pared with it. The section set apart for the elucidation of Scottish history, properly so called, is especially deserving of praise from the comprehensiveness of its mode of treatment; and the chapters allotted to the Picts are also valuable, though, ethnologically, we decline to recognise them as the standard of our faith. After making such an avowal, it may perhaps be expected by some, that we should enter on the great battle-field of the Pictish controversy, but, on this occasion, having neither space nor inclination to do so, we have carefully and designedly eschewed this exciting subject, with the view of confining our observations to the Scots alone. For the present then, let a single parenthetical remark suffice, namely, that it is our matured conviction, after having perused, we may almost say every scrap extant bearing upon the discussion, that notwithstanding the endless volumes which have been written, the more minute and interesting facts of the case have yet to be evoked. Nay more, we do not hesitate to say that the most recent investigator of this complicated and somewhat mysterious topicDr. Latham,-is, always excepting John Pinkerton, farthest from the truth, since he expresses his belief, on most frivolous and untenable grounds, that "the Picts may have been Scandinavians."

By way of conclusion it seems proper to devote a single paragraph to the people who imposed their name on the northern division of Britain, and whose history has been the subject of those tedious discussions to which we have adverted. Plainly, in such an inquiry, it ought to be our first duty to penetrate as far as possible, the obscurity which surrounds their origin, and the era of their localisation in Ireland; but though the theme is certainly inviting, we conceive it would be somewhat foreign to the peculiar province of this Review, were we to launch out on the boundless sea of ethnological speculation. It appears to us moreover, that even were we disposed to waive all considerations of this nature, the tenor of the present article requires no more than a brief survey of the facts which relate to the settlement of the Scots in Britain.

*

That Fergus, the son of Erc, was the founder of the Scottish monarchy in North Britain, is a truth now universally admitted because proved by many concurring testimonies; but there does not prevail quite so much unanimity of opinion respecting the precise year in which he began to reign, though 503 has from the

To avoid hampering the memory of our readers with many proper names, we have continued Fergus MacErc as founder of the Scottish monarchy, although there is little doubt but his brother Loarn is entitled to the post of honour, or at all events, was co-ordinate in power with him.

I.-3.

20

times of Usher downwards, been most generally regarded as the true date. Indeed, almost the only recent dissentient is Ritson, who is inclined to prefer 496, but on data we think of no great value. We will not, however, burden our readers with tiresome details in the hope of ascertaining the exact truth in this matter; such hairsplitting would be more appropriate in a minute antiquarian monograph, as it will be amply sufficient for our purpose to assume that the Scottish regal dynasty arose about the beginning of the sixth century. Thus much is neutral ground: one step further, and we are in the midst of confusion. For the next question to be propounded is, whether had the Scots, before the reign of Fergus MacErc, obtained any settlement in Britain, or were they merely occasional allies of the Picts, who returned to their Irish homes after each invasion of the provincials had yielded them a harvest of spoil? Each of the propositions here stated has been stoutly maintained; but we are disposed to believe that in most instances, too much unyielding exclusiveness has marred the arguments of the pleaders on both sides. That is to say, those who favoured the early immigration of the Scots were too liable to infer-no matter what amount of perversion was necessary-that every passage in the classical authors, in which the name of that people occurred, related to North Britain; while, on the other hand, their adversaries were not willing to acknowledge the existence of any regular Scottish colony whatever in that country, prior to the reign of the son of Erc. Now it is our decided impression, that both parties. have gone to extremes, and that, as usually happens in such cases, in medio tutissimus ibis. In fact the only practicable method of successfully reconciling inferential probabilities, and the various direct intimations of annalists, is that, which may be termed the most natural, and the most in accordance with the dictates of reason. Let us explain a little more fully. From A.D. 360 onwards, the Scots are recorded as having assisted in nearly every attack from the north endured by the southern Britons; and a careful consideration of all the circumstances connected with those expeditions induces the belief that, at all events, some of the people in question had, at an earlier period than 503, effected a settlement in the Pictish territory. Indeed, unless some such supposition as this be allowed, it is difficult to conceive how they should have been such constant and opportune auxiliaries of the Picts. Although then there might have been, and probably was, a colony of Scots, established in North Britain in the fourth or fifth century, it does not follow that these were the only

robbers of that name who harassed the effeminate provincials; for they (the Scots) had brethren on the opposite and neighbouring coasts of Ireland, whose help doubtless they easily and frequently procured, which at once renders it intelligible why several passages in the contemporaneous authorities should designate the Scottish ravagers as inhabitants of the "Green Isle."

Although, therefore, we are prepared to admit that the Scots had obtained a footing in their future country, as early even as the age of Ammianus Marcellinus (the fourth century), yet in forming this judgment we have never been swayed or influenced by the statement of Bede, and the supplementary arguments based upon it. That truly invaluable author left upon record, that the Scots had first landed in Britain under the guidance of a certain Riorda, from whom their territory was entitled Dalriorda, and the Irish writers forthwith hunted up in their genealogies, a prince of that name, to act as the Scottish Teucer. It seems to us, however, very evident that the tradition preserved by Bede refers to Dalriorda in Ireland, the true original, from which the district in Scotland undoubtedly receives its appellation direct: nor need it be a matter of surprise, that a legend such as this should have been transplanted incidentally from one country to another by the people whose peculiar property it was. But be that as it may, the few hints our narrow limits have enabled us to throw out, though short and necessarily inconclusive, may perhaps be sufficient to indicate, that at first the position of the Scots in Britain was fluctuating and indeterminate, and only assumed a more settled aspect, when the sons of Erc led over fresh bands from Ireland, consolidated their monarchy, and founded a royal line, which was afterwards to become dominant not only amid the mountain fastnesses of Scotland, but, by rare fortune, throughout the whole united kingdom of Great Britain.

ART. VI. Satires and Declamations of Thomas Nash.

:

Pierce Penilesse his Supplication to the Devill. Describing the over-spreading of Vice, and the Suppression of Vertue. Pleasantly interlac'd with variable delights and pathetically intermixt with conceipted reproofes. Written by THOMAS NASH, Gentleman. London, Imprinted by Richard Ihones, dwelling at the Signe of the Rose and Crowne, nere Holburne Bridge, 1592. [Reprinted for the Shakespeare Society, 1842.]

Nashe's Lenten Stuffe, containing the Description and First Procreation and Increase of the Towne of Great Yarmouth in Norffolke: with a new Play never played before, of the Praise of the Red Herring. Fitte of all Clearkes of Noblemens Kitchins to be read: and not unnecessary by all serving men that have short boord-wages, to be remembered. Famam peto per undas. London, Printed for N. L. and C. B. and are to be sold at the west end of Paules. 1599.

Christ's Tears over Jerusalem. Whereunto is annexed a Comparative Admonition to London. A Jove Musa. By THO. NASH. London: printed for Thomas Thorp, 1613. [Reprint, 1815.]

IN selecting these works from the many which the author left behind him, we have been influenced less by any similarity or congruity between them than by the simple wish to make our readers acquainted with the once renowned but now little-known satirist, whose mirthful sallies passed from mouth to mouth in the days of queen Bess much as the good things of a Hood or a Sydney Smith did in our own younger days. But his wit as well as his satire partook largely of the grossness of the times in which he lived, as the books before us abundantly testify; and in this and other instances of a similar nature our object will ever be to present our readers with the spirit, if not the quintessence, of an author, while we leave the scum and dregs of his productions to their deserved oblivion. In the present case it is especially incumbent upon us to adopt this course, for the author, in the epistle prefixed to his 'Christ's Tears,' says: "Many vain things have I vainly set forth, whereof now it repenteth me. St. Augustine writ a whole book of his Retractions. Nothing so much do I retract as that wherein soever I have scandalized the meanest. Into some splenetive veins of wantonness heretofore have I foolishly relapsed to supply my private wants: of them no less do I desire to be absolved

than the rest, and to God and man do I promise an unfeigned conversion." Now this is nobly said; and far be it from us to make the Retrospective Review the vehicle for bringing to light what so ingenuous a mind would gladly have consigned to the flames. We shall, however, make one reservation: we do not engage to blot all that Nash himself would have blotted, as thereby much of the raciness of his personal satire would be lost; but blot we will all that could reasonably be construed into a breach of modesty.

The history of Thomas Nash is that of Savage, Chatterton, Hood-a tale of the misery (self-procured or otherwise) which is so often the concomitant of genius. He was born of gentle parentage at Lowestoffe in Suffolk, his father being a member of the Nashes of Herefordshire, and in some way a relative of Sir Robert Cotton. He took his degree of B.A. at St. John's College, Cambridge, in 1585, and was, as he himself tells us, a resident there ("the sweetest nurse of knowledge in all that university") for almost seven years. For some unexplained reason, however, he quitted Cambridge without proceeding M. A.

Mr. Payne

Collier, to whom we are indebted for the edition of 'Pierce Penniless,' thinks he left his College under some imputation of misconduct. He appears soon afterwards to have visited Italy, Ireland, and many parts of England. In 1587 he was in London and associated with the celebrated Robert Greene, the dramatist, in literary occupations. Two or three years later he engaged in his contest with the Puritans, which was the opening of the celebrated "Martin Marprelate controversy." His adversaries were very numerous, but Nash's sprightly warfare with the small shot of satire and wit, was unmatched even by a host of theologians and a cannonade of scripture quotations. Among all his antagonists none had so large a share of his bitterest objurgations as Gabriel Harvey, with whom the contest was protracted through several years, until it was at length put a stop to by the public authorities. Nash also wrote several plays, and other pieces too numerous to be named here. The satirist is not a likely man to get friends: few respect him otherwise than as some savages are said to worship the devil-lest he should hurt them. This may partly account for the extreme misery and distress into which Nash fell; but extravagance and debauchery are alleged as other causes; and these alas! are no unusual concomitants of genius when it takes this direction. Besides other misfortunes in which his satirical vein involved him,