time. De Orig. Get. p. 595-597. Is it said that Bede lived too long after the settlement of the Picts, to know any thing certain as to their origin? It is sufficient to reply, that he undoubtedly gives the received belief of his time, which had been transmitted from preceding ages, and which no writer, for nearly nine hundred years after him, ever ventured to controvert. If Bede could not know whence the Picts came, it can hardly be supposed that we should have superior means of information.

Bede was certainly well acquainted with the Britons, or Welsh. Now, although it should be supposed that he had been misinformed as to the origin of the Picts, his assertion amounts to a full proof that they were quite a different people from the former. For had they been Welsh, or indeed Celts of any description, the similarity of language could not have entirely escaped his observation. If an intelligent Highlander can at this day, after a national separation of nearly fourteen hundred years, make himself understood by an Irishman, it is totally inconceivable that the language of the Picts, if British, should have so far lost its original character in a far shorter period.

An attempt has lately been made, by a learned writer, to set aside this testimony of Bede, who, it is admitted, "was contemporary with the Pictish government." "He speaks," it is said, "doubtfully of the Picts, as the second people, who came into this island, from Scythia; first to Ireland; and thence to NorthBritain. But though Bede states all this, rather as what he had heard, than as what he knew, his authority has deluded many writers, who did not inquire whether what he had said modestly could possibly be true." Caledonia, p. 199, N. But why is it said that Bede speaks doubtfully, or, as it is afterwards somewhat softened, modestly, of the Picts? There can be no other reason for this assertion, than that he uses the phrase, ut perhibent. He therefore states all this, rather as what he had heard, than as what he knew. Doubtless, he could not know it, but by some kind of relation. For, although "contemporary with the Pictish government," it has never been supposed that he could have ocular demonstration as to the landing of this people. Is it meant to be objected that Bede does not quote his authorities, or that he refers only to traditionary testimony? In a matter of this kind, would it be surprising that he could have referred to nothing else? Viewing it in this light, there is not the least evidence that it was not the general belief. Had it been merely the report of some, opposed by a different account of the origin of this people, he would in all probability have said,—ut nonnulli perhibent. Had he known any argument against this account, one, for example, from the diversity of language, would he not naturally have stated this? But must perhibent necessarily be restricted to mere report? Has it never been used to denote historical narration? Or, as it occurs in the language of Bede, may it not rather be viewed as respecting the more circumstantial account which follows, concerning the size and number of the ships,-(ut perhibent, longis navibus non multis,) than as respecting what precedes, in regard to the migration of the

Picts from Scythia? It is a singular circumstance, that Bede uses the very same verb with respect to the chiefs of the Anglo-Saxons. "Duces fuisse perhibentur eorum primi duo fratres Hengist et Horsa." Lib. i. c. 15. Could Bede be in any doubt, whether these were the leaders of his ancestors, little more than 200 years before his own time?

If, however, Bede wrote doubtfully, how could his authority "delude many writers?" If he indeed mentions this only as a modest opinion, as a matter of mere hearsay, as a thing about which he was himself in hesitation; whence is it, that none of these "many writers," during nearly ten centuries, ever adverted to this till now? Were they all, without exception, so very prone to delusion? This is undoubtedly the conclusion we are left to deduce. They were so blind as to mistake mere doubt for authority; and therefore "they did not inquire whether what he had said modestly could possibly be true." Here the secret breaks out. Bede must necessarily be viewed as writing doubtfully, because he could not possibly be writing the truth. For, although neither Bede nor his followers did inquire, "we now know, from more accurate examination, that the Picts were certainly Caledonians; that the Caledonians were Britons; and that the Britons were Gauls it is the topography of North-Britain, during the second and first centuries, as it contains a thousand facts, which solves all these doubts, and settles all controversy about the lineage of the Picts." Caled. ut sup.

Although Bede knew somewhat about the names of places in North-Britain, we, in the nineteenth century, can form a far more certain judgment: and so powerful is this single argument from topography, as to invalidate all other evidence arising from direct historical testimony.

Nennius, who wrote about the year 858, informs us, that "the Picts came and occupied the islands called Orkneys, and afterwards, from the adjacent islands desolated many large regions, and took possession of those on the left, i.e., the north, coast (sinistrali plaga) of Britain, where they remain even to this day." "There," he adds, "they held the third part of Britain, and hold it even until now." Cap. 5. ap. Gale, I. 99.

Mr. Pinkerton has made a remark, the force of which cannot easily be set aside, that both Nennius and his coadjutor Samuel "were Welch," and that, “therefore, their testimony is conclusive that the Piks were not Welch, for they speak of the Piks, while the Pikish name was in full power." Enquiry, II. 161.

That the Picts were not Welsh, appears also from the testimony of Gildas, an earlier British writer, who calls them a transmarine nation, who came ab aquilone, from the north. Ap. Gale, I. 1.

The Saxon Chronicle, which seems to have been begun about the year 1000, perfectly concurs with these testimonies. The account given of the Picts is so similar to that of Bede, that it would almost seem to have been copied from his history. It is more minute in one point; as it says that they came, ex australi parte Scythiae,"from the south of Scythia."

The northern origin of the Picts seems to have been admitted by Roman writers. I shall not urge the well-known testimony of Tacitus, with respect to the striking resemblance of the Caledonians to the Germans; for, notwithstanding the partiality of former ages for this ancient writer, as an accurate investigator and faithful historian, we are now told, that "Tacitus talked about the origin of the Caledonians and Germans, like a man who was not very skilful in such investigations ; and who preferred declamation to inquiry." Caled. p. 202, N.

The testimony of Claudian, who was coeval with the Emperor Valentinian I., deserves our attention.

-Maduerunt, Saxone fuso,

Orcades. Incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule.

Goodall, in his Introduction to Fordun, observes on this passage, that although the Romans slew the Saxons in the Orkneys, it does not follow that they were either the inhabitants of the Orkneys, or of Britain. But one consequence is unavoidable,—that even in this early period the Saxons were acquainted with the Orkneys. Hence, also, it seems highly probable, that they were in a state of confederacy with the Picts, as being a kindred race.

Stillingfleet's reasoning, concerning the testimony of Eumenius, is very strong. "In his Panegyrick," says the Bishop, "he takes notice of the different state of the Britons, when Caesar subdued them, from what they were in Constantius his time. 'Then,' saith he, 'they were a rude, half-naked people, and so easily vanquished; but now the Britons were exercised by the arms of the Picts and the Irish.' Nothing can be plainer, than that Eumenius here distinguishes the Picts from the Britons, and supposes them to be enemies to each other. Neither can we reasonably think this a name then taken up to distinguish the barbarous Britons from the Provincial. For that distinction had now been of a very long standing; and if it had been applied to that purpose, we should have met with it in Tacitus, or Dio, or Herodian, or Zozimus, who speak of the Extra-provincial Britains, under no other name but of Britains." Orig. Britann. p. 241.

It has indeed been said, that "the Picts of the third century-appeared to Roman eyes under new aspects, and to the Roman understanding under more formidable shapes." Caled. p. 215. By the reference to B. i. c. 6, the author seems to respect "their peculiar seclusion from the Roman provincials on the south of the walls;" p. 191. But this gives no sort of satisfaction to the mind, as a reason for a new designation. Were they not formerly extra-provincial, as much as in the time of Eumenius? Did they assume a warlike aspect formerly unobserved? Was not their character, in this respect, abundantly well known to Agricola? The idea of Stillingfleet, that the ancient Caledonians, although of Gothic origin, were about this time joined by a new colony from the continent, is at least worthy of mature consideration. V. Orig. p. 246.

Ammianus Marcellinus having said, Pictos Saxonasque, et Scottos et Attacottos, Britannos aerumnis vexasse continuis; Goodall observes, that "it cannot be inferred that the Saxons were Scots or Picts, because these are spoken of as different nations." But from the classification observed by Marcellinus, Pictos Saxonasque, he seems to have viewed these as only different names given to contiguous and kindred nations.

I might refer to the general persuasion of Northern writers, that the Picts were Goths. Vidalinus, in his work, De Linguae Septentrionalis Appellatione, Donsk Tunga, affixed to Gunnlaug. Saga, has cited Torfaeus, Ser. Reg. Dan. p. 200-203; Pontoppidan, Gest. Dan. T. 2, c. 2, pp. 226, 227; Schoning, Norveg. Reg. Hist.; Torfaeus, Hist. Norv. T. 3, p. 525; Run. Jonas, Element. Ling. Septent. ; Bussaeus, Vit. Arii Polyhist. c. 3, &c. V. Gunnlaug. Sag. p. 263.

But I shall not urge this as an argument; as it may be said that these writers were all too late to know with certainty the origin of the Picts. While, however, we are assured that the Scandinavians were early acquainted with the northern parts of our island, and made frequent descents on them, it must appear singular indeed, had we reason to believe that they were universally mistaken with respect to the origin of the inhabitants. Had they spoken a dialect of the Celtic, it would have afforded sufficient evidence that there was no national affinity with their invaders.

Nor would it be less remarkable, if almost all our own ancient writers had been grossly mistaken as to the origin of a people, who make so distinguished a figure in our history, and who so long occupied by far the greatest part of Scotland. The general persuasion of the old English writers was the same with theirs.

But the learned gentleman, formerly referred to, views every species of evidence as of no weight whatsoever, when opposed to that of a topographical kind, arising from the names of places in the first and second centuries; especially as these are found in the work of Ptolemy the Geographer. It was my original intention in this preliminary dissertation, to throw together, as briefly as possible, the various circumstances which indicate the Gothic origin of our ancestors, without entering into the wide field of controversy. But however unpleasant this task, especially with a gentleman whose abilities and indefatigable industry I am bound to acknowledge, and who, whatever may be his mistakes, deserves well of his country for the pains he has taken to elucidate her ancient history; yet, I find it indispensably necessary to investigate the grounds on which he proceeds, as otherwise any thing here exhibited, under the notion of argument, might be viewed as already invalidated.

In order to erect or support his argument, that the Picts were Britons, or the same people with the Welsh, and that no language was spoken in Scotland, before the introduction of what is called the Scoto-Saxon, save the Celtic; the learned writer finds it necessary to assume certain data of a singular description. He either takes for granted, or flatters himself that he has proved, that, till a late

period there were none but Celts in Germany; that the Roman historians are not worthy of credit, in as far as they insinuate any thing opposed to this hypothesis that the Goths were different from the Scythians; that the Belgic was merely a dialect of the Celtic; and that the stone monuments to be found in Britain were all constructed by Celts.

He assumes, that there were none but Celts in Germany, till a late period. He does not, indeed, fix the time of the first migration of the Goths into that country; but seems to think that it was scarcely prior to the Christian era. For,

66

as far as I can perceive, the only proof which he appeals to, is that of there being only two tongues (except the Greek) heard on the western side of the Euxine, the Getic and the Sarmatic," when Ovid was banished to Tomi by Augustus. But, because there was a body of Goths at this time residing on the Euxine, it cannot amount to a proof that none of this race had previously settled in Germany, or in the northern countries. The Suevi, who certainly were not Celts, were inhabitants of Germany in the time of Julius Caesar, possessing the country now called Mecklenburg, and some neighbouring districts. The Cimbri extended to the Baltic. By many, indeed, they have been viewed as Celts. But the writers of the Universal History, whom Mr. Chalmers often quotes with respect, observe on this head-"The learned Grotius, and after him Sheringham, and most of the northern writers, maintain, with arguments which have not yet been confuted, that the Cimbrians, Getes, and Goths were one and the same nation; that Scandinavia was first peopled by them, and that from thence they sent colonies into the islands of the Baltic, the Chersonesus, and the adjacent places, yet destitute of inhabitants." Vol. XIX. 254.

A very able and learned writer, who has paid particular attention to the subject, contends that "the Cimbri, who, in conjunction with the Teutones, invaded Italy, and were defeated by Marius," were Goths. "The country," he "The country," he says, "whence they proceeded, their close alliance with a Gothic tribe, and the description given of them by the Greek and Latin historians, who appear to have considered them of the same race with the Teutones, clearly prove them to have been of German origin. (Plut. in Mario; Livy, Epit. L. 68; Percy's Preface to Mallet's North. Antiq. p. 38; Mallet, Vol. I. 32.) To these considerations it may be added, that the name of their leader, Boiiorix, is evidently of Gothic structure; and that Tacitus, who, in his description of Germany, particularly and expressly marks the few tribes who appeared not to be Germans, is entirely silent respecting the Celtic origin of the Cimbri; and in his account points out no difference between them and the other inhabitants. Tacit. Germ. 37." Edin. Rev. for July, 1803, p. 367, 368.

The Suiones have never been viewed as Celts, but generally acknowledged as the more immediate ancestors of the Swedes, although some say of the Danes. The Sitones, also a Scandinavian nation, were settled in these northern regions before the time of Tacitus. Caesar testifies that the Teutones and Cimbri, before