Having shown that Ireland cannot be
identified with the Hibernia of the ancients from a geographical point of
view, it will now be necessary to prove that lreland was such a barbarous
and uncivilised country in the early ages that it is not likely to have
been the sacred isle peopled by the Hiberni, or the training school for
such a race of men as the early Scots are always represented to have been.
Of course, if credit were to be given to forged saints’ lives, marvellous
legends, and interpolated passages in the ancient annalists, the following
glowing picture of the condition of Ireland previous to the twelfth
century might be accepted as truthful.
According to what is affirmed to be
ancient native legends, Ireland was in remote times peopled by tribes
called, Firbolgs, and Tuath de Danan; and these are said to have been
subdued by Milesians or Gaels, who ultimately acquired supreme power in
the island. In the fourth century, it is said, Ireland became known as
Scotia, andl her inhabitants, under the appellation of Scoti, joining arms
with the Picts, proved themselves formidable enemies by their successful
attacks upon the Roman province of Britain. These expeditions are said to
have continued and extended to the coasts of Gaul till the time of
Laogaire MacNeill, monarch of Ireland (439 AD.), in whose reign St Patrick
converted the natives to Christianity. Palladius is by some authorities
said to have preceded Patrick in this mission field; but the latter,
notwithstanding, is credited with the largest share of the work. According
to one edition of Nennius’ History of the Britons, St Patrick founded 365
churches, and consecrated the same number of bishops in Ireland. He also
ordained 300 presbyters there; and converted 1200 persons in one province
of that country. In one day he baptised seven kings. And, more wonderful
still, he gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, cast out devils,
and raised nine persons from the dead. Extensive monasteries, we are
likewise told, were founded in the island in the sixth century, in which
religion and learning were zealously cultivated. From these establishments
large numbers of missionaries went in succeeding ages to convert the still
pagan countries of Europe to Christianity. Their ascetic habits greatly
impressed the people with whom they came in contact. Many learned men,
especially priests, from England and the Continent, went to Ireland in
these times to receive instruction or to lead a hermit’s life for the sake
of the heavenly kingdom, according to passages in Bede’s Ecclesiastical
History and other early English annalists. To this period also has been
ascribed the origin of the peculiar style of artornamentation, specimens
of which are still extant in the illuminated manuscripts in the library of
Trinity College, Dublin.
If all or even part of these
fictions could be proved to be true, there might be some reason for
believing this to be the isle peopled by the Hiberni of the fifth century.
But let us see what recent research and archaeology have done to dispel
the fond illusion. In a future treatise archeological evidence will be
produced to show that the art-ornamentation more likely originated in
Scotland than in Ireland; and proofs have already been brought forward to
show that the passages in the early English annalists relating to Ireland
before the tenth century are fabricated. Meanwhile let us try to ascertain
when the Irish legends were first heard of, and what character they bear.
Before the Reformation Ireland had few native histories. The annals of
Tighernac, Innisfallen, and Ulster, there are many reasons for believing,
are in reality Scottish records, at least in their earlier portions. Where
not interpolated, for even Irish writers like Reeves allow that two of
these annals have been tampered with in this respect, their Hihernia and
Eren or Erin evidently refer to Scotland. That they do not concern Ireland
is shown by the silence of Clyn, regarding the events which they record as
having taken place in Hibernia and Eren previous to the eleventh century.
Clyn’s annals of Ireland are considered to be the earliest extant
authentic history compiled by an inhabitant of the country. He was a
Franciscan friar in the convent of Kilkenny, and lived about the middle of
the fourteenth century. His chronicles, so far as Ireland is concerned,
only begin about the twelfth century, Pembridge, a writer who lived at the
latter end of the fourteenth century, compiled Annales Hiberniae,
probably on the basis of Clyn’s. They begin with the year 1162 and end
with the year 1370. He appears to have considered this period to have
embraced all that was certainly known of Irish History.
The Annales Hiberniae of
James Grace, of Kilkenny, are conjectured to have been written between the
years 1537 and 1539, but the evidence in favour of
this point is not
conclusive, and they might have been compiled about the time of the
Reformation in Scotland. They begin with the year 1074 and end, so far as
the general history of the country is concerned, with the year 1370. From
1162 to 1370 they agree in substance with Pembridge’s. A short abstract of
the early legendary history of Ireland is given in a few introductory
paragraphs, in which the following occurs: "In those times (before
Milesius came to Ireland) Hiberniae had the name of Scotia, and the
inhabitants were called Scoti ; their language was called Gaelic, from a
certain Geledus. After this, four sons of Milesius came to Ireland, of
whom the two oldest, HIiber and Herernon, divided the country into two
parts. From this Hiber, the country, which was before called Scotia Major,
received the name of Hibernia."
This, then, is the earliest notice
of these legends found in the native annals. But Clyn, as well as Grace,
lived in Kilkenny. Is it likely that the latter had better opportunities
of becoming acquainted with the early history of his native countiy than
the former? Let us see. There is very little known about Grace. Clyn, we
are told, was a Franciscan friar in the convent of Kilkenny. The
Franciscans were "men of the loftiest minds and most generous tempers and
in the fourteenth century, when the fervour of religious enthusiasm was in
some degree diminished, there were still to be found in these Orders the
most profound theologians and the most subtle speculative philosophers.
Among these the Irish Franciscans maintained a proud and honourable
position.’’ Clyn would therefore be in a position to know all that was
worth recording about the early history of Ireland; and yet he takes no
notice of its ever having been called Scotia or its people Scots. All the
legends composed for the purpose of identifying Ireland with the Scotia of
the 10th and preceding centuries were probably not written till the period
of, or after, the Reformation in Scotland, as they first appear in the
pages of an Irish historian about that time. This is rendered more certain
by Clyn’s silence regarding them, and it furnishes a sufficient reason for
his never referring to them; but it may not be out of place to qnote the
words of the editor of Clyn’s works as to the reason why he overlooked
these not unimportant materials for a historian :-
"Like most of the Anglo-Irish
chroniclers, Clyn passes over in ignorance or contempt the legends,
whether poetical, mythical, or enigmatical, with which the Irish
seanachies filled up the vestibule of Irish history, thronging its gates
with forms of strange aspect, elusive of the grasp. Yet even these
legends, as we find them in Dowling and the native annalists, are worthy
of record. Although not true in themselves, it is true that they were once
believed; and although they may not constitute the history of the times to
which they are assigned, they form at least important elements of the
character of the times in which they were received. But it is not likely
that legends, so widely propagated and so fondly cherished, had no
foundation in fact that they were altogether poetical fictions, or moral
and Political fables and myths. It is more reasonable to conjecture that
they were the forms of historical narrative used by one people, which,
falling into the hands of another people of different language, and of
other habits of thought and turns of expression, were understood by them
in a sense which they were not intended to bear, and in which they were
not used by their authors. We
It is strange to find Pinkerton
giving credit to the mission of St Patrick to Ireland. One of his reasons
for rejecting the Millesian legend, relating to the colonisation of
Ireland with Scots, is that "Bede never heard a word of it;" and yet he
believes that St Patrick, who is likewise totally ignored by that writer,
converted the Irish to Christianity in the fifth century, and taught them
the use of letters.
Another writer, Gordon, [History of
Ireland, vol i p. 19] thus refers to the earliest records of the Irish:
"The accounts of the Irish concerning the transactions of their country
previous to the fifth century of the Christian era, though sufficiently
copious, are of so romantic or fabulous a complexion, as to afford no
certain light, and leave us to conjecture by extraneous aids. They are in
great part manifest forgeries, fabricated, after the introduction of
Christianity among the Irish, by monks and othcr such dreamers." Regarding
St Patrick, Gordon [Ibid, vol. i p. 290] says:-
"The stories related of this
apostle, whatever dates are severally affixed to them, are doubtless
legendary tales, or theological romances, fabricated four centuries after
his imaginary existence. He is mentioned in no writing of authentic date
anterior to the ninth century, a period replete with forged saints’ lives
; while, besides the persuasive silence of other documents, he is quite
unnoticed by Beda, Cogitosus, Adamnan, and Cummian, ecclesiastic writers
of the intermediate time, who could not have omitted the name of so great
a missionary if it had ever reached them."
It will be seen afterwards that a St
Patrick appears in connection with Iceland in the ninth century. Had St
Patrick been sent to Ireland by the Roman pontiff, it is remarkable that
Bede, who is said to have been furnished with materials for his work by
those who had liberty to examine the archives of his Church, has never
alluded to this circumstance; and it is impossible to believe that such
gigantic missionary labours as those attributed to St Patrick were carried
through in one of the British isles, under the auspices of the Church of
which he is said to have been a priest, while not even an allusion to them
is to be found in Bede’s work.
Burton [History of Scotland, Second
Edition, vol i. p. 69, note] says: "The tenor of the archaeological
inquities regarding this saint, must indeed be rather alarming to those
simple-minded members of the old church who would be content to take him
with implicit faith from the Bollandists and Butler. A second St Patiick
has been brought up, and now a third, with a vision of others; and the
evidence for the existence of all by no means strengthens the belief that
there ever was one."
Commenting on the accounts of
Palladius’ and Patrick’s missions to the Irish, Dr Skene questions their
veracity thus:-
If this be so, if it be true that
the mission of Palladius effected nothing, and came to an end, either by
his martyrdom or flight within a year, and that Patrick’s mission, which
succeeded it, was followed by the conversion of the whole island, it seems
strange that nothing should have been known on the continent at the time
of this great event, and that it should be noticed by no contemporary
anthor. Not a single writer prior to the eighth century mentions it. . . .
Columbanus and the other missionaries from Ireland who followed him, seem
to have told their foreign disciples nothing about him, and in the
writings of the former, which have been preserved—in his letters to the
Pope and Gaulish clergy, and in his sermons to his monks—the name of
Patrick, the great founder of his church, never appears."
There is good evidence for believing
that a saint of the name of Patrick or Palladius flourished in Scotland in
the fifth century; and it is generally granted that the legendary St
Patrick or Palladius of the Irish was born in Scotland, brought up by the
Scots, and died in Scotland. In a future treatise more will be said about
the Scottish saint.
Having seen that little reliance can
be placed upon the ancient native legends, and lives of St Patrick, let us
now examine the testimony of the first trustworthy writer who speaks of
the character and condition of the Irish, and see if it bears out the
statements made by Irish writers regarding the prevalence of Christianity
and learning in Ireland after St Patrick’s supposed advent. One of the
most reliable of the earliest historians of Ireland, though even his work
presents the appearance of having been interpolated, as he retails many of
her legends as history, is Giraldus Cambrensis, a writer of the twelfth
century. He had spent some time in the island and had evidently visited
many places in it, but the account he gives of its condition then is in
marked contrast to the condition of Iceland at the same period. He says:
"Although they are richly endowed with the gifts of nature, their want of
civilization, shown both in their dress and mental culture, makes them a
barbarous people." [Topograhy of Ireland, Distict. III., chap. x.] "The
Irish are a rude people, subsisting on the produce of their cattle only,
and being themselves like beasts—a people that has not departed from the
primitive habits of pastoral life." [Ibid] The faith having been planted
in the island from the time of St Patrick, so many ages ago, and
propagated ever since, it is wonderful that this nation should remain to
this day so ignorant of the rudiments of Christianity. It is indeed a most
filthy race, a race more ignorant than all other nations of the first
principles of the faith." [Topograhy of Ireland, Distict. III., chap.
xix.]
It had become the accepted belief in
Giraldus’ time that Ireland was converted by St Patrick. This was
accomplished by circulating forged lives of him among the learned men of
the time, who were not numerous in those days.
Regarding the government and manners
of the Irish previous to the seventh aentury, Gordon says : " We can only
form a judgment of these from the state in which we find that people after
their adoption of Christianity, and of this we can form, consistently with
truth, no favourable representation."
Other circumstances combine with the
uncivilised state of the Irish in the twelfth century to show the
improbability of any extensive evangelisation or literary culture having
reached that People previously. Where Christianity has penetrated, and
where even a shallow civilisation exists, there is generally to be found
money circulating. It is a striking fact, however, that before the ninth
century, when numbers of the Icelanders and Scots probably settled in
Ireland, the Irish had not minted any coins of their own, while the
neighbouring people of Britain had from about the time of Christ’s birth
minted a large number. And although the Romans, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons,
after their conquests of France and England, had made very considerable
coinages in those countries, we do not even find
in Ireland any trace of the coins of these neighbouring people being
brought over the sea in any considerable quantity before the period
mentioned. Yet in other countries where the minting of coins also came
late into use—as, for instance, in the Scandinavian north—so great a
quantity of older foreign coins, together with all sorts of foreign
valuables, is continually dug up as to show that even at a very early
period active connections of trade must have existed beween the Northmen
and the more southern nations. Neither Phoenician nor Celtic coins are
known to have been found in Ireland, and discoveries even of Roman and the
more ancient Anglo Saxon coins are very rare." It is manifest from these
circumstances that previously to the settlement of the Northmen or Scots
in Ireland, the Irish did not carry on any trade worth speaking of, if
they carried on any, and that they had very little intercourse with the
rest of Europe. That the Northmen may almost be said to have created Irish
trade, is evident from the fact that the Scandinavian kings in Ireland
were the first who caused coins to be minted there, "Of the coins current
in Ireland in the last half of the eleventh, and in the whole of the
twelfth century, pretty large quantities have been dug up, both in and out
of Ireland, and particularly in the neighbonring Isle of Man."
In the splendid manuscript of the
Gospels called the Book of Kells, preserved in the library of Trinity
College, Dublin, there are transcribed several Irish charters, which are
said to be sufficient to connect it with the monastery of Kells. This is
doubtful. The charters are allowed to be "some centuries" later in date
than the book itself; and "the handwriting of these documents, as they are
now found" there, "is not coeval with the persons whose names are
mentioned in them.... The period at which they were transcribed into this
book may be conjectured from the character of the writings and
contractions, which would appear to belong to the latter part of the
twelfth ceatury." This is quite possible; but may not these charters have
beeu forged, or at least tampered with, for the purpose of connecting this
manuscript of the Gospels with Kells? When the archaeological evidence
comes to be dealt with, a pretty strong case will be made out in
favour of this manuscript having been penned in some place in
north-eastern Scotland, perhaps Dunkeld. The name of this town is spelt in
ancient official documents Dun-kell. It is associated with Columba, and so
is the Book of Kells. "The other extant charters made in Ireland at the
same period (the latter part of the twelfth century) are very few indeed,
and are all in the Latin language. How early the ancient Irish began to
commit their contracts and covenants to writing has not yet been
determined." After referring to copies of the wills of a king of Ireland
who died in the year 128, and a Breton who lived in the first century, it
is added:—" But without insisting on the authenticity of these
productions, we may clearly infer from some entries in the Book of Armagh
that deeds of contract and even of sale of lands were committed to writing
from the earliest ages of Christianity in Ireland."
"Of the time exactly when, and of
the persons by whom, the inhabitants of Ireland first received the
illumination of the Gospel, we cannot find more certain information than
when, and by whom, the people of Britain, or of any other country in
Europe, were first enlightened by its communication. . . Whoever were the
happy instruments in the planting of Christianity in Ireland, their
progress appears to have been slow in the conversion of the natives. So
lately as the end of the sixth century paganism subsisted, perhaps
predominated in this country." [Gordon's History of Ireland, vol i. pp. 28
and 29.]
The writer just quoted believes it
to be very probable that Christian rites were first introduced to the
Western Island by the British clergy who fled from the south of Scotland
to Ireland to escape the fury of the Saxon pagans, the conquerors of their
country. [Ibid., p. 29]
"While the Saxons were prevailing in
Britain several assemblages of the natives quitted their paternal soil,
and established themselves in Armorica. Their new settlemeats were named
Llydaw. Llydaw is said to be little else than a synonym for Armorica, both
implying the sea coast. The author of the Life of Gildas says: ‘In
Armoricam quondam Galliae regionem tune autem a Britannis a quibus
possidebatur Letavia dicebatur.’
—Bouquet III., 449. The manuscript Vita Cadoci
says: ‘Provincia quondam Armorica, deinde Littau, nunc Britannia minor
vocatur. ‘—Cotton Library Vesp. A. 14, p. 32..... When Gildas followed
his countrymen to Llydaw, he passed a solitary life in a place called
Houath.—Acta Sanct. 2 Jan., p.
954." [Turner's History Anglo-Saxons, vol ii. pp. 212
and 213 and notes]]
Turner takes Llydaw and Armorica in
these passages to be intended for Brittany on the continent; but they more
likely refer to Ethelwerd’s Bretannis, [Above, pp. 12 and 13]] and
Ptolemy’s Britania Minor,[Gibson's Camden, vol ii. p. 323] that is,
Ireland. Besides, Howth is the name of a place near Dublin, and it is on
the sea coast. This then may foreshadow the time when Christianity was
planted in Ireland. In all likelihood it received an accession of strength
from the "early emigrants from the Scandinavian regions;" who had settled
there in the ninth century. These may have been some of the Papae or
Christian priests who were being expelled from Iceland at that period. The
numbers of the Christian ministers in Ireland may also have been augmented
at the same time by ecclesiastics from the east of Scotland. This district
was frequently and mercilessly ravaged by the Danes then. The monasteries
especially suffered to a large extent from their depredations. The large
number of sculptured monuments peculiar to this locality prove that it was
enlightened by the Christian religion at a very early period. Some at
least of the monks or presbyters were driven from this region by the Danes
to seek refuge in Ireland; and it was possibly at this time that they
carried the illuminated manuscripts of the Gospels with them, as will be
more fully shown in future treatises. We may allow that Christian
missionaries from all these quarters reached Ireland before the twelfth
century, without believing that the Christian rites were adopted by more
than a fraction of the population.
Gordon [History of Ireland, vol. i.
p. 53] says the first attempt of the Roman pontiff to subjugate the church
of Ireland was made in the year 1127, when Gilbert, bishop of Limerick, an
Ostman or Norwegian, who had written a book in favour of the Roman ritual,
received the commission of legate from His Holiness. This attempt does not
seem to have been successful, and the labours of Malachy, archbishop of
Armagh, who died in 1148 in striving to subject his country to the
spiritual dominion of Rome, also resulted in failure. In the year 1152 the
Pope’s aim was attained; and the spiritual supremacy of the Roman pontiff
was then for the first time formally acknowledged in Ireland by means of
his legate Cardinal Papiron. Four years afterwards, Henry II, king of
England, wishing to invade Ireland, made application to the Pope for power
to do so. Glad of an opportunity to augment the papal power, and to reduce
the Irish completely under the Roman Church, a bull was given to the
English king, together with a ring, the token of his investiture as
rightful sovereign of the country. The bull not only authorised Henry to
render himself master of Ireland, it called upon him to eradicate
irreligion and immorality from among its inhabitants; and in saying this
the Pope bears witness with the other writers already quoted that the
state of Ireland at that period was not what was to be expected of a
Christian country. Although the real object of the English king’s invasion
was not accomplished, the ostensible one, the spiritual subjection of
Ireland to the See of Rome, was crowned with such marked success, that the
majority of the people have ever since, through all revolutions,
faithfully adhered to the Roman Catholic faith.
With regard to the means by which
the papal claims upon Ireland were supported, the following extracts may
throw some light on the subject.
Dr James Usher, archbishop of
Axniagh, says
"Master Campion informs us that
‘when Ireland first received Christendom they gave themselves into the
jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, of the See of Rome.’ But herein
he speaks without book; of the spiritual jurisdiction untruly, of the
temporal absurdly. For it cannot be shewed out of any monument of
antiquity that the Bishop of Rome ever sent any of his legates to exercise
spiritual jurisdiction here (much less any of his deputies to exercise
jurisdiction temporal) before Gillebertus, who was the first legate
appointed by the Apostolic See over all Ireland, says one that lived in
his own time, even Bernard himself, in the life of Malachias. He informs
us that ‘from the beginning unto this time, the Metropolitan See of Armagh
wanted the use of the Pall.’ With whom the author of the annals of Mailros
fully accords, noting that, in the year 1151, Pope Eugenius, the same to
whom Bernard wrote his book De Considaratione, by his legate, John
Papiron, transmitted four Palls into Ireland, whither a Pall before had
never been brought." [Religion Anciently professed by the Irish and
British, chap. viii.]
"For the Pope’s direct dominion over
Ireland, two titles are brought forth, beside those covenants of King
John, mentioned by Allen, which he that hath any understanding in our
state knoweth to be clearly void and worth nothing. The one is taken from
a special grant, supposed to be made by the inhabitents of the country at
the time of their conversion unto Christianity; the othor from a right
which the Pope challenges unto himself over all islands in general. The
former of these was devised of late by an Italian in the reign of King
Henry the Eighth; the latter was found out in the days of King Henry the
Second ; before whose time not one footstep appears in all antiquity of
any claim that the Bishop of Rome could make to the dominion of Ireland;
no, not in the Pope’s own records, which have been curiously searched by
Nicolaus Arragonius, and other ministers of his, who have purposely
written of the particulars of his temporal estate. The Italian of whom I
speak is Pollydore Virgil, he who composed the book De Inventoribus
Rerurn, or of the first inventors of things, among whom he himself may
challenge a place for this invention, if the inventors of lies be admitted
to have any room in that company. This man being sent over by the Pope
into England for the collection of his Peter-pence, undertook the writing
of the history of that nation; wherein he forgot not by the way to do the
best service he could to his lord who had employed him there. There he
tells an idle tale; how the Irish being moved to accept Henry the Second
for their king, ‘did deny that this could be done otherwise than by the
bishop of Rome’s authority, because (forsooth) that from the very
beginning, after they had received the Christian religion, they had
yielded themselves and all that they had into his power. And they
constantly affirmed (says this fabler) that they had no other lord besides
the Pope, of which they also yet brag.’ For confutation of which dream we
need not have recourse to our own Chronicles; the Bull of Adrian
the Fourth, wherein he gives liberty to Henry the Second to enter upon
Ireland, sufficiently discovers the vanity thereof. For, he there shewing
what right the Church of Rome pretended unto Ireland, makes no mention at
all of this, which had been the fairest and clearest title that could be
alleged if any such had been then existent in renem natura, but is
fain to fly unto a far-fetched interest, which he says the Church of Rome
hath unto all Christian islands. ‘Truly,’ says he to the King, ‘there is
no doubt but that all islands unto which Christ, the Son of Righteousness,
has shined, and which have received the instructions of the Christian
faith, do pertain to the right of St Peter, and the holy Church of Rome,
which your nobleness also acknowledges.’ If you would further understand
the ground of this strange claim whereby all Christian islands at a clap
are challenged to be parcels of St Peter’s patrimony; you shall have it
from Johannes Sarisbariensis, who was most inward with Pope Adrian, and
obtained from him this very grant of which we are now speaking. ‘At my
request (says he) he granted Ireland to the illustrious king of England,
Henry the Second, and gave it to be possessed by right of inheritance, as
his own letters testify unto this day. For all islands of ancient right
are said to belong to the Church of Rome by the donation of Constantine,
who founded and endowed the same.’ But you will see what a goodly title
here is in the meantime. First the donation of Constantine has been long
since discovered to he a notorious forgery, and is rejected by all men of
judgment as a senseless fiction," &c. [Religion Anciently professed by the
Irish and British, chap. xi.]
This may suffice to show that the Roman Church did not
obtain supremacy in Ireland till the twelfth century; and it was towards
the latter end of that century that the name Hibernia was first applied to
the country in authentic records.
Whether the discovery of America (? Armorica) in the
tenth century by the Icelanders was an accomplished fact is still a matter
of doubt; and as the two sagas which more minutely detail the countries
visited, and time incidents connected with the discovery, were not brought
to light till the seventeenth century, the attempt to shift Great Ireland
and Vinland to America may be but a part of the scheme planned to darken
and obscure the early history of Britain and Iceland. There are said to be
fictitious sagas, which are easily distinguished from the genuine ones by
the marvellous incidents with which they abound; and those referred to
above will be fouud to partake of this character. It is significant also
to find that the discovery of Great Ireland by the Icelanders, corresponds
in point of time with the period when Ethelwerd, the English annalist,
says that Ireland was first called by that name. The statements of the
Northern writers and the English historian fit together well in this
respect; and, leaving America out of the question, they serve to explain
and corroborate each other.
The following passage, regarding Great Ireland, or
Hvitramannaland, as it was also called, occurs in an old Icelandic
geographical treatise : "To the south of inhahited Greenlandare wild
anddesert tracts of ice-covered mountains; then comes the land of the
Scraellings, beyond this Markland, and then Vinland the good. Next to
this, and somewhat behind, lies Albania, that is to say, Hvitramannaland,
Whitemansland, whither vessels formerly sailed from Ireland. It was there
that several Irishmen and Icelanders recognised Ari, the son of Mar, and
Katla of Reykjanes, of whom there had not been for a long time any
tidings, and whom the natives of the country had made their chief." The
Landnamabok also states that Ari Masson was driven by a tempest to
Hvitramannaland, and detained and baptised there. [Mallet’s Northern
Antiquities, p. 264, Bohn’s Edition.] "It would appear that the Northmen
received their account of Hvitramannaland, which was also called Irland it
Mikla—Great Ireland—from Limerick traders, and that vessels had sailed
there, previous to the discovery of Vinland. These circumstances, and the
mention made of Ari’s baptism, have led some writers to suppose that there
was an Irish colony established on the coast of America south of
Massachusetts in the ninth or tenth century; but the statements
transmitted to us are obviously too vague to possess any historical
vahie." The eight chapters of King Olaf Trygvveson’s saga,
giving an account of the presumed discovery of America, are clearly shown
to be an interpolation by Laing in his translation of the Heimskringla.
[Vol. i. Prelimiciary Dissertation, p. 156, and vol. iii. p. 343.]
Gronland was the name of a district in Norway, and has
before now been mistaken for Greenland. Markland was a name of Denmark;
[Chambers’ Encyclopaedia, article Normans,] and Vinland may have been the
early Icelandic name of England or Spain. Albania or Scotland would be
behind England to an Icelander, and possibly Ireland may have been the
Great Ireland of the Icelanders.
The passages quoted above (page 46) regarding Armorica,
seem to imply that it was at one time a name given to Ireland; and
possibly this may have been the America of the authentic Icelandic sagas.
It will be seen that these notices identify Albania and
Great Ireland, but if the former is intended for Scotland, there must be
some confusion in the transcripts, as all the evidence available proves
that Ireland and Albania were never synonymous names for one countiy.
Possibly the tampering with the passages to make them point to America may
have given rise to this confusion. But if Great Ireland be the ancient
Icelandic designation of Ireland, it is quite possible that the Icelanders
received a description of it from Limerick traders, and that their vessels
had touched frequently at that port before Vinland, which may be intended
for Spain or England, was made known to them. This, at least, is certain,
that Great Ireland was discovered in the tenth century, and Ethelwerd says
Ireland was then first so called.
As bearing immediately upon the subject at issue, it
will not be out of place to give here the testimony of one of the most
eminent of recent writers on ancient Irish history regarding the earliest
colonists of Ireland, and the names Scot and Scotia not being known in
that country. In Todd’s Irish version of the Historia Britonum
of Nennius, additional notes, No. VI., it is said: "There is no
probability, and a want of distinct testiinony, even legendary, that
Ireland ever received any considerable body of settlers, but direct from
Britain." The Gaidhil or Scoti are mentioned as one of the three classes
of early colonists, and it is affirmed that "into this prevalent colony
the whole nation resolved itself." Then we are told "that the Scots,
after various peregrinations, went from Pictland or Albany in North
Britain to Spain, and thence over to Ireland," but it is immediately
afterwards explained that the whole mention of Spain in the legend
containing that information is etymological.
These conclusions are undoubtedly sound, and taking
them for a basis, a general idea of how the early colinisation of Ireland
probably proceeded may be laid before the reader. It is not improbable,
from proximity of situation, that some Basques from Spain may have settled
in the south of Ireland at a very early period, as hinted at by Geoffrey
of Monmouth and Giraldus Cambrensis, though there is no reliable testimony
to corroborate their hints. But it is very likely that a considerable
Celtic colony would settle in Ireland at the time of the Roman invasion of
Britain. Whether these are the Firbolgs of Irish legends it is perhaps
impossible now to determine. Again at the Saxon invasion of Britain, which
commenced in the south of Scotland, numerous Ceits were driven from that
district, many of whom would in all likelihood settle in Ireland. It was
in that part of the country that the Damnonii were located, and there is
little doubt but that a goodly number of them were among the emigrants,
but whether these represented the legendary Irish colony of the Tuath de
Danan cannot now be easily ascertained. These two bodies of colonists were
in all probability mainly composed of British Celts or Welsh, as they are
now called. The next colony which settled in Ireland from Britain,
however, was in all likelihood largely made up of Gaidhil. This exodus
took place in the ninth century, when the Norwegians or Danes, or both,
ravaged eastem Scotland north of the Firth of Forth so frequently and so
mercilessly that the inhabitants would be glad to seek refuge in another
country. Along with the Gaelic Celts or Picts who then settled in Ireland
there would be a number of Scots. The archaeological evidence bears out
this supposition. It was evidently at this period that Ireland received an
infusion of Scottish Christian priests, who carried with them their books,
bells, and croziers, and introduccd the art of monumental sculpture; but
contact with foreign influences soon sapped its purity and strength, and
sowed the seeds of its decadence. The colony which settled in Ireland at
this time is called Gaidhill or Scoti, on the presumption that these were
only different names for the same people, but this is an erroneous
conclusion. A Gaidhill was only a Scot in the same sense in which a
Highlander who only speaks Gaelic is a Scot. They are Scots because they
are born in Scotland, but they are not Scots in the full meaning of that
term, in that neither the one nor the other of them used the Scottish
dialect. It is therefore quite true, as Dr Todd says, that the colony of
Gaidhil may have been the largest body of .settlers who reached Ireland at
one time, for the Irish language is more akin to the Gaelic dialect than
to any other. We are only dealing with prehistoric times at present, it
needs to be remembered. About the end of the ninth century it is possible
that Ireland may have received a few settlers from Iceland, when the
Norwegians took possession of that island and drove the original
inhabitants out of it. It is questionable whether a Danish invasion of
Ireland took place in the ninth century as is often alleged. That a Danish
invasion of’ Scotland or ancient Eyryn did take place then there is
satisfactory evidence to prove ; and it appears as if several detached
incidents of it were seized hold of by the Irish to fill up the empty
pages of their ancient history.
With reference to the word Scot, Dr Todd, in the same
note, just quoted, supposes it to be derived from Scuite, a wanderer or
rover, and this supposition is thought to be supported by the fact that
the Scots are first mentioned as inhabitants of Britain. He then adds:
"This supposition squares admirably with the observation in Ogygia III.,
72, that although the Irish called their Gaidhelian people Scots, no such
territorial epithet as Scotia or Scotland was known in their language, for
they had not that name in regard of their land, but of renouncing their
land." Unfortunately all this theorising is thrown away, though it is
suggestive to bring it forward here, for another note in the same work,
No. XXI., informs us that since the former note was printed, "I have
learned that the gloss scuite, a wanderer, is not found elsewhere, and
that suspicion therefore arises of dictionaries having been interpolated
with a view to that very purpose for which I have applied them." This is a
remarkable admission; and it serves to show how wide and deep the mine had
been laid which obscured and perverted the ancient history of Scotland.
Further on in the note last quoted we find the
following:-
"If it (Scoti) were an ancient name of the Irish for
themselves, unknown to foreigners until they had improved their
acquaintance with Ireland, but then adopted by them generally (as
foreigners know the names German or Allernand, but have to learn the name
Deutsch), it follows that the name is vernavular among the Irish people.
But such, I believe, it neither is nor ever was. Unwritten discourse does
not so style them, nor does that of the Celts of Britain. Then as to
writers, their date is late in Ireland, and their manner of using the word
perhaps unsatisfactory. They almost all possessed some Latin learning, and
a Gaelicised adoption of the Latin word Scotus may prove no more than is
proved by Tigernach’s plain Latin Monumenta Sotorum."
Passing a few sentences which do not concern the
present subject, we read as follows: "I have observed that Scoti was the
name of the Scoti in their own language; and I have also observed that it
neither is, nor ever was, to our knowledge, the name of the Gaidhill or
Irish nation in their own discourse, and can scarce be said to have
established itself in their writings, always excepting such as treat of
the Scythian mythus. Here is something to explain if not reconcile."
Notwithstanding this it is remarkable to find the author of these remarks
overlooking the only feasible explanation of them, which is that the word
Scot was never applied to natives of Ireland, and the word Scotia was
never used as a name of Ireland. And yet when we think how much false
information has been penned on the subject, it is not to be wondered at
that even such an acute writer should still feel himself hampered by some
meshes of the net.
After trying to furnish an explanation, in the belief
that Scot and Irishman, and Scotia and Ireland were once synonymous terms,
the conclusion Dr Todd arrives at is this: "Thus it would seem as if
Irishmen were not Scoti, but expeditions of Irish warriors and pirates
were." We are then told that the first instance known of the territorial
phrase Scotia, is in Isidore of Seville’s works; but Dr Todd had
previously said that Isidoro asserts that Scotus was a word in their own
language, and we have seen that it was not a word of’ the Irish tongue, so
that Isidore’s Scotus and Scotia must refer to some other people and
country than the Irish and Ireland.
