Having dealt at some length with the most of the interpolations in Huntingdon in speaking of those in the Ecclesiastical History of Bede, it is needless to go over the same ground again. A few passages will be referred to in support of what has just been alleged, and this is all that is necessary to add to what has already been said on the subject. With regard to Huntingdon's ignorance of Ireland being called Scotia, we have a plain intimation near the beginning of the history, that is, supposing the passage to have been written by him. That it is an interpolation made for the purpose of showing there were large numbers of Scots in Ireland, has already been sufficiently demonstrated, but that does not affect the present question. Near the beginning of the first book1 it is said that Albion was afterwards called Britain, and then England. Shortly afterwards the Scots' migration from Ireland is spoken of, which country is described and mentioned several times. 2 It is even stated that it was the original country of the Scots. This was the place to say that Ireland was at the time called Scotia, but there is not even a hint given here, or elsewhere in this work, that such was the case. Although the Scots are connected with Ireland, it is always called by that name, or rather Hibernia. This is just what has been done in copying the same information into Bede's History; and in both instances the interpolators have so far missed their mark. In speaking of Henry of Huntingdon's statement about the Pictish language being entirely lost, and the people being all destroyed, which also occurs at the beginning of the first book, Professor Skene says it is not true of the language, if it resembled one of the other 1 Bohn's Translation, p. 2. 2 Ibid., pp. 9-12.

languages mentioned by Bede and Huntingdon so closely that one of the spoken languages might equally represent it. He adds that it is not true of the people either, as almost in the very year Huntingdon says they were all killed, he mentions the Picts as forming an entire division in David the First's army at the battle of the Standard.1 This shows how inefficiently the manipulators of ancient Scottish history discharged their task, and emphasises the remarks made by Innes on their want of sense and judgment, as quoted above (page 15).

Passing on to the period when the Romans left the island destitute of armed men, we find Huntingdon repeating the substance of the passages in Bede, and all the other ancient annalists, relating to the incursions of the Scots and Picts.2 These have been taken from a preceding writer, Gildas, who never speaks of Ireland or Hibernia. After describing the several successful inroads of the Scots and Picts, Huntingdon then notices their defeat by the Britons, and has the same sentence as we find in the Ecclesiastical History: "The Scots with shame returned to Ireland," or Hibernia. Here again no mention is made of Scotia as the name of Ireland.

4

3

Huntingdon refers to Palladius being sent to the Scots, as most of the other ancient writers do. Shortly afterwards he tells us that the Scots and Picts again attacked the Britons; and here he calls them northern nations, like Gildas. With the interpolated passages about Scots coming from Ireland to Britain, and returning there

1 Celtic Scotland, vol. i. p. 194, note.
2 Bohn's Translation, pp. 33-36.

p. 35.

3 Ibid.,
5 Ibid., p. 36.

5

again, readers might have some difficulty in saying which Scots it was to whom Palladius was sent; but they have just to remember that Huntingdon lived when Scotia was the well-known name of present Scotland, and if these Scots had been the inhabitants of any other country he would have said so. In Book II. we are told that Oswy subjugated most of the tribes of Scots and Picts who occupied the northern districts of Britain; and shortly afterwards it is said that Edgar's dominion extended over all the Scottish people. It requires to be noticed that the northern districts of Britain here mentioned were not Scotia proper, but those districts of Britain adjacent to its southern frontier. There must have been no Scots in Ireland in Edgar's time, for there is no evidence that his dominion extended over that country.

Passing on to the letter addressed by Laurentius to the Scots, which has already been spoken of in dealing with the same in the Ecclesiastical History, we have the first mention of Scotia or Scotland by Huntingdon. If this had been the name of Ireland at the time referred to, a writer, who lived when it was a name for Scotland only, would have said so. And so with the Scots, to whom Pope Honorius wrote, if they had been inhabitants of any other country but Scotland Huntingdon would have said so. At page 96 we are told that Osric and Eanfrid had been baptised while they were in exile among the Scots and Picts; and on page 975 that "Oswald sent into Scotland where he

had been exiled."

3

Then these words occur in the next

sentence: "The Scots who dwelt in the south of Ireland."

1 Bohn's Translation, p. 52.

2 Ibid., p. 83.

3 Ibid., p. 94,

4 Ibid,

5 Ibid,

Here then we have not only a distinction made between Scotland and Ireland, but also between the Scots of Scotland and the Scots of Ireland. Of course this is taking the work as it stands. Several of these passages are evidently interpolations, especially those in which Ireland is mentioned, but their character in this respect has been treated of already. It may not be out of place to enumerate them all here, so that the reader may compare them with each other, and with the references to the Scots and Scotia.

In addition to the instances already noticed, Ireland or the Irish are mentioned on pages 2, 3, 52, 60, 98, 99, 102, 106, 114, 117, which takes us up to the year 699, or about 35 years before Bede's death. The words Ireland or Irish do not occur again till the year 945, pages 169 and 170; and then not again till the year 1051, page 203. With the exception of the two last, the others have all been dealt with in speaking of the interpolations in Bede's Ecclesiastical History. It is remarkable to find that all the notices of Ireland which occur in Huntingdon up to the year 699 appear also in Bede's work, and that the name is not found again in Huntingdon till the year 945, which is after the time Ethelwerd says Ireland was first so called.

Besides the notices of the Scots and Scotland already referred to, the following appear:-Pages 4, 8, 38, 54, 55, 80, 98, 104, 105, 147, 169, 170, 172, 173, 176, 184, 198, 204, which takes us to the year 1054. The most of these seem to be a part of the genuine text, and they all refer to the country now called Scotland or its inhabitants. It should be stated that, in the passage on page 80, it is said that there was a controversy with the Scots and Picts about Easter. The Scots are twice

mentioned here by Huntingdon. Wendover reproduces this passage almost word for word; but neither Scots nor Picts nor anything about the Easter controversy appears in connection with the same event as narrated by that writer.

This completes the review of the early annals which have been largely interpolated for the purpose of making people believe that the Scots originally came from Ireland to Scotland. An examination of these which have only been slightly tampered with for that purpose will be made at the beginning of another treatise, which will deal with the early history of Ireland and Iceland, in so far as it concerns the origin of the Scots.