Ethelwerd says under the year 729: "A comet appeared, and the holy bishop, Egbert, died." This is all he records about Egbert.

Florence of Worcester's Chronicle, under the year 692, has: "Egbert was an Englishman by

birth, but having led a pilgrim's life in Ireland," &c. Under 716: "Egbert induced the monks of Hii to adopt the Catholic usages with respect to Easter and the ecclesiastical tonsure." Under 729: "Egbert departed to the Lord on Easter day of this year." This is all that is found about Egbert in this Wictbert is not mentioned. The Hewalds are, but nothing is said of their sojourn in Ireland.

work.

William of Malmesbury never mentions either Egbert or Wictbert, or the Hewalds..

Henry of Huntingdon, under the year 715, has "Egbert, a venerable man, brought over the monks of Hii to the Catholic observance of Easter and the Catholic tonsure. Having lived with them fourteen years, and being fully satisfied with the reformation of the brotherhood, during the paschal solemnities on the feast of Easter, he rejoiced that he had seen the day of the Lord, He saw it and was glad." This is all. Nothing is said about Ireland, or of his death, or of Wictbert, or the Hewalds.

Roger of Wendover, like Malmesbury, takes no notice whatever of this Egbert, or of Wictbert. The Hewalds are mentioned by him, but nothing is said of their having been in Ireland.

Regarding the pestilence in Ireland, Huntingdon is the only writer who coincides with the Ecclesiastical History on this point. All the other annals mention it, but confine it to Britain. It may be remarked that

the word English often occurs in these chapters of the Ecclesiastical History. And it is worth noticing that an Egbert, who became archbishop of York after Bede's death, is mentioned by all the later annalists. The result of this analysis of the chapters of the Ecclesiastical History relating to Egbert, shows that they are only slightly endorsed by works which have been interpolated, for even the oldest manuscript of the Saxon Chronicle is not free from this fault. It is said there are many interpolations in this manuscript, and the entries regarding Egbert in it have an appearance of being of that character. The omission by Malmesbury and Wendover, who both profess to have used Bede's work, of all reference to Egbert and the conversion of the monks of Hii, is of itself sufficient to prove that the passages just quoted from the Ecclesiastical History are fabrications.

It is necessary to say that the annals of Tigernach, and the annals of Ulster, both refer to the conversion of the monks of Hii under the year 716; but "it is remarkable that Tigernach and the annals of Ulster agree in employing at this place a form (of the name of the island) not used by them elsewhere," as Dr Reeves states, in a note at page 259 of his edition of Adamnan's Life of St Columba. Here they call the island Eo, but in every other place where they mention it, which is done frequently, they call it either Iae or Ia. This single instance of Eo occurring in the two annals under the same year, suggests the likelihood of its being an interpolated entry.

We have thus, in the foregoing pages, endeavoured to show that all the notices of Ireland which appear in Bede's work, are fabricated; and the reader can judge

with what success. If it has been demonstrated that none of them were originally written by him, then it is evident that they have been introduced into this history for the purpose of supporting the Irish origin of the Scots. With these passages erased from the Ecclesiastical History, it would be foolish to believe that there were any Scots in Ireland, or that it was called Scotia, in Bede's time.

Before closing this examination of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, it may be as well to say here that the letter to the king of the Picts, which appears in Book V., chapter twenty-one, is not mentioned by the Saxon Chronicle, nor Ethelwerd, nor Florence, nor Malmesbury, nor Wendover.

INTERPOLATIONS IN ANCIENT ANNALS

AFFECTING THE EARLY HISTORY OF

SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.

It may not be out of place to append to this treatise an examination of those other works, which were largely interpolated for the purpose of making people believe that Hibernia and Scotia were ancient names of Ireland. When they were produced or tampered with may never be certainly known. At the time the Irish strove to obtain possession of the affluent Scots monastery at Ratisbon or Regensburg, they were charged with making a fraudulent entry in the records of the establishment, in which they described Ireland as Great Scotland. This took place in the year 1515, and possibly some of these works may have been tampered with then to support the fictitious claim. For, notwithstanding the allegations of the Irish ecclesiastics, the local authorities were clear that the monastery belonged to Scotland; and it was accordingly restored to the Scots.1

1

TACITUS' LIFE OF AGRICOLA.

It will surprise many readers to learn that Tacitus'

1 Burton's History of Scotland, New Edition, vol. i., pp. 202 and 203 and note.