prove them to be of German extraction: whereas he gives quite different origins to the fouthern nations. The Scots are acknowledged by Mr. Pinkerton (notwithftanding the prejudices of his countrymen in favour of the oppo fite hypothefis) to have been transported originally from Ireland. This is clear from the pofitive and repeated affertions of Bede and other hiftorians. Ireland was the firft Scotia and Usher goes fo far as to fay, that Scotia always implies Ireland, in every writer down to the 11th century. Others, however, think it clear, from Eginhart, that Scotland began to be called Scotia about the year 800. The reafon of this confufion is, that both countries were inhabited by Scots; Ireland firft, and Caledonia afterward. The inhabitants of the weft of Scotland, north of Clyde, and of the Western Ifles, are univerfally Irish; they have only Irish cuftoms, and fpeak only the Irish tongue. That the Scots, a nation far inferior to the Picts in the extent of their poffeffions and antiquity of their settlement, should have had the chance to give their name to the country, is no more to be wondered at, than that the Angles, the smallest tribe of all the Saxon fettlers in England, fhould give their name to that kingdom. Our Author fuppofes that when the Belgic Gauls invaded Britain, the aboriginal Celts fled to Ireland, and first peopled that country; and he attempts to fupport this conjecture by the meaning of the word Scuite or Scot, viz. a refugee, and alfo by the teftimony of Richard of Cirencefter, who exprefsly fays, In Hiberniam commigrarunt ejecti à Belgis Britones, ibique fedes pofuerunt, ex illo tempore SCOTI appellati. He obferves, that the Picts were not fo denominated, as many have fuppofed, from their custom of painting their bodies. This custom was common to other nations in their ruder periods. The true word is Pehts; and Picts is only the word Latinifed. It is fuppofed to be of Scythian or Gothic derivation; perhaps from the Teutonic phetan to fight. These people are called in the Saxon chronicle, Pihtar, Pyhtar, or Peohtar; and the common people, from the wall of Severus in Northumberland to the utmoft rock of Shetland, call them Pehts-foftening the to improve the found of the word. The fecond fection of this ingenious Effay treats of Celtic poetry in Scotland, comprizing the British and Irish: the third is allotted to Pitifh or Scandinavian, and the fourth, to what is commonly denominated Scottish poetry. No fragments of BRITISH poetry in Scotland are to be found. Many fpecimens of IRISH poetry in Scotland have been publifhed; but none older than a century or two. Tranflations have also appeared; but, in general, of no fidelity. Those of the the poems afcribed to OSSIAN, in particular, have defervedly drawn much of the public attention; but they will only mislead any reader who wishes to form an idea of Celtic poetry. He that believes Offian to have flourished about the year 300, and his writings preserved by oral tradition for 1460 years, large is his faith, and he might move mountains! Gentlemen of the Highlands of Scotland, with whom the Editor conversed on the subject, affured him, that they looked upon nine-tenths of Mr. Macpherfon's work as his own; and upon the other tenth as fo much changed by him, that ALL might be regarded as his own compofition. There are pofitive evidences, he fays, which convince him that not one of the poems given to Offian, and probably not one paffage of them, is older than the 15th century. The very firft author we know who mentions Fingal is Barbour, a Scotch poet, who wrote in 1375. Fingal was an Irish hero: and one Good, a schoolmafter of Limeric, fent fome account of Ireland to Camden, in 1566, in which mention is made of fome ftrange fables, that the people amuse themselves with, about the "giants Fin Mac Huyle, and Other Mac Ofhin." But though the Editor totally rejects the authenticity of Mr. Macpherson's work, and very feverely lafhes him for his perverfion of hiftory, yet he pays a juft tribute of respect to his exquifite talents, and applies to him what Richardfon faid of Milton, He is an ancient, born fifteen hundred years after his time. His great genius will fecure his fame; though we think it can only be fecured at the expence of his honour, if Offian be fo total an impofition on the eafy faith of the Public as Mr. Pinkerton fcruples not to affert it really is. Under the article of Pilish or Scandinavian poetry in Scotland, the Editor fays, that he hath not met with any remains of it in that country, though the Picts had poffeffion of the best part of it for more than eight centuries, as a feparate people under their own kings. This fpecies of poetry muft be fought for in the Danish antiquaries. But the Pictish poetry furnished the language, and therein the chief fund of SCOTTISH poetry, as diftinguished from what is called Erfe or Irish poetry. The Irish poetry is all gloomy; the Scotch deals more in merriment. The Celtic nations feem to have been generally fevere; the Gothic riotous. The caroufal of Odin never appears in Celtic mythology, where the stern character of the Druids alfo influenced the people. The Celtic nations were in general peaceful and temperate; the Gothic, warlike and intemperate. All the Celtic poetry, yet publifhed, is grave; that of the Goths chiefly heroic. The Pictish poetry feems alfo to have bequeathed to the Scottish a peculiarly wild horror, which frequently ftrikes the reader with the highest effect. But the antique force and fimplicity of the the language was the chief permanent gift of the Pictifh poetry to the Scottish. We would with pleasure tranfcribe what the Author moft ingeniously advances relating to the progrefs of language in Scotland, by comparing it with, what he calls, its fifler language, the English. The analogy is conducted with great art; but we fufpect, that it is more plaufible than folid. We think that the Scottish is a branch from the English ftem; and rather the daughter than the fifter. But our limits will not permit us to enlarge farther on a fubject, that, perhaps, cannot be reduced to certainty. We will however do the Author the justice of tranfcribing the following remark, leaving our Readers to draw what inference from it they please: Proximity of tongues proves collateral relation, but not derivation; elfe the Swedish would alfo be derived from the Englifh. For that fpeech, and, I believe, the Danish, are as near to the English, as the real Scottish is. Pictish and Saxon, Scottish and English, are both equally derived from the Gothic. Their great fimilarity then can be no wonder. The Pictish was the earlier Gothic; the Saxon the later; the idiom and body of the language were ever the fame. But nearly one half of the old Scottish words is not to be found in the Saxon, but folely in the Gothic.' Next follows a List of all the Scottish Poets, with brief remarks on their respective merits, from Thomas Lermont, who flourished about the year 1270, to Alexander Rofs, who was living in 1768. This lift appears to be very accurate; and to the curious in enquiries of this fort, it will afford much information and much entertainment. The third poet mentioned in this lift is Andrew Winton, a Canon Regular of St. Andrews, who wrote the Chronicle of Scotland, about the year 1400, in verfe. The original is preferved in the Cotton Library, and Mr. Pinkerton propofes to publish it entire, if he should meet (which we hope he will, from the specimens he hath given) with fufficient encouragement. In this curious Chronicle the ftory of Macbeth is related very circumftantially. In fome inftances it materially differs from the tradition that Shakspeare adopted. It is the father of Macbeth (who proved to be the Devil in the difguife of a very handfome man, and who feduced the lady while the —to woddis made repayr and not the witches, who predicted The The falutation of the weird fifters is alfo fuppofed to have been conceived by Macbeth in a dream. He thoucht, quhil he was fa fyttande In plain profe, and in plain English (if it fhould need explana tion), "He thought, while he was thus fitting, that he faw three women paffing by [ganging]; and he thought the women to be moft like to the three weird fifters. He heard the first say, as fhe paffed by him-Lo! yonder is the Thane, &c. &c. &c.' The Notes affixed to thefe volumes are copious, and in the main very fatisfactory. The Gloffary is not fo complete as we could have wifhed. A number of obfolete words are not explained at all and there is a lift of many that the Editor acknowledges himself incapable of explaining. This collection is certainly a very curious one; and Mr. Pinkerton, while he claims our applaufe as an ingenious writer, is entitled to the thanks of the Public for the trouble he hath taken in providing them with fo rich an entertainment. He hath publifhed propofals for a new edition, with Notes, of Adamnanus's Life of Columba (the celebrated founder of the monaftery of Icolmkill), and the lives of other ancient Scottish Saints. We heartily with him fuccefs in his undertaking. It will be of public fervice, as well as a fubject of particular entertainment to the antiquary; and no man feems better qualified to do juftice-to, at leaft, what may be deemed the more useful part of it; for we defpife Saints as much as he, and value their memorials, not for their miraculous exploits, but for the light .4. they throw on history and geography. B ART. V. Filices Britannica: An Hiftory of the British proper Ferns, with plain and accurate Descriptions, and new Figures of all the Species and Varieties, &c. By James Bolton, of Halifax. 4to. Printed at LEEDS, and fold in London by White. Price in Boards 13s. coloured 11. 75. TH THE botanical world will find itself much indebted to this laborious author; for his work is evidently founded in perfonal obfervation, without which no truth is to be obtained in our enquiries concerning the works of nature. It is this principle which gives Mr. Curtis's excellent Flora Londinenfis fuch a manifeft pre-eminence over every publication of the kind. REV. Feb. 1787. K Seeing Seeing with other men's eyes, is a fallacious method. Hence arofe the reveries of ancient naturalifts, and with them much injury to the science. Neither Theophraftus, nor Diofcorides, nor Pliny, could eftablish the facts which they fo carelessly af ferted nor are the Barnacle Geefe allowed their miraculous origin, though the credulous Gerard, and others, countenanced the romantic fable. We are happy, therefore, to find, in Mr. Bolton, one who is nullius addi&tus jurare in verba magiftri. What he has feen he records; and fo far we may implicitly depend upon him. No authority of the dogmas of former writers can awe him into compliance with their affertions; he feems to have examined with care, and fet down all that he obferved with exactness. The botanist can expect no more from fuch a provincial publication: he has the plants before him; he may exercife his judgment on them in his own way, and please himself. Perhaps Mr. Bolton may not be fatisfied with our allowing him no more, and may think that he ought to take the lead in forming the outline of the ftudy of this branch of natural hiftory. This we muft excufe ourselves from giving up to him. The outline is already fo well drawn by Linnæus, that, generally speaking, there is no need of an attempt to render it clearer. That little particulars ftand in want of correction, must be allowed, but we defpair of ever feeing a fyftem upon any plan more perfect. We are well aware that the Linnæan claffification of ferns has its difficulties. Was there ever any one which had not? As nature proceeds in even gradations, nec facit faltus, the difficulty of drawing a line between particular things (which though at the extremes are widely different, yet quod tangit femper idem eft) is perpetually occurring. What we here particuJarly allude to is, Mr. B.'s reprefentation of the hocus pocus tranfmutations of Polypodia into Acrofticha, of Acrofticha into Afplenia, and of Afplenia into Acrofticha, &c.-This is magnifying difficulties. We fcarcely remember an inftance of miftakes taking place in the plants which he has queftioned. Does Mr. B. mean that the genus Acroftichum fhould be ftyled Polypodium? Confufion would infallibly enfue. There are 35 fpecies of Acroftichum, and 78 of Polypodium-perhaps, by the way, it would not be eafy to characterise them all, were they thrown together; but were this difficulty got over, ftill the old divifion, evidently difcernible, must be kept up, viz. of those with dots clofe and confluent, and of thofe with dots diftant and diftinct. It certainly is worthy the attention of botanifts to mark thofe whofe dots are conttantly all confluent, and those in which a diftinctness of fructification is vifible in fome part of the leaf, fo as to determine their family. In the former cafe, the true character of Acroftichum is properly fixed, and in the latter, that of |