Comments in refutation of pretensions advanced for the first time, and statements in a recent work "The Stirlings of Keir and their family papers"

PREFACE. xi
hitherto quite precluded to Keir by the obvious irrelevancy and futility
of his pretensions.
Before concluding, the writer must protest against the strange way-
ward fancy of ineptly and ludicrously stringing together in a pedigree,
for its fictitious consolidation or aggrandisement, as father, or son, or
in a near defined relationship, parties of old merely happening to have
the same Christian name and surname, or the last exclusively, or even
identifying them with one another, but who cannot legally be connected.
The absurdity and irrelevancy must even strike a legal tyro. Yet we
must add with regret, that the Keir Editor indulges in his lucubrations,
in such practice, and here actually walks in the footsteps of Douglas.
We should remember, however, that true genealogy is an austere,
stern potentate, governing by unswerving rigid laws, founded on truth
only — knowing that thereby she can alone act with dignity and advan-
tage ; and not a reckless loose nymph or Bacchante, who, in her frolics,
gives vent to every flattering tale and fable, to cajole and unduly elevate
the credulous for her own profit and amusement of others, and to
salHes of fancy and imagination. She would really seem the Empress
Queen of the aS"ections of our denounced genealogists, whom they are
fain to follow in their peculiar sphere, instead of at once stopping their
ears to her enthralling Circean music and fascinations, that have led so
many astray.