history of the mackenzies-第5章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


rs　1362　and　1372；　William；　　Earl　of　Ross；　exchanged　with　his　brother　Hugh　of　Ross；　Lord　of　Phylorth；　　and　his　heirs；　his　lands　of　all　Argyle；　with　the　Castle　of　Ellandonnan；　for　　Hugh's　lands　in　Buchan　（Balnagown　Charters）。　　In　1463　the　lands　of　　Kintail　were　held　by　Alexander　Mackenzie　（Gregory；　p；　83）；〃　when　the　　Mackenzies　obtained　the　first　authentic　charter　on　record　as　direct　vassals　　from　the　Crown。

During　the　whole　of　this　periodfor　two　hundred　yearsthere　is　no　trace　of　Colin　Fitzgerald　or　any　of　his　descendants　as　superiors　of　the　　lands　of　Kintail　in　terms　of　Alexander　III。's　reputed　charter　of　1266；　the　　Mackenzies　holding　all　that　time　from　and　as　direct　vassals　of　their　　relatives；　the　Earls　of　Ross；　who　really　held　the　position　of　Crown　vassals　　which；　according　to　the　upholders　of　the　Fitzgerald　theory；　had　that　theory　　been　true；　would　have　been　held　by　Colin　and　his　posterity。　　But　neither　he　　nor　any　of　his　reputed　descendants　appear　once　on　record　in　that　capacity　during　the　whole　of　these　two　centuries。　　On　the　contrary；　it　has　now　been　　proved　from　unquestionable　authentic　sources　that　Kintail　was　in　　possession　of　the　Earls　of　Ross　in；　and　for　at　least　two　generations　before；　　1296；　that　King　Robert　the　Bruce　confirmed　him　in　these　lands　in　1306；　　and　again　in　1329；　that　in　1342　Earl　William　granted　the　ten　davochs　or　　pennylands　of　Kintailwhich　is　its　whole　extentto　Reginald　of　the　Isles；　　that　this　grant　was　afterwards　confirmed　by　David　II。；　and　that　between　　the　years　1362　and　1372　the　Earl　of　Ross　exchanged　the　lands　of　Kintail；　including　the　Castle　of　Ellandonnan；　with　his　brother　Hugh　for　lands　in　　Buchan。

These　historical　events　could　never　have　occurred　had　the　　Mackenzies　occupied　the　position　as　immediate　vassals　of　the　Crown　　contended　for　by　the　supporters　of　the　Fitzgerald　theory　of　the　origin　of　the　clan。　It　is　admitted　by　those　who　uphold　the　claims　of　Colin　Fitzgerald　　that　the　half　of　Kintail　belonged　to　Farquhar　O'Beolan；　Earl　of　Ross；　after　　what　they　describe　as　the　other　half　had　been　granted　by　the　King　to　Colin　　Fitzgerald。　　But　as　it　is　conclusively　established　that　the　ten　pennylands；　　being　the　whole　extent　of　Kintail　were　all　the　time；　before　and　after；　in　possession　of　the　Earls　of　Ross；　this　historical　myth　must　follow　the　rest。

Even　the　Laird　of　Applecross；　in　his　MS。　history　of　the　clan；　written　in　　1669；　although　he　adopts　the　Fitzgerald　　theory　from　his　friend　and　　contemporary　the　Earl　of　Cromartie；　has　his　doubts。　After　quoting　the　　statement；　that　〃the　other　half　of　Kintail　at　this　time　belonged　to　　O'Beolan；　whose　chief；　called　Farquhar；　was　created　　Earl　of　Ross；　and　　that　his　lands　in　Kintail　were　given　by　the　King　to　Colin　Fitzgerald；〃　he　says；　〃this　tradition　carries　enough　of　probability　to　found　historical　credit；　　but　I　find　no　charter　of　these　lands　purporting　any　such　grounds　for　that　the　first　charter　of　Kintail　is　given　by　this　King　Alexander　to　this　Colin；　　anno　1266。〃　　That　is；　Alexander　III。　　But　enough　has　been　said　on　this　part　of　the　subject。　　Let　us；　　however；　briefly　quote　two　well…known　modern　writers。　　The　late　Robert　　Carruthers；　LL。D。；　Inverness；　had　occasion　several　years　ago　to　examine　　the　Seaforth　family　papers　for　the　purpose　of　reviewing　them　in　the　North　British　Quarterly　Review。　　He　did　not　publish　all　that　he　had　written　on　the　subject；　and　he　was　good　enough　to　present　the　writer；　when　preparing　the　first　edition　of　this　work；　with　some　valuable　MS。　notes　on　the　clan　　which　had　not　before　appeared　in　print。　　In　one　of　these　notes　Dr　　Carruthers　says　

〃The　chivalrous　and　romantic　origin　of　the　Clan　Mackenzie；　　though　vouched　for　by　certain　charters　and　local　histories；　is　now　believed　to　be　fabulous。　It　seems　to　have　been　first　advanced　in　the　17th　century；　when　there　was　an　absurd　desire　and　ambition　in　Scotland　to　fabricate　or　　magnify　all　ancient　and　lordly　pedigrees。　　Sir　George　Mackenzie　of　　Tarbat；　the　Lord　Advocate；　and　Sir　George　Mackenzie；　the　first　Earl　of　　Cromartie；　were　ready　to　swear　to　the　descent　of　the　Scots　nation　from　　Gathelus；　son　of　Cecrops；　King　of　Athens；　and　Scota　his　wife；　daughter　of　Pharaoh；　King　of　Egypt；　and；　of　course；　they　were　no　less　eager　to　claim　a　　lofty　and　illustrious　lineage　for　their　own　clan。　　But　authentic　history　is　　silent　as　to　the　two　wandering　Irish　Knights；　and　the　reputed　charter　（the　　elder　one　being　palpably　erroneous）　cannot　now　be　found。　　For　two　　centuries　after　the　reigns　of　the　Alexanders；　the　district　of　Kintail　formed　　pin　of　the　lordship　of　the　Isles；　and　was　held　by　the　Earls　of　Ross。　　The　Mackenzies；　however；　can　he　easily　traced　to　their　wild　mountainous　and　　picturesque　countryCeann…da…Shailthe　Head　of　the　two　Seas。〃

This　is　from　an　independent；　impartial　writer　who　had　　no　interest　whatever　in　supporting　either　the　one　theory　or　the　other。　　Sir　William　　Fraser；　the　well…known　　author　of　so　many　valuable　　private　family　histories；　incidentally　refers　to　the　forged　charter　in　his　　Earls　of　Cromartie；　written　specially　for　the　late　Duke　of　Sutherland。　　He　　was　naturally　unwilling　to　offend　the　susceptibilities　of　the　Mackenzie　　chiefs；　all　of　whom　had　hitherto　claimed　Colin　Fitzgerald　as　their　　progenitor；　but　he　was　forced　to　admit　the　inconclusive　character　of　the　　disputed　charter；　and　that　no　such　charter　was　granted　to　Colin　Fitzgerald　　by　Alexander　III。　　Sir　William　says：〃In　the　middle　of　the　seventeenth　　century；　when　Lord　Cromartie　wrote　his　history；　the　means　of　　ascertaining；　by　the　names　of　witnesses　and　other　ways；　the　true　granter　of　　a　charter　and　the　date　were　not　so　accessible　as　at　present。　　The　mistake　of　　attributing　the　Kintail　charter　to　King　Alexander　the　Third；　instead　of　　King　Alexander　the　Second；　cannot　be　regarded　as　a　very　serious　error　in　　the　circumstances。〃　　Sir　William；　it　will　be　observed；　gives　up　the　charter　　from　Alexander　III。　　The　mere　admission　that　it　is　not　of　Alexander　III。　　is　　conclusive　against　its　ever　having　been　granted　to　Colin　Fitzgerald　at　all；　　for；　as　already　pointed　out；　that　adventurer；　if　he　ever　existed；　did　not；　even　according　to　his　stoutest　supporters；　cross　the　Irish　Channel；　nor　was　　he　ever　heard　of　on　this　side　of　it；　for　more　than　thirty　years　after　the　date　　written　on　the　face　of　the　document　itself　could　possibly　have　been　　genuine；　the　witnesses　whose　names　appear　as　attesting　it　having　been　in　　there　graves　for　more　than　a　generation　before　the　battle　of　Largs　was　　fought。

When　the　ablest　upholders　of　the　Colin　Fitzgerald　theory　are　　obliged　to　make　　such　admissions　and　explanations　as　these；　they　explain　away　their　whole　case　and　they　must　be　held　to　have　practically　given　it　　up　for　once　admit；　as　Sir　William　Fraser　does；　that　the　charter　is　of　the　reign　of　Alexander　II。　（1230）；　it　cannot　possibly　have　any　reference　to　　Colin　　Fitzgerald；　who；　according　to　those　who　support　the　Irish　origin　of　　the　clan；　only　arrived　in　Scotland　from　Ireland　in　1262　and　it　is　equally　absurd　and　impossible　to　maintain　that　a　charter　granted　in　1230　could　　have　been　a　reward　for　services　rendered　or　valour　displayed　at　the　battle　　of　Largs；　which　was　fought　in　1263；　to　say　nothing　of　the　now　admittedly　impossible　date　and　signatures　written　on　the　face　of　the　document　itself；　　and　Sir　William　Fraser　having；　by　the　logic　of　facts；　been　forced　to　give　up　　that　crucial　point；　should　in　consistency　have　at　the　same　time　given　up　　Colin　Fitzgerald。　　And　in　reality　he　practically　did　so；　for　having　stated　　that　the　later　reputed　charters　of　1360　and　1380　are　not　now　known　to　　exist；　he　adds；　〃But　the　terms　of　them　as　quoted　in　the　early　histories　of　　the　family　are　consistent　with　either　theory　of　the　origin　of　the　　Mackenzies；　whether　descended　from　Colin　Fitzgerald　or　Colin　of　the　　Aird。〃　In　this　he　is　quite　correct；　but　it　is　impossible　to　say　the　same　thing　　of　the　earlier　charter；　which　all　the　authorities　worth　listening　to　now　　admit　to　be　a　palpable　forgery　of　the　seventeenth　century；　and　Sir　William　　virtually　admits　as　much。

There　is　one　other　fact　which　alone　would　be　almost　conclusive　against　the　Fitzgerald　theory。　　Not　a　single　man　of　the　name　Colin　is　　found；　either　among　the　chiefs　or　members　of　the　cl