copious use of his predecessors, and
quotes Julius Ceasar. If he had dissented from that writer regarding the
temperature of Hibernia, which was the Roman name of the island known to
the Greeks as lerne, he would have said so, as he does when speaking of
the situation assigned to Thule by Pytheas. It may be taken for granted,
therefore, that Strabo and Julius Ceasar and other writers who place Ierne
and Hibernia north of Britain considered it a cold country, and that
Claudian was right in calling lerne icy. Whether Claudian was refering to
Iceland or to Scotland by the name of lerne is somewhat uncertain. Iceland
answers better to the term icy and to Strabo’s description of lerne, while
Scotland would harnronise better with the context of Clandian’s narrative.
Perhaps both countries were called lerne by the Greeks and Hibernia by the
Romans. There is direct and reliable testimony to prove that Scotland was
once called Eyryn, a name still surviving in Strath-Earn, and,
notwithstanding Pinkerton’s jesting remarks, this is evidently the
district which would be moved by the Scots, and which wept over them when
killed by the Romans, probably in this very valley of the Earn.
The following proof is the only one
in favour of Pinkerton’s theory, but it will be found to he worthless
;—" In the next century
Orosius has Hibernia insula inter Britannium et Hispaniam.... a
Scotorum gentibus colitur. Ireland, an island between
Britain arid Spain, . . .
is inhabited by the Scotch nations.’ The letters of St. Patrick, published
by Usher, also clearly mark the Scoti in Ireland only. The Scots to whom
Patrick was sent are perfectly known to have been the Irish.’
The quotation from the works of Orosius is the only
instance cited which clearly identifies Ireland with the Hibernia of the
ancients. As it is contradicted by several more authentic arid reliable
writers, it is probably an interpolation of the monks. Orosius’ work is
said to be a trivial, inaccurate, uncritical miscellany of facts, culled
from such second-rate authorities as Justin and Eutropius. The letters of
St. Patrick mark the Scoti in Hibernia not in
Ireland, and that the Scots to whom he was sent were the Irish, there is
no evidence of a satisfactory nature to show, as an opportunity may
afterwards be taken to prove.
It is significant to find that Orosius and Eusebius are
the only two writers who state that the wall built by Severus was
132 miles long. To those acquainted with the subject it is
well known what an amount of controversy this statement has caused. Many
writers have even identified Hadrian’s wall as the one built by Severus on
the strength of it; but Dr. Skene, founding upon the older authorities,
Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, and especially Spartian, fixes its site near
the wall of Antonine. It is only by ignoring the testimony of Orosius and
Eusebius that he has been enabled to fix upon its true site.’ It is worth
remarking that if the passage of Spartian referring to Severus’ wall had
been lost, it would have been impossible to have done this, and it may
thus be seen how the history of Scotland could otherwise be tampered with
than by fabrication. Large portions of the works of ancient authors
referring to Britain are said to have been lost, but when account is taken
of the extensive manipulation which the early history of Scotland has
undergone, is it not more likely that they have been destroyed? There is a
part of Amniianus’ work lost which Pinkerton believed would have done a
great deal to elucidate the early history of Scotland.
Pinkerton’s next proof is as follows
:—"In the sixth century,
Cogitosus, author of the Life of St. Brigid, as quoted by Usher,
sufficiently evidences in different places the Scots to be Irish. Gildas
marks the Picts as invading the Britons ab aguilone,
‘from the north,’ the Scots, a circio,
‘from the north-west.’ For they always passed from the
north of Ireland to join the Picts; but no part of present Scotland is on
the north-west of Roman Britain, latterly extending to the Clyde."
Not having seen Usher’s quotations front the Life of
St. Brigid it is impossible to deal with this sentence further than by
saying, that had the evidences there given been stronger than those
already produced, they would have been transcribed by Pinkerton. The west
of Scotland is sometimes represented as the place where the Scots first
settled in Scotland, but no trustworthy evidence
in favour of such a view is forthcoming; and if the words a circio
refer to the north-west, this is not the only place where Gildas’ works
present an appearance of having been tampered with. There is some
uncertainty, however, as to what direction a cireco points, and it
is therefore not improbable that it was an ancient term for the
north-east, to which part of Scotland all the reliable evidence points as
being the first settlement of the Scots in that country.
The next proof is as follows:—"In
the seventh age Isidorus is most explicit, Scotia cadem et Hibernia
proxima , Britannia insula. Scotia, the same as Ireland, an island
very near Britain.’ Adamnan, in his Life of Columba, confirms the same
throughout, for Columba sails from Scotia to Britain and Hyona and from
thence to Scotia, &c., &c., &c."
The same unwarranted identification of Ireland with
Hibernia is here repeated, and it is needless to do more than notice it.
This passage of Isidorus might be taken to refer to Iceland, as Hibernia
is there called an island. But it will be afterwards shown that Scotland,
north of the firths of Forth and Clyde, was considered to be an island at
a much later period than Isidorus’ time; and it is clearly separated by
water from the country south of these firths, which comprehended the
Britain of the ancients, in maps of the sixteenth or seventeenth century.
Hibernia is said to be first mentioned as being called
Scotia by Isidore of Seville in 580; but the following quotation will show
that there is a probability of the statement being an interpolated
passage, especially when taken in conjunction with the fact that no author
of any repute confirms it. Of course it would not affect the point at
issue—that present Ireland was called Scotia—even if it were the case, but
the silence of all the best of the ancient writers, who would have been
acquainted with such a fact had it been true, is remarkable.
It is a significant fact that a spurious compilation
called Isidorian Deeretals was introduced under the name of Isidore of
Seville as a part of the genuine collection known as his. In all these
Decretals there is a strong and systematic assumption of the Papal
supremacy, Although the author, the place, and the date of this singular
forgery are still matter of uncertainty, ‘ It is
impossible,’ says Dean Milnian, ‘to deny that, at least by citing
without reserve or hesitation, the Roman pontiffs gave their deliberate
sanction to this great historic fraud.’
It would be what might be expected that Isidore as well
as Orosius, another Spanish historian, should identify Scotia and ancient
Hibernia with present Ireland, for their works could easily have been
manipulated to suit the views of those who tampered with the ancient
history of Ireland and Scotland. |
