the handwriting of which has a striking resemblance to that of the major part of the volume. And this is really all there is to show that the Dean was compiler. The other Macgregor, whose name occurs on page 144, is for good reasons identified as his brother:— Duncha deyr aclyth Mac Dhowl vic Eone Reawych “Duncan (the ‘deyr aclyth’ is untranslatable), son of Dugald, son of John the Grizzled.” The book is of great interest on account of its age, orthography, and contents. It has a double value, as Dr. Skene has pointed out—linguistic and literary. Linguistic, because its peculiar orthography presents the language at the time in its aspect and character as a spoken language, and enables us to ascertain whether many of the peculiarities which now distinguish the Gaelic were in existence 400 years ago. Literary, because it contains poems attributed to Ossian, and to other poets prior to the sixteenth century which are not to be found elsewhere; and thus presents to us specimens of the traditionary poetry current in the Highlands prior to that period, which are above suspicion, having been collected nearly 400 years ago, before any controversy on the subject had arisen. In other words, we have here the oldest written Scottish Gaelic, except that in the Book of Deer, with numerous productions of the time antecedent to the Reformation, and some even of the fourteenth century, for comparison with our modern Gaelic. And we have the complete refutation of Dr. Johnson’s bold assertion that the language had nothing written. “The Erse never was a written language,” said that vigorous critic; “there is not in the world an Erse (that is, a Gaelic) MS. a hundred years old.” Into what strange neglect had our literature fallen when such an emphatic dictum could be made on the housetops. This one was at that time over 200 years old, and could it have been resurrected from its nameless obscurity would surely have satisfied the unconvinced and sceptical Doctor.