Volume II. Guth na Bliadhna ' leabhar II.]

fence at the public and official use of the appella­tions " England " and " Englishmen," when reference is made to the United Kingdom, and to the inhabi­tants thereof. Though I by no means wish to de­cry the patriotism of the real Scots, and, though an Englishman (and proud of the fact) can understand in a measure their reluctance to be dubbed English­men, yet I cannot help feeling that the way out of the dilemma which your countrymen in general have chosen is pedantic and unscientific. In the first place, why should Englishmen, or for that matter, eke Scotsmen, be called " Britons " ? The true descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the country now known as England are, according] to all accounts, the Welsh, who constitute but a fraction of the population of England, and who occupy but a small portion of that country which once upon a time belonged to them. The Britons-were Celts; the English are not, and I fail alto­gether to see why by bestowing that appellation upon them they should be classed as such. One] hears a great deal nowadays—perhaps some of it is neither in the best of taste, nor much illumined by learning—touching the Anglo-Saxon race; but what sense can there be in our indulging our pride in that direction if in another we put up a claim to be considered as Celts by styling ourselves, or allowing others to style us, Britons ? Obviously we cannot be both Anglo-Saxons and Britons ; and for my part (and I trust you will excuse the pre­ference) I would much rather be styled the former than the latter, not because I am so ignorant and prejudiced as to despise my fellow countrymen, but because I am an Englishman—an Anglo-Saxon if you will—and I like my national beverage un-l diluted. It seems to me, too, that the case against your own countrymen, so far as the claim to be considered Britons is concerned, is just as conclusive as it is against mine. The Scots, no doubt, are, in the main, a Celtic race ; but I have yet to learn that they have any right to the title of Briton.

The small kingdom of Strathclyde (which was undoubtedly British, i.e., Welsh) was wiped out of existence many hundreds of years ago ; and the little British blood in that part of Scotland which was left in it after the sanguinary events preceding and following its suppression, must have disappeared long ago—have disappeared as completely and ef­fectually as the British language itself. Why, then, should the modern Scots elect to be styled " Britons," seeing that history and every ethnological reason is opposed to them ?

It may be objected, of course, that although the race-argument is weak in both cases, justification for the existence of this fashion—for really it can be no more—is to be found in the fact that once 'upon a time the whole island was styled Britain. I confess myself, however, no more an admirer of this line of argument than I am of the other. I do not dispute the fact that the island wherein are England and Scotland was anciently styled Britain (not by the Britons themselves, be it observed, but by the Romans and the classic world in general), ibut, pray, what sound reason have we here why we should cling to the obsolete momenclature of antiquity? France was formerly called Gaul, yet the Frenchman who should seriously allude to his country by that appellation, or should insist on being described as an inhabitant of Gaul, that is, a Gallician, instead of a Frenchman, would assuredly be laughed at for his pains. And what is sauce for the Frenchman, the " Carthaginian," the " Phoe­nician," and so forth, is surely sauce for the rest of the hemisphere.

For my part, I must acknowledge myself more an admirer of the Irish in this respect than I am of the Scots. As for my own countrymen, I fancy if it were not for the Scots and the umbrage they are [apt to take at insignificant trifles, we should hear little of "Britain" (save in romance and poetry) and the "Britons". The terms "England" and "Englishmen" are, I believe, good enough for most of us over the Border. But the Irish, whose con­sistency I admire, but whose politics I deplore, are nothing if not, at all events, " thorough ". They never dream of styling themselves "Britons" (which racially and territorially they are no more than are the English and the Scots), but reserve that appella­tion for Englishmen; and the word " British " for things English—indeed, if I mistake not, these terms " Briton " and " British " are with them obnoxious epithets, which they make use of entirely for English consumption! For instance, the English govern­ment (which they frequently style " British ") is in their eyes simply a thing of English creation, and, therefore, detestable. When they use the terms "Briton" and "British" in this connexion, they do not undertake any indirect reference to them­selves (as the Scots are accustomed to do to save their national skins, I suppose), but simply use the words as expressions synonymous with " English" and "Englishmen".

How far this absurd custom is the result of a well-meaning desire to appear more ancient than we English really are, and how far it is a feeble outcome of the times and existing political arrange­ments, I will leave it to others to decide. I cannot help thinking, however, that your Anglicised countrymen would be well advised in dropping it. After all, the Act of Union of 1707 cannot be gain­said ; and whether they like them or not, Scotsmen should make up their minds to accept its political consequences with as little grimace as possible. The spirit of our Government is English, not " British". England's army is English, so is her navy—not " British ". It is the English language we speak-not the British; and Englishmen, not " Britons," with a few Anglicised Scotsmen and Irishmen thrown in, are at the head of all our national affairs. If, say, Mr. Lloyd-George were suddenly made Dictator of England, and Welsh principles of government—if there be such things—and the Welsh language became everywhere predominant, then, indeed, might the Britons of Britain have something reasonable to say for themselves and their claims ; but until that consummation actually arrives, I, for one, will be content to consider this country as England, my compatriots as Englishmen, and their concerns as English. As for the Celtic Renaissance and those who are in sympathy with it, that, as the saying goes, is another story. Person­ally, I rather admire the man or men who, from out of the past, as it were, speak to the future through the medium of the present. At all events, such a one is, in my humble opinion, a more under­standable and conscionable being than the refin­ing, pettifogging individual who having deliberately made his bed, refuses, or rather churlishly objects, to lie on it; and what I claim for myself, I am neither fool nor bigot enough to withhold from others—if they can show just cause why they should have it—that is to say, if they are strong enough to seize and to hold it. I enclose my card, and subscribe myself, sir,

Your obedient servant,

An Englishman.

House op Commons Libeaey, 29th June, 1905.

[We heartily sympathise and agree with our correspondent. It is certainly highly absurd, spe­cious, trifling, pedantic and " unscientific " to char­acterise as "British" men and things which are nothing if not English. Let us not, in the mean­time, endeavour to shut our eyes to unpleasant facts, nor, by a transparent process of verbal leger­demain, try to shuffle out of rendering to Caesar the things which, unfortunately, are Csesar's. We shall certainly give no encouragement to the " British "-cum-" Briton " sophistry in these pages. Such familiar expressions as the English King, the English Government, the English Army and Navy, English letters, etc., etc., have not only long estab­lished usage, but common-sense to recommend them. This periodical is written partly in the Gaelic and partly in the English languages ; but it is designed principally for Gaels —not for " Britons," though, to be sure, we have one or two Welshmen amongst our subscribers.—Editor G. N. B.]
GAEL AND "HIGHLANDER"

Sir, I observe the following paragraph, under the head of Cèile, in the seventh part of the new Gaelic Dictionary which is being compiled, and ad­mirably compiled, too, by Macdonald & Co., of The Gaelic Press. " The term Gaidheal is frequently er­roneously translated ' Highlander,' which is only a political Sasunnach word invented to keep Gaels asunder, and consequently, comparatively helpless." The compilers of this Dictionary have already ac­complished many useful things; but I think that this is one of the best of them. I am glad that an ancient, though not venerable, superstition, the creation, as the writer justly observes, of our friends the enemy, has been authoritatively disposed of. Time was, however, and that not so long ago either, when even Gaels bowed the knee to the Sasunnach Baal, in so far as they generally translated the word Gàidheal in the shape of the term "Highlander". I remember well that An Comunn Gàidhealach, in the days when it thought it necessary to give the English equivalent of every Gaelic word or phrase officially used by it—now happily over-past—gave

the world to understand that its English designa­tion was "The Highland Association," instead of the Gaelic League or Association, which, of course, it should be. The popular English abuse of these simple words Gàidheal and Gàidhealach (meaning, not "Highlander " and "Highland," but Gael and Gaelic) dates far back in history. The English in their conversation and literature seem to have found an insuperable difficulty in translating these words into their correct equivalents. With them, the Gael of Scotland is always a " Highlander "—not a Gael, as his own language insists on his being. That portion of the country which is mostly in­habited by Gaels is, to them, the " Highlands," and any one not inhabiting those regions, or not bearing what they are pleased to consider as a " Highland " name, is not, and cannot be, a " High­lander " ! Of course, all this is highly unscientific, fantastic and woefully misleading; but is simply part and parcel of a number of similar fallacies connected with the Gaels of Scotland, and for which our English neighbours are mainly respon­sible, though it must be confessed that by tacitly, if not explicitly, sanctioning these erroneous usages, the Gaels of Scotland have themselves been largely to blame for the existence and continuance of such indefensible practices.

Though in ancient writings I find that the Gaelic language was frequently styled the "Irish language" by English authors, and by travellers hailing from the Anglo-Scandinavian fringe of Scot­land, I do not find that the Gaels of this country were ever described by these writers as " Irishmen," or even as " Scoto-Irishmen ". Among the uncom­plimentary epithets with which the Saxon and his friends branded the proud Gael of Scotland, there are "Redshanks," "Wild men," etc., etc.; but few, if any, references to their Gaelic stock. This may be accounted for by the fact that these early foreign observers did not come in actual contact with our ancestors, but accepted without questioning the partial and prejudiced accounts of us retailed to them by our enemies in Scotland. The mental transition from "Redshanks" or "Wild men" to "Highlander"—i.e., an inhabitant of the "High­lands," a district which abounded in mountains and torrents and lochs, and into which a self-respecting Saxon could scarce venture to penetrate—seems-easy and natural enough. Besides, what good reason was there why the Gael's description of himself should be at all regarded, seeing that his manners, language and customs were those of bar­barians—meet only to be stamped out! And so it came to pass, whether he liked it or not—though. in too many cases, it is to be feared, the Gael him­self was, if not a consenting party to the absurdity, at all events an indifferent observer of it—that the Gael of Scotland's description of himself was con­temptuously thrust aside, and his conqueror's label for him accepted without dispute or question in its room. To the Saxon, it was natural that that part of the country which was inhabited by the Gaels, and which enjoyed an evil reputation on that account in his eyes, should be styled the " Highlands," seeing that hills and mountains-abound there. It was natural, if not inevitable, too, in consequence of his so naming the Gàid­healtachd of Scotland, that he should christen the inhabitants therefore " Highlanders". The Saxon, primarily, at all events, designed to draw no special racial deduction from his (to him) con­venient and reasonable, if somewhat arbitrary, no­menclature. The constituents of the Anglo-Scan­dinavian fringe, however, soon saw the political uses of this artificial and very unscientific division ; and hastened to avail themselves of it with charac­teristic unscrupulousness. They accordingly divi­ded the country into " Highlands " and " Lowlands," not so much territorially as racially. Thus, every Gael inhabiting a county which, by reason of this political arrangement, ipso facto became Lowland, ceased to be a Gael, and henceforward was styled a " Lowlander," i.e., a foreigner or Saxon (in our eyes) instead ; whilst the Gàidhealtachd, on the other hand, became shorn of half its extent and power; and from that time forward passed into a definite political entity with well-defined limits which it was the sole business of the " Lowlands," and consequently of " Lowlanders," to oppress and depress. This racial way, too, of looking at the matter soon became fashionable in England (where, by the way, it still flourishes); and after a time (probably after the fall of the lordship of the Isles, towards the end of the fifteenth century) the in­fection extended even to the " Highlanders " them­selves, who learned the lesson which their enemies taught them with that thoroughness, and applied it with that zeal, which are only to be found in the highest degree amongst a conquered and a dis­possessed people. Now, however, that the Gaels themselves are beginning to protest against a prac­tice which has neither interest, convenience nor propriety to recommend it, we may surely look for its speedy discontinuance, so far at least as Celtic Scotland is concerned. The true representation of the matter, moreover, cannot fail to do good in circles other than our own. The Anglo-Scandi­navian fringe must be taught that the Gaelic cause and Gaelic blood are not confined to the "High­lands," and that we have something more in our view than the revival of patriotism, and its atten­dant benefits, amongst the scattered population of the garbh criochan. If there be any sense and meaning in our propaganda at all, we aim at noth­ing more nor less than the restoration to our race of the land which bears our name, not fragmen-tarily, but in its entirety.

Your obedient servant,

James MacDonald.

Inverness, 5th July, 1905.

DUNNACHADH BAN MAC-AN-T-SAOIRTha e air aithris gu tric ann am measg nan Gàidheal gur e Dunnachadh Bàn Mac-an t-Saoir bàrd is fheàrr a thog Gàidhealtachd Alba bho laithean Oisein; agus gur e Moladh Beinn Dòrain cuibhrionn de bhàrdachd is fheàrr a chuir Dun­nachadh Bàn ri cheile. Cha'n 'eil mi ag ràdh nach fhaod daoine a bhi air am mealladh anns an dà ni sin. Tha iad na mo bheachd-sa gu h-àraidh air am mealladh a thaobh an dara ni; is e sin gur e Moladh Beinn Dòrain cuibhrionn de bhàrdachd is fheàrr a chuir Dunnachadh Bàn ri chèile. Neach air bith a leughas Moladh Beinn Dòrain gu faicil­leach bho thoiseach gu deireadh, faodaidh an neach sin eòlas fhaotainn air na buadhan a bhiodh feumail agus freagarach do dheagh shealgair, air cumadh a' ghunna 'bha cleachdte ann an làithean a' bhàird, agus ainmeannan lusan gun àireamh ; gheibh e na

¹

1 Leabhar Chomuinn Ghdilig Inbhirnis, Earrann xii.

nithe sin air an cur sios ann an cainnt bhuin, fhileanta, agus bhlasda, a dh' fhaodas a bhi 'n an lòn taitneach do 'n chluais, ach nach dean mòran àrdachaidh no beathachaidh air buadhan na h-inntinn. Tha 'm bàrd a' toirt dhuinn trì seal­laidhean àraidh air Beinn Dòrain. Anns a' chiad àite tha e 'g a h-ainmeachadh na "monadh fada, rèidh," ach's ann a tha 'bheinn coltach ris mar gu 'm biodh i ag atharrachadh nan cruth fa chomhair sùil inntinn a' bhàird mar a bha e 'dol air aghaidh leis a' mholadh aice. Agus an àite i bhi 'n a "monadh fada, rèidh," 's an a tha i tionndadh gu bhi cho corach, carach, bideanach, ri sruth Choire Bhreacainn, 'n uair a tha i fàs—

" Gu stobanach, stacanach, Slocanach, laganach, Cnocanach, cnapanach, Caiteanach, ròmach; Pasganach, badanach, Bachlagach, bòidheach ".

Anns an treas sealladh a tha'm bàrd a' toirt dhuinn air Beinn Dòrain, tha e 'g a h-ainmeachadh 'n a " monadh fada, faoin ". Tha sin a' leigeadh fhaicinn duinn nach b' e idir cumadh agus maise na beinne 'bu mhomha bha anns an amharc aig a' bhàrd ann a bhi 'seinn a cliù, ach a bhi a' taghadh briathran fìnealta ruithteach a rachadh gu snasmhor ann an eagan a chèile, agus a bha freagarrach air fonn a' phuirt air an do sheinn e am moladh, co dhiù a bha 'chainnt sin seasmhach ri lagh Nàduir no nach robh. Tha aon rann beag anns nach 'eil ach ceithir sreathan goirid, ann am Miann a' Bhàird Aosda, air cliù agus maise beinne, anns am bheil barrachd brigh agus bàrdachd na 'tha ann am Moladh Beinn Dòrain bho cheann gu ceann.

" Chì mi Beinn-àrd is àillidh fiamh;

Ceann-feadhna air mhìle beann;

Bha aisling nan damh 'na ciabh,

'S i leabaidh nan nial a ceann." I Tha e air a mheas 'n a mhaise air bàrdachd agus] air sgriobhadh no comhradh sam bith, mar isl momha 'thèid de chiall agus de ghliocas a chun ann an tearc de bhriathran. Ach cha d' thugj Dunnachadh Bàn mòran aire do 'n teagasg