A history of the Highlands and of the Highland clans : with an ...

THE OALRIAUS. SCOTO-IUISH KINGS. 63
were little connected with the central clans and still less considered
by the Pictish goveriunent, which, perhaps, was not yet suflii;iently refin
cd to be very jealous of its rights, or to be promptly resentful of its
wrongs ; and tliat Drest-Gurthinmoch then reigned over tiie Picts, and
certainly resided at a great distance, beyond Drum-Albin. It is also
to be observed, in further corroboration jf tiiis view, that Lorn, Fergus,
and Angus, brought few followers with them; and though they were
doubtless joined by subseqvient colonists, they were, for some time, oc-
cupied with the necessary, but uninteresting labours of settlement
within their appropriate districts. Ceantir was the portion of Fergus,
Lorn possessed Lorn to which he gave his name, and Angus is sup-
posed to have colonized Ila, for it was enjoyed by INIuredach, the son
of Angus, after his decease. Thus these three princes or chiefs had
each his own tribe and territory, according to the accustomed usage of
the Celts; a system which involved them frequently in the miseries of
civil war, and in questions of disputed succession.
There is no portion of history so obscure, or so perplexed as that of
the Scoto-Irish kings, and their tribes, from their first settlement, in
the year five hundred and three, to their accession to the Pictish throne
in eight hundred and forty-three. Unfortunately no contemporaneous
written records appear ever to have existed ofthat dark period of our annals,
and the efforts which the Scotch and Irish antiquaries have made to
extricate the truth from the mass of contradictions in which it lies buried,
have rather been displays of national prejudice than calm researchei
bv reasonable inquirers. The annals, however, of Tigernach and of
Ulster, and the useful observations of O'Flaherty and O'Connor, along
with the brief chronicles and historical documents, first brought to light
by the industrious Innes, in his Critical Essay, (a work praised even by
Pinkerton,) have thrown some glimpses of light on a subject which had
long remained in almost total darkness, and been rendered still more ob-
scure by the fables of our older historians. Some of the causes which have
rendered this part of our history so perplexed are thus stated by
Chalmers in his Caledonia. " The errors and confusion, which have
been introduced into the series, and the history, of the Scottish kings,
liave chiefly originated from the following causes :— 1st. The sove-
reignty was not transmitted by the strict line of hereditary descent
There were, as we shall see, tliree great families, who, as they sprung
from the royal stock, occasionally grew up into the royal stem ; two of
(hese were descended from Fergus I. by his grandsons, Comgal and
Ganran : the third was descended from Lorn, the brother of Fergus.
This circumstance naturally produced frequent contests, and civil wars,
for the sovereignty, which, from those causes, was sometimes split; and
the representatives of Fergus, and Lorn, reigned independently over
fbeir separate territories, at the same time. The confusion, which all
this had produced, can only be cleared up, by tracing, as far as possible,
the history of tliese different families, and developing tlie civil contests
vfaich existed among tliem. 2d. Aluch pei-plexity has been produced