To see a commentary note, click on a blue square. To see the Latin text, click on a green square.


HEN I endeavored to retrieve the memory of British affairs for above two thousand years past, many impediments did offer themselves in bar to my design, amongst which this was the chiefest, that there for a long time no monuments of learning in those countries whence the knowledge of our original was to be fetched; and when letters came, though but late, into play, they were nipp’d almost in the very bud. For I may safely affirm that all the nations which hitherto have seated themselves in Britain have passed thither from France, Spain and Germany. The French first of all received the characters of letters from the Marsellan Greeks, by which they used to make up their accounts and to send letters one to another. The figures of the letters were Greek, but the language was Gallick. But their laws and the rites of their religion they did not commit to writing, no not in Julius Caesars time, and much less did they record their noble exploits, which yet, ’tis very probable, were very considerably great. And those things which were either acted or suffered in Italy, Germany, Thrace, Macedonia, Graecia and Asia had been buried likewise in the same oblivion (so that posterity would never have come to the knowledge of them) if foreign writers had not recorded and transmitted them down to us. I confess in Spain the Greeks had the use of letters, and before them the Phaenicians, who inhabited the shore of the Mediterranean Sea. But of the barbarians only the Turdetani (as Strabo writes) had any knowledge of them. But as for any ancient writer, there was yet none that I know of. For Varro, Pliny, and if there were any other Latin authors who touched any thing, by the by, concerning the first inhabitants of Spain, they confirm their opinions therein rather by bare conjectures than the solid testimony of writers. In that part of Britain which Caesar visited there were no ancient records at all, and among the more inland inhabitants, which were more barbarous, they were much less to be expected. So that when he asked them concerning the origin of their nation, and the oldest inhabitants thereof, as he writes, they return’d him no certain answer at all.
2. After Caesar, Cornelius Tacitus, an author both faithful and diligent, when the Roman navy had coursed about Britain and had discovered all the inmost roads and recesses thereof, yet he found out nothing that he could transmit to posterity. Moreover Gildas, who lived above four hundred years after Tacitus, doth affirm that what he writes was not from any monuments of antiquity, of which he could find none at all, but from transmarine report. As for Germany, that country was furnished with learning last of all, but seeing she had nothing to produce out of old records which could be avouched for truth, according to her wonted ingenuity in other cases, she coyned no fictions of her own to obtrude on the world. So then, they who affirm that they deduce the original of the Britans from old annals must first tell us who transmitted down those annals to us, as also where they have been concealed for so long, and how they came down uncorrupted to us after so many ages. In this case, some fly to the bards and sanachies as the preservers of ancient records, but very ridiculously, which will be more clearly understood if I explain what kind of men these were to whom they would have credit to be given in matters so momentous, and those so obscure too and so remote from our memory. First Strabo and Ammianus do clearly enough express what the bards were, both before and also in their times. But Lucan doth it very plainly and succinctly as to our present purpose, in these verses:

Vos quoque qui fortes animas belloque peremptas
Laudibus in longum vates diffunditis aevum
Plurima securi fudistis carmina bardi.

Englished thus:

Ye bards, such valliant souls as fall in war
Perpetuate with rhimes and praises rare.

But the very oldest of them were altogether ignorant of letters, neither did they leave any records of ancient matters behind them.
3. The other were bardlings or sanachies (as they call them), which were maintain’d by the chief of the ancient clans, and by some wealthy men besides, one a peice, on purpose to chant out by heart the memories of their patrons and the atchievements of their ancestors from their first rise. But these too having no learning at all, let any man judge what credit is to be given to them, all whose hopes and subsistence did depend on soothing and flattering of others. Besides, though what they deliver were most true, yet it would not much advance the writer of an history. Lastly, let us consider how often the writers of such famous deeds as are past are found in manifest mistakes, how often they themselves do waver, doubt, fluctuate, and are at a loss, and how vastly some of them do differ from others, and not a few contradict themselves. If such lapses are incident even to those who seek after truth with great labour and study, what can we hope for from such other persons who, being without learning (by which they who casually mistake may be better informed, and those who mistake on purpose may be confronted), do trust their memory alone? I might allege that memory is often times impaired by disuse as it is weakened by age or wholly lost by some diseases. Besides, if they have a desire to please their patrons (as it often comes to pass), or, on the contrary, if they have have a mind to cross them, or if the passions of anger, hatred or envy do intervene (which perverts the judgment), who can affirm any thing for truth upon such mens authorities? Or who would take the pains to refute it, though it were false? Or who would deliver down for certain what he received from such uncertain authors? Wherefore in so great a silence of old writers concerning matters of antiquity, who were all so hugely ignorant even of things acted in their own times, there being nothing assuredly true and sincere, I count it more modest to be silent in what one knows not than by devising falshoods to betray ones own ignorance, and to slight and despise the better judgments of other men.
4. It follows, then, that there was so great a scarcity of writers amongst all the nations of the Britains that before the coming in of the Romans thither all things were buried in the profound darkness of silence, in so much that we can get no information of what was acted even by the Romans themselves otherwise than from Greek and Latin monuments. And as for those things which preceded their coming, we may believe rather their conjectures than our own fictions. For what our writers have delivered, every one concerning the original of his own sept or nation, is so absurd that I should have counted my time lost to go about to refel [refute] it, unless there were some who delighted in such such fables as if they were as true as Gospel, and so prided themselves with the ornaments of other mens feathers. For in those first times, seeing the use of tillage was not common neither among the Britains nor many other nations, but all their wealth consisted in cattle, men had no regard to their substance, which was very small, because they were either expelled from their habitations by such as were more powerful than themselves, or they them selves did drive out the weaker ones, or else they sought out better pasture for their cattle in wild and desert places. Upon one or other of these grounds they easily changed their dwellings, and the places they removed to with new masters got new names. Besides, the ambition of the wealthier sort added much to the difficulty, who, to perpetuate their memory to posterity, called countrys, provinces and towns by their own names. Almost all the cities in Spain had two names. The names of the inhabitants in it, and also the names of the cities and countries therein, received frequent alterations, not to speak of Egypt, Greece, and other remote countries.

Saepius et nomen posuit Saturnia tellus.
Fair Italy (says Fame)
Full oft hath chang’d her name.

5. Add hereunto that those nations who live in the same country have not always the same names. that which the Latins call H
ispania, the Greeks Iberia, the poets Hesperia, St. Paul in his Epistle, Theodoret and Sozomen in their history call Spania, i. e., Spain. The name of the Greeks, so celebrated by the Latins and all nations of Europe, is more obscure to the Greeks themselves. The Hebrews and Arabians keep their old words almost in all nations, which were not so much as heard of by other people. Scot and English are the common names of the British nations, which at this day are almost unknown to the ancient Scots and Britains, for they call the one Albines, the other Saxons. And therefore ’tis no wonder if in so great an uncertainty of human affairs, as to the names of men and places, writers who were born at several times, far distant one from another, and having different languages and manners too, did not always agree amongst themselves. Though these things have occasioned difficulties great enough in searching out the first original of nations, yet some of the moderns too, being acted by a principle of ambition, have involved all things in more thick and palpable darkness. For whilst every one would fetch the original of his nation as high as he could, and so endeavour to enoble it by devised fables by this immoderate licence of coyning fictions, what do they but obscure that which they ought to illustrate? And if at any time they speak truth, yet by their frequent and ridiculous untruths at other times they detract from their own credit, and are so far from obtaining that esteem which they hoped for that, by reason of their falshoods, they are laughed at even by those whom they endeavour to cajole into an assent.
6. To make this plain, I will first begin, as with the ancientest nation, so from the most notorious and impudent falshood. They who compiled a new history of the ancient Britains, having interpolated the fable of the Danaides, proceed further to feign that one Diocletian, King of Syria, begat 33 daughters on his wife Labana; who killing their husbands on their wedding night, their father crouded them all together into one ship, without any master or pilot; who, arriving in Britain, then but a desert, did not only live solitarily in that cold country, and not very full of fruits growing of their own accord neither, but also, by the compression [rape] of cacodaemons [evil demons], forsooth, they brought forth Giants, whose race continued till the arrival of Brutus. They say the island was called Albion from Albine, and that Brutus was the nephews son of Aeneas the Trojan, and the son of Aeneas Sylvius. This Brutus having accidentally killed his father with a dart, it was looked upon as a lamentable and piteous fact [deed] by all men, yet because it was not done on purpose, the punishment of death was remitted, and banishment either enjoyned or voluntarily undertaken by him. This parricide having consulted the oracle of Diana, and having run various hazards through so many lands and seas, after 10 years arrived in Britain with a great number of followers, and by many combats having conquered the terrible Giants in Albion he gain’d the empire of the whole island. He had three sons (as they proceed to fable), Locrinus, Albanactus and Camber, between whom the island was divided. Albanactus ruled over the Albans, afterwards called Scots; Camber over the Cambrians, i. e., the Welsh. They both did govern their several precincts as vice-roys, yet so as that Locrinus had supreme dominion, who, being ruler of the rest of the Britans, gave the name of Locgria to his part. Later writers, that they might also propagate this fabulous empire as much as they could, do make this addition to it, that Vendelina succeeded her father Locrinus; Madanus, Vendelina; Menpricius, Madanus; and Erbranchs Menpricius, which later of twenty wives begat as many sons, of which nineteen passed into Germany and by force of arms conquered that country, being assisted by the forces of their kinsman Alba Sylvius, and from those brothers the country was called Germany.
7. These are the things which the Brittons, and after them some of the English, have delivered concerning the first inhabitants of Britain. Here I cannot but stand amazed at their design, who might easily, and without any reflection at all, have imitated the Athenians, Arcadians and other famous nations and have called themselves indigenae, seeing it would have been no disgrace to them to own that origin which the noblest and wisest city in the whole world counted her glory, especially since that opinion could not be refuted out of ancient writers and had no mean assertors besides, yet that they had rather forge ancestors to themselves from the refuse of all nations, whom the very series of the narration it self did make suspected even to the unskilful vulgar, and also none of the ancients, no, not by the meanest suspition, did confirm. Besides, if that had not pleased them, seeing it was free for them (as some of the poets have writ) to have assumed honourable ancestors to themselves out of any old books, I wonder in my heart what was in their minds to make choice of such, of whom all their posterity might justly be ashamed. For what great folly is it to think nothing illustrious or magnificent but what is profligat and flagitious, or at least but a size below it? Yet some there are that value themselves among the ignorant upon the score of such trifles. As for John Annius, a man (I grant) not unlearned, I think he may be pardoned, seeing poets claim a liberty to celebrate the original of families and nations with the mixture of figments, but ’tis not equal to allow the same privilege to those who undertake, professedly, to write an history. To begin, then, farthest off, what is more abhorrent from all belief than that a few girles, without the help of men to manage their vessel, should come from Syria through so many seas (which voyage, even now adays when men have attain’d by use and custom more skill in navigation, is yet hazardous tho’ with a brave and well-furnished navy) to the fag end, as it were, of the world, and into a desolate island too, and there to live without corn or fruits of trees; yea, that such ladies of a royal stock should not only barely maintain their lives in so cold a climate, destitute of all things, but also should bring forth Giants, and that their copulations or marriages might not seem unsuitable to their state, that they were got with child (would you think it?) by cacodaemons?
8. As for that Diocletian, pray, at what time and in what part of Syria did he reign? How comes it to pass that authors make no mention of him, especially since the affairs of no nation are more diligently transmitted to posterity than those of the Syrians are? How came he to be called Diocletian? Certainly that name took its rise a thousand years after him amongst the barbarians and, being originally Greek, is declined after the Latin form. The next accession of nobility, forsooth, is Brutus the parricide, that he so might not, in that respect, be inferior to Romulus. This Brutus, whatsoever he were, whom the Brittons make the author of their name and nation, with what forces, with what commerce of language could he penetrate so far into Britain? Especially in those times wherein the Roman arms, even in the most flourishing state of their commonwealth, having conquered almost all the world besides, could scarce come. For it is needless to mention how, before Rome was built, the affairs of Italy were at a very low ebb, and how the inhabitants thereof were averse from all peregrination and travel. Neither need I enquire whether he came by land or sea. The Alps, till that time, were pervious only to Hercules, and the Gauls, by reason of their connatural [innate] fierceness, were as yet unacquainted with converse of foreigners. As for sea-voyages, the Carthaginians and the Greeks inhabiting Marseilles scarce dared to venture into the Ocean but very late, and when things were well setled at home, and even then their voyages were rather for discovery than conquest. Much less can we believe that Alban-shepherds, a wildish sort of people, would undertake so bold an attempt. Beside, all men who are not ignorant of Latin do know that the name of Brutus began to be celebrated under Tarquinius Superbus, almost five hundred years after that commentitious [false] Brutus, when Lucius Junius, a nobleman, putting off his native grandeur, descended below himself on purpose to avoid the cruelty of their Kings and, on pretence of being foolish, he took that new sirname to himself and transmitted it to his posterity. But the monk who was the forger and deviser of this fable of Brutus seemed to see the absurdity of the invention himself, yet he thought to stop all mens mouths with the pretence of religion (forsooth) in the case, and would have every body think that they obeyed the oracle of Diana.
9. Herein I will not be nice in inquiry why this oracle of Diana was unknown to posterity, when the oracles of Faunus, of Sybilla, and the Praenestine Vaticinations or lots were then in so great credit. I will only ask in what language did Diana answer? If they say in Latin, I demand how Brutus could understand a language which arose nine hundred years after his time. For seeing Horace, a very learned man, does ingenuously confess that he did not understand the Saliar rhymes which were made in the reign of Numa Pompilius, how could that Brutus, who died so many years before the priests called Salii were instituted, understand verses made long after Horace his time, as the tenour of their composure doth shew? Beside, how could the posterity of Brutus so totally forget the Latin tongue that not the least footsteps of it remain’d amongst them? And whence got they that language which they now use? Or, if it be granted that their (supposed) gods, as well as their men, then spake British in Italy, yet surely it was not the tongue the Britains now make use of, for that is so patch’d up of the languages of their neighbour-nations that several countries may know and own their own words therein. But if they say that those ancient Latins spake British, how could that monk understand so old a word, which was given forth 2000 years before? But why do I prosecute these things so particularly, seeing it appears by many other arguments also that this same monk did forge the whole story, and begat such a Brutus in his own brain as never was in nature, and also devised the oracle of Diana too. I shall add the verses themselves, that the vanity of such cunning sophisters may more easily be discovered.


Diva potens nemorum, terror silvestribus apris,
Cui licet anfractus ire per aetheros,
Infernasque domos, terrestia iura resolve,
Et dic quas terras nos habitare velis.
Dic certam sedem qua te veneremur in aevum,
Qua tibi virgineis templa dicabo choris.

Englished thus:

Goddess of groves and wild-boars chase,
Who dost th’ etherial mansions trace,
And Pluto’s too, resolve this doubt,
Tell me what country to find out,
Where I may fix, and temples raise,
For virgin-chores [choirs] to sing thy praise.

10. Diana answers in verses of the same kind (so that they must needs be made by one and the same poet), not perplexed and ambiguous ones or such as may be interpreted divers ways, but clear and perspicuous ones, wherein she promiseth that which she could never give, viz., the empire of the whole world:

Brute, sub occasum solis trans Gallica regna
Insula in Oceano est undique cincta mari.
Insula Oceano est habitata gigantibus olim,
Nunc deserta quidem, gentibus apta tuis.
Hanc pete: namque tibi sedes erit illa perennis.
Haec fiet natis altera Troia tuis.
Hic de prole tua reges nascentur, et illis
Totius terrae subditus orbis erit.

Rendered thus:

Toward the west, beyond Gaul’ kingdom’s bound.
An isle there is which th’ Ocean doth surround;
An island once inhabited by Giants fell,
Now desolate, where thy comrades may dwell.
Go thither, Brutus, there’s a lasting place,
Another Troy for thee and for thy race.
Kings of thy stock shall there the scepter sway,
Whom the subdued world shall obey.

I suppose by these verses, compared with the histories, the whole forgery will be discovered, and that plainly enough. For besides the vain promises on both sides, the rhythms say that the island was not then inhabited but desolated, but that it was inhabited before. But where (I pray) then were those portentous figments of Gogmagog and Tentagol, and other frightful names of men invented for terrour (shall I say?) or for laughter rather? What will become of those doughty combates of Corineus and others, the companions of Brutus, against not the Earth-born, but Hell-born Giants? Thus far concerning Brutus and his oracle. Though these be so great fictions, yet posterity is so little ashamed of them that but a few years ago no mean writer amongst them hath impudently feigned that the Trojans spake the British language. Homer and Dionysius Halicarnasseus do easily refel the vanity of this shameless opinion. For the one gives Greek names to all the Trojans; the other in a long and serious disputation doth contend that the Trojans were originally Greeks. I pass by this consideration, that when Brute arrived in England with no great train, how within the space of twenty years he could establish three kingdoms, and how they who, all of them put together at first, could scarce make up the number of one mean colony, should in so short a time people an island, the biggest in the whole world, and furnish it not only with villages and cities, but set up in it three large kingdoms also; yea, who a while after, it seems, grew so numerous that Britain could not contain them, but they were forced to transport themselves into the large country of Germany, where, overcoming the inhabitants, they compelled them to assume their own name, which was not a British but a Latin one, and so from these nineteen brothers, forsooth (which indeed were not properly own brothers, as we say, for almost each of them had a several mother), that the country should be called Germany? I have related this fable, as absurd as it is, not to take the pains to refute it, but to leave it to the Germans themselves for sport and ridicule.
11. This in general concerning the fables of the Brittons. But the intent of those who devised them seems not very obscure to me, for that monstrous fictions of devils lying with virgins seems to tend hereto, viz., that they might either prove an alliance between their Brutus and two of the greatest neighbouring nations, or else that they might vye with them in the nobleness of their original. For the Gauls affirmed (as Caesar hath it) that they were descended from Father Pluto, and so did the Germans according to Tacitus. The cause of devising this figment concerning Brutus seems to be alike. For seeing the Buthrotii in Epirus, other people in Sicily, the Romans, Campanians and Sulmonenses in Italy, the Averni, Hedui, Sequani, and last of all the Francs in Gaul did celebrate I know not what Trojans as their founders, the writers of British affairs also thought it very conducive to the advancement of the nobility of their nation if they derived its original too from the very archives of antiquity, and especially from the Trojans, either because of the famousness of that city, which was praised by almost all nations, or else by reason of its alliance with so many nations which are said to have started up, as it were, out of the same common shipwreck of that one town. Neither did they think themselves guilty of any effrontery in the falshood if they did somewhat participate of the feigned nobility, which upon the same account was common to so many nations besides themselves. Hence arose, as I judge, the fiction of Brutus and other fables of an older date, as impudently devised as foolishly received. It will, perhaps, be enough to shew the vanity of all those things to put the reader in mind that they were unknown to ancient writers; that when learning flourished, they dared not peep abroad; that they were coyned in its decay, recorded by unlearned flatterers, and entertain’d by ignorant and too credulous persons who did not understand the fraud of such cheaters. For such is the disposition of those impostors who do not seek the publick good by a true history, but some private advantage by flattery, that when they seem highly to praise, then they most of all deride and jeer. For what do they else who, pretending to advance the nobility of a people for its greater splendor, do fetch it from the skum and riffraff of nature? And yet credulous (shall I say?) or not rather sottish persons do pride themselves with a pretended eminency of original which none of their neighbours will envy them for.
12. They also who have wrote of Scotish affairs have delivered down to us a more creditable and noble origin, as they think but no less fabulous than that of the Britains. For they have adopted ancestors to us, not from the Trojan fugitives, but from those Greek hero’s whose posterity conquered Troy. For, seeing in those ancient times two nations of the Greeks were most of all celebrated, the Dores and the Iones, and the princes of the Dores were the Argive, and of the Iones the Athenians, the Scots make one Gathelus to be the chief founder of their nation, but whether he were the son of Argus or of Cecrops, that they leave in doubt. And that they may not be inferior on this accompt to the eminency of the Romans, they added to him a strong band of robbers with which he, going into Egypt, perform’d gallant exploits, and after departure (would you think it?) of Moses was made general of the Kings forces in that land. And that afterwards with his wife Scota, the daughter of the King of Egypt, he sailed about the whole shore of Europe adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea, and having passed through so many countries, which were desolate in that age or else inhabited but by few and in a few places, such as Greece, Italy, France (not to mention the numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea), some will have him land to the River Iberus, but leaving that country which he could not keep, they draw him on further to Galaecia, a country much more barren. Some land him at the mouth of the River Durius, being the first of all men, as I suppose, who adventured into the Ocean with a navy of ships, and that there he built a brave town which is now called from his name Portus Gathelia or Port a Port, whence the whole country, which from Lusus and Lusa, the children of Bacchus, was long called Lusitania, began to be called Portugal. And afterwards being forced to pass into Gallaecia, he there built Brigantia, now called Compostella; also that Braga in Portugal was built by him at the mouth of the River Munda.
13. These are the things which the Scots have fabulously wrote concerning the original of their nation. In feigning of which, how uncircumspect they were we may gather from hence, that they did not give a Greek name to that Grecian Gathelus who was indeed unknown to the Greek writers; that they allotted a Latin name, from a haven or port, to the city built by him rather than a Greek one, especially in those times when Italy it self was known to few of the Greeks; that they doubt whether he were the son of Argus or of Cecrops; that he, who had arrived at such a figure by his prudence, even amongst the most ingenious persons of the world, as to enjoy the second place to the King and to be put in Moses the fugitiv’s room, and besides, being a stranger, to be honoured with the marriage of the Kings daughter; that he, I say, leaving the fruitfullest region of the world and passing by the lands of both continents both to the right and left, and also so many islands all fruitful in corn, and some of them also famous for the temperature of the air, as Crete, Sicily, Corsica, Sardina (what that time rather seiz’d than cultivated, and inhabited by a wild sort of people), should break out into the very Ocean, the very name whereof was formidable, especially since men had then but small skill in marine affairs; or that he built the city of Port-Gathelus or Port a Port at the River Duero, the name of which city was never heard of till the Sarazens obtain’d the dominion of Portugal; also that he built Braga at the mouth of the River Munda, seeing there is so many miles distance between Braga and Munda, two rivers also being interjected betwixt them, viz., Deuro and Vouga or Vaca, and Braga it self is not altogether a maritime place. Moreover, I may well ask why Gathelus, a Grecian born of a noble family, and besides eminent for famous deeds, seeing he was of a most ambitious nation, in commending his name to posterity, and being conveighed with a great train into the extream parts of the world, and as then matters stood almost rude and barbarous, having built towns, did not impose his own, not so much as a Greek name on them. For the name of Portugal or (as some will have it) the Port of Gathel, being unknown to so many ancient writers who have professedly undertook to describe the names of countries and places, began to be celebrated but about four hundred years ago. And the silence of all the Greeks and Latins concerning the comming of Gathelus into Spain makes it much suspected, especially since the ancients make notable and frequent mention of the Phaenicians, Persians, Carthaginians, Iberians, Gauls, and the companions of Hercules and Bacchus who came into that country. But our fablers (as I judge) never read the monuments of the ancients: if they had, seeing it was free for them to assume an author and founder of their nation and nobility out of any of the famous Grecians, they would never have pick’d up an ignobler person for their founder, passing by Hercules and Bacchus, who were famous amongst all nations, and whom they might have cull’d out as well as any other for the original of their race.
14. These are the things which our writers have delivered concerning the rise of our nation, which if I have prosecuted more largely than was necessary, it is to be imputed to them who pertinaciously defended them as a Palladium dropt down from heaven. He who considers that will no doubt, by reason of the obstinacy of my adversaries, be more favorable to me. Concerning the other nations which came later into these islands and fixed their habitations there, Picts, Saxons, Danes, Normans, because their history doth not contain any monstrous absurdity, I shall speak of them hereafter in a fitter place. But these two nations which I have just mentioned seem to me to have deduced their originals from the Gauls, and I will give you the reason of my judgment therein when I have first premised [prefaced] a few things concerning the antient customs of the Gauls. All Gaul, tho’ it be fruitful in corn, yet it is said to be, and indeed is, more fruitful in men, so that, as Strabo relates, there were 300000 of the Celtae only were able to bear arms, though they inhabited but a third part of France. Therefore, though they lived in a fruitful country, yet being overburthened by their own multitudes, ’tis probable that for the lessening of them they were permitted to use masculine venery. Yet neither when by this expedient there seemed not provision enough made against the penury of their soil, the company of heads being as yet numerous and burdensome, sometimes by public edicts and sometimes by private persuasions they sent forth many colonies into all the neighbouring countries, that their multitudes at home might be exhausted. To begin with Spain, they sent their colonies so thick thither that Ephorus, as Strabo relates, extends the length of Gaul even to the Gades or Cadiz, and indeed all that side of Spain towards the north, by the names of the peoples and nations inhabiting them, hath long witnessed a French original. The first we meet with are the Celtibers,
Profugique a gente vetusta
Gallorum Celtae miscentes nomen Iberis.
The wandring Celts in Spain their seats did fix,
And there their names with the Iberi mix.

These did propagate their bounds so far that, though they inhabited a craggy country, and besides not over fruitful, yet Marcus Marcellus exacted from them six hundred talents as a tribute. Moreover, from the Celtae or Celtiberi the Celtici derive their original, dwelling by the River Anas, by Ptolomy sirnamed Boitici, and also other Celts in Portugal near to the River Anas, if we may believe Pomponius Mela, a Spaniard, the Celts do inhabit from the mouth of the River Duro unto the promontory which they call Celticum or Nerium, i. e., Capo D[ . . . ]is Terrae, but distinguished by their sirnames, viz. the Gronii, Presamarci, Tamarici, Nerii, and the rest of the Gallaeci, whose name shews their original to be Gauls.
15. On the other side there passed out of France into Italy the Ligurians, the Libii, the Salassii, the Insubres, the Cenomani, the Boii and the Senones, and, if we may believe some ancient writers, the Venetians themselves. I need not relate how large dominions these nations had in Italy, seeing all who are but a little versed in history cannot be ignorant thereof, neither will I be too scrupulous in inquiring what troopes of Gauls made their seats in Thrace or, leaving it, having subdued Macedonia and Greece, passed into Bithinia, where there erected the kingdom of Gallo-Graecia in Asia, seeing matter doth not much concern our purpose. My discourse then hastens to Germany, and concerning the Gaulish colonies therein we have most authentick evidences, C. Julius Caesar and C. Cornelius Tacitus; the first of them in his Commentaries of the Gallick War writes that at one time the Gauls were esteem’d more valiant than the Germans, and therefore that the Tectosages possessed the most fruitful part of Germany about the Hercynian Forest. And the Bohemians, as the other affirms, do declare by their names that the founders were the Boii. And sometimes the Helvetians possessed the nearer places between the Rivers Main and Rhene; also the Decumates beyond the Rhine were of Gallick original, and the Gothini near the Danow [Danube], whom Claudian calls Cothunni. Arrianus in the Life of Alexander calls them Getini, and Flavius Vopiscus, in the Life of Probus Gautunni. But Claudian reckons even the Gothunni amongst the Getae, and Stephanus is of opinion that the Getes are called Getini by Ammianus, so that perhaps the Getes themselves may acknowledge a Gallick original, seeing it is certain that many Gallick nations passed over into Thrace and there resided in that circuit thereof which the Getes are said to have possessed. Tacitus also writes that in his time the Gothini used the Gallick language. Beside, the Cimbri, as Philemon says, and (if we believe Tacitus) the Aestiones, dwelling by the Swedish Sea where they gather amber, did speak British, which language was then the same with the Gallick, or not much different from it. there are many footsteps of Gallick colonies through all Germany which I would willingly recite, but that what I have already alleged is enough for my purpose, viz., to shew how widely France did extend her colonies round about Brittain. What then shall we say of Britain it self, which did equal those nations neither in greatness, strength, nor skill in military affairs? What did she, that was so near to the valiantest of the Gauls and not inferiour to the neighbour nations either in the mildness of the air or the fruitfulness of the soil; did she, I say, entertain no foreign colonies? Yes many, as Caesar and Tacitus affirm and, as I hold, all her ancient inhabitants came from thence. For ’tis manifest that three nations did anciently possess the whole of the island, the Brittons, Picts and Scots, of which I will speak hereafter.
16. To begin then with the Brittons, whose dominion was of largest extent in Albium, the first that I know who hath discovered any certainty concerning them was C. Julius Caesar. He thinks that the inmost inhabitants were indigenae, because after diligent enquiry he could find nothing of their first comming thither, neither had they any monuments of learning whence he might be informed. He says that the maritime parts of the island were possessed by the Belgae, whom hopes of prey had allured thither, and the fruitfulness of the soil and mildness of the air had detained there. He thinks this a sufficient argument to confirm his opinion that many men did retain the names of the cities whence they came, and that their buildings were like those of the Gauls. Cornelius Tacitus, a grave author, adds that their manners are not unlike, and that they are equally bold into running into dangers, and as fearful to get out of them; that there were great factions and sidings among them both; and lastly that Britain, in his time, was in the same state as Gaul was before the coming of the Romans. Pomponius Mela adds further that the Brittons used to fight on horseback, in chariots and coaches, being harnessed in French armour. Add hereto that Bede, who lived before all those who have wrote such fabulous things of the origins of the Britons and is of greater authority than them all, affirms that the first inhabitants of the island came out of the tract of Armorica. Some grammatists of the Greeks differ much from the above mentioned authors, for they say that the Brittons received their names from Britannus the son of Celto. They assuredly agree in this, that they would derive their original from the Gauls. Of the later authors, Robertus Caenalis and Pomponius Laetus in the Life of Dioclesian (an author not to be despised) do subscribe to this opinion, both of them, as I suppose, being convinced by the power of truth. Yet both seem to me to mistake in this point, that they deduce them from the peninsula of the Brittons, which is now called Britany, to the River Loir, especially since the maritime colonies of Britain, as Caesar observes, do testifie by their very names whence their transportation was.
17. It follows that we speak of the Gallick colonies sent to Ireland. I shewed before that all the north side of Spain was possessed by Gallick colonies. And there are many reasons assignable why they might pass out of Spain into Ireland, for either the easie passage might be a great inducement, or else the Spaniards might be expelled out of their habitations by the excessive power and domination of the Persians, Phaenicians and Graecians, who, having overcome the Spaniards, rendred them weak and obnoxious [exposed] to their oppression and violence. Moreover, there were causes amongst the Spaniards themselves, for they being a people cemented and made up of many nations and not well agreeing among themselves, the desire of liberty and the avoiding of servitude in the midst of civil war and new tumults arising amongst a people that was greedy of war might make them wiling to depart. He that weighs these causes of transmigration will not wonder if many of them did prefer a mean condition abroad, conjoyned with liberty, before a domestick and bitter servitude, and when they were once arrived there, the state of Spain growing daily more and more turbulent made them willing there to abide. For sometimes the Carthaginians, and sometimes the Romans, did exercise all the miseries of servility upon the conquered Spaniards, and so compelled them to avoid those evils by a flight into Ireland, there being no other neighbour nation into which either in their prosperity they might so well transport their over-abounding multitudes, or else wherein in adversity they might find a shelter against their calamities. Besides, the clemency of the air did retain them there, for, as Caesar says, the air of Britain is more temperate than that of France. And Ireland exceeds both in goodness of soil, and also in an equal temperature of the air and climate. Besides, men born and educated in a barren soil and given to laziness besides, as all Spaniards are, being transported almost into the richest pastures of all Europe, no marvail if they willingly withdrew themselves from homebred tumults into the bosome of a peace beyond the sea.
18. Notwithstanding all that I have said, yet I would not refuse the opinion of any nation concerning their ancestors, provided it were supported by probable conjectures and ancient testimony. For Tacitus upon sure conjectures, as he thinks, doth affirm that the west side of Britain or Albium was inhabited by the posterity of the Spaniards. But it is not probable that the Spaniards should leave Ireland behind them, being a country nearer and of a milder air and soil, and first land in Albium, but rather that they first arrived in Ireland and from thence emitted their colonies into Britain. And that the same thing happen’d to the Scots all their annals do testifie and Bede, lib. 1 doth affirm. For all the inhabitants of Ireland were first of all called Scots, as Orosius shews, and our annals related that the Scots passed more than once out of Ireland into Albium. First of all under Fergusius the son of Ferchard, being their captain, and after some ages being expelled from their habitation they returned into Ireland, and again under their general Reutharus they returned into Britain. And afterwards in the reign of Fergusius the Second great aid of Irish-Scots were sent, who had their quarters assigned in Gallaway. And Claudian in his time shews that auxiliaries were transmitted thence against the Romans. For he says,

Totam cum Scotus Ierunam
Movit, et infesto spumavit remige Tethys.
The Scot all Ireland did excite
To cross the seas ’gainst Rome to fight.

And in another place,
Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne.
Whole heaps of Scots cold Ireland did lament.

But in the beginning, when both people, i. e., the inhabitants of Ireland and their colonies sent into Albium, were called Scots, that there might be some distinguishment betwixt them some Scots were called Irish-Scots, others Albin-Scots, and by degrees their sirnames came to be their names so that the ancient name of Scots was almost forgotten, and not to be retrieved from common speach, but only from books and annals.
19. As for the name of Picts, I judge it not their antient and country name, but occasionally given them by the Romans because their bodies were indented, as it were, with scars, which the verses of Claudian do shew,

Ille leves Mauros, nec falso nomine Pictos
Edomuit, Scotumque vago mucrone secutus
Fregit Hyperboreas remis audacibus undas.
He nimble Moors and painted Picts did tame,
With far-stretch’d sword the Scots he overcame,
And with bold oars the northern seas did furrow.

And elsewhere,

Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis,
Quae Scoto dat fraena truci ferroque notatas
Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.
The legion came, the outmost Britains guard,
Which the fierce Scot did curb with bridle hard,
And read the marks i’ th’ skins of dying Picts
Insculp’d with iron.

Herodian also makes mention of the same nation, but concealing its name, and says plainly that they did paint their bodies, but he doth not affirm that they did it with iron. Neither (says he) are they acquainted with the use of apparel, but they surround their belly and their neck with iron, as thinking that metal to be an ornament and sign of riches, as the other barbarians do gold. And moreover they mark their bodies with sundry pictures and with animals of all shapes, and therefore they will put on no garments lest they should hide their paint. With what name they call themselves, the thing is so ancient that it is hard to determine. ’Tis certain their neighbour-nations do not agree concerning their name, for the Brittons call them Pictiades, the English, Pichts, the old Scots, Peachti. And besides, the names of some places which were heretofore under the jurisdiction of the Picts but are now possessed by the Scots seem to have a different appellation from them all. For the hills called Pentland-Hills, and the Pentland-Bay or Firth seem to be derived from Penthus, not from Pictus. But I verily believe those names were imposed in after-times, either by the English or by the Scots who used the English tongue, for the ancient Scots did neither understand nor use them. As for the name of Picts, whether the Romans translated a barbarous word into a Latin one of a near sound, or whether the barbarians applied a Latin word, every one to his own country tone and declension, ’tis all a case to me.
20. Well then, being agreed of the name, and it being confest by all writers that they come from the eastern parts in to Britain (from Scythia say some, from Germany say others), it remains that, tracing their footsteps by conjectures, we come as near the truth as we can. Neither do I perceive any surer foundation of my disquisition than by painting their bodies. So did the Arii in Germany and the Agathyrsi, but it was only that they might appear more terrible to the enemy in war, and they did it only by the juyce of herbs. But seeing the Picts mark’d their skins with iron and stigmatized them with the pictures of divers animals, the better way will be to inquire what nations, either in Scythia, Germany or the neighbor-countries, did use that custom of painting their bodies, not for terror, but ornament. And first we meet with the Geloni, according to Virgil, of whom Claudian speaks in his first Book Against Ruffinus,

Membra qui ferro gaudet pinxisse Gelonus.
The Geloni love to print
Their limbs with iron instrument.

We meet also with the Getae in Thrace, mentioned by the same poet,

Crinigeri sedere patres pellita Getarum
Curia, quos plagis decorat numerosa cicatris.
Skin-wearing Getes consult, with hair unshorn,
Whose marked bodies num’rous scars adorn.

Therefore, seeing the Geloni, as Virgil writes, are neighbors to the Getes, and either Gothunni or Getini, according to Arrianus, are number’d amongst the Getes, and seeing the Gothunni,   as Tacitus says, speak the Gallick language, what hinders but that we may believe the Picts had their original from thence? But from whatever province of Germany they came, I think it very probable that they were of the ancient colonies of the Gauls, who seated themselves either on the Swedish Sea or on the Danow. For the man of a Gallick descent, being counted foreigners by the Germans (as indeed they were), I judge their name was used in a way of reproach, so that one word, i. e. Walsch, with them signifies a Gaul, a stranger, and a barbarian too. So that it is very credible that the ancestors of the Picts, either being expell’d by their neighbors or driven up and down by tempests, were easily reconciled to the Scots; yea, were befriended and aided (as ’tis reported) by them as a people allyed to them, almost of the same language with them, and their religious customs not unlike. So that it might easily come to pass that thereupon they might mix their blood, and by marriages make a coalition, as it were, into one nation. For otherwise I do not see how the Scots which then possessed Ireland, being a fierce and rough-hewn people, should so easily enter into an affinity and compleat friendship with strangers who were necessitous and destitute of all things which they never saw before, and with whom they had no commerce in point of laws, religion, or language.
21. But here the authority of Bede the Anglo-Saxon doth somewhat obstruct my passage, who is the only writer that I know of that affirms that the Picts used a different language from the Scots. For, speaking of Britain, he says that it did search after and profess the knowledge of the highest Truth and the sublimest Science in five language, the English, British, Scotish, Pictish and Latin. But, I suppose, Bede calls five dialects of one and the same tongue five tongues, as we see the Greeks do in like case, and as Caesar doth in the beginning of his Commentaries of the Gallick War. For he says that three parts of Gaul did use different languages and customs. But Strabo, though he grants that the Aquitans used a different language from the other Gauls, yet he affirms that all the rest of the Gauls used the same language, but with a little variation. The Scots also do not differ from the Britains in their whole language, but in dialect rather, as I shall shew hereafter, seeing their speech at present doth so far agree that it seems of old to have been the same, for they differ less than some Gallick provinces do which yet are all said to speak Gaulish. And therefore other writers give not the least suspition of a different language, and they, as long as both kingdoms were distinct, as if they had been people of one nation, did always contract marriages one with another, and as they were mixed in the beginning, so afterwards they carried themselves as neighbors, and oftentimes as friends, until the destruction of the Picts. Neither did the remainder of them (who, when their military race was extinct, yet must needs be many) in any degree corrupt the Scottish tongue. Nor indeed are there any footsteps of a foreign language in the places and habitations which they left. For all the countries of the Picts, and many particular places therein too, do yet retain Scotish appellations, except a very few who, upon the Saxon-tongues prevailing over our country-language, had German names imposed upon them. Neither is this to be omitted, that before the coming of the Saxons into Britain none of the British nations used interpreters to understand one another. Wherefore, seeing the Scotish, English and German writers do unanimously accord that the original of the Picts was from Germany, and it is also manifest that the Gothunni or Getini were colonies of the Gauls, whose language they spoke, and that the Aestii spake British by the Swedish or Baltick Sea, whence may we rather fetch the descent of the Picts? Or, they being expell’d from their native habitations, whither should they go but to their own kindred? Or where were they likely to obtain marriage-unions but amongst a people of affinity with them in blood, language and manners?
22. But if any one deny that the Picts were descended from the Gothunni, or Aestii or Getae, being induc’d to that position by the great distance of those countries from Britain, let him but consider how many great migrations of people were made, even in all parts of the world, in those times wherein the coming of the Picts into Britain is recorded to have been, and also for many ages after, and then he may easily grant that such things might not only be done, but be done with great facility too. The Gauls did then possess a great part of Spain, Italy, Germany and Britain by their colonies. They proceeded to go so far as Palus Maeotis and the Cimmerian Bosphorus by their depredations, and after they had wasted Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, they fixed their seats in Asia. The Cimbri, Ambrones and Teutones, having wasted Gaul, pierced into Italy. The Geloni, whom Virgil places in Thrace, are by other writers said to dwell near the Agathyrsi in Scythia. The Goths, for a great while an obscure nation, yet in a short time, like a flood, over-ran Europe, Asia and Africa. And therefore, seeing for many ages after those who were grandees and more powerful than others challeng’d to themselves the seats of their inferiors, the weak, being obnoxious to the injuries of the strong, left their country which they could not keep, so that it is no great wonder among the wise if men, having long conflicted with adverse fortune and being tossed up and down by many peregrinations, having besides no certain habitation, did at length betake themselves to remote or far distant countries. Besides, we see that the Roman writers do place two ancient nations within those limits which did bound the kingdoms of the Scots and Picts, the Mayatae and Attacottae. Of these (I suppose) the Mayatae, whom Dion alone of all the authors that I know doth mention, were of the Picts race, seeing he places them in the countries nearest to the Caledonian Sea, and it is certain that the Picts did inhabit those provinces. As for the Attacottae, it appears out of Marcellinus that they were progeny of those who, sometimes being excluded by Adrian’s Wall, afterwards enlarging their dominions unto the Wall of Severus, were comprehended within the Roman province, because I find in a book of the Romans concerning camp discipline through their province, that among the foreign auxiliaries there were some troops of the Attacottae as well as of the Britains. Which makes me hesitate whether of the two to admire in Lud, his boldness or his stupidity: his boldness, who affirms that the Attacottae were Scots, but without any certain author or probable conjecture; his stupidity that, in the very place of Marcellinus cited by him, he sees not that the Scots are plainly distinguished from the Attacottae. For Marcellinus says the Picts, Saxons, Scots, and Attacottae vexed the Britains with perpetual miseries. Of the same stupidity is he guilty when he affirms that the Caledonii were of the nation of the Britains, whereas ’tis plain they were Picts, which Lud himself doth clearly demonstrate by a testimony out of a panegyric dedicated to Constantius which he produces against himself. For, says the author of that oration, the woods of the Caledones and of other Picts. That testimony (such was his folly) he produces for himself, not observing (such was his stupidity) that it makes against him. If we look at the word it self, ’tis Scotish, for calden in Scotch is that tree called he hasel, whence, I judge, came the name of the Caledonian Woods and the town of the Caledonians situate by the River Tay which is yet called Duncalden, i. e., the Hasel-Hill Town. And if I dared to indulge my self so much liberty as to disagree from all the books of Ptolomy, for the Deucaledonian I would write the Duncaledonian Sea, and for the Dicaledones in Marcellinus, Duncaledones, both the sea and the nation being sirnamed from the town Duncalden.
23. What I have written may satisfie any favourable reader, yet I shall add other testimonies which C. Plinius thinks to be manifest signs of the originals of nations, viz., religion, language and names of town. First of all, it is manifest that the bond of religion and the identity of sentiment as to the (supposed) gods hath always been held the strictest tye of obligation and allyance amongst nations. Now the Britains and the Gauls maintain’d the same divine worship, they had the same priests, the Druydes, amongst them, who were in no nation else, whose superstition had so besotted the minds of both nations that many have doubted which of the first learn’d that sort of philosophy one from the other. Tacitus also says that they had the same sacred rites and superstitious observation, and that tomb erected near New Carthage called Mercurius Teutates, as Livy writes, doth shew that the Spaniards, the greatest part of whom drew their original from the Gauls, were not free from those rites. Also, the same kind of priests or sacrists, called by both of them bards, were in great honour both amongst the Gauls and Britains. Their function and name doth yet remain among all those nations which use the old British tongue, and so much honour is given to them in many places that their persons are accounted sacred and their houses sanctuaries. Yea, in the height of their enmities, when they manage the cruellest wars one against another and use their victories as severely, yet these bards and their retinue have free liberty to pass and repass at their pleasure. The nobles, when they come to them, receive them honourably and dismiss them with gifts. They make canto’s, not unelegant, which rhapsodists recite either to the better sort or else to the vulgar, who are very desirous to hear them, and sometimes they sing them to musical tunes and instruments. Many of their ancient customs yet remain; yea, there is almost nothing changed in them in Ireland, but only in ceremonies and rites of religion.
24. This for the present concerning their religion. It remains now that we speak concerning their ancient language and the names of their towns and of their people. But these parts, tho several (for the most part) shall yet be promiscuously handled by me, because that many times one depends on another as its foundation, especially sithence [since] a proper name, either by its origination or declination, doth assert or indicate the country whence a man comes. Yet, tho these things are intwisted and do mutually confirm one another, for the reader’s instruction I will sometimes handle them severally as much as I can. First of all, Tacitus in the life of his father-in-law Agricola doth affirm that the Gaulish tongue did not much differ from the British, whence I gather that they were sometimes the same, but by little and little either by commerce with foreign nations or by the importation of new commodities unknown before to the natives, or by the invention of new arts, or by the frequent change of the form of garments, arms and other furniture, a speech or language that was very flexible of itself might be much alter’d, sometimes augmented, sometimes adulterated, many new words being found out and many old ones corrupted. Let a man but think with himself how much the inconstancy and humourousness of the vulgar doth assume to it self in this particular, and how ready men are, and always were, to loath present things and to study innovations, he will find the judgment of the best of poets, and the only censor, in these cases to be most true,

Ut silvae foliis pronus mutantur in annos,
Prima cadunt, ita verborum vetus interit aetas,
Et iuvenum ritu florent modo nata, vigentque
As withered leaves fall off from trees
And new supply their places,
So languages decay and cease,
New speech brings in new graces.

And a little after,
Multa renascentur quae iam cecidere, cadentque
Quae nunc sunt in honore vocabula, sic volet usus,
Quem penes arbitrium est, et ius, et norma loquendi.
Many words shall fall
Which now we highly prize,
And words which now have fallen
Shall hereafter rise.
Use or custom rules this thing,
And governs language as a king.

’Tis true he spake thus of the Latin tongue, which by the great care of the Romans was kept uncorrupted, and which all the nations contained within the large bounds of their Empire did diligently learn. And therefore ’tis no wonder if a language (even before colonies were sent into all parts out of Gaul‚ which already had different dialects at home, and also was afterwards corrupted by the mixture of divers nations, being in it self too barbarous first, and almost neglected by those themselves that used it, and after it again re-enter’d from a foreign soil into Britain, which was then divided into kingdoms for the most part obnoxious to strangers), ’tis no wonder, I say, if upon all these prejudices it was not always consistent with it self. For at first the Celtae and the Belgae did use a different dialect, as Strabo thinks. Afterwards, when the Celtae sent abroad great colonies into Spain, as the names of Celtiberi and Celtici do declare, and the Belgae made their descent into the maritime parts of Britain, as may be collected from the names of Venta Belgarum, of the Atrebates and Iceni, it must needs follow that on the one side the Spaniards, and on the other the Romans, the English, the Danes and the Normans must bring in many strange words with them, and so corrupt the country speech.
25. Yea, I rather judge it more worthy of admiration that the languages of neighbouring nations, having been adulterated by the coming in of so many strange people, and in so great part chang’d by the speech of neighbour countries, that yet, so long time after, the Britains should not differ in their whole language, but only certain idioms and dialects only. For if any one of them, though of other nations, do hear a man speak British, yet he may acknowledge the sound of his own language, and may understand many words, though he do not comprehend his whole discourse. Neither ought it it seem strange to us if the same words do not signifie the same things in all nations, if we consider what alterations commerce with neighbouring countries doth daily make in the speech of all nations, and how much change is made by daily conversation with foreigners; how many new words are coined to express things newly invented; how many are imported with wares and traffick even from the furthest parts of the world; how many old obsolete words are disus’d; how many are lengthened by the addition of letters or syllables, and how many are shortened by contrary decurtations [shortenings]; and some also new pargeted [plastered over, decorated] (as it were) by mutation or transposition of letters. I will not inquire how short a time, and how much, the Ionick speech did degenerate from the Attick, and how much the other Greeks differ’d from them both. Let us but observe the speech of the noblest nations in Europe, how soon did the French, Italick and Latin tongues, all derived from the same root, degenerate from the purity of the Latin; yet in the mean time they differ no less amongst themselves than the old Scotish and the British tongues do. Yea, if we look over all the provinces of France (I mean those who are judg’d to speak true Gallick or French) what a great difference shall we find behind the inhabitants of Gallia Narbonensis and the Gascoigners? And how vastly the Limosins, the Perigordians and the Auvergnians, though neighbours to both, yet differ in their speech? And how much the of the provinces of France do differ, even from all of them? And, to come nearer home, the English laws of William the Norman, established five hundred years ago and wrote in French, yet now no French man can understand them without an interpreter. Nay, if those old men who have lived long in the world can remember that many words are grown obsolete which were in use when they were children, and what words unheard by our ancestors have succeeded in their places, they will not at all wonder that the same original language, in length of time, should be changed and seem wholly different from it self, especially amongst nations far remote and also warring one against another.
26. On the other side, when I see that concord (lasting so many ages rather than years) in the British language, and that even amongst nations either very distant one from another or else maintaining mutual animosities against one another, such a concord as is hardly to be found amongst many tribes and people of the Gauls, who yet have long lived under the same Kings and laws, I say, when I ponder within my self, such an agreement in speech, which as yet preserves its ancient affinity of words and no obscure markes of its original, I am easily induc’d to believe that before the coming in of the Saxons all the Britains used a language not much different from each other; and it is probable that the nations adjoyning to the Gallick shore used the Belgick tongue, from whose limits a good part of the Britans bordering on France had made a transmigration, as Caesar informs us. I suppose that these nations returning, as it were, from a long pilgrimage, and possessing themselves of the neighbour-seats, and almost coalescing into one people, did confound the idioms of their several tongues respectively, so that it was neither wholly Belgick nor wholly Celtick, nor yet wholly unlike to each of them. Such a mixture we may observe in those nations which are thought to speak the German tongue, and yet have much declined from the ancient phrase thereof, I mean the Danes, the maritime Saxons, those of Freisland, those of Flanders, and the English, amongst all which ’tis easie to find some letters, sounds and inflections which are proper to the Germans only and not common to any other nation; besides, I suppose, that a surer symptom of the affinity of a language may be gathered from this sound of letters, from the familiar way of each nation in pronouncing certain letters, and from the judgment of the ear thereupon, and also from the composition and declension of words, than from the signification of single or particular words. Examples hereof we find in the German letter w, the compositions of the words More-Marusa and Armoricus, of which I have spoken before, and in the declension of those words which among the Gauls end in ac, of which there is a large number, which form amongst the Scots is hypocoristical, i. e., diminutive, and so it was amongst the ancient Gauls. From drix, which amongst the Scots signifies a briar, is derived drissac, i. e., a briarling or little briar bush. And from brix, which signifies a rupture or cleft, brixac, which now the French pronounce brisac. For what the Scots pronounce brix, that the French call bresche, even to this very day there being no difference at all in the signification of the words.
27. The cause of the different writing is that the ancient Scots, and all Spaniards to this very day, do use the letter x for double ss. And therefore the old Gauls, from brix, have called a town of the Canomani Brixia, and again from Brixiacum, now commonly Brisac. After the like form, Aureliacum, i. e., Orilhach, is derived from Aurelia, i. e., Orleans, and from Evora, which is called Cerealis or Ebora, sirnam’d by the Spaniards Foelicitas Julia, Eboracum, i. e., York, is derived, as the Brigantes have declined it (who had their origin from the Spaniards), retaining in the declension thereof the propriety of the French tongue. Furthermore, besides those things which I have mentioned, all that coast or Britain which is extended to the south-west retains the sure and manifest footsteps of a Gallick speech and original according to the clear testimony even of foreigners themselves. First, in that coast there is Cornuvallia, i. e., Cornwal as many call it, but by the ancients ’twas called Cornavaia, and by the vulgar Kernico, even as in Scotland the Cornavii, placed by Ptolemy in the most northern district of that country, are commonly called Kernicks, so that Cornuvallia is derived from Kernick and Valli, as if you should say Kernico-Galli, i. e., Cornish Gauls. Moreover, Vallia, i. e. Wales, another peninsula in the same side, doth avouch its ancestors both in name and speech. They who come near in language to the sound of the German tongue pronounce it by w, a letter proper to the Germans only, which the rest of their neighbours, who use the old tone, can by no means pronounce: yea, if you should torture them to make them pronounce it aright, yet the Cornish, the Irish, or Highland-Scots could never do it. But the French who call it Vallia do always prefix a g before it, and not in that word alone, but they have many others also with a g. For they, who by reason of the propinquity of thecountries do Germanize do call the French tongue Walla; and besides, in a multitude of other words they use this change of letters. On the other side, that country which the English call Wales and North-Wales the French call Gales and North-Gales, as yet pertinaciously insisting on the footsteps of their ancient tongue.
28. But Polydore Virgil pleaseth himself with a new fancy, which he thinks he was the first inventer of, whereas no man though but meanly skilled in the German tongue is ignorant that the word walsch signifies a stranger or foreigner, and that therefore the Valli were call’d foreigners by them. But he reckons, as we say , without his host. For if that name were derived from strangership, I think it would agree better to the Angles or English as an adventitious people, rather than to those whom by reason of their antiquity many of the ancients have thought to be indigenous. Or if that name were imposed upon them by the English, they might with better reason have given it to the Scots and Picts than to the Britains, because with the former they had less acquaintance and very rare commerce. And if the English called them Valli reproach, would the Brittons (think we) who for so many ages were the deadly enemies of the English, and no made more obnoxious to them by this affront, own that name? Which they do not unwillingly, calling themselves in their own tongue Cumbri. Besides, the word walsh doth not primarily signifie a stranger or barbarian, but in its first and proper acceptation, a Gaul. And therefore, in my judgment, the word Vallia is changed by the English from Gallia, they agreeing with other neighbour nations in the name, but observing the propriety of the German tongue in pronouncing the first letter by w, viz., Wallia. The ancient inhabitants of that peninsula were called Silures, as appears out of Pliny, which name in some parts of Wales was long retained even in succeeding ages. But Leland, a Britain by birth and a man very diligent in discovering the monuments of his own country, doth affirm that some parts of Wales was somtimes called Ross, which word in Scotland signifies a peninsule. But the neighbour nations seem in speaking to have used a name or word which held forth the original of the nation rather than one that demonstrated the site and form of the country. The same hath happened to the name Scots. For whereas they call themselves Albini, yet their neighbours call them Scoti, by which name their original is declared to be from the Irish or Hibernians.
29. On the same side and western shore follows Gallovidia, i. e. , Galloway, which word (’tis evident) both with Scots and Welch signifieth a Gaul, as being made of Gallus and Wallus, part imposed by the one and part by the other. For the Valli or Welch call it Wallowithia. This country yet useth for the most part it ancient language. These three nations comprehend all that tract and side of Britanny which bends towards Ireland, and they as yet retain no mean indications, but rather deeply imprinted marks of their Gallick speech and affinity, of which the cheif is that the ancient Scots did divide all the nations inhabiting Britain into two sorts, the one they call Gael, the other Galle or Gald, i. e., according to my interpretation, Gallaeci and Galli. Moreover the Gallaecians do please themselves with that title Gael, and they call their language (as I said before) Gallaecian, and do glory in it as the more refin’d and elegant, undervaluing the Galli as barbarians in respect of themselves. And though originally the Scots called the Britains, i. e., the most ancient inhabitants of the island, Galli, yet custom of speaking hath by degrees obtained that they called all the nations which afterwards fixed their seats in Britain by that name, which they used rather as a contumelious than a national one. For the word galle or gald signifies that amongst them which barbarian doth amongst the Greeks and Latins and walsch among the Germans.
30. Now at last we are come to this point, i. e., that we are to demonstrate the community of speech, and thereupon an ancient affinity between the Gauls and the Britains, from the names of towns, rivers, countries, and such other evidence. A ticklish subject, and to be warily handled; for I have formerly proved that a publick speech or language may be altered for many causes, for though it be not changed altogether and at once, yet it is in a perpetual flux and doth easily follow the inconstance of the alterers by reason of a certain flexibility which it hath in its own nature. The truth whereof doth appear chiefly in those ranks of things which are subject not only to the alterations of time, but are also obnoxious to every man’s pleasure or arbitrement [choice], such as are all particular things invented for the daily use of Mans life, whose names either grow obsolete or are made new and refined for very light or trivial causes. But the case is far different in those things which are time-proof, and so, after a sort, are perpetual or eternal, as the heavens, the sea, the earth, fire, mountains, countries, rivers, and also in those which by their diuturnity [longetivity], as far as the infirmity of nature will permit, do in some sort imitate those perpetual and uncorrupted bodies, such as towns, which are built as if they were to be sempiternal. So that a man cannot easily give names to, or change the old of, nations and cities, for they were not rashly imposed at the beginning, but in a manner by general and deep advice and consent of their founders, whom antiquity did greatly reverence, ascribing divine honour to them, and, as much as they could, making them immortal. And therefore these names are deservedly continued, and receive no alteration without a mighty perturbation of the whole oeconomy of things, so that if the rest of a language be changed, yet these are pertinaciously retained and are never supplanted by other names, but, as it were, with unwillingness and regret. And the cause of their imposing at first contributes much to their continuance. For whose who in their peregrinations either were forced from their old seats or of their own accord sought new when they had lost their own country, yet retained the name thereof and were willing to enjoy a sound most pleasing to their ears, and by this umbrage [shadow] of a name, such as it was, the want of their native soil was somewhat alleviated and softened unto them, so that thereupon they judged themselves not altogether exiles or travellers far from home. And besides, there were not wanting some persons who, being superstitiously inclined, did conceive an holier and more august representation in their minds than could be seen in walls and houses, and did sweetly hug that image and delightful pledge of their own former country with a love more than native. And therefore a surer argument of affinity is taken from this sort of words than from those which on trivial causes (and oft on none at all) are give to, or taken away from, ordinary and changeable things. For though it may casually happen that the same word may be used in divers countries, yet it is not credible that so many nations, living so far asunder, should fortuitously agree in the frequent imposing of the same name.
31. In the next place those names succeed which are derived from, or compounded of, the former primitives. For oft-times the similitude of declination and composition doth more certainly declare the affinity of a language than the very primitive words thereof do, for these are, many times, casually given, but the other, being declined after one certain mode and form, are directed by one fixed example, which the Greeks call analogia. And therefore this certain and perpetual manner of nominal affinity (as Varro speaks) doth, after a sort, lead us to an affinity of stock and old communion of language. Moreover, there is a certain observation to be made in all primogenious words, from whence we may know which are foreinly introduced and which are patriots. For, as the words philosophia, geometria and dialectica, though oft used by Latin writers, yet have scarce any Latin word of kin to them or derived from them, from whence they may seem to draw their original, so on the other side the words Paradisus and Gaza are used by the Greeks, and yet it appears by this that they are inquiline or forein, because they can’t shew any original nor any progeny derived from them in the genuine Greek tongue.
32. The same observation may be also made in other tongues, which will help us to judge what words are domestick and which are adventitious or forein. Let it suffice to have spoken this much in general. Let us now propound examples concerning every particular part, where first we meet with those words which end in bria, briga and brica. Strabo, in his seventh Book, with whose opinion Stephanus concurs, that briga signifies a city. To confirm their opinion they produce these names derived therefrom, Pultobria, Brutobria, Mesembria and Selibria. But the place by them called Brutobria by others is named Brotobrica, and the places which Ptolemy makes to end in briga, Pliny closes with brica, so that ’tis probable that bria, briga and brica signifie the same thing. But that they all have their original from Gaul appears by this, that the Gauls are reported anciently to have sent forth colonies into Thrace and Spain, and not they into Gaul, and therefore amongst proper classick authors we usually read the words following:
Abrobrica in Pliny, in the circuit of Braga.
Amalo-brica in the Itinerary of the Emperor Antinonus.
Arabrica, Pliny, in the Bracarensian circuit also.
Arabrica another, Ptolemy, in Lusitania or Portugal.
Acrobrica, Ptolemy, amongst the Celtiberians, i e., New-Castillians.
Acrobrica, another, Ptolemy, amongst the Lusitanian-Celticks.
Acrobrica, a third, in the Caesar-Augustan province.
Artobrica, Ptolemy, in the Vindilici’s country.
Augustobrica, Pliny and Ptolemy, in Portugal.
Augustobrica, another, Ptolemy, in the Vecton’s country.
Augustobrica, a third, Ptolemy, in the Pelendon’s country.
Axabrica, Pliny, of the Lusitanicks.
Bodobrica, in the Itinerary of Antoninus and in the Book of the Knowledge of the Roman Empire, in High-Germany.
Brige, in the Itinerary of Antoninus, in Britany.
Brige, in Strabo, a town by the Cottian Alps.
Bruto-Briga, in Strabo, between the Turduli and the River Boetis.
Caeliobrica, Ptolemy, of the Celerini, i. e., people in Portugal.
Caesarobrica, Pliny, in Portugal also.
Catobrica, of the Turduli, in the Itinerary of the Emperor Antoninus.
Corimbrica, Pliny, in Portugal, if I mistake not corruptly for Conimbrica, of which mention is made in the Itinerary of Antoninus, which city as yet keeps its ancient name, by the River Munda in Portugal.
Cotteobrea, Ptolemy, in the Vecton’s country.
Deobrica, Ptolemy, among the Vecton’s also.
Deobrica, another, Ptolemy, of the Autrigones.
Deobricula, Ptolemy, of the Morbogi.
Dessobrica, not far distant from Lacobrica, in the Itinerary of Antoninus.
Flavio-Brica, Pliny, at the Port Amanus. Ptolemy, in the Austrigons, calls it Magnus, but I know not whether Magnus ought to be writ in Pliny, or no.
Serabica in the Scalabitan Province, which Pliny writes Jerabrica.
Juliobrica, in Pliny and the Itinerary of Antoninus, of the Cantabrians or Biscainers, heretofore called Brigantia.
Laobrica, in the Vaccaeans country, in Pliny, Ptolemy, and Festus Pompeius.
Laobrica, at the Sacred Promontory, in Mela.
Lanobrica, of the Lusitanick Celts, Ptolemy.
Latobrigi, near to the Svitzers, Caesar.
Medubrica, sirnamed Plubaria by Pliny, in Portugal; this, if I mistake not, is called Mundobrica in the Itinerary of Antoninus.
Merobrica, sirnamed Celtica, in Portugal; Pliny and Ptolemy.
Mirobrica, in the country of the Oretani.
Mirobrica, another in Beturia, or in the country of the Turditani Boetici, Pliny and Ptolemy.
Nemetobrica, in the Turduli’s country of Boetica, Ptolemy.
Netrobrica, another, in the Celtiberians country, Ptolemy, which in the Itinerary of Antoninus is called Nitobrica.
Segobrica, in the Celtiberians country, Pliny, but Ptolemy counts it the head city of Celtiberia.
Talabrica, in Lusitania, Pliny and Ptolemy.
Turobrica, in the Celts country of Boetica, Pliny.
Tuntobrica, amongst the Bracarean Gallaeci, Ptolemy.
Vertobrica, sirnamed Concordia Julia, Pliny, in the Celt-Beticks country
Volobrica, of the Nemetes, Ptolemy.
33. Very many names of towns and nations seem to belong to this class in all the provinces in to which the Gauls distributed colonies. For as Burgundus and Burgundio seem to be derived from burgo, so doth Brigantes from briga. The nominative case of this word in Stephanus is brigas, whence we decline brigantes as we do gigantes from gigas. The Brigantes, according to Strabo, are situate by the Cottian Alps, and in the same tract is the village or town Brige. And the Brigiani in the Trophy of Augustus are reckoned amongst the Alpin nations. Brigantium is an Alpine town, and the Brigantii are in the country of the Vindelici according to Strabo, and Brigantia in the Itinerary of Antoninus, and the mountain Briga (Ptolemy) is near the fountains of the Rhosne and the Danow. Also Brigantium in Rhaetia (Ptolemy) is the same town, I suppose, which in the Book of the Knowledge of the Provinces of the People of Rome is called Brecantia, and the Brigantine Lake. And in Ireland are the Brigantes (Ptolemy). The Brigantes also are in Albium (Ptolemy, Tacitus and Seneca). And the town Birge, or Brage, and Isobirgantium, in the Itinerary of Antoninus. And the town Brigantium in Orosius, by the Celtick Promontory, and Flaviobrigantium or Besanzon in Ptolemy, in the Great Port. And a later Brigantia, i. e., Braganza, now in the kingdom of Portugal. There is also another class or rank of words which do either begin in dunum or end therewith, which is a Gallick word, as appears by those heaps of sand of the Morini as yet called dune or the Downs, and those other heaps of sand in the sea over against them in the English shore which retain the same name of Dunes. Yea, Plutarch (I mean, he who wrote the Book of Rivers) in declaring the original of Lugdunum, i. e., Lyons, acknowledges dunum to be a Gallick word. And indeed in expressing the names of villages and towns there is scarce any one word or termination more frequent than that amongst the nations who yet preserve the old Gallick tongue almost entire, I mean the Brittons in Gallia Celtica and the ancient Scots in Ireland and Albium, and the Valli or Welch, the Kernocovalli or Cornish and England; for there is none of those nations which do not challenge that word and termination for their own. Only here is the difference, that the old Gauls did end their compound words with dunum but the Scots ordinarily place it at the beginning of words. Of this sort there are found:


Augustodunum, of the Aedui or Burgundians.
Castellodunum, of the Carnotensian province, i. e., of Chartres.
Melodunum, by the River Sequana or Sein.
Lugdunum, at the confluence of the Rivers Arar and Rhosne.
Augustodunum, another Autun, of the Averni or Auvergneois and Clermontians, Ptolemy.
Lugdunum, of the Conveni or Comingeois, near the River Garon, Ptolemy.
Novidunum, in the Tribocci’s country, Ptolemy.
Uxellodonum, in Caesar.
Juliodunum in the Pictons country, i. e., Poictiers.
Isodunum and Regiodunum of the Bituriges, i. e., inhabitants of Berry.
Leodunum or Laudunum in the county of Rhemes.
Caesarodunum (Ptolemy), of the Turones, i. e., Tourneois.
Segodunum, of the Ruthenians, Ptolemy.
Velannodunum (or St. Flour), in Caesar.


Caladunum, Ptolemy, of the Bracari, or Braganzians.
Sebendunum, Ptolemy.


Camulodunum, of the Brigantes country, Ptolemy.
Camulodunum, a Roman colony, Tacitus.
Dunum, a town of the Durotriges, or Dorsetshire men, Ptolemy.
Moridunum, i. e. Carmarthen, of the Demetae, Ptolemy and the Itinerary of Antoninus.
Rigodunum, of the Brigantes, Ptolemy; i. e., Rochester in Lancashire.
Cambodunum, in the Itinerary of Antonius, i. e., Raines near Almonbury in Yorkshire.
Margidunum, in the same Tineerary, i. e., Margedoverten in Leicestershire near Belvoir Castle, or, as some, Leicester it self.
Sorvidunum or Sorbiodunum, in the same Itinerary, i. e., Old Sarum in Wiltshire.
Segodum, i. e. Seton in Northumberland, and Axelodunum, i. e. Hexam in Northumberland also, in the book of the Notitia Romani Imperii or Knowledge of the Roman Empire &c.


Venantodunum, i. e. Huntingdon.
Dunelmum, i. e. Durham.


Duncaledon, called also Caledonia, i. e., Dunkelden.
Deidunum, i. e., Dundee, or rather Taodunum, by the River Tay.
Edinodunum, which word the ancient Scots do yet retain, but they who Germanize had rather call it Edinburgh.
Dunum, a town in Ireland called Down.
Noviodunum or New Down, i. e., Dunmoore Castle in Coval.
Brittanodunum, i. e., Dumbritton or Dumbarton, at the confluence of the Clyde and Levin.
And at this day there are abundance of names of castles, villages and hills derived therefrom.


Lugdunum, i. e., Leyden; Segodunum, i. e., Nurinburgh; Tarodunum, i. e., Friburgh; Robodunums, i. e. Brin; Corrodunum, i. e. Crainburgh.


Ebrodunum and Sedunum.


Cambodunum, Corrodunum, Gesodunum, Idunum and Noviodunum, and in the Book of the Knowledge of the Roman Empire, Parrodunum.


Corrodunum, Singidunum, by the Danow; Noviodunum at the mouth of the Danow; also another Noviodunum.
There are also in the same provinces not a few words declined from dur, which among the old Gauls and Brittons signifies water, and as yet retains the same signification amonst some, as there are:


Durocotti in the Rhemis circuit, Ptolemy; we read of them also called the Durocorti. Moreover, Caesar makes mention of Divodurum of the Meiomatrices. Tactus, Divodurum, near Paris. In the Itinerary of Antoninus, Batavodurum amongst the Batavi, Ptolemy, Tacitus. Breviodurum in the Itinerary of the Emperor Antoninus. Gannodurum in Polemy, near the Rhine. Gannodurum in the Helvetians country, Ptolemy. Octodurum or Octodurus, amongst the Veragri, Caesar.


Bragodurum, Carrodurum, Ebodurum, Gannodorum and Octodurum, Ptolemy. Venaxamodrum and Bododaurum, in the Book of the Knowledge of the Provinces.


Octodurum and Ocellodurum, Ptolemy. The River Durus flowing into the Ocean, and Duria into the Mediterrandean Sea, and, in Ireland, the River Dur, Ptolemy.


Durocobrivae, Duroprovae, Durolenum, Durovernum, Durolipont, Durotriges, Durocornovium, Durolitum, Duronovaria, Lacoturum. Perhaps the two Alpine Rivers Doria the Greater and the Less (the one running into the Po by the Salassians country, the other by the Piemonteis) do belong to the same original. And also Issodorus and Altissidorus, cities of France, so called (as I judge) from their situation near rivers. To which Dureta may be referred, which word in Spanish signifies a wooden throne, as Suetonius writes in the Life of Augustus. The like may be said of Domnacus, the proper name of a man in Caesar, which seems to be corrupted from Dunacus. For Dunach may signifie Dunan and Dunensis both, as Romach doth Romanus. Dunacus, or rather Dunachus, is yet used for the proper name of a man, which those who are ignorant of both tongues, the Latin and the British, do render (but amiss) sometimes Duncan, sometimes Donat. The word magus, also in the provinces in which the publick use of the Gallick tongue obtained, is very frequent expressing the names of cities, which shews that it of a Gallick original. But of the derivatives from it, we may rather guess than affirm for certain that they were wont to signifie a house, city or such like building. We read in the Book of Knowledge of the Empire of the People of Rome the prefect of the Pacensian levies in garison at Magi, and also in the same book, the tribune of the second cohort placed at Magni. We read also of Magni in the Itinerary of Antoninus. I dare not positively assert whether it be one town or many, but I incline, of the two, rather to think that they were sundry towns.
37. Towns ending in magus are these: Noviomagus, in Ptolemy, amongst the Santons; Noviomagus of the Lexovi; Noviomagus of the Vadecassii; Noviomagus of the Nemetes; Noviomagus of the Tricassini; Noviomagus of the Bituriges; Juliomagus of the Andregavi; Rotomagus of the Venoclassi; Caesaromagis of the Bellovaci; Rotomagus of the Nervii; Borbetomagus of the Vangiones in High Germany; Vindomagus of the Volci Arecomici. Also in the Itinerary of Antoninus, Argentomagus, and in High Germany, Noviomagus. In the Book of the Knowledge of the Roman Empire, Noviomagus of Belgica Secunda; in Rhaetia, Drusomagus, Ptolemy. In Britain, in the Itinerary of Antoninus, Caesaromagus; Sitomagus; Noviomagus of the Regni; Vatomagi; Magiovinium; Vicomagi, part of the Picts country, Ptolemy. There are also names of places common to many of these nations but not so frequently used, nor so much dispersed as the former, such as are Hibernia, i. e., Ireland, amongst the Romans the name of an island called by Pomponius Mela, Ptolemy and Juvenal Juverna, by Strabo, Claudian and the inhabitants thereof, Jerna. That which some call the Nerian promontory Strabo calls Jerne; Jernus or Iern, a river of Gallaecia, Mela calls it Jerna. Jernus is also a river of Ireland. In Ptolemy ’tis reckoned a river of Scotland, falling into Tay. Another of the same name glides through Murray; the country adjacent to both is called Jerna. We read of the city Mediolanum in Ptolemy, as one Insubrum of the Santones, another of the Aulerci Eburaici, another by the Loir, i. e. , Menu, a fourth by Sequana or the Sein, now, as I think, named Meulan or Melun, another in High Germany called Alciburgum, another by the Danow, another in Britain, of which mention is made in the Itinerary of Antoninus. Also Marcolia, a town of Spain, Macolica in Ireland. Vaga, a river in Portugal and another of Wales in England. Avo in Mela, Avus in Ptolemy, a river of Galaecia, as yet retains its name. In Argyle there is also a river of the same name, flowing out of the Lough Awe. The Promontorium Sacrum, one is in Spain, another in Ireland. Ocellum is a promontory in Britain, Ocellum is also in Gallaecia, in the Lucensian district, Ocelli are mountains in Scotland, Ocellum is the last town of Gallia Togata. Caesar mentions Uxellum, a town in Britain, perhaps for Ocellum. For Martianum, in explaining the ancient names of the cities of Gallia, says that the word is variously writ Ocellum, Oscela, and Oscellium. Hence perhaps comes Uxellodunum, which is sometimes also writ Uxellodurum. So there is Tamar, a river of Gallaecia (Ptolemy, Tamaris in Mela, Tamarici, a people of Gallaecia, the River Thamarus (Pliny), and Tamara, a town in Britain. Sars, a river of Gallaecia, Ptolemy; Sarcus in Scotland, Mela. Ebora, a town of Portugal, called Liberalitas Julia, in Pliny and Ptolemy; Ebura, that which is Cerealis in Boetica, in Pliny is Ebora; Ptolemy mentions Aulerici Eburaici in Gallia Celtica, and also Eboracum, i. e., York, of the British Brigantines. Deva, now Dee a river of England, and three in Scotland, so called, one in Galway, another in Angus, the third divides Merne from Marr. The Cornavii in England are in the farthest part of the West, in Scotland they are the farthest north. Both of them are now called Kernici. There seems also to have been a third sort of Kernici in Scotland at the mouth of the River Avennus or Even, which is the boundary between the coasts of Lothian and Sterling. For Bede makes the monastery ofg Abercorn to be at the end of Severus his Wall, where now the ruins of the Castle of Abercorn do appear. Aven is often read, a river both of England and Scotland. Aven in Scotish and avon in Welsh signifies a river.
38. Of the three nations which first inhabited this island after the coming of Caesar, the Britains were subject to the Emperors of Rome, successively, little less than five hundred years, but the Scots and Picts were under the subjection of their own Kings. At length, when all the neighbouring nations did conspire for the destruction of the Romans, they recalled their armies from the most remote provinces to maintain their Empire at home. And by this means the Britains, being destitute of foreign aid, were miserably vexed by the Scots and Picts, insomuch that they craved aid of the Saxons, which then infested the seas with a pyratical navy. But that project cost them dear. For the Saxons, having repelled the Picts and Scots, being tempted by the fertility of the country and the weakness of the inhabitants, aspired to make themselves masters of the island. But after various successes in war, seeing they could not arrive at what they aimed at by force, they resolved to accost the Britains by fraud. Their stratagem was this. There being a conference or treaty agreed upon at a set day and place between the nobles of both parties, the Saxons, having a sign given them by Hengist their captain, slew all the British nobility and drove the common people into rugged and mountainous places, so that they themselves possessed all the champain [lowland] and divided the fruitfulest part of the island between them into seven kingdoms. This was the state of affairs in Britain about the year of Christ 464. And whereas three German nations did originally undertake expeditions into Britain, the other two by degrees passed into the name of English-men. But the peace made with the Brittons, nor with the English amongst themselves, was never faithfully observed. About the year of our Lord 317 the Danes, being powerful at sea, did first molest England with pyratical incursions, but being valiantly repulsed, about thirty three years after they came with greater forces and made a descent into the country with a land army. At the first conflict they were victors, but afterwards they contended with the English with various successes, till in the year 1012 Swain, having wholly subdued the Britains, by their publick consent obtained the kingdom, which yet remain’d but a few years in his family. For the Saxons, having again created Kings of their own nation, about twenty four years after were overcome by William the Norman, most of their nobility being slain and their lands divided among the Normans, by which means the common people were kept in a miserable slavery till Henry the Sevenths time, who, easing part of their burden, made the condition of the commonalty a little more tolerable. But those which are in favour with the King, or would seem to be truly illustrious and noble, derive their whole sept [descent] from the Normans.
39. These are the discoveries which I have been able to make out of ancient writings and other, no obscure, indications concerning the original customs and languages of the three ancientest nations in Britain, all of which do induce me to believe that the old Britains and the other inhabitants of Britain were derived from the Gauls and did originally use the Gallick speech, of which many footsteps do manifestly appear both in France and Britain. Neither ought it to seem strange if, in a language which admits of a change every moment of our life, many things receive different names in divers places, especially in such a longinquity of time; yea, we may rather admire that the same foundations of a language (that I may so speak) and the same manner of declension and derivation doth yet continue amongst a people so far remote one from another and so seldom agreeing together in converse of life, yea, often being at mortal fewds one with another. Concerning the other three nations, the Angles, Danes and Normans, we need make no solicitous inquiry, seeing the times and causes of their coming are known almost all. But entred upon this task that I might restore us to our ancestors and our ancestors to us. If I have performed this well, I have no reason to repent of a little labour, though spent in none of the greatest concerns; if not, yet they who concur not with me in opinion cannot (I believe) disallow or blame my good-will. And I am so far from grudging or taking it ill to have what I have written refuted, that if any man can discover greater certainty and reduce me from my mistake I shall return him great thanks for his pains.
40. I had resolved to put an end to this disquisition concerning the original of the nations of Britain, if Lud had not called me back even against my will, who maintains that the Scots and the Picts came but lately into Albion. Though I might without any offence pass by the empty vanity of the man, joyned with his ignorance, yet lest the faction of unlearned ones should too much pride themselves with such a patron, I thought fit in a few words to convince [demonstrate] the obstinacy of the man, and that principally from those arguments and witnesses which he himself produceth against us. First, I will speak concerning his manner of reasoning, and afterwards of the matter it self. Julius Caesar (says he) and Cornelius Tacitus, writers of so great diligence, as also Suetonius, Herodian, and other Romans who have wrote of British affairs, have in no part of their works made mention of Scots or Picts, and therefore, doubtless, they had no seats in Britain in that age. Wilt thou accept of this condition, Lud, that what nation no ancient writer hath mentioned, never any such nation was? If you embrace this motion, see how many nations you will exclude from their beings in one or two lines! How great a table of proscriptions you make! Yea, what great persons you proscribe, Brutus, Albanactus and Camber! What nations will you wholly eradicate, the Loegri, the Cambri, the Albani, according to thy postulatum, who are a tyrant in history and grammar both, as declining Albanus¨s from Albanactus. But if that condition proferred do not please,

quia tu gallinae filius albae
Nos viles pulli nati infelicibus ovis,
Because you are the favourite of Fate,
But we’re condemn’d to a low base state,

I will propound another to you, and such an one too as you ought not, and (I think) dare not refuse. There is a certain kind of probation out of fragments, out of which, if you a little harden your forehead, you may prove any thing. I am the more inclined to make use of this way of proof because you seem to love it most of all, as proving (forsooth) out of a fragment known (I beleive) to thy self alone, that an innumerable multitude of the Cimbri went forth to destroy the Roman Empire. I will therefore shew you out of a fragment that the Scots and Picts were in Britain before Vespasian’s reign, which you deny. In that book to which you have given the title of Fragmentum Britanniae Descriptionis, i. e., a fragment of the description of Britain, I think especially for this reason, that you thought you self to have sufficiently proved out of one or two fragments that the island was rather to be called Pritania than Britannia, and out of the other that you had disgorged such a multitude of Cimbri as were enough to conquer all Britain, for this cause you thought that your fragment would get credit enough on that single account.
41. In that book you write that the name of Scots and Picts, together with the Franks and English or Angles, were well known to the Roman world, and as a witness of this opinion (a meet one indeed), he produced Mamertinus in the panegyrick dedicated to Maximinianus, which witness, if I understand him right, makes against Lud. For Mamertinus, speaking of the first coming of Julius Caesar into Britain, hath these words: Moreover the nation, as yet rude and dwelling in Britain, accustomed to none but the arms of the Picts and the Hiberns, or Irish, their half-naked enemies, did easily yield to the arms and ensigns of the Romans. See, I pray, what Lud would infer out of this testimony: first, that the Brittons alone did then inhabite the island. Next, that the people there named Hiberni or irish were afterward called Scots, but the author of the panegyrick doth assert neither of the two. For he affirms that before the coming of Caesar the Britons waged war against the Scots and Picts of the British soil, i. e., enemies dwelling in the British soil, so that soli Britanni is the genitive, not nominative case. The other he falsely assumes to himself. For I think I have sufficiently demonstrated out of Paulus Orosius, a Spaniard, and Bede, and English man, that all the inhabitants of Ireland were anciently called Scots, and then at length, when they sent colonies into Albium, the name of Scots was almost extinguished at home and began to grow famous abroad. In another place he contends that the Caledonii were called Britons, grounding his assertion on no other argument than that the finds they were called Britains, which is a name common to all who inhabit the same island. But I have shewed before out of the place of the panegyrick quoted by him that the Caledonians were Picts. Marcellinus affirms the same thing, who says that there are two sorts of Picts, the Dicaledones or (as I think it ought to be writ) the Duncaledones, and the Victuriones. But the Caledonii or Caledones dwelt in Britain before the reign of Vespasian, neither were they unknown to the Romans, as Lucan plainly shews, who died in Nero’s time:

Aut vaga cum Tethys Rutupinaque litora fervent
Unda Caledonios fallit turbata Brittonos.
When raging seas on Sandwich shores do beat,
The troubled waves do British Caledons cheat.

42. But why do I trouble my self to procure foreign testimonies, seeing we have a clear and nicking one at home? I mean Bede, the writer of the Ecclesiastical History of England, for he takes notice of the order, and almost of the very moments of time, wherein foreign nations passed over into Britain. These are his words in his first Book: “First of all, the island was inhabited by Brittons, whence it hath its name, who from the Armorick tract, as it is reported, being wafted over into Britain, possessed the south-parts thereof, and having seized upon the greatest part of the island, beginning from the south, it hapned that the nation of the Picts, coming (as ’tis reported) out of Scythia and entring into the Ocean with long ships or gallies, but not many, by stress of wind and weather were driven beyond all the bounds of Britanny into Ireland”” And a little after, “Wherefore the Picts, coming into Britain, began to seat themselves in the north parts of the island, the southern being possessed by the Brittons.” And at length, after a few lines interposed, he adds, “In process of time, Britanny after the Britons and the Picts, took in a third nation of the Scots as part of the Picts.” Then, after many passages, he subjoins, “But the same Britanny was inaccessible and unknown to the Romans until the time of C. Julius Caesar.” Whosoever thou art who readest these passages, observe, I pray, whence, at what time, and what order this author, much more ancient and grave than Lud, doth affirm that those nations entred Britain, to wit, that the Britons from the Armorick tract entred first, but the time not certain. That the Picts out of Scythia came next into those parts of Britain which were yet void of inhabitants, and that not long after the entrance of the Brittons, who were not as yet increased into such a multitude as to be able to inhabit the whole island. What then becomes of the Scots? When came they into Britain? In process of time, says he, viz., the Picts granting them the uninhabited seats in their districts, they came last to the former two. So the Britons, as Bede affirms, came into this island out of Amorica in France, and not long after the Picts out of Scythia. Both of them seized on the vacant and uninhabited places. At last, the island being divided betwixt them, the Scots entred not by force, but were admitted into the portion and lot of the Picts, and that long before Britain was known to the Romans. Here how will you deal with Lud, who produces Gildas and Bede as witnesses of his fables, viz., that the Scots and the Picts did first of all fix their habitations in Britain in the reign of the Roman Emperor Honorius in the year of Christ 420, of which two Gildas makes nothing for him and Bede doth evidently convince him of falshood. But let the reader beleive neither Lud nor me, but his own eyes, and let him diligently weigh the places of each writer.
43. But (says he) Dion calls the Caledones Britanni. I grant he doth so. So doth Lucan, and also Martial in that verse,

Quinte Caledonios Ovidi visure Britannos,
The Caledonians which in Britain be
Quintus Ovidius is about to see.

But none of them therefore deny them to be Picts, yet they have good reason to call them Britains. for as the whole island is called Britanny, so all its inhabitants are deservedly called Britains. For all the inhabitants of the isle of Sicily are generally called by the Romans Sicilians without any difference, though they themselves call one another, some Sicilians, others Siciliotes. So the possessors of Britanny are by foreigners all called Britains, but they themselves oft call the ancient inhabitants Brittons, and the other nations living therein, sometime by the private names of the countries whence they came, and sometimes by the common name of Britains. Wherefore the Caledonians, Picts and Scots are sometimes called each nation by its own name, yet all of them not seldom by the general term Britains. But Brittons, of which I have spoken, no man ever gave them that appellation.
44. There is also another difference amongst them to be observed in the word Britannia, as there amongst the Greeks and Latins in the word Asia. For Asia sometimes denotes the third part of the habitable world, and sometimes it is taken for that part of the Greater Asia which is situate on this side the mountain Taurus and is wont to be called Asia the Less. So Brittany is sometimes used for the name of the whole island in general, and otherwhiles only for that part of it which was subjected to the Romans, which part was bounded sometimes by the River Humber, and sometimes by the Wall of Adrian, and sometimes by the wall of Severus. And the inhabitants of this part are by British writers most usually called Brittons than Britans, but the other dwellers of the island, i. e., the Scots and the Picts, Bede sometimes calls Britains and sometimes strangers and foreigners. We may also find the same observable difference in Geoffry of Monmouth and William of Malmesbury. And therefore the Caledonians will be counted Brittons never a jot the more for being styled Britains by Dion, Martial, Lucan, or any other good author, than the Brutians will be Romans, though both of them are Italians. If Lud had taken notice of these things, he had never involved himself in such dark labyrinths, nor had he so rashly and inconsiderately made a positive determination in a point so obscure, nor had denied the Caledonians to have been Picts because they are termed by Dion Britains. Neither hath Lud any just cause to wonder that no writer more ancient than Ammianus Marcellinus and Claudian hath made mention of the Scots and Picts, though they dwelt so many, I will not say years, but ages in Britain. For, not to speak of the Valli, Bambri, Loegri, names lately known to the world, I may ask him why, seeing so many Greek and Latin writers have written of the affairs of Greece, yet no Graecian once names his country-men Graecian or no Latin author calls them Hellenes. Why did the names of the nations which I mentioned but now creep so late into the history of Britain, which that Cambro-Britain makes so ancient? If you ask any Englishman of what country he is, none will answer that he is a Saxon, yet the Scots, Picts, Irish, both the Brittons, i. e., those that inhabit Britain and those who dwell in France, do still unanimously call them Saxons. Why do not the old Scots, even to this very day, acknowledge and own the name of Scots? It ought not then to seem absurd to any man if, when the Romans asked their captives of what nation they were, one sad a a Maeatian, another an Attacottian, a third a Caledonian, and the names which foreign nations received from them they still retained and used in their common publick discourse. Neither, as I judge, will it seem incredible that some names are more known to historians and strangers, and others to the inhabitants of the country.
45. Though the premises do make it sufficiently appear that the coming of Scots and Picts into Britain is not only more ancient than Lud will grant it to be, yea, that it was but a little later than the Britains themselves coming into it, yet I shall add other, and those no contemptible, conjectures. The Brigantes, a great and powerful nation, were seated beyond the River Humber about York, and did possess the whole bredth of the island between the two seas. It is probable that they came not out from the tract of France, which was nearest, for no Brigantes are said to have inhabited there, but out of Spain, first into Ireland, and from Ireland into Britain as being a neighbour island to it. Neither doth this differ from the conjecture of Cornelius Tacitus which he makes concerning the ancient inhabitants of the isle. If the Brigantes came from Ireland, then they must be of Scotish race, as all the rest of the inhabitants of Ireland were. Seneca also seems to confirm this opinion in that elegant satyr of his concerning the death of Claudius, in these words:

Ille Britannos ultra noti litora ponti
Et caeruleos Scutabrigantes dare Romuleis
Colla cathenis iussit, et ipsum nova Romanae
Iura securis tremere Oceanum.
He, th’ Britains, which beyond known seas did well,
And blew Scutabrigantes did compel
Romes yoke to bear. Yea, the Ocean, so far spread,
His government and his new laws did dread.

In these verses Joseph Scaliger, the son of Julius, is of opinion that for Scutabrigantes we ought to read Scotobrigantes. Of how great learning and judgment that young man is, of what industry in comparing ancient writers, and of what acuteness in finding out the meaning of obscure passages, the books set out by him do declare. At present I shall only say that, having undertaken to illustrate the affairs of Britain, I thought his judgment was not to be omitted, and I will declare in a few words, why I think it to be true. For seeing we read in Caesar and other authors eminent both for diligence and knowledge that the Britains were wont to paint their bodies with woad, and in Herodian that they used nar§row shields in war (such as Livy ascribes to the Asiatick Gauls) and no great ornament in their arms, it seem’d absurd to make mention of the shield, which was not painted, the mention of the body, which was painted, being omitted. And therefore it is very probable that the learned man and skilful in British affairs, as who, according to Dion, kept the whole island under tribute, wrote the word Scotobrigantes that he might distinguish them from the other Brigantes, both Spanish and Gallick.
46. It makes also for the same purpose that in those verses he separates the Britains and Brigantes as two different nations, which is also done by some British writers who make Humber to be the boundary of Britain. The matter being not well considered by Hector Boethius, as I judge, led him into a mistake, who, having some where read that the Silures and Brigantes were called Scoti, as having their original from Ireland, placed them in part of the kingdom of the Scots in Albium. His mistake, though it may justly offend others, yet ought not to have been so severely censured by Ludd, who hath committed as great mistakes in the same kind. For he makes the Cumbri (or as he calls them) the Cumri, to issue out of a corner of Britain to plunder the whole world. for he infers from one or two words common to them both that the Cimbri and Britanni were of one nation. The words are Moremarusa and Trimarchia. Here it is worth while to take notice of the man’s acuteness in disputing, and of his subtlety (forsooth) in drawing out of inferences and conclusions. The word Moremarusa, says he, is a British word, but it was once a Cimbrick one, and no nations else besides, which dwelt by the Baltick Sea. But seeing our country-men use the same word and are called by the same name with those other Cimbri, therefore (sure) both were of the same stock and nation. In this matter, first he affirms falshoods for truths, and also takes uncertainties for certainties. For it is a manifest untruth that both of them are called Cimbri; even Ludd himself being witness, who affirms that all the inhabitants, his country-men, of Cambria were so called from their King, Camber, and he calls himself a Cambro-Britain. I could also prove the falshood of this opinion by the testimony of all his country-men, who do not call themselves Cimbri, but Cumri. As that is false, so this is uncertain, whether other people dwelling by the Baltick Sea did not use that word which you attribute to the Cimbri alone, especially since it appears out of Tacitus that many nations in that tract of Germany spake the Gallick tongue, and I shewed before that word to be Gallick.
47. But suppose that both of your assumptions were true. What then? Did you never read that the souldiers of Cnaeus Pompeius, when he wages war in Asia, were saluted by the name of brethren by the Albans swelling in the mountain Caucasus, by reason that both of them were called Albans? Neither do I doubt but that if a man had observed both tongues he might have found one or two words signifying the same thing in both. But they wanted such a man as Ludd there, who because both people had certain words common between them would thereby prove that both were of the same nation. And yet the purblind man seems to be sensible of the non sequitur of his conclusion, when he adds that the Cimbri were called Aestiones by the Germans. That he might make that out, he should have shewed at what time and upon what grounds the Cimbri were transformed into Aestiones, and the Aestiones again into Cimbri. He speaks not a jot of this, but only cites a British history collected out of the Milesian fables of the Gauls, and also quotes a certain fragment when he, now being degraded from an antiquary to be either a botcher, or scraper together of old useless relicks or (if I may so speak) a fragmentary, doth piece up new kingdoms and new nations for us. This he doth with great labour, and yet no colour of probability, whereas yet it was very obvious to him (unless perhaps it was above the poor man’s reach) to find out the causes why the name Cimber was communicated to the Cimbri, and the Valli too. For Plutarch says that it was not the name of a nation but of an occupation or employment, and that robbers were so called by the Germans. Suidas, no ignoble grammamrian amongst the Greeks, understands the word in the same sense, and Festus Pompeius amongst the Latins writes that the Cimbri were called Plunderers by the Gauls. If we follow these men’s opinions, it will not be difficult to find out why the Cimbri, whom Ludd places in Britain, came by that name, especially since their neighbours, the Angli or English, do affirm that even in their age their manners did not much abhor from that theiving occupation. Sure I am that Livy calls that slave that was sent to kill Marius in the prison of the Minturnae a Gaul, Lucan calls him a Cimber but no noted writer styles him a Britain. If Ludd had considered these things, or if after consideration he had chosen rather to remember them than to frame new monsters to himself, there was no necessity for him, in one moment of time, or rather with one falshood, to have left all Britain almost destitute and forsaken, all of its military young men being exhausted and six hundred of them drawn out from it in a clap. I will not here descend to a minute inquiry to what children the Valli are wont to give the names of Cimbrick Kings, for this diligent writer brings in this also as an argument of their stock. If I mistake not, besides Latin, German and Syriack ones, he will find very few names.
48. But if a solid argument may be fetched from the proper names of men (which are often-times arbitrarily imposed by parents or vain-gloriously adopted out of some history), then Ludd might rather persuade us that his country-men are Jews, Romans or Germans than Cimbri. Or, if he would have advised his compatriots to give baptismal names fetched out of history to their children, within a few years he might transform his country-men into what nation soever he pleased. But touching the names of the Cimbrick Kings, which, he ways, were accustomed to be given to children, I would willingly have asked the man from what oracle he received it, unless I knew before-hand that he never wants some fragment out of which he can prove what he list himself. But this I can’t but admire touching that Cimbrick expedition, how all their military men being sent abroad, that within the space of forty years (for it was about that interval between the Cimbrick War and Julius Caesar’s arrival in Britain) your country of Vallia should so soon recover to be so populous, especially since when Maximus drew forth a far lesser number out of Britain, even when it was in its most flourishing estate, the Britains could never after hold up their heads, but they were brought into bitter servitude by the Saxons. Or why Caesar, who, for his age, might have made mention of the Cimbrick War when he came into Britain, being also a learned man and a great favourer of the Marian party, did find out nothing by inquiry concerning this Cimbrick expedition. Lastly, I desire to know whether Ludd spoke in jest or in earnest when he added that the affinity of both the Cimbri might be inferred from their equal contempt of gold and silver. Here I would willingly ask of him whether he spake in earnest when he calls those Cimbrians, who did not only vex and plunder Gallia or Gaul and a part of Spain too, but in a manner wholly wasted and destroyed them both, and yet afterward hastned to Italy in quest of a richer booty. Whose opulency got by robberies, the Helvetians imitating, they also became plunderers, as Strabo relates in his seventh Book. Dare you call such men frugal and temperate? And that it may appear that the Cimbricks name is truly assigned to your nation, you make them emulous of those employments to which the Cimbrians were accustomed; yea, you make your self a pilferer too, who aspired to the glory of a plagiary, with staking from all nations. For, not content to have vindicated the deeds of the Cimbri to your country-men, you add with as impudent and fictitious an untruth that the Sicambri were also of your stock. And because in the name of both nations there is a certain similitude of letters from that cognation of words, you feign a conjunction of blood. At this rate, besides the Sicambrians, the Franks and their childrens children to all generations will be allyed to you. And so after a packed series of lyes you raise a bridge to bring back the fugitive Brenni, of which one, who took Rome, lived about an hundred years before the other, who besieged Delphos. But you do jumble and compact them together into one body that so you might dress up a new monster out of a dead and living man piec’d together, as if it were difficult to prove by other arguments that monsters are born in that very country which brought such a person as you forth.
49. But, says Ludd, no writer acknowledgeth that there were two Brennus’s besides Polydore Virgil. Surely, Ludd, thy reason hath forsaken thee, or else thou hast never read the fourth Book of Strabo where he writes that the Brennus who besieged Delphos is by some thought to be Prausus. Yea, not Strabo alone, but every man who believes that Rome was taken by a Brennus, and that above an hundred years after Delphos was besieged by a Brennus doth acknowledge that there were two of that name, seeing both those enterprizes could not be performed by one and the same man. But if we believe the monk, the compiler of the British history, Brennus the Brother of Belinus preceded these two Brenns three hundred years; who, if he had led his army into Italy at that time, must have fought with Numa Pompilius or with Tullus Hostilius, and not with the free people of Rome. But to omit these things, whence doth this new logician gather that Brennus was a Britain? forsooth, from one word only, viz., Trimarchia, which word yet is common to Scots, Gauls and Welsh. But Pausanias, whom you quote maimedly and by piece-meal, that so he may make for your purpose, calls Brennus and his companions Gauls, and acknowledgeth that word to be Gallick. But you, sir, you only, such is your shamelessness against the credit of all Greek and Latin historians, yea, and in spight of the Muses themselves too, do strive to prove him a Britain.
50. Perhaps I have prosecuted this argument a little more prolixly than either the obscurity of the matters themselves or the unskilfulness and unconstancy of Ludd did deserve. I have done it, not out of a desire to carp at or blame others (which I am far from), but that I might abate the edge of the unsavory abusiveness of a person so loquacious and reflective, thus reducing him from his wild and extravagant rage (whereby he speaks evil of almost all writers), that so I might bright him at last to acknowledge his error. To omit others at present, he falls with great scurrility upon Hector Boethius, a man not only well-skilled in the Liberal Arts, but also endued [imbued] with singular humanity and courtesie, and famous too beyond the ordinary rate of the times he lived in, and he so falls upon him as to blame nothing in him of which he himself is not more foully culpable. Hector places the Brigantes in Gallway, wherein he did amiss, for I have no mind to defend his mistakes. But Ludd brings out great forces of the Cimbri from one corner of Britain; how truly, let the learned judge. Hector attributes matters acted by others against the Romans in Britanny to his country-men the Scots, and Ludd doth shamelessly and falsly affirm that Rome was taken, Macedonia vexed, Greece afflicted the noblest oracle in the world sacrilegiously violated by his country-men the Britains; yea, that Asia it self was compelled to pay tribute to a few vagabonds. He blames Hector, but falsly, for making Gildo, who raised up great commotions in Africa a Scot, and yet he makes the same Gildo, who was indeed a Moor, to be a Goth. “But Gildus and Gildo” (forsooth) are names almost alike. Let me ask you, are they more like than Luddus, Lydus and Ludio? This is certain, that Gildus is an old name in Scotland, as the ancient clan of the Macgilds or Macgills doth shew, of whose posterity there are yet families remaining of good account both in Scotland and England. But seeing Ludd hath such an intemperate tongue that he cares not what he says provided he may abuse others, I shall leave him and conclude this Book, only giving him this caution, that,

Loripedem rectus derideat, Aethiopem albus.
They that faults in others blame
Must not be guilty of the same.

Go to Book III