John of Fordun (fourteenth century), and by Hector Boece, and incorporated by both in their chronicles of very early Scottish historychronicles which are now universally rejected by Scottish historians as pure fable. Our own countryman, Geoffrey Keating, who wrote his history of Ireland in the seventeenth century, adopted the story after Boece, being the first Irish writer who borrowed it; and it has been repeated by most other writers in Irish history since his time. But in no Irish authority before the time of Keating is there any mention either of the removal of the stone or of the prophecy concerning it.

But it may be asked why the Scottish historians invented the fable of its removal; and this question admits of a very satisfactory reply. It was about the time when the Rhythmical Chronicle was put together that the disputes began touching the respective claims of the Scottish and English kings to the throne of Scotland, in which figure the great names of Wallace and Bruce; and the old Scottish writers invented the fable about the removal of the Lia Fail, in order to strengthen the claims of the Scottish kings.

For a like reason, Keating and other later Irish writers eagerly caught up the same story; since according to their ideas, it proved the right of their favourite monarchs, the Stewarts, to the throne of Ireland as well as to that of Scotland and England. Indeed Keating says expressly what amounts to this when he affirms that "The prophecy of that stone was verified in the present King Charles I., and in his father King James, who both descended from the Scotic (or Irish) race, since they were crowned Kings of the Saxons [at Westminster], on the aforesaid stone."-(See Joyce's translation of Keating: page 117).

As the latter part of Boece's story-the part beginning with Edward I.-is confirmed by English and Scottish historians, so the first part is evidently a distortion of true history, as we find it in our Irish annals. For it is a historical fact that an Irish prince, Fergus, was crowned king of the western part of Scotland. Many colonies went from the north of Ireland to Scotland, the most remarkable of which was that led by Fergus, Angus, and Loarn, the three sons of Erc, and brothers of the Irish king Murkertagh Mac Erc, who like his brothers is celebrated in Irish romantic literature. But this colony was led to Scotland, and Fergus was crowned king, not 330 years before the Christian era, as Boece says, but about the year of our Lord 500. And we know that the country colonised by these emigrants was known by the name Airer-Gael, i.e. the territory of the Gael or Irish, now shortened to Argyle; and that the descendants of Loarn gave their name to the territory of Lorne in Scotland, from which again the Marquis of Lorne has his title.

All the foregoing we find in our histories; but that Fergus had the Lia Fail conveyed to Scotland-not one word about this. And if there

were no better reason, the mere absence from the Irish manuscripts of any record of its removal would be of itself sufficient to induce us to reject the story. For it is inconceivable that the Irish annals and poems would have been silent regarding such an important event— those annals and poems that are so minute and faithful in recording domestic events. But no: on the contrary, Irish history expressly contradicts the removal of the stone. Tara, we know, was abandoned as a royal residence in the sixth century; and after this its raths, houses, and halls fell gradually into decay. In the tenth and early in the eleventh century-that is, observe, some three hundred years. before the date of the Rhythmical Chronicle-certain Irish antiquaries visited the place, and having examined it very minutely—as minutely as antiquarian visitors of the present day are wont to examine noted historic sites-wrote detailed descriptions of its several ancient monuments as they found them. These descriptions are preserved to this day in some of our old manuscripts-among others the Book of Ballymote and the Book of Lecan. Not a word have they about the removal of the Lia Fail; but they state distinctly that it was then-at the times of the writers' visits-standing in Tara, and that the writers themselves saw it, among all the other ancient monuments.

Of these writers we shall mention two. The distinguished poet and antiquary, Kineth O'Hartigan, who died in the year 975, visited Tara with the object of inspecting and describing it. After mentioning in detail the several monuments, and pointing out their exact position, he states that he actually stood on the Lia Fail :

"The stone which is [now] under my two feet,

From it Inisfail is named;

Between two strands of strong tide

The Plain of Fal [is given as a name] on all Erin."

Another writer and scholar equally distinguished, Cuan O'Lochan, who was Chief-Poet of all Erin in his time, and died in 1024, has left a poem in which he describes with great minuteness the positions of the various objects of interest at Tara, at the time of his visit. It is worth mentioning here that O'Lochan's description is so full and exact, that Petrie and O'Donovan, when they examined Tara forty years ago, with a copy of the poem in their hands, were able to recognise with certainty and without any difficulty nearly all the monuments pointed out by the arch-poet-as readily, indeed, is if it had been described and mapped by a scientific surveyor of our own day.

In one passage he states that the Rath of the Synods (one of the forts at Tara) lay to the north of the Lia Fail:

"The Bath of the Synods of great powers

Lies to the north of the Fal of Tara."

And a prose account which follows this poem in the old manuscript is even more circumstantial :-"Fal lies by the side of the mound of hostages to the north, i.e. the stone that roared under the feet of each king that took possession of the throne of Ireland."

It appears from this that at that time the Lia Fail stood at the side of the Mound of Hostages. It must have stood in the very same position for ages before, for we find in another ancient manuscript a story of a vision of King Cormac Mac Art-who reigned in the third century—in which the following passage occurs:— -"Cormac saw a vision at Tara, that the king of Ulster came and took away the Stone of the Hostages from Tara."

These extracts, we think, prove very conclusively that the story of the removal of the Lia Fail from Tara is an invention pure and simple. But now as to the present situation of the stone. It appears from the last two passages quoted, that it stood from time immemorial, down to the period of Cuan O'Lochan's visit, on the side of the Mound of the Hostages. Among the many mounds and forts of Tara, the one called the "Mound of the Hostages" is quite well known. On the side of this mound, in the very position so clearly pointed out by the writers of the tenth and eleventh centuries, there stood, down to about the year 1824, a large pillar-stone, the only stone to be seen on that part of the hill. In or about that year the people of the neighbourhood removed it from its ancient site, and placed it standing upright on the top of another great mound just near, called the Forradh [Forra], to mark the grave of some of the peasantry who fell in an engagement with the military in the rebellion of 1798. About three years ago I had a conversation with an old man who was one of the party that removed it: he remembered the whole transaction well, and described it to me with great minuteness and animation. There the pillar-stone remains to this day on the " Croppies' Grave," as it is called, standing now about six feet high over the ground; and it forms a very conspicuous object viewed from every side as you approach the round green hill of Tara. It is altogether about twelve feet long, six feet being buried in the ground; and so far as we have been able to examine it it bears no inscription or chisel marks of any kind. Moreover, it must have been originally brought to Tara from some distant place; for it is formed of granular limestone, a kind of stone that is not found anywhere near the hill.

In the eleventh century, then, the Lia Fail stood on the side of the Mound of Hostages, and there it had stood for centuries before; then we hear no more of it during a long night of historical darkness. Next we find, at the beginning of the present century, a remarkable pillar-stone standing in the very same spot on the side of the Mound of Hostages, where it had stood from time immemorial. It seems to us that with

these facts before us no one in his senses will hesitate for an instant to believe that grand old pillar-stone, now marking the grave of the insurgents, is the true and real Lia Fail; and we will conclude with the words of Dr. Petrie that "it would be difficult to find a rude monument of antiquity with which so many national associations can be connected."

DERRAVARAGH.

ITH summer sheen

WITH

The woods are green,

But nowhere more

Than by the shore

That winds round Derravaragh.

When tired of labour
My next-door neighbour,
For change and rest

Will seek the West

And the wilds of Connemara.

To southern skies
Another flies;

For Naples bound,
He goes around

By Venice and Ferrara.

For love of gold
The merchant bold
His goods will barter
With roving Tartar
Of Khiva or Bokhara.

Another wanders

Where Nature squanders
Her strangest creatures
With savage features
In the woods of Demarara.

Still more amazing

Where sands are blazing,
Some Nimrod rich

His tent will pitch

In the desert of Zahara.

But I, when weary

And life grows dreary,
Come here to breathe

Soft winds of Meath
That blow o'er Derravaragh.

FATHER HARPER'S “METAPHYSICS OF THE SCHOOL."* N these days, when British and Irish universities for the most part have reduced philosophy to a mere history of philosophical opinions, it is no small advantage that the English reader is provided in Father Harper's volumes with a sound and reasoned exposition of the Metaphysics of the School. The part of this learned work at present under notice treats of the Causes of Being, and, in particular, of the Efficient Cause; and we purpose to pass in rapid review the opening pages of this first instalment of the third volume.

The first article is devoted to the definition and divisions of the Efficient Cause. Aristotle's definition is explained and defended. The efficient cause, according to the philosopher, is one "whence is the first beginning of change or of rest." The proximate genus in this definition is "cause;" the rest of the words constitute the "differentia," or differentiating element. Of the four causes admitted in scholastic philosophy-the efficient, final, material, and formal-the three last are excluded by the words of the philosopher. Whence indicates causality outside the subject, and thus excludes the intrinsic principles of being, namely, the material and formal cause. Thus, in the case of man, composed of a formal and material element, or of body and soul, the word whence excludes the consideration of these constituent elements, and turns the attention to something outside of man. The same word excludes the final cause, which is expressed rather by whither than by whence.

The first commencement. This word serves to distinguish the efficient cause from a condition. The entrance of the sunlight into a room is dependent, as on a condition, upon the opening of the shutters, but the illumination of the room is produced by the action of the sun as by an efficient cause.

Of change. The word "change" is used in scholastic philosophy to denote all classes of motion. Some of the principal kinds of motion

*“The Metaphysics of the School." By the Rev. Thomas Harper, S.J. Vol. iii., Part i. (London: Macmillan & Co. 1884).