Obrazy na stronie

may repass where it enters; and stretching it up with a strong thong of the same above our said ancles. So, and please your noble grace, we make our shoes. Therefore we using such manner of shoes, the rough hairy side outward, in your grace's dominion of England we be called Roughfooted Scots."

The dress of the common people continued the same till the seventeenth century. Shoes in 1493 were generally sold for twelvepence the pair, or about threepence sterling. A groom's dress in 1528 is described by Lindsay, as consisting of a coat and hose, a cloak and bonnet. James II. enacted particular and stringent regulations as to female dress. A farmer's wife was to receive her lover attired in a kirtle or close gown of fine red cloth, a white kerchief on her head, a belt of silk adorned with silver, with a purse and keys, and two rings on each finger. A young country girl soon after this period is 'described as wearing a red kirtle, brown hose, and her long yellow hair hanging down from under her kerchief. (Maitland Poems).

Until the Reformation, the ecclesiastical history of Scotland was entirely barren of any stirring or memorable events. One half of the wealth of the country was then in the hands of the clergy; and the church continuing militant, several high ecclesiastics were slain at the battle of Flodden. The papal abuses, and the vices of the monks and nuns, are severely censured by Dunbar and Lindsay. Shortly after the execution of Patrick Hamilton in 1528, a friar at Dundee -William Arithe-ridiculed and exposed in his sermons the vices of the ecclesiastics with courageous boldness and commendable vigour. The priest, said he, whose duty is to pray for the people, will solemnly arise on Sunday and exclaim, "Anne has lost her spindle; there is a flail stolen behind the barn; the good woman on the other side of the way has lost a horn-spoon: God's curse and mine I give to them that know of these goods, and restore them not."

When James V. returned from his memorable voyage to

the Isles, July 1540, the ecclesiastics with great formality and solemnity, presented to His Majesty a list of the Protestant peers and chiefs, that he might inflict upon them the severest punishment, and confiscate their property and estates. The king spiritedly replied in these memorable words," Pack ye jugglers; get ye to your charges, and reform your own lives; be not instruments of discord between my nobility and me, or I vow to God I shall reform you; not as the king of Denmark by imprisonment, nor as he of England by hanging and beheading you, but yet by most severe punishments, if ever such motion proceed from you again."

The art of printing introduced into Scotland in the previous reign of James IV., 1508, no doubt tended much to the general advancement of the nation in the arts and sciences, in general literature, and comparative civilization. It is somewhat humiliating to our national pride, however, that this noble art had previously been introduced into Denmark and Sweden, viz., in 1480 and 1483. Indeed even in Iceland, it effectually took root in 1529, only some twenty years after its introduction into Scotland.

As to the loved and hallowed name of Scotia, now so dear to every Scotchman's heart, having been the original name of Scotland, Pinkerton has indisputably proved that this name was long borne by Ireland, before being given to Scotland. The truth is, he asserts, that from the fourth century to the eleventh, the names Scotia and Scoti belonged solely to Ireland and the Irish. It was only in the reign of Malcolm II., about the year 1020, that the name Scotia was first applied to North Britain. The accomplished Cellarius, Eccard, Schoepslin, D' Anville, the learned editors of the Historiens de France, Suhm, &c., have all agreed on this point. Indeed, all reliable writers of any note, English, Scotch, and Irish, from Beda downwards, agree in this particular that the ancient Scots of North Britain were a colony from Ireland. The Scotch Highlanders assent to the historical

fact, and the Lowlanders continue to call the Highlanders Irishy, and their language Irish, Erish, or Erse.

The name Piks or Picts, otherwise Caledonians, is first mentioned by Eumenius, in the year 296, who says 'that before the time of Julius Cæsar, Britain south of Forth and Clyde, or Roman Britain, was only invaded by the Picts and Irish, Pictis modo et Hibernis. The name of Scots was at that time unknown. Hiberni and Scoti have been clearly proved to be synonymous; that Ireland was Scotia, and the Irish Scoti. Ethicus (368) says, Hibernia a Scotorum gentibus colitur, Ireland is inhabited by the nations of Scots. In the next century Orosius writes-Hibernia insular inter Britanniam et Hispaniam . . . a Scotorum gentibus colitur.-Ireland an island between Britain and Spain . . . is inhabited by the Scotch nations. In the seventh century Isidorus thus clearly and explicitly says, Scotia eadem et Hibernia proxima Britanniæ insula, Scotia the same as Ireland, an island very near Britain. Beda, speaking in the next age of Hibernia or Ireland, says, hæc Scotorum patria est-This is the native country of the Scots. Without quoting any more authorities on the subject, such as Eginhart in the ninth century, Notherus Balbulus in the tenth; Marianus Scotus in the eleventh; and St. Bernard in the twelfth century-it may be confidently taken as indisputably proved that Scotland was not called Scotia before the eleventh century. Irish writers may be prejudiced on the one side, and Scottish on the other side, but the former is the right side, and the latter the wrong. Impartial foreigners universally pronounce against the Scotch. Sirmond, a Frenchman; Bozius an Italian; Molanus, Miræus, Canisius, Gretserus, Germans, and even our own countrymen, Major and Buchanan, give it against us even at the commencement of the controversy.

As to the general history of Scotland, it only becomes. partially clear at the commencement of the reign of Malcolm III., in the year 1056, all preceding that date being utterly

untrustworthy, and lost in the veriest and silliest fiction. In regard to a nation's ignorance of its own history, especially and not very creditably peculiarly applicable to Scotland, one of the greatest of the ancients expresses himself thus, that "Not to know what has happened before one's birth, is to be always a child." And again that "to him none seemed to have any claim to learning, who were ignorant concerning the affairs of their own country." The foundation of the early history of any country should be carefully and critically examined; for as a celebrated historian most truly remarks, "how is it possible that, while the beginnings are false, the rest should prove true?" Such a task requires great research, unflagging patience, and indomitable industry, keen critical acumen, variety of information, and persistent, continuous labour. But this incessant drudgery and extreme stretching of the powers of the mind, is at first very irksome and exceedingly painful, for in the truthful words of Thucydides, "amongst most men, even the investigation of truth is impatient of labour; so that they rather have recourse to what is next at hand."

Learning in Scotland being thus degraded and neglected, it was not till the beginning of the last century, that the study of antiquities made any progress in that country. While in the sixteenth century, France, Spain, Italy, and Germany had produced several eminent antiquaries, and Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, had almost rivalled, if not eclipsed them in the next, Scotland remained barren of, and undistinguished by, antiquarian lore, and isolated by its ignorance of the sciences, from all the other civilized nations of Europe. The best, as well as the weakest writers, seemed to have despised the name and province of an antiquary, ignoring the bright examples of Cato, Varro, Cæsar, in ancient times; and of Luther, Melanchthon, Spelman, Selden, Du Cange, Leibnitz, and Muratori, in modern.

When the science of antiquities, however, began to be

cultivated, the first great enquiry ought to have been, whether the barbaric monuments in Britain were either Celtic or Gothic. Without examining at all the foundation, and taking as their guide those very points which have been proved to be entirely false and illusory, antiquarians have rushed at once to the conclusion that they are all Celtic, while the truth is all on the other side, that they are Gothic. Save cairns of stones used as sepulchres, and as memorials of ancient monuments by the British Scots, there are none. This may be attributed to Celtic inaction and indolence; while the activity and industry of the Gothic raised vast stones for the same purposes, instead of heaping together an insignificant number of small ones. The Celts, according

to all ancient history and present knowledge of their habits of life, were a race utterly incapable of labour, far less adept in the rude arts. No stone monuments can anywhere be traced among them. The Goths, on the contrary, originating from Asia, where the rude as well as the cultivated arts, first began, were only a barbaric race, with barbaric arts from the beginning. The antiquities of the Picts, the Gothic inhabitants of Scotland, may, according to Pinkerton, be classified thus:

I. Single Stones erect; being 1. Sepulchral; 2. Memorial; 3. Boundaries.

II. Barrows or Sepulchral Hillocks.

III. Temples, and Places of Judgment.

IV. Castles.

V. Caves.

VI. Entrenchments.

Meigle, the quiet secluded village we are now approaching, is beautifully situated in the very heart of Strathmore. Beneath the friendly shadow of the umbrageous woods of Belmont and Kinloch, it unostentatiously reposes in all the richness of its sylvan beauty. Its name may have been derived from the circumstance of the church and manse being situate on a tract of level ground between two marshes or

« PoprzedniaDalej »