Volume II. Guth na Bliadhna ' leabhar II.]

of foreign embellishments; and various other articles of furniture, each bearing the stamp of its Polish and peasant origin, though brought to the level of middle-class exigencies and refine­ment. It would be no hard matter to furnish apartments almost exclusively in this style, from the walls, covered with patterns such as the country girls cut out of coloured paper and paste inside their whitewashed " izbas "—a judicious selection has of course to be made here—to the door-hang­ings and window-curtains, quaintly fastened with broad peasants' girdles of red leather studded with brass nail heads; and I am informed that such furnishing produces an extremely original effect. But the movement in this direction, though rapidly spreading, is scarce past its starting-point as yet, and I have only met with a few rugs, flower-pots, and similar objects, amongst incongruous suites of furniture and rooms decorated according to foreign tastes.

Without having exhausted the subject—indeed, this article is but the merest sketch—I must now make a few final remarks. I have at least pointed out some of the channels into which Poland, thirty years ago dying and all but dead, has since then turned all the forces which make for her existence, with such success that her internal life may now be regarded as assured. No small part of this success is, it is true, due to the very great fecundity of the race. We remember the sneer of the Prussian


38 Poland's Struggle for Existence

Chancellor Biilow, who, in order to justify his up-pressive measures, compared the Poles to rabbits. There was much truth in his sneer. Notwith­standing the thousands who emigrate annually, never to return, driven away by political persecu­tion from some provinces, by sheer misery from others; notwithstanding the backward state of sanitation, and the ignorance of hygiene amongst the people, whose families often number three children born for one arrived at maturity—still the Polish race increases; it increases so fast that the Germans already fear for their predominance in the provinces seized, and the Russians despair of ever Russianising Poland. The mere increase in numbers would be worth little; but as I have shown, there is a corresponding increase of intensity in the national spirit; as education is more and more widespread, even the lowest classes now become penetrated with the reminiscences of their past—of Boleslaus the Great, of Sigismund, of Sobieski—and with the knowledge and love of Polish literature, both that of former times and that of the present day. In presence of this move­ment, the Germans talk of uprooting (ausrotten was the famous expression used by Bismarck) all that is Polish. But is it possible to do it? And are they even able to realise the greatness of the task which they have set themselves ? Hitherto, by their own confession, they have failed; but this failure only gives them a feeling of surprise and mortification, only makes them resolve to try again and try harder to turn their three millions of Poles into Germans.

I remember having once experienced a similar feeling. When a very little boy, I was playing in a garden, where was a shallow stream, not three

39

Cervantes

feet wide. I conceived the idea of damming up the running water, and setting quickly to work had soon filled the three feet of its bed with clay and stones. What was my amazement to see the stream widen on either side as I worked ! I made the dam wider still; but soon the water was pouring over the top. I built the dam higher, but now the stream came round again to right and left; till at last, worn out and completely beaten, I saw my work swept away piece by piece. The forces of Nature were against me.

M. H. Dziewicki.


CERVANTES

Rugadh Don Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra ann an Alcala de Henares, baile ann an Spàinn, anns a' bhliadhna 1547. Bha 'athair 'na dhuin'-uasal o Ghalicia, agus bhuin a mhàthair dha 'n duthaich cheudna.

Chaidh Cervantes àrach ann an Salamanca, agus 'na dheigh sin, fhuair e fhoghlum ann am Madrid fo Lopez de Hoyos, a bha 'na fhear-teagaisg snas-chainnt sgrìobhadh anns an àrd-sgoil

aig an am ud.

An uair a bha Cervantes mu dhà-bhliadhn'-air-fhichead a dh'aois, fhuair e àite, car tamhuil, mar ghille-seomair ann an tigh Chardinal Guilio Aqua-viva ann an Roimhe. 'Na dheigh sin a rìs, chuir e, le shaor-thoil fèin, e fèin fo'n cheannard ainmeil Marco Antonio Colona, a bha 'na àrd-mharaiche air cabhlaich a' Phàpa anns a' bhliadhna 1570; agus chog e gu smiorail, misneachail, an aghaidh nan ana-creidmheach. Chaidh a leòn gu trom aig blàr mara Lepanto, ach an deigh sin, bha e breac-bìtheanta na chuireadh ann an camp' eile. Ghlacadh e le cabhlach a thàinig o Africa, agus rinneadh prìosanach dheth. Ach air dha 'bhith dà bhliadhna am prìosan, leigear fa sgaoil e, anns a' bhliadhna 1580. Agus air dha 'teachd air ais do'n Spàinn, dh'ath-choinnich e an armailt a chuir an dara Rìgh Philip a mach 'ga thagairt fèin o làimh nam Pàgan­ach. Fhuair e cliù, mòr dha fèin ann an turus naimhdeil a chuir an Rìgh ceudna an aghaidh nan Azores.

Air dha 'teachd air ais a rìs do'n Spàinn, anns a' bhliadhna 1584, dh'fhàg Cervantes an t-arm, agus chaidh e a leth-taobh, Ios barrachd cothrom 'fhaotainn air fèin-fhoghlum.

Anns a' bhliadhna 1584, chuir e mach ròlaista dùtcha ris an abrar Galatea, agu sphòs e anns a' bhliadhna cheudna. An sin, thoisich e ri sgrìo­bhadh air buird tighe-cluiche, agus chuir e mach ann am beagan ùine cor agus deich cleasan-cluiche thar fhichead.

Am feadh na bliadhna 1588, bha Cervantes a' gabhail còmhnuidh ann an Seville, ach cha robh e, mo thruaighe ! ach glè bhochd. Anns a' bhliadhna 1605, nochd e e fèin a rìs mar sgrìobhadair, agus sgaoil a nis a chliù feadh na Spàinne gu lèir. Chaidh a' cheud earrain do'n leabhair ainmeil d'an ainm Don Quixote a chuir a mach ann am Madrid; ach cha do thaitinn e ris an t-shluagh an toiseach, ged a bha 'n Roinn Eorp uile 'toirt chliù dha ann an ùine bhig.

Ged a dh'fhàs an obair ainmeil so taitneach ris na Spàinntich, cha d'rinn e duine beartach de Cher-vantes. Ach, bochd agus mar a bha e, thug e a h-uile oidhirp air 'inbhe a leasachadh.

Air dha 'bhith 'na thosd fad beagan bhliadh­naichean, chuir e mach a Dha Sgeulachd Ionmholta Dheug (Nowlas Exemplares); agus anns a' bhliadhna 1614, chuir e a rìs a mach a Thurus do Pharnassus ( Viaje al Parnaso); agus air an ath bhliadhna chuir e mach ochd cleasan-cluiche nuadha; ach, cha do ghabh an sluagh gu caoimhneil riu idir.

Thacair, anns a bhliadhna 1614 gu'n do chuir­eadh a mach earran-leanmhuinn bhreugach de Don Quiasote,, le duin' àraidh d'am b'ainm Alonso Fernandez de Avellaneda, anns an robh mòran de droch-chainnt mu thimchioll Chervantes. Dh' fhuiling Cervantes gu mòr air taileamh nan tuail­easan neo-onorach so; ach ghabh e a dhioghaltas gu tur air dhòigh ro urramach; oir chuir e mach an fhìor earran-leanmhuinn anns a' bhliadhna 1615.

An deireadh a làithean, fhuair Cervantes caraid d'am b'ainm Conde de Lesmos, agus thug an t-Iarla comhnadh dha, agus ghabh Cervantes còmhnuidh ann am Madrid. Shiubhail e an sin anns a' bhli­adhna 1616.

Air do'n tigh anns an a bh'aig Cervantes ann am Madrid a' bhi air a thogail suas ùr anns a' bhliadhna 1835, chuireadh dealbh-creadha Cher­vantes leis a' ghabh-altaiche Don Antonio Sola air beulaobh an tighe, mar chuimhneachan air.

Is ann mar sin a bha Cervantes ri bheò, agus is ann mar sin a shiubhail e—duine ro chliùtach fad an t-saoghail uile. Tha mòran sluaigh aig an àm so a' comh-chruinneachadh ann an Spàinn, agus a' dol an sin o dhùthaichean eile mar chuimhneachan air a bhàs; agus, fìrinneach, tha e ceart agus fre-grach do Ghàidheal na h-Alba agus do Ghàidheal na h-Eirinn maille ris na cinnaich eile a bhi 'ga luaidh le meas agus le cliù.

An uair a rugadh Cervantes ann an Spàinn, bha Alba is Eirinn fo dragh mòr air ait, agus gu'n robh fior ghainnead muladach bhàrda agus eachdraichean unnta air fad uile " fhearainn ghorm nan Gàidheal". Sgriobh Keating, a bha 'mairean an uair, agus a bha 'ga fhallach, ann an uamh air eagal nan Sasunnach, agus an uair a bha a' chuid eile dhe na bàrda agus dhe na seannach-aidhean Gàidhealach mar chaoiraich gun bhuach-aille. Sheinn bàrd neo-ainmichte ann an Eirinn aig an àm mhuladach ud mar so

" Ionann dam sliabh a's saile Eire a's iarthar Espàine Do chuireas dunta go deas Geata dlùth ris an doilgheas ". Ach, ged a dha Alba agus Eirinn anns a' gheur-leanmhuinn mhòr aig an àm ud, bha mòran Sha-gartan na h-Alba agus na h-Eirinn a' fuireach air allaban ann an Spàinn. Ghabh muintir fhialaidh, fhiughantach na Spàinne ri clann nan Gàidheal le aoidheach a bha nadurra dhaibh, agus, gun teagamh* thug na Gàidheal meas mòr is cliù do Chervantes, agus dha obairean iongantach. Bha oil-thighean na Spàinne lom-làn do mhuinntir na Gàidhealtachd, agus do mhuinntir na h-Eirinn ; agus 'nam measg, gun teagamh, bha mòran a bha 'nam bàrda eir­eachdail, agus a bha 'nan fir-sgrìobhaidh sheolta. Ach ged a bha muinntir na Spàinne agus clann nan Gàidheal cho cairdeil ri chèile, a rèir coltais, cha do ghluais obairean Chervantes inntinnean fir-sgrìobhaidh nan Gàidheal. Tha e cinnteach nach 'eil sgrìobhadh againn an diugh is urrainnear a shloinneadh air luchd-molaidh Chervantes. Gn fìrinneach, cha 'n 'eil so cho neonach, an uair a bheir sinn fainear (mar is còir dhuinn), gur e fìor-bheagan de na sgrìobhaidhean a bha air an rinnea aig an àm ud a thàinig a nuas gus an là diugh. Aig an àm ud agus rè mhòran bhliadh naichean an deigh sin, lean foghlum na h-Alba agus foghlum na h-Eirinn an dòigh ghnathaichte. Fhuair sinn ar samhlaidhean air son sgrìobhaidh o na Romanaich, agus o na Greugaich. Bha fir-sgrìobhaidh na h-Eirinn, agus na h-Alba air a cumadh a rèir nan àrd-sgeulachdan aosda. Bha Togail Throidh, agus sgeulachdan mu thimchioll Alasdair mhòir nan Greugach, agus an Odessidh (Merugud Oiluix) uile 'nan culaidh-sgrìobhaidh aig Gàidheal na h-Eirinn agus na h-Alba. Dh'ullaich na fir-sgrìobhaidh nach do ghabh ri cleachdadh na Romanach agus nan Greugach iad fèin air son aobharan sgrìobhaidh a thug a h-aon sam bith a stigh do'n dùthaich so.

Ach, ged nach do ghluais Cervantes ar fhoghlum fèin, fhuair e, gu dearbh, mòran de fhir-molaidh agus de leughadairean ro thuigseach am measg nan Gàidheal; agus tha e freagarach agus ceart gu'n deanamaid gàirdeachas aig an àm so maille ri muinntir uasal, fhialaidh, na Spàinne.

Ach, mo thruaighe ! cha 'n 'eil eadar-theangachd againn air Don Quixote anns a' chainnt bhinn nan Gàidheal. Tha sinn an earbsa, co dhiùbh, gu'm be e 'nar comas a ràdh aig an àm so an àth bhliadhna nach 'eil dìth eadar-theangachd orinne a thaobh na h-obair ainmeil sin. Tha e air a ràdh, gu'n d'rinn a h-aon do Shagairtan na h-Alba Don Quixote a chuir ann an Gàidhlig. Is e so, gu dearbh, an t-àm dha a chuir a mach. Thog Cer­vantes d'a fèin :—

monumentum sere perennius

Regalique situ Pyramidum altius Quod non imber edax, non Aquilo impotens Possuit diruere, aut innumerabilis Annorum series, et fuga temporum.
THE "PUSHFUL" THEORY IN SCOTTISH HISTORY

We have already seen that the keynote of David's policy with respect to Church and State was " com­promise". He was, if not by inclination, at all events by policy and necessity, a "moderate" rei former. He was a plodding pedestrian on the via media—that uninteresting thoroughfare down which many a sovereign and statesman has tramped to brilliant success. His sympathies, there can be no doubt, were strongly English, or rather Norman and feudal; and it must be allowed that he ac­quitted himself in a difficult, even critical, position with both address and courage.

We have already combated the view that David was a great innovator—that he revolutionised his kingdom from top to bottom. We have already seen that his reforms with respect to the Church were limited to changes affecting its external organisation, and in no wise concerned the general personnel of the Church, whose Celtic character the king was powerless to eradicate. A similar toler­ance, the obvious result of a wholesome respect for the rights and opinions of his Celtic subjects and the vehemence with which, if tampered with, they were wont to be asserted, is observable in David's actions with regard to the State. The " theory of displacement" which Chalmers laboured abundantly, though vainly, to prove is as untenable in the one case as it is in the other, and for precisely the same reasons, namely, the King's inability to displace, or to dispossess, a whole nation in order to gratify his own prepossessions, and those of a handful of foreign dependants. " The whole theory (of displacement)," says Robertson,¹ "is mythical. Such a measure would have raised all Scotia to the Forth, all Lothian to the Tweed, in one general blaze of insurrection."

It must be allowed that David's predilection for the Normans was a little singular, and if it is to be accounted for at all can only be explained by a paradox—his lengthened residence at a Norman court. The more we know of these Normans, the less will any self-respecting individual pretend to admire them; and the more ignorant and ridicu­lous will that notion appear whose unworthy aim and object is the apotheosis of these unprepossess­ing barbarians. " The Norman Conquest," says Dr. Murray,* "... overthrew the old English learning and literary culture. In literary culture the Nor­mans were about as far behind the people whom they conquered as the Romans were when they made themselves masters of Greece; and it was not till some two generations after the Conquest that learning and literature regained in England somewhat of the position which they had occupied two centuries earlier."

David's partiality for these people, therefore, must have been based on admiration for the system of government with which, by a singular accident, their Conquest of England has been associated; since it would not be just to consider him as an enemy to politeness and learning. The feudal system aggrandised the King at the expense of his subjects—reason enough, surely, for a far less ambitious sovereign than David was to espouse

1 Scotland under her Early Kings, vol. ii., p. 498. * The Evolution of English Lexicography (Eomanes Lecture, 1900).

its cause, and call it, effusively, his own. The Celtic system, with its limited royal prerogatives, its well-ascertained and sharply-defined royal and semi-royal rights, its nicely-balanced division of executive power, and its somewhat socialistic system of land tenure, must have been thoroughly odious to a man of David's political temperament and views. His passion for feudalism (for such, indeed, it amounted to) seems to have blinded him to the striking inferiority of the " new " civilisation which he introduced, and to its comparative rude­ness and crudeness in face of all that was best and most splendid in the system which he designed to overthrow. It must be remembered that when David mounted the throne he was practically a stranger in his own country. All his principles, domestic and public, had been formed abroad. Norman and English arms were largely respon­sible for his triumph, and his notions of personal government were almost necessarily such as were approved, and enforced, by his foreign supporters. But David, in addition to his training in a court in which the Sovereign was proclaimed as the heaven-sent depositary of executive power, and as the sole fount of honour, had a natural liking for feudalism. The constitutional forms identified with the Celtic system were to him merely so many obstacles to the possession of that measure of power which he evidently considered as essential to the monarchy—obstacles which, if he could not violently surmount, he must at all events diplomati­cally circumvent. And this enforced moderation of David—his seeming candour, and the remarkable tenderness, even fatherliness—where the interests and susceptibilities of his Celtic subjects were con­cerned, which he frequently exhibited, supplies the key not only to his public actions but to his private conduct. David little loved Celticism and his Celtic subjects, we have every reason to believe; but he was too wise a man, too astute a Prince, not to see that he must, to a great extent at all events, put up with them. Thus, and so only, his seeming moderation is satisfactorily explained; and we cease to wonder that a Sovereign who intro­duced charters into Scotland should have retained Scottish service side by side with that striking inno­vation. The reign of David, as Skene and Robert­son justly observe, was a period of compromise. Content with introducing the leaven which was subsequently to change the whole complexion of his kingdom, David's common-sense made him shrink from attempting that colossal task which latter-day historians, neither discouraged by his helplessness nor dismayed by his difficulties, have successfully accomplished for him (on paper), namely, the substitution of feudalism for Celtic­ism in Scotland by force of hand. However inimical to the latter David may have been, his sole chance of success—nay, his only chance of re­taining his throne—lay in dissembling his hostility and in disguising his innovations in such a manner as whilst it did not in the least degree jeopardise or impair the political intention of his reforms, seemed effectually to deprive them of their revo­lutionary character. In this respect, it must be admitted, David was a highly successful sovereign. His command of compromise, if I may so express myself, amounted to genius, and will have its appropriate reward in the unstinted admiration and the enduring envy of the party politician in all ages to come. So artfully were his innovations introduced, so skilfully propagated, and upon so plausible pretexts and pretences, that his Celtic subjects seem to have been scarce aware of the species of political legerdemain to which they were being subjected—in order to facilitate their eventual extinction. Indeed, strange as it may seem, even a careful consideration of David's actions, public and private, might not unreasonably result in the verdict that this Prince's innovations were by no means inconsistent with a desire to perpetuate the best features of the Celtic polity; whilst those to whom paradox is something more than stage ornament, a narrative constructed out of the abundance of material left us, and based on the contention that David left his kingdom yet more Celtic than he found it, would prove not only diverting but highly edifying reading.

The crop of fallacies connected with the reign of the first David is, however, by no means ex­hausted by the dissipation of such popular fables as his destruction of the Celtic Church, or his sup­pression of the Celtic policy in favour of feudalism. It is commonly believed that, in company with his foreign Churchmen, David imported into Scotland a multitude of Norman and English " barons " who, in reward for their services in assisting David to mount the throne, were given grants of the lands, titles, offices, etc., formerly in the hands of the dispossessed Scots. This " theory of displacement," as Eobertson styles it, found its most industrious and, perhaps, its ablest exponent and champion in the historian Chalmers; and with that persistency and hardihood which characterises exploded fables, it still holds its ground, at all events in the popular imagination. Historical science, however, has long since consigned it to its proper resting-place, which is the limbo for all such historical rubbish; but in view of the popular ignorance on the subject, and the obvious bearing of such a theory upon the theme discussed in these papers, I may perhaps be excused for venturing here to recur to it at some length.

In the first place, the theory of displacement is unscientific, though frequently resorted to in history in order to reconcile apparently discordant facts, or to " round off " some theory or other upon whose acceptance or rejection the writer, like a reckless gambler, is prepared to risk a single throw of the dice. Thus, Keating in his well-known History of Ireland destroys the Milesian plebs by pestilence in order to make way for his nobles who were essential to his genealogies. "But the theory," says Robertson, "is scarcely less extra­vagant which supposes ancient Scotia to have been filled with a population unknown to history—for when did they (the Normans, etc.) arrive 1 untrace­able in topography—for where are their vestiges ? and who, if they ever really existed in this quarter, must have exhibited the unwonted spectacle of a dominant people, strong enough to hold their ground throughout the leading provinces of the kingdom, yet submitting to the rule of a king and a nobility sprung from the very race they are sup­posed to have driven from the soil! Where was the strength of the ancient Gaelic kingdom of Scotland, if it were not in this very quarter ?"¹ The theory of displacement is yet more strik­ingly confuted by the names of the probi homines, that is, by the composition of the juries which pro­nounced "the verdict of the neighbourhood" in times subsequent to the reigns of David and his successor, William the Lion. The local notabilities

18oo(land under her Early Kings, vol. ii., p. 485.