[1833] The Welsh People, 1902, pp. 61-2.
[1834] See p. 422, infra.
[1835] Archaeol. Cambr., 6th ser., ii, 1902, p. 59. Cf. J. G. Frazer, Early Hist. of the Kingship, pp. 229-46.
[1836] M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Rev. celt., xxii, 1901, p. 122) gives various instances from history to show that the ‘Pictish succession’ did not imply matriarchy. ‘Julius Caesar,’ he says, ‘chose as his heir Octavius, his sister’s grandson: was this matriarchy? Tiberius was the stepson of Augustus: was this matriarchy? When a king had to be chosen among the Picts, the son of the late king’s sister may sometimes have been preferred to his own son; but the sister’s son must often have been the elder and more experienced of the two.’ And so on (see also vol. xxiii, 1902, p. 359, vol. xxv, 1904, p. 206, and Rev. arch., 4e sér., v, 1905, p. 447). But the point is that during the time for which the history of the Picts is known to us a Pictish king was never once succeeded by his own son. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville’s arguments are not required for the purpose of demonstrating that the ‘Pictish succession’ does not prove the Picts to have been the representatives of the neolithic aborigines.
[1837] Report of ... the Brit. Association, 1900, p. 895.
[1838] Ib., p. 896.
[1839] Mr. Nicholson (Keltic Researches, pp. 144, 174) offers one explanation of Vipoig, and Dr. Macbain (W. F. Skene, The Highlanders of Scotland, 1902, pp. 394-5) another.
[1840] Celtic Britain, 1884, p. 222. See also p. 153.
[1841] p. 224.
[1842] Incerti Pan. Constantino Augusto, c. 7 (published in XII Panegyrici Latini recensuit Aemilius Baehrens).—Caledonum aliorumque Pictorum silvas, &c. For the manuscript reading Baehrens, following Eyssenhardt, needlessly substitutes (Caledonum,) Pictorum aliorumque.