The Project Gutenberg eBook of Celtic Scotland, Volume I (of 3)
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Celtic Scotland, Volume I (of 3)A history of ancient Alban
Author: W. F. Skene
Release date: July 23, 2023 [eBook #71258]
Language: English
Original publication: United Kingdom: David Douglas, 1886
Credits: MWS, KD Weeks, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CELTIC SCOTLAND, VOLUME I (OF 3) ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note:
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. Superscripted
characters are preceded by ‘^’, and if there are multiple characters
they are contained by ‘{ }’.
Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapter in which they are
referenced.
Footnotes were numbered beginning afresh with each chapter. They have
been resequenced across the entire text for uniqueness. On occasion,
notes are referred to in other notes by number. These references have
been changed as well.
Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.
CELTIC SCOTLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Printed by Thomas and Archibald Constable_,
FOR
DAVID DOUGLAS, EDINBURGH
LONDON HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
CAMBRIDGE MACMILLAN AND BOWES.
GLASGOW JAMES MACLEHOSE AND SONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CELTIC SCOTLAND:
A HISTORY OF
=Ancient Alban=
BY
WILLIAM F. SKENE, D.C.L., LL.D.
HISTORIOGRAPHER-ROYAL FOR SCOTLAND.
VOLUME I.
HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY.
_SECOND EDITION._
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
1886
_All Rights reserved_
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The first volume of _Celtic Scotland_ being out of print, the Author has
very carefully revised the text, with a view to a new edition; but he
has, after mature consideration, found nothing to alter in the views of
early Scottish history expressed in it. He has therefore confined
himself to correcting obvious mistakes and misprints, and, with these
exceptions, this edition is substantially a reprint.
EDINBURGH, 27 INVERLEITH ROW,
_4th September 1886_.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
Each volume of this work may be regarded as complete in itself so far as
the object of the volume is concerned, and will be issued separately.
The principal aim of the Author in this first volume of _Celtic
Scotland_ has been to endeavour to ascertain the true facts of the early
civil history. For this purpose the narratives of her early historians
afford no available basis. The artificially-constructed system of
history first brought into shape by John of Fordun, and elaborated in
the more classical text of Hector Boece, must, for the Celtic period of
our history, be entirely rejected. To attempt to found a consecutive
historical narrative on the scattered notices in the Roman writers and
in the Chronicles, which consist merely of lists of kings with the
length of their respective reigns, and notices of a few isolated
battles, would be merely to produce an unsatisfactory and unreadable
book. On the other hand, a succession of general views of the early
periods of its history, founded upon a superficial and uncritical use of
authorities, or the too readily accepted conclusions of more painstaking
writers, however lively and graphic they may be, might furnish very
pleasant reading, but would be worthless as a work of authority.
The first thing to be done is to lay a sound foundation by ascertaining,
as far as possible, the true facts of the early history, so far as they
can be fairly extracted from the more trustworthy authorities. There is,
unfortunately, no more difficult task than to substitute the correct
‘sumpsimus’ for the long-cherished and accepted ‘mumpsimus’ of popular
historians. All that the Author has attempted in this volume is to show
what the most reliable authorities do really tell us of the early annals
of the country, divested of the spurious matter of supposititious
authors, the fictitious narratives of our early historians, and the rash
assumptions of later writers which have been imported into it.
The Author is glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging the
valuable assistance which his excellent publisher, Mr. David Douglas,
has freely and ungrudgingly given him in carefully revising the
proof-sheets. They could have been submitted to no more intelligent
supervision.
EDINBURGH, 20 INVERLEITH ROW,
_1st May 1876_.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
-------
INTRODUCTION.
PAGE
Name of Scotia, or Scotland 1
Ancient extent of the kingdom 2
Physical features of the country 7
Mountain chains 9
The Cheviots 9
The Mounth 10
Drumalban 10
The Grampians 11
The Debateable lands 14
Periods of its history 16
Celtic Scotland 17
Critical examination of authorities necessary 17
Spurious authorities 21
Plan of the work 26
BOOK I.
_HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY._
CHAPTER I.
ADVANCE OF THE ROMANS TO THE FIRTHS OF
FORTH AND CLYDE.
Early notices of the British Isles 29
B.C. 55. Invasion of Julius Cæsar 31
A.D. 43. Formation of province in reign of Claudius 33
A.D. 50. War with the Brigantes 36
A.D. 69. War with the Brigantes renewed 39
A.D. 78. Arrival of Julius Agricola as governor 41
A.D. 79. Second Campaign of Agricola; overruns districts on 43
the Solway
A.D. 80. Third summer; ravages to the Tay 45
A.D. 81. Fourth summer; fortifies the isthmus between Forth 46
and Clyde
A.D. 82. Fifth summer; visits Argyll and Kintyre 47
A.D. 83-86. Three years’ war north of the Forth 48
A.D. 86. Battle of ‘Mons Granpius’ 52
A.D. 120. Arrival of the Emperor Hadrian, and first Roman 60
wall between the Tyne and the Solway
CHAPTER II.
THE ROMAN PROVINCE IN SCOTLAND.
Ptolemy’s description of North Britain 62
The coast 65
The Ebudæ 68
The tribes and their towns 70
A.D. 139. First Roman wall between the Forth and Clyde. 76
Establishment of the Roman province in Scotland
A.D. 162. Attempt on the province by the natives 79
A.D. 182. Formidable irruption of tribes north of wall 79
repelled by Marcellus Ulpius
A.D. 201. Revolt of Caledonii and Mæatæ 80
A.D. 204. Division of Roman Britain into two Provinces 81
A.D. 208. Campaign of the Emperor Severus in Britain. 82
Situation of the hostile tribes
Roman roads in Scotland 86
Severus’s wall 89
A.D. 287. Revolt of Carausius; Britain for ten years 91
independent
A.D. 289. Carausius admitted Emperor 92
A.D. 294. Carausius slain by Allectus 93
A.D. 296. Constantius Chlorus recovers Britain 93
A.D. 306. War of Constantius Chlorus against Caledonians and 94
other Picts
Division of Roman Britain into four provinces 96
A.D. 360. Province invaded by Picts and Scots 97
A.D. 364. Ravaged by Picts, Scots, Saxons, and Attacotts 98
A.D. 369. Province restored by Theodosius 100
A.D. 383. Revolt by Maximus 104
A.D. 387. Withdrawal of Roman troops from Britain; first 105
devastation of province by Picts and Scots
A.D. 396. Repelled by Stilicho, who sends a legion to guard 105
the northern wall
A.D. 402. Roman legion withdrawn; second devastation of 106
province
A.D. 406. Again repelled by Stilicho, and army restored 107
A.D. 407. Constantine proclaimed Emperor. Withdraws the army 108
from Britain; third devastation by Picts and Scots
A.D. 409. Gerontius invites Barbarians to invade empire. 111
Termination of Roman Empire in Britain
CHAPTER III.
BRITAIN AFTER THE ROMANS.
Obscurity of history of Britain after the departure of the 114
Romans
Settlement of barbaric tribes in Britain 114
Ignorance of Britain by writers of the sixth century 115
Position of Britain at this time as viewed from Rome 117
The four races in Britain 119
The Britons 120
The Picts 123
The Scots 137
The Saxons 144
War with Octa and Ebissa’s colony 152
Kingdom of Bernicia 155
A.D. 573. Battle of Ardderyd 157
A.D. 603. Battle of Degsastane or Dawstane 162
CHAPTER IV.
ETHNOLOGY OF BRITAIN
Inquiry into Ethnology of Britain proper at this stage 164
An Iberian or Basque people preceded the Celtic race in 164
Britain and Ireland
Ethnologic traditions 170
British traditions 171
Irish traditions 172
Dalriadic legend 184
Pictish legends 185
Saxon legends 189
Languages of Britain 192
Anglic language 193
British language 193
Language of the Scots 193
The Pictish language 194
Evidence derived from topography 212
CHAPTER V.
THE FOUR KINGDOMS.
Result of ethnological inquiry 226
The four kingdoms 227
Scottish kingdom of Dalriada 229
Kingdom of the Picts 230
Kingdom of the Britons of Alclyde 235
Kingdom of Bernicia 236
The Debateable lands 237
Galloway 238
A.D. 606. Death of Aidan, king of Dalriada; Aedilfrid 239
conquers Deira, and expels Aeduin
A.D. 617. Battle between Aeduin and Aedilfrid 239
A.D. 627. Battle of Ardcorann between Dalriads and Cruithnigh 241
A.D. 629. Domnall Breac becomes king of Dalriada 242
A.D. 631. Garnaid, son of Wid, succeeds Cinaeth mac Luchtren 242
as king of the Picts
A.D. 633. Battle of Haethfeld. Aeduin slain by Caedwalla and 243
Penda
A.D. 634. Battle of Hefenfeld. Osuald becomes king of 244
Northumbria
A.D. 635. Battle of Seguise, between Garnait, son of Foith, 246
and the family of Nectan
A.D. 634. Battle of Calathros, in which Domnall Breac was 247
defeated
A.D. 638. Battle of Glenmairison, and siege of Edinburgh 249
A.D. 642. Domnall Breac slain in Strathcarron 250
A.D. 642. Osuald slain in battle by Penda 252
A.D. 642-670. Osuiu, his brother, reigns twenty-eight years 253
Dominion of Angles over Britons, Scots, and Picts 256
A.D. 670. Death of Osuiu, and accession of Ecgfrid his son 260
A.D. 672. Revolt of the Picts 260
A.D. 678. Wilfrid expelled from his diocese 262
Expulsion of Drost, king of the Picts, and accession of 262
Brude, son of Bile
A.D. 684. Ireland ravaged by Ecgfrid 264
A.D. 685. Invasion of kingdom of Picts by Ecgfrid; defeat and 265
death at Dunnichen
Effect of defeat and death of Ecgfrid 267
Position of Angles and Picts 267
Position of Scots and Britons 271
Contest between Cinel Loarn and Cinel Gabhran 271
Conflict between Dalriads and Britons 273
CHAPTER VI.
THE KINGDOM OF SCONE.
State of the four kingdoms in 731 275
Alteration in their relative position 276
Legend of St. Bonifacius 277
A.D. 710. Nectan, son of Derili, conforms to Rome 278
Establishment of Scone as capital 280
The Seven provinces 280
The Coronation Stone 281
A.D. 717. Expulsion of Columban clergy 283
Simultaneous revolution in Dalriada and kingdom of the Picts 286
A.D. 731-761. Aengus mac Fergus, king of the Picts 289
Suppressed century of Dalriadic history 292
Foundation of St. Andrews 296
A.D. 761-763. Bruide mac Fergusa, king of the Picts 299
A.D. 763-775. Ciniod, son of Wredech, king of the Picts 300
A.D. 775-780. Alpin, son of Wroid, king of the Picts 301
A.D. 789-820. Constantin, son of Fergus, king of the Picts 302
Norwegian and Danish pirates 302
A.D. 820-832. Aengus, son of Fergus, king of Fortrenn 305
A.D. 832. Alpin the Scot attacks the Picts, and is slain 306
A.D. 836-839. Eoganan, son of Aengus 307
A.D. 839. Kenneth mac Alpin invades Pictavia 308
A.D. 844. Kenneth mac Alpin becomes king of the Picts 309
The Gallgaidhel 311
Obscurity of this period of the history 314
Causes and nature of revolution which placed Kenneth on the 314
throne of the Picts
Where did the Scots come from? 316
What was Kenneth mac Alpin’s paternal descent? 321
A.D. 860-864. Donald, son of Alpin, king of the Picts 322
A.D. 863. Constantin, son of Kenneth, king of the Picts 323
A.D. 877-878. Aedh, son of Kenneth, king of the Picts 328
A.D. 878-889. Girig mac Dungaile and Eochodius, son of Run 329
CHAPTER VII.
THE KINGDOM OF ALBAN.
A.D. 889-900. Donald, son of Constantin, king of Alban 335
A.D. 900-942. Constantin, son of Aedh, king of Alban 339
A.D. 937. Battle of Brunanburg 352
A.D. 942-954. Malcolm, son of Donald, king of Alban 360
A.D. 945. Cumbria ceded to the Scots 362
A.D. 954-962. Indulph, son of Constantin, king of Alban 365
A.D. 962-967. Dubh, son of Malcolm, king of Alban 366
A.D. 967-971. Cuilean, son of Indulph, king of Alban 367
A.D. 971-995. Kenneth, son of Malcolm, king of Alban 368
A.D. 995-997. Constantin, son of Cuilean, king of Alban 381
A.D. 997-1004. Kenneth, son of Dubh, king of Alban 382
CHAPTER VIII.
THE KINGDOM OF SCOTIA.
A.D. 1005-1034. Malcolm, son of Kenneth, king of Scotia 384
A.D. 1018. Battle of Carham, and cession of Lothian to the 393
Scots
A.D. 1034-1040. Duncan, son of Crinan, and grandson of 399
Malcolm, king of Scotia
A.D. 1040-1057. Macbeth, son of Finnlaec, king of Scotia 405
A.D. 1054. Siward, Earl of Northumbria, invades Scotland, 408
and puts Malcolm, son of King Duncan, in possession of
Cumbria
A.D. 1057-8. Lulach, son of Gilcomgan, king of Scotia 411
A.D. 1057-8-1093. Malcolm, eldest son of King Duncan, king 411
of Scotia
Malcolm invades Northumbria five times 417
A.D. 1092. Cumbria south of the Solway Firth wrested from 429
the Scots
State of Scotland at King Malcolm’s death 432
CHAPTER IX.
THE KINGDOM OF SCOTIA PASSES INTO FEUDAL SCOTLAND.
Effects of King Malcolm’s death 433
A.D. 1093. Donald Ban, Malcolm’s brother, reigns six months 436
A.D. 1093-1094. Duncan, son of Malcolm, by his first wife 437
Ingibiorg, reigns six months
A.D. 1094-1097. Donald Ban again, with Eadmund, son of 439
Malcolm, reigned three years
A.D. 1097-1107. Eadgar, son of Malcolm Ceannmor by Queen 440
Margaret, reigns nine years
A.D. 1107-1124. Alexander, son of Malcolm Ceannmor by Queen 447
Margaret, reigns over Scotland north of the Firths of
Forth and Clyde as king for seventeen years
A.D. 1107-1124. David, youngest son of Malcolm Ceannmor by 454
Queen Margaret, rules over Scotland south of the Forth and
Clyde as earl
A.D. 1124-1153. David reigns over all Scotland as first 457
feudal monarch
A.D. 1130. Insurrection of Angus, Earl of Moray, and 460
Malcolm, bastard son of Alexander I.
A.D. 1134. Insurrection by Malcolm mac Eth 462
A.D. 1138. David invades England; position of Norman barons 465
Composition of King David’s army 466
A.D. 1153-1165. Malcolm, grandson of David, reigns twelve 469
years
A.D. 1154. Somerled invades the kingdom with the sons of 469
Malcolm mac Eth
A.D. 1160. Revolt of six earls 471
A.D. 1160. Subjection of Galloway 472
A.D. 1160. Plantation of Moray 472
A.D. 1164. Invasion by Somerled. His defeat and death at 473
Renfrew
A.D. 1166-1214. William the Lyon, brother of Malcolm, reigns 474
forty-eight years
A.D. 1174. Revolt in Galloway 475
A.D. 1179. King William subdues the district of Ross 475
A.D. 1181. Insurrection in favour of Donald Ban Macwilliam 476
A.D. 1196. Subjection of Caithness 479
A.D. 1211. Insurrection in favour of Guthred Macwilliam 482
A.D. 1214-1249. Alexander the Second, son of King William 483
the Lyon, reigned thirty-five years. Crowned by the seven
earls
A.D. 1215. Insurrection in favour of Donald Macwilliam and 483
Kenneth Maceth
A.D. 1222. Subjection of Arregaithel or Argyll 484
A.D. 1235. Revolt in Galloway 487
A.D. 1249. Attempt to reduce the Sudreys, and death of the 488
king at Kerrera
A.D. 1249-1285. Alexander the Third, his son, reigned 490
thirty-six years. Ceremony at his coronation
A.D. 1250. Relics of Queen Margaret enshrined before the 491
seven earls and the seven bishops
A.D. 1263. War between the kings of Norway and Scotland for 492
the possession of the Sudreys
A.D. 1266. Annexation of the Western Isles to the Crown of 495
Scotland
A.D. 1283. Assembly of the baronage of the whole kingdom at 496
Scone, on 5th February, to regulate the succession
A.D. 1285-6. Death of Alexander the Third 496
Conclusion 497
APPENDIX.
Remains of the Pictish Language 501
ILLUSTRATIVE MAPS.
Map showing mountain chains _to face page_ 8
The five Ebudæ of Ptolemy compared with the ” 68
islands south of Ardnamurchan Point
The four Kingdoms ” 228
The Kingdom of Alban ” 340
The Kingdom of Scotia ” 396
Feudal Scotland ” 496
INTRODUCTION.
[Sidenote: Name of Scotia, or Scotland.]
The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its Saxon form,
was not applied to any part of the territory forming the modern kingdom
of Scotland till towards the end of the tenth century.
Prior to that period it was comprised in the general appellation of
Britannia, or Britain, by which the whole island was designated in
contradistinction to that of Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the
island of Britain which is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth
and Clyde seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the
first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia,[1] and it also
appears to have borne from an early period another appellation, the
Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or Alban,[2] and its Latin form
Albania.
The name of Scotia, however, was exclusively appropriated to the island
of Ireland, which was emphatically Scotia, the ‘patria,’ or mother
country, of the Scots;[3] and although a colony of that people had
established themselves as early as the beginning of the sixth century in
the western districts of Scotland, it was not till the tenth century
that any part of the present country of Scotland came to be known under
that name, nor did it extend over the whole of those districts which
formed the later kingdom of the Scots till after the twelfth century.
[Sidenote: Ancient extent of the kingdom.]
From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name of
Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or Albania, was
confined to a district nearly corresponding with that part of the
Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the north of the Firth of
Forth. The Scotia of these centuries was bounded on the south by the
Firth of Forth; on the north by the Moray Firth and river Spey; on the
east by the German Ocean; and on the west by the range of mountains
which divides the modern county of Perth from that of Argyll. It
excluded Lothian, Strathclyde, and Galloway, on the south; the great
province of Moravia, or Moray, and that of Cathanesia, or Caithness, on
the north; and the region of Argathelia, or Argyll, on the west.
Subsequently the name of Scotia extended over these districts also, and
the kingdom by degrees assumed that compact and united form which it
ever afterwards exhibited.
The three propositions—1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was
Ireland, and Ireland alone; 2d, That when applied to Scotland it was
considered a new name superinduced upon the older designation of Alban
or Albania; and 3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries
was limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and
Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history.[4]
The history of the name of a country is generally found to afford a very
important clue to the leading features in the history of its population.
This is remarkably the case with regard to the history of Scotland, and
the facts just indicated in connection with the application of its name
at different periods throw light upon the corresponding changes in the
race and position of its inhabitants. They point to the fact that, prior
to the tenth century, none of the small and independent tribes which
originally occupied the country, and are ever the characteristic of an
early period in their social history, or of the petty kingdoms which
succeeded them, were sufficiently powerful and extended, or predominated
sufficiently over the others, to give a general name to the country; and
they point to a great change in the population of the country and the
relative position of these kingdoms to each other in the tenth century,
and to the elevation, by some important revolution, of the race of the
Scots over the others, whose territory formed a centre round which the
formerly independent petty kingdoms now assumed the form of dependent
provinces, and from which an influence and authority proceeded that
gradually extended the name of Scotia over the whole of the country, and
incorporated its provinces into one compact and co-extensive monarchy.
[Sidenote: Physical features of the country.]
The great natural features of a country so mountainous and intersected
by so many arms of the sea as that of Scotland, seem at all times to
have influenced its political divisions and the distribution of the
various races in its occupation. The original territories of the savage
tribes of Caledonia appear to have differed little from those of the
petty kingdoms which succeeded them, and the latter as little from the
subsequent provinces of the monarchy. The same great leading boundaries,
the same natural defences, are throughout found occupying a similar
position and exercising a similar influence upon the internal history of
the country, while, amidst the numerous fluctuations and changes which
affected the position of the northern tribes towards the southern and
more civilised kingdoms of Britain, the two ever showed a tendency to
settle down upon the great natural bulwarks of the south of Scotland as
their mutual boundary, to which, indeed, the independent position of the
northern monarchy in no slight degree owed its existence.
Where the great arm of the western sea forming the Solway Firth
contracts the island to a comparatively narrow breadth, not exceeding
seventy miles, a natural boundary was thus partially formed, which had
its influence at the very dawn of Scottish history; but, if during the
occupation of the island by the Romans, who placed their trust more in
the artificial protection of a rampart guarded by troops, the
comparatively level ground in this contracted part of the country
presented facilities for such a construction, the great physical bulwark
of the Cheviot Hills had an irresistible attraction to fix the boundary
eventually between the Solway and the Tweed, where that chain of hills
extending between them proved so effectual a defence to the country
along the whole of its range, that every hostile entrance into it was
made either at the eastern or the western termination of that mountain
chain.
Farther north is the still more remarkable natural boundary where the
Eastern and the Western Seas penetrate into the country in the Firths of
Forth and Clyde, and approach within a comparatively short distance of
each other, separating the northern from the southern regions of
Scotland by an isthmus not exceeding thirty-five miles in breadth. This
was remarked as early as the first Roman invasion of Scotland, when the
historian Tacitus observes that these estuaries almost intersect the
country, leaving only a narrow neck of land, and that the northern part
formed, as it were, another island.[5]
Proceeding farther north, the great series of the mountain ranges,
stretching from the south-west to the north-east, present one continuous
barrier, intersected indeed by rivers forming narrow and easily defended
passes, but exhibiting the appearance of a mighty wall, which separates
a wild and mountainous region from the well-watered and fertile plains
and straths on the south and east; and, while the latter have been at
all times exposed to the vicissitudes of external revolution, and the
greatly more important and radical change from the silent progress of
natural colonisation, the recesses of the Highlands have ever proved the
shelter and protection of the descendants of the older tribes of the
country, and the limit to the advance of a stranger population.
[Illustration:
MAP
SHEWING
MOUNTAIN CHAINS
_W. & A.K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London._
]
The territory which forms the modern kingdom of Scotland is thus thrown
by its leading physical features into three great compartments. First,
the districts extending from the Solway, the Cheviots, and the Tweed, on
the south, to the Firths of Forth and Clyde on the north; secondly, the
low country extending along the east coast from the Forth as far as the
Moray Firth, and lying between the sea and the great barrier of the
Grampians; and thirdly, the Highland or mountainous region on the
north-west.
[Sidenote: Mountain chains.]
In each of these great districts natural boundaries are again found
exercising their influence on the subordinate political divisions.
[Sidenote: The Cheviots.] In the first of these great compartments, the
lofty range of the Cheviots, which forms the southern boundary and
presents a steep face to the north, extends from the Cheviot Hill on the
north-east by Carter Fell to Peel Fell on the south-west; and from
thence a range of hills, sometimes included in the general name of the
Cheviots, separates the district of Liddesdale from that of Teviotdale,
and has its highest point in the centre of this part of the island, in a
group of hills termed the Lowthers, where the four great rivers of the
Tweed, the Clyde, the Annan, and the Nith, take their rise. From thence
it extends westward to Loch Ryan, separating the waters which pour their
streams into the Solway Firth from those which flow to the north. From
the centre of this range a smaller and less remarkable chain of hills
branches off, which, running eastward by Soutra and Lammermoor, end at
St. Abb’s Head, at the entrance to the Firth of Forth, separating the
tributaries of the Tweed from the streams which flow into the Firth of
Forth. In the centre of the island, a barren and hilly region divides
the districts watered by the rivers flowing into the east sea from those
on the west coast.
The same natural boundary which separated the eastern from the western
tribes afterwards divided the kingdom of the Strathclyde Britons from
that of the Angles; at a subsequent period, the province of Galweia from
that of Lodoneia in their most extended sense; and now separates the
counties of Lanark, Ayr, and Dumfries from the Lothians and the Merse.
Galloway in its limited sense was not more clearly separated by its
mountain barrier on the north from Strathclyde, than were the Pictish
from the British races by the same chain, and the earlier tribes of the
Selgovæ and Novantæ from the Damnii.
In the other two great compartments situated on the north of the Firths
of Forth and Clyde, two great mountain chains and two large rivers
formed the principal landmarks in the early history of the social
occupation of these districts. These two principal mountain chains were
in fact the great central ridges from which the numerous minor chains
proceed, and the rivers flow in opposite directions, forming that
aggregate of well-watered glens and rocky defiles which characterise the
mountain region of Scotland, till its streams, uniting their waters into
larger channels, burst forth through the mountain passes, and flow
through the more fertile plains of the Lowlands into the German Ocean.
[Sidenote: The Mounth.]
The first of these two great mountain chains was known by the name of
the Mounth, and extends in nearly a straight line across the island from
the Eastern Sea near Aberdeen to the Western Sea at Fort-William, having
in its centre and at its western termination the two highest mountains
in Great Britain—Ben-na-muich-dubh and Ben Nevis.
[Sidenote: Drumalban.]
The second great chain, less elevated and massive in its character, but
presenting the more picturesque feature of sharp conical summits,
crosses the other at right angles, running north and south, and forming
the backbone of Scotland—the great wind and water shear, which separates
the eastern from the western districts, and the rivers flowing into the
German Ocean from those which pour their waters into the Western Sea. It
is termed in the early records of Scottish history Dorsum Britanniæ, or
Drumalban—the dorsal ridge or backbone of Scotland. It commences in
Dumbartonshire, and forms the great separating ridge between the eastern
and western waters from south to north, till it terminates in the Ord of
Caithness.
These two mountain chains—the Mounth and Drumalban, the one running east
and west, the other south and north, and intersecting each other—thus
divided the country north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde into four
great districts, two extending along the east coast, and two along the
west, while each of the two eastern and western divisions were separated
from each other by the Mounth. The two eastern divisions are watered by
the two great rivers of the Tay and the Spey and their tributaries, the
one flowing south and the other north from these mountain chains. The
two western divisions are intersected by those arms of the sea or lochs,
which form so peculiar a feature in the West Highlands.
[Sidenote: The Grampians.]
The lesser mountain ridges which proceed on either side of the Mounth,
and separate the various streams which flow into the two great rivers
from each other, terminate as the waters enter the plains of the
Lowlands, and present the appearance of a great barrier stretching
obliquely across each of the two eastern districts and separating the
mountain region from the plain; but, although this great barrier has an
appearance as if it were a continuous mountain range, and is usually so
considered, it is not so in reality, but is formed by the termination of
these numerous lesser ridges, and is intersected by the great rivers and
their tributaries. This great barrier forms what was subsequently termed
the Highland line, and that part of it which extends across the
south-eastern district from Loch Lomond to the eastern termination of
the Mounth was known under the general but loosely applied name of the
Grampians.[6]
Within is a wild and mountainous region full of the most picturesque
beauty which the ever-varied combination of mountain, rock, and stream
can afford, but adapted only for pasture and hunting, and for the
occupation of a people still in the early stage of pastoral and warlike
life; while every stream which forces its way from its recesses through
this terminating range forms a pass into the interior capable of being
easily defended.
Throughout the early history of Scotland these great mountain chains and
rivers have always formed important landmarks of the country. If the
Mounth is now known as the range of hills which separate the more
southern counties of Kincardine, Forfar, and Perth from those of
Aberdeen and Inverness on the north, it was not less known to the
Venerable Bede, in the eighth century, as the steep and rugged mountains
which separate the provinces of the southern from those of the northern
Picts.[7] If Drumalban now separates the county of Argyll from that of
Perth, it formed equally in the eleventh century the mountain range
which separated Arregaithel from Scotia,[8] and at an earlier period the
boundary between the Picts and the Scots of Dalriada.[9]
The river Spey, which now separates the counties of Aberdeen and Banff
from those of Moray and Nairn, was for three centuries the boundary
between Scotia, or Scotland proper, and Moravia, or the great province
of Moray. The Tay, which separates the districts of Stratherne and
Gowry, formed for half a century the limit of the Anglic conquests in
the territory of the Picts, and at the very dawn of our history
interposed as formidable a barrier to the progress of the Roman arms.
The Forth, which for three centuries was the southern boundary of
Scotia, or Scotland proper, during the previous centuries separated the
Pictish from the British population.
[Sidenote: The debateable lands.]
The tract of country in which the frontiers of several independent
kingdoms, or the territories in the occupation of tribes of different
race, meet, usually forms a species of debateable land, and the
transactions which take place within its limits afford in general a key
to much of their relative history. Such were the districts extending
from the river Tay to the minor range of the Pentland hills and the
river Esk, which flows into the Firth of Forth on the south. These
districts fall naturally into three divisions. The region extending from
the Tay to the river Forth, and containing part of Perthshire, was
included in that part of the country to which the name of Alban, and
afterwards that of Scotia, was given. The central district between the
rivers Forth and Carron consisted of the whole of Stirlingshire and part
of Dumbartonshire, and belonged more properly to Strathclyde. The region
extending from the Carron to the Pentlands and the river Esk on the
south comprised the counties of West and Mid Lothian, and was attached
to Northumbria; but all three may be viewed as outlying districts,
having a mixed population contributed by the neighbouring races.
Situated in the heart of Scotland, and having around it tribes of
different races, and subsequently the four kingdoms of the Picts, the
Scots, the Angles, and the Britons, surpassing the other districts in
fertility, and possessing those rich carses which are still
distinguished as the finest agricultural districts of Scotland, this
region was coveted as the chief prize alike by the invaders and the
native tribes. The scene of the principal Roman campaigns, it appears
throughout the entire course of Scottish history as the main battlefield
of contending races and struggling influences. Roman and Barbarian, Gael
and Cymry, Scot and Angle, contended for its occupation, and within its
limits is formed the ever-shifting boundary between the petty northern
kingdoms, till in the memorable ninth century a monarchy was
established, of which the founder was a Scot, the chief seat Scone, and
that revolution was accomplished, which it is difficult to say whether
it was more civil or ecclesiastical in its character, but which finally
established the supremacy of the Scottish people over the different
races in the country, and led to their gradual combination and more
intimate union in the subsequent kingdom of Scotland. The kingdom of the
Scots soon extended itself over these central plains. Its monarchs
usually had their residence within its limits, and the capital, which
had at first been Scone, on the left bank of the Tay, eventually became
established at Edinburgh, within a few miles of its southern boundary.
During the few succeeding centuries of Scottish rule, after the
establishment of the Scottish monarchy in the ninth century, it remained
limited to the districts bounded by the Forth on the south, the mountain
chain called Drumalban on the west, and the Spey on the north. The Scots
had rapidly extended their power and influence over the native tribes
within these limits; but beyond them (on the north and west) they held
an uncertain authority over wild and semi-independent nations, nominally
dependencies of the kingdom, but in reality neither owning its authority
nor adopting its name.
It was by slow degrees that the peoples beyond these limits were first
subjugated and then amalgamated with the original Scottish kingdom; and
it was not till the middle of the thirteenth century, when the
annexation of the Western Isles by Alexander the Third finally completed
the territorial acquisitions of the monarchy, that its name and
authority became co-extensive with the utmost limits of the country, and
Scotland was consolidated in its utmost extent of territory into one
kingdom.
[Sidenote: Periods of its history.]
The early history of Scotland thus presents itself to the historian in
five distinct periods, each possessing a character peculiar to itself.
During the first period of three centuries and a half the native tribes
of Scotland were under the influence of the Roman power, at one time
struggling for independent existence, at another subject to their
authority, and awaking to those impressions of civilisation and of
social organisation, the fruits of which they subsequently displayed.
A period of rather longer duration succeeded to the Roman rule, in which
the native and foreign races in the country first struggled for the
succession to their dominant authority in the island, and then contended
among themselves for the possession of its fairest portions.
The third period commences with the establishment of the Scottish
monarchy in the ninth century, and lasted for two centuries and a half,
till the Scottish dynasty became extinct in the person of Malcolm the
Second.
There then succeeded, during the fourth period, which lasted for a
century, a renewed struggle between the different races in the country,
which, although the Scoto-Saxon dynasty, uniting through the female line
the blood of the Scots and the Saxons, succeeded in seating themselves
firmly on the throne, cannot be said to have terminated in the general
recognition of their royal authority till the reign of David the First.
The fifth period, consisting of the reigns of David I., Malcolm IV.,
William the Lion, and Alexander the Second and Third, was characterised
by the rapid amalgamation of the different provinces, and the spread of
the Saxon race and of the feudal institutions over the whole country,
with the exception of the Highlands and Islands, and left the kingdom of
Scotland in the position in which we find it when the death of Alexander
the Third, in 1286, terminated the last of the native dynasties of her
monarchs.
[Sidenote: Celtic Scotland.]
During the first three periods of her early history, Scotland may be
viewed as a purely Celtic kingdom, with a population composed of
different branches of the race popularly called Celtic. But during the
subsequent periods, though the connection between Scotland with her
Celtic population and Lothian with her Anglic inhabitants was at first
but slender, her monarchs identified themselves more and more with their
Teutonic subjects, with whom the Celtic tribes maintained an ineffectual
struggle, and gradually retreated before their increasing power and
colonisation, till they became confined to the mountains and western
islands. The name of Scot passed over to the English-speaking people,
and their language became known as the Scotch; while the Celtic
language, formerly known as Scotch, became stamped with the title of
Irish.
What may be called the Celtic period of Scottish history has been
peculiarly the field of a fabulous narrative of no ordinary perplexity;
but while the origin of these fables can be very distinctly traced to
the rivalry and ambition of ecclesiastical establishments and church
parties, and to the great national controversy excited by the claim of
England to a feudal supremacy over Scotland, still each period of its
early history will be found not to be without sources of information,
slender and meagre as no doubt they are, but possessing indications of
substantial truth, from which some perception of its real character can
be obtained.
[Sidenote: Critical examination of authorities necessary.]
Before the early history of any country can be correctly ascertained,
there is a preliminary process which must be gone through, and which is
quite essential to a sound treatment of the subject; and that is a
critical examination of the authorities upon which that history is
based. This is especially necessary with regard to the early history of
Scotland. The whole of the existing materials for her early history must
be collected together and subjected to a critical examination. Those
which seem to contain fragments of genuine history must be disentangled
from the less trustworthy chronicles which have been tampered with for
ecclesiastical or national purposes, and great discrimination exercised
in the use of the latter. The purely spurious matter must be entirely
rejected. It is by such a process only that we can hope to dispel the
fabulous atmosphere which surrounds this period of Scottish history, and
attempt to base it upon anything like a genuine foundation.
The first to attempt this task was Thomas Innes, a priest of the Scots
College in Paris, who published in 1729 his admirable Essay on the
ancient inhabitants of Scotland. In this essay he assailed the fabulous
history first put into shape by John of Fordun and elaborated by Hector
Boece, and effectually demolished its authority; but he attempted little
in the way of reconstruction, and merely printed a few of the short
chronicles, upon which he founded, in an appendix.
Lord Hailes, who in 1776 published his _Annals of Scotland, from the
Accession of Malcolm_ III., _surnamed Canmore, to the Accession of
Robert_ I., abandons this period of Scottish history altogether, with
the remark that his Annals ‘commence with the accession of Malcolm
Canmore, because the history of Scotland previous to that period is
involved in obscurity and fable.’
The first to attempt a reconstruction of this early history was John
Pinkerton, who published in 1789 _An Enquiry into the History of
Scotland preceding the reign of Malcolm_ III., or the year 1056,
_including the authentic history of that period_. It is unquestionably
an essay of much originality and acuteness; and Pinkerton saw the
necessity of founding the history of that period upon more trustworthy
documents, but they were to a very limited extent accessible to him. The
value of the work is greatly impaired by the adoption, to an excessive
extent, of a theory of early Teutonic settlements in the country and of
the Teutonic origin of the early population, and by an unreasoning
prejudice against everything Celtic, which colours and biasses his
argument throughout.
Pinkerton was followed in 1807 by George Chalmers, with his more
elaborate and systematic work, the _Caledonia_, based, however, to a
great extent upon the less trustworthy class of the early historical
documents, which had been tampered with and manipulated for a purpose.
He, too, was possessed by a theory which influences his views of the
earlier portion of the history throughout; and where John Pinkerton
could find nothing but Gothic and the Goths, George Chalmers was equally
unable to see anything but Welsh and the Cymry.
In 1828 the first volume of a History of Scotland by Patrick Fraser
Tytler appeared, which he continued to the accession of James VI. to the
throne of England; but Tytler not only abandons this early part of the
history as hopelessly obscure, but also a great part of the field
occupied by Hailes in his _Annals_, and commences his history with the
accession of Alexander the Third in 1249.
In 1862 a very valuable contribution to the early history of Scotland
was made by the late lamented Mr. E. William Robertson in his _Scotland
under her Early Kings_, in which the attempt is once more made to fill
up the early period left untouched by Hailes and Tytler. It is a work of
great merit, and exhibits much accurate research and sound judgment.[10]
Such is a short sketch of the attempts which have been made to place the
early history of Scotland upon a sound basis, and to substitute a more
trustworthy statement of it for the carefully manipulated fictions of
Fordun, and the still more fabulous narrative of Hector Boece and his
followers, prior to the appearance of Mr. Burton’s elaborate _History of
Scotland, from Agricola’s Invasion to the Extinction of the last
Jacobite Insurrection_, the first edition of which appeared in 1867, and
the second, in which the early part is revised and much altered, in
1873.
These works, however, are all more or less tainted by the same defect,
that they have not been founded upon that complete and comprehensive
examination of all the existing materials for the history of this early
period, and that critical discrimination of their relative value and
analysis of their contents, without which any view of this period of the
annals of the country must be partial and inexact. They labour, in
short, under the twofold defect, first, of an uncritical use of the
materials which are authentic; and second, of the combination with these
materials of others which are undoubtedly spurious. The early chronicles
are referred to as of equal authority, and without reference to the
period or circumstances of their production. The text of Fordun’s
Chronicle, upon which the history, at least prior to the fourteenth
century, must always to a considerable extent be based, is quoted as an
original authority, without adverting to the materials he made use of
and the mode in which he has adapted them to a fictitious scheme of
history; and the additions and alterations of his interpolator Bower are
not only founded upon as the statements of Fordun himself, but quoted
under his name in preference to his original version of the events.
The author has elsewhere endeavoured to complete the work commenced by
Thomas Innes. He has collected together in one volume the whole of the
existing chronicles and other memorials of the history of Scotland prior
to the appearance of Fordun’s Chronicle, and has subjected them, as well
as the work of Fordun, to a critical examination and analysis.[11]
He now proposes to take a farther step in advance, and to attempt in the
present work to place the early history of the country upon a sounder
basis, and to exhibit Celtic Scotland, so far as these materials enable
him to do so, in a clearer and more authentic light. By following their
guidance, and giving effect to fair and just inferences from their
statements unbiassed by theory or partiality, and subjected to the
corrective tests of comparison with those physical records which the
country itself presents, it is hoped that it may not be found impossible
to make some approximation to the truth, even with regard to the annals
of this early period of Scottish history.
It may be said that this task has been rendered unnecessary by the
appearance of Mr. Burton’s History of Scotland, which commences the
narrative with the invasion of Agricola, and claims ‘the two fundamental
qualities of a serviceable history—completeness and accuracy;’[12] but,
with much appreciation of the merits of Mr. Burton’s work as a whole,
the author is afraid that he cannot recognise it as possessing either
character, so far as the early part of the history is concerned, and he
considers that the ground which the present work is intended to occupy
remains still unappropriated.
[Sidenote: Spurious authorities.]
It remains for him to indicate here at the outset the materials founded
upon by the previous writers which he considers of questionable
authority, or must reject as entirely spurious.
Among the first to be rejected as entirely spurious is the work
attributed to Richard of Cirencester, _De situ Britanniæ et Stationum
quas Romani ipsi in ea insula ædificaverunt_. It was published in 1757
from a MS. said to be discovered at Copenhagen by Charles Julius
Bertram, and was at once adopted as genuine. The author at a very early
period came to the conclusion that the whole work, including the
itineraries, was an impudent forgery, and this has since been so amply
demonstrated, and is now so generally admitted, that it is unnecessary
to occupy space by proving it.[13] The whole of the Roman part of
Pinkerton’s _Enquiry_ and of the elaborate work of Chalmers is tainted
by it; and, what is perhaps more to be regretted, the valuable work of
General Roy[14] on _The Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain_,
published in 1793. He says in his introduction, ‘From small beginnings
it is, however, no unusual thing to be led imperceptibly to engage in
more extensive and laborious undertakings, as will easily appear from
what follows, for since the discovery of Agricola’s camps, the work of
Richard of Cirencester having likewise been found out in Denmark and
published to the world, the curious have thereby been furnished with
many new lights concerning the Roman history and geography of Britain in
general, but more particularly the north part of it,’ and by this
unfortunate adoption of the forged work by General Roy, there has been
lost to the world, to a great extent, the advantage of the commentary of
one so well able to judge of military affairs. Horsley’s valuable work,
the _Britannia Romana_, was fortunately published in 1732 before this
imposition was practised on the literary world; but Stuart has not been
equally fortunate in his _Caledonia Romana_, published in 1845, the
usefulness of which is greatly impaired by it.
Among the Welsh documents which are usually founded upon as affording
materials for the early history of the country, there is one class of
documents contained in the Myvyrian Archæology which cannot be accepted
as genuine. The principal of these are the so-called Historical Triads,
which have been usually quoted as possessing undoubted claims to
antiquity under the name of the Welsh Triads; the tale called Hanes
Taliessin, or the history of Taliessin; and a collection of papers
printed by the Welsh MS. Society, under the title of the Iolo MSS. These
all proceeded from Edward Williams, one of the editors of the Myvyrian
Archæology published in 1801, and who is better known under the bardic
title of Iolo Morganwg. The circumstances under which he produced these
documents, or the motives which led him to introduce so much
questionable matter into the literature of Wales, it is difficult now to
determine; but certain it is that no trace of them is to be found in any
authentic source, and that they have given a character to Welsh
literature which is much to be deplored. In a former work, the author in
reviewing these documents merely said, ‘It is not unreasonable therefore
to say that they must be viewed with some suspicion, and that very
careful discrimination is required in the use of them.’ He does not
hesitate now to reject them as entirely spurious.[15]
It will of course be impossible to write upon the Celtic period of
Scottish history without making a large use of Irish materials; and it
is difficult to over-estimate the importance of the Irish Annals for
this purpose; but these too must be used with some discrimination. The
ancient history of Ireland presents the unusual aspect of the minute and
detailed annals of reigns and events from a period reaching back to many
centuries before the Christian era, the whole of which has been adopted
by her historians as genuine. The work of Keating, written in Irish in
1640, a translation of which by Dermod O’Connor was published in 1726,
may be taken as a fair representation of it. The earlier part of this
history is obviously artificial, and is viewed by recent Irish
historians more in the light of legend; but there is nothing whatever in
the mode in which the annals of the different reigns are narrated to
show where legend terminates and history begins, and there is a tendency
among even the soundest writers on Irish history to push the claims of
these annals to a historical character beyond the period to which it can
reasonably be attached. For the events in Irish history the Annals of
the Four Masters are usually quoted. There is a certain convenience in
this, as it is the most complete chronicle which Ireland possesses; but
it was compiled as late as the seventeenth century, having been
commenced in 1632 and finished in 1636. The compilers were four eminent
Irish antiquaries, the principal of whom was Michael O’Clery, whence it
was termed by Colgan the Annals of the Four Masters. These annals begin
with the year of the Deluge, said to be the year of the world 2242, or
2952 years before Christ, and continue in an unbroken series to the year
of our Lord 1616. The latter part of the annals are founded upon other
documents which are referred to in the preface, and from which they are
said to be taken, but the authority for each event is not stated, and
some of those recorded are not to be found elsewhere, and are open to
suspicion.[16] The earlier part of the annals consists simply of a
reduction of the fabulous history of Ireland into the shape of a
chronicle, and, except that it is thrown into that form instead of that
of a narrative, it does not appear to the author to possess greater
claims to be ranked as an authority than the work of Keating. He cannot
therefore accept it as an independent authority, nor can he regard the
record of events to the fifth century as bearing the character of
chronological history in the true sense of the term, though no doubt
many of these events may have some foundation in fact.[17]
The older annals stand in a different position. Those of Tighernac,
Inisfallen, and the Annals of Ulster, are extremely valuable for the
history of Scotland; and, while the latter commence with what may be
termed the historic period in the fifth century, the earlier events
recorded by Tighernac, who died in the year 1088, may contain some
fragments of genuine history.
[Sidenote: Plan of the work.]
The subject of this work will be most conveniently treated under three
separate heads or books.
The first book will deal with the Ethnology and Civil History of the
different races which occupied Scotland. In this inquiry, it will be of
advantage that we should start with a clear conception of the knowledge
which the Romans had of the northern part of the island, and of the
exact amount of information as to its state and population which their
possession of the southern part of it as a province affords. This will
involve a repetition of the oft-told tale of the Roman occupation of
Scotland. But this part of the history has been so overloaded with the
uncritical use of authorities, the too ready reception of questionable
or forged documents, and the injurious but baseless speculations of
antiquaries, that we have nearly lost sight of what the contemporary
authorities really tell us. Their statements are, no doubt, meagre, and
may appear to afford an insufficient foundation for the deductions drawn
from them, but they are precise; and it will be found that though they
may compress the account of a campaign or a transaction into a few
words, yet they had an accurate knowledge of the transactions, the
result of which they wished to indicate, and knew well what they were
writing about. It will be necessary, therefore, carefully to weigh these
short but precise statements, and to place before the reader the state
of the early inhabitants of Scotland as the Romans at the time knew them
and viewed them, not as what by argument from other premises they can be
made to appear.[18]
This will lay the groundwork for an inquiry into their race and
language; and an attempt will then be made to trace the history of these
different races, their mutual struggle for supremacy, the causes and
true character of that revolution which laid the foundation of the
Scottish monarchy, and the gradual combination of its various
heterogeneous elements into one united kingdom; and thus by a more
complete and critical use of its materials, to place the early history
of the country, during the Celtic period, upon a sounder basis.
The second book will deal with the Early Celtic Church of Scotland and
its influence on the language and culture of the people. The
ecclesiastical history of Scotland has shared the same fate with its
civil history, and is deeply tainted with the fictitious and artificial
system which has perverted both; but the stamp of these fables upon it
is less easily removed. It has also had the additional misfortune of
having been made the battle-field of polemical controversy. Each
historian of the Church has viewed it through the medium of his
ecclesiastical prepossessions, and from the standpoint of the Church
party to which he belonged. The Episcopal historian feels the necessity
of discovering in it his Diocesan Episcopacy, and the partisan of
Presbyterian parity considers the principles of his Church involved in
maintaining the existence of his early Presbyterian Culdees. One great
exception must be made, however, in Dr. Reeves’s admirable edition of
Adamnan’s _Life of St. Columba_, which has laid the foundation for a
more rational treatment of the history of the early Church in Scotland.
The subject of the third and last book will be the Land and People of
Scotland. It will treat of the early land tenures and social condition
of its Celtic inhabitants. The publication of the Brehon laws of Ireland
now enables us to trace somewhat of the history and character of their
early tribal institutions and laws, and of their development in Scotland
into those communities represented in the eastern districts by the
Thanages, and in the western by the Clan system of the Highlands and
Islands of Scotland.
-----
Footnote 1:
See Book i. chap. i. _infra_.
Footnote 2:
It will be seen from the title of this work that the author does not
adopt what he ventures to call the pedantic affectation of using the
form of Alba instead of Alban. The oldest form of the word is Albu, as
that of the name for Ireland was Eriu. Thus, in the oldest Irish
Glossary—that of Cormac—we have, _sub voce_ Trifod, ‘Eriu agus Manann
agus Albu.’ The inflections are Eriu, _G._ Erenn, _D._ Eirinn, _A._
Erinn. Albu, _G._ Alban, _D._ Albain, _A._ Albain or Albu. In the
later Irish documents the forms of Eire and Alba usually occur in the
nominative. A nominative form derived from the genitive is, however,
also found; and the names of places ending in a vowel seem to have a
tendency to fall into this form in current speech. Thus we have Erin
for Eiriu or Eire, Alban for Albu or Alba, Arann for Ara, Rathlin for
Rechra, etc. In his _Irish Glosses_, Mr. Whitley Stokes has ‘Eirinnach
(gl. Hibernigena), from the old name of this island, which is declined
in the _Book of Leinster_ and _Lib. Hymn._ Nom. herinn (Maelmura
Othna’s poem), Dat. dond erinn, Gen. and Acc. herenn (see Fiacc’s
hymn. vv. 7, 8, 10, and the _Orthain_ at the end, and the quatrain
from Marianus Scotus, Z. 944).’—(_Irish Glosses_, p. 66.)
The name of Alban occurs in this form in the nominative also in the
Prophecy of St. Berchan throughout, as ‘Dia mo lan Alban is Eire’
(_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 79); Ba ard Albain chathair bhinn (_ib._
p. 87); Mescfaidh Albain ima chenn (_ib._ p. 89); Ba lomlan Albain o a
la (_ib._ p. 91, etc.).
So also the form of Alban appears as the name of Scotland in all the
Welsh documents, and the Pictish Chronicle, which is evidently
translated from a Gaelic original, has Albania, which must have been
formed from Alban.
The affectation of using the form Alba in the English rendering of the
name was first introduced by the late Dr. O’Donovan, and has been
adopted without much consideration by some Scottish writers; but the
late Professor O’Curry, an equally accurate Irish scholar, invariably
used the form Alban, and the author prefers retaining this
conventional form.
Footnote 3:
Haec autem (Hibernia) proprie patria Scotorum est.—Bede, _Hist. Ec._
B. i. c. i.
Footnote 4:
The first proposition is clearly established by the following catena
of authorities:—
SIXTH CENTURY.
ISIDORUS HISPALENSIS. _Origines._
Scotia eadem et Ibernia, proxima Britanniae insula.... Unde et Ibernia
dicta. Scotia autem quod ab Scotorum gentibus colitur
appellata.—Lib. xiv. c. vi.
THEODORIC. _Vita S. Rumoldi_, 1st July.—_Surius_, tom. vii. p. 563.
Movit hoc ab ortu Ægyptus et India ad occasum alter pene orbis
Britannia cum adjacente Scotia. Tota insula Scotiae mirabatur.
SEVENTH CENTURY.
RAVENNATIS ANONYMI _Cosmographia_.
Finitur autem ipsa Britannia a facie septentrionalis (habet) insulam
Scotiam.
Iterum in eodem oceano occidentali post ipsam magnam Britanniam ...
est insula maxima quae dicitur Ibernia, quae, ut dictum est, et
Scotia appellatur.
ADAMNANUS _in vita S. Columbae_.
De Scotia ad Britanniam ... enavigavit.—Pref. sec.
In Scotia et in Britannia.—Lib. i. cap. i.
De Scotia ad Britanniam ... adduxit.—Lib. i. cap. xxix.
Per totam nostram Scotiam et omnium totius orbis insularum maximam
Britanniam.—Lib. iii. cap. xxiv.
EIGHTH CENTURY.
BÆDA. _Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum._
Haec autem (Hibernia) proprie patria Scottorum est.—Lib. i. cap. i.
Dominis carissimis fratribus episcopis, vel abbatibus per universam
Scottiam, Laurentius, Mellitus, et Justus episcopi.—(Letter
addressed to ‘Scotti qui Hiberniam insulam Britanniae proximam
incolunt.’)—Lib. ii. cap. iv.
Columba presbyter de Scottia venit Brittaniam.—Lib. v. cap. xxiv.
_Martyrologium._ De Scotia insula venientes. 13th November.
NINTH CENTURY.
HUCBALDUS, _in vita S. Lebuini_.
Britannia oceani insula, interfuso mari a toto orbe divisa ... cui
adjacet Scotia sive Hybernia.—_Surius_, tom. iii. p. 27.
VITA S. WIRONIS.
Scotia fertilis Sanctorum virorum insula.—_Surius_, tom. iii. p. 114.
VITA S. KILIANI.
Scotia quae et Hibernia dicitur, insula est maris oceani, foecunda
quidem glebis, sed viris Sanctissimis clarior.—_Surius_, tom. iii.
p. 132.
TENTH CENTURY.
HEGESIPPUS. _De excidio Hierosolymitano._
Quid attexam Britannias interfuso mari toto orbe divisas, a Romanis in
orbem terrarum redactas? Tremuit hos Scotia, quae terris nihil
debet.
SECUNDA VITA S. PATRICII, _ap._ Colgan.
Causa haec erat primae peregrinationis atque adventus ejus in
Scotiam.—_Tr. Th._ p. 12.
QUINTA VITA S. PATRICII, _ap._ Colgan.
Scotiam atque Britanniam, Angliam et Normanniam caeterasque gentes
insulanorum baptizabis.—_Tr. Th._ p. 51.
NOTKERUS BALBULUS, _in Martyrologio_.
v. Id. Junias. In Scotia insula Hibernia depositio S. Columbae,
cognomento apud suos Columbkilli.
To which it may be added that King Alfred, in his translation of
Orosius, translates the passage, ‘Hibernia, quae a gentibus Scotorum
colitur,’ by ‘Ighernia, which we call Scotland.’
For the second proposition we have the following:—
In the Pictish Chronicle the name of Scotia is still applied to
Ireland. ‘Scotti in quarta etate Scociam sive Hiberniam obtinuerunt,’
and the only names used for Scotland are Albania and Pictavia. ‘xxx.
Brude regnaverunt Hiberniam et Albaniam.’ ‘Danari vastaverunt
Pictaviam ad Cluanan et Duncalden.’ ‘Normanni predaverunt Duncalden,
omnemque Albaniam.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 3, 5, 8, 9.
In the following century we have
‘Regnum Scotorum fuit, inter cetera regna
Terrarum, quondam nobile, forte, potens....
Ex Albanacto, trinepote potentis Enee,
Dicitur Albania: littera prisca probat.
A Scota, nata Pharaonis regis Egypti,
Ut veteres tradunt, Scotia nomen habet.’
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 117.
Illa regio, quae nunc corrupte vocatur Scotia, antiquitus appellabatur
Albania.... Nunc vero corrupte vocatur Scotia.—_Ib._ p. 135.
Albania est, quae modo Scotia vocatur.—_Ib._ p. 153.
Albania tota, quae modo Scotia vocatur.—_Ib._ p. 154.
Monarchia totius Albaniae quae nunc Scotia dicitur.—_Chron. Picts and
Scots_, p. 209.
That part of the Saxon Chronicle which precedes the death of King
Alfred in 901, and according to the best authorities was compiled in
his reign, nowhere applies the name of Scotland to North Britain; but
in that part of the Chronicle which extends from 925 to 975, and
which, if not contemporary, was at least compiled in the latter year,
has, in 933, ‘In this year King Æthelstan went into Scotland;’ and in
937, in the contemporary poem on the battle of Brunanburg,
Constantine’s people are called _Sceotta_, and the name applied to
Ireland is Yraland.—_Saxon Chron._, _ad an._
The transference of the name of Scotia from Ireland to Scotland seems
to have been completed in the eleventh century, for Marianus Scotus,
who lived from 1028 to 1081, calls Malcolm the Second, who died 1034,
‘rex Scotiae’ (_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 65), and Brian, King of
Ireland, ‘rex Hiberniae.’ The author of the Life of St. Cadroë, in the
same century, applies the name of Scotia to North Britain (_ib._ p.
113); while Adam of Bremen, who wrote in 1080, has ‘Hibernia Scottorum
patria, quae nunc Irland dicitur’ (_De situ Daniae_, c. 247).
The third proposition is equally important, and it will be necessary
to establish it once for all at the outset. This will appear—First,
from the ancient descriptions of Scotland; Secondly, from
topographical allusions in the Old Laws and in the Chronicles; and
Thirdly, from the names given to the inhabitants of the different
provinces.
Under the first head, we find in the tract _De situ Albaniae_ a
reference to the ‘montes qui dividunt Scotiam ab Arregaithel,’ or
Argyll, and to the Forth, ‘quae regna Scottorum et Anglorum dividit’
(_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 135). In the description of Britain
(_ib._ p. 153) the provinces within the limits of Scotland are thus
enumerated:—‘Ultra [Tede flumen (or Tweed)], usque ad flumen Forthi
magni, scilicet, Loonia et Galweya (Lothian and Galloway) et Albania
tota quae modo Scotia vocatur et Morovia (Moray) et omnes insulae
occidentales occeani usque ad Norwegiam et usque Daciam, scilicet,
Kathenessia Orkaneya Enchegal et Man et Ordas et Gurth et ceterae
insulae occidentales occeani circa Norwegiam et Daciam.’ This points
to the time when Caithness, Orkney, and the Western Isles were
possessed by the Norwegians and Danes, and distinguishes Scotia from
Moray, from which it is separated by the Spey, and from the Norwegian
and Danish possessions, which included Caithness, Sutherland, Argyll,
and the Isles.
In the ‘Brevis Descriptio Scotiae’ (_ib._ p. 214), the provinces of
Tyndale then belonging to Scotland, Lothian and Galloway, are
mentioned, and Argyll is omitted.
Under the second head the same provinces are clearly indicated in one
of the Laws of King William, ‘De lege que vocatur Claremathan.’ It
commences, ‘De catallo furato et calumpniato statuit dominus Rex apud
Perth quod in quacunque provincia sit inventum,’ etc. It then refers
to them thus, ‘Si ille qui calumpniatus est de catallo furato vel
rapto vocat warentum suum aliquem hominem manentem inter Spey et Forth
vel inter Drumalban et Forth;’ that is, a district bounded by the
Spey, Drumalban, and the Forth. Then we have, ‘Et si quis ultra illas
divisas valet in Moravia vel in Ros vel in Katenes vel in Ergadia vel
in Kintyre.’ Then we have ‘Ergadia quae pertinet ad Moraviam.’ Then
‘Si calumpniatus vocaverit warentum aliquem in Ergadia quae pertinet
ad Scotiam tunc veniat ad comitem Atholie,’ showing that the part of
Ergadia next to Athole was said to belong to Scotia as distinguished
from Moravia. Then we have, ‘Omnes illi qui ultra Forth manserint in
Laudonia vel in Galwodia.’—_Acts of Parl._ v. i. p. 50.
Ailred distinguishes Laudonia and Calatria (in Stirlingshire) from
Scotia when he says, ‘Cum Angliæ victor Willelmus Laodoniam Calatriam
Scotiam usque ad Abernith penetraret.’—_Ailred de bello apud
Standardum._
Ordericus Vitalis equally distinguishes Moravia from Scotia when he
says of Angus Comes de Moravia, who rebelled against David I.,
‘Scotiam intravit.’—_Ord. Vit._ p. 702.
Thirdly, the same distinction is maintained in the early notices of
the inhabitants of the different provinces. Thus Ailred describes the
Scottish army at the battle of the Standard under David I. as
consisting of the following bodies of troops:—1st, of Galwenses; 2d,
of Cumbrenses et Tevidalenses; 3d, of Laodonenses cum Insulanis et
Lavernanis; 4th, of Scoti et Muravenses. The accurate Hailes deduces
from this,—‘The Scots, properly so called, were the inhabitants of the
tract between the Firth of Forth and the country then called
Moray.’—Hailes, _An._ vol. i. p. 78.
Footnote 5:
Nam Clota et Bodotria, diversi maris aestibus per immensum revectae,
angusto terrarum spatio dirimuntur: quod tum praesidiis firmabatur:
atque omnis propior sinus tenebatur, summotis velut in aliam insulam
hostibus.—Tacit. _in Vit. Ag._, c. 23.
Footnote 6:
Hector Boece is the first of our historians who brings this Highland
barrier prominently forward as a mountain range. He says, ‘Situs autem
hic lacus (Loch Lomond) est ad pedem Grampii montis Pictorum olim
Scotorumque regni limitis, qua ab ostiis Deae amnis latera Aberdoniae
abluentis mare Germanicum prospectans incurvus asper atque
intractabilis (quod et nomen ejus vernaculum Granzebain significat)
per mediam Scotiam in alterum mare tendens obvio hoc lacu excipitur
sistiturque.’—Ed. 1520, F. vii. 45.
His object was, by identifying this range with the boundary between
the Picts and Scots, to extend the territories of the latter, and by
applying to it the name of Tacitus’s Mons Grampius he has stamped upon
it ever since the appellation of the Grampians. But the older
authorities know nothing of the Grampians, and never mention this
range of mountains. They only specify the mountain ranges of the
Mounth and Drumalban. Thus the Tract de Situ Albaniae (_Chron. Picts
and Scots_, p. 135) mentions the ‘mons qui Mound vocatur, qui a mari
occidentali usque ad mare orientale extenditur.’ And another
description (_ib._ p. 214) has, ‘Et itaque est quoddam vastum quod
vocatur le Mounth, ubi est pessimum passagium sine cibo, longitudinis
lx. leucarum et latitudinis xvi. leucarum.’
The other range is frequently mentioned by Adamnan in the seventh
century as ‘Dorsum Britanniae,’ and once as ‘Dorsi montes Britannici,
quos Pictos et Scotos utrosque disterminant.’ The oldest of the Latin
chronicles mention Fergus, the first king of Dalriada, as reigning ‘a
monte Drumalban usque ad mare Hiberniae’ (_ib._ p. 130); and the Tract
de Situ Albaniae mentions the ‘montes qui dividunt Scotiam ab
Arregaithel.’
As this chain was the great boundary which originally separated the
Picts from the Scots of Dalriada, it is essential to a clear
understanding of the early history that its real position should not
be mistaken, and it is only necessary to examine the passages in which
it occurs to see that it was used with precision, and to identify the
mountain chain which was meant by it. Much confusion, however, has
been thrown into early Scottish history by the loose and arbitrary way
in which this name has been applied by modern writers to any great
mountain chain which they fancied might represent it, arising merely
from a want of accurate acquaintance with the true character of the
mountain system of Scotland, and a careless use of authorities. Of
modern historians Pinkerton alone has rightly placed the name of
Drumalban on the ridge which separates Argyllshire from Perthshire.
Mr. Cosmo Innes, in the map in his _Scotland in the Middle Ages_,
places it upon the great range of the Mounth, in which he is followed
by Mr. E. W. Robertson, in his _Scotland under her Early Kings_; and
Mr. Burton has made confusion worse confounded by identifying it with
“the range now called the Grampians” (_Hist._ vol. i. p. 15); in this
following Boece. Fordun gives an elaborate description of it in his
_Chronicle_, B. ii. c. 7; and Buchanan rightly describes it as the
highest part of Breadalban, and clearly indicates it as the ridge
separating the east from the west waters, ‘ex eo enim dorso flumina in
utrumque mare decurrunt, alia in septentrionem, alia in meridiem.’
The name Dorsum Britanniæ implies that it was part of the ridge which
might be called the backbone of Britain, separating the rivers flowing
in opposite directions, as the backbone of the body separates the
ribs—a definition that never could be applicable to the so-called
Grampians. The name of Drum is found, too, attached to the range along
the whole course of it. We have Tyn_drum_ and Cairn_drum_ at the part
whence the Tay flows; the _Drum_mond hills at the source of the Spey
where the range divides Badenoch from Lochaber; Acha_drum_ where it
crosses the great glen of Scotland between Loch Oich and Loch Lochy;
and Loch _Droma_ where it crosses the valley called the Deary-mor, in
Ross-shire, at the head of the river Broom.
Footnote 7:
Provinciis septentrionalium Pictorum, hoc est, eis quae arduis atque
horrentibus montium jugis ab australibus eorum sunt regionibus
sequestratae.—B. iii. c. iv.
Footnote 8:
Montes qui dividunt Scotiam ab Arregaithel.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_,
p. 135.
Footnote 9:
Quos utrosque Dorsi montes Britannici disterminant.—Adamnan, B. ii. c.
47.
Footnote 10:
The essays contained in the appendix are of peculiar value, and well
deserve the consideration of historians.
Footnote 11:
The author has collected the materials prior to Fordun’s Chronicle in
the volume of _The Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of the Scots,
and other early Memorials of Scottish History_, published by the
authority of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury, under
the superintendence of the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, in 1867,
and has likewise edited Fordun’s Chronicle for the series of the
Scottish Historians. The introductions to these two works contain a
critical examination and analysis of these early documents as well as
of the chronicle itself. In the _Four Ancient Books of Wales_,
published in 1868, he has subjected the Welsh documents to a similar
critical examination.
Footnote 12:
Burton’s _Hist._, vol. i. Preface, p. v.
Footnote 13:
It is curious how difficult it is to get rid of the effects of an
imposture of this kind, even after it is detected.
Mr. C. H. Pearson is one of those who has most conclusively
demonstrated the forgery, and yet in his historical maps of England,
published in 1869, he places the Roman provinces of Britain according
to an arrangement for which the so-called Richard of Cirencester is
the sole authority. Mr. Burton also denounces this work as a forgery
(vol. i. p. 61, note); but he elsewhere says, ‘Thus there were Scots
in Ireland and Scots in Britain, and _a practice arose among British
writers of calling the latter Attacotti, which has been explained to
mean the hither Scots or Scots of this side_’ (vol. i. p. 256). This
statement is apparently taken from Pinkerton, who identified the
Attacotti with an early settlement of Scots in Argyll solely on the
authority of Richard of Cirencester. The opinion is quite untenable,
and the etymology preposterous. It was, however, rather unexpected to
find Mr. W. Fraser, in a work printed in 1874 (_The Lennox_), adopting
the whole of the spurious matter of the so-called Richard of
Cirencester as genuine.
Footnote 14:
Roy, _Military Ant._, p. ix.
Footnote 15:
See _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. i. pp. 30-32. In rejecting the
Welsh Triads, which have been so extensively used, the author excepts
those Triads which are to be found in ancient MSS., such as the Triads
of the Horses in the Black Book of Caermarthen; those in the Hengwrt
MS. 536, printed in the _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. ii. p.
457; and those in the Red Book of Hergest.
Footnote 16:
For instance, the annals record the death of Somhairle MacGillaadomnan
Ri Innsigall at 1083. This was Somerled Regulus of Argyll, whose death
really took place in 1166, and this entry has probably been inserted
at haphazard from some genealogy of the Macdonalds.
Footnote 17:
It is usually supposed that true history in Ireland commences with the
introduction of Christianity and the mission of St. Patrick, but this
date is by no means certain. The author is more inclined to place the
separation between those annals which may be depended on as consisting
in the main of true history, and those which present the appearance of
an artificial construction, into which fragments of history, legendary
matter, and fabulous creations, have been interwoven, at the event
termed the battle of Ocha, fought in 483. By that battle the dynasty
of the Hy Neill was placed on the throne of Ireland. It separates the
Pagan kings from the Christian. The marvellous and fanciful events
which characterise the previous reigns here drop from the annals, and
what follows has an air of probability and reality, and it was
undoubtedly viewed as a great era by the older chroniclers; as, for
instance, Flann of Bute, who wrote his Synchronisms in 1054, has
‘Forty-three years from the coming of St. Patrick to Erin to the
battle of Ocha; twenty years from the battle of Ocha till the children
of Erc, son of Echach Muindremair, passed over into Alban.’—_Chron.
Picts and Scots_, p. 18.
Footnote 18:
The author has explained his views as to the authorities for this
period of the history more anxiously, because he does not at all
sympathise with Mr. Burton in his view of the authority of Tacitus as
an historian, and the character of his narrative. The author is unable
to see how the credibility of his narrative is impaired by the fact
that his Life of Agricola was not included in the first edition of his
works, and was unknown to our historians before Hector Boece. Mr.
Burton hardly ventures to question the authenticity of the Life of
Agricola. The view he appears to hold, that it was written more as a
political manifesto than as a plain historical relation of facts, has
been hastily adopted from a school of German critics, whose views have
not, however, met with acceptance from the sounder class of them. The
author holds the authenticity of the Life of Agricola to be
unquestionable, and that its fidelity as a narrative cannot be
reasonably assailed; and he considers any argument drawn from the
presence or absence of local tradition as to the events it records to
be irrelevant, as all genuine tradition of this kind in Scotland has
perished under the influence of the immense popularity and general
acceptance at the time of Hector Boece’s fabulous history, which has,
in fact, created a spurious local tradition all over Scotland.
BOOK I.
_HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY._
CHAPTER I.
ADVANCE OF THE ROMANS TO THE FIRTHS OF FORTH AND CLYDE.
[Sidenote: Early notices of the British Isles.]
As early as the sixth century before the Christian era, and while their
knowledge of Northern Europe was still very imperfect, the Greeks had
already become aware of the existence of the British Isles. This
comparatively early knowledge of Britain was derived from the trade in
tin, for which there existed at that period an extensive demand in the
East. It was imported by sea by the Phœnicians, and by their colony, the
Carthaginians, who extended their voyages beyond the Pillars of
Hercules; and was subsequently prosecuted as a land trade by their
commercial rivals, the Greek colonists of Marseilles.
A Greek poet, writing under the name of Orpheus, but whose real date may
be fixed at the sixth century, mentions these remote islands under the
name of the Iernian Isles;[19] but in the subsequent century they were
known to Herodotus as the Cassiterides, or Tin Islands,[20] a name
derived from the chief article of the trade through which all report of
their existence was as yet derived.
In the fourth century they are alluded to by Aristotle as two very large
islands beyond the Pillars of Hercules; and, while the name of Britannia
was now from henceforth applied, especially by the Greek writers, to the
group of islands, of whose number and size but vague notions were still
entertained, the two principal islands appear for the first time under
the distinctive appellations of Albion and Ierne.[21]
Polybius, in the second century before Christ, likewise alludes to the
Britannic Islands beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and to the working of
the mines by the inhabitants.[22]
Besides these direct allusions to the British Isles, we have preserved
to us by subsequent writers an account of these islands from each of the
two sources of information—the Phœnician voyages and the land trade of
the Phocæans of Marseilles—in the narratives of the expeditions of
Himilco and Pytheas.
Himilco was a Carthaginian who was engaged in the Phœnician maritime
trade in the sixth century, and the traditionary account of his voyage
is preserved by a comparatively late writer, Festus Rufus Avienus. In
his poetical Description of the World, written from the account of
Himilco, he mentions the plains of the Britons and the distant Thule,
and talks of the sacred isle peopled by the nation of the Hiberni and
the adjacent island of the Albiones.[23]
Pytheas was a Massilian. His account of his journey is preserved by the
geographer Strabo, and appears to have been received with great
distrust. He stated that he had sailed round Spain and the half of
Britain; ascertained that the latter was an island; made a voyage of six
days to the island of Thule, and then returned. From him Strabo,
Diodorus Siculus, and Pliny derived their information as to the size of
the islands, and his statement made known for the first time the names
of three promontories—Cantium or Kent, Belerium or Land’s End, and
Orcas, or that opposite the Orkneys.[24]
But although the existence of the British Isles was thus known at an
early period to the classic writers under specific names, and some
slender information acquired through the medium of the early tin trade
as to their position and magnitude, it was not till the progress of the
Roman arms and their lust of conquest had brought their legions into
actual contact with the native population, that any information as to
the inhabitants of these islands was obtained.
[Sidenote: B.C. 55.
Invasion of Julius Cæsar.]
The invasion of Britain by Julius Cæsar in the year 55 before the
Christian era, although it added no new territory to the already
overgrown empire of the Romans, and was probably undertaken more with
the view of adding to the military renown of the great commander, for
the first time made the Romans acquainted with some of the tribes
inhabiting that, to them, distant and almost inaccessible isle, and
added distinctness and definiteness to their previously vague conception
of its characteristics. Its existence was now not merely a geographical
speculation, but a political fact in the estimation of those by whom the
destinies of the world were then swayed—an element that might possibly
enter into their political combinations.
The conquests of Julius Cæsar in Britain, limited in extent and
short-lived in duration, were not followed up. The policy of the
subsequent emperors involved the neglect of Britain as an object of
conquest; and, while it now assumed a more definite position in the
writings of Greek and Roman geographers, they have left us nothing but
the names of a few southern tribes and localities which do not concern
the object before us, and a statement regarding the general population
which is of more significance.
Cæsar sums up his account by telling us that the interior of Britain was
inhabited by those who were considered to be indigenous, and the
maritime part by those who had passed over from Belgium, the memory of
whose emigration was preserved by their new insular possessions bearing
the same name with the continental states from which they sprang. He
describes the country as very populous, the people as pastoral, but
using iron and brass, and the inhabitants of the interior as less
civilised than those on the coasts. The former he paints as clothed in
skins, and as not resorting to the cultivation of the soil for food, but
as dependent upon their cattle and the flesh of animals slain in hunting
for subsistence. He ascribes to all those customs which seem to have
been peculiar to the Britons. They stained their bodies with woad, which
gave them a green colour, from which the Britons were termed ‘Virides’
and ‘Cærulei.’ They had wives in common. They used chariots in war, and
Cæsar bears testimony to the bravery with which they defended their
woods and rude fortresses, as well as encountered the disciplined Roman
troops in the field. He mentions the island Hibernia as less than
Britannia by one-half, and about as far from it as the latter is from
Gaul, and an island termed ‘Mona’ in the middle of the channel between
the two larger islands.[25]
Strabo and Diodorus Siculus have preserved any additional accounts of
the inhabitants which the Romans received during the succeeding reigns
of Augustus and Tiberius. They describe the Britons as taller than the
Gauls, with hair less yellow, and slighter in their persons; and Strabo
distinguishes between that portion of them whose manners resembled those
of the Gauls and those who were more simple and barbarous, and were
unacquainted with agriculture—manifestly the inhabitants of the interior
whom Cæsar considered to be indigenous. He describes the peculiarity of
their warfare, their use of chariots, and their towns as enclosures made
in the forests, with ramparts of hewn trees. He mentions the inhabitants
of ‘Ierne’ as more barbarous, regarding whom reports of cannibalism and
the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes were current.[26] Diodorus
gives a more favourable picture of the inhabitants who were considered
to be the aborigines of the island, and attributes to them the simple
virtues of the pure and early state of society fabled by the poets. He
alludes to their use of chariots and their simple huts, and adds to
Strabo’s account that they stored the ears of corn under ground. He
represents them as simple, frugal, and peaceful in their mode of life.
Those near the promontory of Belerion or Land’s End he describes as more
civilised, owing to their intercourse with strangers.[27]
Thus all agree in distinguishing between the simple and rude inhabitants
of the interior, who were considered to be indigenous, and the more
civilised people of the eastern and southern shores who were believed to
have passed over from Gaul.
[Sidenote: A.D. 43.
Formation of province in reign of Claudius.]
It was not till the reign of Claudius that any effectual attempt was
renewed to subject the British tribes to the Roman yoke; but the second
conquest under that emperor speedily assumed a more permanent character
than the first under Julius Cæsar, and the conquered territory was
formed into a province of the Roman empire. During this intervening
period of nearly a century, we know nothing of the internal history of
the population of Britain; but the indications which have reached us of
a marked and easily-recognised distinction between two great classes of
the inhabitants, and of the progressive immigration of one of them from
Belgium, and the analogy of history, lead to the inference that during
this period—ample for such a purpose—the stronger and more civilised
race must have spread over a larger space of the territory, and the
ruder inhabitants of the interior been gradually confined to the wilder
regions of the north and west. The name of Britannia having gradually
superseded the older appellation of Albion, and the latter, if it is
synonymous with Alba or Alban, becoming confined to the wilder regions
of the north, lead to the same inference.
As soon as the conquests of the Romans in Britain assumed the form of a
province of the empire, all that they possessed in the island was termed
‘Britannia Romana,’ all that was still hostile to them, ‘Britannia
Barbara.’ The conquered tribes became the inhabitants of a Roman
province, subject to her laws, and sharing in some of her privileges.
The tribes beyond the limits of the province were to them ‘Barbari.’ An
attention to the application of these terms affords the usual indication
of the extent of the Roman province at different times, and, if the
history of the more favoured southern portion of the island must find
its earliest annals in the Roman provinces of Britain, it is to the
‘Barbari’ we must turn in order to follow the fortunes of the ruder
independence of the northern tribes. It will be necessary, therefore,
for our purpose, that we should trace the gradual extension of the
boundary of the Roman province and the advance of the line of
demarcation between what was provincial and what was termed barbarian,
till we find the independent tribes of Britain confined within the
limits of that portion of the island separated from the rest by the
Firths of Forth and Clyde.
It was in the year of our Lord 43, and in the reign of the Emperor
Claudius, that the real conquest of Britain commenced under Aulus
Plautius, and in seven years after the beginning of the war a part of
the island had been reduced by that general and by his successor into
the form of a province, and annexed to the Roman empire,—a result to
which the valour and military talent of Vespasian, then serving under
these generals, and afterwards Emperor, appears mainly to have
contributed. In the year 50, under Ostorius, and perhaps his successor,
the Roman province appears to have already extended to the Severn on the
west, and to the Humber on the north.[28]
Beyond its limits, on the west, were the warlike tribes of the Silures
and the Ordovices, against whom the province was defended by a line of
forts drawn from the river Sabrina or Severn, to a river, which cannot
be identified with certainty, termed by Tacitus the Antona.[29] On the
north lay the numerous and widely-extended tribes of the Brigantes,
extending across the entire island from the Eastern to the Western Sea,
and reaching from the Humber, which separated them from the province on
the south, as far north, there seems little reason to doubt, as the
Firth of Forth.[30] Beyond the nation of the Brigantes on the north, the
Romans as yet knew nothing save that Britain was believed to be an
island, and that certain islands termed Orcades[31] lay to the north of
it; but the names even of the more northern tribes had not yet reached
them.
[Sidenote: A.D. 50. War with the Brigantes.]
It is to the war with the Brigantes that we must mainly turn, in order
to trace the progress of the Roman arms, and the extension of the
frontier of the Roman province beyond the Humber. The Romans appear to
have come in contact with the Brigantes for the first time in the course
of the war carried on by Publius Ostorius, appointed governor of Britain
in the year 50. That general had arrived in the island towards the end
of summer; and the Barbarians, or those of the Britons still hostile to
the Romans, believing he would not undertake a winter campaign, took
advantage of his arrival at so late a period of the year to make
incursions into the territory subject to Rome. Among these invading
tribes were probably the Brigantes; but the general, by a rapid and
energetic movement, put the enemy to flight, and it was on this occasion
that the province was protected against the western tribes by a chain of
forts. Having defeated the powerful nation of the Iceni, who endeavoured
to obstruct his purpose by an attack from a different quarter, and who
were destined at a subsequent period to place the Roman dominion in
Britain in the utmost jeopardy, Ostorius reduced the tribes within the
limits of the subjugated territory to entire obedience, and now turned
his attention to more aggressive measures against those beyond its
boundary.
His first attack was directed against the hostile tribes of the west,
and he had penetrated into their mountain territory nearly as far as the
sea, when he was obliged to turn his steps towards the north by the
threatening aspect of the powerful nation of the Brigantes, whom,
however, on this occasion he soon reduced to subjection. Those he found
in arms were cut to pieces, and the rest of the nation submitted.
On again turning his steps towards the west, he found the nations of the
Silures and Ordovices assembled under the command of the celebrated
native chief Caractacus, and a great battle took place, in which the
discipline of the Roman troops prevailed over the acknowledged bravery
of the natives, even although the latter occupied a well-chosen position
of unusual strength. The army of Caractacus was defeated, his wife and
daughter taken prisoners, while he himself fled for protection to
Cartismandua, queen of the Brigantes, but that queen, being then at
peace with the Romans, delivered him up to them.
On the death of Ostorius, which took place in the same year, Aulus
Didius was sent to Britain as the next commander, and under him a more
prolonged war with the Brigantes commenced, which throws some light on
their internal condition. After the defeat and death of Caractacus, the
most distinguished native leader was Venusius, a Brigantian, who
belonged to a sept of that nation termed by Tacitus the ‘Jugantes.’[32]
He had married Cartismandua, the queen of the whole nation, and, while
this marriage subsisted, had remained equally faithful to the Romans.
Dissensions, however, arose between them. Venusius was driven from his
throne, and his brother, with the rest of his kindred, seized by the
queen, who raised Villocatus, his armour-bearer, to her throne and bed.
This quarrel led to a civil war between the adherents of Venusius and
those of the queen, and this great nation became divided into two
factions.[33] That part of the nation which adhered to Venusius, and
which there is reason to believe consisted of the more northern tribes,
was from that time in active hostility to the Romans. They had attacked
Cartismandua, who was only enabled to maintain her position by obtaining
the assistance of the Roman army. The short but significant expressions
of Tacitus show that the war was not an easy one for the Romans, and
that they could do little more than maintain their own ground and the
position of their ally.
We hear no more of this war till after that great insurrection of the
Roman provincials under Boadicea or Bondiuca, queen of the Iceni, which
shook the Roman power in Britain to its foundation, and had nearly
resulted in their entire expulsion from the island. A struggle such as
the language of the historians shows this to have been must necessarily
have been a vital one on both sides; and hence, when the Roman arms
eventually prevailed, the result produced a firm consolidation of their
power in that part of the island which formed the Roman province. The
immediate subject before us—the extension of the Roman power towards the
north, and the gradual advance of the northern frontier of the
province—renders it unnecessary for us to dwell with any minuteness upon
their contests with the native tribes in other quarters. It is
sufficient to notice that Veranius succeeded Aulus Didius, but died
within the year, and that under Suetonius Paulinus, one of the most
distinguished of the Roman commanders in Britain, and the governor by
whom the great insurrection of the Iceni was finally quelled, the
western tribes were finally brought under the dominion of the Romans.
[Sidenote: A.D. 69. War with the Brigantes renewed.]
We find the Brigantes again in hostility to the Romans during the
government of Vettius Bolanus, which commenced in the year 69. Venusius
appears to have maintained an independent position and a hostile
attitude towards the Romans throughout, and a lengthened civil war had
continued to prevail between his adherents and that part of the nation
which remained subject to Cartismandua, and in this war the Romans once
more took part under Vettius Bolanus. Venusius was at the head of a
powerful army, and the subjects of the queen flocked daily to his
standard. Cartismandua was reduced to the last extremity, and invoked
the protection of the Romans, who sent troops to her assistance. The war
was prosecuted with varied success; many battles were fought; but
Venusius succeeded in obtaining the throne of the whole nation.[34]
Under Petilius Cerealis, the successor of Vettius Bolanus, who was sent
by the Emperor Vespasian to reduce the Brigantes, the war was brought to
a conclusion. With the assistance of a powerful army, which struck
terror into the natives, he attacked the whole nation of the Brigantes;
and, after a struggle, in which various battles were fought and much
slaughter took place, he subjected the greater part of the extensive
territory in the possession of that powerful nation to the Romans. This
conquest was maintained by his successor Julius Frontinus.[35]
It was during this war with the Brigantes, in which the Roman troops had
probably frequently approached the more northern portion of their
territories, that the Romans became aware of the name of the people who
occupied the country beyond them, and acquired some information
connected with these more northern and hitherto unknown districts. They
now learned the existence of a people to the north of the Brigantes,
whom they termed ‘Caledonii Britanni,’ or Caledonian Britons.[36] The
Western Sea which bounded them they termed the ‘Caledonius Oceanus.’[37]
The war under Vettius Bolanus had, it was supposed, reached the
Caledonian plains.[38] On the conclusion of the war the Roman province
approached the vicinity of the ‘Sylva Caledonia,’ or Caledonian
Forest.[39] They now knew of the ‘Promontorium Caledoniæ,’ or Promontory
of Caledonia, by which they must have meant the peninsula of Kintyre.
From thence could be seen the islands of the Hebudes, five in
number;[40] and they had heard reports of a singular state of society
among their inhabitants. It was reported that they knew nothing of the
cultivation of the ground, but lived upon fish and milk, which latter
implies the possession of herds of cattle. They had, it was said, one
king, who was not allowed to possess property, lest it should lead him
to avarice and injustice, or a wife, lest a legitimate family should
provoke ambition.[41] In short, they learned that there existed among
this new people a state of society similar to that which Cæsar reported
to have found among the indigenous inhabitants of the interior of
Britain. The Orkneys they already knew by report.
The name of Thule was familiar to them as an island whose situation and
attributes were entirely the creation of imagination. The geographers
knew of it as a remote island in the Northern Ocean, the type of
whatever was most northern in the known western world, as the expression
Hyperborean had been to the Greeks. The poets applied it as a poetical
appellation for that part of Britain which remained inaccessible to the
Roman arms, the seat of the recently known Caledonian Britons, and
which, from the deep indentation into the country of the Firths of Forth
and Clyde, and the narrow neck of land between them, presented the
appearance as if it were, to use the words of Tacitus, another island.
The peculiar customs of the ruder Britons are attributed to these
inhabitants of the poetic Thule. They are termed ‘Cærulei’ or Green,
from the woad with which they stained their bodies; and they are said to
have fought in chariots.[42]
[Sidenote: A.D. 78. Arrival of Julius Agricola as governor.]
Such was the state of Britain, and such the knowledge the Romans now
possessed of its northern districts and tribes, when, in the middle of
the summer of the year 78, Julius Agricola arrived to take the
government of Britain. The frontiers of the Roman province had been
extended over the western tribes of Wales, and advanced beyond the
Humber to the north, till they embraced the greater part of the
territories of the Brigantes, and its northern limit certainly touched
upon the Solway Firth in the north-west, while it did not probably fall
much short of the Firth of Forth on the north-east. The present southern
boundary of Scotland seems to have represented the northern limit of the
Roman province at this time, and Agricola was thus the first to carry
the Roman arms within the limits of that part of Britain which
afterwards constituted the kingdom of Scotland.
Agricola had every circumstance in his favour in commencing his
government which could tend to a distinguished result, and the
consciousness of this probably led him to desire to add the wild and
barren regions of the north to the acquisitions of Rome—a design which
could not be justified on any considerations of sound policy, and for
which, in encountering natives apparently of a different race, there was
little excuse. He had already served under three of the governors of
Britain, two of these, Petilius Cerealis and Suetonius Paulinus, among
the most distinguished. He was familiar with all the characteristics and
peculiarities of a war with the British tribes. He had acquired no small
renown for military talent and success, and had given evidence of those
enlarged conceptions of policy and views of government which could not
but greatly affect the state and progress of the province under his
charge.
The appointment of a new governor seems generally to have been a signal
to the persevering hostility of the British tribes to strike a blow for
their independence, till practical experience of the qualities of their
antagonist showed them whether success was likely to attend a
prosecution of the war; and accordingly the first year of a new
government appears always to have been marked by the insurrection of one
or more of the subjugated tribes. On the arrival of Agricola he found
the western nation of the Ordovices in open insurrection. The summer was
far advanced, and the Roman troops stationed at different quarters
expected a cessation of arms during the rest of the year; but, adopting
the policy of Suetonius, Agricola at once drew the troops together, and
attacking the enemy, the Ordovices were defeated in battle and entirely
crushed for the time. Agricola, still having the example of Suetonius
before him, followed up his advantage and accomplished what the latter
had attempted, the subjugation of the island of Mona or Anglesea.
Peace being restored, Agricola now directed his attention to a better
administration of the province, and to the introduction of those
measures most likely to lead to the consolidation of the Roman power and
the quiet submission of the inhabitants of the province. Justice and
moderation were the characteristics of his government. An equal
administration of the laws, and the removal of those burdens and
exactions which pressed most heavily upon the natives, could not but in
time have the desired effect.
[Sidenote: A.D. 79. Second Campaign of Agricola; over-runs districts on
the Solway.]
As soon as the summer of the next year arrived, Agricola proceeded to
carry into execution his deliberately-formed plan for the subjugation of
the northern tribes who had hitherto maintained their independence, and,
indeed, had not as yet come into hostile collision with the Roman power
in Britain. He appears to have directed his course towards the Solway
Firth, and slowly and steadily penetrated into the wild country which
stretches along its northern shore, and brought the tribes which
possessed it under subjection.[43] These tribes seem to have formed part
of the great nation of the Brigantes, a portion of whose territories had
remained unsubdued by his predecessor Petilius Cerealis. He surrounded
the subjugated tribes with forts and garrisons, and the remains of the
numerous Roman camps and stations, which are still to be seen in this
district, comprising the counties of Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and
Wigtown, attest the extent to which he had penetrated through that
country and garrisoned it with Roman troops. Between the hills which
bound Galloway and Dumfriesshire on the north and the Solway Firth on
the south, the remains of Roman works are to be found in abundance from
the Annan to the Cree, and surround the mouth of every river which pours
its waters into that estuary.[44] The great and extensive nation of the
Brigantes was now entirely included within the limits of the Roman
province; and Agricola saw before him a barren and hilly region which
divided it from the northern tribes, still comparatively unknown except
by name to the Romans, and with whom their arms had not yet come in
contact.
The following winter was devoted to reducing the turbulent character of
the nations recently added to the province to the quiet submission of
provincial subjects. The policy adopted was the effectual one of
introducing a taste for the habits and pleasures of civilised life. He
encouraged them to build temples, courts of justice, and houses of a
better description. He took measures for the education of the young. The
natives soon began to study the Roman language and to adopt their dress,
and by degrees acquired a taste for the luxurious and voluptuous life of
the Romans, of which the numerous remains of Roman baths which have been
discovered within the limits of the Brigantian territory afford no
slight indication.[45]
[Sidenote: A.D. 80. Third summer; ravages to the Tay.]
The third year introduced Agricola to regions hitherto untrodden by
Roman foot. He penetrated with his army through the hilly region which
separates the waters pouring their floods into the Solway from those
which flow towards the Clyde. He entered a country occupied by ‘new
nations,’[46] and ravaged their territories as far as the estuary of the
‘Tavaus’ or Tay. His course appears, so far as we can judge by the
remains of the Roman camps, to have been from Annandale to the strath of
the river Clyde, through Lanarkshire and Stirlingshire, whence he passed
into the vale of Stratherne by the great entrance into the northern
districts during the early period of Scottish history—the ford of the
Forth at Stirling, and the pass through the range of the Ochills formed
by the glen of the river Allan, and reached as far as where the river
Tay flows into the estuary of the same name.[47]
The country thus rapidly acquired was secured by forts, which, says the
historian, were so admirably placed, that none were either taken or
surrendered; and these we can no doubt still recognise in the remains of
those strong Roman fortified posts which we find placed opposite the
entrance of the principal passes in the Grampians—the stationary camps
of Bochastle at the Pass of Leny, Dealgan Ross at Comrie, Fendoch at the
pass of the Almond, the camp at the junction of the Almond and the Tay,
and the fort at Ardargie. These obviously surround the very territory
which Agricola had just overrun, and are well calculated to protect it
against the invasions of the natives from the recesses of the mountains,
into which the Roman arms could not follow them; while the great camp at
Ardoch marks the position of the entire Roman army. In consequence of
these posts being thus maintained, the Roman troops retained possession
of the newly-acquired territory during the winter.
[Sidenote: A.D. 81.
Fourth summer; fortifies the isthmus between Forth and
Clyde.]
Agricola, with his usual policy, took measures still further to secure
the country he had already gained before he attempted to push his
conquests farther; and the position of the Firths of Forth and Clyde,
and the comparatively narrow neck of land between these, presented
itself to him as so remarkable a natural boundary, that he fixed upon it
as the frontier of the future province. The fourth summer was therefore
spent in securing this barrier, which he fortified by a chain of posts
from the eastern to the western firth.[48] From the shores of the Forth
in the neighbourhood of Borrowstounness to Old Kilpatrick on the Clyde,
these forts extended westward at intervals of from two to three miles.
In front of them stretches what must have been a morass, and on the
heights on the opposite side of the valley are a similar range of native
hill-forts.
Having thus secured the country he had already overrun, Agricola now
prepared for the subjugation of the tribes which lay still farther to
the north. The formidable character of this undertaking, even to the
experienced Roman general, may be estimated by the cautious and
deliberate manner in which he prepared for a great struggle; and in the
position in which he then found himself, the conception of such a plan
must have required no ordinary power of firm determination. Before him,
the more northern regions were protected by a great natural barrier
formed by two important arms of the sea, which in any farther advance he
must leave behind him. Between these two estuaries he had drawn a line
of forts as the formal boundary, for the time, of the province. Beyond
them, at the distance of not many miles, were the forts he had placed
the year before the last, in which a few of the troops maintained
themselves in the precarious possession of a district he acknowledged to
be still hostile. On one side the rough line of the Fifeshire coast
stretched on the north side of Bodotria, or the Firth of Forth, into the
German Ocean. On the other a mountainous region was seen tending towards
the Caledonian or Western Ocean; and the northern horizon presented to
his view the great range of the so-called Grampians, extending from the
vicinity of the Roman stations in one formidable array of mountains
towards the north-east as far as the eye could reach. Of the extent of
the country beyond them; of the numbers and warlike character of the
tribes its recesses concealed; of whether the island still stretched far
to the north, or whether he was at no great distance from its northern
promontories; of whether its breadth was confined to what he had already
experienced, or whether unknown regions, peopled by tribes more warlike
than those he had already encountered, stretched far into the Eastern
and Western Seas, he as yet knew nothing.
[Sidenote: A.D. 82.
Fifth summer; visits Argyll and Kintyre.]
His first object, therefore, was to form some estimate of the real
character of the undertaking before him. With this view, and in order to
ascertain the character of the western side of the country before him,
he in the fifth summer crossed the Firth of Clyde with a small body of
troops in one vessel, and penetrated through the hostile districts of
Cowall and Kintyre till he saw the Western Ocean, with the coast running
due north, presenting in the interior one mass of inaccessible
mountains, the five islands of the Hebudes, and the blue shores of
Ireland dimly rising above the western horizon.[49] The character of the
country on the west being thus ascertained, he determined to make his
attack by forcing his way through the country on the east, and, fearing
a combination of the more northern tribes, he combined the fleet with
the army in his operations.
[Sidenote: A.D. 83-86.
Three years’ war north of the Forth.]
Having crossed the former in the beginning of the sixth summer to
explore the harbours on the coast of Fife, he appears to have had his
army conveyed across the Bodotria, or Firth of Forth, into the rough
peninsula of Fife on the north side of it, and to have gradually, but
thoroughly, acquired possession of the country between the Firths of
Forth and Tay, while his fleet encircled the coast of Fife, and
penetrated into the latter estuary. The appearance of the Roman fleet in
the Firth of Tay, making their way, as it were, into the recesses of the
country, naturally caused great alarm among the natives; and in order to
compel Agricola to abandon his attack on this quarter, they took up arms
and assailed the forts which had been placed by him in the country west
of the Tay in the third year of his campaigns.
That this movement was well devised appears from the proposal of many in
Agricola’s army to abandon the country they had just subdued, and fall
back upon the line of forts between the Firths of Forth and Clyde.
Agricola was at this time probably near the entrance of the river Tay
into its estuary, and the large temporary camp on the east bank of the
Tay opposite Perth, termed Grassy Walls, may have been his position.
Instead of adopting this course, he resolved, trusting to the security
of the forts against any attack, to meet the manœuvre of the natives by
prosecuting his attack upon the country extending from the east coast
north of the Tay to the range of the so-called Grampians; and in order
to prevent his army from being surrounded in a difficult country by
overwhelming numbers, he marched forward in three divisions.
His course, judging from the view his biographer Tacitus gives of his
tactics, must have been nearly in a parallel line with the river Tay—his
march being on the east side of it, and the enemy rapidly returning from
the west to oppose him. The position of the army in its forward march in
three divisions is very apparent in the remains of the Roman camps in
this district of the country. There is a group of three in a situation
remarkably applicable to his design and his position. The camp at
Cupar-Angus, which is farthest to the north of the three, probably
contained the main division of the army. Within little more than two
miles to the south-east is the camp at Lintrose, termed Campmuir, to
cover the country to the east; and as the enemy, he immediately
apprehended, were not in that quarter, in it he placed the ninth legion,
which was the weakest. At an equal distance on the south-west, and
overlooking the river Tay, was another camp, of which a strong post
still remains, and which obviously guarded the passage of the river.
The enemy, having learnt this disposition of the Roman army, resolved to
make a night attack upon its weakest division, and appear to have
crossed the river, passed the main body in the night, and suddenly
fallen upon the ninth legion. The camp at Lintrose has only one gate on
the side towards the larger camp at Cupar-Angus. On the opposite side
the rampart is broken in the centre by the remains of a morass. The
enemy forced their way through the gate, having taken the Romans by
surprise, and an engagement commenced in the very camp itself, when
Agricola, having received information of their march, followed closely
upon their track with the swiftest of the horse and foot from the main
division of the army, overtook them about daybreak, and attacked them in
the rear. The natives were now between two enemies, and a furious
engagement ensued, till they forced their way through the morass, and
took refuge in the woods and marshes.[50]
The Romans were now as much elated by this successful contact with the
enemy as they had before been alarmed, and demanded to be led into the
heart of Caledonia. The natives attributed their defeat to the fortunate
chance for the Romans of their being hemmed in between two forces, and
prepared for a more vigorous struggle the following year. A general
confederacy of the northern tribes was formed, and ratified by solemn
assemblies and sacrifices, and the two contending parties separated for
the winter, prepared for a vital contest when they resumed operations
next year. This campaign had lasted for two seasons, and Agricola
probably returned to the camp at Grassy Walls for winter quarters.[51]
The third season was destined to determine whether the Romans were to
obtain possession of the whole island, or whether the physical
difficulties of the mountain regions of the north, and the superior
bravery of its inhabitants, were at last to oppose an obstacle to the
further advance of the Roman dominion. Agricola commenced the operations
of this year by sending his fleet, as soon as summer arrived, down the
coast to the north, to operate a diversion by creating alarm and
ravaging the country within reach of the ships. He then marched forward
with his army nearly on the track of the preceding year, and crossed the
river Isla till he reached a hill, called by Tacitus ‘Mons
Granpius,’[52] on which the assembled forces of the natives were already
encamped under the command of a native chief, Calgacus, whose name is
indelibly associated with the great battle which followed.
[Sidenote: A.D. 86.
Battle of ‘Mons Granpius.’]
On the peninsula formed by the junction of the Isla with the Tay are the
remains of a strong and massive vallum, called Cleaven Dyke, extending
from the one river to the other, with a small Roman fort at one end, and
enclosing a large triangular space capable of containing Agricola’s
whole troops, guarded by the rampart in front and by a river on each
side. Before the rampart a plain of some size extends to the foot of the
Blair Hill, or the mount of battle, the lowest of a succession of
elevations which rise from the plain till they attain the full height of
the great mountain range of the so-called Grampians; and on the heights
above the plain are the remains of a large native encampment, called
Buzzard Dykes, capable of containing upwards of 30,000 men.
Certainly no position in Scotland presents features which correspond so
remarkably with Tacitus’s description as this, and we may suppose the
Roman army to have occupied the peninsula protected by the rampart of
the Cleaven Dyke in front, and Calgacus’s native forces to have encamped
at Buzzard Dykes. These two great armies would thus remain opposed to
each other at the distance of about three miles, the one containing the
whole strength of the native tribes still unsubdued, collected from
every quarter, and amounting to upwards of 30,000 men in arms, while the
youth of the country, and even men in years, were still pouring in, and
resolved to stake the fortunes of their wild and barren country upon the
issue of one great battle; the other, the Roman army of veteran troops,
flushed with past conquests, and confident in the well-proved military
talent of their general;—the one on the verge of their mountain country,
and defending its recesses, as it were, their last refuge; the other at
the termination of the extensive regions they had already won from the
Britons, and burning with desire to penetrate still farther, even to the
end of the island. Between them lay the Muir of Blair, extending from
the rampart at Meikleour to the Hill of Blair. On the east both armies
were prevented from extending in that direction, or from outflanking
each other, by the river Isla. On the west a succession of morasses,
moors, and small lochs extends towards the hills, and in this direction
the battle eventually carried itself.[53]
Such was the position of the two armies when the echoes of the wild
yells and shouts of the natives, and the glitter of their arms, as their
divisions were seen in motion and hurrying to the front, announced to
Agricola that they were forming the line of battle. The Roman commander
immediately drew out his troops on the plain. In the centre he placed
the auxiliary infantry, amounting to about 8000 men, and 3000 horse
formed the wings. Behind the main line, and in front of the great vallum
or rampart, he stationed the legions, consisting of the veteran Roman
soldiers. His object was to fight the battle with the auxiliary troops,
among whom were even Britons, and to support them, if necessary, with
the Roman troops as a body of reserve.
The native army was ranged upon the rising grounds, and their line as
far extended as possible. The first line was stationed on the plains,
while the others were ranged in separate lines on the acclivity of the
hill behind them. On the plain the chariots and horsemen of the native
army rushed about in all directions.
Agricola, fearing from the extended line of the enemy that he might be
attacked both in front and flank at the same time, ordered the ranks to
form in wider range, at the risk even of weakening his line, and,
placing himself in front with his colours, this memorable action
commenced by the interchange of missiles at a distance. In order to
bring the action to closer quarters, Agricola ordered three Batavian and
two Tungrian cohorts to charge the enemy sword in hand. In close combat
they proved to be superior to the natives, whose small targets and large
unwieldy swords were no match for the vigorous onslaught of the
auxiliaries; and having driven back their first line, they were forcing
their way up the ascent, when the whole line of the Roman army advanced
and charged with such impetuosity as to carry all before them. The
natives endeavoured to turn the fate of the battle by their chariots,
and dashed with them upon the Roman cavalry, who were driven back and
thrown into confusion; but the chariots, becoming mixed with the
cavalry, were in their turn thrown into confusion, and were thus
rendered ineffectual, as well as by the roughness of the ground.
The reserve of the natives now descended, and endeavoured to outflank
the Roman army and attack them in the rear, when Agricola ordered four
squadrons of reserve cavalry to advance to the charge. The native troops
were repulsed, and being attacked in the rear by the cavalry from the
wings, were completely routed, and this concluded the battle. The defeat
became general; the natives drew off in a body to the woods and marshes
on the west side of the plain. They attempted to check the pursuit by
making a last effort and again forming, but Agricola sent some cohorts
to the assistance of the pursuers; and, surrounding the ground, while
part of the cavalry scoured the more open woods, and part dismounting
entered the closer thickets, the native line again broke, and the flight
became general, till night put an end to the pursuit.
Such was the great battle at ‘Mons Granpius,’ and such the events of the
day as they may be gathered from the concise narrative of a Roman
writing of a battle in which the victorious general was his
father-in-law. The slaughter on the part of the natives was great,
though probably as much overstated, when put at one-third of their whole
army, as that of the Romans is under-estimated; and the significant
silence of the historian as to the death or capture of Calgacus, or any
other of sufficient note to be mentioned, and the admission that the
great body of the native army at first drew off in good order, show that
it was not the crushing blow which might otherwise be inferred.
On the succeeding day there was no appearance of the enemy; silence all
around, desolate hills and the distant smoke of burning dwellings alone
met the eye of the victor; but, notwithstanding his success, he
evidently felt that, with so difficult a country before him, and a
native army probably re-assembling in the recesses of a mountain region,
which, if gained, it would manifestly be impossible to retain, and
knowing too somewhat better what the great barrier of the so-called
Grampians was, both to the invading and the native army, he was in no
condition to follow up his advantage. The attempt to subjugate the
northern districts was substantially abandoned, and Agricola appears to
have crossed the Tay and led his army into the country which he had
overrun in the third year, and whose inhabitants are now termed
‘Horesti.’ Having taken hostages from them to prevent their joining the
hostile army, he returned to his winter quarters south of the Firths of
Forth and Clyde with his troops, while he directed his fleet to proceed
along the coast to the north till they had encircled the island.
This voyage the fleet accomplished, coasting round Britain till they
reached the Trutulensian harbour in the south, and then returned to
their station in the Firth of Forth, giving certain proof of its insular
character, and some indication of the extent and nature of the still
unsubjugated country. In the course of their voyage they passed and took
possession of the ‘Orcades’ or Orkneys in name of the Roman Empire, and
they saw the peak of a distant island to the north, which they concluded
might be the hitherto mysterious and unvisited Thule. They described as
peculiarly remarkable that great feature of Scotland, the long lochs or
arms of the sea penetrating into the interior of the country, and
winding among its mountains and rocks.
Thus terminated what proved to be Agricola’s last campaign in Britain.
Whether he resolved to renew the contest for the possession of the
barren region of the north, or had practically abandoned the attempt, we
know not, as the jealousy of the Emperor Domitian recalled him,
ostensibly for a better command, as soon as this great battle was known
in Rome. There is no doubt that he seriously contemplated the
subjugation of Ireland and its annexation to the Roman Empire. Had he
remained to fulfil this intention, the colour of the future history of
these islands might have been materially altered. As it was, the fruit
of his successes was lost, and the northern tribes retained their
independence. The result of his campaigns was that no permanent
impression was made on the country beyond the Tay, the limit of his
third year’s progress.
Such is the conception which we think may be fairly formed of Agricola’s
campaigns in Scotland, from a careful and attentive consideration of the
condensed narrative by Tacitus, taken in combination with an accurate
examination of the physical features of the country. They form too
important a feature at the very threshold of the history of the country,
and have been too much perverted by a careless consideration of the only
record we have of them, and the intrusion of extraneous or spurious
matter, to be passed over in less detail.
Agricola’s successor, Lucullus, was put to death on a trifling excuse by
the tyrant Domitian, and the entire country which had formed the scene
of these campaigns since the first appears to have fallen off from Rome
and resumed its independent state, the Roman province being again
limited to the boundary it possessed on the north when Agricola assumed
the government.
One result, however, was to add greatly to the knowledge the Romans
possessed of the island and its inhabitants, and to give them a
practical acquaintance with the tribes inhabiting Caledonia, and
hitherto known to them only by report, as the ‘Caledonii Britanni.’ The
expression of Tacitus in his narrative sufficiently indicates that they
were to be distinguished from the other Britons as a different race, at
least in some sense or degree as the ‘new nations,’ with whom Agricola
first came in contact in his third campaign. This and similar
expressions are applied to the tribes he encountered during that and the
subsequent years of his government; and the arguments of the historian
as to whether the inhabitants of the island were indigenous or an
immigrant population show that, while the Romans observed considerable
difference in the physical appearance of the different races, they were
not aware of any great distinction in their language. Tacitus considers
the question of origin as it affects the inhabitants viewed as one
nation. He says that the red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of
Caledonia might infer a German descent; the swarthy features and crisp
hair of the Silures, as well as their situation, which in the erroneous
notion of the position of Britain was supposed to be opposite Spain, an
origin from that country; but the other Britons, in all respects,
resembled the inhabitants of Gaul. His remarks have generally been
viewed as if he considered that the Britons consisted of three distinct
races, and that there were traditionary accounts of their respective
origins, but this is entirely to misapprehend the bearing of his
statements. They are arbitrary inferences merely, drawn by himself from
the difference in the physical appearance of different parts of the
nation whose origin he is treating of as a whole; and the general
conclusion he comes to is, that notwithstanding these appearances, the
whole country received its population from Gaul, differing in this
respect from the earlier account of Cæsar, who pronounces the
inhabitants of the interior to be indigenous. As one ground for this
general conclusion, Tacitus adds that their language did not greatly
differ from that of Gaul, which implies that there could have been no
very marked or striking difference of language among themselves. He says
that the Britons possessed the same audacity in provoking danger, and
irresolution in facing it when present. The former quality in a greater
degree, while the latter imputation in the main, is disproved, so far as
the northern tribes are concerned, by the narrative of the historian
himself which follows this statement in his Life of Agricola. He
observes one of the peculiar customs of the Britons among the
Caledonians—the fighting in chariots, which was now apparently confined
to the ruder tribes of the north; but it is remarkable that he alludes
neither to the practice of their staining their bodies with woad, nor to
the supposed community of women among them. He shows that, in the
wedge-like shape attributed to Britain by previous writers, Caledonia
was excluded as still unknown to them. In the language put by the
historian into the mouth of the Caledonian leader Calgacus, he implies
in the strongest manner that the tribes embraced in the designation he
usually gives them of inhabitants of Caledonia, were the most northerly
of the British nations; that no other people dwelt beyond them; that
they had neither cultivated lands, mines, nor harbours; and that he knew
of no state of society among them resembling the promiscuous intercourse
of women, as he mentions their children and kinsfolk, their wives and
sisters, in language only consistent with the domestic relation in
greater purity. He also implies that their normal condition was that of
small communities or ‘civitates,’ who were independent of each other,
and only united in one common action by a formal confederacy among
themselves.
The fruit of Agricola’s campaigns being thus so speedily lost to the
Romans, and the Caledonian tribes having, so far as subjugated by him,
resumed their independence immediately after his recall, matters appear
to have remained in the same state, in other respects, till the reign of
the Emperor Hadrian. On his accession in the year 117, the Britons would
seem to have threatened an insurrection; but of what really took place
during the interval of thirty-six years between the recall of Agricola
and the commencement of his reign we know nothing.
[Sidenote: A.D. 120.
Arrival of the Emperor Hadrian, and first Roman wall between
Tyne and Solway.]
In the year 120 Hadrian visited Britain in person, when he appears to
have put down any attempt at insurrection; and, having adopted, or
rather originated, the policy of defending the frontiers of the Roman
empire by great ramparts, he fixed the limits of the province in Britain
at a line drawn from the Solway Firth on the west to the mouth of the
river Tyne on the east, and constructed a great barrier designed to
protect it equally against the incursions of the Barbarians or
independent tribes to the north of it, and the revolt of those included
within the province. It consists of ‘three parts—a stone wall
strengthened by a ditch on its northern side; an earthen wall or vallum
to the south of the stone wall; and stations, castles, watch-towers, and
roads, for the accommodation of the soldiery who manned the wall, and
for the transmission of military stores. These lie, for the most part,
between the stone wall and earthen rampart.’ The stone wall extends from
Wallsend on the Tyne to Bowness on the Solway, a distance of
seventy-three and a half English miles. The earth wall falls short of
this distance by about three miles at each end, not extending beyond
Newcastle on the east, and terminating at Dykesfield on the west. The
result of the most recent examination of the wall is that the whole is
undoubtedly the work of Hadrian.[54]
Hadrian thus made no attempt to retain any part of the country conquered
by Agricola in his last campaigns, but withdrew the frontier in one part
even from where it had extended prior to Agricola’s government, in order
to obtain a more advantageous line for his favourite mode of defence.
-----
Footnote 19:
Orphei _Argonaut._ v. 1171, ἢν νήσοισιν Ἰέρνισιν ἆσσον ἵκωμαι.
Footnote 20:
Herodot. iii. 115.
Footnote 21:
Aristot. _De Mundo_, iii.
Footnote 22:
Polyb. iii. 87.
Footnote 23:
Ast hinc duobus in Sacram, sic insulam
Dixere prisci, solibus cursus rati est.
Haec inter undas multa cespitem jacet,
Eamque late gens Hibernorum colit.
Propinqua rursus insula Albionum patet.
FESTUS AVIEN. _Ora Maritima_, 86.
Footnote 24:
Strabo, _Geog._ Lib. ii.
Footnote 25:
Cæs. _De Bello Gall._ v. 12-14.
Footnote 26:
Strab. _Geog._ Lib. iv.
Footnote 27:
Diod. Sic. v. 21.
Footnote 28:
Consularium primus Aulus Plautius præpositus ac subinde Ostorius
Scapula uterque bello egregius: redactaque paulatim in formam
provinciæ proxima pars Britanniæ.—TACIT. _in Vit. Ag._ 14.
Footnote 29:
The Antona has been supposed to be the Avon, and an emendation of the
text to Aufona has been proposed. This has been pronounced to be a
happy conjecture, but the author does not think so. Avon is derived
from no word that could possibly assume the form of Aufona; and it is
difficult to understand what a line of forts from the Avon to the
Severn was to accomplish. The Nen, which has also been suggested,
confines the province too much. It was more probably the Don, which
falls into the Humber. The Don and the Severn were connected by the
Fosseway and the forts along its line. That the province had reached
the frontier of the Brigantes in the reign of Claudius, may be
inferred from the lines of Lucius Annæus Seneca:—
Ille Britannos Ultra noti
Litora ponti Et cæruleos,
Scuta Brigantas Dare Romuleis,
Colla catenis Jussit, etc.
Footnote 30:
See chap. ii. note ^{63}.
Footnote 31:
Pomponius Mela (A.D. 45) mentions them—‘Triginta sunt Orcades,
angustis inter se ductæ spatiis: septem Hæmodæ, contra Germaniam
vectae’ (_De s. orb._ iii. 6). Eutropius has ‘quasdam insulas etiam
ultra Britanniam in Oceano positas Romano imperio addidit (Claudius)
quae appellantur Orcades’ (_Hist. Rom._ lib. iv. c. 13). It is
difficult to reconcile this statement with that of Tacitus, that
Agricola first made the Orcades known. That any conquest took place in
either case is unlikely, and they were probably annexed to the Roman
Empire in the sense in which an island in the Pacific, when first
observed, is declared to belong to Britain, and named Victoria. The
existence and position of the Orkneys may have become known under
Claudius, and first actually seen under Agricola.
Footnote 32:
The anonymous geographer of Ravenna gives a list of the towns of
Britain when the Romans left the island. Though plainly not stated in
any regular order, they are still manifestly grouped according to
situation, and those north and south of the walls can be clearly
distinguished. Among those north of the wall, between the Solway and
the Tyne, is the town called by him Venusio, and the identity of the
name shows its connection with Venusius.
Footnote 33:
Tacit. _Annal._ lib. xii. c. 40. The expression ‘regnum ejus invadunt’
shows that Cartismandua’s kingdom was now distinguished from that in
the interest of Venusius. ‘Acre prælium fecere cujus initio ambiguo
finis lætior fuit.’
Footnote 34:
Tacit. _Hist._ lib. iii. c. 45. Tacitus, in his Life of Agricola,
implies that Vettius did nothing, and was not equal to his position;
but in his sketch of the previous governors it is manifest that he
endeavours to enhance the fame of his hero by lessening the merits of
his predecessors. The account of the war is taken from his History,
where, although he does not name Vettius, it is plain that the events
there narrated happened during his government, and this accords with
the lines of Statius (see Note ^{38}), which, making due allowance for
a panegyrist, certainly imply a war, the result of which had reflected
credit upon him. The allusion to the Rex Britannus, from whom he took
the ‘thorax,’ is curious. Venusius is probably meant.
Footnote 35:
This narrative of the wars of the Romans with the provincials and the
Brigantes is condensed from Tacitus’s account in the Annals, the
History, and the Life of Agricola.
Footnote 36:
Lucan (A.D. 65) is the first who mentions them—
Aut vaga quum Tethys, Rutupinaque litora fervent,
Unda Caledonios fallit turbata Britannos.—(vi. 67.)
Martial (A.D. 96) says—
Quincte Caledonios Ovidi visure Britannos
Et viridem Tethyn Oceanumque patrem.—(x. 44.)
Footnote 37:
Valerius Flaccus (A.D. 70) says—
Caledonius postquam tua carbasa vexit
Oceanus.—(_Argon._ 1. 7.).
Footnote 38:
Statius (A.D. 96) has the following line in his panegyric upon Vettius
Bolanus—
Quanta Calydonios attollet gloria campos.
(v. 2. 140.)
Footnote 39:
Triginta prope jam annis notitiam ejus Romanis armis non ultra
vicinitatem Sylvæ Caledoniæ propagantibus.—(Plin. iv. 30.)
Footnote 40:
A Caledoniæ promontorio Thulen petentibus bidui navigatione perfecto
excipiunt Hebudes insulæ quinque numero.—(Solinus, _Polyhistor._ c.
22.)
Footnote 41:
_Ibid._
Footnote 42:
Silius Italicus (A.D. 68) says—
Hinc pater ignotam donabit vincere Thulen,
Inque Caledonios primus trahet agmina lucos (_Pun._ iii. 597);
and implies that the inhabitants of Thule had encountered the Romans
when he says, in another place—
Cærulus haud aliter, quum dimicat incola Thules,
Agmina falcifero circumvenit arta covinno.
Statius says of Vettius Bolanus—
Quantusque nigrantem
Fluctibus occiduis fessoque Hyperione Thulen
Intrarit mandata gerens....
Compare this with the line previously quoted.
Footnote 43:
The expression of Tacitus, ‘æstuaria ac silvas ipse prætentare,’ shows
that this was the scene of his campaign. It is only with reference to
the west coast, south of the Clyde, that such an expression is
applicable, and the Solway could hardly have been excluded from it. It
will be afterwards shown that the Selgovæ who occupied its northern
shore were a Brigantian tribe.
Footnote 44:
The position of the Roman camps and forts illustrates in a remarkable
manner the expression ‘præsidiis castellisque circumdatæ.’ It must be
kept in view, in following Tacitus’ narrative, that from the
peculiarity of his style every word is pregnant with meaning, and has
a precision which has been much overlooked.
Footnote 45:
Paullatimque discessum ad delenimenta vitiorum, porticus et balnea et
conviviorum elegantiam.—TACIT. _in Vit. Ag._, c. 21.
Footnote 46:
Novas gentes aperuit.
Footnote 47:
That in this campaign the Roman arms reached the Firth of Tay is
distinctly asserted by Tacitus, and his clear statement cannot be
explained away. Agricola could only reach it by two routes,—either
entirely by land through Stirlingshire and Perthshire, or across the
Firth of Forth through Fife. The former is most probable, as Tacitus
usually mentions crossing estuaries where it takes place; and the
latter route is moreover plainly excluded, as the nations on the north
shore of the Firth of Forth were still new to him in the sixth
campaign.
Footnote 48:
‘Quod tum præsidiis firmabatur.’ These were obviously different from
and farther south than the forts mentioned in the previous campaign.
The expression ‘summotis velut in aliam insulam hostibus’ is the
significant one used in fixing the barrier between the provincial
Britons and the Barbarians (see chap. ii. note ^{70}), and implies
that Agricola’s intention was to add the conquered country south of
the firths to the province. ‘Summotis’ does not here or elsewhere mean
the actual driving out of the natives, but that those within the line
of separation had ceased to be ‘hostes.’
Footnote 49:
The operations of this year have much perplexed historians. The
obvious inference from the passage is that Argyllshire was the region
he visited, and the author has entered thus minutely into the
consideration of what Agricola had to accomplish, and his evident
policy, to show that this was the natural step he would take. It has
generally been supposed that he turned back upon his steps, and that
Galloway was the country ‘opposite to Ireland’ that he visited; but,
as we have seen, its inhabitants could not have been said to be ‘ad id
tempus ignoti,’ and the language of the early geographers rather
characterises Kintyre and the Hebrides as what impressed them most as
overhanging Ireland. Chalmers, in order to avoid the plain inference
from the passage, is driven to suppose that the Tavaus of the third
campaign was the Solway, and that Agricola had advanced no farther,
but this is quite inadmissible. The only alternative, that he crossed
the river Clyde from north to south and entered Ayrshire, is equally
inconsistent with Tacitus’s brief but precise language. Early writers
speak of the Clyde as fordable as far down as Dumbarton, and his
natural course would be to return by the same route as he came.
Tacitus clearly states that he crossed ‘navi in proxima,’ which shows
that it was the estuary, and not the river. The Roman fleet was then
probably in the Firth of Forth, and the expression seems to imply that
he took the first native vessel he could get. There is on an elevated
moor in Cowall, between the Holy Loch and Dunoon, the remains of a
small square fort which has all the appearance of a Roman exploratory
station. It commands an extensive view, in one range, of the entire
Firth to its mouth, the river Clyde for many miles of its straight
course, and Loch Long penetrating in another direction into what was
known to the Romans as the Caledonian Forest, and, if it is a Roman
work, adds strength to the natural reading of the passage, and the
expression, ‘copiis instruxit,’ is singularly applicable.
Footnote 50:
Chalmers has narrated the Roman campaigns with a strange affectation
of military language. He makes the Roman troops debouch, defile, and
deploy through the hills and in the glens in the most wonderful
manner, so as to have rendered the cutting off of the whole army at
any point of their progress no very difficult task to the natives. He
involves the troops in this march, when the army was divided into
three, among the remains of small camps in the hilly region of the
west of Fife in a manner to render the real account of the transaction
very unintelligible. General Roy, with correcter military knowledge,
but without attending to the narrative with sufficient minuteness, is
not more fortunate. He supposes that Agricola’s position was at the
camp at Ardoch, and that, when he divided his army into three, he
remained there with the main division, and sent the ninth legion to
Comrie, and the other division to Strageath, at both of which places
there are the remains of Roman camps; but, independently of the
expression ‘incessit,’ which implies a march forward, conceive an able
general sending the weakest legion into the heart of the Grampians, at
a distance of nine miles from the main body, through an almost
impassable country. So far from preventing the army from being
surrounded, it sent its weakest division into the midst of the enemy.
In what sense, too, could Agricola be said to have followed on the
enemy’s track, and how could he, between night and daybreak, have
received news of the attack, and have traversed what must have been,
without roads, a long day’s march? It is obvious, on a careful
attention to Tacitus’s expressions, that the three divisions could
have been at no great distance from each other, and the main division
nearest the enemy. There is a plan of the camp at Lintrose in General
Roy’s _Military Antiquities_, Plate XIV., which will show how
singularly it corresponds with the narrative.
Footnote 51:
Tacitus commences the campaign in which the ninth legion was attacked
by stating that it was in the sixth year of Agricola’s administration;
and in his speech before the battle at Mons Granpius he says it was
then the eighth year, and that the attack on the ninth legion had
taken place the preceding year. This apparent discrepancy has been
usually solved by supposing the word eighth a mistake for seventh, but
it is more probable that the previous campaign had lasted two years.
Tacitus, after the fifth year, ceases to mark the separate campaigns
with the same precision, and, perhaps, was not unwilling to gloss over
the little real progress that had been made during the last three
years. The expression, ‘Ad manus et arma conversi Caledoniam
incolentes populi,’ probably marks the commencement of the second year
of the campaign.
Footnote 52:
In a recent edition of the Life of Agricola, from two Vatican MSS., by
Carolus Wex, published in 1852, he substitutes Tanaus, Mons Graupius,
and Boresti, for the Taus, Mons Grampius, and Horesti of the ordinary
editions as the correct reading of these MSS., and Mr. Burton has at
once adopted the two former readings. The author, however, questions
their accuracy. It is hardly possible to distinguish _u_ from _n_ in
such MSS., and they are constantly interchanged. That Tauaus is the
correct reading of the first, is plain from the form of the name in
Ptolemy, Ταούα or Tava, and the real form of the second he cannot
doubt was Granpius. The combination of a _u_ or _v_ with a labial is
rarely met in Celtic words. That of the dental with the labial is very
common, as in Banba, an old name for Ireland; Conpur, where the same
combination occurs. As to the third there is fortunately an
inscription on a Roman altar at Neuwied, brought from the Roman
station of Nieder Biebr on the Rhine, where some British cohorts in
the Roman army were stationed in the third century, in the following
terms:—
Idus Octob. Giinio
Hor. N. Brittonum
A. Ib. kiomarius op. fi
Us. posit tum quinta
nensis pos. nt. v. h. m.
which Mr. Roach Smith thus renders:—Idus Octobris Genio Horestorum
numeri Brittonum. A. Ibkiomarus Obfius posuit titulum quintanensis
posuerunt votum hoc monumentum (_Collectanea_, ii. part v. p. 133),
which seems to leave no doubt as to Horesti being the correct form,
and does not inspire one with much confidence in Wex’s new readings,
sanctioned as they are by Mr. Burton.
Footnote 53:
There has been no point in the history of the Roman occupation of
Scotland which has been more contested, or made the subject of more
conflicting theories, than the position of this great battle. Gordon
thought it was at Dealgan Ross, near Comrie. Chalmers, with, less
difficulty, from the size of the camp, at Ardoch; others in Fife, and
latterly a favourite theory has placed it at Urie in Kincardineshire.
Mr. Burton abandons the attempt as hopeless.
The conclusion the author has come to is, that a careful examination
of the narrative, compared with the physical features of the country,
rightly apprehended, points to the site he has selected, and that it
presents features which remarkably correspond with the description of
the battle. This position was originally suggested in the _Statistical
Account of the Parish of Bendochy_, published in 1797 (O. S. A. v. 19,
p. 367), but has not received the attention it deserves.
The combined action of the fleet—præmissa classe—as well as the
history of the previous campaigns, exclude any position west of the
Tay; and if Dealgan Ross is evidently not the place, from the limited
size of the camp, Ardoch is equally objectionable, from there being no
hill near which answers the description of ‘Mons Granpius.’ The
expression ‘transisse æstuaria’ in the plural, in Agricola’s speech,
places it north of the Firth of Tay. The position at Urie involves the
improbability that he marched for several days parallel to the range
of the so-called Grampians, if his route was by Strathmore, and there
are no camps to indicate a march nearer the coast before the battle
was fought. The remains of this ‘vallum’ or rampart between the Isla
and the Tay are still among the most remarkable Roman works in
Scotland, and are known by the name of the Cleaven Dyke. It seems to
have been the work of the same general who constructed the great camp
at Ardoch, for, in connection with the latter, was a small work of an
octagonal shape, with many ramparts, and the only other specimen the
author has observed of a similar work is at the east end of the
Cleaven Dyke.
Footnote 54:
See for an elaborate description of this wall Mr. Collingwood Bruce’s
exhaustive work, _The Roman Wall, a Description of the Mural Barrier
of the North of England_, third edition, 1867. The main authority for
Hadrian’s work in Britain is Ælius Spartianus (181), who says, ‘Ergo
conversis regio more militibus, Britanniam petiit: in qua multa
correxit, murumque per octaginta millia passuum primus duxit, qui
Barbaros Romanosque divideret.’—(_De Hadr._ 11.)
CHAPTER II.
THE ROMAN PROVINCE IN SCOTLAND.
[Sidenote: Ptolemy’s description of North Britain.]
The Romans had now acquired more detailed information regarding the
number and position of the tribes of Caledonia, their names, the
situation of their towns, and the leading geographical features of the
country. These are preserved to us, as they existed at this time, by the
geographer Ptolemy, and his account of the north part of the island has
apparently been compiled from the itineraries of the Roman soldiers, the
observations made from the fleet in its circuit round the island, and
the reports of those who had penetrated into the interior of the
country. From these and other sources of information he lays down the
position of the prominent features of the coast—the headlands, bays,
estuaries, and mouths of the rivers, and the position of the towns in
the interior, by giving the latitudes and longitudes of each. These
degrees of longitude, however, are subject to a double correction.
First, he places the island in too northern a latitude; and secondly,
his degrees of longitude are less than the true degree, and therefore
the number of degrees stated between two places is greater than they
ought to be. Besides this, he has fallen into the extraordinary error of
turning the country north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde to the east
instead of to the north. This error mainly affects that part of the
country between the Solway and the Clyde on the west, and the Wear and
the Forth on the east—the coast on the west being unduly expanded, and
that on the east proportionably contracted. Beyond the Firths of Forth
and Clyde the effect of this strange error is to alter the points of the
compass, and to substitute north for west, east for north, south for
west, and west for south. The former error does not much affect the
accuracy of the relative distances of places near each other. The
latter, with the distortion of the distances and relative position of
the localities which it creates, can be corrected without difficulty,
and that part of the map reconstructed as if this error had not been
fallen into. Where the country is unaffected by these mistakes, his
accuracy is so great, when compared with the face of the country, that
his localities can be laid down, with some rare exceptions, with
considerable confidence.[55]
Ptolemy places the ‘Itunae Aestuarium’ on the west, and the mouth of the
river ‘Vedra’ on the east, nearly opposite each other, and there is
little difficulty in identifying the former with the Solway Firth, and
the latter with the river Wear.[56] It is between these points and the
river Tay that the distortion of the country takes place,—the north
shore of the Solway Firth being continued in the same northern line with
the west coast of England, instead of stretching to the west at right
angles to it,—the Mull of Galloway being his northern point, and the
northern part of Scotland made to extend towards the east. The effect
is, that in the remaining part of his description the word east must be
understood as really north, and that the east coast, from the Wear to
the Forth, is too much circumscribed in distance, while the distances on
the western side of the country are proportionably made too great. It is
remarkable that the part of the country thus affected by this
extraordinary mistake should be exactly the scene of Agricola’s
campaigns; and it appears strange that the more northern part of the
country, the information as to which he must have derived from report,
and the observation of the coast from the Roman fleet, should surpass in
accuracy that part of the country so often and so recently traversed by
Agricola’s troops, with regard to which his means of correct knowledge
might be supposed to be so much greater. We are almost led to attribute
more simple truth and force to the remark made by Tacitus, that ‘it
frequently happened that in the same camp were seen the infantry and
cavalry intermixed with the marines, all indulging their joy, full of
their adventures, and magnifying the history of their exploits; the
soldier describing, in the usual style of military ostentation, the
forests he had passed, the mountains he had climbed, and the Barbarians
whom he put to the rout; while the sailor, no less important, had his
storms and tempests, the wonders of the deep, and the spirit with which
he conquered winds and waves,’ than we should otherwise suppose. If it
could be inferred that Agricola’s soldiers had reported exaggerated
itinerary distances, and magnified the country they had traversed, and
the difficulties they had overcome, and, further, had believed, that in
the second campaign, while the rest of the country was unknown to them,
they were marching north instead of west, the mistake would be precisely
accounted for. It seems almost to add force to this conjecture, that in
the very scene where this emulation between the army and the navy is
recorded to have taken place, and where a whole summer was spent in
subjugating a comparatively small territory—the peninsula between the
firths of Forth and Tay—the distances are still more greatly
exaggerated, and the area of the peninsula increased beyond all
proportion.
[Sidenote: The coast.]
Be this as it may, let us follow Ptolemy round the coast, keeping in
view that he designates a headland by the Greek term ἄκρον, and the
Latin ‘promontorium;’ a firth or estuary by εἴσχυσις, and ‘aestuarium;’
a bay or sea loch by κόλπος, and ‘sinus;’ and the mouth of a river by
ποταμοῦ ἐκβολαί or ‘fluvii ostia.’ By correcting Ptolemy’s mistake, and
restoring the country between the Wear and Solway on the south, and the
Tay on the north, to its proper proportion, we can identify the mouth of
the river ‘Alaunus’ with that of the Alne, or Allan, in Northumberland;
while the next point mentioned by Ptolemy in proceeding along the coast
towards the north—the Boderia estuary—is obviously the ‘Bodotria’ of
Tacitus, or Firth of Forth. Directly opposite to Boderia, Ptolemy places
the Clota estuary, or Firth of Clyde, and the space between the two—the
neck of land on which Agricola placed his line of forts—is correct in
distance. Between the Ituna estuary or Solway Firth and the Clota or
Clyde, Ptolemy has three of the rivers flowing into the Solway—the
‘Novius’ or Nith, the ‘Deva’ or Dee, and the ‘Iena’[57] estuary, or that
of the Cree. They can be easily identified, though the intermediate
distances are too great. He mentions the river Luce by the name of the
‘Abravannus,’ the promontory of the ‘Novantæ’ or Mull of Galloway, the
Rerigonius Bay or Loch Ryan, and Vindogara Bay or that of Ayr.
Proceeding northwards along the east coast, we find the peninsula of
Fife unduly extended in breadth; but the great feature of the Tava
estuary, which bounds it on the north, it is impossible to mistake. Its
identity with the ‘Tavaus’ of Tacitus and the Firth of Tay is perfectly
clear. The position of the mouth of the river Tina, between the Boderia
and the Tava, corresponds with the relative situation of the river Eden,
which flows through the centre of Fife, and enters the German Ocean near
St. Andrews.
Having now passed that part of the country affected by Ptolemy’s
mistakes, as to its direction, the relative distances correspond more
closely with those of the places meant. North of the Tava, or Tay, is
the river ‘Leva,’[58] and farther north the promontory of the ‘Taexali.’
These correspond in distance exactly with the mouth of the North Esk and
with Kinnaird’s Head—the north-east point of Aberdeenshire. Here the
coast forms a bend in a direction at right angles, corresponding to the
entrance of the Moray Firth; and proceeding along the south shore we
have the river ‘Celnius’ or Devern, the ‘Tuessis’ or Spey, the
‘Loxa’[59] or Lossy, and the Varar estuary, or that part of the Moray
Firth usually termed the Firth of Beauly, and separated from it by the
narrow channel at Kessock. After this the distances, if measured in a
straight line, are found to be too great, but if the windings of the
coast, which is here greatly indented, are followed, they are
sufficiently correct, showing that they are derived from the itineraries
of coasting vessels, and that the Moray Firth had been in fact explored.
Looking across the lowlands of Easter Ross, the first landmark noticed
are the high hills on the north of the Dornoch Firth, and two stand
prominently out, forming the two sides of Strathfleet or Little Ferry.
One of these great landmarks is noted as Ὄχθη ὑψηλή, ‘Ripa alta,’ or the
high bank. Beyond these to the north is the mouth of the river ‘Ila,’
corresponding in situation with the Helmsdale river, termed by the
Highlanders the Ulie. We have then three promontories noticed—the
‘Veruvium,’ the ‘Vervedrum,’ and the ‘Orcas’ or ‘Tarvedrum.’ The
editions of Ptolemy vary as to their relative positions, but it is
impossible not to recognise the three prominent headlands of
Caithness,—the Noss Head, Duncansby Head, and Dunnet Head.
On the west coast, proceeding north from the Firth of Clyde, Ptolemy
notices the ‘Lemannonius’ Bay or Loch, which corresponds in situation
with Loch Long,[60] although the resemblance of name would almost lead
us to infer that the geographer believed that Loch Lomond opened upon
the sea. He next mentions the promontory, early known to the Romans as
that of Caledonia, under the name of the Epidium promontory, which is
obviously Kintyre. North of the Mull of Kintyre he places exactly in
Crinan Bay, which must always have been a well-known shelter for
vessels, the mouth of the ‘Longus’ river, where we now find the river
Add,[61] known to the Highlanders as the _Avon Fhada_ or long river.
[Illustration:
THE FIVE EBUDŒ
OF PTOLEMY
Compared with
THE ISLANDS
South of
ARDNAMURCHAN POINT
_W. & A.K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London._
]
[Sidenote: The Ebudæ.]
Between Scotland and Ireland Ptolemy places the five islands which he
terms the ‘Ebudæ,’ and the island of ‘Monarina;’ but these islands are
attached to his map of Ireland, to which country he held them to belong,
and their situation is not affected by the great mistake he committed in
the direction of Scotland. The most northerly of the five he terms
‘Maleus,’ which is so obviously the island of Mull that it gives us a
clue to the situation of the rest, and shows that the islands meant were
those south of the point of Ardnamurchan. The remaining four, placed in
a line on the same degree of latitude, and lying from west to east, are
termed the two ‘Ebudas,’ ‘Engaricenna’ and ‘Epidium.’ The relative
situation of the western ‘Ebuda’ towards Ireland corresponds closely
with that of Isla, and the two ‘Ebudas’ were probably Isla and Jura.
Scarba corresponds with ‘Engaricenna,’ and the more distant Lismore with
‘Epidium.’ These islands all lie in one line from south-west to
north-east. ‘Monarina’ corresponds in its position towards Ireland with
the island of Arran.[62]
Beyond the point of Ardnamurchan the western islands seem to have been
comparatively unknown. No islands are mentioned which correspond with
the Outer Hebrides, and the island of Skye seems only to have been known
by name, as it is probably meant by Ptolemy’s island of ‘Scetis,’ which
however he places apparently at random near the north-east promontory of
Scotland. On the mainland three points only are noticed,—the mouth of
the Itys river, which is probably the river Carron flowing into Loch
Carron; the Volsas Bay or Loch, which can only be the great arm of the
sea termed Loch Broom; and the mouth of the river ‘Nabarus,’ obviously
the Naver; but these points must have apparently been taken from report,
as it is difficult otherwise to account for his ignorance of the true
position of Skye, and for the absence of all mention of the great
headland of Cape Wrath, forming the north-west point of Scotland.
Along the east coast he denominates the sea the Germanic Ocean, and
along the west, from the Mull of Galloway to Dunnet Head, the
Deucaledonian.
[Sidenote: The tribes and their towns.]
Such is the wonderfully accurate notice of the salient features of the
coasts of Scotland given by a geographer of the second century; but his
description of the tribes of the interior of the country, and the
position of what he denominates towns, as compared with the physical
appearance of the country, is no less so. To these tribes Ptolemy
assigns definite names, and to some the possession of what he terms
πόλεις in Greek, and in Latin ‘oppida.’ That these towns were not
exclusively Roman stations is plain from their being mentioned in a part
of the country to which the Roman arms had not yet penetrated; neither
could they have been simply the rude hill-forts, or primitive shelters
in the woods, such as are mentioned by Cæsar; for they are only to be
found in the southern and eastern districts, and none are noticed as we
approach the rude tribes of the hill country. They certainly implied a
regularly fortified town, in which the habitations of the natives were
collected together, and formed the great defences of their territories,
as we almost invariably find them placed near the frontiers of each
tribe, or the great passes from one district to another. They would
naturally form the main points of attack in any assault upon the tribe;
and accordingly we usually find, within the sphere of the Roman
operations, a Roman camp placed in the immediate vicinity of the remains
of these towns; and the Roman stations or roads are useful in assisting
the accurate identification of these within the range of their
campaigns.
A line drawn from the Solway Firth across the island to the eastern sea
exactly separates the great nation of the Brigantes from the tribes on
the north; but this is obviously an artificial line of separation, as it
closely follows the course of the Roman wall shortly before constructed
by the Emperor Hadrian, otherwise it would imply that the southern
boundary of three Barbarian tribes was precisely on the same line where
nature presents no physical line of demarcation. There is on other
grounds reason to think that these tribes, though apparently separated
from the Brigantes by this artificial line, in reality formed part of
that great nation.[63] These tribes were the Otalini or Otadeni and
Gadeni, extending along the east coast from the Roman wall to the Firth
of Forth. They had three towns—on the south ‘Curia’ and ‘Bremenium,’
whose situations correspond with Carby Hill in Liddesdale, where there
is a strong native fort, and opposite to it a Roman station, and High
Rochester, in Redesdale. Their northern frontier was guarded by the town
of Alauna, which is placed by Ptolemy in the Firth of Forth, and
corresponds in situation with the island of Inchkeith.[64]
Farther to the west, the Selgovæ or Elgovæ occupied the county of
Dumfries, being bounded on the north by the chain of hills of which the
Lowthers formed the highest part, and extending along the shores of the
Solway Firth as far as the river Nith. Their towns were
‘Trimontium,’[65] in the exact position where we find the remarkable
Roman remains on the striking hill called the Birrenswark hill;
‘Uxellum’ corresponding in situation with the Wardlaw hill in the parish
of Caerlaverock, where there are the remains of Roman and native works;
‘Corda’ at Sanquhar, in the upper part of the valley of the Kith, a name
which implies that it was the site of an ancient Caer or native
strength. The remaining town of the Selgovæ—Carbantorigum—is placed by
Ptolemy on the exact position of the remains of a very remarkable
stronghold termed the Moat of Urr, lying between the Nith and the Dee.
To the west of the Selgovæ lay the tribe of the Novantæ, occupying the
modern counties of Kirkcudbright and Wigtown. Their towns were—Lucopibia
at Whithorn, where there are the remains of Roman works, and
Rerigonium[66] on the eastern shore of Loch Ryan, the fortified moat of
which is still to be seen on the farm of Innermessan.
North of the Selgovæ and Novantæ, and separated from them by the chain
of hills which divides the northern rivers from the waters which flow
into the Solway, was the great nation of the Damnonii, extending as far
north as the river Tay. They possessed south of the Firths of Forth and
Clyde the modern counties of Ayr, Lanark, and Renfrew; and north of
these estuaries, the counties of Dumbarton and Stirling, and the
districts of Menteith, Stratherne, and Fothreve, or the western half of
the peninsula of Fife. This great nation thus lay in the centre of
Scotland, completely separating the tribes of the Otalini or Otadeni,
Selgovæ or Elgovæ, and Novantæ, on the south, from the northern tribes
beyond the Tay, and were the ‘novæ gentes,’ or new nations, whose
territories Agricola ravaged to the ‘Tavaus’ or Tay in his third
campaign. They possessed six towns,—three south of the firths, and three
north of them. Their towns in the southern districts were ‘Colania,’
near the sources of the Clyde, a frontier but apparently unimportant
post; ‘Coria,’ at Carstairs, on the Clyde near Lanark, which, from the
numerous remains both Roman and native, appears to have been their
principal seat; and ‘Vandogara,’[67] on the river Irvine, at Loudon Hill
in Ayrshire, where there are the remains of a Roman camp, which was
afterwards connected with ‘Coria,’ or Carstairs, by a Roman road. In
their northern districts the geographer likewise places three
towns,—‘Alauna’ at the junction of the Allan with the Forth, a position
which guarded what was for many centuries the great entrance to
Caledonia from the south; ‘Lindum’ at Ardoch, where the number of Roman
camps, and of hill-forts which surround them, indicates an important
position; and ‘Victoria,’ situated at Loch Orr, a lake in the western
part of Fife, occupied by this nation, where there are the remains of a
Roman station.
On the east coast, the ‘Vernicomes’ possessed the eastern half of Fife,
or the ancient Fife exclusive of Fothreve, and the counties of Forfar
and Kincardine. The only town mentioned is ‘Orrea,’ which must have been
situated near the junction of the Earn with the Tay, perhaps at
Abernethy. The nearest Roman station to it is at Ardargie. Farther north
along the coast, and reaching from the mountain chain of the Mounth to
the Moray Firth, were the ‘Taexali,’ who gave their name to the headland
now called Kinnaird’s Head. Their town, ‘Devana,’[68] is placed by
Ptolemy in the strath of the Dee, near the Pass of Ballater, and close
to Loch Daven, where the remains of a native town are still to be seen,
and in which the name of Devana seems yet to be preserved.
West of the two tribes of the ‘Vernicomes’ and the ‘Taexali,’ and
extending from the Moray Firth to the Tay, Ptolemy places the
‘Vacomagi,’ a border people, who lay along the line separating the
Highlands from the Lowlands. The remarkable promontory of Burghead on
the south side of the Moray Firth, on which the ramparts of the early
town are still to be seen, was one of their positions, on which they had
a town termed πτερωτὸν στρατόπεδον, Alata Castra,[69] or the Winged
Camp. They had another town on the Spey near Boharm, termed Tuessis.
Their frontier towns at the southern termination of their territory were
‘Tamea,’ placed on the remarkable island in the Tay, termed Inchtuthil,
where numerous remains exist, and ‘Banatia’ at Buchanty on the Almond,
where a strong Roman station is overlooked by the commanding native
strength on the Dunmore Hill.
To the north and west of these tribes no further towns are mentioned;
and as the Caledonii extend on the west along the entire length of the
territories of the Vacomagi, their eastern boundary formed the line of
demarcation between the tribes of the more plain and fertile districts,
who had advanced one step in the progress of social life in the
possession, even at this early period, of settled habitations and
determined limits, and the wilder tribes of the mountain region, among
whom nothing deserving the name of town in its then acceptation was
known to the Romans. Ptolemy states that the Caledonii extended from the
‘Lemannonius Sinus,’ or Loch Long, to the ‘Varár Aestuarium’ or Beauly
Firth, thus ranging along the entire boundary of the Highland portion of
Scotland. On the west they had the remarkable chain of hills termed in
the early historical documents ‘Dorsum Britanniae,’ Drumalban, or the
backbone of Scotland, a native term apparently presented in a Greek form
in Ptolemy’s καληδόνιος δρυμός, and converted by his Latin translator,
who, puzzled by the term δρυμὸς, recognised in it only an unusual Greek
word signifying an oak wood, into ‘Caledonius Saltus’ or Caledonian
Wood. That this range of hills was at all times a forest in the highland
acceptation of the term, having its southern termination at the head of
Lochs Long and Lomond, there is no doubt.
North of the Caledonii, on the other side of the Varar or Beauly Firth,
lay the ‘Canteæ’ or ‘Decantæ,’ possessing the whole of Ross-shire save
the districts on the west coast. Sutherland proper was possessed by the
‘Lugi’ and ‘Mertæ.’ Along the west coast, from the Firth of Clyde
northwards, were the ‘Epidii’ in Kintyre and Lorn. Beyond them the
‘Creones’ or ‘Croenes,’ extending probably from the Linnhe Loch to Loch
Carron. Beyond them the ‘Carnones,’ occupying probably the western
districts of Ross-shire. Beyond these again, in the west of Sutherland,
the ‘Caerini;’ and along the northern termination of Scotland, including
Caithness and the north-west of Sutherland, were the ‘Curnavii.’ Such
were the northern tribes of Britain as described by the geographer
Ptolemy in the second century, and such the knowledge the Romans now
possessed of their position, and of the towns they occupied.
[Sidenote: A.D. 139.
First Roman wall between the Forth and Clyde. Establishment
of the Roman province in Scotland.]
Ere twenty years had elapsed since this description of the tribes of the
barbarian portion of Britain was written, the frontier of the Roman
province had been advanced from the wall between the Solway and the Tyne
to the isthmus between the Forth and Clyde, the boundary destined for it
by the sagacity of Agricola. Early in the reign of Antoninus, who
succeeded Hadrian in the empire in the year 138, the independent portion
of the nation of the Brigantes had broken the bounds set to them by the
wall of Hadrian, and overrun the territories of one of the provincial
tribes, and thus drew upon themselves the vengeance of the Roman
Emperor. Lollius Urbicus was sent into Britain in the second year of his
reign, towards the end of the year 139, subdued the hostile tribes, and
constructed an earthen rampart between the Firths of Forth and Clyde,
thus advancing the frontier of the Roman province to the isthmus between
these firths, and again adding the intermediate territory to the Roman
possessions in the island. This wall between the Forth and Clyde
remained from this time, till the Romans left the island, the proper
boundary of the province during the entire period of their occupation of
Britain.[70]
The isthmus between the Forth and Clyde presents towards the west the
appearance of a great valley, having the Campsie and Kilsyth hills on
the north, and on the south a series of lesser rising grounds extending
in a continuous line from sea to sea; while the hills on the opposite
side recede as the valley approaches towards the east, till the view
from the southern rising ground extends over the magnificent plain of
the Carse of Falkirk, with the upper part of the Firth of Forth
stretching along its northern limit. The Roman wall was constructed
along the ridge of the southern rising grounds, and the remains of this
stupendous work have at all times arrested the attention of even the
careless observer. This great work, as it presents itself to the
inspection of those who have examined it minutely, consisted of a large
rampart of intermingled stone and earth, strengthened by sods of turf,
and must have originally measured 20 feet in height, and 24 feet in
breadth at the base. It was surmounted by a parapet having a level
platform behind it, for the protection of its defenders. In front there
extended along its whole course an immense fosse, averaging about 40
feet wide and 20 feet deep. To the southward of the whole was a military
way, presenting the usual appearance of a Roman causewayed road. This
great barrier extended from Bridgeness, near Carriden, on the Firth of
Forth, to Chapelhill, near West Kilpatrick, on the Clyde, a distance of
twenty-seven English miles,—having, at intervals of about two miles,
small square forts or stations, which, judging from those that remain,
amounted in all to nineteen in number, and between them were smaller
watch-towers.[71]
Such was this formidable barrier in its complete state; but it is not
likely that it owed its entire construction to Lollius Urbicus. His work
appears to have been limited to what was constructed of turf, and
consisted probably only of the earthen rampart itself. Few probably, if
any, of the principal ‘castella’ formed part of the original
construction, as their remains indicate a more elaborate foundation.
Numerous inscriptions have been found along the course of the wall,
which show that the ‘vallum,’ as it is termed in these inscriptions, had
been constructed by the second, the sixth, and the twentieth legions, or
rather by their vexillations. The first and last of these legions had
been in Britain since the time of Claudius; the sixth was brought into
the island by Hadrian. The inscriptions connect the work with the name
of Antoninus, and in one that of Lollius Urbicus has been found.
[Sidenote: A.D. 162.
Attempt on the province by the natives.]
This great work, guarded as it was by a powerful body of Roman troops,
seems to have effectually protected the Roman province in its increased
extent during the remainder of the reign of Antoninus. But the first
year of a new emperor was, as usual, marked in Britain by an attempt
upon the province by the northern tribes, and Calphurnius Agricola was
sent to Britain to quell them. This was in the year 162.[72]
[Sidenote: A.D. 182.
Formidable irruption of tribes north of wall repelled by
Marcellus Ulpius.]
In the commencement of the reign of Commodus, twenty years later, the
irruption was of a more formidable character. The nations on the north
of the wall succeeded in breaking through that great barrier, slew the
commander with a number of the soldiers who guarded it, and spread
devastation over the neighbouring part of the province. The war created
great alarm at Rome, and Marcellus Ulpius was sent by Commodus against
them,—a general whose character, as drawn by Dio Cassius, peculiarly
fitted him for the task, and he appears to have succeeded in repelling
the invading tribes, and terminating the war two years later.[73]
On the death of Commodus in the year 192, three able generals commanded
the Roman troops stationed at the principal points of the boundary of
the Roman empire—Pescennius Niger in Syria, Lucius Septimius Severus in
Pannonia, and Clodius Albinus in Britain; and after the death of
Pertinax and Didius Julianus—the short-lived emperors who had been put
up and as speedily deposed by the Prætorian guards—a struggle took place
between these generals for the empire. Severus was proclaimed emperor at
Rome, but he found himself at once in a position of great difficulty;
for both of his rivals were formidable opponents, both were in command
of powerful armies devoted to them, and he could not proceed to attack
the one without exposing the seat of the empire to be seized upon by the
other, or remain at Rome without drawing upon himself the simultaneous
attack of both. He therefore caused Albinus to be proclaimed Cæsar, had
his title confirmed by the senate, and sent letters to him to invite him
to share in the government, but recommended that he should make Britain
the seat of his government, and devote himself to the care of that
province. An example was thus for the first time set of the command of
the troops in Britain being associated with the imperial dignity, which
some of the succeeding commanders were not slow to imitate, and a
separate interest created with reference to Britain, which tended to
isolate it from the rest of the empire, and greatly affected the
fortunes of both. It is unnecessary for our purpose to detail the
struggle which now took place between Severus and Pescennius Niger, and
resulted in the defeat and death of the latter in the year 194. Severus
then led his army into Gaul to attack Albinus, who promptly met him by
crossing the channel with the British army, and in the battle of Lyons
which ensued, he also was defeated and slain in the year 197,[74] and
Severus found himself in possession of the undivided rule of the Roman
world.
[Sidenote: A.D. 201.
Revolt of Caledonii and Mæatæ.]
It would appear that Albinus, in the course of his government, had come
to terms with the barbarians or independent tribes of the north, for
four years after this battle we find the natives of the Mæatæ, now for
the first time mentioned, threatening hostilities against the Roman
province, and the Caledonii, who are accused of not abiding by their
promises, preparing to assist them. The governor, Virius Lupus, who had
probably been sent as Albinus’s successor, being unable to obtain
assistance from Severus in consequence of his being engaged in war
elsewhere, appears to have been driven by necessity to purchase peace
from the Mæatæ at a great price, a circumstance which shows the
formidable character which the independent tribes of the north still
bore, and the extent to which they taxed the military ability and energy
of the Roman governors to protect the province from their attacks.
[Sidenote: A.D. 204.
Division of Roman Britain into two Provinces.]
The great extent of the province, and the difficulty experienced in
defending it, probably led to Roman Britain being now divided into two
provinces. Herodian distinctly tells us that after the war with Albinus,
Severus settled matters in Britain, dividing it into two governments,
and Dio alludes to them under the names of Upper and Lower Britain. It
is impossible now to ascertain the precise relative position of the two
provinces; but the older province of Britain, formed in the reign of
Claudius, seems to have been one, while the other probably embraced the
later conquests of the Romans from the Humber to the Firths of Forth and
Clyde, comprising mainly the great nation of the Brigantes with its
dependent tribes. Dio states that the second and twentieth legions were
stationed in Upper Britain, while Ptolemy places the one at Isca Silurum
or Caerleon; and both Ptolemy and the Itinerary of Antonine place the
other at Deva, now Chester. The sixth legion was stationed, according to
Dio, in Lower Britain, and Ptolemy as well as the Itinerary of Antonine
place it at York, which is the only indication we have of the situation
of the two provinces.
These few meagre and incidental notices are all that we possess of the
state of the Roman occupation of Britain, from the clear and detailed
account given by Tacitus of Agricola’s campaigns, to the second great
attempt to subdue the northern tribes, which we are now approaching. The
one great feature of this intermediate period was the construction of
the great rampart between the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and the fixing
of that boundary as the frontier of the province—the line of separation
between the provincial Britons and the barbarian or independent tribes.
To the few emphatic words of the historian of Antoninus, the remains of
the great work itself, and the inscriptions found in its vicinity, add
confirmation and a definite locality; and the great boundary at the
Firths of Forth and Clyde became from thenceforth the recognised and
permanent frontier of the Roman province.
[Sidenote: A.D. 208.
Campaign of the Emperor Severus in Britain.]
While Severus remained at Rome, after the defeat and death of Albinus,
he received letters from the prefect of Britain announcing that the
independent tribes had again broken loose and were in a state of open
hostility, overrunning the province, driving off booty, and laying
everything waste; and that it would be necessary for him either to send
additional troops, or to come in person, to take steps for the
protection of the province. The latter was the course adopted by
Severus. Accompanied by his two sons, and from age and disease
travelling in a litter, he arrived in Britain in the year 208, and
drawing his troops together from all quarters, and concentrating a vast
force, he prepared for war. His object in these great preparations was
apparently not merely to repel the incursions of the enemy, but
effectually to prevent them from renewing them by striking a severe
blow, and carrying the war, as Agricola had done before him, into their
fastnesses and the interior of the country.
[Sidenote: Situation of hostile tribes.]
When this war again drew the attention of the Roman historians to the
state of the barbarian or hostile tribes, they found them in a very
different situation from what they had been when so vividly painted by
Tacitus, and so minutely described by Ptolemy. Instead of their
condition as described by the former, who only knew them as a number of
separate and independent tribes, inhabiting a part of Britain known by
the name of Caledonia, and whom the imminence of the Roman invasion
alone united into a temporary confederacy, they are now found combined
into two nations, bearing the names respectively of ‘Caledonii’ and
‘Mæatæ,’ for into these two, says the historian Dio as abridged by
Xiphiline, ‘were the names of the others merged.’ The nation of the
‘Mæatæ’ consisted of those tribes which were situated next the wall
between the Forth and Clyde on the north. The ‘Caledonii’ lay beyond
them. The former inhabited the more level districts, or, as the
historian describes them, the plains and marshes, from which indeed they
probably derived their name.[75] The latter occupied the more
mountainous region beyond them. There is no reason to suppose that the
line of separation between them differed very much from that which
divided the tribe of the ‘Caledonii,’ as described by Ptolemy, from
those on the south and east of them.
The manners of the two nations are described as the same, and they are
viewed by the historians in these respects as if they were but one
people. They are said to have neither walls nor cities, as the Romans
regarded such, and to have neglected the cultivation of the ground. They
lived by pasturage, the chase, and the natural fruits of the earth. The
great characteristics of the tribes believed to be indigenous were found
to exist among them. They fought in chariots, and to their arms of the
sword and shield, as described by Tacitus, they had now added a short
spear of peculiar construction, having a brazen knob at the end of the
shaft, which they shook to terrify their enemies, and likewise a dagger.
They are said to have had community of women, and the whole of their
progeny were reared as the joint offspring of each small community. And
the third great characteristic, the custom of painting the body,
attracted particular notice. They are described as puncturing their
bodies, so as, by a process of tattooing, to produce the representation
of animals, and to have refrained from clothing, in order that what they
considered an ornament should not be hidden.
But in these descriptions it must be remembered that the Romans only saw
them in summer, and when actually engaged in war; and that, like the
American Indians in their war-paint, their appearance might be very
different, and convey a totally erroneous impression of their social
habits, from what really existed among them in their domestic state.
The arrival of the Emperor himself in Britain, and the vigorous
preparations Severus at once made, caused great alarm among the hostile
tribes, and they sent ambassadors to sue for peace. They had hitherto
easily obtained it; but it was not Severus’s intention to depart from
his purpose of total subjugation, and he dismissed the ambassadors
without a decided answer, and without avowing his purpose, and proceeded
with his preparations. When these had been completed, and a larger force
collected than had ever yet been arrayed against them, Severus left his
son Geta in the province, and taking his son Antoninus with him, he
‘passed the fortresses and rivers which guarded the frontier, and
entered Caledonia.’ Severus had seen that the nature of the country had
hitherto in the main prevented the Romans from penetrating far, or their
conquests from being permanent in the north. The numerous natural
bulwarks, the wide-spreading woods, and the extensive marshes,
interposed almost insurmountable obstacles. What are now extensive
plains, well-watered straths, and rich carses, must then have presented
the appearance of a jungle or bush of oak, birch, or hazel; the higher
ground rocky and barren, and the lower soft and marshy. If the native
tribes were for a time subdued, and their strongholds taken, they could
not be maintained in such a country by the Romans, and the natives
speedily regained possession. The policy adopted by Severus was the true
mode of overcoming such obstacles—to open up the country and render it
passable for troops by clearing the jungles, forming roads in every
direction, and throwing bridges over the rivers, so as to penetrate
slowly with his troops and enable them to continue in possession of the
districts as they occupied them in their advance through the country.
There could not be a better illustration of what a war between the
Romans and these outlying tribes at this time really was, and how
Severus dealt with it, than a few extracts from a speech by the Duke of
Wellington upon our war at the Cape with the Kaffir tribes beyond the
Colony in 1852. He says,—‘The operations of the Kaffirs have been
carried on by the occupation of extensive regions, which in some places
are called jungle, in others bush: but in reality it is thick-set, the
thickest wood that can be found anywhere. The Kaffirs having established
themselves in these fastnesses with their plunder, on which they exist,
their assailants suffer great losses. They move away with more or less
celerity and activity, sometimes losing and sometimes saving their
plunder, but they always evacuate their fastnesses; our troops do not,
cannot, occupy these places. They would be useless to them, and in point
of fact, they could not live in them. The enemy moves off, and is
attacked again; and the consequence is, to my certain knowledge, under
the last three Governments, that some of these fastnesses have been
attacked three or four times over, and on every occasion with great loss
to the assailants. There is a remedy for these evils: when these
fastnesses are stormed and captured, they should be totally destroyed. I
have had a good deal to do with such guerilla warfare, and the only mode
of subduing a country like that is to open roads into it, so as to admit
of troops with the utmost facility. It is absolutely necessary that
roads should be opened immediately into these fastnesses.... The only
fault I can find with Sir Harry Smith’s operations is, that he has not
adopted the plan of opening such roads, after he had attacked and taken
these fastnesses. I have, however, instructed him to do so in future;
but it is a work of great labour; it will occupy a considerable time,
and can only be executed at great expense.’[76]
[Sidenote: Roman roads in Scotland.]
It is to this period that the traces of the Roman roads beyond the wall
must be attributed, and their remains, with those of the Roman camps
beyond the Tay, enable us to trace Severus’s route. He advanced to the
northern wall by the road called Watling Street, repairing the
fortifications of the stations as he passed.[77] From the wall near
Falkirk, a road proceeds in a direct line to Stirling, where the great
pass over the Forth into the north of Scotland has always had its
locality. From Stirling westward along the banks of the Forth, where now
are to be seen the Flanders and Kincardine mosses, there must have
extended one dense forest, the remains of which are imbedded in these
mosses, and there, at some depth below the present surface, are to be
found remains of Roman roads. From the west of the district of Menteith
to Dunkeld must have stretched a thick wood of birch and hazel, and from
Stirling the Roman road proceeds through Stratherne to the junction of
the Almond with the Tay. Crossing the Tay, it leaves the camp at Grassy
Walls, which had been occupied by Agricola, and proceeds in the
direction of a large camp near Forfar termed Battledykes. This camp is
larger than any of those which may, with every appearance of
probability, be attributed to Agricola, and is capable of holding a
greater body of troops than his army consisted of; while, if the view we
have given of his campaigns be correct, it lay beyond the limit of his
utmost advance into the country.
From the great camp at Battledykes, a line of camps, evidently the
construction of one hand, and connected with each other by a
continuation of the Roman road, extends at intervals corresponding in
distance to a day’s march of a Roman army, through the counties of
Forfar, Kincardine, and Aberdeen, till they terminate at the shores of
the Moray Firth.[78] Severus is said by the historians Dio and Herodian
to have entered Caledonia at the head of an enormous army, and to have
penetrated even to the extremity of the island, where ‘he examined the
parallax and the length of the days and nights.’ It would appear from
these silent witnesses of his march, that he had opened up and occupied
the country between the northern wall and the Tay; that he had then
concentrated his army in the great camp at Battledykes, and leaving a
part of his troops there to prevent his retreat from being cut off, had
penetrated through the districts extending along the east coast till he
had reached the great estuary of the Moray Firth, where the ocean lay
extended before him, and he might well suppose he had reached the
extremity of the island.[79]
During this march Severus is said to have fought no battle, his system
of opening up the country and rendering it passable for his troops,
insuring him its possession as he slowly advanced; but the natives
appear to have carried on a kind of guerilla warfare against the parties
engaged in these works, assailing them at every advantage, and enticing
them into the woods and defiles by every stratagem, so that, although
Severus’s progress was sure, his loss is said to have been very great.
This circumstance on his part, and the effect upon the natives of his
success in penetrating to a point which no Roman invader had hitherto
reached, or even attempted, led eventually to a peace, the principal
condition of which was that the native tribes should yield up a
considerable part of their territory to be garrisoned by Roman troops.
The part ceded could hardly have been any other district than that
extending from the northern wall to the Tay, a district which Agricola
had likewise held to a limited extent in advance of the frontier he
designed for the province, and this is confirmed by the existence of a
temporary camp and a strong station at Fortingall, not far from where
the river Tay issues from the lake of the same name. It appears to have
been an outpost beyond the Tay, and there is no known circumstance
connected with the Roman occupation of Britain to which its existence
can be attributed, with any probability or with any support from
authority, save this cession of territory to Severus. There is a similar
camp and station at Fendoch on the banks of the Almond, where it emerges
from the Grampians, and a corresponding camp and station at Ardoch,
which can be distinguished from Agricola’s camp there.
A part of the inhabitants of this district, too, made their appearance
about this time in the Roman army, and two inscriptions found at Nieder
Biebr on the Rhine, one of which is dated in 239, show that there were
stationed there troops composed of the Horesti, and of the people who
possessed Victoria as their chief seat, from which it would appear that
Severus had enrolled bodies of the inhabitants of the ceded district
among the Roman auxiliaries.[80] These are all marks of Severus’s
occupation of this district, and, as there are traces of Roman works on
the Spey at Pitmain, on the line between the Moray Firth and Fortingall,
it would appear that Severus with a part of the army had returned
through the heart of the Highlands.
[Sidenote: Severus’s wall.]
Having thus concluded a peace with the Caledonii and Mæatæ, and
compelled them to yield up to him a part of their territory north of the
wall to be occupied by his troops in advance of the frontier, Severus
proceeded to reconstruct the wall between the Forth and the Clyde, as
the actual boundary of the province. He appears to have added the large
fosse or ditch, to have placed additional posts along the wall, and to
have repaired and strengthened the structure itself.[81]
Having completed this work, and left the province thus once more
protected, with the additional security of the occupation by Roman
outposts of the ceded territory beyond the wall, he returned to York,
leaving behind him Antoninus, whom he was apparently not desirous to
retain with him, in consequence of an attempt he had made upon his life
in presence of the army, while conferring with the Caledonians regarding
the treaty of peace, in charge of the frontier. He had not remained long
at York before the Mæatæ again revolted, and were joined by the
Caledonians, and he was only prevented from recommencing a war of
extermination by his death, which took place at York in the year 211.
Antoninus, as soon as he became, by the death of his father, possessed
of the imperial power, being desirous to disembarrass himself of
everything that could interfere with his perfect enjoyment of it,
terminated the war by making peace with the barbarian natives, and,
receiving pledges of their fidelity, left the frontier of which he had
remained in charge.
Thus terminated the most formidable attempt which had been made to
subjugate the inhabitants of the barren regions of the north since the
campaigns of Agricola; and although the expedition was more successful,
inasmuch as the army penetrated farther into the country, it was equally
unproductive of permanent result, and was not marked by the same
brilliant feature of the defeat of the entire force of the hostile
tribes in a pitched battle.
[Sidenote: A.D. 287.
Revolt of Carausius; Britain for ten years independent.]
There occurs again at this period a silence as to the relative position
of the Romans and the barbarian tribes, till, after an interval of
seventy-five years, the attention of the Roman historians is once more
called to this distant part of the Empire by the revolt and usurpation
of the purple by Carausius, in the early part of the reign of the
Emperor Diocletian. In accordance with a custom now becoming frequent in
the Roman Empire, Diocletian had associated with him in the government
Maximian, and to the share of the latter fell the western provinces of
Gaul, Spain, and Britain. A new feature now took place in the history of
these provinces. This was the appearance of two new barbaric nations,
destined to occupy an important position among the European kingdoms—the
Franks and the Saxons—who now appeared in the British seas and ravaged
the coasts of Gaul, Belgium, and Britain. In order to repress them and
to protect these countries from their inroads, a Roman fleet was
stationed at Gesoriacum or Boulogne. Carausius, a native of the city of
Menapia in Belgium, who had risen to eminence in the Roman army, was
appointed to command it, and soon distinguished himself in repressing
the inroads of these new barbarian tribes. He was accused, however, of
retaining the spoil he took from them, which he ought to have accounted
for, and of encouraging them in their piratical expeditions in order
that he might secure for himself the booty they had taken. Maximian, in
consequence, resolved to put him to death; but Carausius, having become
aware of his intention, anticipated the resolution of the Emperor by
assuming the purple and taking possession of the provinces of Britain.
He took with him in his revolt the fleet under his charge; the Roman
soldiers in Britain obeyed him, and he increased his naval force by
building numerous new vessels.[82]
[Sidenote: A.D. 289. Carausius admitted Emperor.]
A Barbarian by birth, and consequently connected with native tribes, he
appears to have received the ready submission of the Britons, as well as
the support of the independent tribes, and Britain for the time assumed
the appearance of a separate empire, in which he maintained himself by
his fleet. Maximian, after trying in vain to reduce him, at length
concluded a peace, bestowing upon him the title of Augustus, and
intrusting to him the care of those provinces he had already taken
possession of.[83] In the meantime, owing to the disturbed state of the
Empire and the revolt in Britain, Diocletian created Galerius Maximian
and Constantius Chlorus, Cæsars.
[Sidenote: A.D. 29 Constantius Chlorus recovers Britain.]
It appears that the latter, to whose share the provinces of Gaul, Spain,
and Britain were assigned, resolved to wrest the provinces of Britain
from the usurper, but of the particulars of this war we know nothing
except what may be gathered from a few hints of the panegyrists. We
ascertain from them that in the year 292 Constantius Chlorus had wrested
Gaul from the influence of Carausius, and besieged and taken possession
of the harbour of Boulogne, compelling Carausius to withdraw his ships
to Britain, where his rule was popular, Constantius being unable to
carry the war into Britain for want of vessels.[84]
[Sidenote: A.D. 294.
Carausius slain by Allectus.]
The reign of Carausius was one of prosperity to the Britons, and his
government vigorous, but it was terminated by his assassination by
Allectus, one of his followers, who had conspired against him, and whose
cause seems to have been mainly supported by the independent tribes.
Allectus had not been long in the enjoyment of his insular dominion,
when Constantius Chlorus, having now caused vessels to be made, sailed
from Boulogne to Britain two years after the death of Carausius. He is
described as passing in a mist the British fleet which was cruising near
the Isle of Wight, and landed in Britain, when he marched upon London,
and his army under Asclepiodotus, having followed Allectus, a battle
took place in which the latter was defeated and slain. It was found
after the battle that Allectus had few Roman soldiers, and that his army
consisted principally of Barbarians who had been enlisted by him, and in
whom, from the allusion by the panegyrists to a marked characteristic
indicated by Tacitus as distinguishing them from the rest of the
Britons, we can recognise the inhabitants of Caledonia.[85] Britain had
thus been separated from the rest of the Roman Empire for ten years,
seven of which belong to the reign of Carausius, and three to that of
Allectus, and had for the greater part of that time been under the
government of one who united an origin derived from the native tribes
with the imperial authority. It almost seemed as if she was destined at
that early period to commence her independent existence as a great
maritime power, had the assassination of Carausius not altered the
character of her fortunes.
[Sidenote: A.D. 306. War of Constantius Chlorus against Caledonians and
other Picts.]
The termination of this independent government was the signal for the
independent tribes to break out into hostilities; and, as they emerged
from under the government of Carausius and Allectus into their old
position towards the Roman province they now appear for the first time
under the general name of Picts, one section of whom bore the name of
Caledones. On the abdication of Diocletian in 305, Constantius Chlorus
became Emperor of the West, and apparently made Britain his residence
during the greater part of his short reign. In its first year he appears
to have penetrated beyond the wall, entered the plains of the low
country north of it, and defeated the Picts, who are said by one of the
panegyrists to have consisted of the Caledones and other nations not
named, but in whom we can well recognise those termed by Dio the
Mæatæ.[86] This expedition was probably limited to the territory beyond
the wall which had been ceded to the Romans in the peace concluded with
the Emperor Severus. In the following year Constantius died at York, and
his son Constantine, having become Emperor, left Britain to take
possession of the Empire.
We now hear little of Britain, and nothing of the nations beyond the
boundary of the Roman province, for a period of fifty years, till in the
year 360 a new and very important feature in the history of the Roman
occupation of Britain manifested itself. This was the commencement of
those formidable and systematic inroads of the Barbarian tribes into the
province, which were not merely temporary expeditions for plunder, but
evidently aimed at the subversion of the Roman government in Britain,
and, though checked at intervals, were ever again renewed till the
Romans finally abandoned the possession of the island.
From the expedition of Severus to the commencement of these formidable
attacks a period of 150 years had elapsed, and the few notices we have
of the events in Britain show that the integrity of the province had on
the whole been maintained, and that the provincial Britons enjoyed some
degree of security within its bounds, while the northern tribes were
restrained from making incursions beyond their territory by the
well-guarded wall, which with its numerous posts along its line, and, in
advance of it, in the ceded district, protected the frontier. The ten
years’ independent kingdom under Carausius and Allectus had not affected
this state of matters. The provincial Britons must have been equally
protected, especially under the vigorous government of the former. There
are even indications of its influence having extended over the
independent tribes, and bodies of them, whom Allectus had enlisted, were
found in his army. On the termination of this independent empire, they
emerge under a new name; and their defeat and expulsion from the
province was a necessary consequence of the renewed union of Britain
with the continental provinces under the same authority.
During this period of a century and a half, the quiet and prosperity
enjoyed by the provincial Britons led to a corresponding advance in
wealth and civilisation, and Britain became rapidly one of the most
valuable provinces of the Empire. Instead of being estimated, as Appian
represents it in the second century, as of so little value that the part
of the island possessed by the Romans was a mere encumbrance to them, it
is now described by Eumenius, in the end of the third century, as a
possession whose loss to the Empire under Carausius was severely felt.
‘So productive,’ says he, ‘is it in fruit, and so fertile in pastures,
so rich in metals and valuable for its contributions to the treasury,
surrounded on all sides with abundance of harbours, and an immense line
of coast.’[87] The cultivation of grain, and the amount of its produce,
had so greatly increased, that it had become of importance as an
exporting country; and during the reign of Julian it had formed his
great resource, from whence he drew a large supply of corn during the
great scarcity on the Continent.
[Sidenote: Division of Roman Britain into four provinces.]
A change had likewise taken place in its government. By the arrangement
introduced by Diocletian, and confirmed and established by Constantine,
the Roman Empire was divided into four portions, to correspond with the
two Emperors and two Cæsars. Each of these dioceses, as they were
called, was placed under a great officer termed the prætorian prefect.
The diocese of the west consisted of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, and the
latter country was governed by a vicarius or vicar. Roman Britain, which
from the time of Severus had consisted of two provinces, termed Upper
and Lower Britain, was now divided into four provinces,—Maxima
Cæsariensis, Flavia, Britannia Prima, and Britannia Secunda,[88] the two
former or new provinces being apparently named after his father, who had
been Cæsar, and was the founder of the Flavian family. In the absence of
any direct indication of the position of these provinces, the natural
inference certainly is, that each of the former provinces had been
divided into two; and that, while Upper Britain now consisted of
Britannia Secunda and Flavia, Lower Britain was represented by Britannia
Prima and Maxima Cæsariensis. Each of these provinces had its governor,
either a consul or a president. The troops were under the command of the
‘Dux Britanniarum’ and the ‘Comes tractus maritimi.’ Under the former
were the troops stationed north of a line drawn from the Humber to the
Mersey, following the course of the river Don, and on the Roman wall
between the Solway and the Tyne; and those under the latter along the
maritime tract, exposed to the incursions of the Franks and Saxons,
extending from the Wash to Portsmouth. The former appears, therefore, to
have been the military leader in the two northern provinces, while the
functions of the latter were exercised within the two southern.
[Sidenote: A.D. 360.
Province invaded by Picts and Scots.]
The first serious attack upon the province took place in the year 360,
and proceeded from two nations. The one consisted of that union of
tribes which had now become generally known by the name of ‘Picti’ or
Picts, the distinctive appellation of the independent tribes beyond the
northern frontier after Britain had been recovered from the usurpation
of Carausius; but along with them appear now for the first time as
actors in the scene of British war a new nation or people emerging from
Ireland, and known to the Romans under the name of ‘Scoti.’[89] Having
broken the agreed-on peace, they ravaged—to use the words of the
historian who records it—the districts adjacent to the limits of the
province, and filled the provincial Britons with consternation, who
dreaded a renewal by this formidable combination of the incursions which
had now for so long a time ceased. We learn from the account given by
the historian of their eventual recovery, that the districts ravaged by
the Picts were those extending from the territories of the independent
tribes to the wall of Hadrian between the Tyne and the Solway, and that
the districts occupied by the Scots were in a different direction. They
lay on the western frontier, and consisted of part of the mountain
region of Wales on the coast opposite to Ierne, or the island of
Ireland, from whence they came.[90] The Emperor Julian was unable to
render effectual assistance, and Lupicinus, whom he sent, appears to
have been unable to do more than maintain the provinces from further
encroachment.
[Sidenote: A.D. 364.
Ravaged by Picts, Scots, Saxons, and Attacotts.]
During four years the invading tribes retained possession of the
districts they had occupied, and were with difficulty prevented from
overrunning the province; but in the fourth year a more formidable
irruption took place. To the two nations of the Picts and the Scots were
now added two other invading tribes—the Saxons, who had already made
themselves known and dreaded by their piratical incursions on the
coasts; and the Attacotti, who, we shall afterwards find, were a part of
the inhabitants of the territory on the north of Hadrian’s wall, from
which the Romans had been driven out on its seizure by the independent
tribes.[91] They now joined the Picts in invading the province from the
north, while the attack of the Saxons must have been directed against
the south-eastern shore; and thus, assailing the provinces on three
sides—the Saxons making incursions on the coast between the Wash and
Portsmouth, afterwards termed the Saxon Shore, where they appear to have
slain Nectarides, the Count of the maritime tract, the Picts and
Attacotts on the north placing Fallofaudus, the Dux Britanniarum, whose
duty it was to guard the northern frontier, in extreme peril, and the
Scots penetrating through the mountains of Wales—the invading tribes
penetrated so far into the interior, and the extent and character of
their ravages so greatly threatened the very existence of the Roman
government, that the Emperor became roused to the imminence of the
danger, and after various officers had been sent without effect, the
most eminent commander of the day, Theodosius the elder, was despatched
to the assistance of the Britons. He found the province in the
possession of the Picts, the Scots, and the Attacotts, who were ravaging
it and plundering the inhabitants in different directions. The Picts, we
are told, were then divided into two nations, the ‘Dicalidonæ’ and the
‘Vecturiones,’ a division evidently corresponding to the twofold
division of the hostile tribes in the time of Severus, the ‘Caledonii’
and the ‘Mæatæ.’ The similarity of name and situation sufficiently
identifies the first-mentioned people in each of the twofold divisions.
The Mæatæ had been obliged to cede a part of their territory to the
Romans, so that part of the nation had passed under their rule, and a
part only remaining independent probably gave rise to the new name of
‘Vecturiones.’ The ‘Attacotti,’ we are told, were a warlike nation of
the Britons, and the epithet applied to the ‘Scoti’ of ranging here and
there shows that their attacks must have been made on different parts of
the coast.[92]
[Sidenote: A.D. 369.
Province restored by Theodosius.]
Theodosius landed at ‘Rutupiæ’ or Richborough, where he had appointed
the rendezvous of the troops, and marched upon London. When arrived
there he divided his men into several bodies so as to attack different
parties of the enemy, who were ravaging the country and returning laden
with booty. These he defeated, and wresting from them their plunder,
returned to London and sent to the Continent for reinforcements. As soon
as the expected troops arrived, Theodosius left London at the head of a
powerful and well-selected army, and speedily succeeded in driving the
invaders from the provinces, and restoring the cities and fortresses. He
then directed his attention to the restoration of the province to its
wonted condition of security. The northern frontier was again protected
by the stations along the line of the wall between the Forth and Clyde
which he renewed, and part of the recovered provinces were formed into a
new and separate province, which he termed ‘Valentia,’ in honour of the
Emperor Valens.
Such is the narrative of the historian Ammianus; but, as the panegyrists
threw light upon the expeditions of Constantius, so now the poet
Claudian, in his panegyrics upon the illustrious general, supplies
further details of the character of his exploits. The Picts, says he, he
drove into their own region, to which he gives the poetical name applied
to Caledonia of Thule. The Scots he pursued across the sea to the
country from whence they proceeded—the island of Ierne; and the Saxons
he indicates had formed their headquarters in the islands of Orkney. The
stations restored by Theodosius on the frontier he identifies as
separating the province from Caledonia by his allusion to the latter
word; and it may further be inferred that he had again occupied the
castella or outposts with which the Romans garrisoned the territory
beyond the wall ceded to them in the campaign of Severus.[93]
The inhabitants of a part of the province had joined the invaders in
their second invasion under the name of Attacotti, and their territory
was now again taken possession of by the Romans. They had exhibited even
greater ferocity than the independent tribes, and these he now formed
into Roman cohorts, and enlisted as a part of the army.[94]
What part of the recovered provinces he formed into the new province of
Valentia cannot be determined with certainty. It is usually assumed to
have consisted of the territory between the walls; but this assertion,
though now accepted as almost a self-evident proposition, dates no
further back than the appearance of the spurious work attributed to
Richard of Cirencester, and rests upon his authority alone. Horsley, who
wrote before his date, considers that this part of Roman Britain
belonged to the province of Maxima Cæsariensis, and is borne out by the
distribution of the troops as given in the Notitia Imperii; the whole of
those stationed from the Humber to the southern wall and along the line
of the wall which evidently guarded the northern frontier, being placed
under the same commander, the ‘Dux Britanniæ,’ That it was a part of the
recovered provinces, and not new territory, is certain, and equally so
that it was on the frontier; but it is more probable that the new
province was designed to protect Roman Britain against the new invaders,
who had appeared for the first time under the name of Scots, and who
directed their attacks mainly on the west coast; and this is confirmed
by the appearance in the Notitia of a new military commander called the
‘Comes Britanniarum,’ who had under him three bodies of infantry, one of
which is called ‘Britanniciani juniores,’ and six bodies of cavalry, one
being placed at a station on the north of the Don, and another
transferred to the Saxon shore, which would place his command south of
the Humber and Mersey. As the ‘Comes littoris Saxonici’ protected the
south-eastern coast, and the ‘Dux Britanniæ’ the northern frontier, this
new military functionary was probably created for the protection of the
western frontier exposed to the Irish Channel. This position also
corresponds with the order in which the provinces are enumerated in the
Notitia.[95] In the absence of any trustworthy authority as to its
position, and looking merely to the slender indications from which any
inference may be drawn, we do not hesitate to pronounce that the true
Valentia was that part of the province most exposed to the attacks of
the Scots, and afterwards called Wales.
Although Theodosius for the time effectually repressed the invasions of
the hostile nations, and restored the province in its integrity, his
success left no permanent result behind it; and within forty years after
the re-establishment of the province, the Romans were notwithstanding
obliged finally to abandon the island. This arose from two causes:—the
yearly increasing pressure of the Barbarians upon the military resources
of the Empire required the withdrawal of the troops from those distant
provinces which were less easily maintained; and the same cause which
concentrated the attention of the Emperor upon the defence of the nearer
frontiers, and led him to neglect those more remote, rendered the
assumption of the imperial authority almost the inevitable consequence
of an isolated command, and a temptation too great to be resisted. Had
these usurpers been content to remain in possession of Britain alone,
they might, in the distracted state of the Empire, have been able to
have maintained their position, and an insular dominion been founded
which would have greatly affected the future history and fortunes of
Britain; but they aimed at the possession of the whole of the western
diocese of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, and in grasping at too much
effected their own ruin. Their ambition led to the troops no sooner
proclaiming their general Emperor, than they were withdrawn from Britain
and conveyed into Gaul to support the usurper’s ambitious aim, and the
province was thus left undefended to the incursions of the hostile
nations.
[Sidenote: A.D. 383.
Revolt by Maximus.]
The first of these insular Emperors after the war of Theodosius was
Clemens Maximus, an Iberian or Spaniard by birth, who had served under
Theodosius in Britain, and was now, twelve years later, in command of
the Roman army there. Taking advantage of the unpopularity of the
Emperor Gratian with the army owing to favour shown to the Alans, and
jealous of the elevation of the younger Theodosius to a share in the
Empire, he excited the army in Britain to revolt, and was proclaimed
Emperor in the year 383. In the following year he repressed the
incursions of the Picts and Scots,[96] and forced the hostile nations to
yield to his power. He then crossed over to Gaul with the army of
Britain, slew the Emperor Gratian, and after maintaining himself in Gaul
for four years, he entered Italy, and was finally defeated and slain by
the Emperor Theodosius at Aquileia, in the year 388.
[Sidenote: A.D. 387.
Withdrawal of Roman troops from Britain; first devastation of
province by Picts and Scots.]
The withdrawal of the Roman troops from Britain by Maximus left the
province exposed to the incursions of their old enemies, and the two
nations of the Picts and Scots—the one from the north, where the regions
beyond the Forth and Clyde formed their seat—the other from the west,
where lay the island of Ierne, whence they proceeded—continued to harass
the provincial Britons for many years with their piratical incursions,
which they were the less able to resist as the usurper Maximus had
drained the province of the young and active men who could be trained as
soldiers, as well as withdrawn the army.
[Sidenote: A.D. 396.
Repelled by Stilicho, who sends a legion to guard the
northern wall.]
The Britons at length applied to Stilicho, the minister of the young
Emperor Honorius, and a legion was sent to Britain, which, for the time,
drove back the invading tribes, and garrisoned the wall between the
Forth and the Clyde. The recovery of the territory at the northern
frontier was on this occasion, as well as when Theodosius repelled the
invaders from it, followed by a part of the nation of the Attacotts
being enrolled in the Roman army, where they bore the name of Honoriani
in honour of the Emperor Honorius. The Roman historians affording us but
little information regarding these renewed incursions of the Picts and
Scots, their place is now supplied by the British historians Gildas and
Nennius; while the allusions to these events in the poems of Claudian
enable us to assign the somewhat vague and undated accounts of the
British historians to their true period. They tell us of this irruption
of the Picts and Scots, and of the arrival of the legion to the
assistance of the Britons. The poet Claudian connects this with the name
of Stilicho. He alludes to the legion which bridled the Scot, or the
Saxon. He describes it as guarding the frontier of Britain, as bridling
the Scot, and examining, on the body of the dying Pict, the figures
punctured with iron. He depicts Britain as saying that Stilicho had
fortified her by a wall against the neighbouring nations, and that she
neither feared the Scots crossing from Ierne, nor the Pict nor the Saxon
ravaging her coasts.[97] This fixes the date of the expulsion of the
Barbarians and arrival of the legion at the year 400, and Stilicho
appears on this occasion to have also enrolled bodies of Attacotts in
the Roman army.[98]
[Sidenote: A.D. 402.
Roman legion withdrawn; second devastation of province.]
Four years later the legion was recalled from Britain in consequence of
the Gothic war and the attacks of Alaric, and left the island, having,
as we are informed by Nennius, appointed a leader to command the
Britons. They had no sooner gone, however, than the old enemies of the
provincial Britons—the Picts and Scots—again broke into the province and
renewed their ravages.
[Sidenote: A.D. 406.
Again repelled by Stilicho, and army restored.]
After three years, Stilicho sent assistance to them. He appears to have
feared the total loss of Britain to the Romans, and, apparently desirous
to make a great effort for its permanent recovery on this occasion, he
restored the army of Britain to its usual strength, consisting of three
legions—the second, the sixth, and the twentieth—by whom the province
was effectually freed from the invaders and garrisoned by Roman
troops.[99] As long as this army remained in Britain, the province was
protected in its full extent to its frontier at the Firths of Forth and
Clyde; but the position of the army, as indicated in the Notitia
Imperii, sufficiently shows the imminence of the danger which now
threatened the province in Britain, and the quarter from whence it was
dreaded. The three legions which now protected the frontiers of this
distant portion of the Empire, in the last notice which we have
regarding the Roman troops in Britain, are found stationed in greatest
force along the wall which extended from the Tyne to the Solway, and in
the garrisons between that barrier and the Humber, and likewise in those
that protected what was now termed the Saxon shore, extending from the
Wash to Portsmouth. The ‘Comes Britanniarum’ guarded the western
frontier of the two Britains, where the new province of Valentia had
probably been formed, with troops which may have been stationed at
Caerleon and Chester, the old headquarters of the second and twentieth
legions, and the interior of the country is comparatively ungarrisoned.
The doom of this great Empire was now, however, rapidly approaching, and
the withdrawal of the troops from the remote frontiers to protect the
seat of power precipitated the fate of the frontier provinces. The great
invasion of the Vandals with the Alani and Suevi, which took place in
the year 406, and was the first of those fatal inroads of the Barbarians
into the very heart of the Empire which led to its final ruin, alarmed
the troops which remained of the army in Britain, who, on the irruption
of the Barbarians into Gaul, found that they would be cut off from the
other forces of the Empire and exposed alone in their insular position
to the attacks of the enemy, and led them to resort to the step which
had now become the habitual tendency of a Roman army so placed—to
proclaim an Emperor. Accordingly they terminated their four years’
residence in Britain by revolting, and selected Marcus as Emperor. He
was soon slain by Gratianus, who assumed the imperial authority, and
after a four months’ enjoyment of it, was in his turn slain by the
soldiers.
[Sidenote: A.D. 407.
Constantine proclaimed Emperor; withdraws the army from
Britain; third devastation by Picts and Scots.]
A soldier named Constantine was then chosen, owing his elevation mainly
to his name being that of the celebrated Emperor; and this new
Constantine no sooner assumed the purple, than, with the fatal policy of
his predecessors, he resolved to strike a blow for the possession of
Gaul, and Spain likewise. Before withdrawing the troops from Britain,
however, he counselled the provincial Britons to abandon the districts
between the walls, a territory now barely and with difficulty maintained
by them, and to protect the remainder of the province by maintaining
garrisons on the southern wall. At the same time the valleys on the
north side of the Solway Firth appear to have been protected by an
earthen rampart and fosse, which extends from the shore of the firth
opposite the western termination of the wall across the upper part of
the valleys till it terminates at Loch Ryan. On the south coast, where
the province had been exposed to the piratical descents of the Saxons,
and had hitherto been protected by the Roman vessels, he erected towers
at stated intervals. Having thus taken the best measures in his power to
enable the provincial Britons to protect the province, Constantine
crossed over to Gaul with the army, and the Roman legions left Britain,
never again to return. They had no sooner been withdrawn, than the old
enemies of the province occupied the district as far as the southern
wall to which Constantine had withdrawn the frontier; but although the
Roman troops had left the island, the civil government of the Romans
still remained in force, and the provinces of Britain continued to form
an integral part of the Empire. The events, however, connected with the
usurpation of Constantine speedily led to the termination of the Roman
government in Britain, and its final separation from the Empire.
Constantine had no sooner landed in Gaul than an engagement took place
between the British army and the Barbarians who had entered Gaul by the
passes of the Alps, in which the former were successful, and a great
slaughter of the enemy took place. The Roman troops in Gaul submitted to
Constantine, and he thus obtained possession of the whole of that
country. In the meantime, intelligence having reached Rome of
Constantine’s successful usurpation, and that the provinces of Gaul had
become subject to him, Stilicho returned to Rome from Ravenna, and sent
Sarus in command of an army against him. Justinian, one of Constantine’s
generals, was encountered and slain. Neviogastes, another, was put to
death by treachery; and Sarus proceeded to besiege Valentia, where
Constantine then was. The usurper now appointed Edovinchus, and
Gerontius a native of Britain, his generals; and Sarus, dreading their
military reputation, retreated from Valentia, which he had invested for
seven days. The new generals followed and attacked him, and it was with
difficulty he reached the Alps and escaped into Italy, having had to
bribe the ‘Bagaudæ,’ or armed peasantry, who were in possession of the
passes, by giving up to them the whole of his booty to permit his army
to pass through.
Constantine now placed garrisons in the passes of the Alps, and likewise
secured the Rhine, in order to protect the territory he had acquired
from invasion. Being now in undisturbed possession of Gaul, he created
his eldest son Constans, who had been a monk, Cæsar, and sent him into
Spain to wrest that country likewise from the government of Honorius.
Constans proceeded accordingly to Spain, having Terentius as his
general, and Apollinarius as prefect of the Prætorium, and was
encountered by the relatives of Honorius who commanded there, and who
surrendered to him after a battle in which Constans had the advantage,
and an unsuccessful attempt to destroy him by arming the peasantry.
Having thus become possessed of two of the relations of the
Emperor—Verinianus and Didymus—Constantine sent messengers to Honorius
entreating forgiveness for having allowed himself to accept the Empire,
and stating that it had been forced upon him by the soldiery. The
Emperor was in no position to contend with Constantine, and being afraid
of the fate of his relations, acceded to his request and admitted him to
a share in the imperial authority.
Constans in the meantime returned from Spain, bringing with him
Verinianus and Didymus, having left there Gerontius, the Briton, as
general, with the troops from Gaul, part of which consisted of the
British nation of the Attacotts, who had been enlisted in the Roman army
by Stilicho,[100] to guard the passes through the Pyrenees. The
unfortunate relatives of Honorius were no sooner brought before
Constantine than they were put to death, and an embassy was sent to
Honorius in the person of Jovius, a distinguished orator, to excuse the
death of his relatives, and to request that the peace might be
confirmed. The plea was, that they had been put to death without his
consent. Jovius prevailed with Honorius by pointing out to him that he
was in no condition to act otherwise, and by promising him assistance
from Constantine’s army in quelling commotions in Italy and Rome.
[Sidenote: A.D. 409.
Gerontius invites Barbarians to invade Empire.]
Termination of Roman Empire in Britain.
Constans had, in the meantime, been sent back to Spain, and took with
him Justus as his general. This gave great offence to Gerontius the
Briton, who probably only waited for a pretext to endeavour to overturn
the government of Constantine; and, having gained over the soldiers in
Spain, who, being principally Attacotts, were probably more accessible
to the influence of their countrymen, he incited the Barbarians in Gaul
to revolt, and invited those beyond the Rhine to enter the provinces.
The latter ravaged them at pleasure, the main attack having been upon
those of Britain. This took place in the year 409, and that part of the
Barbarians who were thus invited and encouraged to attack the provinces
of Britain were, we know from other sources, their old enemies, the
Picts, Scots, and Saxons. The civil government of the Romans still
continued in Britain, but Honorius, being unable to afford them
assistance, wrote letters in the following year to the cities in
Britain, urging them to look after their own safety. This was equivalent
to an abandonment of the imperial authority over Britain; and the
provincial Britons, who, no doubt in common with the inhabitants of the
other provinces, groaned under the intolerable weight of the Roman civil
government, rose against them, and having, by one unanimous and vigorous
effort, freed their cities from the invading Barbarians, drove out the
Roman prefects likewise, and shook off the Roman yoke.
In the following year Honorius, finding that the existence of the
opposing tyrants, Constantine and Gerontius, had prevented him from
opposing the Barbarians, and led to the defection of Britain and
Armorica, resolved to make an effort for their destruction, and sent
Constantius into Gaul with an army, who shut Constantine into the town
of Arles, took it, and slew him. Gerontius, at the same time, no doubt
aiming at the possession of Britain for himself, followed up his
proceedings by slaying Constans at Vienne, and setting up Maximus, said
by one author to have been his son, in his place. Gerontius was shortly
after slain by his own soldiers, and Maximus, stripped of the purple,
fled into exile among the Barbarians in Spain. The death of Gerontius
thus prevented him from reaping the fruit of his designs, whatever his
object in precipitating the Barbarians again upon the provinces of
Britain may have been.
No attempt was made to recover Britain. It no longer formed a portion of
the Roman Empire, and the Roman legions never returned to it. This great
and momentous change in the political and social condition of the island
took place in the year 410; and thus terminated the Roman dominion in
that island, which, for good or for evil, had so long endured, and so
powerfully influenced the fortunes of its inhabitants.
Such is the narrative of the Roman occupation, so far as it affected the
northern portion of the island; such the knowledge the Romans had
attained, and the record their historians have left us, compressed in
few facts, and accompanied by meagre details of the position, character,
and habits of the northern tribes occupying the barren regions of
Caledonia, who, though often assailed, and sometimes with temporary
success, preserved their independence, and remained in hostility to the
Roman government throughout the whole period of their dominion in the
island.[101]
-----
Footnote 55:
The author has felt himself obliged to enter somewhat into detail
regarding the Roman geography of Scotland, as the subject has been so
much perverted by our best writers, owing to their unfortunate
adoption of the spurious work of Richard of Cirencester. It is time
that the credit of Ptolemy should be restored, and it is impossible
for any one to compare his statements with the actual face of the
country, without being struck with their general accuracy. Between the
Solway and the Tay the country is distorted and the distances thrown
out of proportion by the unfortunate mistake which turned the north of
Scotland to the east. The effect is to increase some of the distances
to a little more than double their proper length, and proportionally
to diminish others. The whole country being placed in too northern a
latitude does not affect the distances, and the smaller degree of
longitude would be taken into account in laying down the positions;
but it must be kept in mind that Ptolemy uses no smaller division than
one-eighth of a degree, giving a possible variation to each place of
seven miles in one direction and five in another. Taking all this into
account, however, the distances between the leading features of the
country, which it is impossible to mistake, are wonderfully correct.
The Latin editions of Ptolemy are the earliest, and are greatly to be
preferred to the Greek. They were printed from a translation into
Latin by Jacob Angelus, and consist of an edition at Bologna bearing
the date 1462, but which is believed not to be the true date; one at
Vincenza in 1475, which is really the earliest edition; that of Rome,
1478, the first with maps; Ulm, 1482 and 1486; Rome, 1490 and 1507;
Venice, 1511; Strasburg, 1513, 1520, and 1522, in which the text is
compared with an old Greek MS.; an edition in 1525, which bears to be
a correction of Jacob Angelus’s translation by I. de Regiomonte, and
in which the principal changes introduced into the later Greek
editions first make their appearance; and the two editions by Servetus
in 1535 and 1541. The principal Greek editions are those of Erasmus in
1533 and 1546, Montanus in 1605, and Bertius in 1619. A recent edition
has appeared, by Dr. F. G. Wilberg, in 1838, from a collation of nine
MSS. with the editions of 1482, 1513, 1533, and 1535, and with a MS.
at Milan, another at Vienna, and two Latin MSS. collated by Mannert.
The author has himself collated for this work the Latin editions of
1482, 1486, 1520, 1522, 1525, 1535, with the Greek editions of 1605
and 1619, and with Wilberg’s edition, and he agrees with Mannert in
giving the preference among the early editions to the Ulm edition of
1482, and the Strasburg editions of 1520 and 1522. In the so-called
corrected edition of 1525 he has no confidence. The variations occur
both in the names and in the latitudes and longitudes. In cases where
all the editions agree, there can be no doubt as to the genuine text
used. When they differ, he has laid down the positions according to
the variant readings, and selected the one which best corresponded
with the appearance of the country. The agreement is mainly in the
position of the towns, and the variations in the features of the
coast, and are, therefore, more easily corrected.
Footnote 56:
The Vedra might more naturally be supposed to be the Tyne, but an
altar found at Chester-le-Street, on the Wear, on which the name Vadri
occurs, indicates the Wear as the river, to which indeed the name
bears a greater resemblance. There is no variation in the position of
these two places.
Footnote 57:
The early Latin editions have, instead of Ienae aestuarium, Fines
aestus. It is possible that this may be the correct reading, and that
Wigtown Bay may have marked the utmost limit to which the Roman troops
penetrated in Agricola’s second campaign.
Footnote 58:
The early Latin editions all read Leva. The edition of 1525 first
altered it to Deva, and is followed by the late editions, and also by
Wilberg; but the distance both from the Firth of Tay in the south and
from Kinnaird’s Head corresponds more exactly with the mouth of the
North Esk than with that of the river Dee.
Footnote 59:
The editions of Ptolemy all vary as to the situation of Loxa. The Ulm
editions place it after the Varar aestus at Lossiemouth; the Strasburg
editions at the mouth of the Nairn; while Wilberg’s edition places it
before the Varar, at the Dornoch Firth. The Ulm reading is here
preferred from the resemblance of Loxa to Lossie. The reading which
places it north of the Varar seems inadmissible, as it is described by
Ptolemy as the mouth of a river, and not an estuary or a bay, such as
the Dornoch or Cromarty Firths would be described.
Footnote 60:
This has generally been supposed to be Loch Fine, in the usual random
way of selecting the first large loch near about that part of the
coast, but the position corresponds much more nearly with that of Loch
Long. Its distance from the promontory of Kintyre is too great, and
its vicinity to the Clyde too marked, for Loch Fine. The name,
moreover, has clearly reference to the neighbouring Lake of Lomond,
and the district of Lennox, the old name of which was Leamhan.
Footnote 61:
In the same loose way the Linnhe Loch is usually supposed to be meant
by the Longus Fluvius, but it is impossible to suppose that a great
arm of the sea—the greatest on the west coast—could be expressed by
the word Fluvius. The editions give two different readings of the
position, but that of all the editions, except Wilberg’s, corresponds
with the mouth of the river Add.
Footnote 62:
Epidium has generally been identified with the island of Isla, from
the natural enough inference that its name connects it with the
Epidium promontorium, and consequently historians have been much at a
loss where to look for the two Ebudas, and have resorted to mere
conjecture. The Epidii seem, however, to have occupied Lorn as well as
Kintyre, and the name would be appropriate to any island on that
coast. Ptolemy places the two Ebudas close together, and makes them
the most westerly of the group, while Maleus or Mull is the most
northerly, placing it between Engaricenna and Epidium, which latter is
the most easterly; and a comparison between Ptolemy’s positions and
those of the islands south of the point of Ardnamurchan seems to leave
little doubt as to their identity.
Ptolemy’s five Ebudas with Monarina form the group of islands
frequently mentioned in ancient Irish documents as ‘Ara, Ile, Rachra
acus innsi orcheana,’ that is Arran, Isla, Rachra, and the other
islands.
Footnote 63:
This appears from many circumstances. Pausanias implies it when he
says that Antoninus, who advanced the frontier of the province from
Hadrian’s wall to the Firths of Forth and Clyde, took land from the
Brigantes (Paus. viii. 43). Tacitus mentions Venusius, King of the
Brigantes, hostile to Rome, and that his frontiers were to the north
of the province appears from the geographer of Ravenna placing the
town of Venusio north of the stations at the wall. The early Latin
editions of Ptolemy omit the Gadeni, and call the tribe north of the
wall Otalini; but the edition of 1525, and the later editions, have
‘Gadeni, the more northern (western); Otadeni, the more southern
(eastern);’ and the name Gadeni occurs in inscriptions. If this is the
correct reading, however, it is obvious that Ptolemy considered them
as substantially the same people, as he places the towns of Bremenium
and Curia among them generally, without distinguishing to which tribe
each belonged, and the terminations are the same. Inscriptions
mentioning the god of the Gadeni have been found at Reesingham and at
Old Penrith, within the territory of the Brigantes. On the other hand,
an inscription to the goddess Brigantia has been found at Middlebie,
within the territory of the Selgovæ.
Footnote 64:
This seems to be the town mentioned by Bede, _Ec. Hist._ B. i. c. 12,
‘Orientalis (sinus) habet in medio sui urbem Giudi.’
Footnote 65:
Trimontium has been identified with the Eildon hills in Roxburghshire,
owing simply to the resemblance of the form of the hill with a station
supposed to be called the Three Mountains; but it is more probable
that the syllable Tri represents the Welsh Tre or Tref, and that it is
a rendering of Trefmynydd, or the Town on the Mountain. To place it at
the Eildon hills is to do great violence to Ptolemy’s text.
Footnote 66:
The first of our historians to make use of Ptolemy was Hector Boece,
but he placed his names too far north. He puts the Brigantes in
Galloway, and the Novantes in Kintyre, and hence their towns are
placed in Argyll instead of Wigtown. The Ulm edition of 1486, which is
a very inaccurate one, was apparently the edition used by Boece, and
in it the name Rerigonium is misprinted Beregonium. Boece applied the
name to the vitrified remains, the correct name of which was
Dunmhicuisneachan, the fort of the sons of Uisneach, now corrupted
into Dunmacsniochan, and thus arose one of the spurious traditions
created by Boece’s History.
Footnote 67:
In some of the editions this name is Vanduara, and is considered by
Chalmers to have been Paisley, and he has been followed by all
subsequent writers. His reasons are very inconclusive, viz. that there
are said to have been Roman remains at Paisley, and that Vanduara is
probably derived from the Welsh Gwendwr or White water, and the river
at Paisley is called the White Cart. But rivers do not change their
names. If it had ever been called Gwendwr, it would have borne the
name still; and to rest the identity of Vanduara with Paisley upon a
mere conjectural etymology is the reverse of satisfactory. The best
editions give Vandogara as the form of the name, which obviously
connects it with Vindogara or the bay of Ayr; and Ptolemy’s position
corresponds very closely with Loudon Hill on the river Irvine, where
there is a Roman camp. What confirms this identity is, that the towns
in the territory of the Damnonii appear afterwards to have been all
connected with Roman roads, and there are the remains of a Roman road
leading from this camp to Carstairs.
Footnote 68:
All editions agree in placing Devana in the interior of the country,
at a distance of at least thirty miles from the coast. Its identity
with the sea-port of Aberdeen rests upon the authority of Richard of
Cirencester alone.
Footnote 69:
Mr. Burton, in stating his disbelief in the genuineness of Richard and
its results, adds, among other things to be abandoned, ‘the celebrated
Winged Camp; the Pteroton Stratopedon can no longer remain at Burghead
in Moray, though a water tank there has become a Roman bath to help in
its identification, and it must go back to Edinburgh or some other of
its old sites.’—(Vol. i. p. 62.) He is, however, mistaken in supposing
that its identification rests upon Richard. Ptolemy is in reality the
authority for Alata Castra and its position on the shore of the Moray
Firth.
It is of course absurd to recognise Roman remains there at that early
period, but there can be no question that a native strength existed on
that headland. See _Proc. Ant. Soc._ vol. iv. p. 321, for an account
of the remains.
Footnote 70:
The only authorities for the events in the reign of Antoninus are two
short passages. One, the passage of Pausanias, referred to in Note
^{63}, and the other of Julius Capitolinus, who says (_De Anton. Pio_,
5), ‘Per legatos suos plurima bella gessit. Nam et Britannos per
Lollium Urbicum legatum vicit, alio muro cespiticio submotis barbaris
ducto.’ The expression ‘submotis barbaris’ proves that this wall now
formed the boundary between the barbarian or independent tribes and
the Roman province. It is analogous to the expression used by Aelius
Spartianus of ‘qui barbaros Romanosque divideret,’ in stating the
building of Hadrian’s wall. It does not necessarily imply an actual
driving north of the people, but only the extension of the province,
so that the part hostile to the Roman power came to be farther
removed.
Chalmers has treated the Roman wars in Scotland very strangely. His
narrative of the actions of Lollius Urbicus extends over seventy
closely printed pages; while for all this the actual authority is
comprised within exactly fourteen words of Julius Capitolinus. The
campaigns of Severus, by far more important, occupy just six pages;
and yet for these we have the detailed narrative of two independent
historians.
Footnote 71:
The principal stations on the wall were at the following places—viz.,
West Kilpatrick, Duntocher, Castlehill, East Kilpatrick, Bemulie,
Kirkintilloch, Auchindavy, Barhill, Westerwood, Castlecary, and Rough
Castle; and as they are in general constructed partly of stone, and
some of them connected with baths and more elaborate works, they are
probably to be attributed to a later age. See a paper by David Milne
Home, Esq., in the _Trans. Roy. Soc._ vol. xxvii. part i. p. 39, for
the latest account of the wall.
Footnote 72:
Et adversus Britannos quidem Calphurnius Agricola missus
est.—(Capitolin. Mar. Aur. 8.)
Footnote 73:
In Britannia, in Germania, et in Dacia imperium ejus recusantibus
provincialibus, quae omnia ista per duces sedata sunt.—(Lamprid.
_Comm._ c. 13. Conf. Dion. 72. 8.)
Footnote 74:
Dio, 75, 76, 77; Herodian, iii. 7; Capitolin. Clod. Alb. c. 9;
Eutropius, viii. 18.
Footnote 75:
From Magh, a plain. The same word seems to enter into the name
Vacomagi.
Footnote 76:
Colonel Gurwood’s _Speeches of the Duke of Wellington_, vol. ii. p.
729.
Footnote 77:
At Habitancum, a station on Watling Street, on the south bank of the
Rede, inscriptions have been found showing that Severus restored the
gate and repaired the walls of the station. See Bruce’s _Roman Wall_,
p. 384.
Footnote 78:
These camps are as follows—viz., Wardykes, near Keithock; Raedykes,
near Stonehaven; Normandykes, on the Dee; and Raedykes, on the Ythan.
Footnote 79:
The account of the campaigns of Severus, and of the state of the
hostile nations at the time, is given at length in the two independent
narratives of Dio (as abridged by Xiphiline) and Herodian, and
therefore rests upon peculiarly firm ground. A great deal too much has
been made of the Mæatæ by previous historians. It has been stated, as
if it were a name in general use and applied to the tribes between the
walls during the whole period of the Roman occupation of Britain; but
the fact is that the Mæatæ are mentioned by Dio alone, and on this
occasion only. We never hear of them before or after. Innes and
Chalmers talk of the Mæatæ _or_ Midland Britons (that fatal _or_ of
historians implying an identity assumed but not proved), as if there
were some analogy between the names. There is none. The term Midland
Britons nowhere occurs, and the root of the name Mæatæ is probably the
word for a plain, nearly the same in Welsh and Gaelic—Maes, Magh. That
both nations were in Caledonia is plain, independently of the position
that the wall alluded to by Dio is the wall between the Forth and the
Clyde, for Dio styles them both ‘the inhabitants of that part of
Britain which is hostile to us,’ that is, extra-provincial. Moreover,
Dio’s expression ‘advanced into Caledonia,’ is the equivalent of
Herodian’s, ‘he passed beyond the rivers and fortresses that defended
the Roman territory.’ That Severus constructed roads and built bridges
is emphatically stated by both Dio and Herodian, and it is to him
alone that the classical historians attribute such works in Britain.
Footnote 80:
The Horesti are mentioned in the inscription noticed in chap. i., Note
^{52}. The other inscription is as follows—‘In H.D.D. Baioli et
vexillarii Collegio Victoriensium signiferorum Genum de suo fecerunt
viii. kal. Octobr. Presente et Albino Cos.’ which places it in 239.
Footnote 81:
That Severus built or had reconstructed a wall in Britain rests upon
the direct authority of Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Spartian, Orosius,
and Eusebius. Spartian, who wrote in 280, says (c. 18), ‘Britanniam,
quod maximum ejus imperii decus est, muro per transversam insulam
ducto, utrimque ad finem oceani munivit.’ Unfortunately he does not
give the length of the wall, which would have indicated its position;
but he also says (c. 22), ‘Post murum aut vallum missum in Britannia,
quum ad proximam mansionem rediret, non solum victor, sed etiam in
aeternum _pace fundata_;’ which shows that it was after his expedition
into Caledonia; and it is rather remarkable that at Cramond—the
proxima mansio—behind the wall of Antoninus, was found a medal of
Severus, having on the reverse the inscription, ‘fundator pacis.’
Aurelius Victor, who wrote 360, says, ‘His majora aggressus Britanniam
quae ad ea utilis erat, pulsis hostibus, muro munivit, per transversam
insulam ducto, utrimque ad finem oceani’ (_De Caes._ 20). And again:
‘Hic in Britannia vallum per triginta duo passuum millia a mari ad
mare deduxit’ (_Epit._ 40). And Eutropius, who wrote at the same time,
says, ‘Novissimum bellum in Britannia habuit: utque receptas
provincias omni securitate muniret, vallum per 32 millia passuum a
mari ad mare deduxit’ (viii. 19).
Both these writers place the construction of the vallum after the war,
and if it was thirty-two Roman miles in length, it can only have
extended across the peninsula between the Forth and the Clyde.
Orosius, who wrote in 417, says, ‘Severus victor in Britannias defectu
pene omnium sociorum trahitur. Ubi magnis gravibusque praeliis saepe
gestis, receptam partem insulae a caeteris indomitis gentibus vallo
distinguendam putavit. Itaque magnam fossam firmissimumque vallum,
crebris insuper turribus communitum, per centum triginta et duo millia
passuum a mari ad mare duxit.’ Eusebius, as reported by St. Jerome,
says, ‘Severus in Britannos bellum transfert, ubi, ut receptas
provincias ab incursione barbarica faceret securiores, vallum per 132
passuum millia a mari ad mare duxit.’
The length here given of 132 Roman miles is as inconsistent with the
distance between the Tyne and the Solway, as it is with that between
the Forth and the Clyde. Horsley, who considered that the earthen
vallum between the Tyne and the Solway was the work of Hadrian, and
the murus or wall which runs parallel to it, the work of Severus,
supposed that in the original MS. of these writers the distance had
been written LXXXII and that C had been written by mistake for L,
which would reduce the distance to eighty-two miles; but no MS.
supports this conjecture, and Mr. Bruce, in his work on the wall,
clearly establishes that both are the work of Hadrian.
It is inconceivable that our best historians should have gone so
entirely against the direct testimony of the older authorities. They
have in this given too much weight to the opinion of Bede, who first
declared the remains of the wall between the Tyne and the Solway to be
those of Severus’s wall, for opinion it is only, and he was naturally
biassed by the remains of the northern rampart being always before his
eyes. Nennius gives the native tradition before his time when he
quotes the passage from Eusebius, and adds, ‘et vocatur Britannico
sermone Guaul a Penguaul quae villa Scotici Cenail, Anglice vero
Peneltun dicitur, usque ad ostium fluminis Cluth et Cairpentaloch, quo
murus ille finitur rustico opere;’ thus clearly placing the wall
between the Forth and Clyde.
Moreover, placing Severus’s wall between the Tyne and Solway involves
the manifest inconsistency, that, after penetrating almost to the end
of the island, and making a peace, in which territory was ceded to
him, he abandoned the whole of his conquests, and withdrew the
frontier of the province to where it had been placed by Hadrian.
Chalmers, who saw this difficulty, supposes that he built the wall
before he commenced his conquests; but this is equally against the
direct statement of the older authorities, that it was built after he
had driven back his enemies and concluded peace. Mr. Bruce has the
pertinent remark that ‘if Severus built the wall (between Tyne and
Solway), we should expect to find frequent intimations of the fact in
the stations and mile castles. The truth, however, is that from
Wallsend to Bowness we do not meet with a single inscription belonging
to the reign of Severus, while we meet with several belonging to that
of Hadrian’ (p. 382).
Footnote 82:
Aurel. Victor. _de Caes._ 39; Eutrop. ix. 21; Orosius, vii. 25.
Footnote 83:
Eumenius, _Paneg. Const._ c. 12. Eutrop. ix. 22.
Footnote 84:
Eumen. _Pan. Const. Caes._ c. 6. Mamert. _Pan. Max. Herc._ c. 11, 12.
Footnote 85:
Comp. Eumenius, ‘prolixo crine rutilantia,’ with Tacitus, ‘rutilae
Caledoniam habitantium comae.’
Footnote 86:
Non dico Caledonum aliorumque Pictorum silvas et paludes.—Eumen. c. 7.
Footnote 87:
Appian. Alex. _Hist. Rom._ Præf. 5. Eumen. _Pan. Const._ cc. 9-19.
Footnote 88:
Sunt in Gallia cum Aquitania et Britanniis decem et octo provinciae
... in Britannia, Maxima Cæsariensis, Flavia, Britannia Prima,
Britannia Secunda.—Sextus Rufus Festus (360), _Brev._ 6.
Footnote 89:
‘Consulatu vero Constantii decies, terque Juliani, in Britanniis cum
Scotorum Pictorumque gentium ferarum excursus, rupta quiete condicta,
loca limitibus vicina vastarent, et implicaret formido provincias
præteritarum cladium congerie fessas.’—Am. Mar. B. xx. c. 1. The
sentence which follows—‘Hyemem agens apud Parisios Cæsar distractusque
in solicitudines varias, verebatur ire subsidio transmarinis; ut
retulimus ante fecisse Constantem,’ etc.—implies that there had been a
previous attack in 343, but as this part of Ammianus’s work is lost,
it is impossible to found upon it. The peace said to have been broken
probably followed it.
Footnote 90:
The early legends of Wales show that the seaboard of that district had
been exposed at an early period to the attacks of the Scots. Nennius,
in giving the early settlements of the Scots in Britain, says—‘Filii
autem Liethan obtinuerunt in regione Demetorum’ (that is South Wales),
‘et in aliis regionibus, id est, Guir et Cetgueli, donec expulsi sunt
a Cuneda et a filiis ejus ab omnibus Britannicis regionibus.’ And
again—‘Scotti autem de occidente et Picti de aquilone.’ And
again—‘Mailcunus magnus rex apud Brittones regnabat, id est, in
regione Guenedotæ’ (that is, North Wales), ‘quia atavus illius, id
est, Cunedag cum filiis suis, quorum numerus octo erat, venerat prius
de parte sinistrali, id est, de regione quæ vocatur Manau Guotodin
centum quadraginta sex annis antequam Mailcun regnaret et Scottos cum
ingentissima clade expulerunt ab istis regionibus et nunquam reversi
sunt iterum ad habitandum.’—Nennii _Brit. Hist._
Footnote 91:
Hoc tempore (364) ... Picti Saxonesque et Scoti et Attacotti Britannos
ærumnis vexavere continuis.—Ammian. Mar. xxvi. 4.
Footnote 92:
Illud tamen sufficiet dici, quod eo tempore Picti in duas gentes
divisi, Dicalidonas et Vecturiones, itidemque Attacotti, bellicosa
hominum natio, et Scotti, per diversa vagantes, multa
populabantur.—Ammian. Mar. xxvii. 8, 9.
The ‘Caledonii’ of Dio we know were the most northerly of the two
nations; and the ‘Dicalidonæ’ of Ammianus must have extended along the
coast bounded by the Deucaledonian Sea of Ptolemy.
Footnote 93:
Ille leves Mauros, nec falso nomine Pictos
Edomuit, Scotumque vago mucrone sequutus,
Fregit Hyperboreas remis audacibus undas (vii. 54).
Ille Caledoniis posuit qui castra pruinis ...
... Maduerunt Saxone fuso
Orcades: incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule:
Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne (viii. 26).
It has generally been supposed that the province had at this time only
extended to the wall between the Solway and the Tyne, and that
Theodosius added the additional territory, which now for the first
time became a province under the name of Valentia. But the words of
the historian are directly opposed to this: ‘Recuperatamque
provinciam, quæ in ditionem concesserat hostium, ita reddiderat statui
pristino.’—Am. Mar. B. xxviii. c. 3.
Footnote 94:
The Notitia Imperii, compiled subsequently to this expedition, has the
following bodies of Atecotti in the Roman army who were stationed in
Gaul:—
Atecotti.
Atecotti juniores Gallieani.
Atecotti Honoriani seniores.
Atecotti Honoriani juniores.—
Not. Dig., _ed._ Böcking.
St. Jerome says that he saw in Gaul the Atticotts, a British nation,
which implies that they were inhabitants of Britain. He says (_Adv.
Her._ ii.), ‘Quid loquar de cæteris nationibus, quum ipse
adolescentulus in Gallia viderim Atticotos, gentem Britannicam,
humanis vesci carnibus.’ As St. Jerome says that he was then
‘adolescentulus,’ and was born in the year 340, it is supposed that
this could not have been later than 355; but this is a mistake arising
from overlooking the lax sense in which Jerome uses the word
‘adolescentulus,’ which he stretches into very mature age. He uses the
expressions of ‘puer’ and ‘adolescens’ for himself when he was at
least thirty years old. St. Jerome was in Gaul at only one period of
his life, and that we know from other circumstances must have been
about the period of Theodosius’s conquest. That the Atecotti were
inhabitants of the district between the walls appears from the fact
that they only joined the invading tribes after the latter had been
four years in possession of that territory; and that no sooner was it
again wrested from the invaders by Theodosius, than we find them
enlisted in the Roman army.
Footnote 95:
The three bodies of infantry were the Victores Juniores Britanniciani,
the Primani Juniores, and Secundani Juniores. The six bodies of
cavalry, the Equites Catafractarii Juniores, the Equites Scutarii
Aureliaci, the Equites Honoriani Seniores, the Equites Stablesiani,
the Equites Syri, and the Equites Taifali. The Equites Catafractarii
were stationed at Morbium, supposed by Horsley to be Templeburgh on
the south bank of the river Don. The provinces are twice given in the
Notitia, and the order is the same in both—Maxima Cæsariensis,
Valentia, Britannia Prima, Britannia Secunda, Flavia Cæsariensis. The
position usually assigned to these provinces rests entirely upon the
authority of the spurious Richard of Cirencester, and involves the
supposition that when Constantine divided the provinces into four, he
substituted the name of Maxima Cæsariensis for that of Lower Britain,
and divided Upper Britain into three provinces, forming the district
of Wales into a separate province called Britannia Secunda; but if the
order in the Notitia is geographical, and proceeds from north to
south, Maxima Cæsariensis is the most northerly, then Valentia and
Britannia Prima extend across the island from west to east. Then south
of them Britannia Secunda, and farther south Flavia Cæsariensis; and
thus, before Valentia was formed, Maxima Cæsariensis and Britannia
Prima would represent what had been Lower Britain, and the Dux
Britanniæ would command the troops within it; Britannia Secunda and
Flavia Cæsariensis what had been Upper Britain, and the Comes tractus
maritimi, the troops within it. The new province would be formed in
the west to meet the invasion in a new quarter from a new people, the
Scots; and a new commander, the Comes Britanniarum, or Count of the
two Britannias, would be placed there to protect the western frontier.
Footnote 96:
Incursantes Pictos et Scotos Maximus strenue superavit.—Prosper.
Aquit. _Gratian._ iv.
Footnote 97:
... Quæ Saxona frenat
Vel Scotum legio ... (xxxi. 89).
Me quoque vicinis pereuntem gentibus, inquit,
Munivit Stilichon.... (xxii. 250).
Venit et extremis legio prætenta Britannis
Quæ Scoto dat fræna truci, ferroque notatas
Perlegit exsangues Picto moriente figuras
... Ne tela timerem
Scotica, ne Pictum tremerem, ne litore toto
Prospicerem dubiis venturum Saxona ventis (xxii. 253).
Footnote 98:
Of the four bodies of Attecotti in the Roman army, the first two were
those probably enrolled by Theodosius, and seen by St. Jerome in Gaul.
The two last, which are termed Honoriani, must, from their name, have
been enrolled by Stilicho, the minister of Honorius. Orosius called
the latter ‘Barbari ... qui quondam in fœdus recepti atque in militiam
adlecti Honoriaci vocabantur’ (Oros. vii. 40). Thus, on the two
occasions in which the territory between the walls was recovered,
Attecotti were enrolled in the Roman army. They were Barbari who
ravaged Britain, when the Barbarians occupied this part of the
province. They were ‘in fœdus recepti et in militiam adlecti’ when the
Romans recovered it—a combination only applicable to the
half-provincial half-independent tribes between the walls; and they
were probably the same people whom Ptolemy called the Ottedeni and
Gadeni, who extended from the southern wall to the Firth of Forth. The
same word seems to enter into the composition of the names Ottedeni
and Attecotti.
Footnote 99:
The army is mentioned in Britain in 406. Stilicho was consul the
preceding year. The Notitia Imperii refers to a state of matters after
Theodosius, for the province of Valentia is mentioned, and the army
there described must have been in Britain at this time.
Footnote 100:
Adversus hos Constantinus Constantem filium suum, proh dolor! ex
monacho Cæsarem factum, cum barbaris quibusdam, qui quondam in fœdus
recepti atque in militiam adlecti, Honoriaci vocabantur, in Hespanias
misit.—Orosius, vii. 40.
Footnote 101:
This account of the usurpation of Constantine, and its consequences,
is taken from Zosimus and Olympiodorus, two contemporary historians.
The opinion generally entertained that the Roman troops returned to
Britain after the year 410 rests upon no direct authority, and is
opposed to the testimony of those contemporary historians. Mr. Bruce,
in his _Roman Wall_, makes the pertinent remark (43): ‘The series of
coins found in the stations of the north of England, and in the camps
and Roman cities of the south, extends from the earlier reigns of the
Empire down to the times of Arcadius and Honorius, and then ceases.
Any legion coming later must have been destitute of treasure.’
The mistake has arisen from the false chronology of the invasions of
the Scots and Picts, and of the assistance of the Romans in repelling
them, applied to the narrative of Gildas. No dates are given in the
work of Gildas; but if the mind is disabused of preconceived
conceptions in this respect, it is impossible to compare Gildas’s
narrative with the notices of the legion sent by Stilicho, and of the
army which elected Constantine, the attack which followed, and the
repelling of the invaders by the provincial Britons, without seeing
the absolute identity of the events.
The following comparison will show this more clearly:—
Roman and Greek Authors. Narrative of Gildas.
383 Maximus revolts. Revolt of Maximus, who
withdraws the army with the
youth from Britain.
387 Withdraws Roman army from
Britain.
396 A legion sent by Stilicho, who First devastation of Picts and
drive back Picts and Scots, Scots. Britons apply for
and garrison wall. assistance. A legion sent, who
build northern wall.
402 Legion withdrawn. Legion withdrawn.
Second devastation of Picts and
Scots.
Britons again apply for
assistance.
406 A Roman army in Britain — Roman troops sent, who fortify
stationed ‘per lineam valli.’ southern wall.
407 Constantine withdraws Roman Roman troops withdrawn, ‘never
army. to return.’
Picts seize up to wall.
Break through wall and ravage.
409 Gerontius invites Barbarians. Provincials take courage and
Honorius frees province. repel them.
Provincials raise and repel Vortigern invites Saxons.
invaders.
CHAPTER III.
BRITAIN AFTER THE ROMANS.
[Sidenote: Obscurity of history of Britain after the departure of
Romans.]
The termination of the Roman dominion in Britain produced a great and
marked change in its political position and destinies. It ceased to form
a part of the great European Empire, and for the time lost the link
which connected it with the civilisation of the west. It no longer took
part in the common life of the western nations; and, isolated from all
that created for them a common interest, or unconsciously combined them
in a common struggle, out of which the elements of a new historical
world were to emerge, it seemed to relapse into that state of barbarism
from which the influence of the Roman dominion had for the time
extricated it. The British Isles seemed as it were to retire again into
the recesses of that western ocean from which they had emerged in the
reign of the Emperor Claudius; and a darkness, which grew more profound
as their isolated existence continued, settled down upon them and
shrouded their inhabitants from the eye of Europe till the spread of
that great and paramount influence which succeeded to the dominion of
the Roman Empire, and inherited its concentrating energy—the Christian
Church—took Britain within its grasp, and the works of its monastic and
clerical writers once more brought its fortunes within the sphere of
history.
[Sidenote: Settlement of barbaric tribes in Britain.]
When the page of history once more opens to its annals, we find that the
barbaric nations, whom we left harassing the Roman province till the
Romans abandoned the island, had now effected fixed settlements within
the island, and formed permanent kingdoms within its limits. South of
the Firths of Forth and Clyde we find her containing a Saxon
organisation and tribes of Teutonic descent hitherto known by the
general name of Saxons, in full possession of her most valuable and
fertile districts, and the Romans of the old British provincials
confined to the mountains of Wales and Cumbria, the western districts
extending from the Solway to the Clyde, and the peninsula of Cornwall.
North of the Firths we find the barbaric tribes of the Picts and Scots,
which had so often harassed the Roman province from the north and west,
formed into settled kingdoms with definite limits; while Hibernia or
Ireland now appears under the additional designation of Scotia.[102]
[Sidenote: Ignorance of Britain by writers of sixth century.]
So little was known of Britain during this interval of upwards of a
century and a half, so undefined were the notions of the Continental
writers, that Procopius, writing from Constantinople in the sixth
century, describes Britain as extending from east to west, and
consisting of two islands, ‘Brittia’ and ‘Brettannia,’ Brittia lay
nearest Gaul, and was divided by a wall, the country to the east of
which, or that nearest the Continent, he believed to be inhabited,
fertile, and productive, and to be occupied by three nations,—the
‘Angiloi,’ ‘Phrissones,’ and ‘Brittones synonymous with the Isle;’ but
the region to the west of the wall, by which he indicates Caledonia or
the districts north of the Forth and Clyde, he only knew as a region
infested by wild beasts, and with an atmosphere so tainted that human
life could not exist; and he repeats a fable derived, he says, from the
inhabitants, that this region was the place of departed spirits. The
country south of the Humber he considered a separate island, named
‘Brettannia.’[103]
Stephanus Byzantinus, writing from the same place half a century
earlier, considered ‘Albion,’ ‘Brettia,’ and ‘Pretania’ separate
islands, inhabited respectively by the ‘Albiones,’ ‘Brettanoi,’ and
‘Pretanoi.’[104]
Even Gildas, himself of British descent, and writing from the
neighbouring shore of Armorica, takes his description of the size of
Britain from the cosmogony of Ethicus, written two centuries earlier,
merely qualifying it by the addition, ‘except where the headlands of
sundry promontories stretch farther into the sea,’[105] apparently
referring to Caledonia, but he evidently considered the country north of
the Firths of Forth and Clyde as a separate island from the rest of
Britain. He applies the same epithet of ‘transmarine’ to its inhabitants
and to the Scots from Ireland. He calls the regions between the walls
the extreme part of the island, and he writes of its transactions as if
he had no personal knowledge of them, but had received them by report
from a distant land; for he says he will relate his history,[106] ‘so
far as he is able, not so much from the writings and written memorials
of his native country, which either are not to be found, or if ever
there were any of them have been consumed in the fires of the enemy, or
been carried off by his exiled countrymen, as from foreign report,
which, from the interruption of intercourse, is by no means clear.’[107]
[Sidenote: Position of Britain at this time as viewed from Rome.]
In order to realise thoroughly the cause of this darkness and confusion
which appear to have settled upon Britain and its affairs after the
departure of the Romans, we must consider its real position towards Rome
as viewed from thence. During the period of the Roman dominion it
resembled a distant colony exposed to the incursions of frontier tribes
whom no treaties could bind and no defeats subjugate, requiring a large
military force for its protection, the accounts of whose proceedings
reached Rome at distant intervals, and only attracted more than a
passing attention when a crisis occurred in her affairs, which must have
been considered rather as a vexatious interruption in matters of nearer
and more engrossing interest than a subject of general attention. When
the Roman government was withdrawn, she resembled such a distant colony
with all connection severed between her and the home government,
abandoned to the incursions of her enemies, and left to protect and rule
herself.
How completely such a change would for the time blot out a distant
colony from the map of the civilised world may be readily conceived; and
when she again emerged in the form of a political state, containing once
more the elements of civilisation and of a common interest with the rest
of the world, the intermediate period of confused and uncertain
knowledge would appear almost analogous to that dark age of barbarian
life which precedes the birth of infant states, and on which the dim
light of tradition and the lays of a rude people engaged in internecine
war alone throw an uncertain ray. So it was with Britain. Deserted
almost entirely by the Continental historians, and deprived of the clue
which any connection with European events would afford, we are left for
the history of this interval to the uncertain guide of tradition; and
although it necessarily fails in affording us the means of obtaining a
connected and trustworthy history, yet by discriminating between what is
tradition or fable and what may fairly be accepted as history, and by
combining the indications which traditional accounts derived from
different sources afford, with the scattered notices contained in
writings contemporary, or nearly so, with the events, we may yet be able
to present the salient features of the history of this period with some
confidence in their reality, and in something like chronological order.
These sources of information, uncertain as they are, and faint as is the
light which they throw upon the history of the country during this
interval, yet reveal very distinctly indications that to the rule of the
Romans in the island there succeeded a fierce and protracted struggle
between the provincial Britons and the various barbarian tribes, to
whose assaults they had been exposed for so many years, till it
terminated in the settlement of the latter in the country, and the
formation of four kingdoms, embracing these several races within
definite limits. They tell us also something of those races, and of
their character and relation to each other. The contest which succeeded
the departure of the Romans was one not merely for the possession of the
Roman territory, but for the succession to her dominion in the island.
The competing parties consisted, on the one hand, of the provincial
Britons who had just emerged from under the Roman rule; and, on the
other, of those independent tribes, partly inhabitants of the island and
partly piratical adventurers from other regions, who had so frequently
ravaged the Roman province, and now endeavoured to snatch the prize from
the provincial Britons, and from each other.
[Sidenote: The four races in Britain.]
The races engaged in this struggle were four—the Britons, the Picts, the
Scots, and the Saxons or Angles.[108] The two former were indigenous,
the two latter foreign settlers.
[Sidenote: The Britons.]
With regard to the former, so many years of Roman dominion in the island
could hardly fail to have produced, in some respects, a deep and lasting
effect upon the native population; but it did not leave, as might have
been expected from the existence of the Roman province for so long a
period, a provincial people speaking the Roman language, and preserving
their laws and customs. The tendency of the Britons was to throw off the
stamp of Roman provincialism with the civil government against which
they had rebelled, and to relapse into their primitive Celtic habits and
modes of thought. This arose partly from the character of the Roman
civil rule, partly from the different effect produced by it in different
parts of the country. The distance of Britain from the seat of
government, its fertility, and the uncertainty of the Roman tenure of
the island, caused it to be regarded less as a valuable portion of the
Empire than as a distant mine from which every temporary advantage ought
to be drawn at whatever cost to the natives. The Roman civil rule was
harsh and oppressive; the British provinces a field for exaction, from
which everything it could be made to yield was extracted and carried off
without remorse. The effects, too, of the Roman rule were various. On
the provincials of the fertile, accessible, and completely subjugated
districts, they were more deep and lasting. To a great extent they lost
their nationality and became Roman citizens. With it went also their
natural courage, and either the desire or the spirit to resume an
independent position, and they became enervated or effeminate. On the
inhabitants of the northern and western portions of the province the
effect must have been lighter and more ephemeral in its character. They
were more in the position of native tribes under a foreign rule than of
the civilised inhabitants of a province. They were exposed to the
continual incursions of the barbaric tribes beyond the bounds of the
Roman Empire; and as they had in a greater degree preserved their
peculiar habits and national characteristics, the withdrawal of the
Roman army and civil government was more the removal of a restraint
which left them at liberty to resort to their old habits and resume
their independent existence as best they might. Even upon the barbarian
tribes who had remained in hostility to the Roman rule it exercised an
indirect influence. It created union among them—the gradual combination
of small communities into larger associations under a general name, and
the moulding of a warlike barbarian people into a social organisation in
advance of what they had been.
But the great legacies of Rome to Britain were the idea of
monarchy,[109] the centralisation of authority, and the municipal
government, the position of the ‘civitas’ or city as the centre of local
authority to the surrounding territory. In provincial Britain the local
government under the civil staff of the Romans was vested in the cities
with their senate or ‘curia,’ the ‘decuriones’[110] which composed it,
and the magistrates elected by them. It was to them Honorius addressed
his letters, and when the Roman civilians were driven out they succeeded
to their authority, each city forming the centre of a small territorial
rule. Of the provincial Britons we find clear indications of a marked
distinction between these two classes: the first consisting of those who
considered themselves more peculiarly Romans, and bore the impress of
their language and habits, among whom were also to be found the
descendants of the Roman soldiers who had become naturalised prior to
the termination of the Roman government in Britain, and remained in the
island. There were in fact three descriptions of persons who might be
termed Romans. There was, first, the Roman army, consisting to a great
extent of barbarian auxiliaries, parties of whom remained stationed at
the same places during the greater part of their occupation of the
island. There was, secondly, the civil government, which, from the time
of Constantine, if not from that of Diocletian, had been distinct from
the military organisation, and had imposed upon the provinces a numerous
and oppressive body of civil officials, principal and subordinate; and
there were, thirdly, the descendants of those of the military who had
received benefices or grants of land, or had connected themselves by
marriage with the natives, and were thus naturalised among them. The
Roman troops had been withdrawn by the various usurpers who assumed the
purple in the island. The civil government had been expelled by the
people, by whom, in common with all the provincials of the Roman Empire,
it was detested and reluctantly submitted to; but the third class
remained, and naturally became the leaders of those provincials who had
become, as it were, Romanised. This class of the provincial Britons
would be found mainly in that part of the province longest subjected and
most easily accessible to Roman influence, bounded by the Humber and the
Severn, and in the eastern and more level portion of the territory
between the Humber and the Firths of Forth and Clyde, where the proper
frontier of the province existed.
The second great class of the provincial Britons consisted of those who
had been later conquered, and, occupying the wilder and more secluded
regions of the north and west, retained less of the impress of the Roman
provincial rule. These, on the departure of the Romans, fell back more
upon a British nationality; and while the former fell an easy prey to
the invader, the latter, retaining their British speech in its
integrity, and possessing more of the warlike habits of a people
inhabiting mountainous and pastoral districts, after the first
paralysing effect of the absence of their usual protectors, the Roman
troops, had passed away, took part in the struggle which ensued with
vigour and animation.
Gildas, the British historian, alludes plainly enough to these two
classes when he says that ‘the discomfited people, wandering in the
woods, began to feel the effects of a severe famine, which compelled
many of them without delay to yield themselves up to their cruel
persecutors to obtain subsistence. Others of them, however, lying hid in
mountains, caves, and woods, continually sallied out from thence to
renew the war, and then it was for the first time they overthrew their
enemies who had for so many years been living in their country.’[111]
Such were the provincial Britons when the great contest commenced; but
we are here mainly concerned with those who occupied the western
districts extending from the river Derwent, which falls into the Western
Sea at Workington in Cumberland, to the river Clyde on the north,
forming one of four subsequent kingdoms under the name of Cumbria.
[Sidenote: The Picts.]
Among the barbaric tribes who likewise entered into the struggle for the
prize, the first in order were the Picts. The accounts of them given by
Gildas, Nennius, and Bede, vary considerably. Gildas first mentions them
as taking a part in the irruption of the barbarians into the Roman
province after the departure of Maximus with the Roman army, but he
calls them a transmarine nation, and says they came from the
north-east.[112] He tells us that after the withdrawal of the frontier
to the southern wall, which we have seen took place on the departure of
Constantine in 406, they occupied the districts up to that wall as
natives;[113] and that when finally repelled by an effort of the
provincial Britons, they then for the first time settled down in the
extreme part of the island, where they still remained at the time he
wrote his history. The natural inference from his language is that he
considered that the Picts were a foreign people who first obtained a
settlement in the island in the beginning of the fifth century, unless
he regarded the region north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde as a
separate island, and considered that it lay north-north-east from the
standpoint from which he wrote.[114] The gloss which Bede puts upon his
language, that by transmarine he merely referred to their crossing the
firths, seems a forced and narrow construction of his language. Nennius
too viewed the Picts as a foreign people who settled in the island, and
says that they first occupied the Orkney Islands, whence they laid waste
many regions and seized those on the left hand or north side of Britain,
where they still remained, keeping possession of a third part of Britain
to his day;[115] but then he placed their settlement as early as the
fourth century before the birth of Christ.
Bede says that ‘at first this island had no other inhabitants than the
Britons, but that when they, beginning at the south, had made themselves
masters of the greatest part of the island, it happened that the nation
of the Picts from Scythia, as is reported,[116] putting to sea in a few
long ships, were driven by the winds beyond the shores of Britain, and
arrived on the northern shores of Ireland, where, finding the nation of
the Scots, they desired a settlement among them, and this being refused
by the Scots, they sailed over to Britain and began to inhabit the
northern parts of the island.’ He adds that having no wives they applied
to the Scots, who gave them on condition that when the succession came
into doubt they should choose their king from the female royal race
rather than from the male, a custom which he says it is well known is
observed among the Picts to his day.[117] Bede does not say at what time
this settlement took place; but it is obvious that he is reporting a
tradition, and that Nennius’s account is also traditionary; while Gildas
does not seem to be aware that any tradition of their origin or their
original seat was known to the Britons.
When we turn to the classical writers we find that under the name of the
Picts they clearly understood that aggregate of tribes who, throughout
the entire occupation of the provinces of Britain by the Romans, were
known to them as the Barbarians who dwelt beyond the northern wall—those
ancient enemies of the Romans who had so frequently harassed them in the
quiet possession of Britain. From the beginning of the third century the
older names by which many of the barbarian tribes beyond the frontiers
of the Empire had been known to the Romans appear to have given way to
new appellations, embracing a larger combination of tribes; and as in
Germany the new generic names of ‘Alamanni,’ ‘Franci,’ ‘Thuringi,’ and
‘Saxones’ now appear, the constituent elements of which combinations can
be identified with the tribes bearing the older names, so at the same
period the name of ‘Picti’ appears as a designation of the barbaric
tribes in Britain. It is first mentioned by Eumenius the panegyrist in
the year 296. As the Picts seemed at first destined to carry off the
prize, and, although eventually obliged to confine themselves to their
ancient limits, formed the groundwork of the future kingdom of Celtic
Scotland, it will be necessary, with a view to the main object before
us, to trace their characteristics with somewhat more minuteness of
detail.
When Agricola first penetrated beyond the Solway Firth, and extended his
conquests over a hitherto unknown country as far as the Tay, his
biographer records the tribes he encountered as new nations, and in his
general description of the inhabitants of the island he discriminates
between the tribes whom Agricola first made known to the Romans, and
whom he calls inhabitants of Caledonia, and the rest of the Britons.
That they were the same people who had been known to the Romans by a
report not long before as ‘Caledonii Britanni’ there can be little
doubt. They possessed, it is true, no diversity of language or of
manners sufficient to attract the attention of the Roman historian; but
still there were some distinctive features which led him to consider
them as not identic with the provincial Britons, and to give that part
of the island occupied by them a separate name. There was one physical
mark of difference that at once attracted his observation. They were
larger in body and limb, and less xanthous.
In the following century we learn more regarding these new nations. We
find that in the reign of Hadrian they consisted of fourteen tribes, and
extended from the districts between the Solway and the Clyde to the
extreme north of Scotland. A closer examination of these tribes shows
evident indications of a different degree of civilisation and of
advancement in social organisation among them. In this respect they fall
naturally into three groups, and they are likewise geographically
divided into the same groups by three leading tribes extending entirely
across the island from sea to sea. The most southern of these was the
tribe of the ‘Damnonii,’ in itself representing, with the tribe of the
‘Novantæ’ in Galloway, one of these three divisions, and extending from
the Firth of Forth to the great estuary of the Clyde, and from the
mountains of Dumfriesshire to the river Tay. A line drawn from the head
of Loch Long to the Moray Firth separates the tribe of the ‘Caledonii’
from that of the ‘Vacomagi,’ each extending parallel to the other from
south-west to north-east. The entire platform of these fourteen tribes
thus naturally falls into three not very unequal portions. The numbers
of the tribes, however, are more unequally distributed. In the northern
and more mountainous portion were no fewer than nine out of the fourteen
tribes, the great tribe of the ‘Caledonii’ joining the frontier people
on the south-east. In the more lowland districts, from the Moray Firth
to the Firth of Forth, were only three tribes, of which the ‘Vacomagi’
extended along the north-west boundary, and the fertile plains from the
Tay to Galloway were entirely possessed by one great tribe, the
‘Damnonii,’ while the ‘Novantæ’ occupied Galloway. This very plainly
points to a more advanced social organisation as we proceed south, and
the same fact is further indicated even more clearly by the existence of
towns among some of them only.
Among the three tribes extending from the Forth to the Moray Firth we
find what the geographer Ptolemy terms πόλεις or towns, but not very
numerous, and placed on the frontier of each tribe, so as to show they
were organised for the defence of the community. Among the tribes in the
more northern portion there is no trace whatever of the existence of
such towns, while in the great southern tribe of the ‘Damnonii’ there
are enumerated no fewer than six, as many as are to be found in the
three tribes north of the Forth; and we likewise find them placed more
in the interior of the territories of the tribe, while the ‘Novantæ’ in
Galloway possesses two.
Not many years after this account of the tribes, the Roman wall was
constructed between the Firths of Forth and Clyde, through the heart of
the territories of the ‘Damnonii,’ thus dividing the nation into two
parts, one of which was included within the province and subjected to
the Roman government, while the other remained beyond the boundary of
Roman Britain. Of the towns enumerated by Ptolemy, three were now within
the province, and the other three were situated north of the wall.
When the Roman classical writers again furnish us with any particulars
of these tribes, we find that the progress of social organisation had
advanced a step further, and that they were now combined into two
nations—the ‘Caledonii’ and the ‘Mæatæ.’ The historian Dio expressly
states that these were the two divisions of the hostile nations beyond
the Roman province, and that all other names of tribes beyond the wall
had merged into these two denominations, of which, he adds, the ‘Mæatæ’
were next the wall. The name of ‘Caledonii’ identifies that nation with
the group of northern tribes, of which the ‘Caledonii’ were the leading
tribe, while the ‘Mæatæ’ must have included those extending from the
‘Caledonii’ to the wall. The ‘Mæatæ,’ soon after they first appear under
that name, were obliged to yield up a considerable portion of this
territory to the Romans. The ceded district must have been that nearest
the wall; and if, as we have seen, it consisted of the plains extending
from the wall to the Tay, it included exactly that portion of the nation
of the ‘Damnonii’ which lay on the north side of the wall, who now
passed under the Roman influence, as well as the southern portion of
that nation.
At the time the independent tribes of the north are thus described as
consisting of two nations—the ‘Caledonii’ and the ‘Mæatæ’—it is recorded
of them, as a characteristic feature, that they retained the custom of
painting their bodies, by puncturing with iron the figures of animals on
their skin; and when the inhabitants of these northern regions next
appear on the scene after the interval of nearly a century, we find the
whole aggregate of these tribes bearing the general name of ‘Picti.’
This name, afterwards so well known and so much dreaded, first appears
as their designation after the fall of the insular empire of Carausius
and Allectus, in whose armies they seem to have been largely enrolled.
They are said at this time to have consisted of the ‘Caledones and other
Picts.’ Fifty years later, when the first of those great and systematic
irruptions into the province by the simultaneous action of several
barbarian nations burst forth, the ‘Picti’ are more accurately described
by the historian as now consisting of two nations—the ‘Dicaledonæ’ and
the ‘Vecturiones;’ while the occupation of the Roman territory nearest
them during the first four years, brought to their assistance, in their
more extended attack upon the Roman province, a part of its population
under the new designation of the ‘Attacotti.’
We thus see that prior to the extension of the Roman province under
Antoninus, the people known to the Romans by report as the Caledonian
Britons, and described by Tacitus as a distinct people under the
designation of inhabitants of Caledonia, consisted of fourteen
independent tribes; that a part of the largest of the southern tribes
having been cut off from the rest by the Roman wall, the tribes
remaining independent combined into two nations—the ‘Caledonii’ and
‘Mæatæ;’ that the Mæatæ having to cede a part of their territory, the
remainder of the nation lose that name and appear under that of
‘Vecturiones,’ the ‘Caledonii’ or ‘Caledones’ being now termed
‘Dicaledonæ,’ inhabiting the north-western regions bounded by the
Deucaledonian sea, while the combined nation bore the name of ‘Picti.’
Such seems the natural inference from the successive notices of the
northern tribes by the Roman historians; and while they give no hint
that they did not consider them the same people throughout, and while
the identity of the northern division at all times is sufficiently
manifest by the preservation of the name of Caledonians under analogous
forms, the poets clearly indicate that they considered the Picts the
indigenous inhabitants of Caledonia; for while they consider ‘Ierne’ or
Ireland as the home of the Scots, and the ‘Orcades’ or Orkneys as the
position from whence the Saxons issued on their expeditions, they assign
to the Picts, as their original seat, the same ‘Thule’ which the earlier
poets had applied as a poetical name for Caledonia, and the home of the
Caledonian Britons.
The same twofold division of the Pictish nation existed among them till
at least the eighth century, when Bede wrote his Ecclesiastical History
of the English nation, for he tells us that the provinces of the
northern Picts were separated by high and lofty mountains from the
southern regions of that people; and that the southern Picts had their
seats within that mountain range, alluding probably to the range of the
so-called Grampians, which formed the south-western boundary of that
division of the nation which throughout bore the name of Caledonians.
This distinction, too, between the two branches of the nation must have
been still further increased by the fact recorded by Bede, that the
northern Picts were only converted to Christianity by the preaching of
St. Columba in the year 565; while the southern Picts had long before
embraced Christianity through the preaching of St. Ninian,[118] who, he
tells us, built a church at ‘Candida Casa,’ or Whithern, in Galloway,
which he dedicated to St. Martin of Tours. Ailred probably repeats a
genuine tradition when he says in his Life of St. Ninian that he was
building this church when he heard of the death of St. Martin, which
happened in the year 397, so that the southern branch of the Pictish
nation was at least nominally a Christian people, while the northern
Picts remained pagan for a period of upwards of a century and a half.
The Irish equivalent for the name ‘Picti’ was ‘Cruithnigh;’ and we find
during this period a people under this name inhabiting a district in the
north of Ireland, extending along its north-east coast from the river
Newry, and from Carlingford Bay to Glenarm, and consisting of the county
of Down and the south half of the county of Antrim. This district was
termed ‘Uladh,’ and also ‘Dalaraidhe,’ Latinised ‘Dalaradia,’ and its
inhabitants were the remains of a Pictish people believed to have once
occupied the whole of Ulster.[119] South of the Firths of Forth and
Clyde we find the Picts in two different localities. Gildas tells us
that after the boundary of the province they occupied the northern and
extreme part of the island as settlers up to the wall, and this probably
refers to the districts afterwards comprised under the general name of
‘Lodonea,’ or Lothian, in its extended sense, comprising the counties of
Berwick, Roxburgh, and the Lothians. In the north-western part of this
region they appear to have remained till a comparatively late period,
extending from the Carron to the Pentland hills, and known by the name
of the plain of Manau, or Manann, while the name of Pentland, corrupted
from Petland, or Pictland, has preserved a record of their occupation.
The name of ‘Picti’ was likewise applied to the inhabitants of Galloway,
comprising the modern counties of Kirkcudbright and Wigtown, till a
still later period, and survived the entire disappearance of the name as
applied to any other portion of the inhabitants of Scotland, even as
late as the twelfth century. This district was occupied in the second
century by the tribe termed by Ptolemy the ‘Novantæ,’ with their towns
of Rerigonium and Lucopibia, and there is nothing to show that the same
people did not occupy it throughout, and become known as the Picts of
Galloway, of which ‘Candida Casa,’ or Whithern, was the chief seat, and
occupied the site of the older Lucopibia.[120]
The oldest record connected with the Picts is the Pictish Chronicle,
apparently compiled in the tenth century, of which two separate editions
are preserved, one of which probably emerged from Abernethy and the
other from Brechin.[121] It contains a list of kings of the Picts who
are supposed to have reigned over them from their origin to the
termination of their monarchy. The earlier portion of this list is of
course mythic, and the reigns of the supposed kings are characterised by
their extreme length; but the latter part must form the basis of their
history, after the Picts became settled and assumed the form of a
kingdom within definite limits. The earlier part is mainly useful for
philological purposes. The last of these shadowy monarchs is Drust, son
of Erp, who is said to have reigned a hundred years and fought a hundred
battles, and it is added that in his nineteenth year St. Patrick went to
Ireland. This places him about the time of the repeated incursions of
the Picts into the Roman province. His successor Talore is said to have
reigned only four years, but with the reign of his brother Nectan
Morbet, to which twenty-four years are assigned, we probably have
something historical. A calculation of the reigns of the subsequent
kings in the list, tested by the dates furnished by the annalists from
time to time, would place the commencement of this reign in the year
457, and the termination in 481. The Chronicle tells us that Nectan had
been banished to Ireland by his brother, and that in consequence of a
prophecy by St. Bridget that he would return to his own country and
possess the kingdom in peace, he, in the third year of his reign,
received Darlugdach, abbess of Kildare, and two years after founded the
church of Abernethy in honour of St. Bridget; but this tale is
inconsistent with the date of St. Bridget, whose death is recorded in
525. It, however, appears to connect Nectan with the territory in which
Abernethy was situated.[122]
A strange tale is related of him too in the Acts of Saint Boethius, or
Buitte, of Mainister Buitte in Ulster, whose death is recorded in 521,
which likewise connects him with the same part of the country. St.
Buitte is said, on returning from Italy with sixty holy men and ten
virgins, to have landed in the territories of the Picts, and to have
found that Nectan, the king of that country, had just departed this
life, on which he restores him to life, and the grateful monarch
bestowed upon him the fort or camp in which the miracle had been
performed that he might found a church there.[123] If he entered the
Pictish territories by the Firth of Tay, it is probable that the place
formerly called Dun-Nechtan, or the fort of Nechtan, and now corrupted
into Dunnichen, in Forfarshire, is the place intended, and that the name
of Boethius or Buitte is preserved in the neighbouring church of
Kirkbuddo, situated within the ramparts of what was a Roman camp.
Of the two next kings we know nothing but their names and the length of
their reigns. We then come to two Drests or Drusts—Drest son of Gyrom,
and Drest son of Wdrost—who reigned together for five years, from 523 to
528, and here again we find some legendary matter connected with one of
them.
In the Liber Hymnorum, or Book of Hymns of the Ancient Church of
Ireland, edited by the Rev. Dr. J. H. Todd, there is a hymn or prayer of
St. Mugint, and the scholiast in the preface narrates the following
tradition: ‘Mugint made this hymn in Futerna. The cause was this: Finnen
of Magh Bile went to Mugint for instruction, and Rioc and Talmach, and
several others with him. Drust was king of “Bretan” then, and had a
daughter, viz. Drusticc was her name, and he gave her to Mugint to be
taught to read.’ It is unnecessary to add the adventure which followed.
Dr. Todd considers that ‘Futerna is manifestly Whiterna or Whitern, the
_Wh_ being represented by F;’[124] and that the Drust of the legend is
one of these two Drusts who reigned from 523 to 528. As Finnen’s death
is recorded in 579, the date accords with the period when he may have
sought instruction. O’Clery, in the Martyrology of Donegal, quotes a
poem which refers to the same legend:
Truist, king of the free bay on the strand,
Had one perfect daughter
Dustric, she was for every good deed[125] (renowned).
This Drust is therefore clearly connected with Galloway; and we thus
learn that when two kings appear in the Pictish Chronicle as reigning
together, one of them is probably king of the Picts of Galloway.[126]
The Drusts are followed by two brothers of Drest son of Gyrom, a Talerg,
and another Drest son of Munait, and then we find ourselves on firm
historic ground when we come to Bridei son of Mailcu.[127] He is said to
have reigned thirty years, and to have been baptized in the eighth year
of his reign by St. Columba. As that saint is recorded to have come from
Ireland to Britain in the year 563, this places the first year of his
reign in the year 556, and the termination of his reign in the year 586.
His death is, however, recorded by Tighernac in the year 583. Bede terms
him Bridius, son of Meilochon, a most powerful king reigning over the
Picts, and says that St. Columba converted his nation to Christianity in
the ninth year of his reign, having preached the word of God to the
provinces of the northern Picts;[128] and Adamnan places his fort and
palace on the banks of the river Ness.[129] The Pictish Chronicle states
that Galam Cennaleph reigned one year with Bridei, and Tighernac records
the death in 580 of Cendaeladh, king of the Picts.[130] He too was
probably a king of the Picts of Galloway, and traces of his name also
can be found in the topography of that district.[131]
We have now traced the history of the Picts down to the last half of the
sixth century, when we find ourselves on firm ground, and leave them a
Christian people, united in one kingdom under the rule of a powerful
monarch.
[Sidenote: The Scots.]
But if the word ‘Picti’ was a term applied to the native tribes beyond
the northern frontier of the Roman province, and the future kingdom of
the Picts was formed from a combination of them, it is equally clear
that the term ‘Scoti’ first appears as an appellation of the inhabitants
of Ireland. Gildas tells us that the Scots assailed the province from
the north-west,[132] which, from his standpoint, indicates Ulster as the
region whence this band of Scots had emerged, and when he describes the
Picts as settling down in the extreme part of the island, where they
still remained to his day, he adds, that the shameless Irish robbers, as
he terms the Scots, returned home, at no distant date to reappear.[133]
By this expression he appears to indicate that there was a subsequent
settlement of them in the island, but he makes no further allusion to
it.
Nennius, after giving an account of the traditionary settlement of the
Scots from Spain in Ireland, adds a notice of their later settlements in
Britain; but the text of this part of his work is unfortunately corrupt,
and seems to have been so from an early period, as the Irish translation
of it in the eleventh century contains obvious marks of its being an
attempt to explain what was obscure to the translator. He appears to
indicate settlements in North and South Wales, and in Dalrieta.[134]
Bede’s account is more consistent. He says that in course of time,
Britain, after the Britons and Picts, received a third nation, that of
the Scots, into that part of the country occupied by the Picts who came
from Ireland under their leader Reuda, and either by friendly
arrangement or by the sword acquired those seats among the Picts which
they still possess, and that from their leader Reuda they were termed
‘Dalreudini.’ He adds, that ‘Hibernia’ or Ireland was the native country
of these Scots, and that their new settlement was on the north side of
that arm of the sea which formerly divided the Britons from the Picts,
and where the Britons still have their chief fastness, the city called
‘Alcluith.’[135] There is no doubt that Alcluith is the rock in the
Clyde on which Dumbarton Castle is situated; the Firth of Clyde, the arm
of the sea in question; and that Bede correctly describes the position
of the Scottish settlement in his own day, as well as its name of
Dalriada, from which he deduces his Reuda as their ‘Eponymus.’
The notices of the Scots by the Roman writers are quite in harmony with
these traditionary accounts. They make their first appearance in 360,
when they joined the Picts and the Saxons in assailing the Roman
province. It is true that an expression of the Roman historian may be
held to imply that they had first appeared on the scene seventeen years
earlier, in the year 343; but that part of Ammianus’s work is lost, and
we have no distinct account of what took place when Constans visited
Britain in that year. When Theodosius drove back the invading tribes
after their eight years’ occupation of the province, we are clearly told
by Claudian that the Scots were driven back to ‘Ierne’ or Ireland; and
throughout all the subsequent incursions in which the Scots took part,
he implies that it was from thence they were made.
The oldest document connected with the history of their settlement in
Britain will be found in the Synchronisms of Flann Mainistrech, compiled
about the reign of Malcolm the Second, in the early part of the eleventh
century. We are there told that twenty years after the battle of Ocha,
the children of Erc passed over into ‘Alban’ or Scotland.[136] The
battle of Ocha is a celebrated era in Irish chronological history, and
was fought in Ireland in the year 478, which places this Irish colony in
the year 498; and Tighernac the annalist, who died in 1088, is quite in
accordance with this when, under the year 501, he has ‘Fergus Mor, son
of Erc, held a part of Britain with the tribe of Dalriada, and died
there.’[137] A district forming the north-east corner of Ireland, and
comprising the north half of the county of Antrim, was called Dalriada.
It appears to have been one of the earliest settlements of the Scots
among the Picts of Ulster, and to have derived its name from its
supposed founder Cairbre, surnamed ‘Righfhada’ or Riada. It lay exactly
opposite the peninsula of Kintyre, from whence it was separated by a
part of the Irish Channel of no greater breadth than about fourteen
miles; and from this Irish district the colony of Scots, which was
already Christian,[138] passed over and settled in Kintyre, and in the
island of Isla. The earlier settlements indicated by the traditionary
accounts of Nennius and Bede no doubt refer to the incursions of the
Scots in the fourth century, and their temporary occupation of Britain
during eight years.[139] The circumstances which enabled a small body of
Scots to effect this settlement among the Picts cannot now be
ascertained, and they appear to have extended themselves over a
considerable portion of territory during the first sixty years of their
kingdom, without meeting with much difficulty, during the reigns of
three of their petty kings—Domangart, son of Fergus, and his two sons,
Comgall and Gabran—till Brude, son of Mailchu, termed by Bede a powerful
monarch, became king of the Picts, when a few years after he commenced
his reign he attacked the Dalriads and drove them back to their original
seat in Kintyre, slaying their king Gabran.[140] He was succeeded by
Conall, the son of Comgall, who appears to have remained with diminished
territories in Kintyre; and it was during this period, when the Scottish
possessions were reduced to that part of Argyllshire which extends from
the Mull of Kintyre to Loch Crinan, the whole of which was originally
comprehended under the name of Kintyre, that St. Columba came over from
Ireland on his mission to convert the Picts—a mission prompted possibly
by the hazardous position in which the small Christian colony of the
Scots was placed in close contact with the still pagan nation of the
northern Picts under their powerful monarch Brude. Something like this
seems to be expressed in that remarkable poem of the eleventh century,
called the Prophecy of St. Berchan, where it is said of Columba—
Woe to the Cruithnigh to whom he will go eastward,
He knew the thing that is
Nor was it happy with him that an Erinach
Should be king in the east under the Cruithnigh.[141]
The death of Conall, son of Comgall, king of Dalriada, in the thirteenth
year of his reign, is recorded by Tighernac, and he adds that a battle
was fought in Kintyre, at a place called Delgon, in that year, in which
his son Duncan and a large number of the tribe of Gabran were
slain.[142] This battle seems to have been a further attack by the Picts
with the view of suppressing them altogether, as the same poem thus
alludes to it:—
Thirteen years altogether,
Against the hosts of the Cruithnigh, mild the illustrious.
When he died he was not king,
On Thursday in Kintyre.[143]
The death of Conall opened the succession to the children of Gabran
according to the law of tanistry, and so far as we can gather from a
statement in Adamnan’s Life of St. Columba, it fell to Eoganan to fill
the throne, but St. Columba was led by a vision to prefer his brother
Aidan, whom he solemnly inaugurated as king of Dalriada, in the island
of Iona.[144] It is more probable that he was led to prefer Aidan from
his possessing qualities which pointed him out as the fittest man to
redeem the fortunes of the Dalriads, and took this mode of giving a
sanction to his choice, which Aidan appears soon to have vindicated, as
he is termed in the Albanic Duan ‘king of many divisions,’[145] that is,
of extended territories. The Dalriads seem, as yet, to have been
considered as forming a part of Irish Dalriada, and as a colony from
them, to have been still subject to the mother tribe; but St. Columba
resolved to proceed a step further, and to make him an independent king.
Accordingly he, along with Aidan, attended a great council held at
Drumceat in the year 575, when a discussion arose between him and the
king of Ireland as to the future position of Scotch Dalriada towards
Ireland, and it was agreed that the Scotch Dalriads should be freed from
all tributes and exactions, but should join with the Irish Dalriads, as
the parent stock, in all hostings and expeditions.[146] Aidan thus
became, as it were, the second founder of the Dalriadic colony in
Scotland, and its first monarch as an independent kingdom.[147]
[Sidenote: The Saxons.]
The third of the Barbarian tribes who had assailed the Roman province,
and afterwards effected a settlement in the island, and the second of
those who were foreign settlers, were the Saxons. The traditionary
account of their settlement is thus given. Gildas tells us that when the
Picts and Scots crossed the southern wall in their last invasion of the
province, and drove the Britons before them, the provincial Britons
applied to Aetius, a powerful Roman citizen, for protection. He states
that this letter bore the address ‘To Aetius, now consul for the third
time, the groans of the Britons,’ and contained the expression, ‘The
Barbarians drive us to the sea; the sea throws us back on the
Barbarians; thus two modes of death await us, we are either slain or
drowned;’[148] that no assistance being given from Rome, the more
warlike part of the Britons overthrew their enemies, who had been for so
many years living in their country; that the Picts then settled for the
first time in the northern part of the island, and the Scots returned to
Ireland; that this was followed by a great plenty in Ireland; that a
rumour suddenly arose that their inveterate foes were rapidly
approaching to destroy the whole country, and to take possession of it,
as of old, from one end to the other; that a council was called to
settle what was best and most expedient to be done to repel the
irruptions and plunderings of these nations; and that the councillors,
along with that proud tyrant, the leader of the Britons,[149] sealed the
doom of their country by inviting in among them the fierce and impious
Saxons, ‘a race,’ says the Christian and patriotic Gildas, ‘hateful
alike to God and men,’ to repel the invasions of the northern nations.
They arrive in three “cyuls” or long ships, and land on the eastern side
of the island, where they settle. They are followed by a larger body of
their countrymen, who join them. The Barbarians, being thus introduced
as soldiers and supplied with provisions, become dissatisfied with their
monthly provisions, break the treaty, and proceed to destroy the towns
and lands till they reach the Western Sea. Then follows a lamentable
description of the ruin caused by them; and of the Britons, some were
enslaved, some fled over the sea, and others took arms under a leader of
the Roman nation—Ambrosius Aurelianus, attack their cruel conqueror and
obtain a victory. A war then follows, in which sometimes the citizens
and sometimes the enemy have the advantage, till the year of the siege
of the Badon Mount,[150] which was also the year of his birth. Such is a
_résumé_ of Gildas’s narrative of the settlement of the Saxons in
Britain, and to it only two dates can be attached. There is no question
that the letter which was sent to Aetius belongs to the year 446, when
he was for the third time consul; and the siege of Badon Hill took
place, according to the _Annales Cambriæ_, in the year 516.
Procopius, who wrote at the same time as Gildas, tells us that three
very numerous nations possess Brittia, over each of which a king
presides; which nations are named ‘Angeloi,’ ‘Phrissones,’ and those
surnamed from the island, ‘Brittones,’ He thus considers that those whom
Gildas calls generally Saxons, consisted of two nations, the Angles and
the Frisians; but he tells us nothing as to their settlement in the
island.
In our present text of Nennius we find three different accounts of the
settlement of the Saxons. The first is thus told us. ‘After the
departure of the Romans, the Britons were forty years in anxiety.
Guorthegirn then reigned in Britain, and while he reigned he was
oppressed by fear of the Scots and Picts, the Roman power, and the dread
of Ambrosius. In the meantime three cyuls came from Germany, driven into
exile, in which were Hors and Hengist. Guorthegirn received them kindly,
and gave them the island of Thanet. While Gratianus the Second and
Equantius were ruling at Rome, the Saxons were received by Guorthegirn
in the 347th year after the passion of Christ.’[151] The 347th year
after the passion of Christ is equal to the 374th year after his
incarnation, and in that year Gratianus was consul a second time in
conjunction with Æquitius. He then proceeds, ‘After the Saxons had
continued some time in the island of Thanet, Guorthegirn promised to
supply them with clothing and provision, on condition they would engage
to fight against the enemies of his country, but is unable to fulfil his
engagement, and bids them depart. Hengist then sends for reinforcements,
who come in sixteen vessels with his daughter.’ Then follows the
well-known incident of the banquet, and the cession of Kent. Hengist
then proposes to send for his son and his cousin to fight against the
Scots, and asks Guorthegirn to give them the regions next the northern
wall. Octa and Ebissa come with forty cyuls, and circumnavigating the
Picts lay waste the Orkneys, and occupy several districts beyond the
Frisian sea, as far as the confines of the Picts. They are followed by
other ships, which come to Kent.[152]
The second account is this—‘From the first year in which the Saxons came
into Britain to the fourth year of King Mervin are reckoned four hundred
and twenty-nine years.’[153] The fourth year of the reign of Mervin,
king of North Wales, corresponds with the year 821, and this places the
arrival of the Saxons in the year 392.
The last account runs thus—‘Guorthegirn, however, held the supreme
authority in Britain in the consulship of Theodosius and Valentinian,
and in the fourth year of his reign the Saxons came into Britain, Felix
and Taurus being consuls in the four hundredth year of the incarnation
of our Lord.’[154] The consulship of Theodosius and Valentinian fell in
the year 425, and that of Felix and Taurus in the year 428, which is
thus given as the date of the settlement of the Saxons.
The geographer of Ravenna, who wrote in the same century in which the
work which bears the name of Nennius was originally compiled, reports
the tradition thus:—‘In the Western Ocean is the island which is called
Britannia, where the nation of the Saxons formerly coming from ancient
Saxony, with their chief Anschis, are now seen to inhabit.’[155]
Finally, Bede, in the succeeding century, the historian of the Anglic
nation, gives us the traditionary history in the following shape. He
repeats in very much the same terms the account given by Gildas of the
incursions of the Picts and Scots beyond the southern wall; the letter
to Aetius asking assistance, which, he adds, he was unable to give on
account of the war with Blaedla and Attila, kings of the Huns; the great
famine; the efforts made by the more warlike part of the Britons; the
return of the Irish plunderers to their own home,[156] and the quietness
of the Picts in the extreme part of the island; the great plenty which
followed; the alarm of renewed invasion, when ‘they all agreed with
their king Vortigern to call over to them and from the parts beyond the
sea the Saxon nation.’[157] Bede then proceeds thus:—‘In the year of our
Lord’s incarnation 449, Martian, being made emperor with Valentinian,
and the forty-sixth from Augustus, ruled the empire seven years. Then
the nation of the Angles or Saxons, being invited by the aforesaid king,
arrived in Britain with three long ships, and had a place assigned them
to dwell in by the same king in the eastern part of the island, that
they might thus appear to be fighting for the country, whilst their real
intentions were to enslave it. Accordingly they engaged with the enemy,
who had come from the north to give battle, and obtained the victory;
which, being known at home in their own country, as also the fertility
of the country and the cowardice of the Britons, a more considerable
fleet was quickly sent over, bringing a still greater number of men,
which, being added to the former, made up an invincible army. The
new-comers received from the Britons a place to inhabit among
themselves, upon condition that they should wage war against their
enemies for the peace and security of the country, whilst the Britons
agreed to furnish them with pay.’ Bede then tells us that those who came
over were of three nations, the Saxons, the Angles, and the Jutes; and
that from the Angles came all the tribes that dwell on the north side of
the river Humber, and the other nations of the English, and that the two
first commanders are said to have been Hengist and Horsa. He then
says—‘In a short time swarms of the aforesaid nations came over into the
island, and they began to increase so much that they became terrible to
the natives themselves who had invited them. Having on a sudden entered
into a temporary league with the Picts, whom they had by this time
repelled to a distance by the force of their arms, they began to turn
their weapons against their confederates.’[158] Bede then takes from
Gildas the account of the ravages by the Saxons, and their victory by
Ambrosius Aurelianus, down to the mention of the siege of ‘Mons
Badonicus,’ which he places forty-four years after the arrival of the
Saxons, or in the year 492. He then narrates the breaking out of the
Pelagian heresy, the coming of Germanus and Lupus to Britain, the war
upon the Britons by the Saxons and the Picts, which he connects with the
league he had just mentioned as having been entered into between them,
and the victory under the influence of Germanus, usually called the
Allelujatic victory. This part of his narrative he takes from the life
of Germanus, written within forty years of his death by Constantius of
Lyons.[159]
Such is the form into which Bede has reduced this legendary history. Let
us now see how far, by the aid of contemporary notices, we can extract
the few really historical facts imbedded in it. Though Gildas tells us
very distinctly that the Barbarians who assailed the Roman province
after Maximus, who usurped the Empire, had departed with the Roman army,
and the British youth consisted solely of the two nations of the Picts
and Scots, yet certain it is that bodies of Saxons were joined with them
in their incursions. For the fact that they formed one of the barbarian
tribes who burst into the province in 360 we have the united testimony
of Ammianus and Claudian, and the latter authority is equally clear that
they formed one of the bands who invaded the province after Maximus and
were driven back by Stilicho. Ammianus tells us that in 368 the Count of
the Maritime Tract was slain, and in the Notitia Imperii we find the
same functionary termed Count of the Saxon Shore. In the same document
this designation of the Saxon Shore is also applied to the country about
Grannona in Gaul,[160] where the Saxons had established regular
settlements. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the name of the
Saxon Shore was given to the coast extending from the Wash on the north
to near Portsmouth in the south, not because it was exposed to the
ravages of the Saxons, but because they had likewise made settlements
there.[161] We may well believe, then, that between the year 368 and the
date of the Notitia, about the beginning of the fifth century, the
Saxons who had been assailing the province from the east had effected a
settlement on the shores of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Kent; and this accords
with the two earliest dates given in Nennius, 374 and 392. The statement
by Gildas that the Saxons came on the invitation of a proud tyrant and
leader of the Britons, to whom, in the succeeding century, the name of
Guorthegirn is given, and who is associated with the arrival of the
Saxons at these early dates, seems to find its counterpart in the
invitation given to the Barbarians to invade Gaul and Britain by
Gerontius, a Count of Britain in the service of Constantine, in the year
407, and in the later form of the tradition they are certainly
identified.[162] Bede tells us that after the arrival of the Saxons in
449 they united with the Picts, whom they had driven back, and attacked
the Britons, when they were defeated in the Allelujatic victory; but
Constantius, from whom this event is taken, and who was nearly a
contemporary writer, dates this event in the year 429, thus showing the
Saxons in combination with the Picts twenty years before the date
assigned by Bede for the arrival of the former; and here again the true
date of this event is in harmony with the third date assigned in Nennius
for the arrival of the Saxons, viz., the year 428.
Finally, we have the testimony of Prosper Aquitanus, whose chronicle was
compiled in the year 455, that in 441 the British provinces had already
been reduced under the power of the Saxons.[163] Five years after this
the letter to Aetius was written, and it follows that the Barbarians,
against whom it made that despairing cry for assistance, were the
Saxons, and to them the expressions quoted from the letter are much more
applicable than to the Picts and Scots.[164] The misplacing of this
document in Gildas’s narrative has given rise to the false chronology
which has been attached to it, and we are warranted in concluding that
the settlement of the Saxons on the south-eastern shore had commenced as
early as the year 374, and that Britain was considered as under
subjection to them at least eight years before the date in which Bede
places their first arrival.
Gildas records no events between the victory, which he attributes to the
leader of the Roman party, Ambrosius Aurelianus, and the siege of Mount
Badon in 516. Nennius, who connects Ambrosius with the Roman power, and
alludes to a discord between him and Guitolin, of which he gives no
particulars, but which he places in the year 437, fills up this interval
with the exploits of Arthur.
[Sidenote: War with Octa and Ebissa’s colony.]
The Arthur of Nennius was, however, a very different personage from the
shadowy and mythic monarch of the later Welsh traditions, and of the
Arthurian romance. He is described by Nennius as merely a warrior who
was a military commander in conjunction with the petty British kings who
fought against the Saxons.[165] The Saxons referred to were those whom
Nennius had previously described as colonising the regions in the north
under Octa and Ebissa, and it is to that part of the country we must
look for the sites of the twelve battles which he records. The first was
fought at the mouth of the river Glein. The second, third, fourth, and
fifth, on another river called Dubglas, in the region of Linnius, and
this brings us at once to the Lennox, where two rivers called the
Douglas, or Dubhglass, fall into Loch Lomond. This was certainly one of
the districts about the wall called ‘Guaul’ which had been occupied by
Octa’s colony; and Nennius tells us elsewhere that Severus’s wall, which
passed by Cairpentaloch to the mouth of the river Clyde, was called in
the British speech ‘Guaul.’[166] The sixth battle was fought at a river
called Bassas. The seventh in the Caledonian wood,[167] which again
takes us to the north for the site of these battles. The eighth in the
fastness of Guinnion, which is connected by an old tradition with the
church of Wedale, in the vale of the Gala Water. The ninth at the City
of the Legion. The tenth on the strand of the river called Tribruit. The
eleventh in the mount called Agned, which once more brings us to the
north, as there can be no doubt that Edinburgh, called by the Welsh
Mynyd Agned, is the place meant, and this battle appears to have been
directed against the Picts, who were in league with the Saxons.[168] The
twelfth was the battle at Mount Badon,[169] in which Nennius tells us
that 960 men of the enemy perished in one day from the onslaught of
Arthur, and that he was victorious in all of these battles. Nennius adds
that while the Saxons were defeated in all of these battles, they were
continually seeking help from Germany, and being increased in numbers,
and obtaining kings from Germany to rule them till the reign of Ida, son
of Eobba, who was the first king in Bernicia, with which sentence he
closes his narrative, and this still further tends to place these events
in the north. So far we may accept Arthur as a historic person, and this
account of his battles as based on a genuine tradition.[170] The
chronicle attached to Nennius tells us that he was slain twenty-one
years afterwards in the battle of Camlan, fought in 537 between him and
Medraud.[171] As Medraud was the son of Llew of Lothian, this battle
again takes us to the north for its site.[172]
[Sidenote: Kingdom of Bernicia.]
Ten years after this we find the scattered tribes of the Angles and the
Frisians occupying the districts on the east coast from the Tees to the
Forth, and those who had been the opponents of Arthur in most of these
battles, formed into the kingdom of Bernicia by Ida, son of Eobba, in
the year 547,[173] who placed his capital on a headland not far from the
Tweed, where he erected a fort called in British Dinguardi, or
Dinguoaroy, and in Anglic Bebbanburch, afterwards Bamborough. Ida
reigned twelve years, and died in 559, when he was succeeded by Ella,
who belonged to a different family, and added the districts between the
Humber and the Tees, termed Deira, thus forming one kingdom of
Northumbria, extending from the Humber as far north as the territory
occupied by the Angles reached. The province of Bernicia, however,
remained under the rule of Ida’s sons, and it is with this province
alone that we are concerned in this work.[174]
Ida left twelve sons, six of whom reigned successively over Bernicia,
and it is with these sons that the conflict between the Britons and
Saxons in the north was continued. Adda, the eldest, reigned seven
years, and was followed by Clappa, one year, which brings us to the year
567, when Hussa, the next brother, begins to reign; and we are told that
‘against him four kings of the Britons—Urbgen, Riderchen, Guallauc, and
Morcant—fought.’[175] One of their kings, Riderchen, belonged to that
party among the Britons who were termed Romans, from their supposed
descent either from Roman soldiers or from Roman citizens; the other
three to the native or warlike party among the Britons. These seem
mainly to have belonged to that part of the nation which occupied the
western districts, while the so-called Romans were to be found
principally in the central regions. Of the result of this war during
Hussa’s reign we are told nothing; but dissensions seem now to have
broken out among the Britons themselves, who formed two parties, arising
from other grounds besides those of supposed descent. The existence in
the country of a pagan people like the Angles, and the extent to which
they had subjected the natives, exercised a great influence even over
those who were not subject to their power. The Picts, who were either
subjected by them or in close alliance with them, were more immediately
under their influence, and seem to a great extent to have apostatised
from the Christianity introduced among them by St. Ninian, and a great
part of the British population in the south fell back upon a half
paganism fostered by their bards, who recalled the old traditions of the
race before they had been Christianised under the Roman dominion. There
was thus a Christian and what may be called a Pagan party. The so-called
Romans mainly belonged to the former, and this Riderchen or Rhydderch
was at their head. The latter embraced the native Britons, whose leaders
traced their descent from Coil Hen, or the aged, and their head was
Gwendolew.
[Sidenote: Battle of Ardderyd.]
These dissensions now broke into open rupture, and a great battle is
recorded to have taken place between them in the year 573, which was to
decide who was to have the mastery. It was termed the battle of
Ardderyd, and the scene of it was at Arthuret, situated on a raised
platform on the west side of the river Esk, about eight miles north of
Carlisle. This name is simply the modern form of the word Ardderyd. Two
small hills here are called the Arthuret knowes, and the top of the
highest, which overhangs the river, is fortified by an earthen rampart.
About four miles north of this is a stream which flows into the Esk, and
bears the name of Carwhinelow, in which the name of Gwendolew can be
easily recognised; and near the junction of the Esk and the Liddel, at
no great distance from it, is the magnificent hill-fort called the Moat
of Liddel. Here this great battle was fought, the centre of a group of
Welsh traditions.[176] It resulted in the victory of the Christian party
and the establishment of Rhydderch as the king of the Cumbrian Britons.
We find him mentioned in Adamnan’s Life of Saint Columba as reigning at
Alclyde or Dumbarton, and from the seat of his capital his kingdom came
to be called Strathclyde. Adamnan tells us that Rodercus, son of
Tothail, who reigned at the Rock of Cluaithe (Petra Cloithe, Alclyde, or
Dumbarton), being on friendly terms with St. Columba, sent him a message
to ask him whether he would be killed by his enemies or not, and the
saint replied that he would never be delivered into the hands of his
enemies, but die at home on his own pillow; which prophecy, adds
Adamnan, regarding King Roderic, was fully accomplished, for, according
to his word, he died quietly in his own house.[177] Adamnan was born
only twenty-one years after the death of Rhydderch.
The next brother who reigned over Bernicia was Freodulf, for six years,
but no war is recorded in his reign; but that of his successor
Theodoric, who reigned from 580 to 587, introduces us to a new champion
for the Britons, Urbgen, the City-born—the Urien of the Bards—who, with
his sons, is said to have fought stoutly against him; and it is added
that sometimes the enemy and sometimes the natives prevailed. This
Theodoric is the Flamddwyn or Flame-bearer of the Bards.[178] He was
succeeded by the last of the brothers who reigned, Aethelric, who, after
a short reign of two years, was followed in 594 by his son Ethelfred
Flesaurs, of whom Bede tells us that he was a most powerful king and
covetous of glory, who more than all the chiefs of the Angles ravaged
the nation of the Britons. For no one among the tribunes, no one among
the kings, after exterminating or subjugating the natives, caused a
greater extent of their territory to become either tributary to the
nation of the Angles or to be colonised by them.[179]
During the last three reigns another actor had appeared on the scene,
and this was Aidan the Scot. Before his accession to the throne of
Dalriada in 574 he appears as one of the kinglets among the nations
south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and seems to have had claims
upon the district of Manau or Manann, peopled by the Picts. After his
accession he allied himself with Baedan, son of Cairell, who then ruled
over the Irish Cruithnigh, and called himself king of Ulster. By him the
Saxons were driven out of Manann, and he retained possession of it till
his death in 581.[180] Two years after Tighernac records the battle of
Manann by Aidan, of which, however, we have no particulars except that
he was victorious; and again, in 596, the battle of Chirchind, in which
four of his sons were slain.[181] Adamnan evidently refers to this
battle, which he calls ‘the battle of the Miathi,’ when he tells us in
his Life of Saint Columba that while the Saint was in Iona ‘he suddenly
said to his minister, Diormit, “Ring the bell.” The brethren, startled
at the sound, proceeded quickly to the church, with the holy prelate
himself at their head. There he began, on bended knees, to say to them,
“Let us pray now earnestly to the Lord for this people and king Aidan,
for they are engaging in battle at this moment.” Then, after a short
time, he went out of the oratory, and, looking up to heaven, said, “The
barbarians are fleeing now, and to Aidan is given the victory—a sad one
though it be;” and the blessed man in his prophecy declared the number
of the slain in Aidan’s army to be three hundred and three men.’[182] It
is difficult to fix the site of this battle, but it was no doubt fought
against the Southern Picts, who seem to have been still known by the
name of Miathi, perhaps the same as Mæatæ.
[Sidenote: Battle of Degsastane or Dawstane.]
In 603 Rhydderch appears to have died, and Bede tells us that Aidan came
against Aedilfrid with a large and powerful army. It consisted no doubt
of a combined force of Scots and Britons, at whose head Aidan was placed
as Guledic, and he appears also to have had the aid of Irish Picts. He
advanced against the Bernician kingdom, and entered Aedilfrid’s
territories by the vale of the Liddel, from the upper end of which a
pass opens to the vale of the Teviot, and another to that of the North
Tyne. The great rampart called the Catrail, which separated the Anglic
kingdom from that of the Strathclyde Britons, crosses the upper part of
the vale of the Liddel. Its remains appear at Dawstaneburn, whence it
goes on to Dawstanerig, and here, before he could cross the mountain
range which separates Liddesdale from these valleys, Aidan was
encountered by Aedilfrid and completely defeated, his army being cut to
pieces at a place called by Bede ‘Degsastan,’ in which we can recognise
the name of Dawstane, still known there. On the part of Aedilfrid, his
brother Theobald, called by Tighernac, Eanfraith, was slain by Maeluma,
the son of Baedan, king of Ulster, and the body of men he led into
battle cut off.[183] On Nine Stone Rig, opposite Dawstane, there still
exists a circle of nine stones; and on the farm of Whisgills, some miles
lower down the valley, there is an enormous cairn in the middle of an
extensive moor, and near it a large stone set on end about five feet
high, called the standing stone; and at Milnholm, on the Liddel, an
ancient cross of one stone. These are probably memorials of the battle
and flight which followed it. It was fought within sight of the ancient
hill-fort which we have identified as Coria, one of the cities of the
Ottadeni in the second century.
Bede adds that this battle was fought in the year 603, and the eleventh
year of the reign of Aedilfrid, which lasted for twenty-four years, and
that from this time forth till his own day (that is, till 731), none of
the kings of the Scots ventured to come in battle against the nation of
the Angles, and thus terminated the contest between these tribes for the
possession of the northern province substantially in favour of the
latter people, who under Aedilfrid now retained possession of the
eastern districts from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, as far west as
the river Esk.
-----
Footnote 102:
Hibernia is first mentioned as being also called Scotia by Isidore of
Seville in 580.
Footnote 103:
Procop. _Bell. Goth._ iv. 20. (A.D. 540-550.)
Footnote 104:
Steph. Byzant. _De Urbibus_ (A.D. 490).
Footnote 105:
Exceptis diversorum prolixioribus promontoriorum tractibus, quæ
arcuatis oceani sinibus ambuitur.—_Hist. Gild._ § 3.
Footnote 106:
Quantum tamen potuero, non tam ex scripturis patriæ scriptorumve
monimentis—quippe quæ, vel si qua fuerint, aut ignibus hostium exusta,
aut civium exsilii classe longius deportata, non compareant,—quam
transmarina relatione, quæ crebris irrupta intercapedinibus, non satis
claret.—_Hist. Gild._ 4.
Footnote 107:
It is hardly conceivable that Gildas, if he was a native of
Strathclyde, as is generally supposed, could have used the language he
does regarding the northern part of the island; but there is much
confusion regarding his life, and great difficulty in ascertaining the
real events of it. Usher came to the conclusion that there were at
least two persons of the name, whom he distinguishes as Gildas Albanus
and Gildas Badonicus, whose acts have been confounded together, and
his opinion has been very generally adopted. Mabillon considered that
there was only one Gildas. There are four lives of St. Gildas
preserved. One by Caradoc of Llancarvan, printed in Stevenson’s
edition of his writings; another in the Bodleian, printed by Capgrave;
another by a monk of Ruys, printed by Mabillon; and a fourth in the
British Museum, still in MS. (Egerton, No. 7457). It is, however,
impossible to compare these lives without seeing that they relate to
the same person. Gildas in his work states that the battle of Badon
was fought in the year he was born, and that he was then forty-four
years, which, as that battle was fought, according to the Annales
Cambriæ, in 516, gives us 560 as the year in which he composed his
history.
The confusion has arisen, in this as in everything relating to Welsh
history, from not discriminating between his acts compiled before
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s fabulous history appeared, and those which bear
the impress of that work. The third and fourth life belong to the
former period; that by Caradoc of Llancarvan, and the second, which is
substantially the same, to the latter.
In the fourth life he is said to have been born in Bretagne; to have
been educated by St. Phylebert, abbot of Tournay; to have founded a
monastery, which, by its description, answers to that of Ruys; and to
have gone to Island, by which, however, Ireland is evidently
meant—when it terminates abruptly. In the life by the monk of Ruys, he
is said to have been born in ‘Arecluta fertilissima regione,’ which
‘Arecluta autem regio, quum sit Britanniæ pars, vocabulum sumpsit a
quodam flumine quod Clut nuncupatur.’ His father, Caunus, had four
other sons—Cuillus, who succeeded him; Mailocus, who founded a
monastery at ‘Lyuhes in pago Elmail;’ Egreas; Alleccus; and Peteona,
who became a nun. Mailocus is evidently St. Meilig, son of Caw, to
whom the church of Llowes in Elfael, Radnorshire, is dedicated.
Egreas, Alleccus, and Peteona are Saints Eigrad, Gallgo, and Peithien,
children of Caw, to whom churches in Anglesea are dedicated. If he was
born, therefore, in Britain, it is more probable that Arecluta was the
vale of the Clwyd in North Wales, where St. Kentigern founded the
church of Llanelwy, or St. Asaphs. He is said in this life to have
been educated by Illtutus, and to have gone to Ireland in the reign of
King Ainmere, and after going to Rome to have gone to Armorica when he
was thirty years old, and founded the monastery of Ruys, where after
ten years he wrote his history. This places the date of his leaving
Britain for Armorica in 546, and his history in 556, and he is said to
have died an old man in Armorica. Ainmere, king of Ireland, reigned
according to Tighernac, from 566 to 569, and the Annales Cambriæ have
at 565, ‘Navigatio Gildæ in Hybernia,’ and Tighernac has at 570
‘Gillas quievit.’ He therefore probably died in Ireland, and the monk
of Ruys has made his visit to Ireland precede his going to Armorica in
order that he may claim Ruys as the place of his death.
The acts compiled subsequent to the appearance of Geoffrey of
Monmouth’s history identify Cuillus, his father’s eldest son, with
Geoffrey’s Howel, king of Alclyde—transfer his birth to Strathclyde,
where his father is in the one life Nau rex Scotiæ—in the other Caunus
rex Albaniæ—increase his family from four to twenty-four sons—import
the element of Arthur and his times into his acts; and finally take
him to Glastonbury, where he dies after it has been besieged by King
Arthur,—additions which have led to the solution of two Gildases, but
which may more reasonably be rejected as spurious.
Footnote 108:
In ea prius habitabant quatuor et gentes; Scoti, Picti, atque Saxones,
Britones.—Nennius, _Hist. Brit._ 2. Omnes nationes et provincias
Britanniæ, quæ in quatuor linguas, id est, Brettonum, Pictorum,
Scottorum, et Anglorum divisae sunt, in ditione accepit.—Bede, _Ec.
Hist._ iii. c. vi. Gildas terms the latter people simply Saxones.
Bede, in narrating their settlement, ‘Gens Anglorum sive Saxonum.’
Footnote 109:
Procopius makes the important statement that, after the departure of
Constantine, although the Romans were unable to recover the island,
the kingly government did not cease and the island fall into anarchy;
but ‘that it remained subject to tyrants.’—Procop. _Bel. Van._ i. 2.
Footnote 110:
St. Patrick tells us in his _Confessio_ that his father lived at
Bannavem Taberneæ, and in his epistle to Coroticus that he was a
‘decurio.’
Footnote 111:
Interea fames dira ac famosissima vagis ac nutabundis hæret, quæ
multos eorum cruentis compellit prædonibus sine delatione victas dare
manus, ut pauxillum ad refocillandam animam cibi caperent, alios vero
nusquam; quin potius de ipsis montibus, speluncis ac saltibus, dumis
consertis continue rebellabant. Et tum primum inimicis per multos
annos in terra agentibus, strages dabant.—Gild. _de Excidio Brit._ 17.
Footnote 112:
Ab aquilone; strictly north-north-east.
Footnote 113:
Pro indigenis.
Footnote 114:
See Fordun, _Chron._ vol. ii. p. 380, note.
Footnote 115:
‘Post intervallum vero multorum annorum non minus octingentorum Picti
venerunt et occupaverunt insulas quae vocantur Orcades, et postea ex
insulis vastaverunt regiones multas, et occupaverunt eas in sinistrali
plaga Britanniæ, et manent ibi usque in hodiernam diem, tertiam partem
Britanniæ tenentes.’ The previous paragraph shows that he counted the
800 years from the traditionary settlement of the Britons, which he
places in the time when Eli judged Israel, that is, in the twelfth
century before Christ.
Footnote 116:
Ut perhibent.
Footnote 117:
Bede, _Hist. Ec._ i. § 7.
Footnote 118:
Prædicaturus verbum Dei provinciis septentrionalium Pictorum, hoc est,
eis quæ arduis atque horrentibus montium jugis, ab australibus eorum
sunt regionibus sequestratæ. Namque ipsi australes Picti, qui intra
eosdem montes habent sedes, etc.—Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. iii. c. 4.
Footnote 119:
These Cruithnigh are repeatedly mentioned by Adamnan in his Life of
St. Columba, who wrote between the years 692 and 697. See ed. 1874,
pp. 120, 146, 253. In the Life of St. Cadroë we find, ‘Igitur ad
terram egressi, ut moris est, situm locorum, mores et habitum hominum
explorare, gentem Pictaneorum reperiunt.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p.
108.
Footnote 120:
Chalmers, in his _Caledonia_ (i. p. 358), states dogmatically that
Galloway was colonised in the eighth century by Cruithne from Ireland,
and that they were followed by ‘fresh swarms from the Irish hive
during the ninth and tenth centuries,’ and this statement has been
accepted and repeated by all subsequent writers as if there were no
doubt about it. There is not a vestige of authority for it. Galloway
belonged during these centuries to the Northumbrian kingdom, and was a
part of Bernicia. Bede, in narrating the foundation of Candida Casa by
St. Ninian (B. iii. c. iv.), says, ‘qui locus ad provinciam
Berniciorum pertinens;’ and there is abundant evidence that Galloway
was under the rule of the Northumbrian kings after his time. It is
antecedently quite improbable that it could have been colonised from
Ireland during this time without a hint of such an event being
recorded either in the Irish or the English Annals.
The only authorities referred to by Chalmers consist of an entire
misapplication of two passages from the Ulster Annals. He says, ‘In
682 A.D., Cathasao, the son of Maoledun, the Maormor of the Ulster
Cruithne, sailed with his followers from Ireland, and landing on the
Firth of Clyde, among the Britons, he was encountered and slain by
them near Mauchlin, in Ayr, at a place to which the Irish gave the
name of _Rathmore_, or great fort. In this stronghold Cathasao and his
Cruithne had probably attacked the Britons, who certainly repulsed
them with decisive success.—_Ulster An. sub an._ 682.’ In 702 the
Ulster Cruithne made another attempt to obtain a settlement among the
Britons on the Firth of Clyde, but they were again repulsed in the
battle of Culin.—_Ib. sub an._ 702. The original text of these
passages is as follows:—‘682. Bellum Rathamoire Muigeline contra
Britones ubi ceciderunt Catusach mac Maelduin Ri Cruithne et Ultan
filius Dicolla. 702. Bellum Campi Cuilinn in Airdo nepotum Necdaig
inter Ultu et Britones ubi filius Radgaind cecidit [adversarius]
Ecclesiarum Dei. Ulait victores erant.’ Now, both of these battles
were fought in Ulster. Rathmore or great fort of Muigeline, which
Chalmers supposes to be Mauchlin, in Ayr, was the chief seat of the
Cruithnigh in Dalaraidhe, or Dalaradia, and is now called
Moylinny.—See Reeves’s _Antiquities of Down and Connor_, p. 70. Airdo
nepotum Necdaig, or Arduibh Eachach, was the Barony of Iveagh, also in
Dalaradia, in Ulster (_Ib._ p. 348); and these events were attacks by
the Britons upon the Cruithnigh of Ulster, where the battles were
fought, and not attacks by the latter upon the British inhabitants of
Ayrshire.
The natural inference from an examination of Bede’s Ecclesiastical
History is that apparently he knew of no Picts south of the Firth of
Forth. He certainly mentions none, and expressly says (B. iv. c.
xxvi.), in describing the result of the defeat and death of Ecgfrid,
king of Northumbria, by the Picts in 686, that Trumwine, with his
Angles, fled from the monastery of Abercorn, ‘posito quidem in regione
Anglorum, sed in vicinia freti quod Anglorum terras Pictorumque
disterminat;’ but he is here talking of the territories belonging to
each kingdom, and not of the distribution of the population; and as
the territory of Galloway undoubtedly belonged to the Anglic kingdom,
its population must have been either a subject British or Pictish
population, as Bede elsewhere implies that twenty years later it was
but partially occupied by Angles. In another work, however, Bede
clearly implies that the population of Galloway was Pictish at that
time. In his Life of St. Cuthbert (cap. xi.) he says, ‘Quodam etenim
tempore pergens de suo monasterio pro necessitatis causa accidentis ad
terram Pictorum, qui Niduari vocantur navigando pervenit.’ His
monastery was Melrose. Mr. E. W. Robertson was inclined to think that
St. Cuthbert had sailed from the mouth of the Tweed, and been driven
northwards by contrary winds into the Firth of Tay, landing near
Abernethy, on the coast of Fife, the inhabitants of the banks of the
Nethy probably being the ‘Picti qui Niduari vocantur;’ and he refers
in a note to a suggestion of the author’s that Cuthbert may have
crossed the Firth of Forth and landed at Newburn, the old name of
which was Nithbren (_Scotland under her Early Kings_, vol. ii. p.
383), but a more careful consideration has satisfied him that neither
view is tenable. Bede says (B. i. c. xv.), ‘De Jutarum origine sunt
Cantuari et Victuari, hoc est, ea gens quæ Vectam tenet insulam et ea
quæ usque hodie in provincia Occidentalium Saxonum Jutarum natio
nominatur, posita contra ipsam insulam Vectam.’ Now, the term Niduari
is a word evidently formed in precisely the same way from the root
Nid, as Cantuari and Vectuari are from the roots Cantia and Vecta, and
certainly signifies the ‘gens’ on the Nid, which can only mean the
river Nith, now forming the eastern boundary of Galloway, and which
separated it in the lower part of its course from the Strathclyde
kingdom. Ptolemy terms the river Nith ‘Novius;’ and from this in the
same way was formed the name ‘Novantæ,’ a tribe which occupied the
territory from the ‘Novius,’ which here separated them from the
Selgovæ, to the Irish Sea. As the name Nith is the equivalent of
Ptolemy’s ‘Novius,’ so Bede’s ‘Niduari’ is the exact equivalent of
Ptolemy’s ‘Novantæ;’ and the author does not now doubt that they were
the same people to whom the name of ‘Picti’ was likewise applied. In
either view St. Cuthbert had to go some distance by land from Melrose
to reach the sea. If he proceeded to the Solway Firth, he would pass
from Teviotdale by Ewisdale, and his course is marked by the church
being dedicated to him. The most prominent headland on the north side
of the Solway is where the Dee enters into it, and here the parish of
Kirkcudbright is also dedicated to him. He landed ‘sub ripa,’ where he
and his companions passed three days between the highland and the
shore, waiting for a fair wind. ‘The line of coast from Mullock bay on
the east to Torr’s point extends about three miles. It is bold and
rocky, except for a short space immediately below the farmhouse of
Howell, and at a point east of that called “the Haen,” _i.e._ Haven,
in Balmae.... In a precipice, on the Balmae shore, to the west, and
not far from the mouth of the Dee, is a remarkable natural cavern
called Torr’s Cove which extends sixty feet into the rock.... The door
is said to have been originally built with stone, and to have had a
lintel at the top, which is now buried in the ruins. The cave is
thought to have been sometimes used as a hiding-place in former
times.’—(_N. S. A._ vol. iv. Kirkcudbright, p. 6.) This may have been
the scene of St. Cuthbert’s adventure.
Footnote 121:
See _Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, Pref. pp. xviii-xxiii.
Footnote 122:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 6.
Footnote 123:
_Ibid._ p. 410.
Footnote 124:
_Liber Hymnorum_, i. pp. 97, 105.
Footnote 125:
_Ib._ p. 117.
Footnote 126:
‘Near to the parish church of Anwoth, in Galloway, is a low undulating
range of hills, called the Boreland Hills. One of these goes by the
name of Trusty’s Hill, and round its top may be traced the remains of
a vitrified wall.’—Stuart’s _Sculptured Stones_, vol. i. p. 31. Anwoth
is on the east side of Wigtown Bay; Whithern in the peninsula on the
west side.
Footnote 127:
Mailcon is the genitive form of Mailcu. It is the same name as Milchu,
the Dalaradian king who held St. Patrick in slavery.
Footnote 128:
Venit autem Brittaniam Columba, regnante Pictis Bridio filio
Meilochon, rege potentissimo, nono anno regni ejus, gentemque illam
verbo et exemplo ad fidem Christi convertit.—_Hist. Ec._ B. iii. c.
iv.
Footnote 129:
Adamnan, _Vit. Columbæ_, ed. 1874, p. 174.
Footnote 130:
580 Cendaeladh rex Pictorum mortuus est.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p.
67.
Footnote 131:
The old name of the parish of New Abbey, in Kirkcudbright, was Loch
Kindeloch, as appears from the Chartulary of Kelso, No. 253. The loch
seems to have taken its name from Cendaeladh.
Footnote 132:
Scotorum a circione, Pictorum ab aquilone.
Footnote 133:
Revertuntur ergo impudentes grassatores Hiberni domum post non multum
temporis reversuri (§ 21). The author considers this the correct
reading in preference to ‘ad hibernas domos,’ as it is supported by
the best MSS.
Footnote 134:
The MSS. differ so much that it is impossible to give a correct
quotation, and the reader is referred to any of the recent additions
of Nennius. The settlement of the Dam Hoctor, or company of eight, was
probably that in Gwyned or North Wales, which he afterwards states was
driven out by Cuneda, as was the settlement in ‘regione Dimetorum’ or
S. Wales. That by Istoreth in Dalmeta or Dalrieta was the same as that
described by Bede. The Irish translator, in transferring the first to
Ireland, and in connecting the latter with the Picts, is probably
making alterations at his own hand; but is right in identifying the
settlers of Builc in Eubonia with the Firbolg who fled to the isles of
Man, Arran, and others.
Footnote 135:
Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. i. c. 1.
Footnote 136:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 18.
Footnote 137:
Feargus mor mac Earca cum gente Dalriada partem Britanniæ tenuit et
ibi mortuus est.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 66.
Footnote 138:
The tripartite life of St. Patrick contains an account of the
conversion of Erc and his people by St. Patrick.—_Ib._ p. 17.
Footnote 139:
The tale told by the Irish historians is this:—Conare, son of
Mogalama, chief of a tribe of Munster Scots called the Degada, became
king of Ireland, and reigned eight years, from 158 to 165. He had
three sons: Cairbre Musc, from whom descend all the septs of the
Muscraidhe in Munster; Cairbre Baschaein, from whom descend the
Baiscnidh of Corco Baiscinn in Munster; and Cairbre Riada, who
established himself with his sept in Ulster, and whose possessions
there were termed Dalriada. He is said to have passed over to Argyll
and settled the Scots there, and is the Reuda of Bede. Pinkerton
adopts this story, and dates their earliest colony in 258. He
identifies it with the Attacotti, which he absurdly explains to
mean—Hither Scots, and in this Mr. Burton seems disposed to follow
him; but this part of his argument is based entirely upon the spurious
Richard of Cirencester. Chalmers, with more judgment, rejects it, and
in fact there is no authority for it in the Irish Annals. The Scotch
Chronicles are opposed to it. The oldest which gives the Dalriadic
history expressly says of Fergus, son of Erc, ‘ipse fuit _primus_ qui
de semine Chonare suscepit regnum Alban.’ The Albanic Duan knows of no
earlier colony than that under the sons of Erc. Flann Mainistrech and
Tighernac know nothing of it, nor do the Irish additions made to
Nennius. Gildas, too, knows nothing of it. It is to be found in
Nennius and Bede alone, and the Irish translator neutralises Nennius’s
statement of a settlement of Scots in Dalrieta under Istoreth, son of
Istorinus, by converting it into a settlement of Picts, while he
removes the colony of Dam Hoctor, or the company of eight, from
Britannia to Erin. The only Irish authority which at all points to an
earlier settlement is the curious legend contained in Cormac’s
Glossary, under the word Mog-Eime (a lap-dog). It is there said,
‘Cairbre Musc, son of Conaire, brought it from the east from Britain,
for when great was the power of the Gael in Britain, they divided
Alban between them into districts, and each knew the residence of his
friend; and not less did the Gael dwell on the east side of the sea
than in Scotia (Ireland), and their habitations and royal forts were
built there. Inde dicitur Duin Tradui, _i.e._ Dun Tredui, _i.e._ the
triple fort of Crimthan mor, son of Fidach, king of Erin and Alban, to
the Mur n-Icht (Straits of Dover), et inde est Glasimpere of the Gael,
_i.e._ a church on the borders of Mur n-Icht ... and it is in that
part is Duin Map Lethain in the land of the Cornish Britons, _i.e._
the Fort of Mac Liathain, for Mac is the same as Map in the British.
Thus every tribe divided on that side, for its property to the east
was equal (to that on the west).’—Goidilica _Sanas Cormaic_, p. 29.
But it will be remarked that in this passage the legend is attached to
Cairbre Musc, and there is no mention of Cairbre Riada; there is also
no allusion to a settlement of Dalriada, and it evidently points to an
occupation of the whole country by the Scots. The reference to Duin
Map Liathan connects it with Nennius’s list of the Scottish colonies
in Britain, one of which was by the sons of Liathan, while the
reference to Crimthan mor mac Fidach, king of Erin and Alban, who is
said to have reigned over Ireland from 366 to 378, as clearly connects
it with the invasion of the Scots who occupied Britain for eight
years, from 360 to 368, when they were expelled by Theodosius. The
occasional occurrence of names in their Welsh form seems to point to a
British origin for this legend; and the author considers that the
tradition of an earlier settlement in Dalriada is a British and not an
Irish legend; that it arose when the Britons and Angles came in
contact with Dalriada as a settled kingdom in Britain; that it is not
older than the seventh century; and that its sole historical
foundation is the temporary occupation of Britain by the Scots during
the last fifty years of the Roman province.
Footnote 140:
Tighernac terms these three kings ‘Ri Alban,’ which implies a
considerable extent of territory; but in 560 he has ‘Bass (death of)
Gabrain mic Domanguirt, Ri Albain. Teichedh do Albanchaib ria (flight
of the people of Alban before) m-Bruidi mic Maelchon Ri Cruithnech
(king of the Picts),’ and he terms Conall and the subsequent kings Ri
Dalriada, or kings of Dalriada only.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 67.
Footnote 141:
_Ib._ p. 82.
Footnote 142:
574 Bass Conaill mac Comgaill Ri Dalriada xiii. anno regni sui qui
oferavit insulam Ia Coluimcille. Cath Delgon a Cindtire in quo Duncadh
mac Conaill mic Comgaill et alii multi de sociis filiorum Gabrain
ceciderunt.—_Ib._ p. 67. Delgon seems to be afterwards called
Cindelgen. It is probably the place from which the Lord of the Isles
dates a charter in 1471, apud Ceandaghallagan in Knapdal.
Footnote 143:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 83.
Footnote 144:
Reeves’s _Adamnan_, ed. 1874, p. 81.
Footnote 145:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 60.
Footnote 146:
Reeves’s _Adamnan_, ed. 1874, p. 264.
Footnote 147:
This is evidently alluded to in the passage in the tripartite life of
St. Patrick, when he blesses Fergus, son of Ere, in Irish Dalriada,
and says, ‘Though not great is thy land at this day among thy
brothers, it is thou shalt be king. From thee the kings of this
territory shall for ever descend, and in Fortrenn (Pictland), and this
was fulfilled in Aidan, son of Gabran, who took Alban by
force.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 17.
Footnote 148:
Aetio ter consuli gemitus Britannorum. Repellunt nos Barbari ad mare,
repellit nos mare ad Barbaros; inter hæc oriuntur duo genera funerum,
aut jugulamur, aut mergimur.—Gildas, 17.
Footnote 149:
The name Gurthrigern, usually inserted in the text, is not to be found
in the best MSS., and is an interpolation. The ‘concilium’ or council
was evidently the Roman provincial council, and the leader is here
called Dux Britannorum, also a Roman military title.
Footnote 150:
‘Usque ad annum obsessionis Badonici montis.’ The words which follow,
‘qui prope Sabrinum ostium habetur,’ are not in the best MSS., and are
an interpolation.
Footnote 151:
‘Transactoque Romanorum imperio in Brittannia per quadraginta annos
fuerunt sub metu. Guerthigirnus regnavit in Brittania et dum ipse
regnabat in Brittannia urgebatur a metu Pictorum Scottorumque et a
Romanico impetu necnon et a timore Ambrosii. Interea venerunt tres
cyulæ a Germania expulsæ in exilio in quibus erant Hors et Hengist....
Guorthigernus suscepit eos benigne et tradidit eis insulam quæ in
lingua eorum vocatur Tanet Britannico sermone Rusihen. Regnante
Gratiano secundo Equantio Romæ Saxones a Guorthigirno suscepti sunt
anno trecentesimo quadragesimo septimo post passionem Christi.’ This
account appears to belong to the work as originally compiled in the
seventh century.
Footnote 152:
Invitabo filium meum cum fratrueli suo, bellatores enim viri sunt, ut
dimicent contra Scottos et da illis regiones, quæ sunt in aquilone,
juxta murum qui vocatur Guaul. Et jussit ut invitaret eos et invitati
sunt Octha et Ebissa cum quadraginta ciulis. At ipsi, cum navigarent
circa Pictos, vastaverunt Orcades insulas, et venerunt et occupaverunt
regiones plurimas ultra mare Fresicum usque ad confinia Pictorum. Some
MSS. connected with Durham add after ‘mare Fresicum,’ ‘quod inter nos
Scottosque est.’ The author understands Nennius to mean that this body
of invaders arrived on the east coast, went round the island, ravaging
the Orkneys on their way, and entered the districts about the wall and
on the north of the Firth of Forth by the west.
Footnote 153:
A tempore quo primo Saxones venerunt in Bryttanniam usque ad annum
quartum Mermeni regis computantur anni ccccxxix. This account is in
the Vatican MS. only, and has obviously been added in an edition
compiled in 821. It corresponds with an old Welsh chronicle in the Red
Book of Hergest, which commences thus:—‘From the age of Guorthegirn
Guorthenau to the battle of Badwn are 128 years.’—_Chron. Picts and
Scots_, p. 161. The date of the battle is 516, and deducting 128 years
gives us 388 as the beginning of Guorthegirn’s reign, and the fourth
year when the Saxons came 392.
Footnote 154:
Guorthigirnus autem tenuit imperium in Brittannia Theodosio et
Valentiniano consulibus et in quarto anno regni sui Saxones ad
Brittanniam venerunt, Felice et Tauro consulibus, quadringentesimo
anno ab incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi.
Nennius appears to have reckoned 27 years between the incarnation and
the passion of Christ. We should probably read ‘a passione’ for ‘ab
incarnatione,’ which makes the year equal to 427 or 428.
Footnote 155:
In Oceano vero occidentali est insula quæ dicitur Britannia, ubi olim
gens Saxonum veniens ab antiqua Saxonia cum principe suo, nomine
Anschis, modo habitare videtur.
Footnote 156:
Bede quotes the passage thus:—‘Revertuntur ergo impudentes grassatores
Hiberni domus,’ which shows the reading of the text in his time.—B. i.
c. xiv.
Footnote 157:
Placuitque omnibus cum suo rege Vortigerno ut Saxonum gentem de
transmarinis partibus in auxilium vocarent.—B. i. c. xiv.
Footnote 158:
Tum subito inito ad tempus fœdere cum Pictis quos longius jam bellando
pepulerant, in socios arma vertere incipiunt.—Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. i.
c. xv.
Footnote 159:
Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. i. c. xv. In his Chronicon, written apparently
two years earlier than his History, Bede narrates the incursions of
the Picts and Scots and the final departure of the Romans under the
year 429, and the landing of the Angles or Saxons in 459. The true
date of the accession of Martian to the Empire in conjunction with
Valentinian is 450. Lappenberg, in his _History of England_, has
clearly demonstrated the legendary character of this narrative; and
Kemble, in his _Saxons in England_, takes the same view. Nevertheless,
Mr. Freeman, in his _Old English History_, appears to accept both
dates and narratives as history; and Mr. Green, in his _History of the
English People_, describes the landing of the Saxons under Hengist and
Horsa in 449 in the island of Thanet as if he had himself witnessed
the event.
Footnote 160:
Tribunus Cohortis Primæ Novæ Armoricæ Grannona in Litore
Saxonico.—_Not. Imp._
Footnote 161:
This has been well shown by Kemble, _Saxons in England_, vol. i. p.
10.
Footnote 162:
This was first observed by Sharon Turner in his _History of the
Anglo-Saxons_, vol. i. p. 105.
Footnote 163:
Theodosii xviii (A.D. 441) Britanniæ usque ad hoc tempus variis
cladibus eventibusque latæ in ditionem Saxonum rediguntur.
Footnote 164:
Compare the expression, ‘Repellunt nos Barbari ad mare, repellit nos
mare ad Barbaros; aut jugulamur aut mergimur,’ with what is said of
the Saxons, ‘Confovebatur namque, ultionis justæ præcedentium scelerum
causa, de mari usque ad mare ignis orientalis,’ etc.; and of the
Britons, ‘Itaque nonnulli miserarum reliquiarum in montibus deprehensi
acervatim jugulabantur ... alii transmarinas petebant regiones.’
Footnote 165:
Nennius, after describing how the Saxons increased in number in
Britain, and how Octa passed from the north to Kent, from whom the
subsequent kings of Kent descended, proceeds, ‘Tunc Arthur pugnabat
contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus Brittonum, sed ipse dux erat
bellorum.’ The ‘illos’ here is referred in another MS. to the Saxones
mentioned in the beginning of the passage, and not to the ‘reges
Cantiorum.’
Footnote 166:
‘Et vocatur Britannico sermone Guaul.’ This district is termed in the
Bruts Mureif, from ‘mur,’ signifying a wall, and is identified with
Reged, the kingdom of Urien, the old form of which name was
Urbgen—Urbigena—City-born, alluding probably to Dumbarton.
Footnote 167:
‘Id est Cat Coit Celidon,’ the battle of the wood Celidon.
Footnote 168:
The Vatican MS. adds, ‘ubi illos in fugam vertit quem nos Cat Bregion
appellamus.’ This strange name seems to belong to the Picts more than
to the Saxons, who could hardly have possessed Edinburgh at that early
period.
Footnote 169:
516, Bellum Badonis in quo Arthur portavit Crucem Domini nostri Jesu
Christi tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in humeros suos et Britones
victores fuerunt.—_An. Cam._ Tradition points to Ossa Cyllellaur, a
descendant of Octa, as Arthur’s opponent in this battle.
Footnote 170:
The author goes no further than this in this work. The question as to
the true character of Arthur, and the site of these battles, is
discussed in the _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. i. pp. 51-58; and
in Mr. Glennie’s _Arthurian Localities_. Neither does he import into
this work any matter from the old Welsh poems, which, whether genuine
or spurious, afford at all events no proper basis for an historical
narrative.
Footnote 171:
A.D. 537, Gueith Camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruere.—_An.
Cam._, _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 14.
Footnote 172:
Mr. Nash, in his introduction to ‘Merlin or the Early History of King
Arthur’ (_Early English Text Society_, 1865), makes a statement which
appears to me well founded: ‘Certain it is,’ he says, ‘that there are
two Celtic—we may perhaps say two Cymric—localities, in which the
legends of Arthur and Merlin have been deeply implanted, and to this
day remain living traditions cherished by the peasantry of these two
countries, and that neither of them is Wales or Britain west of the
Severn. It is in Brittany and in the old Cumbrian kingdom south of the
Firth of Forth that the legends of Arthur and Merlin have taken root
and flourished.’ To Cumbria, however, may be added Cornwall, where the
Arthurian romance places the scene of many of its adventures; and it
is rather remarkable that we should find in the second century a tribe
termed Damnonii, possessing Cornwall, and a tribe of the same name
occupying the ground which forms the scene of his exploits in the
north.
Footnote 173:
It is usually stated by modern writers that Ida landed in 547 with a
body of Angles, and founded the kingdom of Northumberland, but the
older authorities give no countenance to the idea of a colony under
Ida. Nennius has no hint of his having come into the island from the
Continent. Bede, in the short chronicle annexed to his History, has
‘Anno 547, Ida regnare cœpit, a quo regalis Nordanhymbrorum prosapia
originem tenet et duodecim annis in regno permansit.’ This statement
is repeated by the _Saxon Chronicle_, which adds, ‘And built
Bambrough, which was at first enclosed by a hedge, and afterwards by a
wall,’ and by Florence of Worcester. Simeon of Durham has simply, ‘Ida
rex annis regnavit xi.’ William of Malmesbury, however, connects Ida
very clearly with the earlier settlements; for, after narrating how
Octa and Ebissa seized the northern parts of Britain, he says, ‘Annis
enim uno minus centum, Northanhimbri duces communi habitu contenti,
sub imperio Cantuaritarum privatos agebant: sed non postea stetit hæc
ambitionis continentia, seu quia semper in deteriora decliva est
humanus animus, seu quia gens illa naturaliter inflatiores anhelat
spiritus. Anno itaque Dominicæ incarnationis quingentesimo
quadragesimo septimo, post mortem Hengesti sexagesimo, _ducatus in
regnum mutatus_, regnavitque ibi primus Ida, haud dubie nobilissimus,
ætate et viribus integer; verum utrum ipse per se principatum
invaserit, an aliorum consensu delatum susceperit, parum definio.’ The
first writer who mentions the colony is the anonymous author of the
tract ‘De primo Saxonum Adventu,’ and he is copied by John
Wallingford. After repeating the usual statement, ‘Ida primus rex ex
Anglis cœpit regnare in Northanhymbrorum provincia,’ he adds, ‘Venerat
autem Ida comite patre Eoppa cum lx. navibus ad Flamaburch, indeque
boreales plagas occupans, ibidem regnavit duodecim annis.’ The
statement seems to be adopted from the account of Octa and Ebissa’s
colony.
Footnote 174:
These names, Bernicia and Deira, are taken from the British names of
the same districts, Deifr and Byrneich. Nennius has a curious notice
which shows that these Anglic kingdoms did not first arise from
colonies as late as 547. He says of Soemil, four generations before
Ella, ‘Ipse primus separavit Deur o Berneich.’ The race from which
Ella sprang must have been some generations before in the country.
Footnote 175:
Contra illum quatuor reges Urbgen et Riderchen et Guallauc et Morcant
dimicaverunt.—_Gen. Nennius._ The genealogy of these four kings is
given in the Welsh pedigrees annexed to Nennius.—_Chron. Picts and
Scots_, pp. 15, 16. The reader is referred to the _Four Ancient Books
of Wales_, vol. i. pp. 336-355, for the historical poems relating to
the battles fought in this war.
Footnote 176:
The Chronicle annexed to Nennius has, at 573, ‘Bellum Armterid,’ to
which a later MS. adds—‘Inter filios Elifer et Gwendoleu filium
Keidiau; in quo bello Gwendoleu cecidit: Merlinus insanus effectus
est.’—_An. Camb._ A more detailed account will be found in the
Proceedings of the S. A. Scot. (vol. vi. p. 91), in a notice of the
site of the battle of Ardderyd. The Welsh genealogies annexed to
Nennius, as well as those in the tract on the Gwyr Gogled, or men of
the north (_Four Ancient Books of Wales_, ii. 455), show us very
clearly the native and the Roman party. The former are in both
documents traced to Coil Hen, who is supposed to have given his name
to the district of Kyle in Ayrshire, and to them belonged both Eliffer
and Gwendolew. The latter are brought by both from Dungual Hen, or the
aged, but in this document he is made grandson of Maxim Guletic, or
Maximus the emperor; but in the former and older account he is
grandson of Ceretic Guletic, whose pedigree is traced from Confer or
Cynfor, the reputed father of Constantine, who usurped the empire in
406. This Ceretic, the Guletic or leader of the North Britons, being
four generations earlier than Rhydderch, must have lived in the middle
of the fifth century, and I do not hesitate to identify him with the
Coroticus to whom St. Patrick addressed his letter written between 432
and 493. It is addressed ‘ad Christianos Corotici Tyranni subditos.’
It is to be given to his soldiers, ‘tradenda militibus mittenda
Corotici.’ He will not call them his fellow-citizens (civibus meis),
St. Patrick being a native of Strathclyde—sed civibus dæmoniorum. He
calls them ‘Socii Scotorum atque Pictorum apostatarum’—the Scots and
the apostate Picts of this region. And again he says that his sheep
have been plundered by robbers—‘jubente Corotico ... traditor
Christianorum in manus Scottorum et Pictorum;’ and again that ‘ingenui
homines Christiani in servitute redacti sunt, præsertim
indignissimorum pessimorum apostatarumque Pictorum.’ It shows
Coroticus as the Guletic, or one of the Tyranni who succeeded the
Romans in command of soldiers, and in close contact with apostate
Picts. This falling off of the Britons and Picts will be further
illustrated in another part of this work. For a more detailed account
of the Men of the North, see the _Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol.
i. chap. x., and the genealogical tables there given. Among the
descendants of Dungual Hen will be found another grandson, Nud, also
called Hael or liberal, whose son Dryan fought at Ardderyd; and at
Yarrow, in the centre of the districts more especially connected with
the Roman party, a stone has been found with the following
inscription, part of which only can be read:
HIC MEMOR IACETI
LOIN : : : NI : : : : : :
PRINC
PE : : NVDI (LIBERALI)
dVMNOGENI · HIC IACENT
IN TVMVLO dVO FIlII
LIBERALI
This inscription appears to contain the name of Nud Hael or Liberalis,
and the word Dumnogeni probably connects him with the Damnonii whom
Ptolemy places here.—_Proceed. S. A. Scot._ vol. iv. p. 539.
Footnote 177:
Reeves’s _Adamnan_, ed. 1874, pp. 15, 136. Adamnan was born in
624.—_Ib._ p. 244.
Footnote 178:
Contra illum Urbgen cum filiis dimicabat fortiter. In illo tempore
aliquando hostes, nunc cives, vincebantur.—_Nennius, Gen._ It is
invariably assumed that Flamddwyn was a title borne by Ida, but there
is no authority whatever for it. It is merely asserted by writers on
Welsh history without proof. The epithet is only mentioned by the
Bards in two poems: the Gweith Argoet Llwyfein or Battle of Leven
Wood, and the Marwnat Owein or Death-song of Owen, son of Urien. In
the one Urien and his son Owen are described as fighting against
Flamddwyn, and in the other Owen is slain by Flamddwyn. (See _Four
Ancient Books of Wales_, i. 265, 366; ii. 413, 418.) It is clear,
therefore, that it was Theodoric, against whom Urien with his sons
fought valiantly.
Footnote 179:
His temporibus signo Nordanhymbrorum præfuit rex fortissimus et
gloriae cupidissimus Aedilfrid, qui plus omnibus Anglorum primatibus
gentem vastavit Brittonum.... Nemo enim in tribunis, nemo in regibus
plures eorum terras, exterminatis vel subjugatis indigenis, aut
tributarias genti Anglorum, aut habitabiles fecit.—Bede, _Hist. Ec._
B. i. c. xxxiv.
Footnote 180:
See _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 127. Tighernac records, at 606, the
death of Aidan, son of Gabran, in the thirty-eighth year of his reign
and seventy-fourth of his age. This places his birth in 533, and the
commencement of his reign in 569. He did not, however, succeed Conall
on the throne of Dalriada till 574. There were, therefore, five years
during which he reigned elsewhere before he became king of Dalriada.
Welsh tradition connects him with the battle of Ardderyd as one of the
contending parties; and in the tract on the Gwyr y Gogled, or Men of
the North, he appears among the Roman party as grandson of Dungual
Hen. His mother was Lleian, daughter of Brachan of Brecheniauc. There
is a tract in the Cotton MSS. (Vesp. A, xiv.), ‘De Brachan Brecheniauc
et cognatione ejus,’ which states that Brecheniauc or Brecknock, in
South Wales, received its name from him, and that he was son of
Aulach, son of Cormac, king of Ireland. It gives him ten sons and
twenty-six daughters, but while some of these sons and daughters are
connected with localities in South Wales, others are stated to have
founded churches or died in the north. Thus Arthur is buried in Manau
or Manann, Rhun Dremrudd was slain with his brother Rhawin or Rhuofan
by the Saxons and Picts, and both founded churches in Manau; Nefydd
was a bishop in y Gogledd, where he was slain by Saxons and Picts. Of
the daughters Beithan died in Manau; Lleian was mother of Aidan; Nevyn
was mother of Urien; Gwawr was mother of Llywarch Hen; Gwrgon Goddeu
was wife of Cadrawd Calchvynydd, and the sepulchre of Brychan is said
to be in an island called Yny Brychan, near Manau. The history of two
different persons of the same name is here obviously combined, and one
of the Brychans, the son of Aulach, is closely connected with Manau,
and brought in contact with the Picts and Saxons. His daughter Lleian
was mother of Aidan, and through her he may have inherited rights
connected with it, and thus appear among the British knights engaged
in the struggle which terminated with the battle of Ardderyd in 573.
The other Brychan was probably Brychan, son of Gwyngon, who appears in
the _Liber Llandavensis_ (p. 456) as a donor of lands to Bishop
Trychan, and among the witnesses are Dingad and Clydawg, two of the
sons who are connected with Wales.
Footnote 181:
582 or 583, Cath Manand in quo victor erat Aidan mac Gabrain.—_Tigh._
590, Cath Leithrig la h-Aidan mac Gabrian.—_Ib._
596, Jugulatio filiorum Aidan i Bran Domangart et Eochad Find et
Artuir i Cath Chirchind in quo victus est Aedan.—_Ib._
Footnote 182:
Reeves’s _Adamnan_, ed. 1874, p. 12. The author cannot identify the
battle of Leithrig, but Adamnan tells us that Artur and Eochoid Find,
two of Aidan’s sons, were killed in the battle of the Miathi, which
identifies it with the battle of Chirchind, fought in 596. This was
the last year of St. Columba’s life. It is difficult to fix the
locality of this battle. Circinn was a name applied to the district of
which Maghgirginn or Mearns, now Kincardineshire, was a part, but
Aidan could hardly have penetrated so far east. Dr. Reeves thinks it
may have been at the place now called Kirkintulloch. The term
‘Barbari’ is applied by Adamnan both to Picts and Saxons, but the name
Miathi seems to belong to the Picts. The same war may have embraced
Saxons also, as Domangart, slain the same year, perished, according to
Adamnan, in battle ‘in Saxonia.’
Footnote 183:
Bede, _Hist. Ecc._ B. i. c. xxxiv. Tighernac has, in 600, ‘Cath
Saxonum la h-Aedain ubi cecidit Eanfraith frater Etalfraich la Maeluma
me Baedain in quo victor erat.’ The Irish annalist ignores Aidan’s
defeat, and fixes upon Maeluma’s success in cutting off Theobald with
his troops. By some it has been supposed that Dalstone in Cumberland
was the scene of this battle; but while the word Degsastane passes
naturally into Dawstone, it never could have formed Dalstone.
CHAPTER IV.
ETHNOLOGY OF BRITAIN.
[Sidenote: Inquiry into Ethnology of Britain proper at this stage.]
Having thus given the traditionary history of that dark interval which
intervened between the departure of the Romans from the island of
Britain in the beginning of the fifth century, and the period when we
become once more acquainted with its history in the latter part of the
sixth century, and find the barbarian tribes who had assailed the Roman
province now settled in the form of kingdoms with definite limits; and
having endeavoured to extricate from it a chronological narrative of
events based on historic truth, we may pause here to make some inquiry
into the ethnology of the races composing these kingdoms.
The traditionary writers describe the whole of these four nations—the
Britons, Picts, Scots, and Saxons—as having been colonies of foreign
races who came into Britain at different periods; and, in a sense, this
is true of all of them, though the immigration of the first two took
place at a very remote period, and long before we have any historical
record connected with the inhabitants of the island. Archæology,
however, enables us to trace the previous existence of a people of a
different race, indications of which are to be found to a limited extent
in the earlier notices of Britain and in its topography.
[Sidenote: An Iberian or Basque people preceded the Celtic race in
Britain and Ireland.]
A distinguished writer on ethnology lays down certain propositions which
he terms fixed points in British ethnology. His first proposition is
this: ‘Eighteen hundred years ago the population of Britain comprised
peoples of two types of complexion, the one fair, and the other dark.
The dark people resembled the Aquitani and the Iberians; the fair people
were like the Belgic Gauls.’ His second proposition is, ‘The people
termed Gauls, and those called Germans, by the Romans, did not differ in
any important physical character.’ These two propositions we may accept
as well founded.[184] Certain it is that when the Romans entered Britain
and became acquainted with its inhabitants in that part of the island
nearest Gaul, they do not record any difference in their physical
appearance. On the contrary, Tacitus remarks that they resembled each
other in every respect. When the war with the Silures, who occupied
territories in the south-west, brought them in contact with that people,
Tacitus thus records the result of their observation. Their complexion
was different and of a darker hue. Their hair was curly, and they
resembled the Iberians: and when Agricola’s campaigns made them
acquainted with the inhabitants of Caledonia, the only observation they
made was that they were larger-limbed and had redder hair, and in this
respect resembled the Germans more than the Gauls.
At an early period, the Greek writers, in whom we find the earliest
notices of Britain, seem to have had a persuasion that the portion of
the inhabitants of Britain who were more particularly connected with the
working of tin, possessed peculiarities which distinguished them from
the rest. At first they knew only of islands called the Cassiterides, so
called from a word signifying tin, as the quarter from whence tin was
brought. They then became aware that tin was wrought in Britain as well,
and they came to view the Cassiterides as islands lying between Spain
and Britain. Diodorus tells us that ‘they who dwell near the promontory
of Britain which is called Belerion (Land’s End) are singularly fond of
strangers, and, from their intercourse with foreign merchants, civilised
in their habits. These people obtain the tin by skilfully working the
soil which produces it; this being rocky, has earthy interstices, in
which, working the ore, and then fusing, they reduce it to metal; and
when they have formed it into cubical shapes, they convey it to a
certain island lying off Britain, named Ictis; for at the low tides the
intervening space being laid dry, they carry thither in wagons the tin
in great abundance.’ He also says, ‘Above the country of the
Lusitanians, there are many mines of tin in the little islands called
Cassiterides from this circumstance, lying off Iberia, in the ocean, and
much of it also is carried across from the Bretannic Isle to the
opposite coast of Gaul, and thence conveyed on horses by the merchants,
through the intervening Celtic land, to the people of Massilia, and to
the city called Narbonne.’ Though the name Ictis leads one to refer this
description to the Isle of Wight, it is more probable that the present
St. Michael’s Mount is meant. At ebb tide it is accessible from the
mainland, and tin is found there in two ways, in streamlets and in
mines. By the Cassiterides, the Scilly Islands seem to be intended.[185]
Strabo reports of Posidonius that he says that tin is not found upon the
surface, as authors commonly relate, but that it is dug up; and that it
is produced both in places among the Barbarians who dwell beyond the
Lusitanians, and in the islands Cassiterides; and that from the
Bretannic Isles it is carried to Massalia; and he adds, ‘The
Cassiterides are ten in number, and lie near each other in the ocean,
towards the north from the haven of the Artabri: one of them is desert,
but the others are inhabited by men in black cloaks, clad in tunics
reaching to the feet, and girt about the breast; walking with staves,
and bearded like goats. They subsist by their cattle, leading for the
most part a wandering life. And having metals of tin and lead, these and
skins they barter with the merchants for earthenware and salt, and
brazen vessels.’ He mentions that they were visited by Publius Crassus,
apparently one of Caesar’s officers, ‘who perceived that the metals were
dug out at a little depth, and that the men being at peace were already
beginning, in consequence of their leisure, to busy themselves about the
sea,’[186] The black cloaks and goats’ beards seem to be an exaggerated
and distorted representation of the darkness of the complexion and the
curled hair attributed to the Silures. Pomponius Mela and Pliny in the
first century both allude to the Cassiterides, so called, say both,
because they abound in tin, and so does Solinus in similar terms; but
the latter also states that ‘a stormy channel separates the coast which
the Damnonii occupy from the island Silura, whose inhabitants preserve
the ancient manners, reject money, barter merchandise, value what they
require by exchange rather than by price, worship the gods, and both men
and women profess a knowledge of the future.’ His description resembles
that of Diodorus, and he probably considered Cornwall as an island, and
connects it by name with the Silures.[187]
In the following century we find that the name of Cassiterides has been
dropped, and they are now called the Hesperides, while their inhabitants
were believed to have been Iberians. Dionysius Periegeta says, in the
end of this century—‘But near the sacred promontory, where they say is
the end of Europe, the Hesperides Isles, whence tin proceeds, dwell the
rich sons of the noble Iberians.’[188] In the fourth century, Rufus
Festus Avienus calls these islands the Oestrymnides. He says that the
northern promontory of Spain was called Oestrymnis, and adds, ‘Below the
summit of this promontory the Oestrymnic bay spreads out before the
inhabitants, in which the Oestrymnic Isles show themselves’—
Lying far off, and rich in metals
Of tin and lead. Great the strength of this nation,
Proud their mind, powerful their skill,
Trading the constant care of all.
The broad boisterous channel with boats and southerly wind,
They cut the gulf of the monster-filled ocean;
They know not to fit with pine
Their keels, nor with fir, as use is,
They shape their boats; but, strange to say,
They fit their vessels with united skins,
And often traverse the deep in a hide.
Then, after mentioning the sacred island of the Hiberni and the island
of the Albiones, he adds, ‘It is customary for the people of Tartessus
to trade in the bounds of the Oestrymnides;’[189] and Priscianus
Periegeta, who flourished in the beginning of the sixth century, calls
them the Hesperides, and says that over-against the sacred promontory
which men call the end of Europe lie the Hesperides, full of tin, which
the strong people of the Iberi occupy.[190]
If these notices show that a persuasion existed among many that the
population of the Scilly Isles, Cornwall, and South Wales was Iberian,
an examination of the ancient sepulchral remains in Britain gives us
reason to suppose that a people possessing their physical
characteristics had once spread over the whole of both of the British
Isles. The latest writer on the subject thus sums up the result of the
investigation into the character of these remains:—‘The materials for
working out the craniology of Europe in prehistoric times do not justify
any sweeping conclusions as to the distribution of the various races,
but those which Dr. Thurnam has collected in Britain offer a firm basis
for such an inquiry. In the numerous long barrows and chambered-gallery
graves of our island, which, from the invariable absence of bronze and
the frequent presence of polished stone implements, may be referred to
the neolithic age, the crania belong, with scarcely an exception, to the
first two of these divisions (the Dolichocephali or long skulls). In the
round barrows, on the other hand, in which bronze articles are found,
they belong mainly to the third division (Brachycephali or broad
skulls), although some are Orthocephalous (having oval skulls). On
evidence of this kind Dr. Thurnam concludes that Britain was inhabited
in the neolithic age by a long-headed people, and that towards its close
it was invaded by a bronze-using race, who were dominant during the
bronze age. This important conclusion has been verified by nearly every
discovery which has been made in this country since its publication. The
long skulls graduate into the broad, the oval skulls being the
intermediate forms, and this would naturally result from the
intermingling of the blood of the two races.’[191] Ireland presents
precisely the same phenomena.[192] The same writer thus sums up the
result of the inquiry:—‘Dr. Thurnam was the first to recognise that the
long skulls, out of the long barrows of Britain and Ireland, were of the
Basque or Iberian type, and Professor Huxley holds that the river-bed
skulls belong to the same race. We have therefore proofs that an Iberian
or Basque population spread over the whole of Britain and Ireland in the
neolithic age, inhabiting caves, and burying their dead in caves and
chambered tombs, just as in the Iberian peninsula also in the neolithic
age.’[193]
[Sidenote: Ethnologic traditions.]
Of the Celtic race, which succeeded the Iberians in the British Isles,
and whose descendants still remain here, the Romans tell us nothing,
save that those in the interior of the country were believed to be
indigenous, and that those on the regions bordering upon the sea which
divides Britain from Gaul had passed over from the latter country; but
here we have the advantage of possessing an additional element of
information in their traditions. These represent, in more or less of an
archaic form, the popular notions prevailing among the people themselves
of their ethnology, their supposed descent, and their mutual relation to
each other. They usually appear in two different shapes—one in which the
tribes inhabiting the same country, but distinguished from each other by
national or ethnological differences, appear as successive colonies,
arriving at different times in the country from distant regions, founded
either upon genuine tradition or artificially upon some fancied
resemblance in name or characteristic; the other, where each race is
represented by an ‘eponymus’ from whom they are supposed to have been
descended, and to have derived their name, and these supposed eponymic
ancestors are connected together in an artificial family, in which the
paternal ancestor represents the race, and the maternal the country or
city they occupy. An analysis of these legends, then, is an almost
indispensable preliminary to any attempt to ascertain their true place
in the ethnology of the island.
[Sidenote: British traditions.]
For the oldest forms of the British traditions we must look to Nennius.
According to him, the Britons were a colony of Trojans who came from
Italy, and were the first inhabitants of the island. ‘Æneas the Trojan
had by Lavinia, daughter of Latinus, king of Italy, besides his son from
whom the Romans descended, a younger son, Brutus, who was expelled from
Italy and came to the islands of the Tyrrhene Sea. From thence he went
to Gaul and built the city of the “Turones,” called Turnis. At length he
came to this island, named from him Britannia, dwelt there, and filled
it with his descendants.’ His account of the colonies of Picts and Scots
which followed has been noticed in the preceding chapter. He then says
that he had learnt another account of these Britons from the ancient
books of his ancestors. According to this form, ‘the first man who came
to Europe of the race of Japhet was Alanus, with his three sons,
Hessitio, Armenon, and Negue. Hessitio had four sons, Francus, Romanus,
Britto, and Albanus. Armenon had five sons, Gothus, Ualagothus, Gebidus,
Burgoandus, and Longobardus. Negue, however, had three sons, Wandalus,
Saxo, and Boguarus. From Hessitio are sprung four nations, the Franci,
the Latini, the Albani, and the Britti. From Armenon five, the Goths,
Walagoths, Gebiddi, Burgunds, and Longobards; and from Neguius four, the
Boguarii, Vandals, Saxons, and Turingi.’ This is a rude attempt to
express in this form the ethnology of Europe. We have the Britons and
the people of Albania or the north represented by two brothers, Brittus
and Albanus; and we have the Saxons affiliated to another ancestor.
There is no appearance either in this or the previous form of ethnologic
tradition of these inhabitants of Britain having been preceded by the
Iberi.[194]
[Sidenote: Irish traditions.]
The Irish ethnologic legends are found in a prose tract, termed the
_Leabhar Gabhala_, or Book of Conquests.[195] The legends are supposed
to have been preserved by Fintan, who was baptized by St. Patrick, and
gave him an account of everything he remembered himself. It was reported
that he had lived before the flood, and had been miraculously preserved
in order that the memory of these events should not be lost.
The tale is this:—Forty days before the Deluge, Ceasar landed in Eirin,
at Dunnamarc, with Fintan, Bioth, and Ladhra, and fifty maidens, but
they all died before the Deluge happened. The first peopling of Ireland
after the Flood was by Partholon and his colony, who came from Migdonia
in Greece, and took his way through the “Muir Torrian,” or
Mediterranean, by Sicily, and, leaving Spain on the right, arrived in
Ireland, where he landed, with his three sons, Rughraidhe, Slainge, and
Laighline, and a thousand soldiers, at Inversceine, in the west of
Munster, on the 14th of May, but after three hundred years this colony
was entirely swept off by a plague at the Hill of Howth.
Thirty years after Nemhidh landed with a colony in Ireland. He came from
Scythia, through the Euxine Sea, past the Rhiphæan Mountains, to the
North Sea, whence he sailed to Ireland with his four sons, Starn,
Iarbhainel Faidh or the Prophet, Aininn, and Fergus Leithderg or
Redside. After his death his followers were expelled by a people called
the Fomhoruigh or sea robbers, and left Eirin in three bands. One, under
Simon Breac, son of Starn, went to that part of Greece called Thrace.
The second, under Iobaath, son of Beothuig, son of Iarbhainel, went to
the regions of the north of Europe; and the third, under Briotan Maol,
son of Fergus Leithderg, to Dobhar and Iardobhar, in the north of Alban,
and dwelt there.
Nemhidh and his race were two hundred and sixteen years in Ireland,
after which it remained a wilderness for two hundred years, when a
people called the Firbolg arrived in Ireland from Thrace. They were the
descendants of Simon Breac, and the Greeks had subjected them to
slavery, obliging them to dig the earth and raise mould, and carry it in
sacks or bags of leather, termed _bolgs_ in Irish. Whereupon they came
to a resolution to shake off the yoke, and make boats out of the
leathern sacks in which they carried the earth. They arrived under the
five sons of Deala—Slainge, Rughruidhe, Gann, Geannan, and Seangann—who
divided Ireland into five provinces. Their followers were divided into
three septs: the Firbolg, or men of the bags, who under Gann and
Seangann landed at Iorrus Domnann in Connaught; the Fir Domhnan, so
called from the _domhin_ or pits they used to dig, landed under Geannan
and Rughruidhe at Tracht Rughruidhe in Ulster; and the Fir Gaillian, or
men of the spear, so called from the _gai_ or spears they used to
protect the rest at work, under Slainge at Inverslainge in Leinster.
They founded the monarchy of Eirin, and held it thirty-six years; when
under Eochaidh, son of Erc, their last king, a people called the Tuatha
De Danaan arrived in Ireland. They were descended from Iobaath, son of
Beothuig, son of Iarbhainel the Prophet, son of Nemhidh, who had taken
refuge in the north of Europe. They lived in the land of Lochlin, where
they had four cities—Falias, Gorias, Finias, and Murias. After they had
continued a long time in these cities, they passed over to the north of
Alban, and dwelt seven years in Dobhar and Iardobhar, taking with them
four articles of value—the Lia Fal, or Stone of Destiny, from Falias;
the sword of Lughaidh Lamhfhada from Gorias; his spear from Finias; and
the caldron of the Dagda from Murias. After seven years they left Alban,
and landed on Monday the 1st of May in the north of Ireland, and sent
ambassadors to the king of the Firbolg, and demanded the sovereignty of
Erin. Upon this a great battle was fought at Muigh Tuireadh, in which
the Firbolg were defeated with the loss of ten thousand men, and the
remainder fled to the islands of Arran, Isla, Rachlin, and Innsigall,
where they remained till they were eventually driven out of the isles by
the Cruithnigh or Picts.
The Tuatha De Danaan remained one hundred and ninety-seven years in
Ireland, when the sons of Miledh arrived from Spain with the Scots, and
wrested the kingdom from them. This Miledh was said to have originally
borne the name of Golamh, and to be the son of Bile, son of Breogan, who
took possession of Spain. He had eight sons—two, Donn and Aireach
Feabhruadh, by Seang, daughter of Refloir, king of Scythia; and six,
Eibherfionn and Amhergin, Ir and Colpa, Arannan and Eireamon, by Scota,
daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. The Tuatha De Danaan were under the
rule of three brothers—MacCuill, MacCeacht, and MacGreine—who had their
seat at Oileach Neid in the north of Ulster, and from whose three
wives—Eire, Fodla, and Banba—the island had these names given to it. The
sons of Miledh arrived with their fleet at Inverslainge, now Wexford,
but were driven from shore by the spells of the Tuatha De Danaan, and
went round to Inbhersceine in the west of Munster. Three of the
sons—Donn, Ir, and Arannan—were drowned in a storm, but Eimher and his
followers landed at Inbhersceine, and encountered Eire with the Tuatha
De Danaan at Slieve Mis in Ulster, and defeated them. In this battle,
Scota, the wife of Miledh, fell. Eireamon, with another division of the
fleet, landed at Inbhercolpe, now called Drogheda, and was joined by
Eibhear there, when they met the rest of the Tuatha De Danaan at
Taillten in Meath, and slew there three kings with their wives. Having
thus entirely reduced the island, Eireamon became their first king. He
divided Ireland into four provinces. He gave the province of Ulster to
Emhear, son of Ir; Munster to the four sons of Emhear Finn; Connaught to
Un and Eadan; and Leinster to Crimthan Sgiathbhel of the Fir
Domnan.[196]
In the time of this Crimthan Sgiathbhel, king of Leinster, the
Cruithnigh came from the land of Thrace. They were the children of
Gleoin Mac Ercol, that is, of Gelonus, son of Hercules, and were called
Agathirsi. They came away with nine ships and three hundred and nine
persons, landed at Inverslainge under six brothers—Solan, Ulfa, Nechtan,
Drostan, Aengus, and Leithenn—and had passed through France, where they
built the city of Pictavis. The king of Leinster offered them a
settlement, provided they would drive out a people called the Tuatha
Fidhbhe. This they accomplished. Of the brothers, Leithenn died in
France; and Drostan, Solan, Nechtan, and Ulfa in Ireland. Gub, and his
son Cathluan, acquired great power in Erin, till Eireamon drove them
out, and gave them the wives of the men who had been drowned with his
brother Donn. Six of them remained in the plains of Bregia in Meath.
Those that left Erin sailed to Inver Boinne to dwell in the country
beyond Ile, and from thence they conquered Alban from Cath to
Forchu.[197]
An older account of the settlement of the sons of Miledh, and that of
the Cruithnigh in connection with it, is probably to be found in a poem
contained in the Book of Leinster, and attributed to Maelmurra of
Othain, who died in the year 884.[198] They are said in this poem ‘to
have been Greeks in their origin, and descended from Fenius, who came
from Scythia to Nembroth, where he built the great tower, and founded a
school for languages. This Fenius Farsaid had a son Nel, who went to
Egypt, and married Scota, daughter of Forann (Pharaoh), by whom he had a
son, Gaedhel Glass, and his people were called Gaedhil from him, Feni
from Fenius, and Scuith or Scots from Scota. After Forann was drowned in
the Red Sea, they seized his ships, and passed by India and by Asia to
Scythia; and then by the Caspian Sea to the Slieve Riffi or Rhiphæan
Mountains. They settled in Golgutha, where they dwelt two hundred years.
Brath, son of Deagath, then left Gaethligh for the islands of the Muir
Torrian or Mediterranean, and by Crete and Sicily to Spain. His son,
Breogan, conquered Spain, and founded Brigantia, or the tower of
Breogan. His son, Ith, discovered Erin, and landed at Bentracht or Magh
Ith in Leinster, and died at Slemnaibh (unknown). The six sons of
Miledh—Donn, Colptha, Amergin, Ir, Eber, and Erimon, with Luguid, son of
Ith, came to revenge his death with four-and-twenty plebeians to attend
them—two on each chief. Cruithne, son of Cing, took their women from
them, except Tea, the wife of Eireamon. They fought Banba with her hosts
at Sliabh Mis, Fodhla at Ebhlinne, and Eire at Uisneach. The Tuatha Dea
sent them forth, according to the laws of war, over nine waves. Eireamon
went with one half of the host to Inbhercolphtha; Donn with the other
half to Inbhersceine, but himself died at sea. They spread themselves
through Erin to her coasts, and made alliance with the Firbolg and the
clan of Nemid, their wives having been stolen from them. They made
alliance with the Tuatha Dea, and half the land was given to them.
Eireamon took the north as the inheritance of his race. Eber took the
south. Lugaidh, son of Ith, possessed certain districts, and Erin is
full of the race of Ir.’ Such is a short abstract of this curious poem.
The Milesians are here represented not as driving out the previous
inhabitants, but as making alliance with them, and obtaining wives from
the Tuatha De Danaan, their own wives having been taken from them by the
Cruithnigh.
Another version of this form of the legend of the Cruithnigh, is that
‘Cruithnechan, son of Cinge, son of Lochit, went from the sons of Miledh
to the Britons of Fortrenn, to fight against the Saxons, and remained
with them. But they had no wives, for the women of Alban had died. They
then went back to the sons of Miledh, and swore by heaven and earth, and
the sun and the moon, and by the dew and the elements, and by the sea
and the land, that the regal succession should be on the mother’s side,
and they took twelve of the women whose husbands had been drowned with
Donn.’[199]
In the form which these legends of the colonisation of Ireland assume in
the Book of Conquests there are five successive colonies, but the first
two, those of Partholan and Nemhidh, are separated from each other and
from the latter by long internals, while the last three, beginning with
the Firbolg, are continuous, each succeeding the other without interval.
The older form, as contained in Maelmurra’s poem, knows nothing of
Partholan and his colony, names the Firbolg first, and appears to
identify the Clanna Nemidh with the Tuatha Dea.[200] An unfortunate
resemblance between the name of the Firbolg and Cæsar’s Belgæ has led
most writers to assume that they were the same people, to the great
confusion of the early history of Ireland. There is nothing in the
legend—and what we are told of the Firbolg is simply legendary—to
warrant this, and the interpretation there given to the names Firbolg
and Firdomnan harmonises very singularly with the legendary accounts of
the tin-workers of Cornwall and the tin islands. It is not difficult to
recognise in the tradition that the Firbolg derived their name from the
leathern sacks which they filled with soil, and with which they covered
their boats, and the Firdomnan from the pits they dug, the people who
worked the tin by digging in the soil and transporting it in bags in
their hide-covered boats. The traditions too of the physical
characteristics of these early colonists of Ireland lead to the same
conclusion. It is thus quoted in the preface to M‘Firbis’s Book of
Genealogies: ‘Every one who is white [of skin], brown [of hair], bold,
honourable, daring, prosperous, bountiful in the bestowal of property,
wealth, and rings, and who is not afraid of battle or combat, they are
the descendants of the sons of Miledh in Erinn. Every one who is
fair-haired, vengeful, large; and every plunderer; every musical person;
the professor of musical and entertaining performances; who are adepts
in all Druidical and magical arts; they are the descendants of the
Tuatha De Danaan in Erinn. Every one who is black-haired, who is a
tattler, guileful, tale-telling, noisy, contemptible; every wretched,
mean, strolling, unsteady, harsh, and inhospitable person; every slave,
every mean thief, every churl, every one who loves not to listen to
music and entertainment, the disturbers of every council and every
assembly, and the promoters of discord among the people, these are the
descendants of the Firbolg, the Fir Gailian of Liogairné, and of the
Firdomnan in Erinn. But, however, the descendants of the Firbolgs are
the most numerous of all these. This is taken from an old book.’[201]
That there were two distinct types of people in ancient Ireland—‘one a
high-statured, golden-coloured or red-haired, fair-skinned, and blue or
grey-blue-eyed race; the other a dark-haired, dark-eyed, pale-skinned,
small or medium statured, little-limbed race,’[202]—is very certain, and
the traditionary account of the characteristics of the Firbolg
identifies them with the latter, and with the lowest type of the Irish
people. They belong to the same class with the Silures, and may be held
to represent the Iberian race which preceded the Celtic. Of the
fair-skinned race the Tuatha De Danaan correspond in character with
Tacitus’s large-limbed and red-haired Caledonians, and the brown-haired
Milesians or Scots present a less Germanic type.[203]
In this legend of the sons of Miledh, too, we can recognise the
appearance of the second form in which such traditions usually embody
themselves—that of the ethnologic family. Miledh was descended from
Gaedhel Glass, the ‘eponymus’ of the Gaedhelic race. He was son of
Scota, who was also wife of Miledh, and represented Ireland under its
name of Scotia. His three sons, Heber, Heremon, and Ir, along with Ith,
son of Breogan, from whom the population of Ireland which succeeded the
Tuatha De Danaan is brought, represent the different races of which it
was composed. Bede distinguishes the Scots as divided into northern and
southern Scots.[204] The former are represented by Heremon, the latter
by Heber, who divided Ireland between them.[205] The descendants of Ir,
to whom Ulster was assigned, are the Cruithnigh, who were its
inhabitants till confined by the Scots to Dalaradia. The small tribes of
Ith, son of Breogan, who inhabited a district in the south-west of
Ireland, are the people whom Ptolemy calls Brigantes and places there.
The sons of Miledh are said, in the Annals of the Four Masters, to have
arrived in Ireland in the age of the world 3500, which, according to
their computation, corresponds with the year 1694 before Christ; and in
the following year Eremhon and Emher, or Heremon and Heber, are said to
have assumed the joint sovereignty of Ireland and divided it into two
parts between them. Then follows an artificially-constructed history, in
which the name of each successive king, with the length of his reign,
the son of Miledh from whom he was descended, and the battles he fought,
are given with the same minuteness of detail throughout, until we find
ourselves at length within what may be termed the historic period of
Irish history.[206]
It would be out of place here to enter into a critical analysis of these
annals, or to discuss further the ethnology of Ireland, except in so far
as it may tend to throw light upon that of Scotland; but it may so far
elucidate the legends which follow if we notice shortly what they tell
us regarding the descendants of Ir, to whom Ulster was assigned in the
distribution of the provinces of Ireland. About four centuries after the
arrival of the sons of Miledh the Annals place seven kings of the race
of Ir in succession upon the throne of Ireland. These are Ollamh Fodhla,
who is said to have established the Feis Teamhrach, or great annual
feast, at Tara, and to have appointed a Toshech over every cantred, and
a Brughaidh, or farmer, over every townland. He was called Ollamh Fodhla
because he had been first a learned Ollamh, or chief poet, and
afterwards king of Fodhla, or Ireland. He was followed by his son
Finachta, so named because snow (Snechta) fell with the taste of wine
(Fiona); and he by another son, Slanoll; and he by a third son, Gede
Ollgothach; and he by Fiacha, son of Finnachta; and Fiacha by Bearnghal,
son of Gede Ollgothach; and Bearnghal by Olioll, son of Slanoll, when
the government of Tara was wrested from the Ultu or race of Ir. The
oldest of the annalists, Tighernac, commences his annals in the year 305
before Christ, with Cimbaoch, son of Fintain, of this race, who reigned
at Eaman or Eamania eighteen years; and adds this significant sentence,
‘All records of the Scots before Cimbaoch are uncertain.’[207] From
Cimbaoch, Tighernac gives a succession of Irian kings reigning at
Eamania down to Fiacha Araidhe, who was slain in battle in the year 248
by the Heremonian kings of Tara and Leinster. His people are called by
Tighernac Cruithniu, and from him Dalaraidhe, or Dalaradia, takes its
name. In 254 he mentions that some of the Ultonians were driven by the
king of Ireland to Manann;[208] and in 332 he records the battle of
Achadh Leithdearg, in Fernmuigh, in which Fergus Foga, the last king of
Eamania, was slain by the three Collas of the line of Heremon, who, says
Tighernac, ‘afterwards destroyed Eamhian Macha or Eamania, and the
Ultonians did not dwell in it from thenceforth, and they took from them
their kingdom from Loch Neagh westward,’ which became known as
Airgialla, now Oriel. The Irians were from this time confined to the
district of Dalaradia, and now appear under the name of Cruithnigh.
An old form of the Irish legend contained in the Acts of Saint Cadroë,
compiled in the eleventh century, corroborates this account to some
extent. According to this legend, the Scots were Greeks from the town of
Chorischon upon the river Pactolus, which separates Choria from Lydia.
Having obtained ships, they went by Pathmos, Abidos, and the islands of
the Hellespont, to Upper Thrace, and being joined by the people of
Pergamus, and the Lacedæmonians, they are driven by the north wind past
Ephesus, the island of Melos, and the Cyclades, to Crete, and thence by
the African sea they enter the Illyrian gulf. Then by the Balearic Isles
they pass Spain, and through the Columns of Hercules to remote Tyle, and
finally land at Cruachan Feli in Ireland. On landing and exploring the
country, they discover the nation of the Picts.[209] They then attack
and defeat the inhabitants of Cloin, an ancient city on the Shannon. The
Chorischii then, seeing the land flowing with milk and honey, attack the
islanders, and take possession of Arlmacha, their metropolis, and the
whole land between Loch Erne and Ethioch. This is clearly the same event
as the taking of Eamania by the three Collas, and their precursors in
the country are here called the nation of the Picts. They then take
Kildare and Cork, a city of Munster, besiege and enter Bangor, a city of
Ulster. After many years, passing over the sea, they occupy the Euean
island, now called Iona, and crossing the contiguous sea enter the
region of Rossia by the river Rosis, and take possession of the towns
Rigmonath and Bellethor,[210] situated at a distance from it, and thus
the whole country, called after their own name Chorischia, they now
called Scotia[211] after the wife of a certain son of Æneas the
Lacedæmonian,[212] called Nelus or Niulus, who was their chief, and
obtained an Egyptian wife, Scota, and in her language, having lost their
own mother-tongue, and in course of years became converted to
Christianity by St. Patrick. This legend, in a great measure, appears to
refer to ecclesiastical foundations.
[Sidenote: Dalriadic legend.]
The only legend which we can connect directly with the Scots who settled
in Britain, and formed the small kingdom of Dalriada in the West
Highlands, is that contained in the poem of the eleventh century,
usually termed the Albanic Duan. It records the successive possessors of
Alban, and states that the first who possessed it was Albanus, son of
Isacon, and brother of Briutus, and that from him Alban of Ships has its
name. He was banished by his brother across the Muir n-Icht, or Straits
of Dover, and Briutus possessed it as far as the promontory of Fotudain.
Long after Briutus the Clanna Neimhidh or Nemedians possessed it. The
Cruithnigh then came from Ireland and possessed it. Seventy kings, from
Cathluan, the first king, to Constantine, the last, possessed the
Cruithnian plain. They were followed by the three sons of Erc, son of
Eochaidh, the children of Conaire, the chosen of the strong Gael, three
who obtained the blessing of St. Patrick, who took Alban after great
wars. The rest of this poem belongs to history.
This legend combines the British with the Irish forms. We have Briutus
and Albanus, sons of Isacon, as in the ethnologic family given by
Nennius, the ‘eponymi’ of the Britanni and Albani, and the latter
representing the first inhabitants of the north. The Nemedian colony is
obviously that part of the Irish legend in which one body of the
descendants of Nemedius settled in Dobhar and Iardobhar in North Alban,
out of which the Tuatha De Danaan emerge. The colony of the Cruithnigh
belongs also to the Irish form of the legend, and the settlement of the
sons of Erc is historic, except perhaps in so far as in this poem Loarn
is made to precede Fergus as the first king of Dalriadic Alban.[213]
There is no appearance here of the Firbolg, but they are made in the
Irish legend to precede the Picts in the Western Isles.[214]
[Sidenote: Pictish Legends.]
Of the Pictish legends there are still three forms to be noticed. One
which may be called the national legend of the Picts, and belongs
especially to the whole nation which possessed the country north of the
Firths of Forth and Clyde; a second, which is the legend of the Irish
Picts of Dalaradia in Ulster; and a third, connected with the Picts of
Galloway.
For the first and most important legend we must look to the Pictish
Chronicle, a work of the tenth century. There are two editions of it.
One in Latin, but obviously translated from a Gaelic original, and the
other in the Irish Nennius; and the first contains a preface, mainly
taken from the work of Isidore of Seville, in the sixth century, a work
which formed the basis of Nennius’s compilation also. In this preface we
have additional facts told us: first, that the Scots, who are now
corruptly called Hibernienses, were so called, either as Scythians
because they came from Scythia and derive their origin from it, or from
Scota, daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who was, it is said, queen of
the Scots. The second is that natives of Scythia were called from their
fair hair Albani, and that from these Albani both Scots and Picts derive
their origin.[215] It then proceeds to tell us that Cruidne, son of
Cinge, was the father of the Picts inhabiting this island, and had seven
sons—Fib, Fidach, Fodla, Fortrenn, Got, Ce, Circinn. The edition in the
Irish Nennius adds to this, ‘And they divided the land into seven
divisions as Columcille says,
Seven children of Cruithne,
Divided Alban into seven divisions:
Cait, Ce, Cirig, a warlike clan;
Fib, Fidach, Fotla, Fortrenn,
and the name of each man is given to their territories.’ Five of these
divisions can still be identified: Fib is Fife, Fotla is Athfoitle, now
corrupted into Atholl; Fortrenn is the district between the rivers Forth
and Tay; Circinn the district of Mearns, a name corrupted from
Maghgirginn, now Kincardineshire; and Cait is Cathenesia, or Caithness.
It is obvious, therefore, that this legend belongs to the Pictish
inhabitants of these seven divisions. The seven sons are then followed
by Gede Ollgothach, whose name is the same as one of the seven kings of
the descendants of Ir, who in the first legend occupied the throne of
Ireland. We then have Oenbecan and Olfinecta; and the Irish edition
tells us that Onbecan, son of Caith, son of Cruthne, took the
sovereignty of the seven divisions, and that Finach was lord of Erin at
that time, and took hostages of the Cruithnigh. He also is one of the
seven Irian kings. After three more names we have Brude bont, and are
told that from him thirty Brudes reigned over Albania and Hibernia or
Alban, and Erin, for a period of 150 years. These Brudes have each a
name attached to them, and the Irish edition tells us that these names
were also names of divisions of the country, and that the account is
taken from the books of the Cruithnigh.[216] It is obvious that this
legend views the Picts of Alban and of Erin as forming one people, and
being in close connection with each other.
The legend of the Irish Picts of Dalaradia has a close bearing upon this
one. It is called ‘Of the descent of the Dalaraidhe,’ and is this.
‘Twice eighteen soldiers of the tribes of Tracia went to the fleet of
the sons of Miledh to Germany, and they took them away with them and
kept them as soldiers. They had no wives, and afterwards took wives of
the race of Miledh; and when they had cleared their swordland among the
Britons, first Magh Fortrenn, and then Maghgirginn, the succession to
the sovereignty was through females. They took with them from Erin
thrice fifty maidens to become mothers of sons, whence Altnaninghean or
the rock of the maidens in Dalaraidhe is called. There were thirty kings
of the Cruithnigh over Erin and Alban, viz. of the Cruithnigh of Alban,
and of Erin, that is the Dalaraidhe. They were from Ollamhan, from
whence comes Mur Ollamhan at Tara, to Fiacha, son of Baedan, who
fettered the hostages of Erin and Alban. Seven kings of the Cruithnigh
of Alban governed Erin at Tara,’ Then follow the seven kings of the race
of Ir, who are said in the Irish legend to have ruled at Tara.[217] The
thirty kings of this legend who ruled over Erin and Alban are surely the
thirty kings who bore the name of Brude in the previous legend, who also
reigned over Erin and Alban during 150 years. In it Finach or
Ollfinachta, who precedes them, is said to have taken hostages of the
Cruithnigh. In this legend the thirty kings are said to have reigned
over Erin and Alban, to Fiacha, son of Baedan, who fettered the hostages
of Erin and Alban. Baedan was a king of Dalaradia, who died in 581, and
Tighernac records in A.D. 602 the battle of Cuile Cail, in which
Fiachaidh, son of Baedan, was victorious; and in 608 the death of
Fiachach, son of Baedan, by the Cruithnigh.[218] These entries relate
surely to the event above recorded, and give us a date between 602 and
608 for the termination of the reign of these thirty kings, and 452 or
458 for its commencement. This event no doubt marks the separation of
the Irish Picts or Cruithnigh of Dalaradia from all connection with the
kingdom of the Picts in Scotland, and their full incorporation into the
Irish monarchy.
The last of the Pictish legends relates to the Picts of Galloway. It is
inserted in the Irish Nennius, and follows the account of the final
departure of the Romans, when the Picts took possession of the districts
extending to the southern wall, and settled there as inhabitants. It is
as follows:[219] ‘After this Sarran assumed the sovereignty of Britain,
and established his power over the Saxons and the Cruithnigh. He married
Erc, daughter of Loarn, king of Alban, but she eloped from him with
Muredach, son of Eogan, son of Niall, to Erin, by whom she had a son
called Murceartach MacErca, afterwards king of Ireland. Sarran then
married her sister Babona, by whom he had four sons, Luirig and Cairnech
and Dallan and Caemlach, and he died after victory and triumph in the
House of Martain.’ By the House of Martain the monastery of Candida
Casa, founded by St. Ninian, and dedicated to St. Martin of Tours, is
evidently meant, which shows that Sarran’s Cruithnigh were the Picts of
Galloway. ‘Luirig succeeded him, and built a fort within the precincts
of the monastery of Cairnech his brother—that is, of Candida Casa—upon
which Cairnech promises Murceartach MacErca, who was at that time with
the king of Breatan, that is Luirig, learning military science, that he
should be king of Erin and Britain for ever, if he could prevent Luirig
from exercising his power against the church. Luirig refusing,
Murceartach kills him, and he and Cairnech take hostages and power in
that land (that is Galloway), and also the sovereignty of Britain and
Cat (Caithness), and Orc (Orkney) and Saxan (Saxonia or Lothian).
Murceartach then takes the wife of Luirig, and has by her four
sons,—Constantine and Gaedel Ficht, from whom descend the lords[220] of
Breatan and the kings of Breatan Cornd, or Cornwall; and Nellan, from
whom the race of Nellan, and Scandal, from whom the race of Scandal. It
is in Erin the descendants of the two last are.’ It is unnecessary to
follow the legend further. The kings of Cornwall and the knights of
Bretan are here said to be descended from Constantine and Gaedel Ficht.
Constantine is no doubt the legendary king of Cornwall, who is said to
have become a Christian missionary, and preached to the Scots and Picts,
and the latter is obviously the ‘eponymus’ of the Picts of Galloway,
from whom their lords, here called ‘Ruirig Bretan,’ are descended.
[Sidenote: Saxon legends.]
Such being the legendary matter connected with the Picts and Scots,
which appears to contain their popular traditions as to their origin, it
remains to add those which tell us of the original home of the Saxons
who settled in Britain. Bede says that the nation of the Angles or
Saxons who settled in Britain consisted of three peoples of Germany:—The
Jutes, from whom sprang the people of Kent and the Isle of Wight; the
Saxons, from whom came the East, Middle, and West Saxons—that is, those
of Essex, Middlesex, and Wessex; and the Angles, from whom came the East
and Mid Angles, the Mercians, and the whole race of the
Northumbrians—that is, all those nations of the Angles which inhabited
the country north of the Humber. He states that the original settlements
of these three races were in the Cimbric Chersonese, that the Saxons
came from Old Saxony, which seems to have been nearly modern Holstein;
the Angles from that country called ‘Angulus,’ which in his day was
nearly deserted, by which the present province of Angeln in Sleswick is
probably meant; and the Jutes north of them, the Angles being between
them and the Saxons. Whether in this Bede is reporting a tradition of
the people themselves, or whether it is merely a speculation of his own,
he does not tell us.[221] Nennius brings the Saxons from Germania
generally;[222] but in the genealogies annexed to his work, which are
not much later than the period when Bede wrote, he deduces the pedigrees
of the kings of Kent, East Anglia, Mercia, Deira, and Bernicia from four
brothers, sons of Woden; so that he seems to have considered these five
nations, being Bede’s Jutes and Angles, as forming one people, whose
successive arrivals he describes, under the name of Saxons,[223] while
he omits Bede’s three nations of East, Middle, and West Saxons, who did
not arrive in the island till the end of the fifth and the beginning of
the sixth century, thus confining his account to those who arrived in
the early part of the fifth century. The description which Bede gives of
the country from which the Saxons came does not correspond with what we
learn of its early history from other sources. The first people whom we
read of as inhabiting the Cimbric Chersonese were the Cimbri, the
Teutones, and the Ambrones, who assailed the Roman Empire about a
century before Christ. The name of Teutones appears to have passed
through several forms into that of Juthæ or Jutæ, and the Ambrones seem
to be the same people whom Ptolemy places in the southern part of the
peninsula, now Holstein, and calls Saxones, and to whom he also gives
three islands, now Northstrand, Busen, and Heligoland.[224] The Angles
Ptolemy places on the west bank of the river Elbe, somewhat more to the
south, in what is now the Duchy of Magdeburg.[225]
The name of Saxones, however, in the third century, no longer designated
a single nation, but had a much wider signification, and was applied to
a confederacy of the nations extending along the north coast from the
Elbe to the Ems, if not the Rhine. These were the Cauci, Cherusci, and
Angrivarii. Between the Ems and Rhine were the Frisii or Frisones. From
the Ems to the Elbe were the Cauci; and south of them were the Cherusci
and Angrivarii, about the Weser; and on the west bank of the Elbe the
Teutones and the Angles. It is in this wider sense that the name of
Saxons was applied to those people who harassed the coast of Britain in
the concluding half-century of the Roman province. It is to the people
inhabiting this country that the name of Old Saxons was applied, to
distinguish them from the Saxons in Britain. Beyond the Elbe were the
original Saxons, and mixed with both were Frisians—one body extending
along the coast from the Ems to the Weser, and another beyond the Saxons
in Sleswick, where Bede places his Jutes. The islands, too, which
Ptolemy called the islands of the Saxons, and which lay off the west
coast of the Cimbrian Chersonese, appear afterwards as Frisian Islands.
Whether this was an actual mixture of Frisians with the Saxons, or a
mere extension of the name to a part of the Saxons, it is difficult to
determine;[226] but although a small district in the east of Sleswick,
extending from the Schley to Flensburg, bore the name of Angeln, there
is no record of any people called Angli having ever occupied it. They
are placed on the west bank of the Elbe behind the Cauci, and their name
too probably spread much beyond its original limits.[227] Of the Saxons
who settled in Britain prior to the year 441, the colony which occupied
the northern district about the Roman wall were probably Frisians, as
the Firth of Forth is termed by Nennius the Frisian Sea, and a part of
its northern shore was known as the Frisian Shore, but the great bulk of
the immigrants were Angli. Bede gives us the expression of ‘the nation
of the Angles’ for the whole Saxon people. Augustine’s mission to Kent
was a mission to the Angles. The church he founded there was the church
of the Angles. The name of Anglia was, however, unknown to Bede; and in
his Lives of the Abbots of Wearmouth he quotes a letter written by
Huaetberctus, abbot of the monastery of Wearmouth, to Pope Gregory in
716, in which he says his monastery was in ‘Saxonia.’[228] The name of
Saxons, applied in a general way to those who settled in Britain prior
to 441, seems therefore to have been used in its geographical sense.
Procopius was probably right in saying that they consisted of Frisians
and Angles.[229] The tribes who arrived much later, and founded the
petty kingdoms of the East, West, and South Saxons, probably alone
belonged to the Saxons proper. The bulk of the natives consisted of the
Angli, and their national name soon superseded the general appellation
of Saxons, though the geographical term ‘Saxonia’ still remained
attached to the most northern part of their territory.
[Sidenote: Languages of Britain.]
Having thus analysed the legends of the four races, it becomes
necessary, before we attempt to draw any deductions from them, to
inquire into the relation of their languages to each other. Bede gives
us a list of the languages used in Britain in his day. He tells us that
at that time in Britain the knowledge of the same divine truth and true
sublimity was confessed and studied in the languages of five
nations—viz., that of the Angles, the Britons, the Scots, the Picts, and
the Latins, which latter language, from the study of the Scriptures, has
become common to all.[230] None of these languages, of course, represent
that of the Iberians. For it we must look to the south of France and
Spain, where the Euskara, or Basque, appears to represent it. It is a
peculiar language, and has no relation to any of the languages belonging
to the Arian family. Putting it and the Latin aside, we have here the
languages of the four nations, the Angles, Britons, Scots, and Picts,
who succeeded the Iberians, and whose legends we have just analysed,
distinguished from each other. There can be no doubt of the race and
language to which the first three belonged. We have the remains of their
languages still spoken among us, and each possesses a literature which
enables us to trace the progress of the language from its older forms to
the present day.
[Sidenote: Anglic language.]
The language of the Angles was a Low German dialect, resembling most
nearly the Frisian; and in its earlier form consisted of three
varieties, the southern, midland, and northern English.
[Sidenote: British language.]
The language of the Britons is still spoken in Wales, but not now in
Cornwall, though it lingered there till the middle of last century. We
possess, however, written remains of the Cornish language, sufficient to
show that the Cornish and Welsh form two varieties of the British
language in the island, differing but slightly from each other, and
showing a dialectic difference somewhat resembling that between Low and
High German.
[Sidenote: Language of the Scots.]
The language of the Scots was undoubtedly the Irish language still
spoken there, and which is identic with the Gaelic of the Scotch
Highlands and the Manx of the Isle of Man. They form indeed but one
language, which may be called Gaelic, and show no greater variety among
each other than those which characterise the vernacular speech of
different provinces of the same nation.
These two languages—the British and Scottish—belong to the same family,
and are usually, for convenience sake, classed together as forming the
Celtic language of the British Isles; but the difference between them is
marked and wide, and they must be viewed as two distinct branches of the
Celtic language, possessing vital peculiarities of form and structure
which distinguish them from each other, and the people by whom they were
spoken, as forming two distinct races—cognate, indeed, as belonging to
the same Celtic family, but clearly separated by national and linguistic
differences. These two races are known in Irish as Breatan and Gaedheal,
and in Welsh as Brython or Cymry and Gwyddyl. To the one belong the
Welsh and the people of Cornwall and Bretagne, speaking three different
dialectic varieties of the same language. To the other belong the Irish,
the Scotch Highlanders, and the Manx, who all call their language
Gaelic.
[Sidenote: The Pictish language.]
In the attempt we are about to make to assign to the Picts their proper
place among these races, we shall, as the most convenient nomenclature,
call the two great divisions of the Celtic language, British and
Gadhelic; and the three varieties of the first, Welsh, Cornish, and
Breton; and of the second, Irish, Scotch Gaelic, and Manx. Those Pictish
words which obviously belong to either we shall class with them; but
where they are peculiar to the Picts, and yet have the characteristics
of Gadhelic, we shall term them Pictish Gaelic. The position of the
Pictish language differs from that of the others in this respect, that
we cannot point to any spoken language in the island which can be held
to represent it as a distinctive dialect, unless we could suppose it to
have merged in one or other of the spoken languages of the island.[231]
But here we are met at once by a difficulty. If Bede, by calling these
five distinct languages, meant to convey the fact that they were so
different from each other as to constitute separate tongues, then the
Pictish could not have belonged to the same family with any of the
others. It could not have been a German dialect, because it is
distinguished from the language of the Angles. It could not, on the same
ground, have been British, nor could it have been Irish or Scotch
Gaelic; but Bede’s language does not warrant so broad a conclusion as
this. He does not say that the Divine truth was studied in five
different languages, but in the languages of five nations. It implies
that the nations were distinct from each other, in so far as they formed
separate kingdoms, and that the Scriptures were studied in the language
of each. The differences between them may have been great, or they may
have been mere varieties of the same language, so far as any inference
from Bede’s language is concerned. It might very well be said in a Bible
Society report that the Scriptures were translated into French, German,
Dutch, Danish, and Swedish. Here French is as different from German as
Latin from Anglic; but Dutch is a Low German dialect, and resembles the
Low German more nearly than High German does; and Danish and Swedish are
quite as near to each other. The question then to be solved is, Where
are we to place the Pictish language? Is it a Celtic or a Teutonic
dialect? and if either, was it the same with any of the known spoken
dialects, or in what respect did it differ? The answer to these
questions will in a great measure show to what race they belonged.
The argument for the Pictish being a Teutonic language is mainly
historic, and is at first sight very plausible. It may be thus shortly
stated:—Tacitus says that the Caledonians had a German origin. The Picts
were the same people as the Caledonians. The Welsh Triads say that the
Picts came from Llychlyn, which is Scandinavia. The Picts occupied the
Lowlands of Scotland, and broad Scotch is the language of the Lowlands.
It is a Teutonic dialect, and no other language can be traced as ever
having been spoken in the same districts which the Picts had
occupied.[232] Such an argument as this could only have been stated with
any plausibility before the science of comparative philology existed. If
the Picts were the same as the Caledonians of Tacitus, of which there is
indeed no doubt, and if they were a Teutonic people, they must have left
their original country and settled in Caledonia prior to the first
century. A separation from the original stock for so many centuries must
infallibly have led to a great divergence in the language, and their
Teutonic speech must have presented marked dialectic differences from
that of the rest of the race from which they sprang. The broad Scotch,
however, of the Lowlands was absolutely identic with the northern
English, a variety of the Saxon, or rather Anglic, which prevailed north
of the Humber. Nor is it correct to say that this language was spoken in
all the districts occupied by the Picts, for they included in their
territories the North Highlands, where the spoken language has been,
equally far back, the Scotch Gaelic. Further, Tacitus infers a German
origin for the inhabitants of Caledonia, not from their language, but
from their physical characteristics—the large limbs and the red hair;
and it is now quite established that there was no essential diversity in
this respect between the German and the Celtic races viewed as a whole.
The Welsh Triads which contain the passage referred to may now be
regarded as spurious.
Are there, then, any historic grounds which would lead us, irrespective
of philological considerations, to consider the Picts as belonging
either to the Welsh or to the Gaelic race? The only answer that can be
made to this is, that there is almost a concurrent testimony of the
Celtic inhabitants of Britain to the Picts having belonged to that
branch of the race which the Welsh called Gwyddyl, and the Irish
Gaedheal. Throughout the whole of the Welsh documents the Picts are
usually denominated Gwyddyl Ffichti, while the Irish are simply termed
Gwyddyl. Although this word Gwyddyl is generally used to designate a
native of Ireland, and is so translated, this is its modern usage only;
and it is impossible to examine the older Welsh documents without seeing
that it was originally the designation of the Gadhelic race wherever
situated, and the Picts are thus clearly assigned to it.[233] This is
quite in accordance with what may be called the statement by the Picts
themselves. The two races of Cymry or Brython and Gwyddyl are symbolised
in the ethnologic family by the two brothers, Brittus and Albanus, from
whom descend the Britanni and Albani; and the Pictish Chronicle, which
may be viewed as their national record, states that the Scots and Picts
were two branches of the Albani. The race of the Picts were not,
however, confined to Britain. They originally extended over the whole of
the north of Ireland, and though eventually confined to the territory on
the east of Ulster called Dalnaraidhe, or Dalaradia, they remained there
as a separate people under the name of Cruithnigh till a comparatively
late period. Down to the beginning of the seventh century they formed,
with the Picts of Scotland, one nation; but during the whole period of
their separate existence the Irish Annals do not contain a hint that
they spoke a language different from the rest of Ireland; and in the
Irish ethnologic family they are made the descendants of Ir, one of the
sons of Milesius, whose descent is derived from Gaethel Glas, the
‘eponymus’ of the Gaelic race.[234]
It is true that Adamnan tells us that St. Columba used an interpreter in
his intercourse with the northern Picts, whom he converted in the sixth
century, but this is usually stated much too broadly. Adamnan describes
St. Columba as conversing freely with Brude, king of the Picts, with
Broichan, his Magus or Druid, and with the king’s messengers, without
the intervention of an interpreter.[235] On two occasions only does he
mention that an interpreter was required; and on both occasions it is
connected with his preaching the Word of Life.[236]
There is no point on which so much misconception exists as that of the
precise amount of divergence between two languages necessary to prevent
those speaking them from understanding each other. It is frequently
asserted that a Welshman can understand an Irishman, and conversely; and
it is invariably assumed that the three dialects of British—the Welsh,
Cornish, and Breton—are mutually intelligible. But this is not the case,
and, in point of fact, a very small difference is sufficient to affect
the mutual intelligibility. A mere change in the vowel sounds, with a
difference in the position of the accent, although the vocabulary might
be absolutely the same, would be sufficient to render mutual intercourse
difficult; and, although one might make a shift to follow a
conversation, or a few sentences of simple import might be understood,
no very great dialectic difference would be required to make a formal
address unintelligible.[237] Saint Columba was an educated man,
possessing all the learning of the age, and had to instruct a rude and
unlettered people whose vernacular idiom would vary in different parts
of the country from the cultivated language of a Christian ecclesiastic.
He seems to have had no difficulty with the king and those about him;
but of the two occasions when he is recorded to have used an
interpreter, one was when an old Pictish chief called Artbrannan arrived
by sea to meet him in the island of Skye, and therefore probably came
from some remote island or place still farther north where the
vernacular speech may have had a greater amount of difference from that
which Saint Columba used; and it may be remarked that the island
apparently furnished the interpreter, and its inhabitants undoubtedly
spoke a Gaelic dialect, as they called the spring where Artbrannan was
baptized ‘Dobur Artbrannan.’[238] The other case was when Saint Columba
preached the Word of Life to a peasant somewhere in the province of the
Picts;[239] and it may be added that when he preached the Word of Life
to an old man in the Vale of Urquhart, who was apparently of a higher
class, and lived not far from the headquarters of the Picts, no
interpreter appears to have been required.[240] Giving, therefore, the
fullest weight to this consideration, it amounts to no more than this,
that the difference between Pictish and Irish may not have been greater
than that between Breton or Cornish and Welsh.
Legend again comes in to help us here. The tale that the Picts or
Cruithnigh were a colony of soldiers, who had no wives, and that they
obtained wives from the Irish settlers by force or by agreement, has
undoubtedly a linguistic meaning. All legends are, in fact, attempts to
convey a popular explanation of some social or ethnologic peculiarity,
the origin of which is lost while the form survives; and when the
explanation of one feature has assumed the form that a part of the
native population had been a foreign colony from a different country,
then the fact of their speaking a native tongue was attempted to be
explained by supposing that they had married wives of the native race.
This idea is based upon the conception that children learn their
language from their mothers, and is conveyed in the popular expression
of ‘the mother tongue,’ Thus, in relating the legendary settlement of
the Britons in Armorica, Nennius, in order to explain how the settlers
retained their own language, has this addition in some copies—‘Having
received the wives and daughters (of the Armoricans) in marriage, they
cut out their tongues lest their children should learn the mother
tongue’[241] In the older form of the Irish legend, the race of Miledh,
who are brought from Scythia, are said on their settlement in Ireland to
have married wives of the Tuatha De Danaan, whom they found in the
country. In that contained in the Life of St. Cadroë the country is
named by Nel or Niul, in the language of his wife Scota, his own having
been corrupted. As soon, therefore, as the idea was formed that the
Picts of Scotland and Ireland were not the old inhabitants of the
country, but a foreign colony who settled among them, if their language
was at all akin to that of the native population, the popular
explanation must at once have arisen that they had married wives of the
native race, from whom they learned their language; and in the case of
the Picts of Scotland this would appear the more probable from a kind of
female succession to the throne having prevailed among them. In the
British form of the tradition they apply to the Britons for wives, and
are refused, and recommended to apply to the Irish, from whom they
obtain them; and this may imply that there was a British element in the
language of a part of the natives, though that of the main body was
Irish. In the Irish traditions they obtain their wives at once from the
sons of Miledh, who give them the widows of those of the Milesian colony
who were said to have been drowned in the attempt to land. In what may
be viewed as the legend of the Picts themselves, it is confined to that
of the Irish Cruithnigh, and does not appear in those of the Picts of
Scotland. That it was, however, understood as implying that the language
of the Picts was derived from these supposed ancestresses of the race,
seems to be clear enough. The legend is undoubtedly given in Layamon’s
Brut, in order to explain the language of the Picts, which adds—
Through the same women
Who there long dwelt,
The folk began to speak
Ireland’s speech.[242]
And in the chronicle quoted in the Scala Chronica it is said that they
obtained wives from Ireland ‘on condition that their issue should speak
Irish, which language remains to this day in the Highlands among those
who are called Scots.’[243]
The portion of the Pictish people which longest retained the name were
the Picts of Galloway. Completely surrounded by the Britons of
Strathclyde, and isolated from the rest of the Pictish nation, protected
by a mountain barrier on the north, and the sea on the west and south,
and remaining for centuries under the nominal dominion of the Angles of
Northumbria, they maintained an isolated and semi-independent position
in a corner of the island, and appear as a distinct people under the
name of Picts as late as the twelfth century, when they formed one
division of the Scottish army at the battle of the Standard.[244] If any
part of the Pictish people might be expected to retain their peculiar
language and characteristics, it would be the Picts of Galloway; and if
that language had been a Cymric dialect, it must have merged in the
speech of the British population around them. In one of the legends
which seems peculiarly connected with them, Gaedel Ficht or the Gaelic
Pict appears as the ‘eponymus’ of the race; and Buchanan tells us that
in his day, that is, in the reign of Queen Mary, ‘a great part of this
country still uses its ancient language.’[245] What that language was we
learn from a contemporary of Buchanan, William Dunbar the poet, who, in
the ‘Flyting’ between him and Kennedy, taunted his rival with his
extraction from the natives of Galloway and Carrick, and styles him
‘Ersch Katheraine,’ ‘Ersch brybour baird,’ and his poetry as ‘sic
eloquence as they in Erschery use.’ This word ‘Ersch’ was the term
applied at the time to Scotch Gaelic, as when Sir David Lyndesay says—
Had Sanct Jerome bene borne intil Argyle,
Into Irische toung his bukis had done compyle.
And Kennedy retorts upon Dunbar—
Thow luvis nane Erische, elf I understand,
But it sowld be all trew Scottismennis leid;
It wes the gud langage of this land.[246]
We find, therefore, that in this remote district, in which the Picts
remained under their distinctive names as a separate people as late as
the twelfth century, a language considered the ancient language of
Galloway was still spoken as late as the sixteenth century, and that
language was Gaelic.[247]
The question then remains, Are there any fragments of the Pictish
language still preserved upon which we can base a proper philological
inquiry into its place among the languages of Britain? For such an
investigation the materials are slender, but they are not totally
wanting. There are a few Pictish names and words preserved by Adamnan,
Bede, and other writers, and there is the list of Pictish monarchs, both
mythic and historical, preserved in the Pictish Chronicle. This list may
be divided into two parts, the mythic and the historical; but a
comparison of this list with other chronicles leaves little room for
doubt that the proper names throughout the whole are here presented to
us in their Pictish form, and the occasional occurrence of the addition
of epithets to the names aids the inquiry.[248] It is obvious that the
mere comparison of a very few words with the vocabulary of other
languages can do little to help us in this matter, and a list of proper
names still less; but the form of the words affords a very important
means of ascertaining the character of a language. This has been shown
in a very striking manner in the Teutonic dialects, by the operation of
Grimm’s law, and between the Celtic dialects there are also phonetic
differences equally available for such an inquiry. The interchange, for
instance, between Welsh and Gaelic of the labial or dental with the
guttural, and the digamma GW with F, and that between Welsh and Cornish
of T with Z, supplies us with a clue which can be easily applied to the
form of words, however few in number they may be; and, in this point of
view, the proper names likewise afford us a test of the character of the
language. A comparison of Pictish proper names with the Welsh and Irish
shows us that they are all constructed on the same principle, by the
combination of certain syllables as prefixes, with others as affixes, in
different varieties of connection; and where these syllables show the
phonetic differences of the dialects, they furnish as good a means of
comparison as the few words of the language which have been
preserved.[249] In examining these words and proper names, it will be
necessary, however, to endeavour to connect them with that part of the
Pictish nation to which they properly belong. It must not be assumed, at
the outset, that the Picts were strictly and entirely homogeneous, and
there may have been some dialectic differences in the language of
different parts of the same nation. Of a twofold distinction of some
kind, indeed, we find evident indication in their history. We have
already traced this twofold division among the tribes described by
Ptolemy as occupying the country north of the Forth and Clyde, and the
forms of their names do certainly indicate something of the kind. Of the
nine tribes who occupy the western district, the names of six begin with
the guttural or hard C;[250] while of the three great tribes which
extended on the east coast from the Moray Firth to the Firth of Forth,
one name begins with a dental, and the other two with the Roman V, which
represents Gw in Welsh and F in Gaelic.[251] In the third and fourth
centuries we find these same people divided into two nations, which
certainly implies a twofold distinction of some kind. The one appears as
Caledones and Dicaledonæ with the guttural C, and the other, first Mæatæ
and then Vecturiones with the Roman V. So far as we can judge from the
forms of these names, the presumption is, that the western tribes,
characterised by the guttural initial, belonged to the Gaelic race; but
there is nothing in the form of the names beginning with the V to show
to which race they belonged. When we proceed to analyse the list of
proper names contained in the Pictish Chronicle, we find that they
commence with Cruidne, son of Cinge, the ‘eponymus’ of the race. This is
undoubtedly an Irish form from Cruith, form or colour. He has seven
sons, who are said to have given their names to seven provinces. They
are Caith, Ce, Circinn, Fib, Fidach, Fodla, Fortrenn, and we can
identify five of the provinces—Caith representing Caithness, Circinn
Kincardineshire, Fib Fife, Fodla Atholl, Fortrenn the district between
the Forth and the Tay; but in these names we recognise the same
distinction. Three have the initial guttural and four the initial F; the
latter, however, belong equally to the Gaelic race, to which the initial
F is peculiar, and represents the Welsh Gw. The names, too, are Irish in
form. Fidach appears as an Irish name in the Annals of the Four Masters.
Fodla was the epithet of a king of Ireland; it was also the name of a
queen of the Tuatha De Danaan, and was one of the old names of Ireland;
and Fortrenn means in Irish powerful.[252] These seven sons are followed
by three kings, Gede Olgudach, Aenbecan, and Olfinecta. Two of these
names, the first and the last, are the same with two of the seven Irian
kings said to have reigned at Tara, and we are told in one of the
legends that Ainbeccan was son of Caith and ‘Ardrigh’ or sovereign over
the seven divisions while Finachta reigned in Ireland.[253] So far,
then, we find nothing but Irish forms. The next name in the list is
Guidid Gaedbrechach, and this is undoubtedly a Welsh form. In one of the
Irish editions he has the epithet of Breathnach or the Briton.[254] He
is followed by Gest Gwrtich and Wurgest, and these are Cornish forms.
Here, then, we trace the first appearance of a British element. We then
have the statement that thirty Brudes reigned over Hibernia, and Albania
or Erin, and Alban, for 150 years. In the list of the names only
twenty-eight are given, and they fall into two parts—one where each name
of Brude is followed by a monosyllable, and the other where the same
monosyllable has prefixed to it the syllable Wr; and one of the Irish
editions adds that they were not only the names of men, but of divisions
of land. It will be remarked that one half of these monosyllabic names
have the initial guttural, three beginning with C and four with G, and
of the other half, one begins with labial P, and two with F, which seems
to point to a twofold distinction similar to what we have already
noticed. The name Brude belongs to the northern Picts, as the first
historic king of the name is called by Bede king of the provinces of the
Northern Picts, and it may be viewed as an Irish form.[255] After these
Brudes we have a list of twenty-one names, beginning with Gilgide and
ending with Drust, son of Erb, which brings us to the end of the mythic
division. Of these names some are obviously mythic, as appears from the
length of their supposed reigns, and others appear to represent historic
persons. The eighth name in this list is ‘Dectotreic frater Diu’ or
‘Tiu.’ The form of the name is Teutonic, and is the same name as
Theodric. Nennius terms Theodric, son of Ida, Decdric, and there can be
little doubt that he is the king meant. He is called, in the Welsh
poems, Flamddwyn, or the Flame-bearer, and here the brother of Tiu, the
Germanic god of war. This portion of the list would appear, therefore,
to belong to that part of the Pictish people who occupied the eastern
districts up to the southern wall in the year 410, and were subjected by
the Angles of Bernicia, under Hussa and Theodric, the Flame-bearer, the
sons of Ida. The four names which follow have as much a Teutonic as a
Celtic appearance, and may also refer to these Bernician rulers. The
last nine names are, however, certainly Celtic. Ru is one of the thirty
Brudes. Of Gartnaith Loc it is said that four Gartnaidhs came from him;
and we find just four Gartnaidhs in the historic period. One of these,
who succeeded Brude Mac Mailchon, is said to have founded Abernethy, and
the legend of Mazota locates him in Forfarshire,[256] and another bears
the epithet ‘Duiperr,’ which is rendered in another list, ‘Dives’ or the
rich. It is the Irish word ‘Saoibher,’ rich, with the interchange of D
for S.[257] Of the names which follow Gartnaidh, Breth may be either
British or Irish. Uip Oignamet is one of the thirty Brudes;
Canatulachama is an Irish form, and is obviously the Catinolachan, said
in one of the Irish legends to be one of the sons of Cathluan, who led
the Picts to Alban, and one of their champions. Wradech Uecla is
represented in Irish by the name Feradach, and appears to be a Cornish
form, and this brings us to the historic names. We find the same names
here occur repeatedly. These are Drest, Drust, or Drostan nine times,
Talorcan six times, Brude six times, Gartnaidh four times, Nectan three
times, and Cinoid, Galan, Alpin, Ungust, and Wrgust each twice. Of these
names, Drest is an Irish form; the Welsh form being Gorwst or Grwst,
showing the interchange of D and G.[258] Talorcen may be either, though
more probably British. Brude, as we have seen, is an Irish form, and
belongs to the northern Picts. Gartnaidh, Nectan, and Cineoch or Cinoid
are Gaelic forms, and these names may be connected with the southern
Picts. Galan may be either. Alpin is represented by Elffin in Welsh, and
is a British name in a Gaelic form, showing the interchange of Ff and
P,[259] and Ungust and Wrgust are Cornish forms, and belong to the
province called ‘Fortrenn,’ or the districts of Stratherne and
Menteith.[260]
The result then of this analysis is that the earliest part of the list
of Pictish kings is purely Irish or Gaelic in its forms, and that this
Gaelic part belongs to the northern Picts; that another part of the list
shows Gaelic forms, but more removed from the Irish, with a considerable
British element; that this part of the list is more connected with the
southern Picts; that the British element is not Welsh but Cornish, and
belongs to that part of the territories of the southern Picts which lay
between the Tay and the Forth. The explanation probably is that this
district formed part of the territory occupied by the Damnonii, who, as
they bore the same name, were probably of the same race as the Damnonii
of Cornwall; and when a part of this tribe was included in the Roman
province, the northern part beyond the wall which formed the boundary of
the province was incorporated into the Pictish kingdom. They were
probably the ‘Breatnu Fortrein’ or Britons of Fortren of the Irish
legends,[261] and gave kings of its race to the throne; while Scone,
which was their capital during the latter period of the Pictish kingdom,
was exactly on the frontier between the two populations.
Another part of the list, which shows a mixture of Welsh, Gaelic, and
Teutonic names, belongs to the Picts who took the eastern districts
between the walls from the British population, and were in turn
subjected by the Angles. The only names in the list which can be
attached to the Picts of Galloway are Drust and Cindaeladh, and these
are Gaelic forms, the latter showing the Gaelic ‘Ceann,’ a head.
Reginald of Durham, who wrote in the latter part of the twelfth century,
reports one word of the Pictish language of Galloway. He tells us that
certain clerics of Kirkcudbright were called in the language of the
Picts, ‘Scollofthes,’ and in the title of the chapter he implies that
the Latin equivalent was ‘Scolasticus.’ This word is in Welsh
‘Yscolheic,’ and in Irish ‘Sgolog.’ This word does not therefore give us
the means of discriminating, though it approaches most nearly to the
Irish form.[262]
[Sidenote: Evidence derived from topography.]
Such being the results which we obtain from an analysis of the lists of
Pictish kings, and an examination of the few Pictish words preserved to
us, the meaning of which we can ascertain, there remains one other
source of information. The topography of the country furnishes us with a
not unimportant element of evidence in endeavouring to ascertain the
character of the languages of the tribes which have possessed it, and
the linguistic family to which they belong, but this test has hitherto
been much too loosely and carelessly applied. It can only be depended
upon, if rightly used, under certain conditions, and controlled by
definite rules of interpretation and comparison.
The oldest names in a country are those which mark its salient physical
features,—the large rivers and mountains, the islands and promontories
jutting into the sea. These usually resist longest the effect of changes
in the population, and the introduction of different languages, and
their primitive names remain attached to them through successive
fluctuations in the speech of the people who surround them; while the
names belonging to the inhabited part of the soil, and places, connected
with the social life of the people, and their industrial occupation,
give way more readily, and are less tenaciously attached to them. The
names of rivers and islands are usually root-words, and sometimes so
archaic that it is difficult to affix a meaning to them. Those of the
mountains and valleys, the townships and homesteads, are more
descriptive, and consist of two words in combination,—one which may be
termed generic and common to the class to which the physical feature
belongs; and the other specific, distinguishing one member of the same
class from another by some peculiarity of form, colour, or situation. In
countries where the topography obviously belongs to the same language
with that spoken by the people who still possess it, though perhaps in
an older stage of the language, it presents little difficulty. It is
only necessary to ascertain the correct orthography of the names, and
apply the key furnished by the language itself in that stage of its
forms to which the words belong. This is the case with the greater part
of Ireland and with the Highlands of Scotland, where the local names
obviously belong to the same Gaelic language which is still the
vernacular speech of its population. It is the case too with Wales,
where the people still speak that form of British to which its
topography belongs; and with Cornwall, where the language was spoken to
the middle of last century; but in that part of the country where the
Saxon, or rather the Anglic, has superseded the Celtic as the language
of the people, the case is different, and great caution must be used in
applying this test. This is the case in the north-eastern Lowlands of
Scotland, and in the whole country south of the Firths of Forth and
Clyde, including Galloway, where the people speak what is usually called
broad Scotch, and is the same with the old Northumbrian English.
There is no difficulty in distinguishing the names which have been
imposed by the Angles themselves, and which have superseded the older
Celtic names. There is one broad distinction between the Anglic and the
Celtic forms. In the latter the generic term precedes the specific, and
in the former it follows it. But in order to ascertain what Celtic races
occupied these districts before they were superseded by the Angles, we
must examine the older stratum of Celtic names which still remain, and
compare them with those of the districts in which the language is still
spoken by the people. The usual mode in which this has been done has
been either to assume that wherever a Celtic name in the one district is
also found in the other, it affords proof that the Celtic people who
occupied the two districts belonged to the same branch of the Celtic
race, or else to take the modern form of the word, and to interpret it
by such words in the different Celtic dialects as appear to come nearest
to it in sound.[263] There is, however, a great fallacy in both methods.
In the first, because there is a very considerable number of words which
are common to both branches of the Celtic language, and this number was
greater formerly than it is now, and the words approached more closely
to each other in form; but some words which were once common to both are
now obsolete in one and preserved in the other, and the form of the same
word has sometimes become differently modified in each so as to have
less resemblance. When the name therefore belongs to this class it
affords no test of difference or similarity of race. There is also in
people belonging to the same race a capricious preference by one of one
synonym, and by the other of another, which shows an apparent difference
of nomenclature when none really exists.[264] The only true test, in a
comparison of this kind, is to limit it to those words, in the form of
which the phonetic differences between the different dialects must be
apparent. The fallacy in the other mode is that when the population of a
country speaks a different language from that to which its topography
belongs, the names of places undergo a process of corruption and change
till the modern form diverges very much from the original word, and in
order to ascertain its true meaning, or to make it the means of
affording a genuine comparison with the topography of those districts
where the language still remains, it is necessary to trace back the word
historically to its oldest form, and interpret it by the language in its
then stage of progress.[265]
In examining, then, the Celtic topography of those districts in which
the people and language have been superseded by the Anglic, we ought
first to look to those names of places which have been preserved by
writers contemporary with the existence of the four kingdoms as separate
states; and before doing so we may remark that in the river and island
names, which are the oldest, there are one or two archaic words which we
may venture to recognise as Iberian or Basque. A common appellation of
rivers is the Celtic word for water. Uisge in Gaelic and Wysg in Welsh
furnish the Esks and Ouses which we find here and there; so do Dobhar in
Gaelic and Dwfr or Dwr in Welsh, as well as Gwy, which signify water,
and give us the Dours and the Wyes. The Basque word for water is Ur, and
analogy would lead us to recognise it in the rivers called Oure, Urr,
Ure, Urie, Orrin, and Ore. The syllable Il, too, enters largely into the
topography of the Basque countries; and the old name for the island of
Isla, which was Ile, and which legend tells us was occupied by Firbolg,
is probably the same word, as are the rivers of that name in Banff and
Forfar, and the Ulie in Sutherland, known to Ptolemy as the ‘Ila.’
Tacitus furnishes us with five names in this part of
Britain—‘Caledonia,’ the ‘Tavaus’ estuary, the ‘Clota’ or Clyde, the
‘Bodotria’ or Firth of Forth, and the ‘Mons Granpius,’ Of these names
two only are genuine survivals to the present day—the ‘Tavaus’ estuary
and that of ‘Clota.’ There is little doubt that the former takes its
name from the Gaelic word ‘Tamh,’ smooth. The Welsh equivalent is Taw,
from which the name of the Welsh river the Tawi is formed.[266] Ptolemy,
besides the ‘Tava,’ ‘Bodotria,’ or‘ ‘Boderia’ as he calls it, and the
‘Clota’ or Clyde, has of the islands the names of which still survive,
‘Maleus’ or Mull, and ‘Scetis’ or Skye; and of the rivers, the ‘Longus,’
which corresponds with the river in Argyllshire called the Add, and in
Gaelic the ‘Abhainn Fhada,’ or long river, the ‘Deva’ or Dee in
Aberdeenshire, the ‘Loxa’ or Lossie, the ‘Celnius’ or Cullen, the ‘Deva’
or Dee in Galloway, and the ‘Tinna’ or Eden in Fife. Of these the Deva
comes more nearly to the Gaelic Dubh, black, than to the Welsh Du.
Gildas, in the sixth century, mentions only the ‘Mons Badonis,’ which,
if it is rightly placed in the north, affords no criterion. In the
following century the geographer of Ravenna gives us a large collection
of local names, many of which are obviously corrupted forms of those in
Ptolemy. Although the exact position of each name is not defined, yet
they are obviously placed in geographical groups, three of which belong
to the region with which we are dealing. One group, consisting of
forty-eight names, is placed between the Roman wall extending from the
Solway to the Tyne, and what the geographer describes as ‘where Britain
is discerned to be most narrow from sea to sea,’[267] by which the
narrow isthmus between the Firths of Forth and Clyde is obviously meant,
and includes the stations on the wall; the second with ten names placed
upon this isthmus; and the third with twenty-seven names beyond it. In
the first group we can recognise two Welsh forms in the names placed
together, and next to ‘Carbantium,’ which must be ‘Carbantorigum’ the
town of the Selgovæ, of ‘Tadoriton’ and ‘Maporiton.’[268] In the second
group, we have the sixth name, ‘Medio Nemeton,’ which latter word is
surely the Irish Nemed, a sanctuary.[269] When we enter the third group,
we come at once upon Gaelic forms. The fourth name, ‘Cindocellun,’ is
obviously compounded of the Gaelic ‘Ceann,’ a head, and the name of the
Ochil range. Besides these three groups we have a small group of eight
names termed places, _loca_, by which districts seem to be meant, as the
last four ‘Taba, Manavi, Segloes, and Daunoni’ are obviously the
district about the Tay; Manau or Manann; the district occupied by the
Selgovæ, or Dumfriesshire; and that occupied by the Damnonii, or the
shires of Ayr, Renfrew, and Lanark. There is then a list of rivers in
Britain generally, and another of islands, which need not be adverted
to.
Most of the names furnished by Adamnan in the seventh century belong to
the Western Isles, among which he mentions Ilea, Malea, Egea, and Scia,
and to the territory of the Scots, but a few belong to what he terms the
province of the Picts, and some of these he gives only in their Latin
equivalents.[270] There is the ‘Stagnum Aporicum’ or ‘Aporum,’ in which
we recognise Lochaber. The river of ‘Nesa,’ the lake called ‘Lochdiæ,’
and the district of ‘Ardaibmurcol,’ and bay of ‘Arthcambus,’ are
obviously Gaelic forms. He also mentions the ‘Petra Cloithe,’ or rock of
Cluaith, by which Alcluith is meant. Eddi, who wrote about 720, in his
_Life of Wilfrid_, gives us two names in the district of
Lothian—Coludesburg, now Coldingham; and Dyunbaer, now Dunbar.[271] The
former is Saxon, but the latter unmistakably Gaelic, and must belong to
the Picts, who superseded the British Ottadeni, and formed the
population of that district during the fifth and sixth centuries.
Bede, in the same century, gives us in one chapter of his work an
important group of names. In describing the Firths of Forth and Clyde,
he says that the former has in the middle of it the city of ‘Giudi;’ and
the latter, on the right bank, the city Alcluith, which he says
signifies the ‘petra’ or rock Cluith. Giudi belongs to the Welsh form,
and Ail is the Welsh for a rock. Then, in describing the northern wall,
he says it begins at a place two miles west of the monastery of
‘Aebbercurnig,’ in a place called, in the language of the Picts,
‘Peanfahel,’ but in the language of the Angles ‘Penneltun,’ and
terminates near ‘Alcluith.’[272] The place meant can only be the village
of Walton, which is exactly three English miles from Abercorn. Now these
names belong to that district in which the territories of the four
kingdoms met, and which we have termed the debateable land. Its original
population consisted of a part of the tribes of the Damnonii. It was
overrun by the Picts, and was occupied by Octa’s colony of Frisians or
Angles. We learn from a passage added to Nennius, that the British name
of this place was Penguaul; and, just as we might expect where there is
a mixed population, the Picts adopt the name in the form of Peanfahel,
retaining the Pen but altering the British Gu to the Gadhelic F, while
the Angles, likewise retaining the Pen, omit the Gu and add the Anglic
‘tun,’ a town, at the end. It no more follows from this passage that the
first syllable Pen was a Pictish form than that it was Anglic; and when
in the same passage of Nennius it is said that the Scotch name was
‘Cenail,’ the writer seems to have mistakenly identified the place with
Kinneil, which is three miles farther west and six miles from Abercorn.
Aebbercurnig may be either British or Pictish Gaelic, and Alcluith is,
as we have said, a British form. Bede gives us also a few names in
Lothian. These are the city of Coludi, Mailros, Degsastan, and
Incuneningum. These are all Anglic forms except Mailros, which seems to
belong more to the Gaelic form. The name Incuneningum has been supposed
to mean the district of Cuningham in Ayrshire; but Bede distinctly says
that it was in the region of the Northumbrians, which is quite
inapplicable to any part of Ayrshire, which was in the kingdom of
Strathclyde, and though for a time subjected to the Northumbrians, had
recovered its liberty in 686, while the king of Northumbria is recorded
in 750 to have then only added Cyil and the adjacent regions to his
kingdom. The place meant is more probably Tyninghame in East
Lothian.[273]
The Irish Nennius gives us three words as the three old names of
Ireland—Eire, Fodla, Banba—derived from three queens of the Tuatha De
Danann. According to the legend, however, these Tuatha De Danann came to
Ireland from Alban, or Scotland, where they inhabited a territory called
Dohbar and Iardohbar, obviously of Gaelic form; and in the north-eastern
Lowlands we find these three words entering into the topography. On the
south shore of the Moray Firth we have the river Eren, now the Findhorn,
and Banbh, now Banff. The word Fodla enters into the name of Atholl; and
in Perthshire we have again Banbh, or Banff, and Ereann, now the river
Earn.[274]
Having thus passed rapidly under review the local names reported to us
by these early writers, we come now to deal with the topography of these
districts, as it presents itself in the present day, and to consider
what light we may derive from it as to the race and language of those
who imposed these local names. Here, at the outset, we are met by the
argument which is usually urged and popularly considered to be
conclusive. It may be thus stated in the words of Mr. Isaac
Taylor:—‘Inver and Aber are also useful test words in discriminating
between the two branches of the Celts (the Cymric and the Gaelic).... If
we draw a line across the map from a point a little south of Inveraray
to one a little north of Aberdeen, we shall find that (with very few
exceptions) the Invers lie to the north of the line, and the Abers to
the south of it. This line nearly coincides with the present southern
limit of the Gaelic tongue, and probably also with the ancient division
between the Picts and the Scots.’[275] This would be a plausible view if
it were true, but unfortunately there is no such line of demarcation
between the two words; and though it may be true that it would nearly
coincide with the present southern limit of the Gaelic, it is
historically false that it was the ancient division between the Picts
and the Scots. When we examine, however, the real distribution of these
words, we find it very different from the representation of it given
either by Mr. Kemble or by Mr. Taylor. South of Mr. Taylor’s line there
are in Aberdeenshire thirteen Abers and twenty-six Invers; in
Forfarshire eight Abers and eight Invers; in Perthshire nine Abers and
eight Invers; and in Fifeshire four Abers and nine Invers. Again, on the
north side of this supposed line there are twelve Abers extending across
to the west coast, where they terminate with Abercrossan, now
Applecross, in Rossshire. In Argyllshire alone, which was occupied by
the Dalriadic Scots, there are no Abers. The true picture of the
distribution of these two words north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
is this—in Argyllshire, Invers alone; in Inverness-shire and Ross-shire,
Invers and Abers in the proportion of three to one and two to one; and
on the south side of the supposed line, Abers and Invers in about equal
proportions. But the distribution south of the Firths must not be
overlooked. It has a material bearing on this question. If these words
afford a test between British and Gadhelic, we might naturally expect to
find as many Abers in what was the Strathclyde kingdom as in Wales; but
there are no Abers in the counties of Selkirk, Peebles, Ayr, Renfrew,
Lanark, Stirling, and Dumbarton, occupied by the Damnonii; four Abers in
Dumfriesshire, and six in Lothian, occupied by the Selgovæ and Ottadeni,
and none in Galloway occupied by the Picts; and when we proceed farther
south we find nothing but Abers in Wales, and no appearance of them in
Cornwall. These words, therefore, afford no test of dialectic
difference, and do not possess those phonetic changes which would enable
us to use them as a test. There were in fact three words used to express
the position of rivers towards each other, or towards the sea—Aber,
Inbher, and Cumber or Cymmer, which were originally common to both
branches of the Celtic language. They obviously come from the same root,
‘Ber,’ and they do not show any phonetic differences. These words are
severally retained in some dialects, and become obsolete in others.[276]
Aber and Inver were both used by the southern Picts, though not quite in
the same way, Inver being generally at the mouth of a river, Aber at the
ford usually some distance from the mouth. Aber has become almost
obsolete in Cornwall, part of Strathclyde, and among the northern Picts,
where we can almost see the process by which it passes over into Apple,
or Obair, in Scotland, and into Apple in Cornwall.[277] In Ireland Inver
seems undergoing a similar process, being once very numerous, but now
reduced to comparatively few names.
The same remarks apply to a group of generic terms which enter largely
into the topography of these districts, and are popularly supposed to be
peculiar to the Welsh, but are in reality common to both dialects, such
as Caer, Llan, Strath, Tor, Glas, Eaglis, and others.
In order to afford a proper test, we must take words which contain the
phonetic interchange of consonants, such as P and C in Pen and Ceann, Gw
and F in Gwyn and Finn, or words that similarly show the dialectic
differences. Mr. Taylor attempts to apply this test. He says, ‘In
Argyllshire and the northern parts of Scotland the Cymric _pen_ is
ordinarily replaced by the _ben_ or _cenn_, the Gaelic forms of the same
word. The distinctive usage of _pen_ and _ben_ enables us to detect the
line of demarcation between the Cymric and Gaelic branches of the Celtic
race. The Gadheli _Cenn_, a head, is another form of the same
word.’[278] Accepting this statement, when we examine the real
distribution of these words it is fatal to the author’s argument. There
is not a single Pen north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and the
districts occupied by the Picts abound with Bens and Cenns or Kins.[279]
We find, however, in these districts four root-words that are peculiar
to them, and are met with nowhere else. These, therefore, may be
considered as Pictish. The first is Pit, the old form of which is Pette.
It is not to be found in Wales. It appears to signify a portion of land,
and is used synonymously with Both, a dwelling, and Baile, a town.[280]
The other three are Auchter, For, and Fin. Auchter is obviously the
Gaelic ‘Uachter,’ upper, and as such we have it in Ireland. It is not in
Wales. The old forms of For and Fin are Fothuir and Fothen.[281] They do
not occur in Wales, and are obviously Gaelic forms, from the initial
consonant F.
In Galloway there are no Pens. The root Bar enters very largely into its
topography. It is also very common in Argyllshire, and is also to be
found in Ireland. It is the Gaelic Barr, the top or point of a thing. Ar
and Arie also appear frequently in Galloway and Argyllshire. It is the
Gaelic ‘Airidh,’ a hill pasture.
The Celtic topography of these districts thus resembles a palimpsest, in
which an older form is found behind the more modern writing, and the
result of an accurate examination of it leads us to lay down the
following laws:—
1_st_, In order to draw a correct inference from the names of places, as
to the etymological character of the people who imposed them, it is
necessary to obtain the old form of the name before it became corrupted,
and to analyse it according to the philological laws of the language to
which it belongs.
2_d_, A comparison of the generic terms affords the best test for
discriminating between the different dialects to which they belong; and
for this comparison it is necessary to have a correct table of their
geographical distribution.
3_d_, Difference between the generic terms in different parts of the
country may arise from their belonging to a different stage of the same
language, or from a capricious selection of different synonyms by
separate tribes of the same race.
4_th_, In order to afford a genuine test for discriminating between
dialects, the generic terms must contain within them those sounds which
are differently affected by the phonetic laws of each dialect; and
5_th_, Applying these laws, the generic terms do not show the existence
of a Cymric language in the districts occupied by the Picts.[282]
-----
Footnote 184:
See _Critiques and Addresses_ by Thomas Henry Huxley, LL.D., 1873, p.
167. As the author substantially adopts Professor Huxley’s
conclusions, he thinks it unnecessary to enter into the grounds on
which they are based.
Footnote 185:
Diod. Sic., Lib. ii. cc. 21, 22, 38. The reasons for supposing the
Cassiterides to be the Scilly Islands are thus stated in Camden’s
_Britannia_: They are opposite to the Artabri in Spain; they bend
directly to the north from them; they lie in the same clime with
Britain; they look towards Celtiberia; the sea is much broader between
them and Spain than between them and Britain; they lie just upon the
Iberian sea; there are only ten of them of any note; and they have
veins of tin which no other isle has in this tract.—Camd. _Brit._ p.
1112, ed. 1695.
Footnote 186:
Strabo, _Geog._ Lib. iii. 4.
Footnote 187:
In Celticis aliquot sunt (insulæ) quas quia plumbo abundant uno omnes
nomine Cassiterides appellant.—_Pomp. Mela._
Ex adverso Celtiberiæ complures sunt insulæ Cassiterides dictæ Græcis
a fertilitate plumbi.—_Plin._
Siluram quoque insulam ab ora, quam gens Britannia Dumnonii tenent,
turbidum fretum distinguit: cujus homines etiamnum custodiunt morem
vetustum: nummum refutant: dant res et accipiunt: mutationibus
necessaria potius, quam pretiis parant: Deos percolunt: scientiam
futurorum pariter viri ac feminæ ostentant.—_Solin. Poly._ c. 22.
Cassiterides insulae spectant adversum Celtiberiæ latus: plumbi
fertiles.—_Ib._ c. 23.
Footnote 188:
Αὐτὰρ ὑπ’ ἄκρην
Ἰρὴν ἣν ἐνέπουσι κάρην ἔμεν Εὐρωπείης
Νήσους θ’ Ἑσπερίδας τόθι κασσιτέροιο γενέθλη,
Ἀφνειοὶ ναίουσιν ἀγαυῶν παῖδες Ἰβήρων.
Footnote 189:
Sub hujus autem prominentis vertice
Sinus dehiscit incolis Oestrymnicus,
In quo insulæ sese exserunt Oestrymnides
Laxe jacentes, et metallo divites
Stanni atque plumbi. Multa vis hic gentis est,
Superbus animus, efficax sollertia,
Negotiandi cura jugis omnibus:
Notisque cymbis turbidum late fretum,
Et belluosi gurgitem Oceani secant:
Non hi carinas quippe pinu texere,
Acereve norunt, non abiete, ut usus est,
Curvant faselos; sed rei ad miraculum,
Navigia junctis semper aptant pellibus
Corioque vastum sæpe percurrunt salum.
* * * * *
Tartessiisque in terminos Oestrymnidem
Negotiandi mos erat.
Footnote 190:
Sed summum contra sacram cognomine, dicunt quam Caput Europae, sunt
Stanni pondere plenae Hesperides: populus tenuit quas fortes
Iberi.—_Prisc. Per._
Footnote 191:
_Cave Hunting_, by W. Boyd Dawkins, M.A., 1874, p. 191.
Footnote 192:
See _The Beauties of the Boyne_, by Sir William R. Wilde, 1850, p.
228, for an account of the Irish skulls.
Footnote 193:
_Cave Hunting_, p. 214. For the facts on which these conclusions are
based, reference is made to this work and that of Sir William Wilde.
Footnote 194:
The author does not import anything from the Bards, as it is difficult
to say how far they contain genuine tradition, or have been
manipulated by Geoffrey of Monmouth. The author confines himself as
much as possible to Welsh documents before his time, and the so-called
Historical Triads he rejects as entirely spurious.
Footnote 195:
The Leabhar Gabhala, or Book of Conquests, is, strictly speaking, the
work of Michael O’Clery, one of the compilers of the Annals of the
Four Masters, but it is founded upon older documents, and upon a more
ancient Book of Invasions, a fragment of which is contained in the
Leabhar na Huidhri and the Book of Leinster, and complete editions in
the Books of Ballimote and Leacan. A full account of it will be found
in O’Curry’s _Lectures on the MS. Materials_, p. 168. It is much to be
desired that this ancient tract should be published.
Footnote 196:
This account of these legendary colonies is abridged from Keating, who
takes it from the _Book of Conquests_.
Footnote 197:
_Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, p. 30.
Footnote 198:
See Irish Nennius, p. 221.
Footnote 199:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 45.
Footnote 200:
This seems clearly implied. Gillacaoman, in a poem quoted by Colgan,
_A.SS._ p. 198, also identifies the Nemedians with the Tuatha de
Danaan. Two of the three bands of the Nemedians who left Erin,
according to the Book of Conquests, seem obviously the same—the one
under Fergus Leth Derg settling in a district in Alban called Dobhar
and Iardobhar, and the Tuatha De Danaan coming to Erin from the same
district.
Footnote 201:
O’Curry, _Lectures on MS. Materials_, p. 223.
Footnote 202:
O’Curry’s _Lectures on Manners and Customs of Ancient Irish_.
Introduction by Professor Sullivan, p. lxxii.
Footnote 203:
The colony of Partholan seems to have been the same with the Firbolg.
Partolan has three sons—Slainge, Rudhraige, and Laighlinne—and two of
these, Slainge and Rudhraige, are among the leaders of the Firbolg. If
we may consider the following passage from the Welsh Bruts as
containing genuine tradition, they seem to have considered them as
Iberian or Basque: ‘Gwrgant, on his return, as he was passing through
the isles of Orc, came up with thirty ships, which were full of men
and women, and finding them there, he seized their chief, whose name
was Partholym. Hereupon this chief prayed his protection, telling him
that they were called Barclenses, had been driven from Spain, and were
roving on the seas to find a place of settlement, and that he
therefore entreated Gwrgant to grant them permission to abide in some
part of the island, as they had then been at sea for a year and a
half. Gwrgant having thus learned whence they were and what was their
purpose, directed them with his goodwill to go to Ireland, which at
that time lay waste and uninhabited. Thither therefore they went, and
there they settled, and peopled the country, and their descendants are
to this day in Ireland.’
Footnote 204:
B. iii. c. iii. where he distinguishes between ‘Septentrionalis
Scottorum provincia,’ and the ‘Gentes Scottorum, quæ in australibus
Hiberniæ insulæ partibus morabantur.’
Footnote 205:
Heber appears also to have in one view represented the old Iberians of
Munster, with whom, indeed, the name seems connected. Partholan is
said to have divided Ireland into four parts among his four sons, Er,
Orba, Fearran, and Feargna; and Heremon, when he divides Ireland,
gives Munster to Er, Orba, Fearran, and Feargna, the four sons of
Heber. The southern Scottish royal race are brought, however, from
Conmaol, son of Heber.
Footnote 206:
The turning-point appears to be the battle of Ocha, which was fought
in the year 478 by Lughaidh, son of that Laogaire who appears as
king of Ireland in the Acts of St. Patrick;—Murcertach MacErca,
Fiachna, king of Dalaradia, and Crimthan, king of Leinster, against
Olioll Molt, son of Dathi, king of Ireland. It is made an era by
most of the annalists, and undoubtedly was viewed as accomplishing a
revolution which secured the throne of Ireland to the Hy Neill, or
descendants of Niall Mor of the nine hostages. There is also a
marked difference in the annals that precede and follow it, as those
incidents which evidently belong to a mythic period—such as the
death of Dathi by a flash of lightning at the foot of the Alps, and
that of Laogaire by the elements, because he had violated an oath he
had sworn by them—here come to an end. Murcertach MacErca, too, who
followed the short reign of Lugliaidh, was the first Christian
monarch of Ireland. The author considers that the real chronological
history of Ireland begins here, and that the previous annals are an
artificially-constructed history, in which some fragments of genuine
annals, and some historic tales founded on fact, are imbedded in a
mass of tradition, legend, and fable.
Footnote 207:
‘In anno xviii. Ptolemæi, initiatus est regnare in Eamain Cimbaoch
filius Fintain qui regnavit annis xviii. Omnia monumenta Scotorum
usque Cimbaoch incerta erant.’ Eaman was the great capital of Ulster,
now Navan, near Armagh.
Footnote 208:
A.D. 236. Fiacha Araidhe regnat an Eamain An. x. Bellum oc Fothaird
Muirtheimne Mebuig re Cormuic hua Cuind agus re Fiachaig Muillitain
Righ Mumhan fer Cruithniu agus for Fiacha Araidhe.
254 Indarba Ullad a h Erend a Manand re Cormac hua Cond.
Footnote 209:
Igitur ad terram egressi, ut moris est, situm locorum, mores et
habitum hominum explorare, gentem Pictaneorum reperiunt.—_Chron. Picts
and Scots_, p. 108. Colgan considers that by the Gens Pictaneorum the
Tuatha De Danaan are meant.
Footnote 210:
They entered apparently by Loch Broom, and proceeded by the river
which flows from Loch Droma near the head of Loch Broom, through the
valley called the Dearymore, till it falls into the Conan near
Dingwall. It is now called the Blackwater, but was formerly known as
the Raasay. Rigmonath is St. Andrews.
Footnote 211:
Colgan considers that it was Ireland which was formerly called
Chorischia and not Scotia; but as the sentence follows the settlements
in Scotland, it seems more applicable to that country, and elsewhere
in the Acts Scotia is used for Scotland. The word Chorischia is
probably taken from what Tacitus says of the Horesti. The passage is
this: ‘Nec satis, post pelagus Britanniæ contiguum perlegentes, per
Rosim amnem, Rossiam regionem manserunt; Rigmonath quoque Bellethor
urbes, a se procul positas, petentes, possessuri vicerunt; sicque
totam terram suo nomine Chorischiam nominatam, post cujusdam
Lacedemonii Aeneæ filium nomine Nelum seu Niulum, qui princeps eorum
fuerat, et olim Ægyptiam conjugem bello meruerat, nomine Scottam, ex
vocabulo conjugis, patrio sermone depravato, Scotiam vocaverunt.’
Footnote 212:
Æneas the Lacedæmonian is obviously the Fenius Farsadh of the other
legend.
Footnote 213:
The Albanic Duan gives him a reign of ten years, and to Fergus
twenty-seven in place of three. Taking A.D. 501 as the date of
Fergus’s death, this would place the settlement of the Dalriads in
461.
Footnote 214:
There is a native fort in the island of St. Kilda called Dunfhirbolg.
Footnote 215:
Scotti qui nunc corrupte vocantur Hibernienses quasi Sciti, quia a
Scithia regione venerunt et inde originem duxerunt; sive a Scotta
filia Pharaonis regis Egypti, que fuit, ut fertur, regina
Scottorum.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 3.
Albani de quibus originem duxerunt Scoti et Picti.—_Ib._
Footnote 216:
See _Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 4 and 24.
Footnote 217:
_Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, p. 319.
Footnote 218:
602 Cath Cuile Cail in quo Fiachaidh mac Baedan victor erat.
608 Bass Fiachach chraich mic Baedan la Cruithnachu, p. 68.
Footnote 219:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 52.
Footnote 220:
The word is _Ruirig_, plural of _Ruire_, a champion, a knight; also
Dominus, a lord.
Footnote 221:
Bede, _Ec. Hist._ B. i. c. xv.
Footnote 222:
Nennius implies in a part of his legend of Hengist and Guorthegirn
that Hengist’s people came ‘de insula Oghgul,’ which is probably
Heligoland.
Footnote 223:
There are two poems which preserve Saxon traditions connected with the
mainland. These are the Battle of Finnesburgh, and Beowulf. Kemble
considers that they were nearly contemporary with the events they
relate, and not far removed from the coming of Hengist and Horsa into
Britain. They describe a war between Hengist, an Eoten and vassal of
the king of Denmark, and Finn, son of Folcwald, king of the Frisians.
Nennius makes Finn, son of Folcgwald, grandfather of his Woden.
Footnote 224:
Zeuss, _Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme_, p. 141. Nennius has
‘Omne genus Ambronum, id est Aldsaxonum Saxonum;’ and again, ‘Et
nunquam addiderunt Saxones Ambronem ut a Pictis vectigal exigerent.’
Footnote 225:
Mannert, _Geographie_, iii. 330.
Footnote 226:
Zeuss inclines to the latter view; see _Nachbarstamme_, p. 938.
Footnote 227:
Thus Angrivarii appear also under the form of Angrii, and in the
Notitia as Anglevarii. They were probably the same people with the
Angli.
Footnote 228:
Bede, _Vit. Sanct. Ab. Mon. im Uyramutha_, c. 14.
Footnote 229:
Adam of Bremen (i. 3) says that the Saxons first had their habitations
on the Rhine, and thence passed over to Britain.
Footnote 230:
Hæc in praesenti, juxta numerum librorum quibus Lex Divina scripta
est, quinque gentium linguis, unam eamdemque summæ veritatis et veræ
sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur et confitetur, Anglorum, videlicet,
Brettonum, Scottorum, Pictorum, et Latinorum, quæ meditatione
Scripturarum cæteris omnibus est facta communis.—Bede, _H. E._ B. i.
c. i.
Footnote 231:
Henry of Huntingdon, in repeating Bede’s statement as to the five
languages, adds, ‘Quamvis Picti jam videantur deleti, et lingua eorum
ita omnino destructa, ut jam fabula videatur, quod in veterum scriptis
eorum mentio invenitur.’ This is true of the language if it was
different from the others, but not if it resembled one of them so
closely that one of the spoken languages might equally represent it;
neither is it true of the people, as almost in the very year he makes
this statement he mentions the Picts as forming an entire division in
David the First’s army at the Battle of the Standard.
Footnote 232:
Pinkerton first urged the argument for the Picts being a Teutonic
people, and, with the knowledge then possessed, with much force.
Chalmers is equally clear that they spoke Welsh; but the philological
arguments of both have little value, as the science of comparative
philology was not then known or understood. Mr. Burton has discussed
this question in the first volume of his _History of Scotland_, p.
183, but in a very unsatisfactory way. He has dealt with it as if the
whole materials for deciding the question were contained in the
discussion between Pinkerton and Chalmers, and writers of that period,
and as if nothing remained for him to do but to estimate the value of
their respective arguments. He contributes nothing additional to the
solution of the question.
Footnote 233:
The author does not here adduce the superabundant evidence furnished
by the old Welsh poems, which will be found in _The Four Ancient Books
of Wales_. Neither does he refer to the so-called Historic Triads,
because he considers them spurious; but among the genuine ‘Triads of
Arthur and his Warriors’ (_ib._ vol. ii. p. 457) there is one to this
effect:—‘Three oppressions came to this island, and did not go out of
it. The nation of the Coranyeit, who came in the time of Llud, son of
Beli, and did not go out of it; and the oppression of the Gwyddyl
Ffichti, and they did not again go out of it. The third, the
oppression of the Saxons, and they did not again go out of it.’ Here
the term Gwyddyl Ffichti is clearly applied to the whole Pictish
nation who settled in Britain. The same designation is given to them
by one edition of the Chronicle called the Brut of Tywysogion, which
records, in A.D. 750, ‘the action of Mygedawc, in which the Britons
(Britanyat) conquered the Gwyddyl Ffichti, after a bloody battle’
(_Myv. Ar._ vol. ii. p. 472). This is the same battle which Tighernac
thus gives: ‘A battle between the Pictones and the Britones, viz.,
Talorgan, the son of Fergus, and his brother, and the slaughter of the
Piccardach with him.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 76.
Footnote 234:
The Irish Archæological Society have published (in 1842) the ancient
Historical Tale called the Battle of Magh Rath. This was a battle
fought in 637 between Congal Claen, king of Uladh, the head of the
Cruithnigh of Ulster, with the assistance of the Scotch Dalriads and
other allies from Britain, against the king of Ireland; but throughout
this tale there is not the slightest hint of any diversity of language
between the Cruithnigh and the Scots.
Footnote 235:
Reeves’s _Adamnan_ (ed. 1874), pp. 174-176.
Footnote 236:
Verbo Dei a Sancto per interpretem recepto (B. i. c. 27).
Verbum vitae per interpretatorem sancto praedicante viro (B. ii. c.
33).
Footnote 237:
The Rev. T. Price of Cwmdû, one of the best and soundest of the Welsh
scholars, when he visited Brittany, remarks, ‘Notwithstanding the many
assertions that have been made respecting the natives of Wales and
Brittany being mutually intelligible through the medium of their
respective languages, I do not hesitate to say that the thing is
utterly impossible. Single words in either language will frequently be
found to have corresponding terms of a similar sound in the other, and
occasionally a short sentence deliberately pronounced may be partially
intelligible; but as to holding a conversation, that is totally out of
the question.’—_Price’s Remains_, vol. i. p. 35. And Mr. Norris, the
highest Cornish authority, says, ‘In spite of statements to the
contrary, the writer is of opinion that a Breton within the historical
existence of the two dialects could not have understood a Cornishman
speaking at any length, or on any but the most trivial subjects. He is
himself unable to read a sentence in Armoric of more than half-a-dozen
lines without the help of a dictionary.’—Norris, _Ancient Cornish
Drama_, B. ii. p. 458. O’Donovan says: ‘An Irish scholar would find it
difficult to understand a Manx book without studying the language as a
distinct dialect.’—_Introd. to Irish Grammar_, p. lxxx. An English
Greek scholar cannot follow a conversation in modern Greek, where the
difference consists mainly in the vowel sounds and in the accent. This
quite accords with the author’s own experience. Although familiar with
German from boyhood, and acquainted with most of its provincial
varieties, when he first entered the Bavarian Alps he could not
understand what was said to him till he made out that the difficulty
arose almost entirely from a difference in the vowel sounds, the
_umlaut_ being applied almost universally; and at one period of his
life, when a branch of the Irish Society employed Irishmen to read the
Irish Scriptures to their poor countrymen in Edinburgh, and, as one of
the Committee, he had to examine them as to their fitness, he found he
could readily understand a Connaught man from the vowel sounds
approaching most nearly to those of Scotch Gaelic; but he had great
difficulty in following an Ulster man, the vowel sounds being very
different, while the position of the accent, which in Irish is on the
last syllable, and in Scotch Gaelic on the first, and the use of the
eclipsis in the former, which the latter is without, added to the
difficulty.
Footnote 238:
Fluviusque ejusdem loci in quo idem baptisma acceperat, ex nomine
ejus, Dobur Artbranani usque in hodiernum nominatus diem, ab accolis
vocitatur (B. i. c. 27). An old Irish Glossary, quoted by O’Reilly,
under Aidhbheis, has
Bior, is An agas Dobhar
Tri hanmann d’uisce an domhain.
Bior and An and Dobar,
Three names for water in the world.
Footnote 239:
Quidam cum tota plebeius familia (B. ii. c. 33).
Footnote 240:
Ibidemque quidam repertus senex, Emchatus nomine, audiens a Sancto
verbum Dei prædicatum, et credens, baptizatus est (B. iii. c. 15).
Footnote 241:
Acceptisque eorum uxoribus et filiabus in conjugium, omnes earum
linguas amputaverunt, ne eorum successio maternam linguam disceret.
Footnote 242:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 160.
Footnote 243:
Sure condicioun qe lour issu parlascent Irrays, quel patois demurt a
iour de huy du haute pays entre lez uns, qest dit Escotoys.—_Ib._ p.
199.
Footnote 244:
Reginald of Durham, writing in the last half of the twelfth century,
mentions, in 1164, Kirkcudbright as being ‘in terra Pictorum,’ and
calls their language ‘sermo Pictorum.’—_Libellus_, c. lxxxiv.
Footnote 245:
Sequitur in eodem latere, et littore occidentali, Gallovidia.... Ea
magna ex parte patrio sermone adhuc utitur.—Buchanan, _Rerum
Scoticarum Hist._, Lib. ii. 27.
Footnote 246:
Laing’s _Poems of William Dunbar_. Chalmers’s _Poems of Sir David
Lyndesay_, vol. ii. p. 350. Mr. Burton, in his chapter on ‘The Early
Races’ (_Hist._ vol. i. p. 206), makes the assertion that the Gaelic
of Scotland ‘was ever called by the Teutonic Scots, Irish, Ersch, or
Erse.’ In this he is mistaken. It was not so called before the
fifteenth century, but invariably ‘Lingua Scotica,’ or Scotch.
Footnote 247:
The inference as to the language of the Picts is the same, even though
Chalmers’ imaginary colony of Irish Cruithne in the seventh century
really took place.
Footnote 248:
The author has thrown these materials into the form of an alphabetical
list, which will be found in the Appendix I., with a comparison with
similar words and names in the other dialects.
Footnote 249:
The names of the primary colours which enter into the composition both
of names, persons, and places will illustrate this:—
_Gaelic._ _Welsh._
Ban } white Cán } white
Finn } Gwyn }
Breac } speckled Brych } speckled
Brit } Brith }
Ciar } black Du black
Dubh
Glas green Glas green, blue
Gorm blue Gwrm brown
Liath grey Llwyd gray
Dearg } red Coch } red
Ruadh } Rhudd }
Here some are so alike as to afford no test, others again are
different from each other; but those in which the phonetic differences
occur—as Finn, Gwyn; Ban, Cán—afford at once a test of the dialect.
Again, the features of the face and form enter both into epithets and
names of places. We may take a few—
_Gaelic._ _Welsh._
Ceann head Pen head
Claggan skull Clopen skull
Cluas ear Cluit, Clyw ear
Bronn breast Bron breast
Falt hair Gwallt hair
Sron nose Trwyn nose
Drum } Cefn }
Cul } back Trwm } back
Cil }
Lamh hand Llaw hand
Troidh foot Troed foot
Here, also, some are so alike it would be impossible to distinguish
the dialect, but Ceann and Pen, Claggan and Clopen, Falt and Gwallt,
Sron and Trwyn, afford at once a criterion. So also in proper names,
where the phonetic differences are equally apparent.
Footnote 250:
The tribes are Caledonii, Canteæ, Creones, Carnones, Curnaovii,
Carini. The other three are Epidii, Lugi, Mertæ. The two latter
occupied Sutherland. Ptolemy has the river Lugia in Ireland, and this
can be identified with Belfast Lough. The Irish name was Loch Laogh,
and Adamnan renders it by Stagnum Vituli. Laogh is a calf in Irish,
and is probably the word meant by Lugia. If the same word enters into
the name Lugi, it is rather remarkable that Mart should be the Irish
word for a heifer. It would seem as if the two tribes of the Lugi and
Mertæ took their names from these animals, which would indicate their
belonging to the Gaelic race.
Footnote 251:
The tribes are Vacomagi, Vernicomes, Taexali.
Footnote 252:
Sluind Aed _fortren_ Ferna.
Name Aed, the powerful of Ferna.
Angus Culdee, _Feliré_ at 31st Jany.
Footnote 253:
The age of the world 3923. This was the first year of the reign of
Finnachta, son of Ollamh Fodhla, over Ireland. The age of the world
3960, the first of the reign of Gede Ollgothach over Ireland.—_Annals
of Four Masters._
Aen is a common prefix in Irish names, and Becan occurs repeatedly as
an Irish name.—_Index An. IV. Masters._
Footnote 254:
Bede mentions that the ‘Sinus Orientalis (Firth of Forth) habet in
medio sui urbem Giudi.’ It is not impossible that this town may have
taken its name from this Guidid or Giudid Gaethbrechach, and if it was
on Inchkeith, the island may have taken its name from Gaeth. He must
therefore have belonged to the British people of the Ottadeni, whose
frontier city this was.
Footnote 255:
The name Bruidhe appears among the kings of O’Faly in Leinster, and in
the Annals of the Four Masters in the form of Bruaideadh. We find in
Ireland analogous names to these of the thirty Brudes applied to
districts. In Leinster we have Tola and Fortola (_An. IV. M._ 571). In
Ulster in Tirconnell, Guill and Irguill (_ib._ 718). In Alban, Dobhar
and Irdobhar. In this list Cal and Urcal, etc., and in one of the
Welsh pedigrees Cein, son of Gwrcein, son of Doli, son of Gwrdoli, son
of Dubhn, son of Gwrdubhn. In the Manumissions of Bodmin we have as
Cornish forms Guest, Wurguest, Ceint, Wurceint. This will show the
exact position of this form as between Irish and Cornish. The author
is inclined to think that this legend of the thirty Brudes whose names
were given to their portions of land is based upon the Irish system of
land denominations, as that of the seven sons of Cruithne evidently
was. There were thirty townships or _baile betaghs_ in a barony or
_triocha ced_, and the Irish Annals tell us that the mythic King
Ollamh Fodla ‘appointed a _Taoisech_ over every _triocha ced_ and a
_Brughaidh_ over every _baile_.’—_An. Four Masters_, vol. i. p. 53.
Footnote 256:
_Brev. Ab., Pars Hyem._ f. xxii.
Footnote 257:
The following words may be cited as examples of the interchange of S
and D in Gaelic:—Suil, Duil, _hope_; Seangan, Deangan, _an ant_; Seas,
Deas, _stay_; Samh, Damh, _learning_; Seirc, Deirc, _almsgiving_;
Sonnach, Tonnach, _a wall_.
Footnote 258:
Welsh G passes into D in Gel, W., Daoil, Ir., _a leech_; Gloin, W.,
Dealan, Ir., _coal_; Gwneyd, W., Deanadh, Ir., do.; Gobaith, W.,
Dobhchais, Ir., _hope_. St. Drostan was son of Cosgrich, and nephew of
Saint Columba, and a Scot by descent.
Footnote 259:
F, or as it is written in Welsh Ff, passes into P in Irish, as in Kyf,
_lame_, Ir. ceap, etc. Of the two Alpins in the list, the father of
the first is not given, but, as we shall see afterwards, his father
was a Dalriadic Scot. The father of the second was Wroid; this is near
the Cornish form, which would be Uored. In this form the name appears
in an inscription on one of the sculptured stones at St. Vigeans. Mr.
Whitley Stokes thus reads it:—
Drosten:
Ipe uoret
Elt For
Cus.
It is a good specimen of the mixture of forms we find in this part of
the Pictish territory. Drosten is not a Welsh form but Gaelic; Ipe
Uoret, Cornish; and Forcus unmistakably Irish. See _Adamnan_, ed.
1874, p. 120, for Forcus. An Ogham inscription on a stone at Aboyne
has been thus read:—
Neahhtla robbait ceanneff
Maqqoi Talluorrh.
‘Neachtla or Neachtan immolated Kinneff to the sons of Talore.’ The
word ‘robbait’ is the Irish word ‘robaith,’ used in the Book of Deer
for a donation to the church.
Footnote 260:
The Manumissions in the Bodmin Gospels, from which the Cornish forms
are taken, have Wurgustel and Ungust among the names.
Footnote 261:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 45, 319, 329.
Footnote 262:
‘Clerici illi, qui in ecclesia illa commorantur, qui Pictorum lingua
Scollofthes cognominantur’ (cap. lxxxv.). Reginald of Durham was a
Norman, and it probably merely represents his attempt to pronounce a
word ending with a guttural. He would soften Sgolog to Sgolofth, just
as the Normans softened Bannockburn to Banoffburn.
Footnote 263:
This is the process which George Chalmers has gone through in
endeavouring to show that the Cymric language originally pervaded the
whole of Scotland. He has, in vol. i. p. 33, an elaborate comparison
between the names in north and south Britain, which in reality proves
nothing; and in applying his Welsh etymologies to the names of places,
he proceeds entirely upon the mere resemblance of sounds in the modern
form of the word. This mode, which the author has elsewhere termed
phonetic etymology, taints almost all the attempts which have been
made to attach the local names in Scotland to one or other of the
Celtic dialects.
Footnote 264:
We have an instance of this in two Gaelic synonyms for a mountain,
Sliabh and Beann, the one being mainly used in Ireland and the other
in Scotland.
Footnote 265:
This may be well illustrated by showing the various forms which the
word Traver has assumed, and the false etymologies it has given rise
to. The word is properly Treabhar, and in John O’Dugan’s Forus Focail,
quoted by O’Reilly, it is glossed by Taobhnocht, a naked side. It does
not occur in Wales.
Travernent, now Tranent (Had.).
Traverquair, now Traquair (Peebles).
Traverbrun, now Trabroun (Rox.).
Travereglys, now Terregles (Dumfries).
Travertrold, now Trailtrow (do.).
Traverflat, now Trailflat (do.).
Traverlen, now Crailing (Roxburgh).
Footnote 266:
In the Welsh poems the name Tawi is also applied to the Tay.
Footnote 267:
Ubi et ipsa Britannia plus angustissima de oceano in oceano esse
dinoscitur.—Ravennatis Anonymi _Cosmographia_.
Footnote 268:
In Welsh Tad is father, Map son.
Footnote 269:
In Latin ‘sacellum’ (see Zeuss, _Grammatica Celtica_, p. 10). Can this
refer to the building called Arthur’s O’on?
Footnote 270:
For the names in Adamnan, the reader is referred to Reeves’s edition
of Adamnan’s _Life of St. Columba_, in the series of Historians of
Scotland for 1874.
Footnote 271:
Eddi, _Vita S. Wilfridi_ apud Gale, pp. 70, 71.
Footnote 272:
The passages regarding the wall are as follows:—
A mari Scotiæ usque ad mare Hiberniæ id est, a Cair Eden civitate
antiquissima duorum ferme millium spatio a monasterio Abercurnig, quod
nunc vocatur Abercorn, ad occidentem tendens, contra occidentem juxta
urbem Alcluith.—Gildas, _Capitula libri_.
Incipit autem duorum ferme milium spatio a monasterio Aebbercurnig ad
occidentem, in loco qui sermone Pictorum Peanfahel, lingua autem
Anglorum Penneltun appellatur; et tendens contra occidentem terminatur
juxta urbem Alcluith.—Beda, _Hist. Ec._ B. i. c. xii.
Per vero miliaria, passum unum a Penguaul, quæ villa Scottice Cenail,
Anglice vero Peneltun dicitur, usque ad ostium fluminis Cluth et
Cairpentaloch.—Ad. to Nennius.
Footnote 273:
Simeon of Durham calls it ‘Tiningaham,’ and says it was in the diocese
of Lindisfarne, and belonged to the Angles.—See Surtees ed., pp. 20,
65, 68. C has probably been read by the scribe for T.
Footnote 274:
The old form of the name Atholl is Athfhotla; and in the Prophecy of
St. Berchan, one of the kings, who represents Kenneth M‘Alpin, is said
to have died _for bruinnibh Eirenn_, on the banks of Erin. He died at
Forteviot, on the river Earn.
Footnote 275:
_Words and Places_, by the Rev. Isaac Taylor, p. 258. This argument
appears to have been first used by Mr. Kemble in his _Saxons in
England_, vol. ii. p. 4, but his line of demarcation is quite
different from Mr. Taylor’s. He says—‘The distinctive names of water
in the two principal languages appear to be Aber and Inver.’ He then
gives a list of seven Abers in Wales, and in Scotland eleven Abers on
the south-east side of his line, and twelve Invers on the north-west;
but the contrast is produced by simply omitting the Invers which are
on the same side with the Abers, and the Abers which are to be found
among the Invers. Mr. Taylor adds—‘The process of change is shown by
an old charter, in which king David grants to the monks of May
“Inverin qui fuit Aberin.” So Abernethy became Invernethy, although
the old name is now restored.’ This is quoted without acknowledgment
from George Chalmers, with the usual result of second-hand quotation,
that of perpetuating error. The true reading in the charter is
‘Petnaweem et Inverin que fuit Averin;’ and it means in the ordinary
charter Latin that these places formerly belonged to a person called
Averin. Abernethy never became Invernethy. The two places are distinct
from each other: Invernethy at the junction of the Nethy with the
Earn, and Abernethy a mile farther up the river.
Footnote 276:
Diefenbach, in his _Celtica_, vol. i. p. 23, is of this opinion. He
says, ‘Aber gehört völlig beiden Sprachaesten an.’
Footnote 277:
Mr. Bannister, in his _Glossary of Cornish Names_, has no Abers, but
an Appledor.
Footnote 278:
Taylor, _Words and Places_, p. 232. With what success he attempts to
make this out his list of Pens will show. Leaving out those in
Dumfriesshire, Ayrshire, and Haddington, where there was originally a
Welsh-speaking people, ‘we find,’ he says, ‘the Cymric form of the
word in the Gram_pians_,’ which is utter nonsense, ‘the Pentland
Hills,’ which is a corruption of Petland Hills, as the Pentland Firth
is of the Petland Firth, ‘the Pennguaul Hills,’ which have no
existence, and ‘Pendrich in Perth,’ which is a corruption of
Pittindriech. The whole of this part of Mr. Taylor’s work is tainted
with phonetic etymology; _e.g._, he says, ‘From _llevn_, smooth, or
from _linn_, a deep still pool, we obtain the names of Loch Leven, and
three rivers called Leven in Scotland.’ The old form of this name
Leven is ‘Leamhan,’ which means in Irish an elm-tree. The Welsh
equivalent is Llwyfan.
Footnote 279:
Perhaps Pennan, the modern name of a headland at the Moray Firth, may
be an exception, but we have not its old form.
Footnote 280:
Pette is the form of this word in the Book of Deer, and it appears to
mean a portion of land, as it is conjoined with proper names, as Pette
MacGarnait, Pette Malduib. It also appears connected with Gaelic
specific terms, as Pette _an Muilenn_, ‘of the mill.’ With the article
it forms Petten, or Pitten, as in Petten-taggart, termed in a charter
of the church of Migvie (St. Andrews Chartulary, preface, p. 21)
‘terra ecclesiæ.’ It is Pettan t-saguirt, the priest’s land. In the
same Chartulary (114) the ‘villula quæ dicitur Pettemokane’ is
afterwards apparently called ‘domus cujusdam viri nomine Mochan.’ It
is synonymous with Both, a dwelling, as we find Bothgouanan, near
Elgin, has become Pitgownie, and Badfodullis, near Aberdeen,
Pitfoddles. Dr. Stuart points out, in his introduction to the Book of
Deer, p. lxxxiv., that Pit and Bal are frequently used
indiscriminately.
Footnote 281:
As in Fothuirtabhaicht now Forteviot, Fothurdun now Fordun, Fothenaven
now Finhaven.
Footnote 282:
These laws are taken from _The Four Ancient Books of Wales_, where the
subject of the race and language of the Picts is fully discussed in
Chapters VII., VIII., and IX. This has, of course, led to some
repetition, and in one respect the author has been led to modify the
views there stated. An examination of the old forms of the Cornish
names in the Manumissions in the Bodmin Gospels, printed in the _Revue
Celtique_, vol. i. p. 332, has led him to see that there is a British
element in the proper names in the list of Pictish kings, and that
that element is not Welsh, but Cornish.
CHAPTER V.
THE FOUR KINGDOMS.
[Sidenote: Result of Ethnological inquiry.]
The result of our inquiry into the ethnology of Britain and the race and
language of the occupants of its northern districts, hasty and general
as, from the limits of this work, it has necessarily been, may be thus
summed up:—
The Celtic race in Britain and Ireland was preceded by a people of an
Iberian type, small, dark-skinned, and curly-haired. They are the people
of the long-headed skulls, and their representatives in Britain were the
tin-workers of Cornwall and the Scilly Islands, who traded with Spain,
and the tribe of the Silures in South Wales, and, in the legendary
history of Ireland, the people called the Firbolg. The Celtic race
followed them both in Britain and in Ireland. These are the people of
the round-headed skulls, and consisted of two great branches, whose
language—the British and the Gadhelic—though possessing evident marks
that they had a common origin, and that both branches belonged
originally to one race, is yet distinguished by marked dialectic
differences. Each of these great branches again was divided into
varieties. Of the Gadhelic branch, one was a fair-skinned, large-limbed,
and red-haired race, and were represented in Britain by the people of
the interior whom the Romans thought to be indigenous, and who, after
the Roman province was formed, were called by them the Picts or painted
people. They are represented in the legendary history of Ireland by the
Tuatha De Danann and by the Cruithnigh, a name which was the Irish
equivalent of the Latin ‘Picti,’ and was applied to the Picts of
Scotland, and to the people who preceded the Scots in Ulster, and were
eventually confined to a district in the eastern part of it. The other
variety was a fair-skinned brown-haired race, represented in the
legendary history as the race of Milidh or Milesius, and, after the
fourth century, known by the name of Scots.
The other great branch of the Celtic race, which extended itself over
the whole of that part of Britain which became subject to the Roman
power, and was incorporated into a province of the Roman Empire, were
those we have termed British, and resembled the Gauls in their physical
appearance. The two varieties of their language in Britain are
represented by the Cornish and the Welsh.
The Celtic race was followed by a Teutonic people, who were of the low
German race, and issued from the low-lying country along the north coast
of Germany, extending from the Rhine to the Cimbric Chersonese. After
assailing the Roman province during the last half-century of its
existence, when they were known by the name of Saxons, they made
settlements during the first half of the fifth century in what was
called the Saxon Shore, and along the east coast from the Humber to the
Firth of Forth. These earliest settlers consisted partly of Frisians,
but mainly of the people called ‘Angli,’ who were part of a
confederation of tribes who bore the general name of Saxons, and were
followed at a later period by those who seemed to have belonged to the
people originally called Saxons.
[Sidenote: The four kingdoms.]
Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races there emerged in that northern
part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the subsequent
monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite limits and under
settled forms of government; and as such we find them in the beginning
of the seventh century, when the conflict among these races, which
succeeded the departure of the Romans from the island, and the
termination of their power in Britain, may be held to have ceased, and
the limits of these kingdoms to have become settled.
North of the Firths of Forth and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the
Scots of Dalriada on the west and of the Picts on the east. They were
separated from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the
Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of Drumalban.
It was the great watershed which separated the rivers flowing eastward
from those flowing westward, and now separates the counties of Argyll
and Perth. The northern boundary appears to be represented by a line
drawn from the mouth of Loch Leven through the district of Morvern,
separating the old parish of Killecolmkill from that of Killfintach,
then through the island of Mull by the great ridge of Benmore, and by
the islands of Iona and Colonsay to Isla, where it separated the eastern
from the western districts of the island.[283]
[Illustration:
THE
FOUR KINGDOMS
_W. & A.K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London._
]
[Sidenote: Scottish kingdom of Dalriada.]
The Scottish colony was originally founded by Fergus Mor, son of Erc,
who came with his two brothers Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in
the end of the fifth century, but the true founder of the Dalriadic
kingdom was his great-grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. It consisted of
three tribes, the Cinel Gabran, the Cinel Angus, and the Cinel Loarn,
which were called the ‘three powerfuls of Dalriada.’ The Cinel Gabran
consisted of the descendants of Fergus, whose son Domangart had two
sons, Gabran and Comgall, and their possessions consisted of the
district of Cowall, which takes its name from Comgall, that of Cindtire
or Kintyre, which then extended from the river Add, which flows into the
bay of Crinan, to the Mull of Kintyre, and included Knapdale and the
small islands of this coast. The Cinel Angusa settled in Isla and Jura,
while the names of their townships which have been preserved embrace the
eastern half of the island only. The Cinel Loarn possessed the district
of Lorn, which takes its name from them and extends from Loch Leven to
the point of Ashnish. Between the possessions of the Cinel Loarn and
those of the Cinel Gabhran extended what is now the great moss of
Crinan, called in Gaelic ‘Monadhmor;’ and on the bank of the river Add,
which meanders through it, there rises an isolated rocky hill, the
summit of which bears the mark of having been strongly fortified, while
the great stones and cairns on the moss around it preserve the record of
many an attempt to take it. This fortified hill was called Dunadd, a
name which it still retains, and was the capital of Dalriada. It was
also called, from the moss which surrounds it, Dunmonaidh. The
possessions of these Dalriadic tribes surrounded a small district
extending from the districts of Lorn, Kintyre, and Cowal, to Drumalban,
in the centre of which was the lake of Loch Awe. As this territory was
not included in the possessions of any of these tribes, it probably
still retained its original population, and contained the remains of the
earlier inhabitants before the arrival of the Scots. The kings of this
small kingdom of Dalriada all belonged to the race of Erc, and succeeded
each other according to the Irish law of Tanistry, which often assumed
the form of an alternate succession from the members of two families
descended from the common ancestor. In Dalriada it alternated first
between the descendants of Gabran and Comgall, the two grandsons of
Fergus, and afterwards between the Cinel Gabran and Cinel Loarn.[284]
[Sidenote: The kingdom of the Picts.]
The remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde formed
the kingdom of the Picts. Throughout the whole course of their history
as an independent nation there seems to have been a twofold division of
this people, and they were eventually distinguished from each other as
the northern and the southern Picts. Bede tells us that they were
separated from each other by steep and rugged mountain chains, and he
terms in one place the northern Picts, the Transmontane Picts.[285] This
mountain range can only refer to the great chain termed the Mounth,
which extends across the island from Ben Nevis in Lochaber, till it
terminates near the east coast between Aberdeen and Stonehaven. The
whole country north of this range from sea to sea belonged to the
northern Picts, who appear to have been purely Gaelic in race and
language. The southern Picts are said by Bede to have had seats within
these mountains, which refers no doubt to the districts intersected by
the lesser chains which extend from the main range towards the
south-east, and from the barrier of the so-called Grampians. These
districts consist of the Perthshire and Forfarshire Highlands, the
former of which is known by the name of Atholl. The western boundary of
the territory of the southern Picts was Drumalban, which separated them
from the Scots of Dalriada, and their southern boundary the Forth. The
main body of the southern Picts also belonged no doubt to the Gaelic
race, though they may have possessed some differences in the idiom of
their language; but the original population of the country extending
from the Forth to the Tay consisted of part of the tribe of Damnonii,
who belonged to the Cornish variety of the British race, and they appear
to have been incorporated with the southern Picts, and to have
introduced a British element into their language. The Frisian
settlements, too, on the shores of the Firth of Forth may also have left
their stamp on this part of the nation. The former are probably the
Britons of Fortrenn of the Pictish legends, and the latter have
apparently left a record of their presence in the term of the Frisian
Shore, known as the name of a district on the south of the Firth of
Forth; and the name of Fothrik, applied to a district now represented by
Kinross-shire and the western part of Fifeshire, may preserve a
recollection of their Rik or kingdom.
The Picts seem to have preserved a tradition that the whole nation was
once divided into seven provinces, whose names were derived from seven
sons of Cruithne, the ‘eponymus’ of the race, and the reference to Saint
Columba, as perpetuating this in a stanza, relegates it to this period.
Of these names five can be recognised. In Fib we have Fife, Fodla enters
into the name of Atholl, Circinn into that of the Mearns, Fortrenn was
certainly the district from the Tay to the Forth, and Caith was the
district of Cathenesia, originally of great extent, and embracing the
most northern part of the island from sea to sea.
The seat of government appears to have been sometimes within the
territory of the southern Picts, and at others on the north of the great
chain of the Mounth. When we can first venture to regard the list of the
Pictish kings preserved in the Pictish Chronicle as having some claim to
a historical character, we find the king having his seat apparently in
Forfarshire; but when the works of Adamnan and Bede place us upon firm
ground, the monarch belonged to the race of the northern Picts, and had
his fortified residence near the mouth of the river Ness.
When we examine the historical part of the list of the Pictish monarchs,
we find that it exhibits a very marked peculiarity in the order of
succession. We see brothers, sons of the same father, succeeding each
other, but it does not present a single instance, throughout the whole
period of the Pictish kingdom, of a son directly succeeding his father.
Bede gives us the law of succession thus: ‘That when it came into doubt
they elected the king rather from the female than from the male royal
lineage, a custom,’ he says, ‘preserved among the Picts to his
day.’[286] It is thus stated in the poem attached to the Irish Nennius,
‘that from the nobility of the mother should always be the right to the
sovereignty;’ and in the prose legends, ‘that the regal succession among
them for ever should be on the mother’s side.’ ‘That not less should
territorial succession be derived from men than from women for
ever;’[287] ‘so that it is in right of mothers they succeed to
sovereignty and all other successions.’ ‘That they alone should take of
the sovereignty and of the land from women rather than from men in
Cruithintuath for ever.’ ‘That of women should be the royal succession
among them for ever.’[288] These statements, when compared with the
actual succession, lead to this, that brothers succeeded each other in
preference to the sons of each, not an unusual feature in male
succession; but, on their failure, the contingency alluded to by Bede
arose, and the succession then passed to the sons of sisters, or to the
nearest male relation on the female side, and through a female. This,
however, does not exhaust the anomalies exhibited in this list of kings,
for we find that the names given as those of the fathers of the kings
differ entirely from those of their sons, and in no case does a son who
reigns bear the same name as that of any one of the fathers in the list.
The names of the reigning kings are in the main confined to four or five
names, as Brude, Drust, Talorgan, Nechtan, Gartnaidh, and these never
appear among the names of the fathers of kings, nor does the name of a
father occur twice in the list. Further, in two cases we know that while
the kings who reigned were termed respectively Brude and Talorcan, the
father of the one was a Briton, and of the other an Angle.[289] The
conclusion which Mr. M‘Lennan, in his very original work on primitive
marriage, draws from this is, that it ‘raises a strong presumption that
all the fathers were men of other tribes. At any rate there remains the
fact, after every deduction has been made, that the fathers and mothers
were in no case of the same family name;’[290] and he quotes this as a
reason for believing that exogamy prevailed among the Picts. But this
explanation, though it goes some way, will not fully interpret the
anomalies in the list of Pictish kings. The only hypothesis that seems
to afford a full explanation is one that would suppose that the kings
among the Picts were elected from one family clan or tribe, or possibly
from one in each of the two divisions of the northern and southern
Picts; that there lingered among the Picts the old custom among the
Celts, who, to use the language of Mr. M‘Lennan, ‘were anciently lax in
their morals, and recognised relationship through mothers only;’[291]
that intermarriage was not permitted in this royal family or tribe, and
the women had to obtain their husbands from the men of other tribes, not
excluding those of a different race;[292] that the children were adopted
into the tribe of the mother, and certain names were exclusively
bestowed on such children. Such an hypothesis seems capable of
explaining all the facts of the case; and if the male child thus adopted
into the tribe of the mother became king, and was paternally of a
foreign race, it will readily be seen how much this would facilitate the
permanent occupation of the Pictish throne by a foreign line of kings.
It would only be necessary that one king, who was paternally of a
foreign tribe, and whose succession to the throne could not be opposed
in conformity with the Pictish law of succession, should become powerful
enough to alter the succession to one through males, and perpetuate it
in his own family. Although the Pictish people might resist to the
utmost their subjection to a foreign nation, and would make every effort
to throw off the yoke, there would be nothing in the mere occupation of
the throne by a family of foreign descent, who derived their succession
originally through a female of the Pictish royal tribe, to arouse their
national feeling to any extent against it.
The death of Brude mac Mailchon, the king of the northern Picts, whom
Saint Columba converted, is recorded by Tighernac in the year 584,[293]
after a reign of thirty years; and as no battle is mentioned between him
and the Dalriads after the arrival of Saint Columba, it seems probable
that the boundaries of the respective kingdoms by the Picts and Scots of
Dalriada were amicably settled by the same influence which procured the
recognition of the independence of Dalriada at the convention of
Drumceitt. Brude was succeeded by Gartnaidh, who is called son of
Domelch, who reigned eleven years, and his death took place in 599,[294]
two years after that of Saint Columba himself. He is succeeded by
Nectan, who bears the unusual designation of grandson of Uerd, and who
occupied the throne at the beginning of the sixth century.[295]
[Sidenote: Kingdom of the Britons of Alclyde.]
The districts south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to
the Solway Firth on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed
by the two kingdoms of the Britons on the west and of the Angles of
Bernicia on the east. The former extended from the river Derwent in
Cumberland in the south to the Firth of Clyde in the north, which
separated the Britons from the Scots of Dalriada. The British kingdom
thus comprehended Cumberland and Westmoreland, with the exception of the
baronies of Allerdale or Copeland in the former and Kendal in the
latter, and the counties of Dumfries, Ayr, Renfrew, Lanark, and Peebles,
in Scotland. On the east the great forest of Ettrick separated them from
the Angles, and here the ancient rampart of the Catrail which runs from
the south-east corner of Peeblesshire, near Galashiels, through the
county of Selkirk to the Peel Hill on the south side of Liddesdale,
probably marked the boundary between them. The population of this
kingdom seems to have belonged to two varieties of the British race,—the
southern half, including Dumfriesshire, being Cymric or Welsh, and the
northern half having been occupied by the Damnonii who belonged to the
Cornish variety. The capital of the kingdom was the strongly-fortified
position on the rock on the right bank of the Clyde, termed by the
Britons Alcluith, and by the Gadhelic people Dunbreatan, or the fort of
the Britons, now Dumbarton; but the ancient town called Caer Luel or
Carlisle in the southern part must always have been an important
position. The kingdom of the Britons had at this time no territorial
designation, but its monarchs were termed kings of Alcluith, and
belonged to that party among the Britons who bore the peculiar name of
Romans, and claimed descent from the ancient Roman rulers in Britain.
The law of succession seems to have been one of purely male descent.
[Sidenote: Kingdom of Bernicia.]
Of Aedilfrid, who at this time ruled over Bernicia, and soon after
extended his sway over Deira also, it is told us by Bede that he
‘conquered more territories from the Britons, either making them
tributary, or expelling the inhabitants and planting Angles in their
places, than any other king;’ and to his reign we attribute the greatest
extension of the Anglic power over the Britons. He appears to have added
to his kingdom the districts on the west between the Derwent and the
Mersey, thus extending Deira from sea to sea, and placing the
Northumbrian kingdom between the Britons of the north and those of
Wales. The river Tees appears to have separated Deira from Bernicia, and
the Angles of Bernicia, with whom we have more immediately to do, were
now in firm possession of the districts extending along the east coast
as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied by the British tribe
of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the Picts, and including the counties
of Berwick and Roxburgh and that of East Lothian or Haddington, the
rivers Esk and Gala forming here their western boundary. The capital of
Deira was York, and that of Bernicia the strongly-fortified position on
the coast nearly opposite the Farne Islands, crowning a basaltic rock
rising 150 feet above the sea, and accessible only on the south-east,
which was called by the Britons Dinguayrdi, by the Gael Dunguaire, and
by the Angles Bebbanburch after Bebba the wife of Aedilfrid, now
Bamborough. About half-way along the coast, between Bamborough and
Berwick-on-Tweed, lay, parallel to the shore, the long flat island
called by the Britons Ynys Medcaud, and by the Angles Lindisfarne.[296]
[Sidenote: The debateable lands.]
In the centre of Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of
the sea, the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these four
kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending from the Esk to
the Tay, which possessed a very mixed population, and was the scene of
most of the conflicts between these four states. Originally occupied by
the tribe of the Damnonii, the northern boundary of the Roman province
intersected it for two centuries and a half, including part of this
tribe and the province, and merging the rest among the barbarians. On
the fall of the Roman power in Britain, it was overrun by the Picts, and
one of the earliest settlements of the Saxons, which probably was
composed of Frisians, took place in the districts about the Roman wall.
It was here that during the sixth century the main struggle took place.
It falls naturally into three divisions. The first extends from the Esk
and the Pentland Hills to the Roman wall and the river Carron. This
district we find mainly peopled by Picts, the remains probably of those
who once occupied the eastern districts to the southern wall, and
preserved a kind of independence, while the rest were subjected by the
Angles.
From the Picts the Angles give the hills which formed its southern
boundary the name of the Pehtland, now Pentland hills. Near its
south-eastern boundary was the strong natural position called by the
Britons Mynyd Agned and also Dineiddyn, and by the Gael Dunedin. Nine
miles farther west, the Firth of Forth is narrowed till the coast
approaches within two miles of that of Fife, and affords a ready means
of access; and on the south shore of the upper basin of the Forth, and
near the termination of the Roman wall, was the ancient British town of
Caeredin, while in the Forth itself opposite this district was the
insular town of Giudi. The western part of this territory was known to
the Welsh by the name of Manau Guotodin, and to the Gael as the plain or
district of Manann, a name still preserved in Sliabhmanann, now
Slamanan, and this seems to have been the headquarters of these Picts.
Between them and the kingdom of the Picts proper lay a central district,
extending from the wall to the river Forth, and on the bank of the
latter was the strong position afterwards occupied by Stirling Castle;
and while the Angles of Bernicia exercised an influence and a kind of
authority over the first district, this central part seems to have been
more closely connected with the British kingdom of Alclyde. The northern
part, extending from the Forth to the Tay, belonged to the Pictish
kingdom, with whom its population, originally British, appears to have
been incorporated, and was the district afterwards known as Fortrenn and
Magh Fortrenn.
[Sidenote: Galloway.]
Finally, on the north shore of the Solway Firth, and separated from the
Britons by the lower part of the river Nith, and by the mountain range
which separates the counties of Kirkcudbright and Wigtown from those of
Dumfries and Ayr, were a body of Picts, termed by Bede, Niduari; and
this district, consisting of the two former counties, was known to the
Welsh as Galwydel, and to the Irish as Gallgaidel, from which was formed
the name Gallweithia, now Galloway.
[Sidenote: A.D. 606.
Death of Aidan, king of Dalriada; Aedilfrid conquers Deira,
and expels Aeduin.]
Three years after the great battle in which Aidan was defeated at
Dawstone in Liddesdale, he died, leaving his throne to his son Eocha
Buidhe, or the yellow-haired, whom Saint Columba had named as his
successor;[297] and in the same year Aedilfrid, king of Bernicia,
attacked Aeduin, who had succeeded his father Aella in Deira when a
child, and had barely attained majority, and drove him from his throne,
thus uniting Deira to Bernicia, over which he reigned twelve years. A
change likewise soon took place among the Pictish kings, and in the year
612 Nectan appears to have been displaced by Cinioch or Cinadon, son of
Luchtren, who from the Gaelic form of his name probably belonged to the
northern Picts.[298] Five years afterwards Aeduin, who, after wandering
as a fugitive in different parts of Britain, had finally taken refuge
with Redwald, king of the East Angles, succeeded in persuading him to
assist him to recover his throne.
[Sidenote: A.D. 617.
Battle between Aeduin and Aedilfrid.]
A large army was accordingly raised, and meeting Aedilfrid, who was
advancing against him with inferior force, he attacked him and slew him
on the borders of the kingdom of Mercia, on the east side of the river
called Idlae or Idle, a small river which falls into the Trent. Aeduin
thus not only regained his kingdom in the year 617, but obtained
possession of both provinces of Deira and Bernicia, which had been under
the rule of Aedilfrid, and in his turn drove out his sons, who, with
many of the young nobles of their party, took refuge with the Scots of
Dalriada or with the Picts. The eldest of the sons, Eanfrid, appears to
have fled for protection to the king of the Picts; and the second,
Osuald, who was then of the same age that Aeduin had been when he was
expelled, went to the island of Iona, where Bede tells us he was
instructed in the Christian faith and baptized by the seniors of the
Scots. Aeduin, too, with his whole nation was converted to Christianity
by Paulinus in the eleventh year of his reign. Bede classes Aeduin among
the kings of the Anglic natives who possessed imperial authority, and he
is the first of the Northumbrian kings to whom such power is attributed:
he says that he ruled over all the people both of the Angles and the
Britons who inhabit the island, and in another place, that none of the
Angles before him had brought under subjection all the borders of
Britain that were provinces either of themselves or the Britons.[299]
These expressions must not be taken literally, and are not altogether
consistent with the similar statement with regard to his predecessor
Aedilfrid, but they undoubtedly imply that he was one of the most
powerful of the Northumbrian monarchs, and at least retained all the
acquisitions of his predecessors, while he has left his name in one
district, which shows that he had extended the limits of the
Northumbrian kingdom in one direction at least. The oldest form of the
name of Edinburgh is Edwinesburg,[300] which leads us to infer that he
had added the district from the Esk to the Avon at least, of which it
was the chief stronghold, to his kingdom. The country extending from the
river Avon to the range of the Lammermoor hills was called by the Saxons
‘Lothene,’ and by the Gael ‘Lethead,’ and appears also under the name of
the province of Loidis, a name which was afterwards extended as far
south as the Tweed.[301]
[Sidenote: A.D. 627.
Battle of Ardcorann between Dalriads and Cruithnigh.]
The Irish annalists record in the year 627 the battle of Ardcorann, in
which the Dalriads were victorious, and Fiachna, son of Deman, was slain
by Conadh Cerr, king of Dalriada.[302] Fiachna mac Deman was the king of
the Cruithnigh of Dalaradia in Ireland, and the battle was probably
fought in Ireland, Conadh Cerr, king of Dalriada, coming to the
assistance of the Irish Dalriads; but Conadh Cerr was the son of Eochadh
Buidhe, who was still alive, and he would appear to have transferred the
throne of Dalriada to his son. The explanation will probably be found in
the record of another battle fought two years afterwards, also in
Ireland, called the battle of Fedhaeoin or Fedhaeuin. This battle was
also fought between the Cruithnigh and the Dalriads, and the latter were
defeated. On the side of the victors were Maelcaith mac Scandail, king
of the Cruithnigh of Ulster, Dicuill mac Eachach, king of a tribe of
Cruithnigh, and Eochadh Buidhe; and, on the other, Conad Cerr, king of
Dalriada, and two grandsons of Aidan, who were slain.[303] Eochadh
Buidhe is here on the side of the Cruithnigh and opposed to two of his
own sons, one of them leading the Dalriads; but the Annals of Ulster,
quoting an old book called the Book of Cuanac, record the death of
Eochadh Buidhe, king of the Picts, in the same year, and this
corresponds with the length of his reign as given in the Albanic Duan,
where a king of the Picts is mentioned who does not appear in the list
of Pictish monarchs. The inference is that he was king of the Picts of
Galloway, and it would appear that in the course of his reign Eochadh
had either obtained authority over them or acquired a right to that
province, and placed his son Conadh Cerr on the throne of Dalriada
proper; and thus, when a war broke out between the Cruithnigh and the
Dalriads of Ireland, the anomaly occurred of the father fighting on the
one side with his Picts, and the sons with the Dalriads on the other.
[Sidenote: A.D. 629.
Domnall Breac becomes king of Dalriada.]
On the death of Conadh Cerr in 629, his brother Domnall Breac succeeded
him as king of Dalriada, while the rule over the Picts, which gave to
Eochaidh Buidhe his title of king of the Picts, probably passed by the
Pictish law of female succession to another family.
[Sidenote: A.D. 631.
Garnaid, son of Wid, succeeds Cinaeth mac Luchtren as king of
the Picts.]
The death of Cinaeth mac Luchtren, king of the Picts, is recorded by
Tighernac in 631,[304] and he was succeeded by a family of three
brothers, Garnaid, Bredei, and Talore, sons of Wid or Foith, who
followed each other on the Pictish throne during the next twenty-two
years. In the meantime a storm was gathering on the borders of
Northumbria, which was soon to burst upon Aeduin and bring his powerful
kingdom with his own life to an end. Among those British kings who had
been subjected to the authority of the Northumbrian king was a king of
the Britons termed by Bede ‘Caedwalla.’ He is described by Bede as a man
who, though he bore the name and professed himself a Christian, was yet
so barbarous in his disposition and behaviour that he spared neither
women nor children in his wars.[305] This British king resolved not only
to throw off all subjection to Northumbria, but to cut off the whole
nation of the Angles within the borders of Britain. He was enabled to
attempt this enterprise by having secured the support of Penda, whom
Bede calls a most warlike man, of the royal race of the Mercians,[306]
who had just ascended the throne of that nation. Penda and his whole
nation were still pagans and idolaters, and probably viewed the
establishment of Christianity as the religion of Northumbria with much
hostility; and Caedwalla, though nominally a Christian, had all the
hatred of the Welsh Church towards the Anglic Christians and their
church, with whom they held no communication.
[Sidenote: A.D. 633.
Battle of Haethfeld. Aeduin slain by Caedwalla and Penda.]
A great battle was fought between these leaders and Aeduin in a plain
called by Bede Haethfeld, now Hatfield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire,
on the 12th of October in the year 633, in which Aeduin was himself
killed, and all his army either slain or dispersed. His son Osfrid also
fell in the same war, and another son Eadfrid was obliged to go over to
Penda.[307] In the genealogies and chronicle attached to Nennius this
battle is called the battle of Meicen, and both Osfrid and Eadfrid are
said to have been slain in it; and it is added that none of Aeduin’s
race escaped, and the victor is termed Catguollaun, king of Guenedotia
or North Wales. Bede tells us that a great slaughter was made at this
time of the church and nation of the Northumbrians, and the more so
because one of the commanders by whom it was done was a pagan, and the
other a barbarian more cruel than a pagan, and that the province of
Deira fell on Aeduin’s death to Osric, son of his uncle Aelric, who was
a Christian, being one of those whom Paulinus had converted; while
Eanfrid, the eldest son of Aedilfrid, who had taken refuge on the
accession of Aeduin with the Picts, and had there been instructed in the
Christian religion by the Scottish monks, returned on Aeduin’s death to
Bernicia and took possession of his father’s kingdom. We are told,
however, by Bede that both kings, as soon as they obtained possession of
their kingdoms, renounced their Christianity and returned to their
former paganism, but were soon after slain by Caedwalla, who first
surprised and killed Osric, who had besieged him in the city of York,
and after having reigned for a year over the provinces of the
Northumbrians, also killed Eanfrid, who came to him with only twelve
soldiers to sue for peace, when he was probably advancing upon
Bamborough. That year, adds Bede, is to this day looked upon as unhappy
and hateful to all good men, as well on account of the apostasy of the
Anglic kings who had renounced the sacraments of their faith, as of the
outrageous tyranny of the British king.[308]
[Sidenote: A.D. 634.
Battle of Hefenfeld. Osuald becomes king of Northumbria.]
After the death of Eanfrid, his brother Osuald advanced from the north
with an army small indeed in number, as Bede tells us, but strengthened
with the faith of Christ, and north of the Tweed, and encountered the
army of the Britons, which was greatly more numerous, at a place near
the Roman wall called in the Anglic tongue Devisesburn, where a complete
victory was gained, and the impious commander of the Britons was slain.
The field of battle, Bede tells us, was also called Hefenfelth, or the
heavenly field, and was not far from Hexham, in the vale of the Tyne. It
has been identified with a place called St. Osualds, close to the wall,
and about seven or eight miles north of Hexham; and the British
commander must have been driven across the wild moor on the south side
of the wall through the Tyne, until he was overtaken at a distance of
eight or nine miles from the battlefield, and slain at a little stream
called Devisesburn, a tributary of the Rowley water. This battle is
termed in the additions to Nennius the battle of Catscaul, and it has
been well suggested that this name may be intended for Cad-ys-gual, the
battle at the wall. It is somewhat remarkable that while Bede names
Caedwalla whenever he has occasion to mention him, he does not name him
as the commander who was slain at this battle. Adamnan, who was born in
624, and was therefore ten years old when the battle was fought, tells
us that the day before the Saxon ruler Osuald went forth to fight
Catlon, a very valiant king of the Britons, he saw Saint Columba in a
vision, who told him to march out from his camp to battle the following
night, when his foes would be put to flight and his enemy Catlon
delivered into his hands; and that the next night King Osuald went forth
from his camp to battle, and had a much smaller army than the numerous
hosts opposed to him, yet he obtained an easy and decisive victory, for
King Catlon was slain, and the conqueror on his return after the battle
was ever after ordained by God emperor of all Britain. Adamnan adds that
he had this narrative from the lips of his predecessor, the abbot
Failbe, who solemnly declared that he had himself heard King Osuald
relate it to the Abbot Segine.[309] We can hardly have better evidence
than this as to the events of the battle, whatever may be said as to the
vision, and Tighernac likewise names Catlon, king of the Britons, as
King Osuald’s opponent,[310] but the name given to Caedwalla in
recording the battle in which he slew King Aeduin was not Cathlon but
Chon. In the Genealogies annexed to Nennius, Caedwalla is termed
Catguollaun, king of Guenedotia, while King Osuald’s opponent is named
Catgublaun, king of Guenedotia. It is therefore not impossible that the
impious commander of Bede may not have been Caedwalla himself, and that
there may be some truth in the account given in the Welsh Bruts that the
Caedwalla, who slew Aeduin, survived for many years after; but this is
not a matter which much affects our narrative so far as it concerns the
history before us.
[Sidenote: A.D. 635.
Battle of Seguise between Garnait, son of Foith, and the
family of Nectan.]
About the same time the family of that Nectan, king of the Picts, who
had been dispossessed in 612 seem to have made an effort to recover the
throne, for the Annals of Inisfallen have in 634 the death of Aengus,
son of Nechtan, and Tighernac records in 635 the battle of Seguise, in
which Lochene, son of Nechtan Cennfota, and Cumuscach, son of Aengus,
fell. These names are purely Gaelic forms, and ‘Cennfota’ is a Gaelic
epithet, meaning long-headed. The Annals of Ulster have the death of
Gartnait, son of Foith, in the same year, and say he fell in this
battle, which seems to leave little doubt that it was a contest for the
throne.[311] The battle was probably fought on the west bank of the Tay,
a few miles above Dunkeld, at a place now called Dalguise; and on the
east side of the river, immediately opposite that place, a cairn once
stood about thirty feet in diameter, which contained a single stone
coffin, and near it two high upright stones, while at a small distance
from the cairn were found a few rude stone coffins. These may have been
memorials of the battle. Gartnaidh was succeeded by his brother Bredei,
son of Uid or Foith.
[Sidenote: A.D. 634.
Battle of Calathros, in which Domnall Breac was defeated.]
In the same year in which the battle was fought which placed Osuald on
the throne of Bernicia, Domnall Breac, king of the Scots of Dalriada,
appears to have made an attempt to wrest the district between the Avon
and the Pentland Hills from the Angles,—whether as having some claim to
it through his grandfather Aidan, or, what is more probable, as a leader
of the Britons, but was defeated at Calathros,[312] or Calatria, now
Callander—a name applied to a small district between the Roman wall and
the Avon; and Bede, who ranks Osuald after Aeduin among those who held
imperial authority in Britain, tells us that he held the kingdom within
the same boundaries.[313]
Cummen the Fair, who was abbot of Iona from 657 to 669, tells us in his
Life of Saint Columba, which is still preserved, that, when the saint
inaugurated Aidan as king of Dalriada, and placed his hands upon his
head, and blessed him, he prophesied of his sons, grandchildren, and
great-grandchildren, thus addressing him:—‘Believe unhesitatingly, O
Aidan, that none of thy enemies shall be able to resist thee, unless
thou first act unjustly towards me and my kin. Wherefore exhort thy sons
with these words, lest they lose the kingdom,’ which, he adds, took
place, for they transgressed the injunction of the man of God, and lost
the kingdom. Adamnan, who is also a contemporary authority for the
events of this period, quotes this passage, somewhat amplifying it, and
adds—‘Now this prophecy hath been fulfilled in our own times in the
battle of Roth, in which Domnall Breac, the grandson of Aidan, ravaged
without the slightest provocation the territory of Domnall, the grandson
of Ainmuireg; and from that day to this (between 690 and 700) they have
been trodden down by strangers.’[314] The battle termed by Adamnan,
Roth, was the battle of Magh Rath, fought in 637 between Domnall, son of
Aed, king of Ireland, and Congal Claen, king of Uladh, that is of the
Cruithnigh of Dalaradia, and appears to have been a great struggle
between the Cruithnigh and kindred tribes with the dominant Scots of the
race of Hy Neill. Congal Claen applied for assistance both to the
Britons and to the king of Scottish Dalriada, and was supported by a
large auxiliary force. His claim upon Domnall Breac arose probably from
the connection of his father, Eochadh Buidhe, with the Picts, and the
gravamen of the charge against the Dalriadic king was that, by the
settlement at the convention of Drumceatt, the hostings and expeditions
of Scotch Dalriada were to belong to the king of Ireland, and by ranging
himself on the side of the Cruithnigh against him, he not only violated
that condition, but assailed the head of the family to which Saint
Columba belonged.[315]
[Sidenote: A.D. 638.
Battle of Glenmairison, and siege of Edinburgh.]
In the following year Domnall Breac seems to have made another attempt
to wrest the territory between the Avon and the Pentlands from the
Angles; and Tighernac records in 638 the battle of Glenmairison, or
Glenmureson, which is probably the small stream now called the Mureston
Water which flows from the Pentlands into the Linhouse Water near
Midcalder, in which his people were put to flight, and the siege of
Edinburgh.[316] During these wars there appears to have been hitherto a
combination of the Britons of Alclyde and the Scots of Dalriada against
the Angles and the Pictish population subject to them. It was, in fact,
a conflict of the western tribes against the eastern, and of the
Christian party against the pagan and semi-pagan, their common
Christianity forming a strong bond of union between the two former
nations, and after the death of Rhydderch Hael in 603 the Dalriadic
kings seem to have taken the lead in the command of the combined forces.
Rhydderch, we are told, but on no better authority than that of Jocelyn
of Furness in the twelfth century, was succeeded by his son Constantine;
but the throne of Alclyde had by this time passed to another branch of
the same family, and from whatever cause it arose, a breach now took
place between the Britons and the Scots, and we find the British king
and the king of Dalriada in a hostile position to one another, and
brought into violent conflict, which ended in the fate which Saint
Columba predicted for any descendant of King Aidan who should attack
[Sidenote: A.D. 642. Domnall Brecc slain in Strathcarron.] the head of
the house of Hy Neill overtaking Domnall Breac, who, in December in the
year 642, was slain in the upper valley of the river Carron, which was
known afterwards as the forest of Strathcawin, by Oan, king of the
Britons, in the fifteenth year of his reign.[317] Dalriada seems to have
fallen into a state of anarchy on the death of Domnall Breac. During the
remainder of this century we find no descendant of Aidan recorded
bearing the title of king of Dalriada; and it is probable, from
Adamnan’s remark that from that day to this they have been trodden down
by strangers, that the Britons now exercised a rule over them.[318]
The same year which saw Domnall Breac slain in Strathcarron likewise
brought Osuald’s reign over Northumbria to a disastrous end. His first
effort, on finding himself firmly seated on the throne, had been to
re-establish the Christian Church in his dominions, and to drive back
the flow of paganism and apostasy which had overspread the country. He
naturally turned to the form of Christianity in which he had been
educated, and sent to the elders of the Scots, desiring them to send him
a prelate who might instruct the nation of the Angles once more in the
Christian faith, and ere long received Bishop Aidan from them for this
purpose. The account of this mission belongs more to the History of the
Early Christian Church in Scotland, and will be there more fully
noticed. It is sufficient for our present purpose to say that his
episcopal seat was fixed in the island of Lindisfarne, which the king
gave him for the purpose. ‘From that time,’ says Bede, ‘many came from
the region of the Scots into Britain, and preached the Word to those
provinces of the Angles over which King Osuald ruled, and they among
them who had received priests’ orders administered the sacrament of
baptism. Churches were built. The people joyfully flocked to hear the
Word. Possessions and lands were given of the king’s bounty to build
monasteries. The Anglic youth were instructed by their Scottish masters,
and there were greater care and attention bestowed upon the rules and
observance of regular discipline. Most of those that came to preach,’
adds Bede, ‘were monks, and Bishop Aidan himself was a monk of the
island called Hii,’ and now, corruptly, Iona.[319]
Bede sums up his account of his reign by saying, ‘In short, he brought
under his dominion all the nations and provinces of Britain, which are
divided into four languages—namely, the Britons, the Picts, the Scots,
and the Angles;’[320] but this general expression must be taken as
qualified by the statement Bede had previously made in contrasting him
with the other Northumbrian kings in his enumeration of those who held
imperial authority, that he had the same extent under his rule as his
predecessor Aeduin, and it implies no more than that he had brought all
the people within the then limits of the Northumbrian kingdom under his
subjection, to whatever race they belonged. Bede, however, is stating a
more definite result of his reign when he adds that, through his
management, the provinces of the Deiri and the Bernicians, which till
then had been at variance, were peacefully united and moulded into one
people.
[Sidenote: A.D. 642.
Osuald slain in battle by Penda.]
These fair prospects, however, were soon to be overcast, for his old
enemy Penda, the pagan king of the Mercians, having resolved to renew
the struggle and make a second attempt to crush the Christian kingdom of
the Northumbrians, Osuald appears to have anticipated the attack, and
was killed in a great battle with the Mercians, which was fought at a
place called by Bede Maserfelth, but to which the continuator of Nennius
gives the name of Cocboy, on the 8th day of August in the year 642. It
is believed to have taken place at Oswestry, formerly Oswaldstree, in
Shropshire. Thus perished a king who was looked upon as the greatest and
most Christian ruler of the Northumbrians, in the ninth year of his
reign and the thirty-eighth of his age.[321]
[Sidenote: A.D. 642-670.
Osuiu, his brother, reigns twenty-eight years.]
Osuald was succeeded by his brother Osuiu, then only about thirty years
old, and during the first twelve years of his reign he had to maintain a
struggle for very existence with the victorious king of the Mercians,
who appears, as on the former occasion, to have combined with the
Britons, as Tighernac records a battle between Osuiu and the Britons
early in his reign.[322] Bede tells us that he was also exposed to much
trouble by his own son, Alchfrid, and also by Oidiluald, the son of his
brother Osuald, who may have thought he had a better right to the
throne. Osuiu placed governors over the province of Deira, the first
being Osuini, son of that Osric who had reigned a few months over Deira
after the death of Aeduin, and restricted his own immediate rule to his
hereditary province of Bernicia, where he had trouble enough to maintain
himself; for we find during the episcopate of Aidan, who died in 651,
the army of the Mercians, under Penda, ravaging the country of the
Northumbrians far and near, and attacking the royal city of Bamborough,
and not being able to take it either by assault or by siege, Penda
encompassed it on the land side with the materials of the wooden houses
in the neighbourhood, which he had broken up and set on fire with a view
to burn the town; and Bede tells us that Aidan, who was in one of the
Farne Islands, perceived the flames and smoke blown by the wind above
the city walls, and by his prayers produced a change of wind, which blew
them back on the besiegers, and obliged them to raise the siege.[323] On
another occasion, some years after Aidan’s death, we find Penda again
coming into this part of Bernicia with his hostile army, destroying all
he could with fire and sword, and burning the village and church in
which Aidan died, and which was a royal residence not far from
Bamborough.[324] It is plain from these incidental notices that Penda
and his army had Bernicia very much at their mercy, and were continually
in the occupation of the country; and their irruptions became so
intolerable at last, that Osuiu offered him a very large gift of royal
ornaments and money to purchase peace if he would cease to ravage and
destroy the provinces of his kingdom, but Penda refused to grant his
request, and resolved to destroy and extirpate all his nation;[325] and
so desperate became his position, that he appears to have taken refuge
in the insular city of Giudi in the Firth of Forth. Penda followed him
with his army, composed both of Mercians and of Britons, and Osuiu was
compelled to ransom the city by giving Penda all the riches which were
in it and in the neighbouring region as far as Manau, which he
distributed among the kings of the Britons who were with him; but having
raised a small army, and the enemy, who enormously outnumbered them,
probably not anticipating an attack, and being in a false security,
Osuiu fell upon them unexpectedly in the night and entirely defeated
them; Penda himself and the thirty royal commanders who were with him
being slain, and Catgabail, king of Guenedotia or North Wales, alone
escaping. Bede tells us that this battle took place on the 15th of
November in the thirteenth year of King Oswiu’s reign, that is in the
year 654, and that it was fought near the river Winuaed, which
overflowed its banks so that many more were drowned in the flight than
were destroyed by the sword, and that the war was thus brought to a
conclusion in the region of Loidis; on the other hand, the continuator
of Nennius says that Penda was slain in the plain of Gai, and that it
was called the slaughter of the plain of Gai, and places it evidently
between the city Judeu, by which Bede’s insular city of Giudi on the
Firth of Forth can alone be meant, and Manau, which lay between the
Pentlands and the Roman wall. There is no doubt that on the only other
occasion on which Bede mentions the region of Loidis[326] he means
Leeds, but it is equally certain that Lothian was likewise called the
province of Loidis; and if we suppose that Bede here means the northern
province of Lothian and not the district of Leeds, it at once reconciles
the two accounts. That this is the probable view we may gather from
this, that Leeds was in Deira, and a battle fought there is inconsistent
with the extent to which it is evident Penda had invaded the kingdom. On
the other hand, Florence of Worcester tells us that Penda’s attack was
upon Bernicia. It was here that we find Penda from time to time ravaging
the country, and it was this kingdom which was more immediately under
the rule of Osuiu.[327] The word Winuaed means Battleford, and the river
meant by it is probably the Avon, which divides the province of ‘Loidis’
from the district of ‘Calatria,’ called in the Irish Annals ‘Calathros,’
and by the Britons ‘Catraeth’—a district comprehending the parishes of
Falkirk, Muiravonside, and Polmont; and traces of the name may still be
found in the Fechtin’ Ford about a mile above Manuel, and the Red Ford
half a mile farther up.
The result of this great and unexpected victory was, Bede tells us, that
Osuiu both delivered his own people from the hostile depredations of the
pagans, and, having cut off their wicked head, converted the nation of
the Mercians and the adjacent provinces to the Christian faith.
[Sidenote: Dominion of Angles over Britons, Scots, and Picts.]
Bede ranks Osuiu as the seventh king of the nations of the Angles who
possessed imperial power, and sums up the result of his reign by saying
that ‘he held nearly the same dominions for some time as his
predecessors, and subdued and made tributary the greater part of the
nations of the Picts and Scots which possess the northern part of
Britain.’[328] He thus not only freed his own kingdom from the
incursions of the Mercians, and found himself at last in the full and
quiet possession of it, but he materially added to his dominions. In the
south he obtained possession of Mercia for three years, and in the north
extended his sway not only over the Britons but over the Picts and
Scots; and thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of
Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which was
destined to last for thirty years. By the fall of Penda and the defeat
and slaughter of his British allies, the Britons of Alclyde naturally
fell under his sway. Tighernac records the death of no king of Alclyde
during this period till the year 694, and the Ulster Annals, after
recording in 658 the death of Gureit or Gwriad, king of Alclyde,[329]
have also a blank during the same time. The Scots of Dalriada naturally
fell under his dominion along with the Britons, and we have the
testimony of Adamnan that they were trodden down by strangers during the
same period. But while these nations became tributary to the Angles
during this period of thirty years, the mode in which the king of
Northumbria dealt with the Picts shows that their dominion over them was
of a different kind, and that they viewed that part of the nation which
was subject to them as now forming part of the Northumbrian kingdom. The
way for this was prepared by the accession of Talorcan, son of Ainfrit,
to the throne of the Picts on the death of Talore, son of Wid, or
Ectolairg mac Foith, as Tighernac calls him, in 653.[330] Talorcan was
obviously the son of that Ainfrait, the son of Aedilfrid, and elder
brother of Osuald, who on his father’s death had taken refuge with the
Picts, and his son Talorcan must have succeeded to the throne through a
Pictish mother. At the time, then, when Osuiu thus extended his sway
over the Britons and Scots there was a king of the Anglic race by
paternal descent actually reigning over the Picts. Tighernac records his
death in 657,[331] and Bede tells us that within three years after he
had slain King Penda, Osuiu subjected the greater part of the Picts to
the dominion of the Angles.[332] It is probable, therefore, that he
claimed their submission to himself as the cousin and heir on the
paternal side of their king Talorcan, and enforced his claim by force of
arms. How far his dominion extended it is difficult to say, but it
certainly embraced, as we shall see, what Bede calls the province of the
Picts on the north side of the Firth of Forth, and, nominally at least,
may have included the whole territory of the southern Picts; while
Gartnaid, the son of Donnell or Domhnaill, who appears in the Pictish
Chronicle as his successor, and who from the form of his father’s name
must have been of pure Gaelic race, ruled over those who remained
independent.
But while Osuiu’s dominion now remained on the whole free from all
disturbance from hostile invasion or internal revolt, it was not
destined to continue long without being shaken by dissensions from
another quarter, and one of those great ecclesiastical questions soon
arose, which, in its results, materially affected the current of our
history. The Church which Osuald had established in Northumbria, and
which had now existed as the national form of religion for thirty years,
was an offshoot from the Scottish Church which owned the monastery of
Hii or Iona as its head, and followed the customs and rules of that
Church; but the great extension of Christianity from Northumbria over
the southern states of the Angles which followed the death of Penda,
brought it more directly in contact with the southern Church, which
owned Saint Augustine as its founder, and conformed in its customs to
the Roman Church from which he had derived his mission.
Colman, who had succeeded Finan in 660 as bishop of Lindisfarne, at this
time presided over the Scottish Church of Northumbria. Wilfrid was at
the head of the Roman party. The points on which the churches differed
were the proper time for keeping Easter, the form of the tonsure, and
other questions concerning the rules of ecclesiastical life—questions
then thought, and especially the first, as of vital importance. Osuiu,
Bede tells us, having been instructed and baptized by the Scots, thought
nothing better than what they taught, but his son Alchfrid, who then
governed Deira, having been instructed in Christianity by Wilfrid, a
most learned man, who had first gone to Rome to learn the ecclesiastical
doctrine, and spent much time at Lyons with Dalfin, archbishop of Gaul,
and receiving from him also the coronal tonsure,[333] had given him a
monastery which had been founded at Ripon for the Scots, who quitted it
rather than alter their customs.
In order to settle this dispute, a great council was held in 664 at
Strenaeshhalc, now Whitby, the details of which belong more to the
history of the Church. Suffice it to say that it led to Osuiu submitting
with his nation to Wilfrid, and conforming to the Roman customs, while
Colman withdrew with his Scots and those who adhered to him, and went
back to Scotia to consult with his people what was to be done in this
case.[334] He went first to Hii or Iona on leaving Lindisfarne in 664,
taking with him part of the relics of Saint Aidan, and having the rest
interred in the sacristy of the church at Lindisfarne, and in 668 passed
over to Ireland accompanied by the sons of Gartnaith, who took with them
the people of Skye, that is the Columban clergy there, and returned two
years afterwards.[335]
On the departure of the Scots, the episcopal see was removed from
Lindisfarne to York, where it had been originally placed by Paulinus,
and Wilfrid was made bishop of York, but did not obtain possession of
the diocese till 669, when we find him administering the bishopric of
York, and of all the Northumbrians, and likewise of the Picts, as far as
the dominions of King Osuiu extended,[336] an expression which
undoubtedly implies that the Picts were not merely tributary to the
Angles, but that their territory formed at this time a constituent part
of Osuiu’s dominions.
[Sidenote: A.D. 670.
Death of Osuiu, and accession of Ecgfrid his son.]
In the following year, Osuiu the king of the Northumbrians, died, and
was succeeded in both Bernicia and Deira by his son Ecgfrid, whose
accession was soon followed by an attempt on the part of the Picts to
throw off the Anglic yoke. The account of this insurrection is preserved
to us alone by Eddi, in his Life of St. Wilfrid, who wrote a few years
before Bede compiled his history. [Sidenote: A.D. 672. Revolt of the
Picts.] He tells us that ‘in the first years of his reign the bestial
people of the Picts, despising their subjection to the Saxons, and
threatening to throw off the yoke of servitude, collected together
innumerable tribes from the north, on hearing which Ecgfrid assembled an
army, and at the head of a smaller body of troops advanced against this
great and not easily discovered enemy, who were assembled under a
formidable ruler called Bernaeth, and attacking them made so great a
slaughter that two rivers were almost filled with their bodies. Those
who fled were pursued and cut to pieces, and the people were again
reduced to servitude, and remained under subjection during the rest of
Ecgfrid’s reign.’[337] Such is Eddi’s account, from which it appears to
have been an insurrection of the southern Picts who were under the
Anglic yoke, in which they were aided by the northern part of the nation
who remained independent. The two rivers may have been either the Forth
and the Teith, which join their streams a little above Stirling, or the
Tay and the Earn, which unite in the Firth of Tay at Abernethy, having a
low-lying plain forming the parish of Rhynd between, and the battle
probably took place in the second year of Ecgfrid’s reign, as Tighernac
records in that year the expulsion from the kingdom of Drost, who had
succeeded his brother Gartnaith as king of the Picts.[338] Eddi then
tells us that Ecgfrid attacked and defeated Wlfar, king of the Mercians,
and drove him from his kingdom, an event not narrated by Bede, but which
must have happened before Wlfar’s death in 675, and adds that ‘Ecgfrid’s
kingdom was thus enlarged both in the north and the south, and that,
under Bishop Wilfrid, the churches were multiplied both in the south
among the Saxons, and in the north among the Britons, Scots, and Picts,
Wilfrid having ordained everywhere presbyters and deacons, and governed
new churches.’[339] It was probably at this time that the monastery of
Aebbercurnig or Abercorn was founded in that part of Lothian which
extends from the Esk to the Avon as a central point for the
administration of the northern part of his diocese, which included the
province of the Picts held by the Angles of Northumbria in subjection.
[Sidenote: A.D. 678.
Wilfrid expelled from his diocese.]
In 678 Bede tells us that a dissension broke out between King Ecgfrid
and Bishop Wilfrid, who was driven from his see. His diocese was divided
into two; Bosa was appointed bishop of the province of Deira, having his
episcopal seat at York; and Eata over that of the Bernicians, and his
seat either in the church of Hagustald or Hexham, or in that of
Lindisfarne. Three years afterwards Wilfrid’s diocese was still further
divided and two additional bishops added—Tunberct for the church of
Hagustald, Eata remaining at Lindisfarne, and Trumuin over the province
of the Picts which was subject to the Angles.[340]
[Sidenote: Expulsion of Drost, king of the Picts, and accession of
Brude, son of Bile.]
On the failure of these great attempts to recover their independence in
672, that part of the Pictish nation which had not been brought under
subjection to the Angles appears to have expelled their unsuccessful
monarch, Drost, the brother and successor of Gartnaith, son of Domnall,
from the kingdom, and to have elected Bredei, son of Bile, to fill the
vacant throne.[341] Bredei was paternally a scion of the royal house of
Alclyde, his father Bile appearing in the Welsh genealogies annexed to
Nennius as the son of Neithon and father of that Eugein who slew Domnall
Breac in 642. His mother was the daughter of Talorcan mac Ainfrait, the
last independent king of the Picts before they were subjected by
Osuiu.[342] The object in placing him on the throne may have been to put
the true successor of Talorcan, according to the law of Pictish
succession, in competition with any claim the Anglic monarch may have
had as representing him in the male line. Bredei began his reign in the
extreme north, as eight years after we find the siege of Dunbaitte or
Dunbeath, in Caithness, recorded in 680. In the following year he
advanced beyond the range of the Mounth toward the south, as we have in
681 the siege of Dunfoither or Dunnotter, near Stonehaven; and in 682 we
are told by Tighernac that the Orkney Islands were laid waste by
Bruidhe.[343]
In the meantime the little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of
complete disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the
whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to have
remained isolated from the rest under its own chief, while the Britons
exercised a kind of sway over them, and, along with the Britons, they
were under subjection to the Angles. The most northerly part of Dalriada
was the small state called Cinel Baedan, or Kinelvadon, which was a part
of the larger tribe of the Cinel Eochagh, one of the three subdivisions
of the Cinel Loarn, but separated from the rest by the great arm of the
sea called Linnhe Loch. The head of this little tribe was at this time
Fearchar Fada, or the Tall, the lineal descendant of Baedan, from whom
the tribe took its name, who was son of Eochaidh, grandson of
Loarn.[344] He appears to have commenced an attempt to throw off the
authority of the Britons, and with it that of the Angles, but at first
unsuccessfully. The first encounter with the Britons was in 678, when
the Dalriads were defeated. At the same time the battles of Dunlocho,
Liaccmaelain and Doirad Eilinn were fought, the latter of which can
alone be placed with any certainty, Doirad Eilinn being obviously the
island of Jura.[345]
[Sidenote: A.D. 684.
Ireland ravaged by Ecgfrid.]
Bede tells us that in the year 684 Ecgfrid sent Berct, his general, with
an army into Ireland, and laid waste a part of the country, not even
sparing the churches or monasteries, in spite of the advice of the most
reverend father Ecgberct, an Anglic priest, who had been trained in
Ireland, and lived much among the Scots and Picts; and we learn from the
Irish Annals that the scene of this devastation was the plain of Breg,
or the districts along the eastern shore from Dublin to Drogheda.[347]
It seems difficult to suppose that Ecgfrid should have made so wanton an
attack upon the Irish without some motive, and it seems probable that he
either suspected that the Scots of Dalriada were obtaining help from
their countrymen in Ireland, or wishing, by striking this blow, to
prevent the Irish from supporting them in their attempt to recover their
independence.
[Sidenote: A.D. 685.
Invasion of kingdom of Picts by Ecgfrid; defeat and death at
Dunnichen.]
Be this as it may, Bede tells us that in the following year King Ecgfrid
led an army to ravage the province of the Picts, and that, the enemy
feigning a retreat, he was led into the straits of inaccessible
mountains and slain with the greatest part of the forces which he had
taken with him, on the 20th day of May, in the fortieth year of his
age,[348] that is, in the year 685. The continuator of Nennius tells us
that Ecgfrid made war against the descendants of his father’s brother,
who was king of the Picts, and called Bridei, and fell there with the
whole strength of his army, the Picts with their king being victorious,
and that from the time of this war it was called the battle of Lingaran.
Tighernac places the devastation in Ireland in the year 685, and this
battle, which he calls the battle of Duin Nechtain, in the year 686. He
agrees with Bede in stating that it took place on the 20th of June, and
adds that it was fought on a Saturday, but as the 20th of June fell on a
Saturday in the year 685, it is evident that Bede’s date is the correct
one. Simeon of Durham says that the battle was fought at a place called
Nechtan’s Mere, and the Annals of Ulster add the further fact that
Ecgfrid had burnt Tula Aman and Duin Ollaig.[349] Ecgfrid appears
therefore to have crossed the Forth at Stirling, and advanced through
Perthshire to the Tay, where he burnt the place called Tula Aman at the
mouth of the river Almond where it falls into the Tay. He seems at the
same time to have sent a detachment from his army into Dalriada, where
he burnt Duinollaig, now Dunolly, the chief stronghold of the Cinel
Loarn. He then followed the retreating army of the Picts along the level
country bounded on the north-west by the range of the Sidlaw hills, and
in attempting incautiously to penetrate through the mountain range at
Dunnichen was surrounded and defeated, his army being almost entirely
cut off and himself slain. There was a lake, now drained, called the
Mire of Dunnichen, where the battle was fought, and has left its record
in the numerous stone coffins which have been found in the
neighbourhood.[350]
An Irish annalist has preserved to us the following lines, attributed to
Riagal of Bangor:—
‘This day Bruide fights a battle for the land of his grandfather,
Unless the Son of God will it otherwise, he will die in it:
This day the son of Ossa was killed in battle with green swords,
Although he did penance, he shall lie in Hi after his death:
This day the son of Ossa was killed, who had the black drink.
Christ heard our supplications, they spared Bruide the brave.’[351]
[Sidenote: Effect of the defeat and death of Ecgfrid.]
The effect of this crushing defeat of the Anglic army, accompanied by
the death of their king, was to enable those who had been under
subjection to them at once to recover their independence; and Bede thus
sums it up:—‘From that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom
began to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the
territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the Scots who
were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons regained their
liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about forty-six years.’[352]
The difference in the expressions used with regard to the Picts and
those employed towards the Scots and Britons shows that while the latter
were merely tributary to the Angles, the former had actually been
incorporated with their kingdom; but the result secured the full
independence of both, which they had retained during the forty-six years
which elapsed from the death of Ecgfrid to the termination of Bede’s
history; and thus terminated the thirty years’ subjection of the Picts,
the Scots of Dalriada, and the Britons of Alclyde, to the Angles; and
as, after the defeat of Aedan with his army of Scots and Britons at
Dawstane, it was said that no Scot durst after that attack the kingdom
of the Angles, so now we are told that the Angles never afterwards were
in a position to exact a tribute from the Picts.[353]
[Sidenote: Position of the Angles and Picts.]
Some portion of this period of forty-six years elapsed before the mutual
relations of the Angles and Picts on the one hand, and the Scots and
Britons on the other, became fixed within definite limits, and their
internal government completely reorganised. The Angles by this defeat
lost the Pictish territory Osuiu had added to their kingdom thirty years
before; but the previous boundaries of the Northumbrian kingdom seem to
have been retained, and we are told by Bede that Aldfrid, the successor
of Ecgfrid, ‘nobly retrieved the ruined state of the kingdom though
within narrower bounds.’[354] The whole Pictish nation north of the
Firth of Forth, which Bede terms the Province of the Picts, was now once
more independent, but the kingdom of the Angles still extended,
nominally at least, to the Avon; and though we are told that ‘among the
many Angles who there either fell by the sword or were made slaves, or
escaped by flight out of the country of the Picts, the most reverend man
of God, Trumuini, who had received the bishopric over them, withdrew
with his people that were in the monastery of Aebbercurnig’ or Abercorn,
Bede adds that it was ‘seated in the country of the Angles, but close by
the arm of the sea which divides the territories of the Angles and the
Picts.’[355]
Seven years after the battle of Dunnichen, Bruide, son of Bile, the king
of the Picts, died.[356] He is termed by Tighernac king of Fortrenn,
from which it would appear that after the re-establishment of the
Pictish kingdom in its independence he had made the district of Fortrenn
his principal seat, to which he was no doubt led by his paternal
connection with the Britons, and this term of Fortrenn now came to be
used as synonymous with the kingdom of the Picts.
Adamnan held the abbacy of Hii or Iona at the time that Bruide died, and
the Irish Life of Adamnan contains the following strange legend:—‘The
body of Bruide, son of Bile, king of the Cruithnigh, was brought to Ia
(Iona), and his death was sorrowful and grievous to Adamnan, and he
desired that the body of Bruide should be brought to him into the house
that night. Adamnan watched by the body till morning. Next day, when the
body began to move and open its eyes, a certain devout man came to the
door of his house and said, “If Adamnan’s object be to raise the dead, I
say he should not do so, for it will be a degradation to every cleric
who shall succeed to his place, if he too cannot raise the dead.” “There
is somewhat of right in that,” said Adamnan, “therefore, as it is more
proper, let us give our blessing to the body and to the soul of Bruide.”
Thus Bruide resigned his spirit to heaven again, with the blessing of
Adamnan and the congregation of Ia. Then Adamnan said—
Many wonders doth he perform,
The King born of Mary:
He takes away life (and gives)
Death to Bruide, son of Bile;
It is rare,
After ruling in the kingdom of the north,
That a hollow wood of withered oak (an oak coffin)
Is about the son of the king of Alcluaith.’[357]
He was succeeded by Taran, son of Entefidich, who seems to have belonged
to a different section of the Picts, and not to have been generally
accepted by the nation, as in the year following his accession we have
again a siege of Dun Foither or Dunnotter, and after a short reign of
four years he is driven from the throne.[358] Taran was succeeded by
Bridei, son of Dereli. In the year following Tighernac records a battle
between the Saxons and the Picts, in which Brechtraig, son of Bernith,
is slain. Bede in his Chronicle also records that Brerctred, a royal
commander of the Northumbrians, was slain by the Picts,[359] and we are
told in the Ulster Annals that, a year after, Taran took refuge in
Ireland. Brechtraig appears to have been the son of that Bernaeth who
headed the insurrection of the Picts in 672, and seems to have made an
effort to recover the influence of the Angles over the Picts, which was
successfully resisted. Aldfrid, King of Northumbria, died in 705, and
was succeeded by his son Osred, a boy of eight years old; and in the
following year Tighernac records the death of Brude, son of Dereli,[360]
who was succeeded by his brother Nectan, son of Dereli, according to the
Pictish law of succession. Five years after his accession, the Picts of
the plain of Manann, probably encouraged by the success of the
neighbouring kingdom of the Picts in maintaining their independence
against the Angles, rose against their Saxon rulers. They were opposed
by Berctfrid, the prefect or Alderman of the Northumbrians, whose king
was still only in his fourteenth year. The Picts, however, were defeated
with great slaughter, and their youthful leader Finguine, son of
Deleroith, slain. The Saxon Chronicle tells us that this battle was
fought between Hæfe and Cære, by which the rivers Avon and Carron are
probably meant, the plain of Manann being situated between these two
rivers.[361] These Picts appear to have been so effectually crushed that
they did not renew the attempt, and we do not learn of any further
collision between the Picts and the Angles during this period.
[Sidenote: Position Scots and Britons.]
The Scots of Dalriada and a party of the British nation, we are told,
recovered their freedom, the Angles still maintaining the rule over the
rest of the Britons. The portion of their kingdom which became
independent consisted of those districts extending from the Firth of
Clyde to the Solway, embracing the counties of Dumbarton, Renfrew,
Lanark, Ayr, and Dumfries, with the stronghold of Alclyde for its
capital: but the Angles still retained possession of the district of
Galloway with its Pictish population, and Whitehern as their principal
seat, as well as of that part of the territory of the Britons which lay
between the Solway Firth and the river Derwent, having as its principal
seat the town of Carlisle, which Ecgfrid had, in the same year in which
he assailed the Picts, given to Saint Cuthbert, who had been made bishop
of Lindisfarne in the previous year, that is, in 684.[362]
Eight years after the death of Ecgfrid, Tighernac records the death of
Domnal mac Avin, king of Alclyde. He was probably the son of that Oan or
Eugein who slew Domnall Breac in 642,[363] and had, on the defeat and
death of Ecgfrid, recovered his father’s throne. He was succeeded by
Bile, son of Alpin, and grandson of the same Eugein.
[Sidenote: Contest between Cinel Loarn and Cinel Gabhran.]
Although the Scots of Dalriada had thus obtained entire independence,
they did not immediately become united under one king. Their freedom
from the yoke of the Britons and Angles was followed by a contest
between the chiefs of their two principal tribes, the Cinel Loarn and
the Cinel Gabhran, for the throne of Dalriada. On the death of Domnall
Breac, when the Britons obtained a kind of supremacy over the Dalriads,
his brother Conall Crandamna, and his sons Mailduin and Domnal Donn,
appear to have been at the head of the Cinel Gabhran, but Fearchar Fata,
the chief of the principal branch of the Cinel Loarn, had, as we have
seen, taken the lead in the attempt to free Dalriada from the rule of
strangers. The death of Domnall Donn, the son of Conall Crandamna, is
recorded in 696, and that of Fearchar Fata in 697. The former was
succeeded by Eocha, the grandson of Domnall Breac, who was slain in the
same year, and the latter by his son Ainbhcellaig, who in the following
year was expelled from the kingdom, after Duinonlaig or Dunolly had been
burnt, and was sent bound to Ireland;[364] but none of these leaders of
the Cinel Loarn or the Cinel Gabhran bore the title of king of
Dalriada.[365] On the expulsion of Ainbhcellaig we find his brother
Sealbach at the head of the Cinel Loarn, and in 701 he destroys Dun
Onlaigh, and cuts off the Cinel Cathbath, a rival branch of the tribe of
Loarn.[366] Three years after, the slaughter of the Dalriads in
Glenlemnae, or the valley of the Leven, is recorded, but whether it was
in the valley of the river Leven, which divides Lorn from Lochaber, and
flows into Loch Leven there, or whether it was the Leven in
Dumbartonshire, cannot be fixed with any certainty. In 707, Becc,
grandson of Dunchada, was slain. He was the head of a branch of the
Cinel Gabhran, who possessed the south half of Kintyre, and were
descended from Conaing, one of the sons of Aidan, to whom it was given
as his patrimony.[367]
[Sidenote: Conflict between the Dalriads and the Britons.]
The Dalriads appear soon after to have carried the war into the British
territory, for we have, in 711, a conflict of the Dalriads and Britons
at Loirgeclat, by which Loch Arklet, on the east side of Loch Lomond, is
probably meant, in which the Britons are defeated. In 712 Sealbach
besieges Aberte or Dunaverty, the main stronghold of the south half of
Kintyre, the patrimony of the branch of the Cinel Gabhran of which the
descendants of Conaing, son of Aidan, were the head. In 714 Dunolly is
rebuilt by Sealbach, and three years afterwards there is again a
conflict between the Britons and Dalriads, at the stone which is called
Minvircc, and the Britons are again defeated.[368] In the valley at the
head of Loch Lomond which is called Glenfalloch there is a place called
Clach na Breatan, or the stone of the Britons, which is now at the
separation of Dumbartonshire from Perthshire, but originally marked the
northern boundary of the territory of the Britons, and was probably the
scene of this conflict.
During the rest of the period of forty-six years which succeeded the
defeat and death of Ecgfrid, no further collision between the Britons
and the Dalriads is recorded, and each nation remained within the limits
of its own proper kingdom.
-----
Footnote 283:
The oldest of the Latin Chronicles says that Fergus, first king of
Dalriada, reigned ‘a monte Drumalban usque ad mare Hibernie et ad
Inchegal’ (_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 130), apparently excluding the
islands; but the tract _De Situ Albaniæ_, of the same date, has it ‘a
monte Brunalban usque ad Mare Hiberniæ,’ and adds, ‘Deinde reges de
semine Fergus regnaverunt in Brunalban sive Brunhere’ (_Ib._ p. 137).
Brunalban seems to be the district on the east side of the range now
called Breadalban, and Brunhere is probably Bruneire, and meant for
the district on the west side of the range. There are two glens both
called Glenlochy, the one proceeding from the range eastward to Loch
Tay, the other westward to Loch Awe, and the former is called in
charters Glenlochy Alban, to distinguish it from the other. We have
therefore the term Alban applied to the country beyond the frontier of
Dalriada, and the term Eire to Dalriada as being a colony of Scots
from Eire. The south part of Morvern was called Kinelvadon or
Cinelbhadon, from Badon, a son of Loarn, and therefore belonged to
Dalriada. On the shoulder of the hill in Mull called Benmore, which
forms the pass from the northern to the southern part of the island
and is called Mamchlachaig, there are two cairns. The one on the north
is called Carn Cul ri Alban, or the cairn with its back to Alban, and
the other Carn Cul ri Erin, or the cairn with its back to Eire. There
is a similar cairn on Iona and another on Colonsay, both called Carn
Cul ri Eirin, which seem to mark the boundary. If Iona was exactly on
the boundary which separated Dalriada from the Picts, it is obvious
how Bede’s statement that it was given to Saint Columba by the Picts
who inhabit the adjacent districts, is not inconsistent with that of
Tighernac, that it was immolated to him by the king of Dalriada. The
expression is ‘offeravit.’ See Reeves’s _Adamnan_, orig. ed., p. 434,
for a judicious examination of this point.
Footnote 284:
This account is taken from the Tract ‘On the Men of Alban’ (_Chron.
Picts and Scots_, p. 308). The Cinel Comgall, from whom Cowall takes
its name, formed properly a fourth tribe, being descended from a
brother of Gabran, but they appear to have been incorporated with the
Cinel Gabran. The Cinel Loarn consisted of three smaller tribes—the
Cinel Fergus Salach, the Cinel Cathbath, and the Cinel Eachadh, to
whom the three subdivisions of Lorn—Nether Lorn, Mid-Lorn, and Upper
Lorn—may be severally assigned. Dr. O’Donovan identified Dunmonaidh,
the traditionary capital of Dalriada, with Dunstaffnage, but evidently
upon mere conjecture. Dr. Reeves, in his edition of _Adamnan_, rightly
identifies it with Dunadd.
Footnote 285:
Eis quæ arduis atque horrentibus montium jugis, ab australibus eorum
sunt regionibus sequestratæ (B. iii. c. iv.).
Erat autem Columba primus doctor fidei Christianæ transmontanis Pictis
ad aquilonem (B. v. c. ix.).
Footnote 286:
Ut, ubi res perveniret in dubium, magis de feminea regum prosapia,
quam de masculina regem sibi eligerent; quod usque hodie apud Pictos
constat esse servatum.—Bede, B. i. c. 1.
Footnote 287:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 40, 45, 126.
Footnote 288:
_Ibid._ pp. 319, 328, 329.
Footnote 289:
Brude mac Bile and Talorcan mac Ainfrait. This will appear afterwards.
Footnote 290:
M‘Lennan, _Primitive Marriage_, p. 129.
Footnote 291:
Cæsar says of the Britons of the interior, ‘Uxores habent deni
duodenique inter se communes, et maxime fratres cum fratribus,
parentesque cum liberis; sed, si qui sunt ex his nati, eorum habentur
liberi, quo primum virgo quæque deducta est.’—(B. v. c. 14.) Dio, as
reported by Xiphiline, attributes a similar custom to the Caledonians
and Mæatæ, when he says that they have wives in common, and rear the
whole of their progeny. It is obvious that such a custom must have
given rise to the feeling, that the only certainty of a child
belonging to a particular family was to look to the mother, not the
father, as the link which connected him with it; and that the Pictish
system would naturally spring out of it; but it is probable Cæsar and
Dio represented a custom as it appeared to them, without understanding
it.
Footnote 292:
When the father of the children adopted was king in a nation where
male succession prevailed, the eldest son appears to have remained in
the father’s tribe, and succeeded to his throne, while the children
adopted alone non-Pictish names. We shall find this to be the case
where the kings were of foreign race.
Footnote 293:
584 Mors Bruidhe mac Mailchon Righ Cruithneach.—_Tigh._
Footnote 294:
599 Bas Gartnaidh regis Pictorum.—_Tigh._
Footnote 295:
In the Latin lists this king is confounded with the older Nectan, and
called the son of Irb and the founder of Abernethy.
Footnote 296:
Bamborough is about sixteen miles south-east of Berwick. The Holy
Island is about nine miles from Berwick, and is four miles long and
two broad. The channel between it and the mainland is left dry at low
water.
Footnote 297:
A.D. 606 Bas Aedhan mac Gabhrain anno xxviii. regni sui, aetatis vero
lxxiv.—_Tigh._
Footnote 298:
Nectan is said to have reigned 20 years, and Cinioch 19; together 39
years. Tighernac, however, records the death of the previous king
Gartnaidh in 599, and of Cinadon in 631, giving an interval of only 32
years. Cinioch therefore began to reign in 612, and as Tighernac does
not record the death of Nectan as king of the Picts, he must then have
been displaced.
Footnote 299:
Majore potentia cunctis qui Brittaniam incolunt, Anglorum pariter et
Brettonum populis, præfuit (B. ii. c. v.). Nemo Anglorum ante eum
omnes Britanniæ fines, qua vel ipsorum vel Brettonum provinciæ
habitant, sub ditione acceperit (B. ii. c. ix.).
Footnote 300:
In the foundation charter of Holyrood by David I., he called it
‘Ecclesia Sancti Crucis Edwinesburgensis.’ Simeon of Durham calls it
Edwinesburch.
Footnote 301:
It is called ‘Lothene’ in the Saxon Chronicle, and appears to be meant
by Lethead in the ancient poem in _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 127.
Florence of Worcester calls it ‘Provincia Loidis,’ and the Chronicle
of Melrose the same. It appears, as we shall see, under the name of
‘Regio Loidis’ in 654. In its limited extent it was the district
between the Avon and the Lammermoors. In the foundation charter of
Holyrood, David the First grants to its monks the tenth of all the
marine animals which might be thrown ashore ‘ab Avon usque ad
Colbrandspath,’ with the tenth of his pleas and other dues within the
same limits; and in a charter of Rolland, son of Uchtred, some lands
in Lauderdale are described as ‘usque ad divisas de Laodonia versus
Lambermor.’ This district now consists of the three counties of East,
Mid, and West Lothians. Simeon of Durham refers to it in its large
extent when he has ‘pervenit apud fluvium Twedam, qui Northymbriam et
Loidam disterminat.’—Sym. Dun. Surtees ed., p. 127.
Footnote 302:
A.D. 627 Cath Airdcoraind in Dalriada [Lachtnene mac Toirbene Abbach]
victores erant in quo cecidit Fiachna mac Demain la Conadh Cerr Ri
Dalriada.—_Tigh._ The words within brackets belong to another year and
have dropped in by mistake.
Footnote 303:
A.D. 629 Cath Fedhaeoin in quo Maelcaith mac Scandail Rex Cruithnin
victor erat. Dalriada cecidit. Concad Cer Rex Dalriada cecidit et
Dicuill mac Eachach Rex Ceneoil Cruithne cecidit et nepotes Aidan, id
est, Regullan mac Conaing et Failbe mac Eachach [et Osseric mac
Albruit cum strage maxima suorum]. Eochadh Buidhi mac Aidan victor
erat.—_Tigh._ The words in brackets do not belong to this event. The
Ulster Annals add, ‘Mors Eochach Buidhe regis Pictorum filii Aedain,
sic in libro Cuanac inveni.’ In the tract on the battle of Magh-Rath
we are told that Eochadh Buidhe married the daughter of Eochaidh
Aingces Ri Bretain. This is a Gaelic and not a British name, and a
king of the Picts of Galloway may be meant, through whose daughter
Eochadh Buidhe acquired his right.
Footnote 304:
Bas Cinaetha mac Luchtren regis Pictorum.—_Tigh._
Footnote 305:
Quamvis nomen et professionem haberet Christiani, adeo tamen erat
animo ac moribus barbarus, ut ne sexui quidem muliebri vel innocuæ
parvulorum parceret ætati.—B. ii. c. 20.
Footnote 306:
Viro strenuissimo de regio genere Merciorum.—_Ib._
Footnote 307:
Bede, ii. c. 20. The chronicle annexed to Nennius dates this battle in
630, and Tighernac in 631, when he has ‘Cath itir Etuin mac Ailli
regis Saxonum, qui totam Britanniam regnavit, in quo victus est a Chon
rege Britonum et Panta Saxano;’ but Tighernac dates Anglic events two
or three years before Bede.
Footnote 308:
Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. iv. c. 1.
Footnote 309:
Adamnan, _Vit. Col._ Book i. c. 1.
Footnote 310:
632 Cath la Cathlon et Anfraith qui decollatus est, in quo Osualt mac
Etalfraith victor erat et Catlon rex Britonum cecidit.—_Tigh._
Footnote 311:
635 Cath Seghuisse in quo cecidit Lochene mac Nechtain Cennfota et
Cumascach mac Aengussa.—_Tigh._ Bellum Seguse in quo cecidit Lochne
mac Nechtain Ceannfotai agus Cumuscach mac Aengusso agus Gartnait mac
Oith.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 312:
678 Cath i Calitros in quo victus est Domhnall breacc.—_Tigh._ The
battle is entered under wrong year, being after Domnall Breac’s death;
but as Tighernac, who records his death at 642, repeats it at 686, it
may be held to have taken place eight years before his death. The
cause of these misplaced entries will be afterwards noticed.
Footnote 313:
Iisdem finibus regnum tenuit.—B. ii. c. v.
Footnote 314:
Pink. _Vit. SS._ p. 30. Adamnan, _Vit. S. Col._ B. iii. c. vi.
Footnote 315:
An ancient historical romance called the Battle of Magh Rath was
published in the original Irish, with a translation and notes, for the
Irish Archæological Society, by Dr. O’Donovan, which may be consulted
with advantage, but it contains the anachronism of Congal Claen
applying to Eochadh Buidhe as the then reigning king of Dalriada, who
had died eight years before. Mr. Burton has strangely misrepresented
the Dalriadic history, arising probably from a too superficial
examination of the Irish Annals, and a want of acquaintance with Irish
names and words, which he rarely gives correctly. In vol. i. p. 289,
he states of Aidan that by his descent from Riadha he belonged to the
race of the Hy Neill, but this is a mistake. The Dalriads belonged to
an entirely different branch of the Scots from the Hy Neill. He says
that Aidan justified Saint Columba’s prophetic fears by emancipating
his territory from dependence on the monarchs of Ireland, but it was
Saint Columba himself who effected this emancipation at the Council of
Drumceatt. He says that Domnall Brecc contemplated the subjugation of
Ireland, and implies that the Dalriadic kings put forward some
pretensions to the Irish throne, of which there is not the least
trace. The only successor of Domnall Brecc whom Mr. Burton notices is
Eocha, or Auchy as he calls him, son of Aodhfin, in 796, a fictitious
king who never existed.
Footnote 316:
638 Cath Glinnemairison in quo mundert Domnall Bricc do teichedh (the
people of Domnall Brecc fled) et obsessio Etin.—_Tigh._ The Ulster
Annals have Glenmureson. Glenmoriston in Inverness-shire is of course
out of the question, and the only name in a suitable situation is the
Mureston Water, in the parishes of West and Mid Calder, on the south
bank of the Almond, and between it and the Mureston Water are four
barrows or tumuli, near which, according to common tradition, a great
battle was fought in early times between the Picts and Scots.—_N. S.
A._ vol. i. p. 373. That Etin here is Edinburgh need not be doubted.
Footnote 317:
642. Domnall-brecc in cath Srathacauin in fine anni in Decembre
interfectus est xv. regni sui ab Ohan rege Britonum.—_Tigh._ The
Annals of Ulster have in the same year ‘Domhnall-breacc in bello
Sraith Cairinn in fine anni in Decembre interfectus est ab Hoan rege
Britonum.’ The upper part of the Vale of the Carron, through which the
river flows after rising in the Fintry hills, is called Strathcarron,
but it also bore the name of Strathcawin. Thus in the Morton
Chartulary there is a charter by Alexander II., which mentions ‘Dundaf
et Strathkawan que fuerunt foresta nostra’ (Ap. to Pref., vol. i. p.
xxxiv). Dundaf adjoins Strathcarron. The letter h in Ohan or Hoan is
redundant. The name is Oan, a form of Owen, or Eugein. There is in the
Welsh poem of the Gododin a stanza which obviously relates to this
event. It is repeated in the poem with some verbal variations, but it
may be thus rendered:—
I saw the array that came from Pentir (Kintyre);
It was as victims for the sacrifice they descended.
I saw the two out of their town they did fall,
And the men of Nwython brought destruction;
I saw the men beaten or wounded who came with the dawn,
And the head of Dyvnwal Vrych ravens devoured it.
The author is indebted to Professor Evans of New York for pointing out
that Pentir is the Welsh equivalent of Cindtire, or Kintyre, and for
correcting the erroneous rendering of the first lines in the _Four
Ancient Books of Wales_.—See _Archæologia Cambrensis_ for April 1874,
p. 122.
Now this Oan who slew Domnall Breacc is evidently the Eugein who
appears in the Welsh genealogies attached to Nennius as the ancestor
of the later kings of Alclyde—(see _Chron. Picts and Scots_, Pref.
xcv), and who was son of Beli, son of Neithon, who is obviously the
Nwython of the poem, and by his men the Strathclyde Britons are meant.
The Annals of Ulster have, at 649, ‘Cocat huae Naedain et Gartnait
meic Accidain’ (war of the grandson of Naedan and Gartnaidh son of
Accidan). The grandson of Naedan was no doubt Oan or Eugein, and his
opponent a Pict.
Footnote 318:
Flann Mainistrech and the Albanic Duan place five kings during this
period—Conall Crandomna, and Dungall or Dunchad mac Duban, who reign
jointly ten years; Domnall Donn thirteen years, Mailduin mac Conall
seventeen years, and Fearchan Fada twenty-one years—in all sixty-one
years, which brings us to the end of the century; but Tighernac
records the death of Conall Crandomna in 660, Mailduin mac Conall
Crandomna in 689, and Fearchar Fada in 697, simply, without adding to
their names the title Ri Dalriada. Conall Crandomna was brother of
Domnall Breacc, and his reigning jointly with Dungall or Dunchad, of
another line, shows how the little kingdom was broken up. Domnall Donn
and Mailduin were his sons, but Fearchan Fada was of the Cinel Loarn.
Footnote 319:
Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. iii. c. iv. Tighernac has at 632 ‘Inis Metgoit
fundata est,’ but he antedates Anglic events three years.
Footnote 320:
Denique omnes nationes et provincias Brittaniæ, quæ in quatuor
linguas, id est, Brettonum, Pictorum, Scottorum, et Anglorum divisæ
sunt, in ditione accepit.—B. iii. c. vi.
Footnote 321:
Tighernac has at 639, recte 642, simply ‘Cath Osuailt contra Panta, in
quo Osualt cecidit,’ which rather implies that he was the attacking
party.
Footnote 322:
642, recte 645, Cath Ossueius inimun (between him) et Britones.
Footnote 323:
Bede, B. iii. c. xvi.
Footnote 324:
_Ib._ c. xvii.
Footnote 325:
Bede, B. iii. c. xxiv.
Footnote 326:
B. ii. c. xiv. There is a slight variation in the expression. In the
one case it is ‘regio quæ vocatur Loidis,’ and in this simply ‘regio
Loidis.’
Footnote 327:
Bede says that ‘prope fluvium Winuaed pugnatum est,’ and ‘Hoc autem
bellum rex Osuiu in regione Loidis tertio decimo regni sui anno,
decimo septimo die kal. Decembrium cum magna utriusque populi
utilitate confecit.’
The continuator of Nennius, ‘Et ipse (Osguid) occidit Pantha in Campo
Gaii et nunc facta est Strages Gai campi et reges Britonum interfecti
sunt qui exierant cum rege Pantha in expeditione usque ad urbem quæ
vocatur Judeu. Tunc reddidit Osguid omnes divitias quæ erant cum eo in
urbe, usque in Manau, Pende et Penda distribuit ea regibus Britonum,
id est, Atbret Judeu. Solus autem Catgabail rex Guenedote regionis cum
exercitu suo evasit de nocte consurgens; qua propter vocatus est
Catgabail Catguommed.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 13.
It is obvious that the event in the second sentence preceded the
first, and that it was a night attack.
Florence of Worcester says that Penda with thirty legions and an equal
number of noble chiefs entered Bernicia for the purpose of attacking
Oswy.
There is a very ingenious paper by Mr. D. W. Nash, in the _Cambrian
Journal_, vol. iv., Second Series, p. 1, in which, identifying this
battle with the battle of Catraeth, which forms the subject of the
poem of the Gododin, he was the first to point out the probability of
the scene of the battle being in the north. He identifies the town
Judeu with Bede’s Giudi, but supposes it to be the same as Jedburgh,
and endeavours to show from the poem itself that it relates to this
battle. The author concurs with him so far that the battle in which
Penda was slain took place in the north, and that by the ‘regio
Loidis’ Lothian is meant, and he can hardly doubt that the name ‘Gaius
Campus’ is merely a Latin rendering of Catraeth; but he cannot agree
in the identification with Jedburgh, because Catraeth was evidently on
the sea-shore, and Bede, whose authority cannot be questioned, places
Giudi in the Firth of Forth. He can discover no resemblance between
the incidents in the poem and this battle, though the locality may be
the same. Tighernac has at 656 ‘Cath Pante regis Saxonum in quo ipse
cum xxx regibus cecidit. Ossiu victor erat.’ The Chronicle annexed to
Nennius has in 656 ‘Strages Gaii Campi,’ and in 657, ‘Pantha occisio,’
thus placing the battle and the death of Penda in two different years,
but this is against all authorities.
Footnote 328:
Æqualibus pene terminis regnum nonnullo tempore coercens, Pictorum
quoque atque Scottorum gentes, quæ septentrionales Brittanniæ fines
tenent, maxima ex parte perdomuit, ac tributarias fecit.—B. ii. c. v.
Footnote 329:
658. Mors Gureit regis Alocluaithe.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 330:
A.D. 653 Bass Ferich mac Totalain et Ectolairg mac Fooith regis
Pictorum.—_Tigh._
Footnote 331:
A.D. 657 Bas Tolarcain mac Ainfrith Ri Cruithne.—_Tigh._
Footnote 332:
Idem autem rex Osuiu tribus annis post occisionem Pendan regis,
Mercionum genti, necnon et cæteris australium provinciarum populis
præfuit: qui etiam gentem Pictorum maxima ex parte regno Anglorum
subjecit.—B. iii. c. xxiv.
Footnote 333:
Bede, B. iii. c. xxv.
Footnote 334:
_Ib._, B. iii. c. xxvi. His expression is ‘in Scottiam regressus est.’
In another place (B. iv. c. iv.) he says ‘Interea Colmanus, qui de
Scottia erat episcopus, relinquens Britanniam, tulit secum omnes quos
in Lindisfarnensium insula congregaverat Scottos; sed et de gente
Anglorum viros circiter triginta, qui utrique monachicæ conversationis
erant studiis imbuti. Et relictis in ecclesia sua fratribus aliquot,
primo venit ad insulam Hii, unde erat ad prædicandum verbum Anglorum
genti destinatus. Deinde secessit ad insulam quandam parvam, quæ ad
occidentalem plagam ab Hibernia procul secreta, sermone Scottico
Inisboufinde, id est, insula vitulæ albæ, nuncupatur. In hanc ergo
perveniens, construxit monasterium, et monachos inibi, quos de utraque
natione collectos adduxerat, collocavit.’ It might be thought that by
the expression ‘in Scottiam regressus,’ Bede considered Hii or Iona as
being in Scottia, but Bede elsewhere uses Scottia invariably for
Ireland, and in narrating Saint Columba’s mission to Iona he says,
‘venit de Hibernia Britanniam.’ He therefore probably, when he says
Colman was de ‘Scottia,’ meant that he came from Ireland and returned
there eventually, merely visiting Iona on his way.
Footnote 335:
A.D. 668. Navigatio Colman Episcopi cum reliquiis sanctorum ad insulam
Vaccæ Albæ in quo fundavit ecclesiam et navigatio filiorum Gartnaith
ad Hiberniam cum plebe Scith.—_Tigh._
670 Venit gens Gartnait de Hibernia.—_Tigh._ For the Columban
settlements in Skye see Reeves’s _Adamnan_, edit. 1874, p. 274.
Colman’s course to Iona can be traced by the dedications. Menmuir and
Fearn in Forfarshire are dedicated to St. Aidan, and he is himself
patron saint of Tarbet in Easter Ross.
Footnote 336:
Wilfrido administrante episcopatum Eboracensis ecclesiæ, necnon et
omnium Nordanhymbrorum, sed et Pictorum, quousque rex Osuiu imperium
protendere poterat.—B. iv. c. iii.
Footnote 337:
Nam in primis annis ejus, tenero adhuc regno, populi bestiales
Pictorum feroci animo subjectionem Saxonum despiciebant, et jugum
servitutis a se abjicere minabantur, congregantes undique de utribus
et folliculis Aquilonis innumeras gentes, quasi formicarum greges in
æstate de tumulis ferventes, aggerem contra domum cadentem muniebant.
Quo audito Rex Ecgfridus humilis in populis suis, magnanimus in
hostes, statim equitatu exercito præparato, tarda molimina nesciens,
sicut Judas Maccabæus in Deum confidens, parva manu populi Dei contra
enormem et supra invisibilem hostem cum Bernhaeth subaudaci Regulo
invasit, stragemque immensam populi subruit, duo flumina cadaveribus
mortuorum replens, ita (quod mirum dictu est) ut supra siccis pedibus
ambulantes, fugientium turbam occidentes persequebantur, et in
servitutem redacti populi, usque ad diem occisionis regis, subjecti
jugo captivitatis jacebant.—Eddii _Vit. S. Wilf._ c. xix. The name
Bernhaeth has all the appearance of a Saxon name, and it is hardly
possible to avoid the suspicion that he is the same person as the
father of ‘Brectred dux regius Norndanhymbrorum,’ who was slain by the
Picts in 698, and who is called by Tighernac, filius Bernith. He may
have been the Anglic ruler over the subjected Picts who had joined
them, and may have provoked the insurrection in order to make himself
independent.
Footnote 338:
672 Expulsio Drosto de regno.—_Tigh._
Footnote 339:
Sicut igitur Ecgfrido Rege religioso regnum ad Aquilonem et Austrum
per triumphos augebatur: Ita beatæ memoriæ Wilfrido Episcopo ad
Austrum super Saxones et Aquilonem super Britones et Scotos, Pictosque
regnum ecclesiarum multiplicabatur; omnibus gentibus carus et
amabilis, ecclesiastica officia diligenter persolvebat et omnibus
locis presbyteros et diaconos sibi adjuvantes abundanter ordinavit,
inter seculares undas fluctuantes moderate novas ecclesias
gubernabat.—Eddii _Vit. S. Wilf._ c. xxi.
Footnote 340:
Trumuini ad provinciam Pictorum, quæ tunc temporis Anglorum erat
imperio subjecta.—Bede, _H. E._ B. iv. c. xii. Later writers who knew
of no Picts but those of Galloway have made it Trumuin’s diocese, but
there can be no doubt that Bede throughout refers to the province of
the Picts north of the Firth of Forth.
Footnote 341:
Bredei reigned twenty-one years, and died in 693, which places the
beginning of his reign in this year.
Footnote 342:
This is proved by the poem afterwards quoted, attributed to Adamnan,
in which he is called ‘the son of the king of Alcluaith;’ and in
another poem, attributed to Riagal of Bangor, he is said to fight for
the land of his grandfather. The continuator of Nennius calls him the
‘fratruelis’ of Ecgfrid, that is, the son or descendant of his
father’s brother; and Anfrait, the father of Talorcan, was the brother
of Osuiu, the father of Ecgfrid. It is curious to see how very little
of real Pictish blood he had.
Footnote 343:
A.D. 680 Obsessio Duinbaitte.—_An. Ult._ A.D. 681 Obsessio Duin
Foither.—_Ib._
A.D. 682 Orcades deletæ sunt la Bruidhe.—_Tigh._
Footnote 344:
The genealogy is given in the Tract on the Men of Alban.—_Chron. Picts
and Scots_, p. 316.
Footnote 345:
A.D. 678 Interfectio generis Loairn itirinn, id est, Feachair fotai et
Britones qui victores erant.—_Tigh._
In 683, however, he appears to have advanced more successfully, and to
have been enabled to act in concert with Bredei, as in that year we
have the sieges of Dunatt and Dunduirn recorded.[346] The one was
Dunadd, the principal seat of the Dalriads, and a strong fort in the
Moss of Crinan. The other was an equally strong position crowning an
eminence at the east end of Loch Earn, which was the principal
stronghold of the district of Fortrenn. We now find Bredei, called in
the Irish Annals king of Fortrenn, and this success seems to have
aroused King Ecgfrid of Northumbria to the necessity of once more
attacking and subduing the Picts.
Bellum Duinlocho et bellum Liaccmaelain et Doirad Eilinn.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 346:
A.D. 683 Obsessio Duinatt et Duinduirn.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 347:
Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. iv. c. 26. A.D. 685. Saxones Campum Breg vastant
et ecclesias plurimas in mense Junii.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 348:
Siquidem anno post hunc proximo idem rex, cum temere exercitum ad
vastandum Pictorum provinciam duxisset, multum prohibentibus amicis et
maxime beatæ memoriæ Cudbercto qui nuper fuerat ordinatus episcopus,
introductus est, simulantibus fugam hostibus, in angustias
inaccessorum montium, et cum maxima parte copiarum quas secum
adduxerat, extinctus anno ætatis suæ quadragesimo, regni autem quinto
decimo, die tertiadecima kal. Juniarium.—B. iv. c. 62.
Footnote 349:
686 Cath Duin Nechtain xx^o die mensis Maii Sabbati dei factum est in
quo Ecfrit mac Ossu, rex Saxonum, xv anno regni sui consummato magna
cum caterva militum suorum interfectus la Bruidhi mac Bile rege
Fortrenn.—_Tigh._ At rex Ecgfridus anno quo fecerat hunc venerabilem
patrem ordinari episcopum, cum maxima parte copiarum quas ad
devastandam terram Pictorum secum duxerat, secundum prophetiam ejusdem
patris Cuthberti extinctus est apud Nechtanesmere, quod est stagnum
Nechtani, die xiii. Kal. Juniarum anno regni sui xv. cujus corpus in
Hii insula Columbæ sepultum est.—Sim. Dun. _de Dun. Ec._ B. i. c. ix.
Et combussit Tula Aman Duin Ollaigh.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 350:
See the _N. S. A._, vol. ii. p. 146, for the tradition of the battle
and a notice of these stone coffins.
Footnote 351:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 402.
Footnote 352:
Ex quo tempore spes cœpit et virtus regni Anglorum fluere, ac retro
sublapsa referri. Nam et Picti terram possessionis suæ quam tenuerunt
Angli, et Scotti qui erant in Brittania, Brettonum quoque pars
nonnulla, libertatem receperunt, quam et hactenus habent per annos
circiter quadraginta sex.—B. iv. c. 26.
Footnote 353:
Et nunquam addiderunt Saxones Ambronum ut a Pictis vectigal
exigerent.—Nennius Con. _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 11.
Footnote 354:
Distructumque regni statum, quamvis intra fines angustiores, nobiliter
recuperavit.—B. iv. c. xxvi.
Footnote 355:
Inter plurimos gentis Anglorum vel interemptos gladio vel servitio
addictos, vel de terra Pictorum fuga lapsos, etiam reverendissimus vir
Dei Trumuini, qui in eos episcopatum acceperat, recessit cum suis qui
erant in monasterio Aebbercurnig, posito quidem in regione Anglorum,
sed in vicinia freti quod Anglorum terras, Pictorumque disterminat.—B.
iv. c. xxvi. Trumuin appears to have fled himself from the province of
the Picts, but, instead of remaining at Abercorn, to have retreated
from thence with its monks, as too near the Pictish territory. In
fact, as it had been but recently established in connection with the
bishopric over the Picts which he had now lost, he had no object in
remaining there.
Footnote 356:
A.D. 693 Bruidhe mac Bile rex Fortrend moritur et Alpin mac
Nechtain.—_Tigh._
Footnote 357:
_Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, p. 408.
Footnote 358:
A.D. 694 Obsessio Duin Fother.—_An. Ult._ A.D. 697 Tarachin _ar na
scriss as a flaithius_ (driven from the lordship).—_Tigh._
Footnote 359:
A.D. 698 Cath etir Saxones et Pictos ubi cecidit filius Bernith qui
dicebatur Brechtraig.—_Tigh._ 698 Berctred dux regius Nordanhymbrorum
a Pictis interfectus.—Bede, _Chron._ 699 Tarain ad Hiberniam
fugit.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 360:
706 Brude mac Derile mortuus est.—_Tigh._
Footnote 361:
711 Strages Pictorum in campo Manand ab Saxonis ubi Findgaine mac
Deleroith immatura morte jacuit.—_Tigh._ 711 Berctfrid præfectus cum
Pictis pugnavieum regnatt.—Bede, _Chron._ 710. In the same year the
Aldorman Beorhtfrith fought against the Picts between Hæfe and
Cære.—_Sax. Chron._ in Thorpe’s trans.
Footnote 362:
Bede’s expression in referring to Candida Casa or Whitherne as ‘locus
ad provinciam Berniciorum pertinens’ (B. iii. c. iv.), implies that it
still belonged to the Northumbrians; and Simeon of Durham, in his
history of St. Cuthbert, says that King Ecgfrid gave him in 685
‘villam quæ vocatur Creca ... et quia videbatur parva terra, adjecit
civitatem quæ vocatur Luel, quæ habet in circuitu quindecim milliaria,
et in eadem civitate posuit congregationem sanctimonialium, et
abbatissam ordinavit et scholas constituit.’‘—Ed. Surtees, p. 141. The
Angles would have been entirely separated from Galloway, and could not
have communicated with it, if they had not possessed the south shore
of the Solway Firth also.
Footnote 363:
694 Domnall mac Avin rex Alochluaithe moritur.—_Tigh._
Footnote 364:
696 Jugulatio Domhnaill filii Conaill Crandamnai.—_An. Ult._ 697
Fearchar Fota moritur.—_Tigh._ Euchu nepos Domhnall jugulatus
est.—_An. Ult._ 698 Combustio Duin Onlaig. Expulsio Ainbhcellaig filii
Ferchar de regno et vinctus ad Hiberniam vehitur.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 365:
These kings are included in the list of kings of Dalriada in the
Synchronisms of Flann Mainistrech, and in the Albanic Duan; but as
their joint reigns amount to 64 years, while from the death of Domnall
Brecc in 642, to the expulsion of Ainbhcellaig in 698, there are only
56, it is plain that they were not all consecutive reigns, but ruled
over different parts of Dalriada at the same time.
Footnote 366:
701 Destructio Duin Onlaigh apud Sealbach. Jugulatio generis
Cathboth.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 367:
Tighernac has, in 621, ‘Cath Cindelgthen in quo ceciderunt da mic
Libran mic Illaind mic Cerbaill. Conall mac Suibne victor erat et
Domnall breacc cum eo. Conaing mac Aedan mic Gabrain diversus est.
Bimudine eiceas cecinit.’ The poem may be thus translated:—
‘The resplendent billows of the sea,
The sun that raised them
My grief, the pale storms (are)
Against Conang with his army
The woman of the fair locks
Was in the Curach with Conang.
Lamentation pursueth with us
This day at Bili Tortan.’
In the tract on the Men of Alban the descendants of Conang are called
‘the men of the half portion of Conang, or half of the _tuath_ or
barony.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 315.
Footnote 368:
701 Destructio Duin Onlaigh apud Sealbach. Jugulatio generis
Cathboth.—_An. Ult._ 704 Strages Dalriada in Glenlemnae.—_Tigh._ 707
Becc nepos Duncadho jugulatur.—_An. Ult._ 711 Congressio Brittonum et
Dalriadha for Loirgeclat ubi Britones devicti.—_Tigh._ 712 Obsessio
Aberte apud Selbacum.—_An. Ult._ 714 Duin Onlaig construitur apud
Selbacum.—_Tigh._ 717 Congressio Dalriada et Britonum in lapide qui
vocatur Minvircc et Britones devicti sunt.—_Tigh._
CHAPTER VI.
THE KINGDOM OF SCONE.
[Sidenote: State of the four kingdoms in 731.]
When Bede closes his history, forty-six years after the defeat and death
of Ecgfrid, and we lose his invaluable guidance through the annals of
this obscure period, he leaves us with this important record of the
position of the four kingdoms at that time:—‘In the province of the
Northumbrians, where king Ceoluulf reigns, four bishops now preside;
Wilfrid in the church of York, Ediluald in that of Lindisfarne, Acca in
that of Hagustald, Pecthelm in that which is called ‘Candida Casa,’
which, from the increased number of believers, has lately become an
additional episcopal see, and has him for its first prelate. The Picts
also at this time have a treaty of peace with the nation of the Angles,
and rejoice in being united in catholic peace and truth with the
universal church. The Scots that inhabit Britain, satisfied with their
own territories, meditate no plots or conspiracies against the nation of
the Angles. The Britons, though they, for the most part, through
domestic hatred, are adverse to the nation of the Angles, and
wrongfully, and from wicked custom, oppose the appointed Easter of the
whole Catholic Church; yet, from both the Divine and human power firmly
withstanding them, they can in no way prevail as they desire; for though
in part they are their own masters, yet partly they are also brought
under subjection to the Angles.’[369]
[Sidenote: Alteration in their relative position.]
Causes, however, had already been in operation during the latter part of
this period, which were destined soon after its termination to alter
very materially the relative position of these kingdoms. During the
entire period of a century and a half which had now elapsed since the
northern Picts were converted to Christianity by the preaching of Saint
Columba, there is hardly to be found the record of a single battle
between them and the Scots of Dalriada. Had they viewed each other as
hostile races, it is difficult to account for the more powerful nation
of the Picts permitting a small colony like the Scots of Dalriada to
remain in undisturbed possession of the western district where they had
settled. Prior, indeed, to the mission of Saint Columba we find the king
of the northern Picts endeavouring to expel them, but after that date
there existed a powerful element of peace and bond of union in the
Columban Church. It was in every respect a Scottish Church, with a
Scottish clergy supplied from Ireland. The Columban foundations had
spread over the whole nation of the Picts. They owed their civilisation
to its influence, and intrusted the education of their children to its
monastic schools; and the Columban church of the Picts was, along with
the Columban monasteries in the north of Ireland, under the jurisdiction
of the abbot of Hii or Iona. As long, therefore, as this powerful
influence lasted, the Picts were content to remain at peace with the
Scots of Dalriada, and to view them as forming, as it were, one state
along with the Pictish provinces in a Christian confederacy; but the
king who now reigned over the Picts, Nectan, son of Derili, was led to
adopt a course which worked an entire revolution in the ecclesiastical
relations of the Picts and Scots, and led, as its inevitable result, to
a change in their friendly relations.
[Sidenote: Legend of St. Bonifacius.]
In the reign of this Nectan it is reported that a missionary named
Bonifacius, who came from Rome, landed in the Firth of Forth, and made
his way through Pictavia till he came to a place called Restinoth. Here
he met Nectan, king of the Picts, with his army, who, with his nobles
and servants, received from Bonifacius the sacrament of baptism. The
king gave the place of his baptism, which he dedicated to the Holy
Trinity, to Bonifacius. Many people were indoctrinated there into the
Christian faith, and he employed himself in the erection of churches
there and in other places. The legend tells us that Bonifacius was an
Israelite descended from the sister of St. Peter and St. Andrew, and a
native of Bethlehem; that he was accompanied by six other
bishops—Benedictus, Servandus, Pensandus, Benevolus, Madianus, and
Principuus; two virgins, abbesses, Crescentia and Triduana; seven
presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, seven acolytes, seven
exorcists, seven lectors, and seven door-keepers; that he founded one
hundred and fifty temples of God, consecrated as many bishops, and
ordained a thousand presbyters; that he converted and baptized
thirty-six thousand people of both sexes, and died on the 16th of
March.[370] This is of course mere legend, and when reduced to its
probable meaning amounts to no more than this, that he brought over the
king of the Picts and many of his people from the Columban Church to
conformity with the Church of Rome. He is termed in the calendars
Kiritinus; his day is the same with that in the Irish calendars of
Curitan, bishop and abbot of Rossmeinn, and he is said to have been one
of the saints who became security for the Cain Adomnan,[371] which
places him at this time. Bonifacius was therefore in reality probably a
missionary from that part of the Irish Church which had conformed to
Rome, and the church of Restinoth or Restennet being dedicated to St.
Peter is an indication of the character of his mission.
[Sidenote: Nectan, son of Derili, conforms to Rome.]
This legend is clearly connected with the statement Bede makes towards
the close of his narrative—and here he is narrating events which
happened during his own life—‘that at this time,’ that is, in the year
710, ‘Naitan, king of the Picts who inhabit the northern parts of
Britain, taught by frequent study of the ecclesiastical writings,
renounced the error by which he and his nation had till then held in
relation to the observance of Easter, and submitted together with his
people to celebrate the Catholic time of our Lord’s resurrection. In
order that he might perform this with the greater ease and authority, he
sought assistance from the nation of the Angles, whom he knew to have
long since formed their religion after the example of the holy Roman and
Apostolic Church. Accordingly he sent messengers to the venerable man
Ceolfrid, abbot of the monastery of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul,
which stands at the mouth of the river Tyne at the place called Jarrow,
desiring that he would write him a letter containing arguments, by the
help of which he might the more powerfully confute those that presumed
to keep Easter out of the due time; as also concerning the form and
manner of the tonsure for distinguishing the clergy; not to mention that
he himself possessed much information in these particulars. He also
prayed to have architects sent him to build a church in his nation after
the Roman manner, promising to dedicate the same in honour of the
blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and that he and all his
people would always follow the custom of the holy Roman Apostolic
Church, as far as they could ascertain the same in consequence of their
remoteness from the Roman language and nation.’ Bede then gives us the
letter addressed by Abbot Ceolfrid to ‘the most excellent lord and most
glorious king Naitan,’ of which there is strong reason to think he was
himself the author, being at the time a monk at Jarrow, and thus
concludes the narrative:—‘This letter having been read in the presence
of king Naitan and many others of the most learned men, and carefully
interpreted into his own language by those who could understand it, he
is said to have much rejoiced at the exhortation, insomuch that, rising
from among his great men who sat about him, he knelt on the ground
giving thanks to God that he had been found worthy to receive such a
present from the land of the Angles; and, said he, I knew indeed before
that this was the true celebration of Easter, but now I so fully know
the reason for the observance of this time, that I seem convinced that I
knew very little of it before. Therefore I publicly declare and protest
to you who are here present, that I will for ever continually observe
this time of Easter, together with all my nation; and I do decree that
this tonsure which we have heard is most reasonable shall be received by
all the clergy in my kingdom. Accordingly he immediately performed by
his regal authority what he had said. For the cycles of nineteen years
were forthwith, by public command, sent throughout all the provinces of
the Picts to be transcribed, learnt, and observed, the erroneous
revolutions of eighty-four years being everywhere obliterated. All the
ministers of the altar and the monks adopted the coronal tonsure; and
the nation being thus reformed, rejoiced, as being newly placed under
the direction of Peter, the most blessed prince of the apostles, and
made secure under his protection.’[372]
[Sidenote: Establishment of Scone as the capital.]
There is strong reason for concluding that the scene of this assembly,
where we see the king of the Picts surrounded by his nobles and his
learned men, was no other than Scone, which had then become, as it was
afterwards, the principal seat of the kingdom, and that from the Mote
Hill of Scone issued now, as similar decrees issued afterwards, that
public decree which regulated the form of the Christian Church among the
Picts; that it was here too that Nectan dedicated his church to the Holy
Trinity; and that it was from these events and the scene enacted there
that the Mote Hill came to be known as the ‘Hill of Belief.’[373]
[Sidenote: The seven provinces.]
The reference too to the provinces of the Picts, combined with the
statement in the legend that the Roman mission, as it may be called, had
seven bishops at its head, leads us to conclude that the division of the
kingdom of the Picts into seven provinces existed at this time. A tract
of the twelfth century tells us that the territory anciently called
‘Albania,’ from the Picts, ‘Pictavia,’ and now corruptly ‘Scotia,’ was
in ancient times divided by seven brethren into seven parts. ‘The
principal part was Enegus and Moerne (now Angus and the Mearns or
Kincardineshire), so called from Enegus, the eldest of the brothers. The
second part was Adtheodle and Gouerin (now Atholl and Gowry). The third,
Sradeern and Meneted (now Stratherne and Menteith). The fourth, Fif and
Fothreve (now Fife and Kinross). The fifth, Marr and Buchen (now Mar and
Buchan). The sixth, Muref and Ros (now Moray and Ross). The seventh,
Cathanesia citra montem and ultramontem (now Sutherland and Caithness).
That each province had a sub-province within it, and that these seven
brothers were seven kings having seven sub-kings under them.’ These
seven brothers are different from the seven sons of Cruithne of the
Pictish legend, as the eldest is here called Angus, but they are
obviously merely the ‘eponymi’ of the people of seven provinces. That
this division can belong to no later period is apparent from the
omission of that part of the western districts which formed the Scottish
kingdom of Dalriada; and of the sub-kings we find one noticed at this
very time,—Talorgan, son of Drostan, who is mentioned by Tighernac as
flourishing from 713 to 739, when his death is recorded as ‘Rex
Athfhotla’ or king of Atholl.[374] Four of these provinces composed the
territory of the southern Picts, and the district of Gowrie forms the
central region in which they all meet, and here on the east bank of the
Tay was Scone, the principal seat at this time of the kingdom of the
Picts.
[Sidenote: The Coronation Stone.]
It was at Scone too that the Coronation Stone was ‘reverently kept for
the consecration of the kings of Alban,’ and of this stone it was
believed that ‘no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had
first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at Scone, which
by the kings of old had been appointed the capital of Alban.’[375] Of
its identity with the stone now preserved in the coronation chair at
Westminster there can be no doubt. It is an oblong block of red
sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16 inches broad, and 10½ inches deep,
and the top is flat and bears the marks of chiselling. Its mythic origin
identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel, and
then set up there for a pillar and anointed with oil, which, according
to Jewish tradition, was afterwards removed to the second temple, and
served as the pedestal for the ark. Legend has much to tell of how it
was brought from thence to Scotland, but history knows of it only at
Scone.[376] It too may have been connected with the legend of
Bonifacius. We find that the principal Irish missionaries frequently
carried about with them a slab or block of stone, which they used as an
altar for the celebration of the Eucharist, and which was usually termed
a stone altar. In places where it had been used for this purpose by any
celebrated saint, and remained there, it was the object of much
veneration among the people, and is the subject of many of the miracles
recorded in the acts of the saint. Saint Patrick’s stone altar is
frequently mentioned in his acts, and, in the only strictly analogous
case to the coronation stone of the Scotch kings—that of the kings of
Munster, who were crowned on the rock of Cashel, sitting upon a similar
stone—the belief was that this coronation stone had been the stone altar
of Saint Patrick on which he had first celebrated the Eucharist after
the conversion and baptism of the king of Cashel. It is therefore not
impossible that the coronation stone of Scone may have had the same
origin, and been the stone altar upon which Bonifacius first celebrated
the Eucharist after he had brought over the king of the Picts and his
people from the usages of the Columban Church to conformity with those
of the Roman Church, and possibly re-baptized him. The legend that it
had been the stone at Bethel, which became the pedestal of the ark in
the temple, and brought from thence, may have also a connection with the
statement in the legend of Bonifacius that he was an Israelite and a
native of Bethlehem, and had come from thence to Rome.[377]
[Sidenote: Expulsion of the Columban clergy.]
Be this as it may, the fact that Nectan and his people had at this time
conformed to the Anglican Roman Church as contradistinguished from the
Columban, and had issued a decree requiring the adoption of the Roman
usages by the clergy of his kingdom, based as it is upon the personal
knowledge of Bede, who lived at the time and records it, is undoubtedly
historical. Nectan appears to have failed to obtain the submission of
the Columban clergy to his decree, and some years after, in 717, he took
the strong step of expelling them from the kingdom, and driving them
across Drumalban, which then formed the boundary between the southern
Picts and the Scots of Dalriada.[378] This opened the Columban
foundations in the territory of the Picts to Scottish clergy who
belonged to that part of the Irish Church which had conformed to Rome,
and were not under the jurisdiction of Hii or Iona, as well as to such
clergy from the kingdom of Northumbria as were disposed to adventure
themselves once more into the Pictish country; and seven years
afterwards, in the year 724, Nectan himself became a cleric, and was
succeeded on the Pictish throne by Druxst.[379] The step thus taken by
Nectan of dispossessing the Columban Church of the foundations it had
possessed for a century and a half, and of driving its clergy out of the
kingdom, naturally placed the kingdom of the Scots of Dalriada and that
of the Picts in direct antagonism to each other, and arrayed the clergy
under the jurisdiction of Iona against the latter, while the contest
between the Dalriads and the Britons had for the time ceased. That,
however, between the two great tribes of the Dalriads themselves—the
Cinel Loarn and the Cinel Gabhran—still continued. In 719 Ainbhceallach,
the son of Fearchar Fata, who had reigned one year after his father, and
been expelled by his brother Sealbach, and sent bound to Ireland,
appears to have made an effort to recover his position at the head of
the Cinel Loarn, and a battle took place at Finglen on the Braes of
Loarn, near Lochavich, between the brothers, in which Ainbhceallach was
slain.[380] Tradition has preserved a record of this battle in the name
_Blar nam braithrean_, or the battle-field of the brothers. In the same
year a naval battle took place between the Cinel Gabhran under Dunchadh,
son of Becc, the chief of that branch of the tribe which possessed the
south half of Kintyre, and were descended from Conaing, son of Aidan,
and the Cinel Loarn under Sealbach, at a place called Arddanesbi,
probably the Point of Ardminish on the island of Gigha, in which the
latter was defeated and several of the chiefs of his vassal tribes were
slain. Dunchadh did not long enjoy his victory, for his death is
recorded two years after, in which he is designated king of
Kintyre.[381] In 722 the death of Beli, son of Alpin, king of Alclyde,
is also recorded, and in the following year Sealbach becomes a cleric,
and resigns his throne to his son Dungal.[382] Sealbach is the first of
those chiefs, subsequent to the death of Domnall Brecc in 642, who bears
the title of king of Dalriada, which shows that the kingdom of Dalriada
had now been reconstituted, and that the chiefs of the Cinel Loarn had
made good their right to occupy the throne along with the head of the
Cinel Gabhran. Of the events of the reign of Drust two only are
recorded, which seem to show an opposition between the party of Nectan,
the previous king, and that of Drust. In 725, Simal, the son of Drust,
is taken and bound, and in 726 Drust retaliates by subjecting the cleric
Nectan to a similar fate.
[Sidenote: Simultaneous revolution in Dalriada and the kingdom of the
Picts.]
There now follows a revolution in the two kingdoms of the Dalriads and
the Picts, which takes place simultaneously. In the one Dungal of the
Cinel Loarn is driven from the throne, and Eochaidh, who now appears as
the head of the Cinel Gabhran, succeeds him. In the other Drust is
driven from the throne and succeeded by Alpin.[383] These were brothers.
Eochadh was the son of that Eochaidh, the grandson of Domnall Brecc, who
died in 697, and Alpin was another son of the same Eochaidh, but his
name shows that he had a Pictish mother, through whom he derived his
claim to the Pictish throne.[384] The expulsion of Dungal from the
throne of Dalriada seems to have called forth his father Sealbach from
his monastery to endeavour to regain it. In 727 there is recorded a
conflict at Ross-Foichen, or the promontory of Feochan, at the mouth of
Loch Feochan, between him and the family of Eachdach, the grandson of
Domnall, in which several of the two Airgiallas were slain.[385]
Sealbach was unsuccessful, as Eochaidh remained in possession of the
throne till his death is recorded as king of Dalriada in 733.[386] If,
however, the revolution in Dalriada in 726 led to a renewed contest
between the Cinel Gabhran under Eochaidh and the Cinel Loarn under
Sealbach, that which took place in the kingdom of the Picts was followed
by a still more determined struggle for supremacy which broke out,
apparently, between several of the Pictish tribes, and led to the final
establishment of a new family on the Pictish throne, the head of which
was destined to terminate the Dalriadic kingdom. The parties to this
struggle were Alpin, the reigning king, and Drust, his predecessor, who
seem to have had their main interest in the central region about Scone;
Nectan, the son of Derili, who, once more entering into secular life,
endeavoured to regain his crown; and seems to have been connected with
the more northern districts; and Aengus, son of Fergus, who is
identified with the province of Fortrenn, and appears to have been the
founder of a new family. The first collision was at ‘_Monaigh Craebi_’
or Moncrieffe, a name which belongs to a hill separating the valley of
the Earn from that of the Tay, not far from the junction of the two
rivers, between Aengus and Alpin, in which battle Aengus was victorious,
and wrested the country west of the Tay from Alpin, whose son was slain
in the conflict. The second collision was between Alpin and Nectan at
‘Caislen Credi’—the Castle of Belief, or Scone, the capital of the
kingdom—when Alpin was again defeated, his territories and all his men
were taken, and Nectan obtained the kingdom of the Picts while Alpin
fled.[387] The sympathies of the Irish chronicler were with Alpin, as he
terms this battle _Cath truadh_, an unfortunate battle. In the following
year Angus attacked Nectan, who now bore the title of king of the Picts,
and seems to have fled before him, as the final conflict took place on
the bank of a lake formed by the river Spey, then termed Loogdeae, but
now Loch Inch, between Nectan and an army Angus had sent in pursuit of
him, in which Aengus’s family were victorious, and the officers of
Nectan were slain,—Biceot son of Moneit, and his son, and Finguine son
of Drostan, and Ferot son of Finguine, and many others.[388] Angus
himself, who now called himself king of the Picts, encountered Drust at
a place called Dromaderg Blathmig, which has been identified as the
Redhead of Angus, near Kinblethmont, where Drust was slain on the 12th
day of August.[389] The last battle fought in this struggle was in 731,
between Brude, son of Aengus, and Talorcan, son of Congus, in which the
latter was defeated and fled across Drumalban into Lorn,[390] and in the
following year Tighernac records the death of Nectan, son of Derili.
[Sidenote: A.D. 731-761.
Aengus mac Fergus, king of the Picts.]
Aengus was now firmly established on the Pictish throne, and his reign
of thirty years is variously dated from 729 or from 731, according as
the battles in the one or the other year are held to have finally
confirmed his rule over the kingdom of the Picts. The death of Eachach,
king of Dalriada, two years after, again opened the throne to the race
of Loarn, and Muredach, the son of Ainbhceallach, assumed the chiefship
of the Cinel Loarn, while Dungal, son of Selbaig, took possession of the
throne of Dalriada; and in the same year the fleet of Dalriada was
summoned to Ireland to assist Flaithbertach, king of Ireland, who had
been defeated in battle by Aeda Allan, head of the Cinel Eoghan, and
afterwards his successor on the throne of Ireland, and many of the
Dalriads were slain and others drowned in the river Bann. Dungal, who
appears to have accompanied them on his way to invade Culrenrigi, an
island of the Cinel Eoghan, found Brude, the son of Aengus, in Toragh, a
church founded by Saint Columba, in Tory island off the coast of
Donegal, and violated the sanctuary by dragging him from it, which drew
down upon him the wrath of Aengus, who in the following year invaded
Dalriada and destroyed a fort called Dun Leithfinn, but which cannot now
be identified, after having wounded Dungal, who fled to Ireland from his
power. At the same time Tolarg, the son of Congus, was delivered into
his hands by his own brother and drowned by his orders, and Talorgan,
the son of Drostan, was taken near Dunolly and bound.[391]
A still more formidable attack was made by Aengus, the Pictish king,
upon Dalriada, two years after, when in 736 he is recorded to have laid
waste the entire country, taken possession of its capital Dunad, burnt
Creic, a fort, the remains of which are still to be seen on the
promontory of Craignish, and thrown the two sons of Sealbach, Dungal and
Feradach, into chains; and shortly after his son Brude, who had been
taken prisoner by Dungal, the king of Dalriada, died.[392] On this
occasion Aengus appears to have obtained entire possession of Dalriada,
and to have driven the two branches of its people, the Cinel Loarn under
Muredach and the Cinel Gabhran under Alpin, the brother of Eochaidh, to
extremity, for the former appears to have burst from Dalriada upon the
Picts who inhabited the plain of Manann between the Carron and the Avon,
in a desperate attempt to take possession of their country or to draw
Aengus from Dalriada, and was met on the banks of the Avon at Cnuicc
Coirpri in Calatros, now Carriber, where the Avon separates Lothian from
Calatria, by Talorgan, the brother of Aengus, and defeated and pursued
by him with his army, and many of his chief men slain.[393]
At this time the Northumbrians were at enmity with the Picts. Ceoluulf,
the king of Northumbria, had followed the fashion of the time, and
become a monk in Lindisfarne in the year 737. He was succeeded by his
cousin Eadberct, the son of his father’s brother; and we are told, in
the short chronicle annexed to Bede, that in 740 Aedilbald, king of
Mercia, unfairly laid waste part of Northumbria, its king, Eadberct,
being occupied with his army against the Picts.[394] It is probable that
Aengus had excited the hostility of the king of Northumbria by stirring
up the Picts of Lothian and Galloway to revolt, and that Eadberct may
have encouraged if not invited the Scots of Dalriada to occupy their
country. Alpin is said by all authorities to have reigned four years
after Dungal, which brings us to the year 740, when he invaded Galloway
with the part of the Dalriadic nation which followed him, and was slain
there, after having laid waste and almost destroyed the country of the
Picts. The Ulster Annals thus record it in 741:—Battle of Drum Cathmail
between the Cruithnigh and the Dalriads against Innrechtach.[395] The
locality of this battle appears to have been in Galloway, not far from
Kirkcudbright, and Innrechtach was probably the leader of the Galloway
Picts. One of the Chronicles appears to have preserved the traditionary
account of his death when it tells us that he was slain in Galloway,
after he had destroyed it, by a single person who lay in wait for him in
a thick wood overhanging the entrance of the ford of a river as he rode
among his people.[396] The scene of his death must have been on the east
side of Loch Ryan, where a stream falls into the loch, on the north side
of which is the farm of Laight, and on this farm is a large upright
pillar stone, to which the name of Laight Alpin, or the grave of Alpin,
is given.[397] In the same year we have the short but significant record
of the crushing of the Dalriads by Aengus, son of Fergus.[398]
[Sidenote: Suppressed century of Dalriadic history.]
By all the Chronicles compiled subsequent to the eleventh century,
Alpin, son of Eochaidh, is made the last of the kings of Dalriada; but
the century of Dalriadic history which follows his death in 741 is
suppressed, and his reign is brought down to the end of the century by
the insertion of spurious kings. The true era of the genuine kings who
reigned over Dalriada can be ascertained by the earlier lists given us
by Flann Mainistrech and the Albanic Duan in the eleventh century, and
the Annals of Tighernac and of Ulster, which are in entire harmony with
each other. These earlier lists place nine kings during this century
which followed the death of Alpin, whose united reigns amount to
ninety-eight years. There is unfortunately a hiatus in the Annals of
Tighernac from the year 765 to the year 973; but during the thirty years
from 736 to 765 Tighernac records no king of Dalriada. In the remaining
seventy-six years of the suppressed century, the Annals of Ulster
mention only three kings of Dalriada, the first of whom corresponds with
the second name in the list of nine kings given by the earlier
Chroniclers, and he may have been a Scot;[399] but the seven who follow
him bear the most unequivocal marks of having been Picts, and this shows
us that the effect of Aengus’s repeated invasions and final conquest of
Dalriada was to make it a Pictish province: his entire possession of the
country having led the remains of both the Cinel Loarn and the Cinel
Gabhran to seek settlements elsewhere; while during the reign of his
successor one attempt only appears to have been made to restore the
Scottish kingdom of Dalriada.[400]
The list of Pictish kings in the later Chronicles bears also marks of
having been manipulated for a purpose, but here fortunately we have the
trustworthy guide of the Pictish Chronicle, which belongs to the tenth
century, and is evidently untainted. For the Anglic history our
invaluable guide Bede leaves us in 731, and the short chronicle annexed
to his work in 765, as does also the continuator of Nennius in 738; and
we have now to resort to the works of Simeon of Durham, as the best
source remaining to look to for Northumbrian events. For the Britons of
Alclyde we have merely the short notices contained in the chronicle
annexed to Nennius, usually termed the _Annales Cambriæ_, and the Welsh
Chronicle called the Brut y Tywysogyon.
These nations had now resumed their normal relation to each other—east
against west—the Picts and Angles again in alliance, and opposed to them
the Britons and the Scots. Simeon of Durham tells us that in 744 a
battle was fought between the Picts and the Britons, but, by the Picts,
Simeon usually understands the Picts of Galloway, and this battle seems
to have followed the attack upon them by Alpin and his Scots. It was
followed by a combined attack upon the Britons of Alclyde by Eadberct of
Northumbria, and Aengus, king of the Picts. The chronicle annexed to
Bede tells us that in 750 Eadberct added the plain of Cyil with other
regions to his kingdom.[401] This is evidently Kyle in Ayrshire, and the
other regions were probably Carrick and Cuninghame, so that the king of
Northumbria added to his possessions of Galloway on the north side of
the Solway the whole of Ayrshire. In the same year the Picts of the
plain of Manann and the Britons encountered each other at Mocetauc or
Magedauc, now Mugdoch in Dumbartonshire, where a great battle was fought
between them, in which Talorgan, the brother of Aengus, who had been
made king of the outlying Picts, was slain by the Britons.[402] Two
years after, Teudubr, the son of Bile, king of Alclyde, died, and a
battle is fought between the Picts themselves at a place called by
Tighernac ‘Sreith,’ in the land of Circin, that is, in the Strath in the
Mearns, in which Bruide, the son of Maelchu, fell. As his name is the
same as the Bruide, son of Maelchu, who was king of the northern Picts
in the sixth century, this was probably an attack upon Aengus’s kingdom
by the northern Picts.[403]
Eadberct, king of Northumbria, and Aengus, king of the Picts, now united
for the purpose of subjecting the Britons of Alclyde entirely to their
power, and in 756 they led an army to Alclyde, and there received the
submission of the Britons on the first day of August in that year. Ten
days afterwards, however, Simeon of Durham records that almost the whole
army perished as Eadberct was leading it from Ovania, probably Avendale
or Strathaven in the vale of the Clyde, through the hill country to
Niwanbyrig or Newburgh.[404] The Britons of Alclyde thus passed a second
time under subjection to the Angles, which continued some time, as in
760 the death of Dunnagual, the son of Teudubr is recorded, but he is
not termed king of Alclyde.[405] In the year 761 Tighernac records the
death of Aengus mac Fergus, king of the Picts, after a reign of thirty
years; and the chronicle annexed to Bede, which places his death in the
same year, adds that ‘from the beginning of his reign to the end of it
he showed himself a sanguinary tyrant of the most cruel actions.’[406]
[Sidenote: Foundation of St. Andrews.]
Nevertheless, it is to the reign of this Angus, son of Fergus, that the
foundation of the monastery of Kilrimont or St. Andrews properly
belongs. According to the earliest form of the legend, the king of the
Picts, Ungus son of Uirguist by name, with a large army, attacks the
Britannic nations inhabiting the south of the island, and cruelly
wasting them arrives at the plain of Merc (Merse). There he winters, and
being surrounded by the people of almost the whole island with a view to
destroy him with his army, he is, while walking with his seven
‘comites,’ surrounded by a divine light, and a voice, purporting to
proceed from St. Andrew, promises him victory if he will dedicate the
tenth part of his inheritance to God and St. Andrew. On the third day he
divides his army into twelve bodies, and proving victorious returns
thanks to God and St. Andrew for the victory, and wishing to fulfil his
vow, he is uncertain what part of his territory he is especially to
dedicate as the principal city to St. Andrew, when one of those who had
come from Constantinople with the relics of St. Andrew arrives at the
summit of the King’s Mount, which is called Rigmund. The king comes with
his army at a place called Kartenan, is met by Regulus the monk, a
pilgrim from Constantinople, who arrives with the relics of St. Andrew,
at the harbour called Matha. They fix their tents where the royal hall
now is, and King Aengus gives the place and city to God and St. Andrew
to be the head and mother of all the churches in the kingdom of the
Picts.[407] The later and more elaborate legend contained in the
Register of St. Andrews tells substantially the same tale, but adds that
Hungus, the great king of the Picts, fought against Adhelstan, king of
the Saxons, and was encamped at the mouth of the river Tyne, and that
St. Andrew appeared to him in a dream; that the king of the Picts
divided his army into seven bodies, and defeated the Saxons, slaying
their king Adhelstan, whose head he cut off. King Hungus returns with
his army to his own country, taking Adhelstan’s head with him, and
affixed it on a wooden pillar at the harbour called Ardchinnechun, now
the Queen’s Harbour, after which the Saxons never ventured to attack the
Picts. In the meantime Regulus the bishop, with the relics of St.
Andrew, arrives in the land of the Picts, at a place formerly called
Muckros, and now Kilrimont. From thence they go to Fortevieth, where
they find the three sons of Hungus, Howonam and Nectan and
Phinguineghert, and because their father was then engaged in an
expedition into the regions of Argathelia and they were anxious for his
life, they dedicate to God and St. Andrew the tenth part of the city of
Fortevieth. They then go to Moneclatu, now called Monichi, and here they
find Queen Finche, who bears a child to King Hungus called Mouren, and
Queen Finche gives the house and whole royal palace to God and St.
Andrew. They then cross the Mounth, and come to a lake called Doldencha,
now Chondrochedalvan. Here they meet King Hungus returning from his
expedition, who does honour to the relics of St. Andrew, and gives that
place to God and St. Andrew, and builds a church there. The king then
crosses the Mounth and comes to Monichi, where he builds a church, and
then to Fortevieth, where he also builds a church, and after that to
‘Chilrymont,’ where he dedicates a large part of that place to God and
St. Andrew for the purpose of building churches and oratories.[408] It
is unnecessary to follow this legend further. The places here mentioned
can be identified without difficulty, and are simply those where
churches dedicated to St. Andrew existed. Chilrymont is the modern St.
Andrews, the principal church dedicated to the apostle St. Andrew in
honour of his relics. Monichi is Eglis Monichti in the county of Forfar,
also dedicated to St. Andrew, and Chondrochedalvan is Kindrochet in
Braemar, which is also dedicated to him. The war with the Saxons refers
to that period in the reign of Aengus when he was at war with Eadberct,
king of Northumberland; the expedition into Argathelia, to his invasion
of Dalriada in 736. His sons living at Fortevieth, and giving a tenth
part of the city, shows his connection with the province called
Fortrenn, in which it was situated; and the appearance for the first
time during Aengus’s reign of an abbot of Ceannrigmonaidh, whose death
Tighernac records in 747, fixes the foundation to his reign.[409]
These legends must, of course, be taken only for what they are worth,
and in analysing them it is necessary to distinguish between that
portion which belongs to the history of the relics of St. Andrew and
what is obviously connected with the foundation of St. Andrews. The
events in this portion of the legend are thus not inconsistent with
those of the reign of Aengus, son of Fergus, and we may accept them so
far as to conclude that, as in the reign of Nectan, son of Derili, the
Columban monks had been superseded by a clergy from that portion of the
Irish Church which had conformed to the Roman usages, and from the
Anglic Church established by Wilfrid, and the veneration of Saint Peter,
the prince of the apostles, had replaced the dedication of the churches
to their local founders, according to the custom of the Columban Church;
so in the reign of Aengus, son of Fergus, another clerical immigration
from the same quarter had brought in the veneration of St. Andrew, and
founded a church in honour of his relics at the place first called
‘Ceannrighmonaigh,’ and afterwards from the church ‘Cellrighmonaidh,’
corrupted to Kilrymont, which commended itself so much to the Pictish
nation that it, in its turn, superseded the veneration of St. Peter. St.
Andrew was adopted as their patron saint, and the church of St. Andrews
became their national church; and these legends emerged from this church
in the form we have them, as they felt the importance of claiming for
its foundation an antiquity superior to that of Iona.
[Sidenote: A.D. 761-763.
Bruide mac Fergusa, king of the Picts.]
Aengus was succeeded, in accordance with the Pictish law, by his brother
Bruide, who reigned only two years, and died in 763. He is termed by
Tighernac king of Fortrenn.[410] [Sidenote: A.D. 763-775.
Ciniod, son of Wredech, king of the Picts.] His successor was Ciniod,
son of Wredech, who reigned twelve years. Eadberct, the king of
Northumbria, abdicated his throne in 758, and was succeeded by his son
Osulf, who had reigned only one year when he was slain, and by his own
people; and in 759, Ethelwald, called Moll, became king; and in the
third year Simeon tells us a battle was fought between him and Oswine,
one of his generals, at Eldun near Melrose,[411] in which Oswine was
slain, which shows that Ethelwald’s kingdom still extended at least as
far as East Lothian. After a six years’ reign, Ethelwald was succeeded
in 765 by Alcred, a descendant of Ida through a concubine. Ciniod had
reigned only five years over the Picts, when a battle is recorded in
Fortrenn between him and Aedh.[412] This is the first appearance of that
Aed called by Flann Mainistrech the plunderer, and by the Albanic Duan
the high lord,[413] and is the first of those kings of Dalriada who
appear in the Annals of Ulster, where he is termed Aed Finn, son of
Ecdach. He was probably a Scot who attempted to restore the Dalriadic
kingdom after the strong grasp of Angus mac Fergus over it was
withdrawn. Aedh’s death is recorded in 778, and in 781 that of his
brother Fergus, but the latter does not appear among the list of kings
in Flann Mainistrech and the Albanic Duan, and therefore was either only
nominally king or reigned in Irish Dalriada, and three years after the
last tie which bound the Scots to Dalriada was severed. The founders of
the colony, the three sons of Erc, are stated in all the chronicles to
have been buried in Iona, and in 784 their remains were exhumed and
carried to the city of Taillten, in Meath, in Ireland, the ancient
cemetery of the kings of Ulster.[414]
Ciniod, the king of the Picts, appears at this time to have been in
close connection with the Angles, for Simeon of Durham tells us that in
774 King Alcred, by the design and consent of all his connections, being
deprived of the society of the royal family and princes, changed the
dignity of empire for exile. He went with a few of the companions of his
flight first to the city of Bamborough, and afterwards to the king of
the Picts, Cynoth by name; and Ethelred, the son of his predecessor,
occupied the throne of Northumbria for six years; and in the following
year he tells us that ‘Cynoth, king of the Picts, was taken from the
whirl of this polluted life.’[415] His death in the same year is more
quietly recorded in the Ulster Annals.
[Sidenote: A.D. 775-780.
Alpin, son of Wroid, king of the Picts.]
Ciniod was succeeded by Alpin, son of Wroid, who appears to have
obtained possession of part of the Northumbrian territory north of the
Tweed, as after a reign of three or four years his death is recorded in
780 as that of Elpin, king of the Saxons.[416] This is the more probable
as he is followed by Drest, son of Talorgen, who reigns four or five
years, and Talorgen, son of Aengus, who reigns two and a half. The
accession of the latter, however, was contrary to the Pictish law, being
the son of a previous king; and we find that this was a case of disputed
succession, the northern Picts supporting the one, and the other being
accepted by the southern Picts, as king during the first half of the
reign of Drest, till he was slain in 782; for the Ulster Annals in that
year record the death of Dubhtolargg, king of the Cismontane Picts.[417]
This was the first break in upon the Pictish law of succession, and the
intercourse with the Saxons, and the influence exercised by them,
probably led the southern Picts to view with more favour a male
succession.
[Sidenote: A.D. 789-820.
Constantin, son of Fergus, king of the Picts.]
Drest, whose death is not recorded, appears to have been succeeded by
Canaul, son of Tarla, or Conall, son of Taidg, who reigned five years,
till in 789 or 790 he is attacked by Constantin, son of Fergus, and the
result of a battle between them was that Conall, son of Taidg, was
defeated and fled, and the victor Constantin became king of the
Picts.[418] Conall, son of Taidg, appears to have taken refuge in
Dalriada, where at this time Domnall, son of Constantin, was ruler under
the Picts, and to have eventually governed there himself for four years,
as Domnall is followed in the list by two Conalls who are said to be
brothers, the first ruling two and the second four years, and the end of
the government of the latter corresponds with the year 807, when the
Ulster Annals record the assassination of Conall, son of Taidg, by
Conall, son of Aedain, in Kintyre.[419] Constantin, son of Fergus, the
king of the Picts, appears now to have assumed the rule in Dalriada
himself, as his name follows that of the second Conall in the lists, and
retained it for nine years.
[Sidenote: Norwegian and Danish pirates.]
In the meantime, a new race appeared on the scene, who were destined to
cut off for several centuries, to a great extent, the intercourse which
had hitherto prevailed between Scotland and Ireland, and materially to
influence the history of both countries. They make their first
appearance in the year 793 in an attack upon the island of Lindisfarne.
Simeon of Durham tells us that their approach was heralded by ‘fearful
prodigies which terrified the wretched nation of the Angles; inasmuch as
horrible lightnings and dragons in the air and flashes of fire were
often seen glancing and flying to and fro; which signs indicated the
great famine and the terrible and unutterable slaughter of multitudes
which ensued,’ and he gives the following graphic account of their
attack upon Lindisfarne. ‘In the same year, of a truth, the Pagans from
the northern region came with a naval armament to Britain like stinging
hornets, and over-ran the country in all directions like fierce wolves,
plundering, tearing, and killing not only sheep and oxen, but priests
and levites, and choirs of monks and nuns. They came, as we before said,
to the church of Lindisfarne, and laid all waste with dreadful havoc,
trod with unhallowed feet the holy places, dug up the altars, and
carried off all the treasures of the holy church. Some of the brethren
they killed, some they carried off in chains, many they cast out naked
and loaded with insults, some they drowned in the sea.’[420] They seem
to have been mainly attracted to those islands where monastic
establishments were to be found as affording richest plunder; and the
scene above depicted by Simeon was no doubt repeated at the sack of each
monastery.
In the following year they ravaged the harbours of King Ecgfrid, and
plundered the monastery at the mouth of the river Wear; but, says
Simeon, ‘St. Cuthbert did not allow them to depart unpunished, for their
chief was there put to a cruel death by the Angles, and a short time
afterwards a violent storm shattered, destroyed, and broke up their
vessels, and the sea swallowed up very many of them; some, however, were
cast ashore and speedily slain without mercy; and these things befel
them justly, since they heavily injured those who had not injured
them.’[421]
Another body of these pirates directed their attacks against the Western
Isles in 794, when the Ulster Annals record that these islands were
utterly laid waste by a people to whom they apply the general term of
Gentiles, and the church of Iona is plundered by them. In 796 Osuald the
Patrician, who had been appointed to the kingdom of Northumbria by some
of the chiefs of that nation on the death of King Ethelred, who was
slain in that year on the 18th of April, was twenty-seven days after
expelled from the kingdom, and with a few followers retired to the
island of Lindisfarne, and thence went by ship with some of the brethren
to the king of the Picts, Constantin. In 798 the northern pirates took
spoils of the sea between Erin and Alban, which no doubt implies that
the Western Isles were again laid waste by them. In 802 I-Columchill, or
Iona, is burnt by them, and in 806 the community of Iona, amounting to
sixty-eight persons, are slain by them.[422] Besides the general term of
Gentiles, that of Gall, the Irish word for stranger, was likewise
applied to them, and two nations were distinguished as Finngaill, white
or fair-haired Galls, and Dubhgaill, black or dark-haired Galls—the
former being Norwegians, to whom also the term of Lochlannach, or people
of Lochlann, was applied, and the latter, Danes.[423] Iona, when thus
ravaged by these pirates, and its community almost entirely cut off by
them, was still the head of all the Columban churches, and this
catastrophe seems to have led to a resolution to remove the seat of the
supremacy to a safer locality. This was not to be found in any of the
Western Isles, and the respective claims of Scotland and Ireland were
solved by the foundation in each country of a church which should be
supreme over the Columban monasteries in that country. In Ireland,
accordingly, a new church was commenced in the year following the
slaughter of the Iona monks, at a place called Cennanus, in Meath, now
Kells, which had been given to the Columban Church three years before,
and the church was finished in the year 814. In Scotland the position
selected was at the pass where the Tay makes its way through the barrier
of the Grampians; and here, while Constantin ruled over both Dalriada
and the Picts, he founded the Church of Dunkeld,[424] in which he may
possibly have put the brethren from Lindisfarne who took refuge with him
in 796.
[Sidenote: A.D. 820-832.
Aengus, son of Fergus, king of Fortrenn.]
On his death, which took place in 820,[425] his brother Aengus, who had
ruled over Dalriada during the last four years of Constantin’s reign,
succeeded him as king of the Picts, and ruled over both kingdoms for the
first five years of his reign, in the last year of which we find
recorded the martyrdom of Blathmhaic, son of Flann, by the Gentiles in
Hi Coluimcille. During the remainder of his reign we find Dalriada
governed successively by Aed, son of Boanta, and by his own son Eoganan.
It is to this Aengus, son of Fergus, that the later chronicles have
erroneously attributed the foundation of St. Andrews; but as the kings
of this family are termed kings of Fortrenn, and are found bearing the
same names, it is probable that they belonged to the royal family of
which the first Aengus, son of Fergus, was the founder, and which
appears to have been peculiarly connected with the province of Fortrenn.
The death of Aengus, son of Fergus, is recorded by the Ulster Annals in
834,[426] and again we find a conflict between the old Pictish law of
succession and the custom more recently introduced of permitting the
sons of previous kings to occupy the throne, for the Pictish Chronicle
tells us that Drest, son of Constantin, and Talorgan, son of Wthoil,
reigned jointly for three years. The former, who was the son of
Constantin mac Fergus, was probably accepted by the southern Picts,
while those of the northern provinces were more tenacious of the old
law, and supported a king the name of whose father was not borne by any
of the previous kings.
[Sidenote: A.D. 832.
Alpin the Scot attacks the Picts, and is slain.]
We find, however, at this time a third competitor, who appears to have
asserted his right to rule over the southern Picts. This was Alpin, of
Scottish race by paternal descent, but whose Pictish name shows that his
maternal descent was from that race. We are told in the Chronicle of
Huntingdon that ‘in the year 834 there was a conflict between the Scots
and Picts at Easter, and many of the more noble of the Picts were slain,
and Alpin, king of the Scots, remained victorious, but being elated with
his success, he was, in another battle fought on the 20th of July in the
same year, defeated and decapitated.’[427]
Alpin seems to have made this attempt at the head of those Scots who
were still to be found in the country, and was probably supported by a
part of the Pictish nation who were favourable to his cause. Tradition
points to the Carse of Gowrie as the scene of his attempt, and Pitalpin,
now Pitelpie, near Dundee, as the locality of the battle in which he was
defeated and slain; and the occurrence of a place near St. Andrews
called Rathalpin or the Fort of Alpin, now Rathelpie, seems to indicate
that it was in the province of ‘Fib’ or Fife that he found his support
and established himself after his first success.
[Sidenote: A.D. 836-839.
Eoganan, son of Aengus.]
After the two kings Drest and Talorgan, who are said to have reigned
jointly, the Pictish Chronicle has Uven, son of Unuist, who reigned
three years. He is obviously the Eoganan, son of Aengus, who ruled over
Dalriada for thirteen years, and probably succeeded Drest as king of the
southern Picts. We find, therefore, the principle of male succession
making a further step in advance, as the sons of both the previous
kings, Constantin and Angus, thus reign after them over part at least of
the Pictish nation; but in his reign the Picts were doomed to receive so
crushing a blow from the Danish pirates that it seems to have almost
exterminated the family connected with Fortrenn, and paved the way for
the successful attempt of the son of Alpin the Scot to place himself on
the throne of the Picts. In the ancient Tract on the wars of the
Gaedheal with the Galls we are told that in the year 839 there came to
Dublin threescore and five ships, and Leinster was plundered by them to
the sea and the plain of Bregia, extending from Dublin to Drogheda.
After the plundering of Leinster and Bregia they went northwards, when
the people of Dalriada gave battle to this fleet, and Eoganan, son of
Aengus, king of Dalriada, was slain in that battle. The Danes seem from
this to have attempted to invade Scotland through Dalriada; but in
recording the same event the Ulster Annals tell us that a battle was
fought by the Gentiles against the men of Fortrenn, in which Eoganan son
of Aengus, Bran son of Aengus, Aed son of Boanta, and others
innumerable, were slain.[428] These two notices taken in combination
very clearly show us that at this time the people of Dalriada and the
men of Fortrenn were the same, and that Eoganan, the son of Aengus,
ruled over both.
[Sidenote: A.D. 839.
Kenneth MacAlpin invades Pictavia.]
The Chronicle of Huntingdon tells us that ‘Kynadius succeeded his father
Alpin in his kingdom, and that in the seventh year of his reign, which
corresponds with the year 839, while the Danish pirates, having occupied
the Pictish shores, had crushed the Picts, who were defending
themselves, with a great slaughter, Kynadius, passing into their
remaining territories, turned his arms against them, and having slain
many, compelled them to take flight, and was the first king of the Scots
who acquired the monarchy of the whole of Alban, and ruled in it over
the Scots.’[429] The allusion here to the defeat of the men of Fortrenn
by the Danes is obvious, and this account certainly conveys the
impression that Kenneth acted in concert with them, if he did not merely
take advantage of the great defeat of the Picts to renew the attempt his
father had made.
Flann Mainistrech and the Albanic Duan make Kenneth the immediate
successor of Eoganan in Dalriada, but the Pictish Chronicle places two
kings as reigning over the Picts—Wrad, son of Bargoit, who reigned three
years, and Bred one year; so that, while the events of the year 839
appear to have placed him in possession of Dalriada, they did not, as
the Chronicle of Huntingdon implies, establish him on the throne of the
Picts. Bred is the last of the line of Pictish kings in the Pictish
Chronicle, and the reigns of himself and his predecessor, amounting to
four years, bring us to the year 844. This was the twelfth year of
Kenneth’s reign, and the Chronicle of Huntingdon tells us that ‘in his
twelfth year Kenneth encountered the Picts seven times in one day, and
having destroyed many, confirmed the kingdom to himself.’[430]
[Sidenote: A.D. 844.
Kenneth mac Alpin becomes king of the Picts.]
This is the true year of Kenneth’s possession of the Pictish kingdom,
and it is with this year that the Pictish Chronicle commences his reign.
Here we are told that ‘Kinadius, son of Alpin, the first of the Scots,
governed Pictavia happily for sixteen years. Two years, however, before
he came to Pictavia, he acquired the kingdom of Dalriada.’[431] The name
of the father of Bred, the last king of the Picts, is not given in the
Pictish Chronicle, but in the later chronicles he is called Brude, son
of Ferat, and his reign limited to one month. He is followed in these
chronicles by three kings whose reigns amount to six years. These are
Kinat, son of Ferat, one year; Brude, son of Fotel, two years; and
Drest, son of Ferat, three years; and the latter is said to have been
slain by the Scots ‘at Forteviot according to some, and at Scone
according to others,’[432] and he is followed by Kenneth mac Alpin, who
reigns sixteen years. This would bring his accession to the Pictish
throne down to the year 850, and this is in fact the era upon which all
the late calculations as to the duration of the kingdom of the Scots are
based. It is possible that these kings may have existed and maintained a
six years’ struggle with Kenneth before the last of them was slain; but
they rest upon authority which cannot be considered trustworthy. The
length of the reign assigned to Kenneth of sixteen years by the same
chronicler is quite inconsistent with the introduction of these supposed
kings; and the year 844 remains as undoubtedly the true era of the
accession of the Scottish race to the Pictish throne. In the seventh
year of Kenneth’s reign over the Picts, or 851, he is said in the
Pictish Chronicle to have transferred the relics of Saint Columba to a
church which he had built.[433] This was no doubt the final carrying out
of the arrangement by which the supremacy of Iona was to be transferred
in Ireland to Kells, and in Scotland to Dunkeld. It is there that
Kenneth had either completed a church begun by Constantin, or founded a
new church, and a portion of Saint Columba’s relics was now transferred
to each place. The subsequent events of Kenneth’s reign are given in the
Pictish Chronicle in very general terms. He is said to have invaded
Saxonia or Lothian six times, and to have burnt Dunbar and Melrose,
usurped presumably by the Angles, while the Britons are said to have
burnt Dunblane, and the Danes to have laid waste Pictavia as far as
‘Cluanan’ or Cluny and Dunkeld.[434] There is, however, no record of
these events to be found elsewhere.
[Sidenote: The Gallgaidhel.]
During the latter years of Kenneth’s reign, a people appear in close
association with the Norwegian pirates, and joining in their plundering
expeditions, who are termed Gallgaidhel. This name is formed by the
combination of the two words ‘Gall,’ a stranger, a foreigner, and
‘Gaidhel,’ the national name of the Gaelic race. It was certainly first
applied to the people of Galloway, and the proper name of this province,
Galwethia, is formed from Galwyddel, the Welsh equivalent of
Gallgaidhel. It seems to have been applied to them as a Gaelic race
under the rule of Galls or foreigners; Galloway being for centuries a
province of the Anglic kingdom of Northumbria, and the term ‘Gall’
having been applied to the Saxons before it was almost exclusively
appropriated to the Norwegian and Danish pirates. Towards the end of the
eighth century the power of the Angles in Galloway seems to have become
weakened, and the native races began to assert their independent action.
The bishopric, which had been founded by the Angles in 727, ceases with
Beadulf, the last Bishop, about the year 796; and William of Malmesbury
tells us that he could find no record of any subsequent bishop, because
the bishopric soon ceased being situated in the remote corner of the
Angles, and having become exposed to the attacks of the Scots or
Picts.[435]
In the Islands Landnamabok we are told that ‘Harold the Fairhaired, king
of Norway, subdued all the Sudreys or Western Isles, so far west that no
Norwegian king has since conquered farther except King Magnus Barefoot;
but he had no sooner returned than vikings, both Scottish and Irish,
cast themselves into the islands, and made war, and plundered far and
wide. When King Harold heard this he sent westward Ketill Flatnose, the
son of Bjarnan Bunu, to reconquer the islands.’ Ketill departed for the
west, and subdued all the Sudreys. He made himself king over them.[436]
The Laxdaela Saga, however, makes Ketill a petty king in Norway, who
left it on the extension of Harold’s kingdom, and on arriving in
Scotland with his vessel, was well received there by men of rank, as he
was both a celebrated man and of high descent. They offered him any
possessions he pleased, so that Ketill settled there with all his
kindred. Ketill, however, must have settled in the Sudreys before
Harold’s time, as his daughter Audur married Olaf the White, who became
king of Dublin in 852; and in 856 we find a notice in the Ulster Annals
of a great war between the Gentiles and Maelsechnaill along with the
Gallgaidhel who were with them, and in 857 a victory by Imair and
Amlaiph, against Caittil Finn with the Gallgaidhel in Munster.[437]
Caittil Finn is no doubt the same person as Ketill Flatnose, and the
Gallgaidhel those Scotch and Irish vikings whom he had brought under his
authority. There is no doubt that the name of Gallgaidhel was applied to
the Gaelic population of the Western Isles called Innse Gall or the
islands of the Galls, and the name, which originally belonged
exclusively to the Gallwegians when under Anglic dominion, was extended
to the islanders when under that of the Norwegians. In the fragments of
Irish Annals published by the Irish Archæological Society, we are told
that in 852 ‘a battle was given by Aedh, king of Ailech, the most
valiant king of his time, to the fleet of the Gallgaidhel. They were
Scots and foster-children of the Northmen, and at one time used to be
called Northmen. They were defeated and slain by Aedh, and many of their
heads carried off by Niall with him; and the Irish were justified in
committing this havoc, for these men were wont to act like Lochlans;’
and again, in 858, that ‘the Gallgaidhel were a people who had renounced
their baptism, and were usually called Northmen, for they had the
customs of the Northmen, and had been fostered by them, and though the
original Northmen were bad to the churches, these were by far worse in
whatever part of Erin they used to be.’[438]
The name, however, as applied to a territory, continued to be
exclusively appropriated to Galloway.
The Pictish Chronicle adds that Kenneth died ‘tumore ani,’ on the Ides
of February on the third of the week, in his palace of Forteviot, on the
river Earn, and this fixes 860 as the year of his death. St. Berchan
says of him—
Seventeen years of warding valour,
In the sovereignty of Alban,
After slaughtering Cruithneach, after embittering Galls,
He dies on the banks of the Earn.[439]
Flann Mainistrech says of him that he was the first king who possessed
the kingdom of Scone, of the Gaidhel; and by the Ulster Annals, the
Annales Cambriæ, and others, in recording his death, he is invariably
called king of the Picts.[440] He appears to have had two sons,
Constantin and Aed, and three daughters, one married to Run, king of the
Britons of Strathclyde, another married to Amlaimh or Olaf the White,
the Norwegian king of Dublin, and a third, Maelmaire, married to Aedh
Finnliath, king of Ireland, who died in 879.[441]
[Sidenote: Obscurity of this period of history.]
There is no more obscure period in the annals of the northern kingdoms
than the latter part of the eighth and the first half of the ninth
centuries, and no more difficult question than to ascertain the nature
and true character of that revolution which placed a Scottish race in
possession of the kingdom of Scone. For this period we lose the guidance
of the great Anglic historian Bede, and of the Irish annalist Tighernac.
When we refer to trustworthy sources of information, we can find no
record of any revolution at this time. They exhibit to us only the great
confusion into which these kingdoms were thrown by the incessant
depredations of the Norwegian and Danish piratical hordes. In the oldest
and most authentic lists of kings we find Kenneth mac Alpin and his
descendants following the Pictish kings as belonging to the same series.
By the annalists who record the events of this period Kenneth is simply
termed king of the Picts. The historical documents which make any direct
statement on the subject, with one exception, belong to an artificial
system of history, constructed after the eleventh century to serve the
purposes of a political and ecclesiastical controversy, and cannot be
trusted to afford us anything but distorted fragments of true history,
and we are left with the solitary statement of Flann Mainistrech, that
Kenneth was the first king who gave the kingdom of Scone to the
Gaidheal.
[Sidenote: Causes and nature of revolution which placed Kenneth on the
throne of the Picts.]
That Kenneth mac Alpin was a Scot by paternal descent, and that the
succession to the throne of the Pictish kingdom of Scone was eventually
perpetuated in his race, may be held to be as certain as any event of
that period can be ascertained; but the slender record we possess of the
events of his reign does not exhibit them to us as implying the conquest
of one nation by another, still less of the Picts by the Scots of
Dalriada, as is usually assumed. The name of Kenneth’s father, Alpin,
shows that he was of the Pictish race by maternal descent, and that he
may have had a claim to the throne, but these events exhibit themselves
to us more as a war of succession—in which Alpin and his son Kenneth
were supported in their claim to the throne not only by a party among
the Picts, but by the remains of the Scots of Dalriada who were still to
be found in the country,—than as a foreign invasion. During the reigns
of Kenneth and his three successors, they were simply kings of Scottish
paternal descent, ruling over the same kingdom and the same people who
had previously been governed by those of Pictish race. The country of
which Scone was the capital was still _Cruithintuath_, or Pictavia its
Latin equivalent. The people were still the men of _Fortrenn_ or the
Picts, and the deaths of these kings of Scottish race were still
recorded as those of kings of the Picts. The period was one very
favourable to such a change being easily and quietly made. The Picts had
no repugnance to any of their kings being paternally of foreign descent,
so that they represented a Pictish royal family, and were held to belong
to a Pictish tribe through their mothers. The old Pictish law of
succession too, had broken down, among the southern Picts at least,
under Anglic influence, and the right of the sons of Pictish kings to
ascend the throne had been more than once recognised. Shortly after
Alpin had put forward his claim, the Picts of Fortrenn had sustained a
most crushing blow from the Danes, and were as completely prostrated by
them as the Scots of Dalriada had been a century before by the powerful
Pictish king Aengus mac Fergus. That it was followed by a rising
everywhere of the remains of the Scots of Dalriada we may well believe,
but an additional and very potent element existed among his means of
support. The ban against the Columban clergy who had been so long
dispossessed of their foundations in the territories of the southern
Picts had been partially removed by the foundation of Dunkeld, which
probably gave them some footing again in the country, and they may have
now gladly seized upon such an opportunity as the combination of a king
of Scottish race claiming the throne with the temporary prostration of
the most powerful tribe among the Picts to make an effort to recover
them. The Pictish Chronicle clearly indicates this as one of the great
causes of the fall of the Pictish monarchy. It says, ‘For God thought
them worthy to be made aliens from and stript of their hereditary
possessions as their perverseness deserved, because they not only
spurned the rites and the precepts of the Lord, but also refused to
allow themselves to be placed on an equal footing with others.’[442]
This appears to refer very plainly to the original expulsion of those of
the Columban clergy who would not conform to the decree issued by
Nectan, king of the Picts, and to the Roman usages it enforced, as well
as to the ban which had been kept up against them till it was partially
relaxed by Constantin when he founded Dunkeld; and when Kenneth
transferred the relics of Saint Columba to Dunkeld, they seem to have
regained their footing as far as he could effect it, as we find that the
abbot of Dunkeld was placed at the head of the Pictish Church.[443]
[Sidenote: Where did the Scots come from?]
Two questions still remain to be solved. The first is, Where was the
kingdom of his father Alpin, and where did Kenneth rule during the first
six years after his father’s death in 832? Not in the kingdom of the
Picts, for he only obtained the Pictish throne in the twelfth year of
his reign, in the year 844. Not in Dalriada, for he did not obtain that
kingdom till after the year 839, and two years before he became king of
the Picts. If, then, he did not commence his reign either in Dalriada or
in Pictavia, it must have been in some part of Scotland south of the
Firths of Forth and Clyde, or else he must have been in Irish Dalriada
or elsewhere in Ireland. The later chronicles tell us that ‘with
wonderful eagerness he led the Scots from Ergadia into the land of the
Picts,’[444] but this is part of that artificial system by which the
later kingdom of the Scots was, by the suppression of a century,
connected immediately with the earlier Scottish kingdom of Dalriada. The
earliest tradition which indicates this appears to have at one time
formed a part of the Pictish Chronicle. In narrating the events of
Kenneth’s reign over the Picts, there are in this chronicle some
expressions which show that this part of it had once been preceded by an
account of the mode in which he obtained the Pictish throne.[445] The
compiler, however, of one of the later chronicles obviously had a copy
of the Pictish Chronicle before him. It was also known to Ranulph
Higden, who used it in his Polychronicon, and in both the events of
Kenneth’s reign are preceded by what is obviously a traditionary account
of how the Scots obtained possession of the Pictish kingdom.[446] The
same tale appears also in the chronicle contained in the Scalachronica,
where it also precedes the account of the reign of Kenneth, and it was
likewise known to Giraldus Cambrensis, who narrates part of it.[447]
Comparing the four editions of this narrative with each other and with
the expressions in the Pictish Chronicle referring to it, we can make a
fair approximation to what this lost passage of the chronicle contained.
It seems to have commenced with Bede’s statement that in the course of
time the Scots came from Ireland under their leader Reuda, and obtained
a settlement either by permission or by force among the Picts. We are
then told that the Scots inhabited Galloway, to which Giraldus adds that
they afterwards effected an extension of their territories, and the
Scalachronica ‘as also Argyll and others of the Isles.’ The Scots thus
living in conjunction with the Picts, and having obtained from them a
district to inhabit, contrive a plot against them. They invite the
magnates of the Picts, according to Scalachronica, to a great council,
and coming privately armed they slew the great lords of the Picts, and
afterwards sent for others and slew them; according to the other
editions, to a banquet where they had undermined the seats, and having
withdrawn the supports the sitters fell into the hollow places prepared
for them, and were slain without difficulty; and profiting by this
treachery the Scots took their land reaching from sea to sea, which is
now called Scotia; and thus Kenneth, son of Alpin, invaded Pictavia and
destroyed the Picts.[448] This, of course, can only be viewed as a
traditionary account, but it seems to contain a reference to the
subsequent history of the Scots of Dalriada, after they were driven out
by the Picts. It narrates Alpin’s invasion of Galloway with his Scots,
and then repeats from Bede the first settlement of the Scottish colony,
stating that they inhabited Galloway along with the Picts. His son
Kenneth acquires the kingdom of Dalriada, and the Scots again emerge and
extend themselves into Argyll and the Isles. Kenneth then invades the
kingdom of the Picts, but does not finally subdue it till five years
after; and in place of this we have the story of the plot by which he
treacherously slays the principal nobles of the Picts. St. Berchan in
his so-called prophecy alludes to this tale, but adds it to a reference
to a war, and removes the scene of it to Scone. He says—
A man who shall feed ravens, fight battles;
His name was the conqueror.
He is the first king who possessed in the east
Of the men of Erin in Alban.
It was by strength of spears and swords,
By violent deaths, by violent fates,
By him are deceived in the east the firm ones.
He shall dig in the earth, cunning the art,
(With) dangerous goad blades, death and pillage,
In the middle of Scone of high shields.[449]
Now the Scalachronica places it in the time of Drust, son of Feradach,
the last king of the Picts, who was slain at Scone by treason. This
would bring the event to the year 850, after Kenneth had been already
six years in possession of the Pictish throne.
We may gather from this tale that Kenneth emerged from Galloway where
the last remnant of the Scots of Dalriada disappear from history nearly
a century before; and if the appearance of the Norwegians on the scene
had led the people of Galloway, as well as Scots from other quarters, to
adopt the same piratical life under the name of Gallgaidhel, we can
readily understand that Kenneth, taking advantage of the crushing blow
inflicted on the Picts of Fortrenn by the Danes, would be readily joined
by Scots from all quarters in regaining the kingdom of Dalriada, and
prosecuting his father’s claim to the throne of the Picts.
But there is another legend which appears also to refer to this period.
It is that contained in the life of St. Cadroë. We are there told, after
that part of the legend which relates to the settlement of the Scots in
Ireland, that many years passed when the Scots crossed the Irish Channel
and took possession of Iona, and then continuing their voyage enter the
region of Rossia, evidently the province of Ross, by the river Rosis,
which is also evidently the river Rasay, the old name of the Blackwater,
which flows from a small lake called Loch Droma,[450] on the ridge
separating the eastern and western watershed, and flows through the long
valley leading from near the head of Loch Broom till it falls into the
river Conan, some miles above Dingwall. From thence they proceed
southward to Rigmoneth, the old name for St. Andrews, and to Bellathor,
which must have been situated at or near Scone. There is no record of
any Scots ever having reached St. Andrews or Scone till the reign of
Kenneth mac Alpin, and this part of the legend seems to refer to this
time; but the previous part of it is obviously ecclesiastical in its
character, and it is probable that it rather belongs to the return of
the Columban clergy, who may have gone from Ireland to Iona and thence
by Ross-shire to Rosemarkie, an old Columban foundation, from which they
had been dispossessed by Boniface, and finally to Rigmoneth in Fifeshire
and Bellachoir in Perthshire; and in this view it is difficult to avoid
connecting it with the legend of St. Adrian, who, like St. Boniface, is
brought from the east and lands in the eastern parts of Scotland then
occupied by the Picts, having with him six thousand and six hundred and
six persons, composed of confessors, clerics, and lay people. These men
with their bishop did many signs in the kingdom of the Picts, afterwards
desired to have a residence in the Isle of May, where the Danes, who
then devastated the whole of Britain, came and slew them.[451] Their
martyrdom is connected with a Danish invasion in 875. The east part of
Scotland in which they had their first settlement was evidently Fife.
Their arrival is almost coincident with the invasion of the kingdom of
the Picts by the Scots under Kenneth, and the large number who are said
to have come shows that the traditionary history was really one of the
immigration of a people. Hector Boece, in referring to this legend,
tells us that while some write that they were Hungarians, others say
that they were a company collected from Scots and Angles.[452] It is
perhaps not an unreasonable conclusion that the Scots invaded the
Pictish territories in two bands—one under Kenneth across Drumalban
against the southern Picts, and the other from sea by Loch Broom against
the northern Picts.
[Sidenote: What was Kenneth mac Alpin’s paternal descent?]
The second question we have to solve is, To what family of the Scots of
Dalriada did Kenneth, by paternal descent, belong? The ordinary
pedigree, which traces his descent through the kings of Dalriada of the
Cinel Gabhran, and identifies his father Alpin with Alpin son of
Eachach, the last of the Dalriadic kings, is not older than the twelfth
century, and is unquestionably artificial; but we have indications that
two other lines of descent were attributed to him. St. Berchan, in his
so-called prophecy, after a few stanzas which refer to Conall, the son
of Comgall, the king of Dalriada who received Saint Columba as narrated
by Adamnan, passes at once to the reign of Kenneth mac Alpin, with these
words:—
A son of the clan of his son will possess
The kingdom of Albany by virtue of his strength.
Conall, according to the Tract on the Men of Alban, had seven sons,[453]
from any one of whom Kenneth may have descended, and this would attach
him to that tribe of the Dalriads termed the Cinel Comgall, from whom
the district of Cowall takes its name; but the same tract contains
another statement, which seems to present to us a more authentic notice
of his descent. According to this tradition, from Eachach Buidhe, son of
Aedain, the king of Dalriada inaugurated by Saint Columba, there
branched off two clans, ‘the clan Fergusa Gall, son of Eachach Buidhe,
or the Gabhranaigh, and the clan Conall Cerr, son of Eochaid Buidhe, who
are the men of Fife in the sovereignty; that is, the clan of Kenneth,
son of Alpin, son of Aidan.’[454] This has all the appearance of a
genuine fragment which has been preserved from some older source. The
reference to Fife, which appears to have been the province which mainly
supported the claim of this family, and in which Rathelpin, or the Fort
of Alpin, was situated, and the appearance of a Conall, son of Aidan, in
Kintyre, in 807, by whom Conall, son of Tadg, the then Pictish governor
of Dalriada was slain,[455] and who was probably a son of the same Aidan
here made father of Alpin, gives great probability to it. We may
therefore conclude that Kenneth mac Alpin belonged to the Cinel Gabhran,
but was descended from a different branch than that which had furnished
the kings of that race to Dalriada.
[Sidenote: A.D. 860-864.
Donald, son of Alpin, king of the Picts.]
Kenneth mac Alpin was succeeded by his brother Donald, who, according to
the Pictish Chronicle, held the same kingdom for four years. His death
is recorded by the Annals of Ulster four years after that of Kenneth,
with the same title of king of the Picts. He died, according to the
Pictish Chronicle, at his palace of Cinn Belachoir, on the ides, or
13th, of April. St. Berchan says of him—
Three years to the king,
And three months, who shall number them?
On Loch Adhbha shall be his grave:
He dies of disease suddenly.
The later chronicles differ as to the place of his death. By some he is
said to have died at Rath Inveramon, and by others to have been slain at
Scone. These names, however, can all be referred to localities in the
immediate neighbourhood of Scone, and probably belonged to the defences
and possessions of that central seat of the monarchy.[456] The only
event recorded in his reign is the curious notice in the Pictish
Chronicle that in his time the Gaedhel established with their king in
Forteviot the rights and laws of the kingdom of Edus, son of
Echdach.[457] The reference is here unquestionably to that Aedfin, son
of Eachach, whose death as king of the Dalriads is recorded by the
Annals of Ulster in 778, and who appears to have been the last of the
Scots who attempted to make any stand against the rule of the Picts over
Dalriada, and by his kingdom that of the Scots of Dalriada must be
meant. Among the rights and laws now established was probably the law of
succession among the Scots, which is usually termed the law of Tanistry,
and which, in its preference of the male over the female succession, was
opposed to that of the Picts. This law, as we have seen, had to some
extent been partially introduced among the southern Picts before the
accession of Kenneth, and would therefore now be established at
Forteviot with less difficulty.
[Sidenote: A.D. 863.
Constantin mac Kenneth, king of the Picts.]
It was in accordance with this law that Donald was succeeded by
Constantin, son of Kenneth mac Alpin, who reigned sixteen years. The
Pictish Chronicle records that in his first year Maelsechnaill, king of
Ireland, died, and his death took place on Tuesday the 30th November
863,[458] which gives us the true commencement of this reign. After two
years Amlaibh with his Gentiles laid waste Pictavia, and occupied it
from the kalends of January to the feast of St. Patrick—that is, from
the first of January to the 17th of March; and in the following year,
while withdrawing with his booty, he was attacked and slain by
Constantin.[459]
The Ulster Annals record the same event when they tell us that in 866
Amlaiph and Aiusle went to Fortrenn with the Galls of Erin and Alban,
and laid waste all Cruithintuaith, of which name Pictavia is here the
Latin equivalent, and took hostages.[460] This Amlaib, or Amlaiph, was
Olaf the White, king of Dublin, who had married a daughter of Kenneth
mac Alpin; and his occupation of the country and the hostages he took
may have been in connection with some claim through his wife; but his
death did not really take place till some years after,[461] for we find
from the Ulster Annals that in the year 870 Alclyde was besieged by the
Northmen under the same Amlaiph, along with Imhair, another of their
kings, and destroyed after a four months’ siege. Another annalist tells
us that after having wasted the people who were in the citadel by hunger
and thirst, and succeeded in drawing off the water from the well that
was in it, the Northmen entered upon them and first carried off all the
riches that were within it, and afterwards a great host of prisoners
were brought into captivity.[462] On this occasion they appear to have
also attacked both the Picts of Galloway and the Angles of Bernicia, for
in the following year we are told that Amlaiph and Imhair returned to
Dublin from Alban with two hundred ships, and a great booty of men,
Angles, Britons, and Picts, was brought with them to Ireland in
captivity.[463] After this we hear no more of Amlaiph or Olaf the White
of Dublin. In 872 the Ulster Annals tell us that Artgha, king of the
Britons of Strathclyde, was slain by the advice of Constantin.[464] This
was Arthgal, a lineal descendant of Dunnagual, whose death was recorded
in 760, and the father of that Run who married the daughter of Kenneth
mac Alpin.[465] We thus see that after the death of the last of this
line, who is called king of Alclyde, in 750, and the subjection of his
kingdom to the Angles, it now again reappears as an independent kingdom
with the new designation of that of the Britons of Strathclyde. It was
probably in connection with this event that St. Berchan, in referring to
the battles fought by Constantin, says—
The hazard through which three battles are gained
Against the Gentiles of pure colour (the Fingall).
The fourth battle, the battle of Luaire,
Against the king of the Britons of green standard.[466]
Luaire is probably Carlowrie in West Lothian.
Simeon of Durham tells us that in 875 the host of the Danes who had
ravaged the east coast of Britain divided itself into two bands, one of
which under Halfdan marching into the region of the Northumbrians laid
it waste, and wintering near the river Tyne brought the whole country
under their dominion, and destroyed the Picts and the people of
Strathclyde. These were probably the Picts of Galloway, and in reference
to this the Ulster Annals tell us of a conflict between the Picts and
the Dubhgalls in 875, in which a great slaughter of the Picts was
made.[467] The people here called of Strathclyde are in the Saxon
Chronicle, in recording the same event, termed Stræcled Wealas, and this
name is rendered by Ethelwerd into the Latin Cumbri, which is the first
appearance of the term of Cumbri or Cumbrians as applied to the Britons
of Strathclyde.[468] In the meantime Olaf the White, the Norwegian king
of Dublin, had left a son by his wife Audur the Wealthy, daughter of
Ketill Flatnose or Caittil Fin, who was called Thorstein the Red, and he
appears on his father’s death to have commenced making piratical
expeditions, infesting Scotland far and wide, and usually obtaining
victory. His attacks were directed against the northern provinces, and
he is said in the Islands Landnamabok to have conquered ‘Katanes and
Sudrland,’ or Caithness and Sutherland, Ross and Moray, and more than
half of Scotland, and to have reigned over these districts until he was
betrayed by the Scotch and slain in battle. In the Laxdaela Saga, on the
other hand, he is said to have at length become reconciled with the king
of the Scots, and obtained possession of the half of Scotland, over
which he became king.[469] It is hardly to be supposed that Constantin
could have had any real authority over these northern regions, or that
the power of the kings of Kenneth mac Alpin’s race could have at this
time extended beyond the provinces of the southern Picts. He therefore
probably merely permitted what he could not prevent, and indeed may have
viewed a Norwegian conquest of the provinces of the northern Picts as
favourable to his cause as the Danish defeat of the men of Fortrenn had
been to that of his father. Thorstein’s kingdom, however, lasted only
one year. The Pictish Chronicle refers to it when it says that the
Northmen passed an entire year in Pictavia, and the Ulster Annals record
in 875 that Ostin or Thorstein, son of Amlaiph, king of the Northmen,
was treacherously slain by the people of Alban.[470]
Constantin, however, was doomed himself to fall in the following year
under an unexpected onslaught by the Danes. Ever since the Danes, or
Dubhgall, first came to Ireland there had been a contest between them
and the Norwegians or Fingall for superiority, and in 877 a battle took
place between them in which the Norwegians had the victory. The Danes,
being for the time driven out of Ireland, went to Alban or Scotland.
They appear to have entered the Firth of Clyde, and, penetrating through
the country watered by the Teith and Forth, attacked the province of
Fife. A battle took place between them and the Scots at Dollar, which
must have been unfavourable to the latter, as the Danes are said to have
driven and slaughtered them through Fife, as far as the north-east
corner, where, at a place called Inverdufatha, now Inverdovet, in the
parish of Forgan, they gained a battle over the men of Alban. Constantin
was slain and a great multitude with him. The earth is said on this
occasion to have burst open under the men of Alban.[471]
This is the first appearance in the Pictish Chronicle of the term
‘Scotti’ or Scots being applied to any portion of the inhabitants of
Pictavia, and it seems to have been used with reference to those of the
province of Fife in particular, but the Ulster Annals record the death
of Constantin as king of the Picts.[472]
[Sidenote: A.D. 877-878.
Aedh, son of Kenneth, king of the Picts.]
He was succeeded by his brother Aedh, who reigned only one year. The
Pictish Chronicle says of him that the shortness of his reign left
nothing memorable to record, but that he was slain in the town of
Nrurim. St. Berchan says of him—
He dies without bell, without communion,
In the evening in a dangerous pass.
And the Ulster Annals record in 878 that Aedh, son of Cinador, king of
the Picts, was slain by his own people.[473]
With Aedh died the last of Kenneth’s sons, and thus far the succession
of the kings of his race had not only followed the law of Tanistry, but
did not vary from that modification of the Pictish law which had been
already sanctioned among the southern Picts, and had admitted the sons
of previous kings in a similar order to fill the Pictish throne; but now
the two modes of royal succession were again in conflict. By the law of
Tanistry the succession opened to Donald, son of Constantin and grandson
of Kenneth; by the Pictish law, when strictly observed, to Eocha, son of
Run, king of the Britons of Strathclyde, whose mother was Constantin’s
sister. Both of these claimants to the throne appear to have been under
age, and there had not yet been an instance of a lineal male descendant
in the third generation being permitted to succeed to the Pictish
throne. The great defeat and slaughter which befell the Scots under
Constantin had probably, for the time, weakened the Scottish interest,
while the heir, according to their law, had the additional
disqualification of being too young to reign.
[Sidenote: A.D. 878-889.
Girig mac Dungaile and Eochodius, son of Run.]
The Pictish party prevailed, and Eocha, the Briton, was placed on the
throne, but as he appears also to have been too young to reign alone,
another king was associated with him as his governor.[474] The Pictish
Chronicle calls him ‘Ciricius,’ but leaves a blank for his father’s
name; but in the Irish version he is called Giric, son of Dungaile; and
by Flann Mainistrech, Girg, son of Dungaile. In the Latin lists it is
corrupted to Grig, but in the Chronicle of St. Andrews it appears as
Carus. By the Albanic Duan he is omitted altogether, and the Ulster
Annals do not mention him, which leads to the suspicion that he was an
intruder in the Scottish line, and was not of that race. His name is
evidently the British name Curig, and under this form St. Ciricus, a
martyr of Tarsus, was introduced into the British calendar, and has
several churches in Wales dedicated to him. It was no doubt from Girig,
son of Dungaile, being named after him that the eclipse on his day in
the calendar is recorded as taking place during this reign. As governor
to Eocha, and as bearing a British name, the presumption is that he was
also a Briton, and the name of Dungaile, borne by his father, was the
same name as that of Dunnagual, who appears in the Welsh Genealogies
annexed to Nennius as the father of Arthgal and grandfather of Run;
Girig was therefore in all probability Eocha’s paternal granduncle.[475]
The Pictish Chronicle places the death of Aed, son of Neil, king of
Ireland, in his second year, and Aed died on 8th November 879, and we
are told that in his ninth year an eclipse of the sun took place on St.
Ciricus’s day. His day in the calendar is the 16th of June, and an
eclipse of the sun actually took place on that day in the year 885.
These notices give us sufficiently the true chronology of his reign, but
the Pictish Chronicle records none of the events of it, and simply says
that after a reign of eleven years Eochodius with his tutor is now
expelled from the kingdom.[476] The later chronicles supply this defect
so far as to give us in general terms two events of his reign. The first
is that he brought under subjection to himself the whole of Bernicia and
part of Anglia;[477] and there may possibly be some foundation for the
statement, to a partial extent at least, when we consider the position
in which the kingdom of Northumbria was placed during his reign, and the
changes which apparently followed it.
During the reign of Eadberht, in the middle of the eighth century, the
kingdom of Northumbria had apparently attained to a position of as great
power as that to which it had been raised in the previous century by
Ecgfrid. The two provinces of Deira and Bernicia were united under his
rule; the territories of the Britons south of the Solway Firth and the
province of Galloway on the north were parts of his kingdom; he had
himself added to it Kyle and the adjacent districts, and in conjunction
with Aengus, the equally powerful king of the Picts, had enforced the
submission of the Britons of Alclyde, when after a reign of twenty-one
years he, in the year 758, abdicated his throne in favour of his son
Oswulf, and took the tonsure. His son was in the following year
treacherously slain by his own people, and with him ended the direct
descendants of Ida. The kingdom seems then to have fallen into a state
of disorganisation, and has thus been well described:—‘One ealdorman
after another seized on the government, and held it till his expelled
predecessors returned with a superior force, or popular favour and
successful treason had raised up a new competitor.’ And thus it
continued till the end of the century, when the arrival of the Northmen
added an additional element of confusion. In 867 the monarchy completely
broke down. In the previous year a large fleet of Danish pirates, under
the command of Halfdan, Inguar, and Hubba, the sons of Ragnar Lodbrog,
had arrived on the coast of England, and had wintered in East Anglia,
and this year they invaded Northumbria, and took possession of the city
of York. The Northumbrians had just expelled their king Osbryht, and
placed Alla on the throne, but the former was now recalled, and the two
kings, uniting their forces, attempted to wrest the city of York from
the Danes, and were both slain. The Danes then took possession of the
whole of Northumbria as far as the river Tyne, and placed Ecgbert as
king over the Northumbrians north of the Tyne. After a reign of six
years Ecgbert died, and was succeeded by Ricsig. It was in his time
that, 875, Halfdan, with his Danes, again entered Northumbria, and
brought the whole country under his dominion. In the following year
Ricsig died, and Halfdan is said by Simeon of Durham to have placed a
second Egbert over the Northumbrians beyond the Tyne. He is said to have
reigned only two years. But notwithstanding, in 883, or seven years
after, when Halfdan dies, we are told by Simeon that by the advice of
the abbot Eadred, Guthred, son of Hardicnut, was made king, and reigned
at York; but Ecgbert ruled over the Northumbrians. There is no mention
of this second Ecgbert either in his History of the Church of Durham or
of the Archbishops of York, and he appears, with his inconsistent dates,
to be a mere reproduction of the Ecgbert who was placed over the
Northumbrians north of the Tyne in 867, introduced to fill up a period
when the historian did not know or did not care to tell who really ruled
over Bernicia at that time.
This is, however, the period of Girig’s reign, and he may, like his
predecessor Kenneth, have overrun Lothian and obtained possession of
Bamborough, the chief seat of the Bernician kings, which lies at no
great distance from the south bank of the Tweed; and Simeon himself
indicates this when he tells us in his History of the Church of Durham
that during the reign of Guthred ‘the nation of the Scots had collected
a numerous army, and among other deeds of cruelty had invaded and
plundered the monastery of Lindisfarne.’[478] His object too may have
been to free the Britons, his own countrymen, from the Anglic yoke, and
certainly, if he conquered Bernicia, and perhaps that part of Anglia
which consisted of the British possessions extending from the Solway to
the Derwent, their reunion with the kingdom of the Strathclyde Britons,
as well as the freedom of Galloway from Anglic supremacy, would be the
natural result. The second event attributed to him is that he first
liberated the Scottish Church, which till that time had been in
servitude according to the custom and usage of the Picts, and this has
probably more foundation in fact. That Girig found it necessary to win
over the Scottish clergy to his cause, or at least not to oppose him, is
probable enough, and he seems to have freed the Church from those
secular exactions and services to which the clergy of most churches were
at this time subjected. The Anglic Church had not long before been freed
from similar services by King Ethelwulf, and the later Pictish Church
was closely connected with that of Northumbria.[479] A curious memorial
of Girig, and of his relation to the Scottish Church, remains in the
church in the Mearns which bears the name of Eglisgirg, or Greg’s
church, and was dedicated to St. Ciricus, from whom it came to be called
St. Cyrus.[480]
The gratitude of the Scottish Church for the boon they had obtained from
Girig seems to have shown itself in this, that in the artificial history
to which the interests of an ecclesiastical controversy had so large a
share in giving birth, the usurper of foreign race, who had for a time
intruded upon the line of Scottish kings descended from Kenneth mac
Alpin, and been after a few years driven out, fills a prominent
position, as Gregory the Great, solemnly crowned at Scone, and one of
the most powerful of the early Scottish kings.
-----
Footnote 369:
At vero provinciæ Nordanhymbrorum, cui rex Ceoluulf præest, quatuor
nunc episcopi præsulatum tenent; Wilfrid in Eboracensi ecclesia,
Ediluald in Lindisfaronensi, Acca in Hagustaldensi, Pecthelm in ea quæ
Candida Casa vocatur, quæ nuper multiplicatis fidelium plebibus in
sedem pontificatus addita, ipsum primum habet antistitem. Pictorum
quoque natio tempore hoc et fœdus pacis cum gente habet Anglorum et
catholicæ pacis ac veritatis cum universali ecclesia particeps
existere gaudet. Scotti qui Brittaniam incolunt suis contenti finibus
nil contra gentem Anglorum insidiarum moliuntur aut fraudium.
Brettones, quamvis et maxima ex parte domestico sibi odio gentem
Anglorum, et totius Catholicæ ecclesiæ statum pascha minus recte
moribusque improbis impugnent; tamen et divina sibi et humana prorsus
resistente virtute, in neutro cupitum possunt obtinere propositum:
quippe qui quamvis ex parte sui sint juris, nonnulla tamen ex parte
Anglorum sunt servitio mancipati.—Bede, B. v. c. xxiv.
Footnote 370:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 421.
Footnote 371:
Martyrology of Donegal at 16th March.
Footnote 372:
Bede, _Hist. Ec._ B. v. c. xxi.
Footnote 373:
In a charter by Malcolm IV. to the canons of Scone, it is said to be
‘in principali sede regni fundata’ (_Scone Chart._ No. 5); and in
narrating the foundation of the monastery by Alexander I., Fordun
says, in his earliest compilation, ‘Fundata enim est, ædificata et
dedicata, ut dictum est, apud Sconam, ubi antiqui reges, Cruthne primo
Pictorum rege, sedem regni Albaniæ constituerant,’ which he afterwards
alters to ‘quam fundatum ædificavit loco, quo reges antiquitus tam
Scoti quam Picti sedem regni primam constituerunt.’—Fordun, _Chron._,
ed. 1871, pp. 430, 227. This shows the tradition that it was at an
early period the principal seat of the kingdom. The Pictish Chronicle
records a meeting at Scone between Constantine, king of Scotland, and
the bishop of St. Andrews, in which the laws of the Church were
regulated, and adds, ‘ab hoc die collis hoc meruit nomen, id est,
Collis Credulitatis.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 9. The word
‘meruit’ does not imply that it was then first named, and it appears,
as we shall see, in 728, under the name of Caislen Credi or Castellum
Credi, that is, the Castle of Belief. At Scone, too, William the Lion
decreed in council with his magnates that the Church should be
maintained in its laws, rights, and privileges.—_Act. Parl. Scot._
vol. i. p. 60.
Footnote 374:
See _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 136. Tighernac has at 713, ‘Cinaedh
mac Derili et filius Mathgernan jugulati sunt. Tolarg mac Drostan
ligatus apud fratrem suum Nechtan regem.’ As Nechtan was son of
Derili, he could not have been brother of Tolarg, son of Drostan, and
the expression ‘fratrem suum’ must refer to Cinaedh, who was also son
of Derili, and was probably slain by Tolarg. Again, in 734 the Ulster
Annals have, ‘Talorggan filius Drostan comprehensus alligatus juxta
aciem Ollaigh;’ and in 739 Tighernac has ‘Tolarcan mac Drostan rex
Athfhotla a bathadh la h’Aengus’ (drowned by Angus). The process of
change in the name is first Athfhotla—then Atheodle—then Atholl.
Footnote 375:
Qui lapis in eodem monasterio reverenter ob regum Albaniæ
consecrationem servatur. Nec uspiam aliquis regum in Scocia regnare
solebat, nisi super eundem lapidem regium in accipiendum nomen prius
sederet in Scona, sede vero superiori, videlicet, Albaniæ constituta
regibus ab antiquis.—Fordun, _Chron._ ed. 1871, vol. i. p. 294.
Footnote 376:
See the author’s Tract on the Coronation Stone in the _Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries_, vol. viii. p. 68, and separately
published by Messrs. Edmonston and Douglas, 1869, for an analysis of
these legends.
Footnote 377:
In the sixth and seventh lives of Saint Patrick we are told that he
brought with him from Rome a stone altar (altare lapideum), which had
been consecrated by the Pope, and that when crossing to Ireland a
leper wished to be taken on board, but being refused admission by the
sailors, Saint Patrick threw the stone altar into the sea, and desired
the leper to sit upon it, which he did, and it floated with him to
Ireland (here called ‘tabula lapidea’).—Colgan, _Tr. Th._ 71, 123. It
is again mentioned as following him through the air, and as having
been left at Domhnach Patraicc, where it was the subject of special
veneration. In the Tripartite Life it is called his ‘Lec’ or stone. In
the lives of St. Bridget it is said that when a girl she made a stone
altar (altare lapideum), and an angel came and perforated it at the
four corners and placed it upon four wooden legs.—Colgan, _Tr. Th._ p.
538.
In the sixth life of Saint Patrick we are told that he came to Cashel,
and at his preaching the king of Munster believed and was baptized;
and then follows this sentence: ‘Remansit in loco illo tabula lapidea,
super quam Sanctus fortasse celebraverat divina sacramenta; vocatur
autem ab Hibernicis Leac Phadruig, id est, lapis Patricii: super quam
ob reverentiam illius solent reges Casselenses in principatum
promoveri, et in regni solium sublimari.’—Colgan, _Tr. Th._ 82.
It was customary among the Celtic as well as other races that their
kings and chiefs should be inaugurated standing upon a rock or large
natural stone, but the coronation stone was a movable slab kept in the
church, and the use of it formed part of the religious ceremony, the
king sitting upon it while he is being consecrated, and the coronation
of the Cashel kings appears to be the only strictly analogous case.
Footnote 378:
717 Expulsio familiæ Iæ trans dorsum Britanniæ a Nectono rege.—_Tigh._
Footnote 379:
724 Clericatum (N)echtain regis Pictorum, Druxst post eum
regnat.—_Tigh._
Footnote 380:
719 Cath Finglinne itir da meic Fearchar Fata (between the two sons of
Fearchar Fata), in quo Ainbhceallach jugulatus est die quinti ferie
Id. Septembris.—_Tigh._
Footnote 381:
719 Cath maritimum Arddeanesbi etir Dunchadh mac Becc cum genere
Gabrain et Selbach cum genere Loarn et versum est super Selbacum ii.
Non. Octobris die iii. ferie, in quo quidem comites corruerunt. 721
Duncadh (mac) Becc Ri Cindtire mortuus est.—_Tigh._ See note ^{385} as
to the meaning of ‘comites’ here. Duncadh was the son of Becc,
grandson of Duncadh, son of Conaing, son of Aidan, by his son Conall
Chail, whose death in 681 is thus recorded by Tighernac:—Bass Conaill
Chail mac Dunchadh in Cindtire.
Footnote 382:
722 Beli filius Elfin moritur.—_An. Cam._ Bili mac Elphine rex
Alochluaithe moritur.—_Tigh._
723 Clericatus Selbaigh regis Dalriada.—_Tigh._
Footnote 383:
725 Simal filius Druist constringitur.—_Tigh._
726 Nechtain mac Derili constringitur apud Druist regem. Dungal de
regno ejectus est et Druist de regno Pictorum ejectus et Elphin pro eo
regnat. Eochach mac Eachach regnare incipit.—_Tigh._
Footnote 384:
Flann Mainistrech has ‘nine kings over Albain from the death of
Donald, son of Aed, to the death of Aeda Allan, son of Fergal, king of
Ireland, that is from 642 to 743,’ the last two of whom are Selbach
mac Ferchair and Eochaidh Angbaidh, or the valiant; and from the death
of Aeda Allan to the death of Aeda Finnleith, that is, from 743 to
879, he has ‘thirteen kings over Alban,’ the first two of whom are
Dungal mac Selbach and Alpin mac Eachach. This leaves no room for
doubt as to the period when these four kings reigned, and agrees
exactly with the Irish Annals. The Albanic Duan omits the stanza
following Ainbhcellach, and containing Selbach and Eochach, and then
has ‘Dungal dein seven years, Alpin four years.’ Dungal had reigned
both before and after Eochaidh, as we shall see; and as Eochach is
also called son of Eochach by Tighernac, this leaves no doubt that he
and Alpin were brothers.
Footnote 385:
727 Congressio Irroisfoichne, ubi quidam ceciderunt _den dibh
Airgiallaibh_ inter Selbacum et familiam Echdach nepotis
Domhnaill.—_An. Ult._ This term ‘Airgialla’ is the same word as that
applied to the territory said to have been acquired from the Picts in
Ulster by the three Collas in the fourth century, of which Emhan or
Emania was the capital. It was called Oirgialla or Airgialla, from
which comes the modern name of Oriel; but this Airgialla cannot here
be meant, for in the tract on the Men of Alban we are told that ‘the
armed muster of the Cinel Loarn was 700 men; but it is of the
Airgialla that the seventh hundred is’ (_acht is dinaibh Airgiall in
Sechtmadh cet._—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 313). This name was
therefore likewise applied to two districts whose people were subject
to the Cinel Loarn, and contributed 100 men to their armed muster, and
were probably the ‘Comites’ who fought along with Sealbach in 719.
This leads us to look to the origin of the name. ‘Gialla’ is a
hostage, and the tribes who owed fealty to the head of a superior
tribe gave hostages for the fulfilment of their obligation. When any
failure took place in their duty, these hostages were fettered. Thus,
at the king’s table, as described in the Crith Gablach, sat on one
side the hostages, and at the extreme end the forfeited hostages or
pledges in fetters (see Introduction to O’Curry’s _Lectures_, p.
cccli); and in the Pictish legends Finach takes hostages (Gialla) of
the Cruithnigh, and Fiachna mac Baedan fetters the hostages of Erin
and Alban.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 24, 320. Now we learn from
the Book of Rights that it was a privilege of the kingdom of Airgialla
that ‘their hostages were not bound in fetters nor in chains, save
that they swear by the hand of the king that they will not then make
their escape’ (see _Book of Rights_, p. 135); and a tract on
Oirghialla states that whenever the hostage of the Oirghialla was
fettered, golden chains were used for the purpose, and that it was
hence they were called Oirghialla, _i.e._ of the golden hostages. The
Airgialla of Dalriada were therefore districts which owed fealty to
the Cinel Loarn, but possessed the same privileges which gave that
name to the Irish Airgialla; and the central districts between the
territories of the Cinel Loarn, Cinel Gabbran, and Cinel Comgall,
situated on both sides of Loch Awe, and occupied by the remains of the
older population, were probably the districts known by the name of the
two Airgiallas.
Footnote 386:
733 Eochach mac Eochach ri Dalriada et Conall mac Concobair mortui
sunt.—_Tigh._
Footnote 387:
728 Cath Monaigh Craebi itir Piccardachaib fein (between the Picts
themselves) _i.e._ Aengus et Alpine issiat tuc in cath (fought that
battle), et ro mebaigh ria (the victory was with) n Aengus et ro
marbhadh mac Alpin andsin (and the son of Alpin was slain there) et ro
gab Aengus nert (and Angus took his person). Cath truadh itir (an
unfortunate battle between the) Piccardachaebh ac Caislen Credhi et ro
mebaigh ar in (and the victory was against the same), Alpin et ro
bearadh a cricha et a daine de uile (and his territories and all his
men were taken), et ro gab Nechtan mac Derili Righi na Picardach (lost
the kingdom of the Picts).—_Tigh._ The Ulster Annals add,—‘ubi Alpinus
effugit.’
Footnote 388:
729 Bellum Monitcarno juxta stagnum Loogdae inter hostem Nechtain et
exercitum Aengusa et exactatores Nechtain ceciderunt, id est, Biceot
mac Moneit et filius ejus et Finguine mac Drostain, Ferot mac Finguine
et alii multi. Familia Aengusia triumphavit.—_An. Ult._ The Stagnum
Loogdeae is mentioned in Adamnan’s _Life of St. Columba_, and what is
there stated, taken in connection with this battle, seems to place it
on the Spey. See Reeves’s _Adamnan_, ed. 1874, pp. 258, 357. Exactor
was a term applied to the Saxon thane.
Footnote 389:
Cath Dromaderg Blathmig etir Piccardachaibh, _i.e._ Druist et Aengus
Ri na Piccandach et ro marbhadh (was slain) Drust andsin in dara la
deg do mi Aughuist (there on the twelfth day of the month of
August).—_Tigh._ Dromaderg Blathmig means ‘the red ridge of Blathmig.’
Footnote 390:
Cath etir mac Aengusa et mac Congusa sunt Brudheus vicit Talorcum
fugientem.—_Tigh._ 732 Nechtan mac Derili mortuus.—_Tigh._
Footnote 391:
733 Dungal mac Selbaich dehonoravit Toraic cum traxit Brudeum ex ea et
eadem vice insulam Culrenrigi invasit.—_An. Ult._ The corresponding
entry in Tighernac is corrupt.
Muredhach mac Ainbhcellach regnum generis Loarn assumit.—_Tigh._
Flaithbertach classem Dalriada in Iberniam duxit et cædes magna facta
est de eis in insula Honie ubi hi trucidantur viri Concobar mac
Lochene, et Branchu mac Brain et multi in flumine dimersi sunt de eis
in Banna.—_Tigh._
734 Tolarg mac Congusa a brathair fein dia gabhail et tuc illaimh na
Piccardach et ro baighed leoseden h. e. (taken by his own brother and
delivered into the hands of the Picts, and he was drowned by
them).—_Tigh._
Talorgan filius Drostain comprehensus alligatur juxta arcem Ollaigh.
Dunleithfinn destruitur post vulnerationem Dungaile et in Hiberniam a
potestate Aengusii fugatus est.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 392:
736 Aengus mac Fergusa rex Pictorum vastavit regiones Dailriata et
obtinuit Dunad et combussit Creic et duos filios Selbaiche catenis
alligavit, id est, Dongal et Feradach, et paulo post Brudeus mac
Aengusa mic Fergusa obiit.—_Tigh._
Footnote 393:
736 Bellum Cnuicc Coirpri i Calathros uc etar Linndu inter Dalriatai
et Fortrenn et Talorgan mac Ferguso filium Ainbhceallach fugientem cum
exercitu persequitur in qua congressione multi nobiles
ceciderunt.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 394:
740 Eratque rex eorum Eadberctus occupatus cum suo exercitu contra
Pictos.—Bede, _Chron._
Footnote 395:
741 Bellum Droma Cathmail inter Cruithniu et Dalriati for
Innrechtac.—_An. Ult._ The only notice the author has been able to
find of a place called Cathmail is in a poem attributed to Saint
Columba in honour of Saint Cormac ua Liathan, mentioned in Adamnan’s
Life, when he came to Iona. One stanza is this:—
When the blooming sweet man had arrived
At Cross Cormac, at his church,
Then rang the soft-toned bell
Here at the city of Cathmail.
(See Reeves’s _Adamnan_, orig. edit., p. 270.) The translation has
been made a little more literal, and the only church which bears
Cormac’s name in Scotland is Kirk Cormac, in the parish of Kelton in
Galloway, some miles north of Kirkcudbright. The writer of the
Statistical Account says that ‘its surface abounds with small hills of
a conical figure called _Drums_;’ and ‘on the north-east is the green
hill of Dungayle, whose summit was once crowned with a strong fort.’
Dungayle is probably a corruption from _Dun G-cathmhail_, the
aspirated consonants being quiescent.—_N. S. A._ vol. iv. pp. 144-5.
Footnote 396:
Cesty fust tue en Goloway, com il le avoit destruyt, de un soul hom qi
ly gayta en un espesse boys en pendaunt al entree dun ge de un ryvere,
com chevaucheoit entre ses gentz.—_Scalachron._
Footnote 397:
Chalmers identifies Laight Alpin with an old ruin in Loch Doon called
Laight Castle, founding on a charter by William the Lion to the town
of Ayr, which implies that Laight Alpin was on the border between
Ayrshire and Galloway; but the name really belongs to the farms of
Meikle and Little Laight on the eastern shore of Loch Ryan, and the
stone is on the very line of separation between the counties of Ayr
and Wigtown.
Footnote 398:
741 Percussio Dalriatai la Aengus mac Ferguso.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 399:
See the introduction to Fordun’s Chronicle, vol. ii., for a full
exposition of the manipulation of the Chronicles at this time. The
three kings given in the Ulster Annals are—A.D. 778 Aedfinn mac Ecdach
rex Dalriati mortuus est. 781 Fergus mac Echach ri Dalriati defunctus
est. 792 Donncorci rex Dalriatai obiit. The form ‘rex Dalriati’ and
‘Dalriatai’ means rather king of the Dalriads than of Dalriada. The
Annals of Ulster have in 700 ‘Fiannain nepos Duncho rex Dalriati,’ who
was evidently of the Irish Dalriada; and the Annals of the Four
Masters, which have the same four, call the first ‘Toisech’ and the
other three ‘Tighearn Dalriada,’ or Lords of Dalriada; and, as these
annals contain Irish events only, the compilers evidently considered
them all as belonging to Irish Dalriada. Flann Mainistrech and the
Albanic Duan have an Aed among their kings, whose time corresponds
with the first of these kings.
Footnote 400:
Pinkerton, who was the first to see the difference between the
statement in the Albanic Duan and the latter Chronicle, and to give
the preference to the former, quotes from the Annals of Ulster the
following:—A.D. 740, Death of Dunlaing, son of Duncan, king of the
sept of Argyle (Argal); and A.D. 811, Angus, son of Dunlaing, king of
Argyle (Ardgail), died; and argues from them that these were the
remains of the Dalriads who continued to possess part of the country
of Argyll (vol. ii. p. 127). He quoted, however, from a bad copy of
the Annals of Ulster. In the original the word is Ardgail, a district
in Meath, in Ireland, and has no connection with the name Argyll. See
also the introduction to Fordun’s Chronicle, ed. 1872, vol. ii. p.
xlvi note.
Footnote 401:
744 Factum est prælium inter Pictos et Britones.—Sim. Dun. _Hist.
Regum_. 750 Eadberctus campum Cyil cum aliis regionibus suo regno
addidit.—Bede, _Chron._
Footnote 402:
750 Cath etir Pictones et Britones, id est a Talorgan mac Fergusa et a
brathair et ar Piccardach imaille friss (and his brother and a
slaughter of Picts with him).—_Tigh._ 750 Bellum inter Pictos et
Brittones id est, Gueith Mocetauc et rex eorum Talorgan a Brittonibus
occiditur.—_An. Cam._ It is plain that these were the same Picts whom
Muredach the Dalriad attacked in 736, as Talorgan appears at their
head on both occasions.
Footnote 403:
752 Taudar mac Bile Ri Alochlandaih (Alochluaithe) mortuus est. Cuth a
sreith in terra Circin inter Pictones invicem in quo cecidit Bruidhi
mac Maelchon.—_Tigh._ Circin was the name of one of the seven sons of
Cruithne, and of the seven districts which bore the same names. It
enters into Magh Girgin as the plain of Circin, softened to Moerne or
Mearns.
Footnote 404:
756 Eadberht rex, xviii. anno regni sui, et Unust rex Pictorum
duxerunt exercitum ad urbem Alcluth. Ibique Brittones in deditionem
receperunt prima die mensis Augusti. Decima autem die ejusdem mensis
interiit exercitus pene omnis quem duxit (Eadberhtus) de Ouania ad
Niwanbirig, id est, ad novam civitatem.—_Sim. Dun._
Footnote 405:
760 Dunnagual filius Teudubr moritur.—_An. Cam._
Footnote 406:
761 Aengusa mac Fergusa rex Pictorum mortuus.—_Tigh._ Oengus Pictorum
rex obiit, qui regni sui principium usque ad finem facinore cruento
tyrannus perduxit carnifex.—Bede, _Chron._ There seems to have been
some doubt as to the year of his death, as Simeon of Durham has at
759, ‘Ipso quoque anno Unust Pictorum rex defunctus est;’ and
Tighernac enters his death twice, having also at 759, Aengus ri Albain
mortuus; but 761 seems to be best supported.
Footnote 407:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 138.
Footnote 408:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 183.
Footnote 409:
Mors Tuathalain Abbas Cindrighmonaigh.—_Tigh._ The events of the reign
of this Hungus, including the foundation of St. Andrews, are, by the
artificial system by which this part of the history has been
manipulated, removed back to the fourth century; but as a war with a
Saxon king at that early period was too monstrous, that part of the
legend is transferred to a later Hungus. A chronicle, however, annexed
to a MS. of Wynton, gives us very nearly the true date. ‘The zeire of
God sevyn hunder lxi., ye relikis of Sanct Androw ye apostle com in
Scotland’ (_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 387). Adhelstan, with whom the
battle was fought, is supposed to have given his name to
Athelstaneford on the Tyne in East Lothian. If the name is historical,
and not merely taken from the later Athelstane who invaded Scotland in
the tenth century, it must have belonged to a ‘dux’ or commander under
the king of Northumbria, and the name of Aedlsing occurs in the
genealogies of the Bernician family annexed to Nennius about this
time, who may be the person meant.
Footnote 410:
763 Bruidhi Ri Fortchernn (Fortren, _An. Ult._) mortuus est.—_Tigh._
Footnote 411:
Cujus tertio anno inchoante, gravissimum juxta Eldunum secus Melros
gestum est bellum octavo idus Augusti, in quo cecidit Oswine post
triduum, prima feria. The place meant is the Eildon Hill near Melrose.
The Saxon Chronicle calls the place Edwine’s Cliffe.
Footnote 412:
768 Bellum i Fortrinn ittir Aedh et Cinaedh.—_An. Ult._ The Annals of
the Four Masters record this as a battle between Aedh and Cinaedh, son
of Flann, Leinster men, where Aedh was slain, but there was no place
called Fortrenn in Leinster. It is probably a mere speculative
identity by the compilers.
Footnote 413:
The word used by Flann, ‘Airgnech’ in one MS. and ‘Airectech’ in
another, both formed from the verb Airce, to plunder or rob. The Duan
has ‘Aodh na Ardfhlaith.’
Footnote 414:
784 Adventus reliquiarum filiorum Eirc ad civitatem Tailten.—_An.
Ult._ ‘The chiefs of Ulster before Conchobar were buried at Tailte,
namely, Ollamh Fotla and seven of his sons and grandsons and others of
the chiefs of Ulster.’—_Tract on Cemeteries in Lebor na Huidri_, p.
38.
Footnote 415:
Sim. Dun. 775 Rex Pictorum Cynoth ex voragine hujus cœnulentæ vitæ
eripitur.
775 Mors Cinadhon regis Pictorum.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 416:
Elpin rex Saxonum moritur.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 417:
782 Dubhtolargg rex Pictorum citra Monoth periit.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 418:
789 Bellum inter Pictos ubi Conall mac Taidg victus est et evasit et
Constantin victor fuit. 790 Vel hic bellum Conall et Constantin
secundum alios libros.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 419:
807 Jugulatio Conall mac Taidg o Conall mac Aedain i Ciunntire.—_An.
Ult._
Footnote 420:
Sim. Dun. _Hist. Regum_, ad an. 793.
Footnote 421:
Sim. Dun. _Hist. Reg._, ad an. 794.
Footnote 422:
794 Vastatio omnium insolarum Britanniæ a gentibus.—_An. Ult._ Orcain
(plunder of) Iæ Coluimchille.—_An. Inis._
798 Indreda mara doaibh eene etir (spoils of the sea taken by them
between) Erinn agus Albain.—_An. Ult._
802 Hi Coluimbea cille a gentibus combusta est.—_An. Ult._
806 Familia Iæ occisa est a gentibus, .i. lx. octo.—_An. Ult._
Ochtar is da fithchid dona Mannachaibh an Aoi Choluimchille do
mharbbadh do Lochlannaibh (forty-eight of the number of Icolumkill
slain by the Lochlanns).—_An. Inisf._
Footnote 423:
See Dr. Todd’s _War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill_, Int. p. xxx, for a
good account of these names.
Footnote 424:
807 Constructio novæ civitatis Coluimcille in Cennanus.—_An. Ult._ 814
Ceallach abbas Iæ finita constructione templi Cenindsa reliquit
principatum et Diarmicius alumpnus Daigri pro eo ordinatus est.—_An.
Ult._ Some of the chronicles state that Garnard, son of Donald, king
of the Picts, founded Abernethy 225 years and 11 months before the
church of Dunkeld was built by Constantin, king of the Picts.—(_Chron.
Picts and Scots_, p. 201.) Garnad reigned from 584 to 599, which
places the foundation of Dunkeld between 809 and 824, but Constantin
ruled over Dalriada from 807 to 816, and died in 820, which fixes its
foundation to the same period.
Footnote 425:
820 Custantin mac Fergusa rex Fortren moritur.—_An. Ult._
825 Martre Blaimhicc meic Flainn o Gentib in Hi. Coluim Cille.—_An.
Ult._
Footnote 426:
834 Aengus mac Fergusa rex Fortrenn moritur.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 427:
Anno ab incarnatione Domini octingentesimo tricesimo quarto congressi
sunt Scotti cum Pictis in sollempnitate Paschali. Et plures de
nobilioribus Pictorum ceciderunt. Sicque Alpinus Rex Scottorum victor
extitit, unde in superbiam elatus ab eis, altero concerto bello,
tercio decimo kal. Augusti ejusdem anni a Pictis vincitur atque
truncatur.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 209.
Footnote 428:
_War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill_, pp. 13, 226. 839 Bellum re
genntib for firu Fortrenn (by the Gentiles against the men of
Fortrenn) in quo Euganan mac Oengusa et Bran mac Oengusa et Aed mac
Boanta et alii pene innumerabiles ceciderunt.—_An. Ult._ In the
Albanic Duan Aedh rules for four years over Dalriada and Eoghanain
thirteen, in all seventeen years. But Aengus ruled till 825, and
Eoganan is slain in 839, which gives only fourteen years, so that it
is plain that Aed, son of Boanta, governed Dalriada during three of
the years of Eoganan’s rule, which is exactly the length of his reign
over the Picts.
Footnote 429:
Cujus filius Kynadius successit in regno patris qui vii^o regni sui
anno, cum piratæ Danorum, occupatis littoribus, Pictos sua
defendentes, strage maxima pertrivissent, in reliquos Pictorum
terminos transiens, arma vertit et multis occisis fugere compulit,
sicque monarchiam totius Albaniæ, quæ nunc Scotia dicitur, primus
Scottorum rex conquisivit et in ea primo super Scottos
regnavit.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 209. The Chronicle of
Huntingdon says Kynadius reigned twenty-eight years, and in order to
adjust the chronology of his reign it is necessary to ascertain the
true year of his death. This we can fortunately do. The Ulster Annals
place it in 858, the Annales Cambriæ in 856, but the Pictish Chronicle
tells us that he died on the Ides or thirteenth of February, on a
Tuesday. Now the thirteenth of February fell on a Tuesday in the year
860, which is the true year of his death. This gives 832 in place of
834 as the commencement of his reign and the year of his father
Alpin’s death, and 839 as his seventh year. 832 is also the correct
year of the death of Aengus, son of Fergus, for his predecessor
Constantin died in 820, and Aengus is said in the Pictish Chronicle to
have reigned only twelve years.
Footnote 430:
Qui anno xii^o regni sui septies in una die cum Pictis congruitur
multisque pertritis regnum sibi confirmat et regnavit xxviii.
annis.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 209. Twelve years and the sixteen
of the Pictish Chronicle make it twenty-eight.
Footnote 431:
Kinadius igitur filius Alpini, primus Scottorum rexit feliciter istam
annis xvi. Pictaviam.... Iste vero biennio antequam veniret Pictaviam,
Dalrietæ regnum suscepit.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 8.
Footnote 432:
Iste occisus est apud Fertheviot, secundum quosdam Sconam, a
Scottis.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 151.
Footnote 433:
Septimo anno regni sui, reliquias Sancti Columbæ transportavit ad
ecclesiam quam construxit.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 8.
Footnote 434:
Invasit sexies Saxoniam et concremavit Dunbarre atque Mailros
usurpata. Britanni autem concremaverunt Dubblain atque Danari
vastaverunt Pictaviam ad Cluanan et Duncalden.—_Ib._ p. 8. In the
Lodbrokar-quida, or death-song of Ragnar Lodbrok, it is said, in v.
12, ‘At Bartha-firdi down from our points distilled the dew (of
death).’ Barthafirdi may be the Firth of Tay, and the allusion may be
to the invasion of Danes under Ragnar.
Footnote 435:
Nec præterea plures alicubi reperio, quod cito defecerit episcopatus,
quia extrema, ut dixi, Anglorum ora est, et Scottorum vel Pictorum
depopulationi opportuna.—_Gest. Pont._ Lib. iii. § 115. The last
mention of Beadulf is in 795.
Footnote 436:
Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis, p. 66.
Footnote 437:
Collectanea, p. 67. 856 Cocadh mor ettir Gennti et Maelsechnall con
Gallgaidhel leis.—_An. Ult._ 857 Roiniud ren Imar et ren Amlaiph for
Caittil Find con Gallgaidhel hi tiribh Mumhan.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 438:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 403, 404.
Footnote 439:
_Ib._ p. 84.
Footnote 440:
Cinaet mac Ailpin. Ise cet righ rogab righe Scoinde do
Gaidelaib.—_Flann._ 856 Cemoyth rex Pictorum moritur.—_An. Cam._ 858
Cinaeth mac Ailpin rex Pictorum mortuus est.—_An. Ult._ 858 Cionaodh
mac Ailpin rex Pictorum moritur.—_Fragm. An._
Footnote 441:
For the first daughter the authority is the Pictish Chronicle.
Pinkerton reads this name Ku, mistaking K for R, and overlooking the
stroke over the u which marks an n. He has been followed by all
subsequent writers. The second appears from the Fragments of Irish
Annals, p. 172. The Ulster Annals have at 917 Mailmaire inghen Cinaeda
mac Alpin mor.
Footnote 442:
Deus enim eos pro merito suæ malitiæ alienos ac otiosos hereditate
dignatus est facere, quia illi non solum Domini missam ac preceptum
spreverunt, sed et in jure æquitatis aliis æqui parari
noluerunt.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 8.
Footnote 443:
The Annals of Ulster have at 865 Tuathal mac Artguso primus episcopus
Fortrenn et abbas Duincaillenn dormivit.—_Ib._ p. 391.
Footnote 444:
Hic mira caliditate duxit Scotos de Argadia in terra Pictorum.—_Chron.
Picts and Scots_, p. 174.
Footnote 445:
‘Kinadius igitur filius Alpini primus Scottorum rexit feliciter
_istam_ annis xvi. Pictaviam.’ Pictavia has not been before mentioned.
‘Pictavia autem a Pictis est nominatur; _quos, ut diximus, Cinadius
delevit_.’
Footnote 446:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 299. Higden, _Polychronicon_, ed. ii.
148. That this statement in both was taken from the Pictish Chronicle
appears from its concluding thus: ‘Kynadius filius Alpini perfidens
Pictaviam invasit, Pictos delevit et Saxones sexies expugnavit et
terram dudum Anglicis subactam quæ est a mari Scotiæ usque ad Mailros
quæ est in ripa Twedæ fluminis suo dominio subjugavit.’ The sympathy
of the compilers of this account too is with the Picts.
Footnote 447:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 163 and 202.
Footnote 448:
This expression, ‘Pictos delevit,’ which terminates the omitted
account, obviously corresponds with the expression in the Pictish
Chronicle, ‘quos, ut diximus, Cinadius delevit.’ It is evidently to
the slaughter of the Pictish nobles by this stratagem that the
expression refers.
Footnote 449:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 83. The translation is slightly altered.
Footnote 450:
It is not impossible that this immigration, whether secular or
ecclesiastic, may have been aided by the king of Ireland, and that the
following notices refer to it:—
819 Mors Aedha mac Neill juxta vadum duorum mirabilium (Athdaferta) in
Campo Conaille.—_An. Ult._
Mors Aeda meic Neill Righ Temrach for sluagud (king of Tara while
carrying on war) in Alban.—_Inisf._
Aodh Oirdnighe mac Neill Frasaigh na Righ atteamhair da bliaghain is
fiche gur eag ag (king of Tara twenty-two years till he died at)
Athdaferta a Tirconaill. Acht abaraiddrong do na Seanchaibh gur
accaith Droma do torcraidhe (but other senachies say that was in the
battle of Droma that he was slain).—_Inisf._ The battle of Droma seems
connected with the statement that he carried on war in Alban when he
was slain. This would give 819 as the date of this invasion.
Footnote 451:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 424.
Footnote 452:
_Ibid._ Alii ex Scotis Anglisque collectis.—Boethii _Hist. Fol._
Footnote 453:
_Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, p. 309.
Footnote 454:
I sunn condrecaidh Clann Fergusa Guill mic Eachach Buide .i. Gabranaig
agus Clann Conaill Cirr mic Eachach Buide .i. Fir Fibe fris in rigraid
.i. Clann Cinaeda mic Ailpin mic Aedain.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p.
315.
Footnote 455:
See _ante_, p. 302.
Footnote 456:
This is shown in the Tract on the Coronation Stone, p. 35.
Footnote 457:
In hujus tempore jura ac leges regni Edi filii Ecdach fecerunt Goedeli
cum rege suo in Fothuirthabaicth.
Footnote 458:
‘Primo ejus anno Maelsechnaill rex Hibernensium obiit.’ The Annals of
Ulster have Maelsechnaill’s death in 861, but the 30th November fell
on a Tuesday in 863, showing that the Annals of Ulster are at this
time usually two years behind the true date, as in the years of
Kenneth’s and Donald’s deaths.
Footnote 459:
Post duos annos vastavit Amlaib cum gentibus suis Pictaviam et
habitavit eam a kalendis Januarii usque ad festum Sancti Patricii.
Tertio iterum anno Amlaib trahens cetum a Constantino occisus est.
Footnote 460:
866 Amlaiph et Aiusle do dul i Fortrenn con Gallaibh Erenn et Alban et
con rinnriset Cruitintuait n-uile et con tugsat an giallo.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 461:
See Fragments of Annals, _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 405. ‘Fortrenn
was plundered and ravaged by the Lochlanns, and they carried off many
hostages with them as pledges for tribute, and they were paid tribute
for a long time after;’ and p. 172 for his wife being a daughter of
Kenneth. His death is not recorded in the Irish Annals. He is
mentioned up to 870, but not later.
Footnote 462:
870 Obsessio Aileccluithe a Nordmannis .i. Amlaiph et Imhair ii. reges
Nordmannorum obsederunt arcem illam et destruxerunt in fine 4 mensium
arcem et prædaverunt.—_An. Ult._
Arx Alclut a gentibus fracta est.—_An. Camb._ See also Fragments of
Annals, _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 405.
Footnote 463:
871 Amlaiph et Imhar do thuidhecht a frithisi du Athacliath a Albain
dibh cedaib long (came again to Athacliath from Alban with 200 ships),
et præda maxima hominum Anglorum et Britonum et Pictorum deducta est
secum ad Hiberniam in captivitate.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 464:
872 Artgha rex Britannorum Sratha-Cluaidhe consilio Constantini filii
Cinaedo occisus est.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 465:
The descent of these kings is given in the Welsh Genealogies attached
to Nennius.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 15.
Footnote 466:
_Ib._ p. 85.
Footnote 467:
Predictus exercitus (Danorum Repadun deseruit) seseque in duas partes
divisit. Una pars cum Haldene ad regionem Nordanhymbrorum secessit et
eam vastavit et hiemavit juxta flumen quod dicitur Tine et totam
gentem suo dominatui subdidit et Pictos atque Strathduccenses
depopulati sunt.—_Sim. Dun._ 875 Congressio Pictorum for Dubgallu et
strages magna Pictorum facta est.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 468:
And oft ge hergode on Pehtas and on Stræcled Wealas.—_Sax. Chron._ _ad
an._ 875.
Ast crebrius inducunt Pihtis bellum Cumbrisque.—_Ethelwerd Chron._
Footnote 469:
_Collect. Reb. Alb._ pp. 66, 69.
Footnote 470:
Normanni annum integrum degerunt in Pictavia.—_Pict. Chron._ 875 Ostin
mac Amlaiph regis Nordmannorum ab Albanensibus per dolum occisus
est.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 471:
Tract on the Wars of the Gaidhil with the Gaill, p. 232. What the
concluding sentence alludes to it is impossible now to say. ‘Paulo
post ab eo bello in xiiij ejus facto in Dolair inter Danarios et
Scottos. Occisi sunt Scotti co Ach Cochlam.’—_Pict. Chron._ The notice
of Constantin’s reign by St. Berchan is defective, a few lines being
lost in the concluding part, but there are still preserved the last
two lines, which are significant enough—
On Thursday, in pools of blood,
On the shore of Inbhirdubhroda.
The Chronicle of St. Andrews has ‘Interfectus est a Norwegiensibus in
bello Inverdufatha,’ which is obviously the same name as
Inbhirdubhroda: the one meaning the Inver of the black ford, the
other, of the black road. A record of this battle seems preserved in a
charter in the Chartulary of St. Andrews, p. 274, where mention is
made of the ‘congeries lapidum juxta viam de Inverdoveth versus
Sanctum Andream.’ By another chronicle it is corrupted to ‘de
Werdofatha,’ and supposing that ‘Wer’ was meant for ‘Wem,’ a cave, the
Chronicum Elegiacum translates it Nigra specus, and from this the
story that king Constantin was killed in a cave seems to have arisen.
But St. Berchan leaves no doubt that Inbhir is the first part of the
word, and the ancient Tract on the wars of the Gaidhel with the Gaill
is conclusive that Constantin was killed in battle. Cochlam is
probably the place called Kathlock, Cathlok, Catholok, between Kilmany
and Inverdovat.
Footnote 472:
876 Constantin mac Cinaeda rex Pictorum moritur.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 473:
Ejus etiam brevitas nil historie memorabile commendavit, sed in
civitate Nrurim est occisus. 878 Aedh mac Cinador rex Pictorum a
sociis suis occisus est.—_An. Ult._ The later chronicles say that he
was slain in battle in Strathallan by his successor Grig; but though
he may have been slain in battle, it is certainly inconsistent with
the earlier notices that his successor should have slain him. In a
pass in the heights which separate Strathallan from Glenartney is a
place called Blairnroar. The word Blair usually marks a battlefield,
and here there are several upright stones and a cairn, in which
several stone coffins were found.—_N.S.A._ vol. x. p. 326. The name is
here misprinted Blairinroan.
Footnote 474:
Eochodius autem filius Run regis Britannorum nepos Cinadei ex filia
regnavit annis xi. Licet Ciricium filium alii dicunt hic
regnasse; eo quod alumpnus ordinatorque Eochodio fiebat.—_Pict.
Chron._ Arthgal, Eocha’s grandfather, died in 872, and he could hardly
have been born before 865. Donald could not have been born much before
that date, if so early.
Footnote 475:
Chalmers announces without hesitation that Girig, or Grig as he calls
him, was the Maormor of the extensive country between the Dee and
Spey, and this has been repeated by most subsequent historians as if
it were undoubted; but he gives no authority for it, and appears to
have founded it upon the tradition that Gregory the Great, as he was
called, died at Dunadeer in the Garioch. Such traditions, however, are
the creation of our fabulous historians. The later chronicles give him
a reign of twelve years, and add ‘mortuus est in Dundeorn.’ But one
form of these chronicles extends his reign to eighteen years, and this
is followed by Fordun, who changes Dundeorn to Donedoure, converted by
tradition to Dunadeer. That the place meant was Dundurn on the Earn
appears from St. Berchan, who calls him MacRath, or the son of
Fortune, and says
By him shall be attacked the powerful house,
Ah! my heart! _on the banks of the Earn_,
Red shall be the colour of the house before him.
He shall fall by the men of Fortrenn.
Footnote 476:
Ac in ix. ejus anno, in ipso die Cirici, eclipsis solis facta est.
Eochodius cum alumpno suo expulsus est nunc de regno.—_Pict. Chron._
Footnote 477:
Hic subjugavit sibi totam Berniciam et fere Angliam.—_Chron. Picts and
Scots_, p. 288. This is the reading of what is evidently a better copy
of the Chronicle of St. Andrews than that in the register, which reads
‘Hiberniam totam et fere Angliam,’ and has been followed by the later
chronicles. There is no trace of any conquest of Ireland, and Hibernia
seems to have been substituted for Bernicia.
Footnote 478:
Gens Scottorum, innumerabili exercitu coadunato, inter cætera suæ
crudelitatis facinora, Lindisfarnense monasterium sæviens et rapiens
invasit: contra quos dum rex Guthredus, per Sanctum Cuthbertum
confortatus, pugnaturus staret, subito terra dehiscens hostes vivos
omnes absorbuit.—Sim. Dun. _Hist. Ec._ c. 28.
Footnote 479:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 174, and Preface to the _Statuta Ecclesiæ
Scoticanæ_, by Dr. Joseph Robertson, vol. i. p. xiv.—‘Et hic primus
dedit libertatem Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ quæ sub servitute erat ad illud
usque tempus ex constitutione et more Pictorum.’
Footnote 480:
William the Lion gives to the Priory of St. Andrews ‘Ecclesiam Sancti
Cirici de Eglesgirg’ (Chartulary of St. Andrews, p. 218); and at p.
348 we find ‘Ecclesia Sancti Cyrici martyris de Eglisgirg.’
CHAPTER VII.
THE KINGDOM OF ALBAN.
[Sidenote: A.D. 889-900.
Donald, son of Constantin, king of Alban.]
The Scots having now placed Donald, the son of Constantin, and the heir,
according to the law of Tanistry, on the throne,[481] the succession
became firmly established in the male line of the Scottish descendants
of Kenneth mac Alpin, and assumed the not unusual form of an alternate
succession between the houses descended from his two sons. The kingdom
ceased to be called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or
Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the kingdom of
Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer called kings of the
Picts but kings of Alban.
About the time of Donald’s accession the islands of the Orkneys had
become colonised by the Norwegians, who fled before the power of Harald
Harfagr, the king of Norway; and that king having, after his power was
established, sailed to the Orkneys with his fleet, and taken possession,
he gave them on his return to Rognwald, Earl of Maeri, as a compensation
for the loss of his son killed in one of his battles. By him they were
made over to his brother Sigurd, to whom the king gave the title of
Jarl, and thus the Norwegian earldom of Orkney was founded. Soon after
Sigurd’s establishment as earl he invaded Scotland, and, in one account,
‘obtained possession of Caithness and Sutherland and all as far as
Ekkialsbakki;’ in another, ‘Caithness, Sutherland, Ross, and Moray;’ and
in a third, ‘all Caithness and much more of Scotland—Maerhæfui (Moray)
and Ross—and that he built a borg on the southern border of Maerhæfui.’
These were the same districts which had been overrun by Thorstein the
Red, and these Sagas confound the two invasions, and join Sigurd with
Thorstein in their acquisition; but the inexorable logic of dates shows
that the two invasions were different, and that the one was subsequent
to the other.[482] The borg was no doubt built on the promontory called
Torfnes by the Norse, and now Burghead, situated between the Findhorn
and the Spey. We are then told that Melbrigda Tönn, or of the Tooth, a
Scottish jarl, and Earl Sigurd made an arrangement to meet in a certain
place with forty men each in order to come to an agreement regarding
their differences. On the appointed day Sigurd, suspicious of treachery
on the part of the Scots, caused eighty men to be mounted on forty
horses. When Earl Melbrigda saw this, he said to his men, ‘Now we have
been treacherously dealt with by Earl Sigurd, for I see two men’s legs
on one side of each horse, and the men, I believe, are thus twice as
many as the beasts. But let us be brave and kill each his man before we
die.’ Then they made themselves ready. When Sigurd saw it, he also
decided on his plan, and said to his men, ‘Now let one half of your
number dismount and attack them from behind when the troops meet, while
we shall ride at them with all our speed to break their battle-array.’
There was hard fighting immediately, and it was not long till Earl
Melbrigda fell, and all his men with him. Earl Sigurd and his men
fastened their heads to the saddle-straps in bravado, and so they rode
home triumphing in their victory. As they were proceeding, Earl Sigurd,
intending to kick at his horse with his foot, struck the calf of his leg
against a tooth protruding from Earl Melbrigda’s head, which scratched
him slightly; but it soon became swollen and painful, and he died of it.
Sigurd the Powerful was buried in a mound at Ekkialsbakki.[483]
The power of the Scottish king of Alban, however, could hardly at this
time have extended to these northern districts, and their invasion would
not materially affect Domnall’s position. A Danish invasion, however,
followed some years after, which had for its scene the more southern
districts, and proved fatal to the king himself. Towards the end of this
century a fleet of Danes under the sons of Imhair came to Dublin, and
the greater part of Ireland was plundered by them. After four years
these Danes left Ireland, and invaded Alban under Sitriuc, son of
Imhair. A battle was fought between these Danes and the Scots at a place
which cannot now be recognised under the corrupted name of Visibsolian,
or Visibcolian, in which the Scots claimed to be victorious; but that
they had overrun the southern districts is evident, as Domnall the king
was himself cut off and slain at Dun Fother, or Dunotter.[484]
The Ulster Annals record his death after a reign of eleven years in the
year 900, and he is the first of the kings of the line of Kenneth who is
termed by them _Ri_ or king of Alban.[485]
[Sidenote: A.D. 900-942.
Constantin, son of Aedh, king of Alban.]
He was succeeded, according to the Tanistic usage, by Constantin, son of
Aedh, his father’s brother, who reigned forty years, and was, soon after
his accession, exposed to a similar invasion, for in his third year the
Northmen plundered Dunkeld and the whole of Alban, but in the following
year were cut off in Stratherne, and their leader, Imhair Ua Imhair,
slain by the men of Fortrenn, who are said to have invoked the aid of
Saint Columba, and to have attacked them with the crozier of Saint
Columba at their head as their standard, which was henceforth called the
Cathbuaidh, or Battle-victory.[486]
Constantin seems now to have turned his attention towards consolidating
his kingdom, and obliterating the distinctions between its discordant
elements by placing them on a footing of equality with each other. In
his sixth year a solemn assembly was held on the Mote Hill, near the
royal city of Scone, in which he as king, and Cellach, as bishop of
Kilrymont, or St. Andrews, resolved ‘that the laws and discipline of the
faith, and the rights of the churches and of the evangel, should be
preserved entire and on a footing of equality with the Scots.’[487] By
this declaration the Pictish and Scottish churches were now united into
one, with the bishop of Kilrymont as its head, the supremacy of Dunkeld
ceased, and the bishops of St. Andrews became known as bishops of Alban.
It is to this period also that we may probably attach one of the
accounts given of the division of Alban, or Albania, into seven
provinces. This account is given on the authority of Andrew, Bishop of
Caithness, a Scotsman by birth, and a monk of Dunfermline. He is
mentioned as bishop in the year 1150, and died on 3d December 1184. He
seems to have considered that these provinces were separated from each
other by large rivers or mountain chains, which do not always form what
were evidently their actual boundaries. The first province, he tells us,
extended from the water of Forth, which divides the kingdoms of the
Scots and the Angles, and flows past Stirling, to the river Tay. This
province consists, therefore, of the districts of Menteith and
Stratherne, and was certainly that known by the name of Fortrenn. The
second province extended to the Hilef, and contains the districts
encircled by the sea as far as the hill on the north of the plain of
Stirling called Athran. If by Hilef he means the river Isla, he must
have supposed that instead of falling into the Tay it flowed in a direct
line towards the sea, but he may also have meant the place now called
Lyff, on the present boundary between the counties of Perth and Forfar
at the sea. By Athran, Aithrie, near Stirling, is meant, and this
province evidently contained the whole peninsula of Fife, including
Kinross and Clackmannan, along with the district of Gowrie. The third
province extends from Hilef to the Dee, and contains the old districts
of Angus and Mearns, now the counties of Forfar and Kincardine. The
fourth province extended from the river Dee to the river Spey, and
included the old districts of Mar and Buchan, now the counties of
Aberdeen and Banff. The fifth province extended from the Spey to the
mountains of Brumalban, or Breadalbane, and by it the district of Atholl
seems meant. The sixth province was Muref or Moray in its extended
sense, and Ross; and the seventh was Arregaithel.[488]
[Illustration:
THE
KINGDOM OF
ALBAN
_W. & A.K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London_
]
A comparison of this description of the sevenfold division of Alban with
the other account contained in the same tract, and which we relegated to
the reign of Nectan, king of the Picts, in the early part of the eighth
century, will show the change which the two intervening centuries had
produced in the aspect of the kingdom.
The first five provinces, the boundaries of which are given by the
natural features of rivers, mountains, and sea, instead of by the old
names of the districts included in each, now constituted what was,
strictly speaking, the kingdom of Alban or Albania, at this time
extending from the Forth to the Spey. The changes which had taken place
within its bounds consisted, in the main, of the district of Gowrie
being detached from that of Atholl, with which it had formed one of the
provinces in the earlier state of them, and being combined with Fife and
Fothrif, which had formed another of the earlier provinces, into one
central region, the occupiers of which now appear as Scotti or Scots. It
was, no doubt, the nucleus of the settlement of Scots which had taken
place in the Pictish territory, and Gowrie became the heart of the
kingdom of Alban in which its capital, Scone, was situated. West of it,
in the province extending from the Forth to the Tay, were the old
districts of Stratherne and Menteith, the people of which were still
called the Men of Fortrenn. They were probably remains of the Pictish
inhabitants, and had for their chief stronghold Dundurn, at the east end
of Loch Earn. Forteviot, which had also belonged to them, and which is
but a few miles from the west bank of the Tay, now belonged to the
Scots, and was one of the seats of their kings. North of this central
region was Atholl, and east of it a province extending from Hilef to the
Dee, the northern part of which was occupied by a people called the Men
of Moerne, also probably remains of the Pictish population, whose chief
stronghold was Dun Fother or Dunotter; and north of them, extending from
the Dee to the Spey, was the most northerly province included in the
kingdom, which must still have been to a great extent Pictish.
The territory overrun by Thorstein the Red, and by Sigurd, earl of
Orkney, consisted of the two earlier provinces beyond the Spey, which
formed the northern boundary of the kingdom of Alban strictly so called.
One of them, consisting of Muref and Ross, is included in the list of
later provinces, as being still under its native rulers, but the other,
Cathanesia, disappears, as being attached to the Norwegian earldom of
Orkney. In place of it we have Arregaithel, now connected with the
kingdom. The new province thus introduced must not, however, be
absolutely identified, as is usual, with the kingdom of Dalriada, which
was omitted from the list of the earlier provinces, as being then a
separate kingdom of the Scots. It no doubt included it, but had a much
more extensive signification, embracing the western districts extending
from the Firth of Clyde to Loch Broom, and derives its name from being
the border or coast region of the Gaedhel or Gael, a name now applied to
all the inhabitants of Scotland who belonged to the Gaelic branch of the
Celtic race.[489] The organisation of these seven provinces appears to
have been quite analogous to that of Ireland. The unit was the _Tuath_
or tribe; several Tuaths formed a _Mortuath_ or great tribe; two or more
Mortuaths a _Coicidh_ or province; and at the head of each was the _Ri_
or king; while each province contributed a portion of its territory, at
their point of junction, to form a central district, in which the
capital of the whole county was placed, and the _Ri_ or king, who was
elected to be its _Ardri_ or sovereign, had his seat of government. In
this account the provinces are termed ‘regna’ or kingdoms. Under each
province was the ‘subregio’ or _mortuath_, with its ‘Regulus’ or _Ri
mortuath_, and composed, no doubt, of a certain number of _tuaths_ or
tribes, with their chiefs or _Ri tuaith_; and where the four southern
provinces met, was the central district in which the capital, Scone, the
seat of the _Ardri Albain_, was placed. At the period to which the
description of the provinces given us by Andrew, bishop of Caithness,
belongs, this organisation had been so far modified, that the title of
Ri, or king, is no longer borne by the heads of the tuath or tribe, and
the mortuath or subregion, but at the head of the _tuath_ is the
_Toisech_, and of the _mortuath_, the _Mormaor_. The latter dignity,
however, was still hereditary, and in the district of Angus, which was
more immediately under Scottish influence and authority, we find it
descending in the male line, while, in the most northern district of the
kingdom of Alban proper, the Pictish law of succession through females
was still observed.[490]
Beyond these seven provinces on the north were the islands of Orkney and
Shetland, which were now colonised by the Norwegians. On the death of
Sigurd, the first earl, he was succeeded by his son Guthorm, who reigned
only one winter, and died childless. When Earl Rognwald, who had
transferred the islands to his brother Sigurd, heard of his death and
that of his son, he sent his son Hallad as earl, but he soon grew tired
of it and resigned the earldom, which was then bestowed upon another son
called Einar, who was earl at this time, and ruled over the Orkneys a
long time.[491] On the west of these provinces lay the Western Islands,
which were likewise colonised by the Norwegians, and were now called the
Inchigall or islands of the _Galls_ or strangers, and the Gaelic
inhabitants of the islands and districts under their rule were now
called the _Gallgaidhel_, a name originally borne by the Gallwegians,
and still used in its territorial sense as synonymous with
Galloway.[492] These islands, with the island of Man, were even more
completely subdued and subjected to the Norwegian rule than any part of
Ireland itself. They were eminently fitted to serve as a stronghold for
the Northern Vikings, whose strength consisted almost entirely in their
large and well-constructed ships, and may be regarded as the centre of
the Norwegian settlements in the west, completely cutting Scotland off
from Ireland, and severing the connection and arresting the intercourse
between them.[493] The Western Isles were termed by them the Sudreys, to
distinguish them from the Orkneys or Northern Islands;[494] and as
Cathannia or Caithness and Sutherland had passed under the influence of
the latter, and become more Norwegian than Scotch, so Galloway appears
to have borne very much the same relation to the former. South of these
provinces was on the east coast what had been the most northern district
of Northumbria, but was now continually overrun by the king of Alban, to
which the name of Saxonia was given; and on the west were the districts
occupied by the Britons of Strathclyde. In the previous century and a
half these had been narrowed to the Vale of the Clyde, with Alclyde or
Dumbarton as its stronghold, and the rest of the British districts had,
along with Galloway, been under the dominion of the Angles of
Northumbria; but their rule had been relaxed during the period of
disorganisation into which the Northumbrian kingdom had fallen, and had
by degrees become little more than nominal, when the invasion of
Bernicia by the Briton Giric, who for a time occupied the Pictish
throne, led to the severance of these districts from Northumbria, and
the whole of the British territory from the Clyde to the river Derwent
in Cumberland became once more united under the rule of an independent
king of the Britons.
The king at this time was Donald, but he appears to have been the last
of the family claiming Roman descent which had hitherto given its kings
to Alclyde; and on his death, which took place in the eighth year of the
reign of King Constantin, the Britons appear to have found no one of
their own race fitted to preserve their new-won independence; and as
they owed it to a king of their own race who occupied the throne of
Alban, so now they accepted a king from Alban by electing Donald, son of
Aedh and brother of Constantin, to fill the throne of Alclyde.[495]
As in the earlier years of his reign Constantin had seen his kingdom
overrun by a horde of Norwegians, who were finally cut off and their
leader slain, so now but a few years elapsed ere he found himself
engaged in a serious encounter with a powerful band of the Danish
pirates, with a more doubtful result. Their leader was Regnwald, the son
or grandson of Inguar or Imhair, son of Ragnar Lodbrog, and the brother
of that Sitriuc who had invaded the kingdom in the latter years of his
predecessor Donald. This Regnwald, in company with two other leaders,
Ottir the Jarl and Oswl Gracaban, broke into the country and ravaged
Dunblane. This took place in the year 912.[496] We next hear of Regnwald
in the following year at the Isle of Man fighting a battle with Barid,
son of Ottir, who is slain;[497] and he appears to have been making his
way to effect a settlement in Ireland, as in 916 we hear of him arriving
with innumerable hordes at Loch da Caech or Waterford, in Ireland, where
they settle for the time and ravage the whole of Ireland. Here they
remain for two years, when the Irish succeed in driving them out of
Munster. They then proceed to Alban and invade the country. Their object
appears to have been to make their way to Northumberland, and the
irruption was so formidable that Constantin united with Eldred, the lord
of Bamborough and ruler over Bernicia, to resist them. The encounter
took place on a moor near the mouth of the river Tyne, which flows
through East Lothian, called, by the Pictish Chronicle, Tynemoor. The
Danes divided themselves into four bands—one under Gothbrith, a brother
of Regnwald; the second under the two earls Ottir and Gracaban; the
third under the young lords; and the fourth under Regnwald himself,
which remained in ambuscade. The Scots invoked the aid of St. Columba,
and advanced to meet them with his crozier, called the Cathbuaidh or
Battle-victory, as their standard, and it did not belie its name, for
the three battalions were routed by the men of Alban, and there was a
great slaughter of the Danes, with the two earls Ottir and Gracaban.
Regnwald then advanced from his ambuscade with the fourth battalion, and
attacked the men of Alban from behind and slew many of them, but neither
Constantin nor any of his maormors fell by him. Night put an end to the
battle, but the Scots had evidently failed in their object, for Regnwald
made his way to the south and took possession of the territories of the
lord of Bamborough.[498]
This was the last invasion of Alban by the Northmen, who had harassed
the kingdom during the whole period of the reigns of Kenneth mac Alpin
and his successors down to Constantin. It was now to obtain a respite
from their incessant invasions for upwards of a century; but if
Constantin had no longer to defend his kingdom against the Northmen, he
had to encounter a new enemy, and the kings of Alban were for the first
time brought into contact with the growing power of the kings of Wessex.
Their relations with the Anglic kings had hitherto been confined to
those of Northumbria alone; but while the power of the latter state had
been waning, that of Wessex had been increasing, and early in the ninth
century these kings had in the person of Ecgbert obtained a supremacy
over the other kingdoms south of the Humber. Their advance to the north,
however, was arrested by their wars with the Danes, which lasted till
the reign of the great Aelfred, who, after a fierce struggle, finally
made a permanent peace with them in 878-883, which was only interrupted
by a renewed struggle of four years from 893 to 897.
Aelfred is said by Simeon of Durham, on the death of Guthred, the Danish
king of Deira, to have had the entire disposal of the whole kingdom of
the Northumbrians, and to have appended to his own kingdom the provinces
south of the East Angles and the Northumbrians;[499] but it was just at
this moment that his renewed struggle with the Danes commenced, and the
Saxon Chronicle, in recording his death, says, ‘he was king over all the
Anglic race, except the part that was under the dominion of the Danes.’
His successor, Eadward the Elder, was supreme over all the states south
of the Humber, but made no attempt to advance beyond it.
The Saxon Chronicle tells us in 924, ‘In this year king Eadward was
chosen for father and for lord by the kings of the Scots, and by the
Scots, and by king Regnall, and by all the Northumbrians, and also by
the king of the Strathclyde Welsh, and by all the Strathclyde Welsh;’
but there is no record of any war beyond the Humber by which the
submission of the northern kingdoms could have been obtained or
enforced. What exactly took place, which could be interpreted by the
Saxon Chronicle into the language of commendation, cannot now be
discovered; but there was nothing in the relations of the northern
kingdoms to the king of Wessex at that time that should naturally have
led to a voluntary surrender of their independence, and the statement
itself contains within it elements of suspicion which lead to doubt of
its genuineness, while it is hard to believe that there was any reality
in it. It was not till the reign of Aethelstan, the son and successor of
the latter, that any serious attempt was made to extend the power of the
Wessex kings beyond the Humber; and the great struggle to which it led
on the part of the northern kingdoms to resist this advance and to
maintain their independence, is sufficient to cast doubt upon mere
nominal claims, unsupported by any events which would naturally have
given rise to the supposed relation involved in them.[500]
With the accession of Aethelstan in 925, and the extension of the power
of the kings of Wessex beyond the Humber, we obtain the valuable
guidance of the Saxon Chronicle in the northern events. Aethelstan no
sooner found himself firmly seated on the throne than he set himself
seriously to work to add Northumbria to his kingdom. His first
proceeding was to form a treaty of alliance with the existing rulers of
Northumbria and with the northern powers who would support him. There
was at this time a close connection between the Danes of Northumbria and
those of Dublin and Waterford. Their chiefs belonged to the same family,
and were equally descended from Inguar or Imhair, as he was termed by
the Irish, the son of Ragnar Lodbrog, who first invaded Northumbria in
867, and the same person was frequently king of Dublin at one time, and
king of Northumbria at another. The Danish king who ruled over Deira at
this time was Sitriuc. He was the same Sitriuc called son of Imhair who
had invaded Dublin in the last year of the reign of Donald, the
predecessor of Constantin. He had been king of Dublin, but had been
driven from thence in the year 920, and became king of the Danes of
Deira. The Saxon Chronicle tells us that in the year 925 a meeting took
place between him and Aethelstan at Tamworth, on the thirtieth of
January, and that Aethelstan gave him his sister as a wife. In the
following year an opportunity unexpectedly offered itself to Aethelstan
by the sudden death of Sitriuc, and he immediately seized the kingdom of
Deira and added it to his own, driving out, according to Simeon of
Durham, Guthferth, the son of Sitriuc, who had succeeded his father. The
northern part of Northumbria, to Bernicia, was at this time under the
rule of a family calling themselves lords of Bamborough, and with
Ealdred, son of Ealdulf of Bamborough, he made peace, maintaining him in
his possessions, and also with Constantin, king of Alban; and, adds the
Saxon Chronicle, they confirmed the peace by pledge and by oaths, at the
place which is called Eamot, on the fourth of the Ides, or the 12th of
July; but the Chronicle stamps its own statement with doubt when it adds
‘and they renounced all idolatry, and after that submitted to him in
peace.’
Anlaf, the eldest son of Sitriuc, had, on his father’s death, gone to
Dublin, and his father’s brother, Guthferth, having attempted, with a
party of Danes from Dublin, to recover the kingdom of Deira, and been
driven out in the following year by Aethelstan, he appears to have gone
to Alban, and there cemented an alliance with Constantin by marrying his
daughter, and they were probably making preparations for an attempt to
recover Anlaf’s kingdom, when Aethelstan anticipated them, and, on the
plea that Constantin had broken the peace, invaded Alban in the year 933
both by sea and land. The Saxon Chronicle merely says that he ravaged a
great part of it; but Simeon of Durham, who places the invasion in the
year 934, tells us that having put Owin, king of the Cumbrians, and
Constantin, king of the Scots, to flight, he ravaged Scotland with his
land force, which consisted of cavalry, as far as Dunfoeder, or
Dunfother, and Wertermore, probably the Saxon form of Kerrimor or
Kirriemuir in Forfarshire, and with his navy as far as Caithness, and in
a great measure depopulated it.[501]
[Sidenote: A.D. 937.
Battle of Brunanburg.]
Three years after this the whole of the northern population beyond the
Humber united in a great effort to wrest Northumbria from Aethelstan,
and the result of this effort was to decide whether the power of the
kings of Wessex was to be arrested at the Humber and their kingdom
limited to the southern part of Britain, or whether it was to extend to
the Firth of Forth, if not to sweep the kingdom of Alban itself within
its grasp. It was resolved to concentrate the northern forces upon
Deira. Constantin and his son-in-law, Anlaf Cuaran as he was called,
were to proceed with a fleet which was to enter the Humber, and a land
army was to advance into Northumbria. The Strathclyde Britons were to
cross the hills which divided them from the Anglic kingdom, and another
Anlaf was to come from Dublin, with a body of the Danes of Dublin to
support them. The chroniclers merely tell us of this battle in general
terms, but we have two detailed accounts of it preserved to us: one from
a Norse source in the Egills Saga, and the other in the poem
commemorating the battle which is preserved to us in the Saxon
Chronicle. Florence of Worcester tells us that Anlaf the Pagan, king of
the Irish and of many islands besides, at the instigation of his
father-in-law Constantin, king of the Scots, entered the mouth of the
river Humber with a powerful fleet. King Aethelstan and his brother
Eadmund the Etheling, met him at a place called Brunnanburg, and after a
battle which lasted from daybreak until evening, slew five reguli and
seven earls, whom the enemy had brought with them as auxiliaries,
shedding more blood than had ever before in England been shed in battle,
and returned home in great triumph, having driven the kings, Anlaf and
Constantin, back to their ships. The latter were terribly cast down by
the destruction of their army, and returned to their country with very
few followers.[502]
The Egills Saga tells us that ‘when Adalsteinn had taken the kingdom
there rose up to war those chiefs who had lost the dominion which their
ancestors had possessed.’ They were ‘Britons, Scots, and Irish’ (Bretar
oc Scotar oc Irar). Among them was ‘Olafr Skotakonungr,’ called the red;
‘he was Scotch by father’s kin, but Danish by mother’s kin; he came of
the race of Ragnar Lodbrok.’[503] He drew together a mighty host, and
went south from Scotland to England, when he harried all Northimbraland,
gained a victory over two earls, who governed it under Adalsteinn, and
subdued all Northimbraland. When Adalsteinn heard this he summoned all
his troops and advanced to meet him. The two armies meet at Vinheidi
(the Vin-heath) by Vinnskoda (the Vin-wood). King Olaf occupied a ‘Borg’
that stood north of the heath, with the greater part of his army, which
encamped on the heath between the wood and the river. South of the heath
was another ‘Borg,’ which was occupied by King Adalsteinn’s army, the
leader of which amuses King Olaf with negotiations for peace till King
Adalsteinn comes to the southern borg with additional troops. After a
preliminary skirmish in which two of King Olaf’s earls had fallen with
many of the Britons and Scots, the main battle takes place between the
two armies, which are about equal in numbers. The details are given very
minutely, but mainly to show the exploits of Egill and his brother from
whom the saga is named. The result was that the army of King Olaf gave
way, and great slaughter was made of them. ‘King Olaf fell there, and
the most part of the troops that Olaf had led, because those that turned
to flee were slain by their pursuers. King Adalsteinn there made a
wonderful victory.’[504] This account, though inaccurate in its details,
for King Olaf or Anlaf was not slain but fled in his ships from the
Humber, is chiefly valuable from the description it gives of the scene
of the battle. The Saxon Chronicle contains the following poem
celebrating the victory, from which we may gather the following
particulars:—
This year King Aethelstan,
Lord of Earls,
Ring-giver of warriors,
And his brother eke
Eadmund Aetheling,
Life-long glory
In battle won,
With edges of swords
At Brunanburh:
which gives us the oldest name of the field of battle. Then we have—
The foes lay low,
The Scots people
And the shipmen,
Death-doomed fell;
showing that they had arrived by sea. Again—
The West Saxons forth
The livelong day
In martial bands
Followed the footsteps
Of the hostile nations.
Again—
The Mercians refused not
The hard hand-play
To any of the warriors
Who with Olaf,
O’er the waves mingling
In the ship’s bosom,
The land had sought
Death-doomed in fight;
showing that Olaf too had arrived by sea. The slaughter too was great.
Five lay
On that battle stead,
Young kings,
By swords laid to sleep,
So seven eke
Of Olaf’s jarls,
Of the army countless,
Shipmen and Scots.
Then both Olaf and Constantin take refuge in their ships, and fly by
sea.
There was put to flight,
The Northmen’s prince,
By need constrained,
To the vessel’s prow,
With a little band.
The bark drove afloat,
The king departed
On the fallow flood,
His life preserved.
So there eke the aged
Came by flight
To his country north,
Constantine,
Hoary warrior.
His son and friends are slain.
He of his kinsmen was bereft,
Of his friends deprived,
On the trysting place,
In conflict slain,
And his son he left
On the slaughter place,
Mangled with wounds,
Young in warfare.
The Northmen who came from Dublin with another Olaf return.
Departed then the Northmen
In their nailed barks,
The darts gory leaving,
On the roaring sea,
O’er the deep water,
Dublin to seek,
Ireland once more,
In mind abashed.
And the poem concludes—
No slaughter has been greater
In this island,
Ever yet
Of folk laid low,
Before this,
By the sword’s edges,
From what books tell us,
Old chroniclers,
Since hither from the East,
Angles and Saxons
Came to land,
O’er the broad seas.
Britain sought
Proud war smiths,
The Welsh o’ercame,
Men for glory eager,
The country gained.[505]
The site of this great battle is one of the problems in English history
which has not yet been solved. It has been generally placed at Brumby or
Brough on the Humber, from the statement that Anlaf entered the Humber
with his ships; but if a large part of his force came from the north by
land, it is unlikely that they would be allowed to penetrate as far as
the Humber before they were met by Aethelstan. Others have looked for it
in Lancashire, from the statement that Anlaf fled in his ships to
Dublin; but the Anlaf who returned to Dublin was Anlaf, son of Godfrey,
king of the Danes of Dublin, who had come to support his brethren in
Northumbria, and he probably landed in Cumberland and made his way with
the Cumbrians from thence to Northumbria and returned as he came. Anlaf,
the son-in-law of Constantin, was Anlaf, son of Sitriuc, and he appears
to have escaped with his father-in-law in the ships from the Humber, and
returned to Scotland.
The poem in the Saxon Chronicle terms the field of battle the
trysting-place, and the Egills Saga likewise implies that the battle had
been fought at the place fixed by Anlaf for the assembling of his
forces. We must therefore look for it at some point suitable for
bringing these forces together. They may be said, in the main, to have
come from three directions. First, a part under Constantin and possibly
his son-in-law Anlaf came in ships up the Humber. Another part,
consisting of the Scotch army, came by land from Scotland; and a third,
consisting of the Cumbrians and the Danes from Dublin, came from the
west, while Aethelstan in his march from the south met them and gave
them battle at a place called Brunanburh in the Saxon Chronicle, and
Vinheidi by the Egills Saga. Simeon of Durham says, in his history of
the kings, that ‘Aethelstan fought at Wendune, and put King Onlaf with
six hundred and fifteen ships, Constantin king of the Scots, and the
king of the Cumbrians, with all their forces, to flight.’ And in his
history of the Church of Durham, he says ‘Aethelstan fought at Weondune,
which is also called Ætbrunnanmere or Brunnanbyrig, against Onlaf, the
son of Guthred, the late king, who had arrived with a fleet of six
hundred and fifteen ships, supported by the auxiliaries of the kings
recently spoken of, that is to say, of the Scots and Cumbrians.’
The Wendune of Simeon is evidently the Vinheidi of the Egills Saga, and
Brunnanbyrig, the Duinbrunde of the Pictish Chronicle, and the Borg on
the river at the northern extremity of the heath occupied by Anlaf and
his army. Now the Humber, with the Ouse which falls into it, is
navigable for vessels as far as Boroughbridge, anciently called Ponte
Burgi, about sixteen miles from York. A little lower down the river was
the important Roman station of Isurium, the ramparts of which still
remain, and here four Roman roads met, two from the south and two from
the north. The Roman road from York passed along the left bank of the
Ouse, until it crossed at a ferry near Aldwark, not far above the
present bridge. Another road from the south passed through
Knaresborough, and joined the former road at this point. From it two
‘Itinera’ went, one direct to the north, and the other to Cataracton or
Catterick on the Swale, whence it proceeded by Stanmore into Cumberland.
The Roman station of Isurium was called by the Angles the ‘Ealdburg,’ or
Old Burgh. It appears in the time of Edward the Confessor as the manor
of Burc, and it is now Aldborough. About a quarter of a mile to the west
of Boroughbridge are three large monoliths, varying from eighteen to
twenty-three feet high. They are now called the Devil’s Arrows; and east
of Aldborough, at a place called Dunsforth, was a tumulus called the
Devil’s Cross; it was broken into many years ago for road materials, and
in it were found human remains.
Aldborough unites almost all the conditions required for the site of
Brunanburgh. The ships which entered the Humber could make their way
thus far. This burg, called by the Angles the old Burg, may have been
the Borg on the river occupied by Anlaf. The Borg, south of the heath,
occupied by Aethelstan, could hardly have been York, as it was too well
known not to be mentioned by name, but may have been the strong position
of Knaresborough, from whence an ancient way led to Aldborough. The
Scots would advance by one of the northern routes, and the Danes of
Dublin and the Cumbrians by the great highway which led from Cumberland
by Catterick. The only authority which gives any indication of its
situation are the Annals of Clonmacnoise, which say that the battle was
fought on the plains of Othlyn. Othlyn is probably Gethlyn, now Getling,
which gives its name to two Wapentakes in the vale of the Swale, which
unites with the Ure close to Aldborough, and forms the river Ouse, which
flows past York into the Humber, and the monuments called the Devil’s
Cross and the Devil’s Arrows may be memorials of the battle.
Soon after Aethelstan had gained this great victory, he was to receive
an unexpected auxiliary in curbing the Danes of Northumberland. In one
of the Norse sagas we are told that Eric, called Bloody Axe, the son of
the Norwegian king Harald Harfagr, sailed with a fleet to the west. He
went first to Orkney, where he recruited his force, and then sailed
south to England, plundering the coasts of Scotland and Northumberland
as he went. On which King Aethelstan offered him a settlement in
Northumberland, if he would defend it against the Danes and other
Vikings and be baptized. Eric accepted their offers, received lands in
Northumberland, where he settled his followers, was baptized, and had
his residence at York.[506]
Aethelstan did not long survive the battle, but died in the year 940,
and was succeeded by his brother Eadmund.
Five years after this great defeat, Constantin, worn out with age and
disappointment, resigned the throne for the pilgrim’s staff, and
committed the kingdom to Malcolm, the son of his predecessor Donald, who
was entitled under the Tanistic law to succeed him.[507] The later
chronicles say that he became abbot of the Culdees of St. Andrews, and
served God in that capacity for five years; but that is importing later
language and ideas into his time, though he appears to have retired to
the monastery of St. Andrews. St. Berchan says—
Afterwards God did call him
To the Recles (monastery) on the brink of the waves,
In the house of the apostle (Andrew) he came to death.
Undefiled was the pilgrim.
He lived ten years after his retirement, and his death is recorded by
the Ulster Annals in the year 952, and by the Pictish Chronicle in the
tenth year of his successor.[508]
[Sidenote: A.D. 942-954.
Malcolm, son of Donald, king of Alban.]
Malcolm commenced his reign by making the first attempt to push the
power of the kings of Alban beyond the Spey. So far as the northern
boundary of the kingdom, their authority seems now to have been pretty
well established; but he now invaded the province of Moreb or Moray
beyond it with his army, and slew Cellach, probably its provincial
king,[509] but with what permanent result we are not told. He was soon,
however, to receive a much more important addition to his dominions in
another direction. In the year 941, we are told by the Saxon Chronicle,
the Northumbrians belied their fealty oaths, and chose Olaf of Ireland
for their king. It is difficult to distinguish between the acts of the
two Anlafs,—the son of Guthfrith and the son of Sitriuc,—in their
appearances in Northumberland, and the chroniclers themselves seem to
share in the difficulty; but following in the main the Saxon Chronicle,
we may hold that this was Anlaf, son of Guthfrith or Godfrey, king of
the Danes of Dublin; but a year after that, having laid waste and burnt
the church of St. Balthere at Tyningham, he suddenly perished. Anlaf,
the son of Sitriuc and son-in-law of Constantin, at length became king
of Northumberland. In the year 943 he took Tamworth by storm, and great
slaughter was made on either side; and the Danes had the victory, and
led away great booty with them. King Eadmund then beset him in
Leicester, and would have captured him had he not escaped out of the
town by night. After that King Anlaf gained King Eadmund’s friendship,
and was received by him at baptism, and he royally gifted him. And in
the same year, after a good long interval, he received King Regnald at
the bishop’s hand. This sudden friendship, however, only subsisted one
year, for in 944 King Eadmund subdued all Northumberland into his power
and expelled the two kings, Anlaf son of Sitriuc, and Regnald son of
Guthfrith. During the whole of these attempts by the Danish kings of
Dublin to maintain possession of Northumberland, and the repeated
invasions from Dublin which followed every effort to expel them, they
seem to have made their way through the territories of the Cumbrian
Britons, and to have received the support of their kings, who, as
descended from the brother of King Constantin, whose daughter Amlaiph,
or Anlaf Cuaran, had married, were nearly connected with him. Eadmund
seems therefore to have resolved to deprive them of this ready means of
access to Northumberland and the support they obtained from it, by
overrunning the British territories and making the king of Alban a
guarantee for their fidelity.
[Sidenote: A.D. 945.
Cumbria ceded to the Scots.]
The Saxon Chronicle tells us that in the year 945 ‘King Eadmund harried
over all Cumberland, and gave it all up to Malcolm, king of the Scots,
on the condition that he should be his co-operator both on sea and on
land.’ It has usually been assumed that this refers to the district in
England afterwards called Cumberland alone, but the people termed by the
same chronicle the Strathclyde Welsh had now come to be known under the
Latin appellation of ‘Cumbri,’ and their territory as the land of the
Cumbrians, of which ‘Cumbraland’ is simply the Saxon equivalent. Their
king at this time was Donald, the son of that Eugenius or Owin, who was
at the battle of Brunanburh. He is called king of the Northern Britons,
and his kingdom extended from the Derwent in Cumberland to the Clyde.
Accordingly we find in the British annals that at this time Strathclyde
was ravaged by the Saxons.[510] There can be little question that the
tenure by which the Cumbrian kingdom was held by Malcolm was one of
fealty towards the king of England, and this seems to be the first
occasion on which this relation was established with any reality between
them, so far at least as this grant is concerned.
In the following year Eadmund died, and is succeeded by Eadred
Aetheling, his brother, who, the Saxon Chronicle tells us, ‘reduced all
Northumberland under his power; and the Scots gave him oaths that they
would all that he would.’ The next year ‘Wulstan, the archbishop, and
all the Northumbrian Witan swore fealty to the king; and within a little
space belied it all, both pledges and also oaths;’ as did also the
Scots, for in 948 ‘king Eadred harried over all Northumberland because
they had taken Eric for their king. And when the king went homewards,
the army within York overtook him, and there made great slaughter. Then
was the king so indignant that he would again march in, and totally
destroy the country. When the Northumbrian Witan understood that, they
forsook Eric, and made compensation for the deed to King Eadred.’ Upon
this the irrepressible Anlaf Cuaran again appeared on the scene, and
came in the year 949 to Northumberland. This was the seventh year of the
reign of Malcolm, the son of Donald; and we are told by the Pictish
Chronicle that in that year he laid waste the Anglic territories as far
as the river Tees, and carried off a multitude of men with their flocks,
and that he did this at the instigation of Constantin, though some say
that he made this plundering raid himself, having requested the king to
surrender the kingdom to him for one week for the purpose; but he seems
at all events to have retained in his penitential cell a sufficient
interest in secular matters to incite Malcolm to support the attempt by
his son-in-law Anlaf upon Northumberland by this expedition.[511] Anlaf
only possessed Northumberland three years when the Northumbrians
expelled him in 952,[512] and again received Eric Bloody Axe, and two
years after expelled him, and submitted to Eadred, who in 954 ‘assumed
the kingdom of the Northumbrians.’ This terminated the kingdom. Eadred
committed the government to an earl, and Northumbria from a kingdom thus
became an earldom, and remained so from henceforth. Anlaf Cuaran, on
this his last expulsion, took refuge in Ireland, and spent the rest of a
long life in incessant wars in that country as king of the Danes of
Dublin, till at last, in the year 980, he was defeated in a great battle
at Tara with the king of Ireland, in which his son Ragnall was slain,
together with all the nobles of the Galls of Dublin, and Anlaf, son of
Sitriuc, high king of the Galls, went on a pilgrimage to
Hi-Choluimcille, where he died.
In the year 954 the Ulster Annals record that Maelcolam, son of Domnall,
king of Alban, was slain. The Pictish Chronicle tells us that the men of
Moerne slew him at Fodresach, now Fetteresso, in the parish of Fordun,
Kincardineshire;[513] but the later chronicles remove the scene of his
death farther north, and state that he was slain at Ulurn by the
Moravienses, or people of Moray. St. Berchan, however, places it with
the Pictish Chronicle in the parish of Fordun, when he says—
Nine years to his reign,
Traversing the borders.
On the brink of Dun Fother at last
Will shout the Gael around his grave.
[Sidenote: A.D. 954-962.
Indulph, son of Constantin, king of Alban.]
The succession to the throne now fell, according to the system of
alternate succession which prevailed in the line of the Scottish kings,
to Indulph, the son of his predecessor Constantin, and during his reign
of eight years only two events are recorded, the first of which is,
however, one of great significance. We are told by the Pictish Chronicle
that in his time Duneden, or Edinburgh, was evacuated by the Angles and
surrendered to the Scots, who still possessed it when the chronicle was
compiled.[514] The surrender of Edinburgh implied that of the district
between the Esk and the Avon, of which it was the principal stronghold,
and the tenure of which by the Angles had always been very uncertain and
precarious. From the Avon to the Forth the territory was still probably
claimed by the Britons of Strathclyde. The other event recorded in the
Pictish Chronicle is that a fleet of the Sumarlidi, or ‘Summer
Wanderers’—a term applied to those Norwegian pirates who went out on
plundering expeditions in summer, spending the winter at home or in a
friendly port—had made a descent upon Buchan, and were there cut
off.[515] This Norwegian fleet in question was probably that of the sons
of Eric Bloody Axe, who had gone on his death from Northumberland to
Orkney.[516] The later chronicles state that Indulph was slain by the
Norwegians at Inverculen, but if this is the same event the Pictish
Chronicle gives no countenance to the statement, and St. Berchan
distinctly implies that he died at St. Andrews. In his metrical account
of his reign he alludes to this unsuccessful attempt upon his
territories, and to his acquisition of Duneden, when he says—
No severance will he sever
Of Alban of ships of long territories;
It is an addition to his kingdom he will take
From a foreign land by force;
Nine years and a half of bright fame
For him over Alban in the sovereignty.
In the house of the same pure apostle
He died, where died his father.
[Sidenote: A.D. 962-967.
Dubh, son of Maelcolam, king of Alban.]
As his death is not recorded by the Pictish Chronicle or by the Ulster
Annals, it is probable that he had followed his father’s example and
retired to the monastery of Kilrymont, committing his kingdom to
Dubh,[517] the son of Malcolm, who would have been entitled to succeed
him on his death, but his family do not appear to have acquiesced in
this, and there is some appearance that the principle of lineal
succession was now coming into conflict with the form of Tanistic
succession which had hitherto prevailed. The acquisition first of the
Cumbrian kingdom and afterwards of part of Lothian would, no doubt, aid
this. The latter was the acquisition of Indulph himself, and his son
would naturally claim it as his inheritance accordingly. Dubh had not
been three years on the throne when we find a battle fought at Drumcrub,
in Stratherne, between him and Cuilean, the son of Indulph, who appears
to have been supported by the lay abbot of Dunkeld and the governor of
Atholl. In this battle Cuilean was defeated and his two supporters
slain.[518]
[Sidenote: A.D. 967-971.
Cuilean, son of Indulph, king of Alban.]
Two years after Cuilean succeeds in expelling Dubh, and in the same year
the Ulster Annals record his death.[519] The later chronicles relate a
strange story that Dubh was slain in Forres, that his body was hidden
under the bridge of Kynlos, and that the sun did not shine till it was
found. These chroniclers usually remove the scene of the battles in
which these kings were slain from their southern localities to the
northern districts of Scotland. It is, however, possible that in this
case, when Dubh was expelled from the kingdom, he may have taken refuge
in the country beyond the Spey, and had been slain at Kynlos, while the
fact that an eclipse of the sun was visible there on the 10th of July
967 may have given rise to the tradition. Of Cuilean’s reign, which
lasted four years and a half, we know nothing further than that he and
his brother Eochodius or Eocha were slain by the Britons in the year
971.[520] The later chronicles are here in accord with the older, for
they state that he was slain in Laodonia or Lothian, that is probably
the part of Lothian which his father had acquired from the Angles, by
Andarch, son of Donvald, on account of his daughter. St. Berchan names
these two kings Dubh or black and Fionn or white, and considers that
during Dubh’s life they reigned jointly.
Two kings after that over Alban,
Both of them at mutual strife,
Fionn and Dubh together.
Woe! who took them in joint reign,
Nine years for them in their reign.
He terms the latter ‘Dubh of the three black divisions,’ which implies
that he had the support of only three of the provinces. Of Fionn or
Cuilean he says—
The grave of Fionn on the brink of the waves
A spear shall sever (life);
In a strange high valiant land,
It was by the Britons shall be his death.
[Sidenote: A.D. 971-995.
Kenneth, son of Malcolm, king of Alban.]
The succession to the throne of Alban now fell to Kenneth, the son of
Malcolm and brother of Dubh, and his first act seems to have been to
retaliate upon the Britons for the death of his predecessor, but this he
did not effect without loss. He is said by the Pictish Chronicle to have
immediately laid waste the territory of the Britons to a great extent,
while a party of his foot-soldiers were cut off with great slaughter in
the moss of the Cornag, the water which gives its name to Abercorn.[521]
His attention, however, was soon directed to the more important field of
Northumbria. When the kingdom came to an end in 954, and the government
of an earl substituted, the first earl appointed was Osulf, who ruled
over both provinces, but he was succeeded in 966 by Oslac, and soon
after Northumbria was divided into two earldoms, Oslac ruling at York
and the southern parts, while Eadulf, called Yvelchild, was placed over
the Northumbrians from the Tees to Myrcforth, or the Firth of
Forth.[522] Immediately after the unsatisfactory expedition against the
Strathclyde Britons, the Scots are recorded in the Pictish Chronicle to
have laid waste Saxonia or the northern part of Northumbria as far as
Stanmore, Cleveland, and the pools of Deira, that is, the part of
Northumbria which had been placed as a separate earldom under Eadulf;
and in order to protect himself against the Britons, Kenneth fortified
the fords of the river Forth, which at this time separated his kingdom
from that of Strathclyde.[523] In the following year Kenneth repeated
his invasion of Northumbria, and is said to have carried off a son of
the king of the Saxons, by whom Earl Eadulf is probably meant. We now
lose the invaluable guidance of the Pictish Chronicle, which appears to
have been compiled in Kenneth’s reign, at Brechin, as it breaks off with
the intimation that this king gave the great city of Brechin to the
Lord,[524] and leaves the years of his reign unfilled up, while it
contains no record of his death; but, on the other hand, we recover the
Irish annalist, Tighernac, the hiatus in whose annals terminates with
the year 973. In 975 he tells us that Domnall, son of Eoain, king of the
Britons, went on a pilgrimage. The Welsh Chronicle, the Brut y
Tywysogion, which records the same event, calls him Dunwallaun, king of
Strathclyde, and states that he went to Rome.[525] He is the same
Domnaldus who was king of the Cumbrians when Eadmund ravaged the country
in 945, and was the son of that Eugenius, king of the Cumbrians, who
fought in the battle of Brunnanburg. Kenneth too appears to have had to
contend against the claims of the sons of Indulph to succeed to their
father in preference to that form of the law of Tanistry which had
hitherto regulated the succession, by which it alternated between the
two branches of the Scottish royal family; for Tighernac records that
Amlaiph or Olaf, the son of Indulph, king of Alban, was slain in the
year 977, by Kenneth, son of Malcolm.[526] The English chroniclers,
however, add some events to the reign of Kenneth, of a much more
questionable character, the chief of which is that the district of
Lothian was ceded to Kenneth by King Eadgar, to be held by him as a fief
of the English crown. This statement first appears in the Tract on the
arrival of the Saxons, attributed to Simeon of Durham. It is there said
that when Eadgar set the two earls, Oslac and Eadulf, over Northumbria,
giving the latter the territory from the Tees to the Firth of Forth,
these earls, with the bishop, brought Kenneth, king of the Scots, to
King Eadgar, and when he had done homage to him, Eadgar gave him Lothian
and sent him home with honour.[527] This Chronicle was made use of by
John Wallingford, who wrote nearly a century later, and thus elaborates
the story:—‘Kenneth, the king of Scotland, hearing from common report,
and the praises of the two earls, Oslach and Eadulf, and Elfsi, bishop
of Durham, of the greatness of King Eadgar, desiring greatly to see him,
asked and obtained a safe-conduct to London, that he might converse with
him. Thus conducted at the command of the king by the two earls and the
bishop, Kenneth, the king of Scotland, came to London, and was
honourably received by King Eadgar, and treated with high consideration.
While they were conversing familiarly and pleasantly together, Kenneth
suggested to Eadgar that “Louthion” was a hereditary possession of the
kings of Scotland, and therefore ought to belong to him. King Eadgar
being unwilling to do anything hurriedly, for fear of repenting of what
he had done afterwards, referred the cause to his counsellors.
‘These men having been well instructed in the wisdom of their ancestors
... unless the king of Scotland should consent to do homage for it to
the king of England ... and chiefly because the means of access to that
district for the purposes of defence are very difficult, and its
possession not very profitable.... Kenneth, however, assented to this
decision, and sought and obtained it on the understanding that he was to
do homage for it; and he did homage accordingly to King Eadgar, and
further was obliged to promise under pledges, in solemn form, that he
would not deprive the people of that region of their ancient customs,
and that they should still be allowed to use the name and language of
the Angles. These conditions have been faithfully observed to the
present day, and thus was settled the old dispute about Louthion, though
a new ground of difference still often arises.’[528]
The older English chroniclers know nothing whatever of this cession of
Lothian by King Eadgar to Kenneth, and it is quite inconsistent with the
account given by Simeon of Durham himself of how the Scottish kings
acquired it. The Saxon Chronicle, though it mentions the cession of
Cumbria to Malcolm, has no hint of this transaction, while the Pictish
Chronicle presents us with a totally different picture of the relations
between Kenneth and the two earls who shared the Northumbrian
territories between them. There he appears only as endeavouring to wrest
the country north of the Tees from one of them. We may therefore dismiss
this tale as having no foundation in fact, and as one of those spurious
narratives arising out of the controversy as to the dependence of
Scotland. That the kings of Alban of the line of Kenneth mac Alpin
asserted some claim to the territory south of the Firth of Forth seems
however to have some foundation, otherwise it is difficult to account
for the fact that they no sooner become possessed of the Pictish throne
than, instead of consolidating their power over the Pictish kingdom,
they at once attack Saxonia or the Northumbrian districts on the south
side of the Firth of Forth. Kenneth, the founder of their house, is said
to have invaded it six times. Giric is said to have conquered Bernicia.
We find Constantin, son of Aedh, in alliance with the northern Saxons,
and in conjunction with Anlaf Cuaran invading Northumbria. Malcolm, son
of Donald, overruns the country as far as the Tees. Edinburgh and the
district around it are given up by the Angles to Indulph, and Kenneth,
of whom we are treating, twice repeats a similar invasion; but if these
invasions of Northumbria were connected with any supposed claim to its
possession, it was not Lothian alone but the whole of Bernicia that they
claimed. Upon what right such a claim could have been based, whether
upon the extent to which the previous kings of the Picts had obtained
possession of part of that territory, or whether upon some ground
peculiar to their dynasty, and involving, as Wallingford asserts, the
assertion of a hereditary right, it is difficult to say. There is no
doubt that not long before the accession of Kenneth mac Alpin to the
Pictish throne the kingdom of Northumbria seems to have fallen into a
state of complete disintegration, and we find a number of independent
chiefs, or ‘duces’ as they are termed, appearing in different parts of
the country and engaging in conflict with the kings and with each other,
slaying and being slain, conspiring against the king and being conspired
against in their turn, expelling him and each other, and being expelled.
Out of this confusion, however, one family emerges who appear as lords
of Bamborough and for a time govern Bernicia. Galloway, with which
Kenneth’s family was connected, and out of which he emerged to claim the
Pictish throne, was nominally a part of Bernicia, and under Anglic rule;
and it is not impossible that among the chiefs who at this time appear
to have asserted their position against the king of Northumbria, and to
have practically ruled over different districts, one of Scottish
descent, either from his connection with Galloway or from some
connection in the female line with the Northumbrians, may have for the
time obtained such a right to the rule over Bernicia as might give rise
to a claim on the part of his descendants;[529] but be this as it may,
we may hold it as certain that no cession of any part of this territory,
in addition to what had been acquired by Indulph, had been made at this
time to Kenneth son of Malcolm.
But if Kenneth did not add permanently to his kingdom on the south, we
find that the districts beyond the Spey, on the north, had again fallen
under the dominion of the Norwegian earl of Orkney. The earl who ruled
at this time was Sigurd ‘the Stout.’ He was the son of Hlodver, the
previous earl of Orkney, whose father Thorfinn, called the
‘Skull-cleaver,’ was the son of Earl Einar, and by his marriage with
Grelauga, daughter of Dungadr or Duncan, the jarl of Caithness, had
brought that district to the Norwegian earls of Orkney. But although
they appear to have claimed Caithness as now forming an integral part of
their dominions as Norwegian earls, and maintained possession of it as
such, the kings of Alban seem also to have asserted a right to a
sovereignty over it as one of the dependencies of their kingdom. By
Grelauga Earl Thorfinn had five sons, three of whom were successively
earls of Orkney. Havard, the eldest son, succeeded him, and was slain by
his wife; and we find that when Liotr, the second brother, was earl of
Orkney, another brother, Skuli, went to Scotland, and obtained a right
to the earldom of Caithness from the king of the Scots. This led to a
conflict between the brothers, in which Skuli was supported by the
Scottish king and a Scottish earl called Magbiodr, and a battle ensued
in which the Scots were defeated and Skuli slain. Earl Liotr then took
possession of Caithness, and remained at war with the Scots, when Earl
Magbiodr again came from Scotland with an army, and met him at Skidamyre
in Caithness, where a hotly-contested battle took place, in which Liotr
was victorious, but was mortally wounded. Hlodver, the only surviving
brother, succeeded to the earldom, but died of sickness, and was buried
at Hofn in Caithness. Sigurd, his son, succeeded him about the year 980,
and was, we are told, a powerful man and a great warrior. He kept
Caithness by main force from the Scots, and went every summer in war
expeditions to the Sudreys or Western Isles, to Scotland, and to
Ireland.[530]
Soon after Sigurd’s succession we find Finleikr, a Scotch jarl, entering
Caithness with a large army, and challenging Earl Sigurd to meet him in
battle at the same Skidamyre in Caithness where Magbiodr had met the
former earl. He was no doubt the Finlaic, son of Ruaidhri, Mormaer of
_Moreb_ or Moray, whose death Tighernac records in the year 1020, and
Magbiodr was probably the Maelbrigdi who is mentioned as his brother,
and had been the previous Mormaer.[531] Sigurd drew an army together,
but it was inferior in numbers until he obtained the aid of the ‘Bondir’
or allodial possessors of Orkney, by restoring to them the full right to
their allodial lands, which had been taken from them by Earl Einar, and
then went to battle with Earl Finleikr, whom he entirely defeated.
Sigurd seems to have followed up his victory by overrunning the
provinces north of the Spey, as we find him in 989 in possession of the
four provinces of Moray, Ross, Sudrland or Sutherland, and Dali.[532]
The district to which the name of Dali is here given was probably that
part of Argathelia which had borne the name of Dalriada, a name which
still lingered in connection with it, and appears in the Irish annalists
for the last time at this period; and the acquisition of this district
by Sigurd seems to have brought him in contact with the rulers of the
Western Isles, who had hitherto possessed it. These were also
Norwegians; and the kings of Norway appear to have claimed tribute from
the islands, and to have attempted from time to time to maintain a
direct dominion over them by means of jarls or earls, while at other
times they appear under the rule of a Danish king of the Isles. In 973
we find a king Maccus or Magnus, whom Florence of Worcester calls king
of many islands; and in the Irish Annals he is called son of Aralt, who
was son of Sitriucc, lord of the Danes of Limerick.[533] He died about
977, and we then find his brother Godred or Goffraigh, son of Aralt,
called king of Innis Gall or the Western Isles. These kings were
descended from Inguar or Imhair, the ancestor of the Danish kings of
Dublin, termed from him Hy Imhair; and thus, while the Danes gave kings
to Dublin, Waterford, and Northumbria, the Norwegians gave earls to
Orkney, which they colonised, and possessed the Innse Gall, Sudreys, or
Western Isles,—the island of Man appearing to have been a bone of
contention between the two.[534]
At the time that Sigurd came into contact with Godred or Godfrey mac
Aralt he had entered into a short struggle with the Danes of Dublin for
the possession of Man and the Isles. In 986 the Ulster Annals tell us
that the Danes came with three ships to ‘Airer Dalriatai,’ or the coast
lands of Dalriada, but that the attack was successfully resisted, the
Danes were taken, 140 of them were hung, and the rest thrust through,
and in the same year I Columcille was plundered by the Danes on
Christmas Eve, and the abbot slain, with fifteen of the brethren. In the
following year a battle is fought at the Isle of Man against Gofrath mac
Aralt and the Danes, in which a thousand of them were slain, and in the
same year a great slaughter was made of the Danes who had pillaged
Iona.[535] Godred or Gofra had, however, now to encounter Sigurd, earl
of Orkney. The events of this war are partly detailed to us in the Nial
Saga in connection with the adventures of Grim and Helgi, the sons of
Nial of Iceland. The narrative commences with the sons of Nial leaving
Iceland in a ship with Olaf Ketilson of Elda, and Bardi the White. They
are driven southward by a strong north wind, and so thick a mist came
over them that they knew not where they were till the shoal water showed
them they must be near land. They ask Bardi if he knows what land they
would be nearest, who says that with the wind they had had it might be
the Islands of Scotland or Ireland. Two nights after they enter a fiord,
when they see land on both sides and breakers within. Here they anchor,
and next morning are attacked by thirteen ships coming out of the fiord
commanded by Griotgard and Snaekolf, sons of Moldan, from Duncansby in
Caithness. The battle is then described, and they are hard bestead,
when, looking to seaward, they see ten vessels coming from the southward
round the promontory. They row hard towards them, and in the first of
the ships they see a man by the mast clad in a silken kirtle, with a
gilded helmet and gold-studded spear. This was Kari Solmundson, one of
Earl Sigurd’s courtiers, who had been taking scat or tribute from the
Sudreys from Earl Gilli. The battle is then renewed, and the sons of
Earl Moldan are both slain. The sons of Nial then accompany Kari to
Hrossey or the Mainland of Orkney, where he presents them to Sigurd, and
tells him he found them fighting in the fiords of Scotland with the sons
of Earl Moldan. These fiords of Scotland must be the numerous sea lochs
which intersect the west coast; and as the fiord in question lay between
Orkney and the Sudreys, had land on both sides, and a fleet coming from
the south would be seen passing on looking to seaward, the description
seems to answer to Loch Broom in the north-west of Ross-shire. The sons
of Nial are passing the winter with Sigurd, when he receives news that
two Scotch earls, Hundi and Melsnati, had entered the Norwegian
territory on the mainland and slain Havard of Threswick, Sigurd’s
brother-in-law, who was probably its Norwegian governor. This territory,
we are told, consisted of the rikis or provinces in Scotland of Ros,
Moray, Sudrland, and Dali, Caithness being considered as belonging to
Orkney and not to Scotland. Earl Sigurd collects a large army and lands
in Caithness, and a great battle takes place between him and the earls
at Duncansness, when the Scots are defeated, Earl Melsnati slain, and
Earl Hundi driven to flight, who is pursued till they learn that Earl
Melkolf is collecting another army at Duncansby, when, finding
themselves not in a position to meet a second army, the Norwegians
return to Orkney. In the following summer Kari goes on an expedition
with the sons of Nial, makes war in many places, and is everywhere
victorious. They encounter Godred, king of Man, and vanquish him. Kari
then goes to Norway with the scat or tribute to Earl Hakon of Norway. In
the following summer they make a second expedition and harry all the
Sudreys. Thence they go to Kintyre, land there, fight with the landsmen
and carry off plunder. Then they go south to Wales, hold on for the Isle
of Man, again meet Godred, fight with him, and slay Dungall, his son.
Thence they go north to Koln or Colonsay, where they find Earl Gilli,
and stay with him a while. Then Earl Gilli accompanies them to the
Orkneys to meet Earl Sigurd, who gives him his sister Nereide in
marriage, and he returns to the Sudreys and the sons of Nial to
Iceland.[536] Such is a short outline of this curious narrative, from
which we may gather that the tenure by which Earl Sigurd held his
mainland possessions, extending to the river Spey, was a very precarious
one, and appears to have been more an assertion of dominion over the
native Mormaers, who took every opportunity to throw off the yoke. In
the Western Islands we find an Earl Gilli having his principal seat in
Colonsay, and paying scat or tribute to Sigurd, while Godred, who is
obviously the Gofraigh mac Arailt, the Danish king of Innse Gall of the
Ulster Annals, has his residence in Man. We also see that the Earl of
Orkney paid scat or tribute to Earl Hakon of Norway. The name Gilli
indicates that he was a native,[537] and not a Norwegian, and that the
Sudreys did not so much differ from the mainland possessions in being
merely subject and tributary to the Norwegians as in being actually
colonised by them. The Ulster Annals record in 989 the death of Gofraigh
mac Arailt, king of Innse Gall in Dalriatai, the Dali of Nials Saga,
which gives us the date of the conclusion of this war, by which the
temporary occupation of the Western Isles by the Danes of Dublin appears
to have been brought to an end.[538]
If Kenneth was thus unable to extend his territories either south of the
Firth of Forth or beyond the Spey on the north, we may well suppose that
during a long reign of twenty-four years he could do much to consolidate
the power of the Scots within these limits. Of the two great branches of
the descendants of Kenneth mac Alpin who gave kings alternately to
Alban, the senior house, of which he was the head, seems to have had its
main interest in the provinces north of the Tay, while the junior house
was more particularly connected with that of Fife and the other
provinces south of it. We find the kings of the former house invariably
confronted with the people called the Men of Moerne or the Mearns (viri
na Moerne), as those of the latter were with the Men of Fortrenn (firu
Fortrenn). Thus Donald, son of Constantin, is slain at Dun Fother, or
Dunotter. His son Malcolm, too, is killed by the men of the Moerne at
Fetteresso, and Kenneth, son of Malcolm, founds the church of Brechin in
this part of the kingdom. On the other hand, the two conflicts which
Constantin, son of Aedh, had with the Northmen—one against the
Norwegians in his third year, and the other against the Danes in his
eighteenth year—are fought by the men of Fortrenn. After the reign of
Constantin we hear no more of the men of Fortrenn, who had now
apparently become merged in the general population; but Kenneth, like
his father and grandfather, is doomed to find his end in the same
quarter. Tighernac, in recording his death in 995, merely tells us that
he was slain by his own subjects, to which the Ulster Annals add the
significant expression ‘by treachery.’[539] We have not now the
assistance of the Pictish Chronicle, but the later chronicles tell us
that he was slain in Fotherkern, now Fettercairn, in the Mearns, by the
treachery of Finvela, daughter of Cunchar, earl of Angus, whose only son
Kenneth had killed at Dunsinnan;[540] and this is confirmed by St.
Berchan, who places his death on the moorland plain at the foot of the
Mounth or great chain of the so-called Grampians.
He will bend his steps, no neighbourly act,
To Magsliabh at the great Monadh.
The Gael will shout around his head.
His death was the end of it.[541]
[Sidenote: A.D. 995-997.
Constantin, son of Cuilean, king of Alban.]
He was succeeded by Constantin, the son of his predecessor Cuilean, but
his accession was not unopposed, as he had barely reigned two years when
we are told by Tighernac that a battle took place between the men of
Alban in the year 997, in which Constantin mac Cuilindain was slain with
many others.[542] The later chronicles say that he was slain at
Rathinveramon, or the fort at the mouth of the river Almond, by Kenneth,
son of Malcolm.[543] Fordun places this battle on the banks of the
Almond in West Lothian, and says that this Kenneth was an illegitimate
brother of the deceased king.[544] This latter statement may be true, as
we have no other clue to his identity, but St. Berchan clearly places
the battle on the Tay.
A great battle shall be fought in Alban
With the shame of his head colours shall be changed.
The leader of the hosts was he
At Sruthlinn, or the Pool, which is called Toe.
The allusion in the second line is to the epithet given him of
Constantin the Bald, and by the name Toe the Tay is meant.
Tighernac likewise records in the year 997 the death of Malcolm, son of
Donald, king of the Northern Britons.[545] He was, no doubt, the son of
that Donald who was king of the Cumbrians, when his kingdom was overrun
by King Eadmund and bestowed upon Malcolm, king of Alban, and this shows
that though the sovereignty was now vested in the Scottish kings, the
line of provincial kings still remained in possession of their
territory.
[Sidenote: A.D. 997-1004.
Kenneth son of Dubh, king of Alban.]
Constantin’s successor was Kenneth, son of Dubh, who was the son of
Malcolm, and the elder brother of Kenneth, son of Malcolm, the
predecessor of Constantin. He is termed by St. Berchan
The Donn, or brown, from strong Duncath,
which is probably the fort on one of the Sidlaw hills in the parish of
Fearn, Forfarshire, now called Duncathlaw, which connects him with the
same part of the kingdom with which the branch of the descendants of
Kenneth mac Alpin to which he belonged were peculiarly connected. In his
fourth year Aethelred, king of England, appears to have attempted to
wrest the Cumbrian kingdom from him, as the Saxon Chronicle tells us
that in the year 1000, ‘the king went to Cumbraland and ravaged it very
nigh all, and his ships went out about Chester, and should have come to
meet him but could not,’ while St. Berchan implies that he had
successfully resisted the attempt.
He will scatter hosts of the Saxons.
After the day of battle he will possess.
Five years after this, we are told by the Ulster Annals that a battle
took place between the men of Alban among themselves, in which Kenneth,
son of Dubh, the king of Alban, fell.[546] This expression, ‘a battle
among the men of Alban themselves,’ usually implies a war of succession,
and the later chronicles tell us that he was slain by Malcolm, the son
of Kenneth, in Moeghavard[547] or Monzievaird in Stratherne, and St.
Berchan confirms this when he says
Eight years and a half, bright the deeds,
To the Donn in their sovereignty
’Twas shut till they came against him.
Alas! the Gael again,
The Gael gathered around him,
The day on which he will be killed by us
At his stone of blood between two glens,
Not far from the banks of the Earn.
St. Berchan’s expression, ‘Alas! the Gael again,’ seems to imply that on
this occasion Malcolm, son of Kenneth, brought against him the men of
Moerne, who appear to have occupied an important position in the
population of the kingdom of Alban throughout the entire history of her
kings.
-----
Footnote 481:
If Donald was under age in 878 when the succession, according to this
law, opened to him, it is probable that the cause of the revolution
was his arriving at an age sufficient to satisfy the requirements of
the law, which demanded that the throne should only be filled by an
adult. Kenneth dying in 860, supposing him born in 800, and his son
Constantin in 830, Donald could not have been born before 860, but if
born in 864, he would be twenty-five in 889.
Footnote 482:
See _Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis_, pp. 65, 66; also Anderson’s
edition of the _Orkneyinga Saga_, p. 204. Thorstein died in 875, and
Sigurd could not have become earl till after the battle of
Hafursfiord, which made Harald Harfagr master of Norway. The
chronology of Harald Harfagr’s reign can be tolerably well made out
from his Saga. He was born in 853, and became king at the age of ten
in 863. When old enough to marry, he vows, at the instigation of his
bride, not to cut his hair till he became master of all Norway, and
this is accomplished by the battle of Hafursfiord. His hair had then
been uncut ten years. After he had ruled over all Norway for ten years
he is said to have been forty years of age. He was therefore twenty
years old when he made the vow, and thirty when he fought the battle
of Hafursfiord, which places it in the year 883, and some years after
Sigurd became earl of Orkney. The following passage in the Pictish
Chronicle under the reign of Donald appears to refer to this invasion:
‘Normanni tunc vastaverunt Pictaviam.’
Footnote 483:
This account of Sigurd’s death, which is more detailed than that in
the Orkneyinga Saga, is taken from the Flatey book (see Anderson’s
Orkneyinga Saga, p. 204). The word Bakki means in Icelandic the bank
of a river; and Ekkialsbakki has usually been assumed to be the river
Oikell, which separates Sutherlandshire from Ross-shire. Dr. Anderson,
whose opinion is entitled to weight, takes this view, and fortifies it
by a very plausible identification of Sigurd’s grave on its north
bank. The place he mentions is, however, not on the north bank of the
river Oikell, but on the Dornoch Firth, and he is obliged to admit
that this identification of Ekkialsbakki is inconsistent with other
passages. A comparison of the accounts of Sigurd’s conquest shows that
it must have been at or near the southern boundary of Moray; and the
passage in chapter lxxii., where Swein Asleif’s son goes to Moray, and
thence by Ekkialsbakki to Atholl, points to the Findhorn, which is
remarkable for a high bank, has an estuary which ships could enter,
and would be the natural route to Atholl. The resemblance between the
name Oikell and Ekkial is merely accidental. The battle may have been
fought near Forres, and the sculptured pillar known by the name of
Sweno’s Stone a record of it. Its connection with the name Sweno is no
older than Hector Boece, and it seems to tell the tale. On one side
are two figures engaged in apparently an amicable meeting, and above a
cross with the usual network ornamentation. On the other side we have
below a representation which it is difficult to make out, but it seems
to show a number of persons as if engaged in council, the background
probably representing the walls of some hall or fortification. Above
we see a party of horsemen at full gallop, followed by foot-soldiers
with bows and arrows. Above that we have a leader having a head
hanging at his girdle, followed by three trumpeters sounding for
victory, and surrounded by decapitated bodies and human heads. Above
that we have a representation of a party seizing a figure in Scottish
dress; and below it a party, in which in the centre is a figure in the
act of cutting off the head of another, and above all a leader riding
on horseback, followed by seven others. Something to this effect seems
represented, and its correspondence with the incidents in this tale is
striking enough. When digging into a mound close to the pillar in 1813
eight human skeletons were found (Stuart, _Sculptured Stones_, p. 9),
and in 1827 there was dug out of a steep bank above the Findhorn a
coffin of large dimensions, composed of flagstones, containing the
remains of a human skeleton.—_N. S. A._ vol. xiii. p. 222.
Footnote 484:
_War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill_, p. 29. The death of Donnchadh,
king of Cashel, which took place in 888, fixes the date. ‘In hujus
regno bellum est factum in Visibsolian inter Danarios et Scottos.
Scotti habuerunt victoriam. Oppidum Fother occisum est a gentibus.’
This place, called Visibsolian, or Visibcolian, may be Collie, near
Dunkeld. Oppidum is, in this chronicle, the Latin rendering of Dun,
and the place where he was slain—for this seems what is meant by
‘occisum est’—was Dun Fother. That this place was in Kincardineshire,
and has improperly been supposed to mean Forres, is apparent from St.
Berchan, who says
‘Nine years to the king
Traversing the borders,
One after another in every place;
With Galls, with Gael.
He will disperse the Gael for a purpose
At the end over Fotherdun.
Upon the brink of the waves he lies
In the east in his broad gory bed.’
Fotherdun in this poem is now Fordun, the name of the parish in which
Dun Fother, or Dunotter, is situated. By “gentibus” probably
Norwegians are meant.
Footnote 485:
A.D. 900. Domhnall mac Constantin Ri Alban moritur.—_An. Ult._ The
later chronicles transfer his death to Forres, in Morayshire.
Footnote 486:
Cujus tertio anno Normanni prædaverunt Duncalden omnemque Albaniam. In
sequenti utique anno occisi sunt in Sraithherni Normanni.—_Pict.
Chron._ A.D. 904. Imhair Ua h-Imhair domarbadh la firu Fortrenn agus
ar mar nimbi (slain by the men of Fortrenn, and great slaughter around
him).—_An. Ult._ See also _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 405. The
passage in the Pictish Chronicle, taken in conjunction with that in
the Ulster Annals, shows that the seat of the men of Fortrenn was in
Stratherne. The Cronicum Scotorum has in this year ‘Ead Ri
Cruithentuaithe do tuitim fri da h-Imhair ocus fri Catol. go .d.
cedoibh’ (fell by the two grandsons of Imhair and by Catel, along with
500 men). This king of ‘Cruithentuaithe,’ or Pictland, was probably
the chief of the men of one of the provinces slain in the previous
attack.
Footnote 487:
In vi. anno Constantinus rex et Cellachus episcopus leges
disciplinasque fidei atque jura ecclesiarum evangeliorumque pariter
cum Scottis in Colle Credulitatis, prope regali civitati Scoan
devoverunt custodiri. At hoc die collis hoc meruit nomen, id est,
Collis Credulitatis.—_Pict. Chron._ The expression ‘pariter cum
Scottis’ has an obvious relation to the expression in the cause
assigned by the same Chronicle for the downfall of the Picts, ‘Sed et
in jure æquitatis aliis æqui parari noluerunt.’ The scene of this
solemn assembly, and its object, throws light upon Bede’s account of
the assembly in which Nectan, king of the Picts, issued a decree
affecting the church in 710.
Footnote 488:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 136.
Footnote 489:
In the Tract ‘De Situ Albaniæ’ (_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 136) four
interpretations of this name are given. First, because it was the
‘margo’ or border region of the Scots or Irish, for all the Scots and
Irish—Hibernenses et Scotti—are generally called Gaithel from their
first leader Gathelus; or secondly, because the Gwyddyl
Ffichti—Scotti-Picti—first inhabited it after coming from Ireland; or,
third, because the Irish inhabited it after the Picts; or, fourthly,
because this part of the region of Scotia borders upon the region of
Hibernia. The first is probably the true origin of the name.
Footnote 490:
The Pictish Chronicle gives us at this time Dubucan, son of
Indrechtaig, mormair Oengusa, who seems to have been succeeded by
Maelbrigde, son of Dubican. In the Book of Deer we obtain a glance
into the internal organisation of Buchan, which bears out this
statement. In the eighth century we had a Ri Athfotla, or king of
Atholl, now we have in the Pict. Chron. a Satrapas Athochlach.
Footnote 491:
Einar appears to have died about the same time as King Harald
Haarfagr, who died in 936. The Ynglinga Saga, the Landnamabok, and the
Orkneyinga Saga in the Flateybok, conjoin the expeditions of Thorstein
the Red and Sigurd, and make them conquer these districts together;
but it is hardly possible to place Sigurd so early, and the Laxdaela
Saga makes Thorstein conquer them alone, without any mention of
Sigurd. Now Thorstein died in 875, and if Sigurd died in the same
year, Einar became earl two years after, which would make him rule
from 876 to 936, a period of fifty-nine years, which is hardly
credible. Harald Haarfagr succeeded his father in 863, when only ten
years old, and his mother’s brother acts as regent. He then, after
attaining puberty at least, commences a war with the petty kings of
Norway, and finally subdues them all, and after a great battle at
Hafursfiord becomes king of all Norway, which, as we have seen, took
place in 883. The Northmen then fly from his power and take possession
of Orkney and Shetland. They winter there, and in summer maraud in
Norway. Harald goes every summer to the Isles, and the Vikings fly
before him. At last one summer he makes a great expedition, and sweeps
the Shetlands, Orkneys, and Western Isles as far as Man, of the
Vikings, and plunders in Scotland. In this expedition he gives Orkney
to Earl Rognwald, who transfers it to Sigurd, who becomes rich and
powerful, conquers these districts in Scotland, and dies. Now all this
could not have taken place between 873 and 875. Harald is said to have
been about forty when Einar became earl of Orkney, which would place
the commencement of his rule in 893, and make him earl for forty-three
years, which is much more probable; and this brings Sigurd’s conquest
and death to the first years of Donald’s reign, when, the Pictish
Chronicle tells us, ‘Normanni tunc vastaverunt Pictaviam.’
Footnote 492:
In the Felire of Angus the Culdee, in his notice of S. Donnan of Egg,
the scholiast says that when Donnan went to the island of Egg, he went
with his people to the Gallgaidhel (i n-Gallgaedelaib), and took up
their abode there.—Reeves’s _Columba_, orig. ed. p. 304. The Four
Masters have, at 1154, mention of the fleet of ‘Gallgaedhel, Arann,
Kintyre, Mann, and the coasts of Alban.’ The Ulster Annals have, at
1199, ‘Rolant mac Uchtraigh Ri Gallgaidhel. He was Lord of Galloway.’
Footnote 493:
Munch, _Chronicle of Man_, p. 33.
Footnote 494:
It is a very common mistake, and repeated by most writers without
consideration, that the name Sudreys belonged to the islands south of
the point of Ardnamurchan. Nothing can be more unfounded, as a mere
superficial examination of the subject would show.
Footnote 495:
Et in suo octavo anno cecidit excelsissimus rex Hibernensium et
archiepiscopus apud Laignechos id est Cormac mac Cuilennan. Et mortui
sunt in tempore hujus Donevaldus rex Britannorum et Duvenaldus filius
Ede rex eligitur.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 9. Cormac, king of
Ireland, was slain in 908, which fixes the eighth year of king
Constantin.
Footnote 496:
912 Reingwald rex et Oter Comes et Oswl Cracabam irruperunt et
vastaverunt Dunbline.—_Sim. Dun._
Footnote 497:
913 Bellum navale oc Manainn ittir Barid mac n-Octir et Regnall h.
Imair ubi Bare pene cum omni exercitu suo deletus est.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 498:
The Pictish Chronicle records this battle shortly thus, and claims the
victory for the Scots:—‘In xviii. anno bellum Tinemore factum est
inter Constantinum et Regnall et Scotti habuerunt victoriam.’ The
Northumbrian and the Irish accounts differ both as to the scene and
the result of the battle. The anonymous author of the history of St.
Cuthbert, attributed to Simeon of Durham, has—‘Regenwaldus rex venit
cum magna multitudine navium occupavitque terram Aldridi filii
Eadulfi. Fugatus igitur Eldredus in Scottiam ivit, Constantini regis
auxilium quæsivit, illum contra Regenwaldum regem apud Corebriege in
prælium adduxit. In quo prælio, nescio quo peccato agente, paganus rex
vicit, Constantinum fugavit, Scottos fudit,’ etc. Thus making Regnwald
land in Bernicia, drive the lord of Bamborough to Scotland, who
obtains assistance from Constantin, returns, and he and the Scots are
beaten at Corbridge on the southern river Tyne. On the other hand, the
Tract on the Wars of the Gaedhil with the Gaill says that they went
from Munster into Alban, and there gave battle to Constantin, in which
both Regnall and Otter were slain (p. 35). The Ulster Annals say they
were the Galls of Loch da Caech, expelled from Erin, and invaded the
people of Alban, who prepared to meet them with the assistance of the
Northern Saxons, and describes the battle as in the text. The author
has endeavoured to reconcile the two accounts by placing the scene of
the battle at the northern Tyne in East Lothian. The feature of St.
Columba’s crozier being used as a standard is taken from the
‘Fragments of Annals,’ _Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 406. See also
Reeves’s _Adamnan_, ed. 1874, Introduction, p. xcix.
Footnote 499:
Mortuo Guthredo, rex Elfridus Northanimbrorum regnum suscepit
disponendum. Postquam enim Sanctus Cuthbertus ei apparuerat, paterno
regno, id est, occidentalium Saxonum, et provinciam orientalium
Anglorum et Northanimbrorum post Guthredum adjecit.—Sim. Dun. _Hist.
Ec. Dur._ c. xxix.
Footnote 500:
The question of the independence of Scotland, and the bearing of these
passages upon it, has been very ably discussed on the English side by
Mr. Freeman in his _History of the Norman Conquest of England_, vol.
i. pp. 60, 133, and 610; and on the Scottish side by Mr. Robertson, in
his _Scotland under her Early Kings_, vol. ii. p. 384. It is
unnecessary for the author to do more than refer to this discussion,
and to add his opinion that Mr. Freeman has failed on the whole
successfully to meet Mr. Robertson’s criticism. Mr. Robertson was not
the first to see the fatal objection to the statement in the Saxon
Chronicle that Regnwald, king of Northumbria, took Eadward for his
father and lord in 924, while he died in 921. Florence of Worcester
saw it before him, and places the event under the year 921.
Footnote 501:
Deinde hostes subegit, Scotiam usque Dunfoeder et Wertermorum
terrestri exercitu vastavit, navali vero usque Catenes depopulatus
est.—Sim. Dun. _de Gestis Reg._ Fugato deinde Owino rege Cumbrorum et
Constantino rege Scotorum terrestri et navali exercitu Scotiam sibi
subjugando perdomuit.—Sim. Dun. _Hist. de Dun. Ec._
The Pictish Chronicle has—‘In xxxiv. ejus anno bellum Duinbrunde ubi
cecidit filius Constantini.’ Though this is placed in the year of the
invasion of Scotland, Constantin’s son was slain in the battle of
Brunanburgh three years later, which seems to be the bellum Duinbrunde
of the Chronicle. Kerimor was the name of one of the quarters into
which Angus was divided, and is derived from Ceathramh, corrupted to
Keri, a quarter. The Saxon equivalent is Feorde, probably corrupted to
Werte.
Footnote 502:
Flor. _Wig. Chron._ ad an. 937.
Footnote 503:
This was Anlaf Cuaran, son of Sitriuc and son-in-law of Constantin.
Mr. Robertson, in a note to his _Scotland under her Early Kings_, vol.
i. p. 56, remarks on this account of Olaf’s descent, ‘that the name of
the _father_ of Sitric and his brothers is never mentioned by the
Irish annalists, who invariably call them Hy Ivar, or _grandsons_ of
Ivar;’ and adds, ‘If one of these Vikings, a Scottish lord of the
Gall-Gaidhel or Oirir Gaidhel, had married Ivar’s daughter, the
description in the Egills Saga would exactly apply to himself, his
wife, and his sons, and it would be only necessary to suppose that the
writer of the saga, aware of Olave’s descent from a Scottish Viking,
and a granddaughter of Ragnar Lodbroc, made him by mistake the _son_
instead of the _grandson_ of the Scot.’ The Tract on the _Wars of the
Gaidhil with the Gaill_ calls Sitriuc, however, Mac Imair, or son of
Ivar, but there is no improbability in supposing one of the Gall
Gaidhel to have married a daughter of Inguar or Imhair, and his sons
to have been adopted and naturalised as Danish vikings. Anlaf being
called by Florence of Worcester lord of many islands rather favours
the supposition.
Footnote 504:
Johnstone, _Ant. Celto-Scandicæ_, p. 32.
Footnote 505:
_Sax. Chron._ ad an. 937, Thorpe’s translation. The Ulster Annals have
the following: 937 Bellum ingens, lacrimabile et horribile inter
Saxones et Normannos crudeliter gestum est, in quo plurima millia
Normannorum, quæ non numerata sunt, ceciderunt; sed rex cum paucis
evasit .i. Amlaiph. Ex altera vero parte multitudo Saxonum cecidit.
Adalstan vero rex Saxonum magna victoria dilatus est. And the Annals
of Clonmacnoise, which now exist only in a translation made in 1627,
give particulars not to be found elsewhere. ‘Awley, with all the Danes
of Dublin and north part of Ireland, departed and went over seas. The
Danes that departed from Dublin arrived in England, and, by the help
of the Danes of that kingdom, they gave battle to the Saxons on the
plains of Othlyn, where there was a great slaughter of Normans and
Danes, among which these ensuing captains were slain—viz. Sithfrey and
Oisle, the two sons of Sittrick Galey; Awley Fivit, and Moylemorrey,
the son of Cossewarra, Moyle-Isa, Geleachan, king of the Islands;
Ceallach, prince of Scotland, with 30,000, together with 800 captains
about Awley mac Godfrey; and about Arick mac Brith, Hoa, Deck, Imar,
the king of Dannach’s own son, with 4000 soldiers in his guard, were
all slain.’ It must be borne in mind that there were two Olafs in the
battle—Olaf or Anlaf Cuaran, son of Sitriuc, King Constantin’s
son-in-law, and Olaf or Amlaibh, son of Godfrey or Guthfrith, king of
the Danes of Dublin.
Footnote 506:
Hacon the Good’s Saga.
Footnote 507:
Et in senectute decrepitus baculum cepit et Domino servivit et regnum
mandavit Mail(colum) filio Domnail.—_Pict. Chron._
Footnote 508:
952 Constantin mac Aeda ri Albain moritur.—_An. Ult._
Mortuus est autem Constantinus in x. ejus anno sub corona penitenti in
senectute bona.—_Pict. Chron._
Footnote 509:
Cum exercitu suo Malcolaim perrexit in Moreb et occidit
Cellach.—_Pict. Chron._
Footnote 510:
944 Strathclyde was ravaged by the Saxons.—_Brut of Tywysogion._
946 Stratclut vastata est a Saxonibus.—_An. Camb._
The life of St. Cadroë gives us almost a contemporary notice of the
Cumbrian kingdom. St. Cadroë was a native of Alban, and flourished in
the reign of Constantin who fought at Brunanburh, and left him to go
on a foreign mission. He came to the ‘terra Cumbrorum,’ and
Dovenaldus, the king who ruled over this people, received him gladly
and conducted him ‘usque Loidam civitatem quæ est confinium
Normannorum atque Cumbrorum.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 116. There
he is received by Gunderic, a nobleman, who takes him to King Erick at
York, who is no doubt Eric Bloody Axe, whom Aethelstan had settled in
the country.
Footnote 511:
949 In this year came Olaf Cuaran to Northumberland.—_Sax. Chron._
‘In vii^o anno regni sui predavit Anglicos ad amnem Thesis et
multitudinem rapuit hominum et multa armenta pecorum; quam predam
vocaverunt Scotti predam Albidosorum idem Nainndisi. Alii autem dicunt
Constantinum fecisse hanc predam querens a rege, id est Maelcolaim,
regnum dari sibi ad tempus hebdomadis, ut visitaret Anglicos. Verum
tamen non Maelcolaim fecit predam, sed instigavit eum Constantinus ut
dixi.’ The people plundered are here called Albidosi, that is
Nainndisi. The Pictish Chronicle was evidently translated into Latin
from a Gaelic original, and this latter word is evidently Na
Fhinndisi, the F when aspirated being silent. It means the White
Tisians, a white people of the Tees, and Albidosi is an attempt at a
Latin rendering. The Danes of Northumberland belonged to the branch of
the Northmen called Dubh Gall, or Dubh Gennti, that is black
strangers; but the followers of Eric Bloody Axe were Norwegians, who
were termed Fin Gall, or Finn Gennti, that is white strangers. Eric’s
people had therefore probably been settled on the Tees, and were the
objects of Malcolm’s attack, as they had been placed there to oppose
the Danes.
Footnote 512:
The Ulster Annals have in this year, ‘Battle against the men of Alban,
Britain, and Saxons, by the Galls,’ which seems to refer to the above
event; Eric’s people, or the Galls, opposing the people of Alban, the
Cumbrians, and the Bernicians.
Footnote 513:
A.D. 954 Maelcoluim mac Domhnaill Ri Albain occisus est.—_An. Ult._
Et occiderunt viri na Moerne Maelcolaim in Fodresach, id est, in
Claideom.—_Pict. Chron._ This word Claideom was evidently in the
original Claitheamh tir, or Sword land, a name given in one of the
Pictish traditions to Magh Gherghinn or Moerne.—_Chron. Picts and
Scots_, p. 319.
Footnote 514:
In hujus tempore oppidum Eden vacuatum est ac relictum est Scottis
usque in hodiernum diem.—_Pict. Chron._ In this chronicle ‘oppidum’ is
the usual rendering of the Gaelic Dun.
Footnote 515:
Classi Sumerlidionum occisi sunt in Buchain.—_Pict. Chron._
Footnote 516:
That this description applies to Eric’s followers appears from the
saga, which says that ‘King Eric had many people about him, for he
kept many Northmen who had come with him from the east, and also many
of his friends had joined him from Norway. But as he had little land
he went on a cruise every summer, and plundered in Shetland, the
Sudreys, Iceland, and Bretland, by which he gathered property.’ On his
death his sons go to Orkney, stay there in winter, and in summer ‘went
on viking cruises, and plundered in Scotland and Ireland.’
Footnote 517:
Dubh is an epithet meaning black. The version of the Pictish Chronicle
in the Irish Nennius calls him Cinaed vel Dubh.
Footnote 518:
Bellum inter Nigerum et Caniculum super Dorsum Crup, in quo Niger
habuit victoriam, ubi cecidit Duchad abbas Duncalden et Dubdon
satrapas Athochlach.—_Pict. Chron._ A.D. 965 Battle between the men of
Alban among themselves, ‘ubi multi occisi sunt’ about Duncan, abbot of
Dunkeld.—_An. Ult._ Cuilean, a whelp, from Cu, a dog, here translated
Caniculus.
Footnote 519:
Expulsus est Niger de regno et tanist Caniculus brevi tempore.
A.D. 967 Dub mac Maelcolaim, Ri Alban, slain by the people of Alban
themselves.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 520:
Culen et frater ejus Eochodius occisi sunt a Britonibus.—_Pict.
Chron._
A.D. 971 Culen mac Illuilb Ri Alban slain by the Britons in
battle.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 521:
Statim predavit Britanniam ex parte. Pedestres Cinadi occisi sunt
maxima cede in Moin na Cornar.—_Pict. Chron._ Moin is a moss in
Gaelic, na the genitive of the definite article, and Cornar or Cornac
the river called by Bede the Curnig, which falls into the Firth of
Forth at Abercorn.
Footnote 522:
A.D. 966. And in the same year Oslac obtained an aldordom.—_Sax.
Chron._ Deinde sub Eadgaro rege Oslac præficitur Comes Eboraco et
locis ei pertinentibus; et Eadulf, cognomento Yvelchild, a Teisa usque
Myrcforth præponitur Northymbris.—_Libellus de adventu, Sax. Ch._ p.
212.
This word Myrcforth is in one MS. Myreforth, which reading has been
usually adopted, but the former is the correct form of the name. The
Firth of Forth is called in the Norse Sagas Myrkvafiord or the mirk or
dark firth, and Myrcford is the Saxon equivalent.
Footnote 523:
Scotti prædaverunt Saxoniam ad Stanmoir et ad Clivam et ad Stang na
Deram. Cinadius autem vallavit ripas vadorum Forthen. Post annum
perrexit Cinadius et prædavit Saxoniam et traduxit filium regis
Saxonum.—_Pict. Chron._ It was not Cumberland, but Saxonia, Kenneth
laid waste. Stanmore is at the head of the Tees, and separates Cumbria
from Northumbria. Cliva seems Cleveland, on the south of the Tees
farther east. Deram seems meant for Deira.
Footnote 524:
Hic est qui tribuit magnam civitatem Brechne Domino. The ‘Hic est’ is
a Gaelic idiom for _Is e_; and Brechne is in Gaelic the genitive of
Brechin.
Footnote 525:
975 Domnall mac Eoain Ri Bretain in ailitri.—_Tigh._ 974 Dunwallawn,
king of Strathclyde, went on a pilgrimage to Rome.—_Brut y Tyw. Chron.
Picts and Scots_, pp. 77, 124.
Footnote 526:
977 Amlaim mac Illuilb Ri Alban domarbadh la Cinaeth mic
Maelcolaim.—_Tigh._
Footnote 527:
Isti duo Comites cum Elfsio, qui apud Sanctum Cuthbertum episcopus
fuerat, perduxerunt Kyneth regem Scottorum ad regem Eadgarum, qui, cum
illi fecisset hominium, dedit ei rex Eadgarus Lodoneium, et multo cum
honore remisit ad propria.
Footnote 528:
_Chron. Joh. Wallingford_, ap. Gale, p. 545. Some of the sentences are
imperfect in the original.
Footnote 529:
We have too little information as to the internal condition of
Northumbria to enable us to decide this point. After Guthred’s death
in 994, we find Bernicia under these dukes or lords of Bamborough, and
they seem to have had some connection with Galloway. In 912 Athulf,
commander of the town called Bamborough, dies.—_Ethelwerd Chron._ In
the same year Regnwald, according to Simeon of Durham, occupies the
land of Aldred, son of this Athulf or Eadulf, who takes refuge with
Constantin and asks his assistance. Among the kings who are said, in
the Saxon Chronicle, to have chosen Eadward the elder for their father
and lord are Regnwald and the sons of Eadulf, that is this Aldred and
all those who dwell in Northumbria; but in a later Chronicle it is
‘Reginaldus rex Northumbrorum ex natione Danorum et dux
Galwalensium.’—_Flores Hist._ The lord of Bamborough in the one is the
lord of Galloway in the other. Then St. Berchan, in his metrical
account of the reign of Eochodius or Eocha, son of Run, king of the
Britons, and of the daughter of Kenneth mac Alpin, says—
The Briton from Clyde shall possess,
Son of the woman from Dun Guaire.
But Dun Guaire, as we learn from Nennius, was the name given by the
Celtic population to Bamborough. Simeon of Durham has in 801 ‘Edwine,
qui et Eda dictus est, quondam dux Northanhymbrorum, tunc vero per
gratiam Salvatoris mundi abbas in Dei servitio roboratus, velut miles
emeritus diem clausit ultimum in conspectu fratrum xviii. kal.
Februarii.’ Eda, the other name by which he was known, is the usual
Latin form of the Gaelic Aedh. Is it possible that he could have been
the Aedan, grandfather of Kenneth mac Alpin, whose son Conall appears
in Kintyre in 807, and that from him this claim to the northern part
of Northumbria was derived?
Footnote 530:
Orkneyinga Saga and Olaf Tryggvasonar Saga. See _Collectanea de Rebus
Albanicis_, pp. 330-333, and Mr. Anderson’s edition.
Footnote 531:
A.D. 1020. Findlaec mac Ruaidhri Mormaer Moreb a filiis fratris sui
Maelbrigdi occisus est.—_Tigh._
Footnote 532:
Nials Saga. _Coll. de Rebus Alb._ p. 337. The fiord in which the sons
of Nial fought with the sons of Moldan from Duncan’s Bay was probably
Loch Broom.
Footnote 533:
See _Wars of the Gaedhil with the Gaill_, pp. 271, 272.
Footnote 534:
It is necessary, in steering one’s way through the numerous invasions
of the Northmen, to distinguish clearly between Norwegians and Danes.
This is evidently done in the Pictish Chronicle, the Norwegians being
called Normanni, and the Danes, Danari.
Footnote 535:
986 The Danes come to Airer Dalriatai with three ships, and 140 of
them were hung, and the rest dispersed. I Columcille plundered by the
Danes on the eve of the Nativity, and the abbot and fifteen of the
clergy of the church were slain.—_An. Ult._
987 Cath Manann ria mac Aralt et rias na Danaraibh, ubi mille occisi
sunt. Great slaughter of the Danes who ravaged I, of whom 360 were
slain.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 536:
Nials Saga in _Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis_. Dasent’s Saga of Burnt
Njal.
Footnote 537:
Gilli is apparently the prefix Gille, which enters into so many Gaelic
names. King Harald Gilli was so called because, being born in Ireland,
he originally bore the name of Gillechrist.
Footnote 538:
A.D. 989 Gofraigh mac Arailt, Ri Insi-Gall domarbh in Dalriatai.—_An.
Ult._
Footnote 539:
A.D. 995 Cinaeth mac Malcolaim Ri Alban a suis occisus est. _Tigh._
(per dolum—_An. Ult._)
Footnote 540:
Interfectus est a suis hominibus in Fotherkern per perfidiam Finvelæ
filiæ Cunchar comitis de Engus, cujus Finvelæ unicum filium predictus
Kyneth interfecit apud Dunsinoen.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 175,
289.
Footnote 541:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 96.—It is curious that on this and the
occasion when the men of Moerne slay his father, St. Berchan uses the
expression, ‘the Gael will shout around his head.’
Footnote 542:
A.D. 997 Cath etir Albancho itorchair Constantin mac Cuilindain Ri
Alban et alii multi.
Footnote 543:
Interfectus a Kynnet filio Malcolmi in Rathinveramon.—_Chron. Picts
and Scots_, pp. 175, 289.
Footnote 544:
Fordun’s _Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 168.
Footnote 545:
A.D. 997 Maelcolaim mac Domnall Ri Breatan Tuaiscert moritur.—_Tigh._
Footnote 546:
A.D. 1005 Cath etir firu Alban imonetir itorcair Ri Alban .i. Cinaed
mac Duib.—_An. Ult._
Footnote 547:
Interfectus a filio Kinet in Moeghavard.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp.
175, 289. The later Chronicles term this king Girus or Grig, son of
Kenneth, son of Dubh. The Albanic Duan calls him simply Macdhuibh, but
Flann Mainistrech has Cinaet mac Duib, the oldest authority thus
confirming the Annals of Ulster.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE KINGDOM OF SCOTIA.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1005-1034.
Malcolm, son of Kenneth, king of Scotia.]
The line of the kings of Scottish descent had now been for a century and
a half in possession of the Pictish throne. During the first
half-century they had borne the title of kings of the Picts; but during
the remainder of this period their title had passed over into that of
kings of Alban, and what formerly had been known as _Cruithintuath_ and
_Pictavia_, or the territory of the Picts, and, from its capital, the
kingdom of Scone, had now become _Albania_ or the kingdom of Alban,
extending from the Firth of Forth to the river Spey, over which these
kings of Alban ruled, while a certain supremacy was acknowledged beyond
it. The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a great
extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the dominant race of the
Scots were identified with them in name.
Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their influence
extended during the thirty years’ reign of a king who proved to be the
last of his race, and who was to bequeath the kingdom, under the name of
Scotia, to a new line of kings. This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth,
who slew his predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird.
Malcolm appears to have inaugurated the commencement of his reign by the
usual attempt on the part of the more powerful kings of this race to
wrest Bernicia from the kings of England, but which resulted in defeat
and a great slaughter of his people. The Ulster Annals tell us that in
the year 1006 a great battle was fought between the men of Alban and of
Saxonia, in which the men of Alban were overcome, and a great slaughter
made of their nobles;[548] and Simeon of Durham furnishes us with
further details. He says that ‘during the reign of Ethelred, king of the
English, Malcolm, king of the Scots, the son of King Kyned, collected
together the entire military force of Scotland, and having devastated
the province of the Northumbrians with fire and sword, he laid siege to
Durham. At this time Bishop Aldun had the government there, for
Waltheof, who was the earl of the Northumbrians, had shut himself up in
Bamborough. He was exceedingly aged, and in consequence could not
undertake any active measure against the enemy. Bishop Aldun had given
his daughter Ecgfrida in marriage to his son Uchtred, a youth of great
energy and well skilled in military affairs. Now when this young man
perceived that the land was devastated by the enemy, and that Durham was
in a state of blockade and siege, he collected together into one body a
considerable number of the men of Northumbria and York, and cut to
pieces nearly the entire multitude of the Scots; the king himself and a
few others escaping with difficulty.’[549]
But if Malcolm thus met with this great defeat in his first attempt to
extend his territories beyond the Firth of Forth on the south, he does
not appear to have been more successful in wresting the districts north
of the Spey from the grasp of Sigurd, the powerful earl of Orkney. The
only change which appears to have taken place in Sigurd’s relations with
the kings of the Scots is, that from being a pagan he had become
Christian under the influence of Olaf Tryggvesson, the first Christian
king of Norway, who, returning from a viking expedition to the west,
came to the Orkneys in the year 997, and seized Earl Sigurd as he lay
under the isle of Hoy with a single ship. King Olaf offered the earl to
ransom his life on condition he should embrace the true faith and be
baptized; that he should become his man, and proclaim Christianity over
all the Orkneys. He took his son Hundi or Hvelp as a hostage, and left
the Orkneys for Norway, where Hundi stayed with him some years, and died
there.[550]
This event was more likely to confirm than to shake Sigurd’s hold over
the Scottish provinces, and he had now the support of the king of
Norway, who, according to the Olaf Tryggvesson’s Saga, ‘promised him
that he should hold in full liberty as his subject, and with the dignity
of an earl, all the dominions which he had had before.’ Malcolm appears
to have found it more expedient to form an alliance with Sigurd, as the
next event recorded in the history of the Norwegian earl is, that he
then married the daughter of Melkolf, the king of the Scots, by whom he
had a son, Thorfinn. A great event, however, was now approaching, which
was not only to terminate Sigurd’s sway over these districts with his
life, but to free Ireland almost entirely from the domination of the
Danes. The native tribes of Ireland at length resolved to make a serious
effort to throw off the Danish yoke. The war commenced in Munster, and
the leader was the celebrated Brian Boroimhe, the head of one of its
most powerful tribes. His success in this war led to his becoming the
monarch of all Ireland, about a year or two before Malcolm ascended the
Scottish throne. The struggle between the two races in Ireland, the
Scandinavian and the Gaelic, soon became a vital one, and each party
recognised that it must terminate either in the freedom of Ireland from
the Danish dominion, or in its entire and permanent subjection to them.
This final conflict between the two races took place in the year 1014.
Each party assembled from all quarters such forces as they could
command. In addition to the native tribes of Munster, Connaught, and
Meath, who followed Brian, he had also an auxiliary force from Alban
under Donald, son of Eimin, son of Cainnich, the Mormaer of Marr,[551]
and advanced against Dublin in the spring of that year. The Danes of
Dublin, besides a party of the native tribes of Leinster who adhered to
them, assembled the Northmen, both Danes and Norwegians, from all
quarters. Among the former came Danes from Northumbria, and among the
latter Sigurd, earl of Orkney, with the Norwegians of Orkney and
Caithness, and those of the Isle of Man, of Skye, of Lewis, of Kintyre,
and Airergaidhel or Argyll, as well as from Wales.[552] This fleet
arrived from every quarter at Dublin, and with the Danes of Dublin
formed a very great force, consisting of three strong battalions. A
great battle took place at Cluantarbh near Dublin on Good Friday in the
year 1014 which ended in the entire defeat of the Danes and their
auxiliaries. The slaughter was very great on both sides. On the side of
the Irish, Brian himself, then an old man, fell after the victory had
been won, and Domnall, the Mormaer of Marr from Alban, was slain in the
battle. On the side of the Danes, most of the leaders, with Sigurd, the
earl of Orkney, were slain.[553]
By the death of Sigurd the provinces in Scotland which had been
subjected by him seem to have passed at once from under the domination
of the Norwegian earls. In fact the relation of these earls towards the
territory under their rule varied considerably, and was more or less
close according to the hold which the Norwegians had over them. When
they had entirely settled and colonised a district, it was close and
intimate, and the death of each earl in no way altered its position, and
it passed naturally to his successor. This was the case with the Orkney
Islands, which had become entirely Norwegian, and were held as an
earldom under the kingdom of Norway. They passed from him to his sons by
his first marriage—Sumarlidi, Brusi, and Einar—who divided the islands
among them and were accepted as earls. Those possessions which had been
only partially settled by the Norwegians were usually claimed by them,
and also by their native lords, and either formed part of the Norwegian
earldom or were separated from it according to the power and ability of
the Norwegian earl to retain their possession. Such was the position of
Caithness, which was claimed by the Norwegian earl as part of his
hereditary possessions, and also by the king of Scots as one of the
dependencies of his kingdom. When Sigurd went on his expedition to
Ireland which ended so fatally for him, he had sent his son Thorfinn, by
his second wife, the daughter of Malcolm, king of the Scots, to his
grandfather; and though he was only five years old at his father s
death, the king of the Scots ‘bestowed Caithness and Sutherland upon him
with the title of earl, and gave him men to rule the domain along with
him.’[554] Those districts, on the other hand, which the Norwegians had
rendered tributary to them without dispossessing their native rulers, or
to any great extent colonising them, were in a different position. Their
relation to the Norwegian earl seems to have been one mainly personal to
the earl whose power had subjected them to his authority, and ceased at
his death, as it is said with reference to a subsequent earl that on his
death ‘many “Rikis” which the earl had subjected fell off, and their
inhabitants sought the protection of those native chiefs who were
territorially born to rule over them.’[555] This was the case with the
province of Moray and Ross, which we find after Sigurd’s death ruled
over by the same Finleikr from whom he had wrested them, and who appears
in Tighernac as Findlaec mac Ruaidhri, Mormaer Moreb, and in the Ulster
Annals as ‘Ri Alban,’ indicating that he claimed a position of
independence both from the earls of Orkney and the kings of the Scots.
Such too may have been the position of those of the Sudreys which were
under Earl Gilli. He is mentioned in the year of the battle of
Cluantarbh, but he did not accompany the Norwegian chiefs to Ireland. He
appears to have been merely tributary to them, and readily transferred
his obedience from one Norwegian leader to another, which, as well as
the form of his name, confirms the impression that he was a native ruler
and belonged to that portion of the Gaelic tribes who from their
subjection to foreign rule were termed Gall gaidhel, and the islands
under his immediate rule may now for a time have owned the authority of
the king of the Scots.[556] Such too was probably the position of the
province termed by the Norwegians Dali, or the Dales, and which seems to
have been the western districts known as Airer Gaidhel, and part of
which was formerly Dalriada. This may also have been the position of
Galloway, as we find in that district, immediately after Cluantarbh, an
Earl Melkolf or Malcolm, whose name marks him out as a native
chief.[557]
As Thorfinn was only five winters old when his father, Earl Sigurd, was
slain in 1014, this places the marriage of King Malcolm’s daughter to
the Norwegian earl in the year 1008,[558] but another and evidently an
elder daughter had been already married to Crinan, or as the Irish
Annals term him, Cronan, ‘Abbot of Dunkeld.’ Though bearing this
designation he was not an ecclesiastic, but in reality a great secular
chief, occupying a position in power and influence not inferior to that
of any of the native Mormaers. The effect of the incessant invasions and
harassing depredations, directed as they were largely against the
ecclesiastical establishments, had been to disorganise the Christian
Church to a great extent, and to relax the power and sanction by which
the constitution and the lives of her clergy were regulated. They became
secular in their lives and habits, married, and had children who
inherited their possessions. The more important benefices passed into
the hands of laymen, who, along with the name of the office, acquired
possession of the lands attached to it, without taking orders or
attempting to perform clerical duties, and these offices with the
possessions attached to them became hereditary in their families.[559]
After the church of Dunkeld had been founded or at least reconstructed
by Kenneth mac Alpin, we find mention of an abbot of Dunkeld, who was
also chief bishop of Fortrenn, and whose death is recorded in 865. Eight
years after the abbot is termed simply Superior of Dunkeld.[560] In the
following century we find Donnchadh or Duncan, abbot of Dunkeld,
appearing at the head of his followers, and taking part in a war of
succession in support of one of the claimants to the throne. He was no
doubt a lay abbot, and the possessions of the church of Dunkeld were
sufficiently extensive to give him an important position among the
Mormaers of Alban. Crinan or Cronan, as lay abbot of Dunkeld, probably
possessed, with the lands belonging to it and other foundations
intimately connected with it, territories in the district of Atholl of
great extent, including almost the whole of the western part of it,[561]
and must have occupied a position of power and influence. He had by the
king’s daughter a son Duncan, and probably another son Maldred, and the
name of his eldest son leads to the inference that he was probably the
son or grandson of Duncan the lay abbot who was slain in battle in 965,
and in whose person the lay abbacy had become hereditary.
In the year 1016 Uchtred, the earl of Northumbria who had inflicted so
disastrous a defeat upon Malcolm in the early years of his reign, was
slain by Cnut, a Dane who was then in possession of the greater part of
England, and became its king in the following year, and the earldom of
Northumbria was bestowed by him upon Eric, a Dane. Eadulf Cudel,
however, the brother of Uchtred and the heir to his earldom, appears to
have maintained possession of the northern division north of the Tyne.
Malcolm seems to have felt this to be a favourable opportunity for
making a second attempt upon the northern districts. He was now in firm
possession of the kingdom of Alban; he could count upon the assistance
of the Britons of Cumbria, whose sub-king was under his dominion; and
the outlying provinces of the north and west were for the time freed
from the Norwegian rule, and might be won to aid him.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1018.
Battle of Carham, and cession of Lothian to the Scots.]
With as large a force as he could raise, he, in the year 1018, invaded
Northumbria along with Eugenius the Bald, king of the Strathclyde
Britons, and penetrated the country south of the Firth of Forth as far
as the river Tweed, where he encountered the Northumbrian army at a
place called Carham on the Tweed, a couple of miles above Coldstream,
where a great battle took place, in which the Northumbrians were
entirely defeated, and their army, drawn mainly from the region between
the Tees and the Tweed, almost entirely cut off.[562] Simeon of Durham
tells us in his history of that church that in that year ‘a comet
appeared for thirty nights to the people of Northumbria, a terrible
presage of the calamity by which that province was about to be
desolated. For, shortly afterwards (that is, after thirty days), nearly
the whole population, from the river Tees to the Tweed and their
borders, were cut off in a conflict in which they were engaged with a
countless multitude of Scots at Carrum.’[563] The effect of this great
victory was that the long-pending claims upon these districts which the
Scots had so long tried to enforce, whatever they might be, were now
settled by the surrender to them of the whole district north of the
Tweed, which now became the southern boundary of the Scottish kingdom.
In his account of the siege of Durham, Simeon tells us that Eadulf
Cudel, an indolent and cowardly man, apprehensive that the Scots would
revenge upon himself the slaughter which his brother had inflicted upon
them, yielded up to them the whole of Lodoneia in satisfaction of their
claim and for a solid peace; and in this manner, he adds, Lodoneia or
Lothian in its extended sense was annexed to the kingdom of the
Scots.[564]
Malcolm appears to have retained Lothian without objection or
interference either from the earls of Northumbria or the king of England
for upwards of ten years. Eugenius or Owen, the son of Domnall, sub-king
of Cumbria, who was with him in this expedition, was slain either in
battle or elsewhere in the same year; and this line of provincial kings,
descended from the same royal house with Malcolm himself, terminated
with him, as the next king of the Cumbrians we hear of was Duncan, the
grandson of the Scottish king, whom he now probably placed over the
whole territory belonging to his kingdom south of the firths of Forth
and Clyde.[565]
But while the king of the Scots thus at length obtained possession of a
part at least of Bernicia, and his rule could now be legitimately
exercised as far at least as the river Tweed, the question still
remained open as to the relation in which it was to place him towards
the king of England. All the rights that the Earls of Northumbria could
give him to the district of Lothian he had obtained by treaty; but, as
part of Northumbria, it belonged to the kingdom of the Angles, and was
under the dominion of its kings, and their right, as overlords, could
obviously not be thus transferred. Cnut the Dane had, the year before
the battle of Carham, become king of all England, but he had enough to
occupy his attention during the first few years of his reign, and it was
not till the year 1031 that he could take any active steps to vindicate
his right as king of England. In that year, we are told by the Saxon
Chronicle, ‘King Cnut went to Rome, and as soon as he came home, he went
to Scotland, and the Scots king, Malcolm, submitted to him and became
his man; but held that only a little while; and two other kings,
Maelbaethe and Jehmarc.’ The actual kingdom of Alban, now called Scotia,
extended only from the Firth of Forth to the river Spey, and the
provinces beyond them, though viewed by the kings of the Scots as
dependencies upon their kingdom, were not yet considered as forming an
integral part of it; those lying to the north and west of the kingdom
proper frequently passing under the rule of the Norwegians. It is to
these outlying provinces we must look for the two kings who are said to
have separately submitted along with Malcolm. It is to this period that
a description of Britain belongs in which these provinces are separately
distinguished. The part which refers to Scotland is thus
described:—‘From the Tweed to the great river Forth are Loonia and
Galweya.’ From thence to Norwegia and Dacia—that is, to the districts
occupied by Norwegians and Danes—are ‘all Albania, which is now called
Scotia, and Moravia;’ and the districts and islands here included under
the terms Norwegia and Dacia are ‘Kathenessia, Orkaneya, Enchegal, and
Man, and Ordas, and Gurth, and the other Western Islands around
them.’[566] Loonia is Lothian, recently annexed to the Scottish kingdom,
and the name Galweya was afterwards extended so as to include the whole
country from the Solway to the Clyde. Albania is here distinguished from
the provinces south of the Firths, on the one hand, and from Moravia,
north of the Spey, on the other, and we are told that it is now called
Scotia. Moravia, in its extended sense, was the province of Moray and
Ross. North and west of these provinces was the territory occupied by
the Norwegians and Danes. On the mainland it consisted of Kathenessia or
Caithness, and Airergaidhel, here probably meant by Enchegal. Ordas and
Gurth are probably intended for Lewis and Skye, the old forms of which
names were Lodus and Sgithidh, and which are usually mentioned
separately from the other islands.
[Illustration:
THE
KINGDOM
OF
SCOTIA
_W. & A. K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London._
]
Moravia is here not included among the Norwegian and Danish possessions.
On the death of Sigurd, the Norwegian earl of Orkney, it had become
freed from the Norwegian rule, and its rulers appear to have considered
themselves so far independent as to claim the Celtic title of Ri or
king. Findlaec, the son of Ruadhri, who appears in the sagas under the
name of Finleikr Jarl, and whose slaughter by the sons of his brother
Maelbrigdi in 1020 is recorded by Tighernac as Mormaer of Moreb, is
termed in the Ulster Annals ‘Ri Albain;’ and Tighernac, in recording the
death of his successor Malcolm, the son of his brother Maelbrigdi, and
one of those who slew him, in 1029, terms him ‘Ri Albain.’[567] There
can therefore be little doubt that the king Maelbaethe, who submitted to
King Cnut, was Macbeth, the son of Findlaec, who appears under the same
title which had been borne by his cousin and his father.[568] The native
rulers of Airergaidhel or Argathelia appear also to have borne the
Celtic title of Ri, and it is probable that Jehmarc represents in a
corrupted form the name of the ruler of this district.[569] These kings
would probably have little scruple in rendering their submission to King
Cnut the Dane, from their having so recently been under Norwegian rule.
Three years after this expedition Malcolm died. Tighernac records his
death in 1034 as king of Alban and head of the nobility of the west of
Europe;[570] but we now obtain an additional source of information for
this period of the history of very great value in the Chronicle of
Marianus Scotus, who was born in the reign of this Malcolm, in the year
1028, and notices a few of the events in Scottish history which took
place during his own lifetime. The first Scotch event noticed by him is
the death of Malcolm, which he says took place on the twenty-fifth of
November 1034, and he terms him ‘king of Scotia.’[571] The kings of
Alban occasionally appear as kings of the Scots, but this is the first
instance in which the name of Scotia is applied as a territorial
designation of their kingdom. Used by a contemporary writer, who was
himself a native of Ireland, it is evident that the name of Scotia had
now been transferred from Ireland, the proper Scotia of the previous
centuries, and become adopted for the kingdom of the Scots in Britain in
the reign of Malcolm, son of Kenneth, which ushers in the eleventh
century, superseding the previous name of Alban.
With Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth mac Alpin, the founder of the
Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line. Had any male
descendant existed, there would have been great risk of the territories
now composing the kingdom becoming again disunited. As Malcolm had no
son, but at least two daughters who had male issue, Cumbria and Lothian
would naturally have passed to the nearest heir in the female line;
while a male collateral who could trace his descent from the founder of
the family would, by the law of Tanistic succession, have had a
preferable claim to the regions north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde,
forming the kingdom of Alban proper, and would probably have received
the support of the Scottish part of its population at least; but the
existence of any such male descendant cannot be traced, and the last
male scion of the race appears to have been slain by King Malcolm in the
year which preceded his own death, probably to make way for the quiet
accession of Duncan, his grandson through his daughter, to the whole of
the territories which he had united under his sway.[572]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1034-1040.
Duncan, son of Crinan and grandson of Malcolm, king of
Scotia.]
He attained his object, for Duncan appears at first to have succeeded
him in the whole of his dominions without objection, but ere long to
have provoked aggression both in the south and in the north. In the
south, Eadulf Cudel, the earl who had ceded Lothian to the Scots, did
not long survive the battle of Carham, and was succeeded in the
Bernician earldom by Aldred, a son of Uchtred, on whose death his
brother Eadulf succeeded him, and in the year 1038 invaded Cumbria and
devastated the whole country.[573] Duncan, however, was not equally
successful in an invasion of the territories of Eadulf, for Simeon of
Durham, in his history of that church, tells us that Duncan, king of the
Scots, advanced with a countless multitude of troops and laid siege to
Durham, and made strenuous but ineffective efforts to carry it, for a
large proportion of his cavalry was slain by the besieged, and he was
put to a disorderly flight, in which he lost all his foot-soldiers,
whose heads were collected in the market-place, and hung up upon
posts.[574]
The aggression, however, which he provoked in the north brought a
formidable competitor into the field, and was destined to terminate more
fatally for him. The details of this war are preserved to us in the
Orkneyinga Saga; and though its authority is not unexceptionable, and
the events it records are not to be found elsewhere, the narrative still
carries with it an air of truth, and it fills a blank in the meagre
records of the time which supplies in a great measure a clue to their
real character. In this narrative the king who succeeded Malcolm appears
under the strange designation of Karl or Kali Hundason,[575] that is,
either the Churl, or Kali the son of the hound; and from the appellation
here given to Duncan’s father, we learn that the _Hundi Jarl_ or the
Hound Earl, who fought with Sigurd the Stout, earl of Orkney, could have
been no other than Crinan, the warlike lay abbot of Dunkeld. On Sigurd’s
death the islands of Orkney fell to his three sons, Sumarlidi, Einar,
and Brusi, among whom they were divided; while Thorfinn, his son by the
daughter of King Malcolm, received from his grandfather Caithness and
Sutherland, with an earl’s title. The last of the three brothers among
whom the Orkneys were divided died, however, a few years before the
death of King Malcolm;[576] and when his grandson Duncan succeeded him,
Thorfinn had been for some years in possession of the entire earldom of
Orkney. Duncan seems to have considered that Thorfinn having become earl
of Orkney, he might resume possession of Caithness, or at least demand
tribute from it. Thorfinn, on the other hand, considered that it was his
inheritance from King Malcolm through his mother, and that he had
obtained it before Duncan inherited the kingdom. Thus, says the Saga,
they became open enemies and made war on each other. Duncan took the
initiative, and bestowed Caithness with the title of earl upon a
relation of his own, Moddan, said to be his sister’s son, who proceeded
immediately to the north and collected forces in Sutherland. Earl
Thorfinn on his part raised the men of Caithness, and on being joined by
Thorkell Fostri with an army from the Orkneys, Moddan retired before his
superior forces. Thorfinn then subdued the districts both of Sutherland
and Ross, and after plundering in the district south of them, returned
to Caithness and remained at Dungallsbae or Duncansby, with five
war-ships and their crews, the rest of the army returning to Orkney.
Moddan then sought the king, whom he found at Berwick, then probably on
his return from his unsuccessful invasion of Northumbria, and told him
the result of his expedition. Duncan organised a more formidable attack.
He sent Moddan by land with a considerable force to make his way to
Caithness, and he himself sailed from Berwick with a naval force,
consisting of eleven warships and a numerous army. His intention was by
landing on the north of Caithness to place Earl Thorfinn between the two
armies, but the latter anticipated his plan by sailing out in his own
ships and attacking Duncan’s fleet in the Pentland Firth. Though the
latter fleet was superior in numbers, the Scots could not stand against
the fierce onslaught of the Norwegians, and after an obstinate conflict
gave way before them, and fled south into the Moray Firth, where Duncan
landed and proceeded south to collect a new army. Thorfinn remained in
the north till he was again joined by Thorkell Fostri with the
Orkneymen, and then went south into the Moray Firth in pursuit of
Duncan, and began to plunder the districts on its southern shore. In the
meantime, Moddan, who had no one to oppose him, appears to have occupied
Caithness with his army, and took up his quarters at Thurso, where he
remained waiting for reinforcements, which he expected to receive from
Ireland. Thorfinn, hearing this, again anticipated him. He remained
himself in Scotland, and continued plundering the country, while he sent
Thorkell north with a portion of the army. The people of Caithness were
in his interest, and thus Thorkell succeeded in surprising Moddan in
Thurso, where he came by night, set fire to the house in which Moddan
was, and slew him. His men then surrendered, and Thorkell went from
thence to the Moray Firth to rejoin Thorfinn with all the men he could
collect in Caithness, Sutherland, and Boss, and found him in Myrhaevi or
Moray. King Duncan now collected as large an army as he could assemble
from the rest of Scotland; or, as the Saga expresses it, ‘as well from
the south as the west and east of Scotland, and all the way south from
Satiri or Kintyre, and the forces for which Earl Moddan had sent, also
came to him from Ireland.[577] He sent far and near to chieftains for
men, and brought all this army against Earl Thorfinn.’ Earl Thorfinn
appears to have been stationed at Torfness or Burghead, where the Borg
was which his ancestor Sigurd had built to enable the Norwegians to
maintain their footing in Moray, and here the great battle took place
which was to decide this contest. Thorfinn first attacked the Irish
division, who were immediately routed, and never regained their
position. King Duncan then brought his standard forward against Earl
Thorfinn, and the fiercest struggle took place between the Scots and the
Norwegians; ‘but,’ says the Saga, ‘it ended in the flight of the king,
and some say he was slain.’ Earl Thorfinn then drove the fugitives
before him through Scotland, and laid the land under him wherever he
went, and all the way south to Fife.[578]
Such is the account given us by the Saga of this war. Marianus
supplements it by telling us that in the year 1040 Donnchad, king of
Scotia, was slain in autumn, on the 14th of August, by his general,
Macbethad, son of Finnlaech, who succeeded him in the kingdom.[579]
Macbeth was at this time the Ri or Mormaer of the district of Myrhaevi
or Moray, which finally became the seat of war, and when Duncan sent far
and wide to the chieftains for aid, he probably came to his assistance
with the men of Moray, and filled the place which Moddan had formerly
occupied as commander of his army; but the tie which united the mormaers
of Moray with the kings of the Scots was still a very slender one. They
had as often been subject to the Norwegian earls as they had been to the
Scottish kings; and when Duncan sustained this crushing defeat, and he
saw that Thorfinn would now be able to maintain possession of his
hereditary territories, the interests of the Mormaer of Moray seem to
have prevailed over those of the commander of the king’s army, and he
was guilty of the treacherous act of slaying the unfortunate Duncan, and
attaching his fortunes to those of Thorfinn.
The authorities for the history of Macbeth know nothing of Earl Thorfinn
and his conquests. On the other hand the Sagas equally ignore Macbeth
and his doings, and had to disguise the fact that Thorfinn was attacking
his own cousin, and one who had derived his right to the kingdom from
the same source from which Thorfinn had acquired his to the earldom of
Caithness, by concealing his identity under the contemptuous name of
Karl or Kali Hundason,[580] while some of the chronicles have
transferred to Macbeth what was true of Thorfinn, that he was also a
grandson of King Malcolm,[581] and a Welsh Chronicle denominates him
king of Orkney.[582] The truth seems to be that the conquest of the
provinces south of Moray, which took place after this battle, was the
joint work of Thorfinn and Macbeth, and that they divided the kingdom of
the slain Duncan between them: Thorfinn receiving the districts which
had formerly been under his father, with the addition of those on the
east coast extending as far as Fife or the Firth of Tay. According to
the Orkney-inga Saga, he possessed ‘nine earldoms in Scotland, the whole
of the Sudreys, and a large riki in Ireland,’ and this is confirmed by
the St. Olaf’s Saga, which tells us that ‘he had the greatest riki of
any earl of Orkney; he possessed Shetland and the Orkneys, the Sudreys,
and likewise a great riki in Scotland and Ireland.’[583] Macbeth
obtained those in which Duncan’s strength mainly lay—the districts south
and west of the Tay, with the central district in which Scone, the
capital, is situated. Cumbria and Lothian probably remained faithful to
the children of Duncan.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1040-1057.
Macbeth, son of Finnlaec, king of Scotia.]
The kingdom had thus hardly passed from the last male descendant of the
founder of the Scottish dynasty to a new family, when it was again
transferred to rulers of a different race. The whole of the northern
part found itself under the rule of the Norwegian earl of Orkney, while
the centre of the kingdom, in which the capital was situated, accepted
as its king the hereditary ruler of Moray, a district the connection of
which with the kingdom proper had hitherto been both slender and
uncertain, who reigned over these districts for seventeen years. It is
difficult to understand how a king who had no hereditary claim upon
their allegiance should have been able to maintain his possession of the
throne for so many years in a part of the country which was the
stronghold of the Scots. That he should have slain his predecessor was
no unusual circumstance, and would equally have excluded many of his
predecessors. His only connection with the Scottish dynasty was, that
his wife was Gruoch, the daughter of that Boete or Bode, son of Kenneth,
whose son or grandson had been slain in 1032 by Malcolm mac Kenneth, and
through her some claim upon the allegiance of the Scots seems to have
been based. That he was not the tyrant he is represented by Fordun to
have been seems very certain. There is no trace of it in any authentic
record. On the contrary, St. Berchan speaks kindly of him. Thus—
After slaughter of Gael, after slaughter of Galls,
The liberal king will possess Fortrenn.
The red one was fair, yellow, tall;
Pleasant was the youth to me.
Brimful (or plenteous) was Alban east and west,
During the reign of the fierce red one.
And we find Macbeth son of Finnlaec, and Gruoch daughter of Bode, king
and queen of the Scots, granting the lands of Kyrkness to the Culdees of
Lochleven from motives of piety, and for the benefit of their prayers;
and Macbeth, again, granting the lands of Bolgyne to the same Culdees,
‘with the utmost veneration and devotion.’[584] That his hold over this
part of the country, whether from personal character or from his claim
through his wife, was quite equal at least to that of the family of the
lay abbot of Dunkeld, we find from the unsuccessful attempt made by the
latter to drive him from the throne a few years after his accession.
Tighernac gives us the short but significant statement, that in the year
1045 a battle took place between the men of Alban on both sides, in
which Crinan, abbot of Dunkeld, was slain, and many with him, viz., nine
times twenty heroes.[585]
Five years after this he seems to have gone to Rome, probably to obtain
absolution for the murder of Duncan, as Marianus tells us that in the
year 1050 the king of Scotia, Macbethad, freely distributed silver to
the poor at Rome.[586]
The immunity with which he enjoyed the fruit of his treachery towards
Duncan may no doubt be attributed in a great measure to there being no
one with a preferable right who was in a position to oppose him. The
children of Duncan must have been in mere infancy at his death, and if
the immediate succession of a son to his father’s throne was still
somewhat strange to the Celtic population, that of an heir who was not
of sufficient age to be capable of governing personally was totally
opposed to their laws. He had too no doubt behind him the support of the
powerful earl of Orkney, and if he had possessed a legitimate title, he
would probably have maintained his position, and been recorded as one of
the best of the Scottish kings; but the stamp of usurpation was upon
him, and his immunity was to cease when Malcolm, the son of Duncan,
reached an age to enable him to contest his right and claim, which was
to bring a more powerful antagonist into the field than Macbeth had yet
had to encounter. This was Siward, earl of Northumbria. He was of Danish
race, and became connected with the earls of Northumbria by marriage
with Elfleda the daughter of Ealdred, earl of Northumbria, and on the
slaughter of Eadulf, his wife’s uncle, by King Hardacnut, in the year
1041, was made earl over the whole of Northumbria, extending from the
Humber to the Tweed.[587] Siward was doubly connected with the house of
Crinan, the abbot of Dunkeld, for his wife’s aunt, Aldgitha, half-sister
of Earl Ealdred, was married to Maldred, son of Crinan, and King Duncan
himself married either the sister or the cousin of Earl Siward, by whom
he had a son, Malcolm. On the assassination of his father, Malcolm must
have been a mere child, but when he reached an age which enabled him to
claim his father’s kingdom, Siward seems to have resolved to make an
effort to drive Macbeth from the throne he had usurped.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1054.
Siward, earl of Northumbria, invades Scotland, and puts
Malcolm, son of King Duncan, in possession of Cumbria.]
The Saxon Chronicle tells us that in the year 1054 ‘Earl Siward went
with a large army into Scotland, both with a naval force and a land
force, and fought against the Scots, of whom he made great slaughter,
and put them to flight, and the king escaped. Many also fell on his own
side, both Danish and English, and also his own son Oshern, and his
sister’s son Siward, and some of his “huscarls” and also of the kings
were there slain, on the day of the Seven Sleepers, that is, on the 27th
of July.’[588] Tighernac records in the same year ‘a battle between the
men of Alban and the men of Saxonia,’ in which many of the soldiers were
slain;[589] and the Ulster Annals add that ‘three thousand of the men of
Alban were slain, and fifteen hundred of the men of Saxonia, around
Dolfinn, son of Finntuir’ (or Thorfinn).[590] There is a statement in
Gaimar’s metrical chronicle not to be found elsewhere. We are there told
that ‘Earl Syward made an agreement with the king of Scotland when he
went, but Macbeth destroyed the peace, and ceased not to carry on war.’
He then gives an account of the expedition, evidently taken from the
Saxon Chronicle.[591]
As Siward advanced against Macbeth with both a naval force and a land
army, he must have intended to enter the Firth of Tay with the former,
while he penetrated by land into Scotland proper. To send a fleet merely
into the Firth of Forth could in no way have aided his enterprise. His
object therefore seems to have been Scone, the capital of the kingdom,
to which he would penetrate by land by the usual route, crossing the
Forth at Stirling, and passing through Stratherne, while his fleet
entering the Firth of Tay, would not only support the land army, but
prevent the force of the districts north of the Tay being used to turn
the flank of his army. He seems to have been opposed by the people of
Alban, who appear to have been united in support of Macbeth, who
likewise had the aid of the Norwegians, as the son of Thorfinn, called
by the Irish annalist Finntuir, fell in the contest. St. Berchan appears
to allude to this battle at Scone, and to imply that a night attack had
been made, when he says,
On the middle of Scone, it will vomit blood,
The evening of a night in much contention.
Although the Saxon Chronicle claims the victory for Siward, it admits
the greatness of the slaughter on his side. It seems to have been a
fiercely contested struggle, after which Siward found it necessary to
retire without effecting his object of driving Macbeth from the throne
of Scotia, as he reigned for three years longer; but he appears to have
so far advanced the cause of young Malcolm, that he established him in
possession of the territory of the Cumbrian Britons, and of Lothian as
king of Cumbria.[592]
In the following year Siward died, and Malcolm thus lost the powerful
support of the Danish earl of Northumbria, but he appears to have formed
a close alliance with his successor Tostig, the son of Earl Godwine,
who, though not of the Northumbrian race, had been appointed earl by
King Edward, so that they became sworn brothers; and in the year 1057,
when he had been three years in possession of the districts south of the
Firths of Forth and Clyde as king of Cumbria, Malcolm seems to have
found himself strong enough to make an independent attempt to drive
Macbeth from the throne he had usurped, and this time his attempt was
successful. Of the details of this renewed attempt no account has been
handed down to us, but it resulted in Macbeth being driven across the
great range of the Mounth, and slain by Malcolm at Lumphanan in Marr on
the 15th day of August in the year 1057.[593]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1057-8.
Lulach, son of Gilcomgan, king of Scotia.]
The party in the kingdom who supported him now put up, as king, Lulach,
who was the son of Gilcomgan, Mormaer of Moray, and the heir to whom the
hereditary rule over that province fell on the death of Macbeth, while
his mother was a granddaughter of Boete or Bodhe, and through her he
inherited whatever rights to the Scottish throne that family possessed;
but his reign, nominal as it was, lasted only seven months, and he was
slain at Essy in Strathbolgy on the 17th day of the following
March.[594]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1057-8.—1093.
Malcolm, eldest son of King Duncan, king of Scotia.]
These isolated events may be accepted as facts, transmitted to us as
they are by contemporary writers, but they leave us quite in the dark as
to how Malcolm so speedily and thoroughly accomplished what the powerful
Siward with his army and his fleet had failed to effect three years
before. It seems difficult too to understand how, if the northern
provinces up to Fife were under the rule of the powerful earl of Orkney
with his Norwegians, Malcolm could have carried the war so far into them
as to drive Macbeth beyond the Dee and defeat and kill him there. The
Orkneyinga Saga tells us that Thorfinn possessed nine earldoms in
Scotland, and that on his death ‘many of the rikis which the earl had
subjected fell off, and their inhabitants sought the protection of those
native chiefs who were territorially born to rule over them.’[595]
Besides the four earldoms in Scotland of Sutherland, Ross, Moray, and
Dali, which his father Sigurd had subjected before him, he had brought
for the first time under the Norwegian yoke the four earldoms of Buchan,
Marr, Mearns, and Angus, and these would bring his possessions up to
Fife, and with Galloway,[596] which he probably also possessed, would
make up the nine earldoms, and the most probable explanation of Malcolm
having selected this year to make a great effort to recover his father’s
throne and of its apparent rapid success, is that it was also the year
of Thorfinn’s death, when many of the provinces which had been subjected
by him fell again under native rule. Of these, the first to free
themselves from the Norwegian yoke would be the four earldoms extending
from the Spey to the Firth of Tay, forming the northern half of the
kingdom proper. It was, however, in this part of the kingdom, and mainly
in Angus, that the branch of the royal house of which Malcolm, son of
Kenneth, was the head, and which Malcolm, the son of Duncan, now
represented in the female line, had its main seat, and it was there that
their power and influence lay. If these provinces were now freed from
the Norwegian yoke, Malcolm might find there powerful support, while his
paternal descent from the lay abbots of Dunkeld would likewise bring the
people of Atholl and of the extensive possessions of that church to his
aid. The death of Thorfinn would thus present to him a great opportunity
for making another attempt to add the kingdom of Scotland to that of
Cumbria, with the district of Lothian which he already possessed; and
Macbeth, finding himself isolated, with the forces of Cumbria and
Lothian in front of him and a hostile population behind him, in place of
the support of the Norwegian earl, would fall back upon his own
hereditary province of Moray, and being followed by Malcolm with his
army, gathering strength as he proceeded, was overtaken and slain at
Lumphanan.
If this view, that Thorfinn died in 1057, appears to afford us the most
plausible explanation of the sudden termination of Macbeth’s kingdom,
there is nothing in the Sagas which raises any serious objection to it.
They nowhere state any fact which gives us a fixed date for Thorfinn’s
death. The Orkneyinga Saga says, that from the year when he was made
earl, that is, in 1014, ‘he was earl for seventy winters,’ which would
make him live till the year 1084. The Saga of Saint Olaf reduced the
number of years to sixty winters, that is, to the year 1074, but both
Sagas agree that he died in the end or in the latter days of Harald
Sigurdson, who was slain at the battle of Stamford Bridge in the year
1066; and when Harald came to the Orkneys, on his way to England, he
found Thorfinn’s sons ruling as earls of Orkney, and took them with him.
No events are recorded of Thorfinn in the Sagas after the year 1050, and
if he died in 1057 his death would take place about eight years before
that of Harald Sigurdson, and in the last half of his reign. It might
still be said that he died towards the end of his reign.
Simeon of Durham too tells us that in the year 1061 ‘Aldred, archbishop
of York, went to Rome with Earl Tostig and received the pall from Pope
Nicholas. Meanwhile Malcolm, king of Scots, furiously ravaged the
earldom of his sworn brother Earl Tostig, and violated the peace of St.
Cuthbert in the island of Lindisfarne.’[597] What led to Malcolm thus
taking advantage of Tostig’s absence to attack his earldom we do not
know, and the chronicler throws no further light upon it; but it is
hardly possible to suppose that Malcolm could have ventured to attack
Northumbria, and break off his alliance with Tostig, if he had not by
this time effected the subjugation of his entire kingdom, and if the
northern half of it still remained under the rule of the Norwegian earl
of Orkney. On Thorfinn’s death Malcolm appears to have endeavoured to
conciliate the Norwegian element in the country by making Ingibiorg, the
widow of Thorfinn, his wife, by whom he had a son Duncan. His Norwegian
wife did not, however, apparently survive the birth of her son many
years, and gave way to a more important alliance for Malcolm, and one
that was to exercise a powerful influence on the internal condition of
the country, and the character of the reigning house. The Saxon
Chronicle tells us, that in the summer of the year 1067 ‘Eadgar child
went out (from Northumberland) with his mother Agatha, and his two
sisters Margaret and Christina, and Mærleswegen, and many good men with
them, and came to Scotland under the protection of King Malcolm, and he
received them all.’ One edition of the chronicle adds, ‘Then King
Malcolm began to yearn after his sister Margaret to wife, but he and all
his men long refused, and she herself also declined, and said that she
would have nor him nor any one if the heavenly clemency would grant that
she in maidenhood might propitiate the mighty Lord with corporal heart
in this short life in pure continence. The king earnestly urged her
brother, until he answered yea, and indeed he durst not otherwise,
because they were come into his power.’ The other edition of the
chronicle simply adds, ‘and he took the child’s sister Margaret to
wife.’ Florence of Worcester, who is the next best authority, places
this event in the year 1068, which is probably the correct year,[598]
and tells us that ‘Marleswein and Gospatric, and all the nobler
Northumbrians, to avoid the severity of the king, and dreading the
imprisonment which so many had suffered, sailed to Scotland with Eadgar
Aetheling, his mother Agatha, and his two sisters Margaret and
Christina, and wintered there under the protection of Malcolm king of
Scots.’[599] The marriage probably took place the following spring at
Dunfermline, which King Malcolm appears to have adopted as his principal
seat, and not without reason, according to Fordun’s description of it:
‘For that place was of itself most strongly fortified by nature, being
begirt by very thick woods and protected by steep crags. In the midst
thereof was a fair plain, likewise protected by crags and streams, so
that one might think that was the spot whereof it was said, scarce man
or beast may tread its pathless wilds.’[600]
Child Eadgar, as the Saxon Chronicle calls him, was the son of Eadward
Aetheling, who had returned from exile in Hungary in the year 1057, and
died in England the same year. As Eadward Aetheling was the son of King
Eadmund, the elder brother of Eadward the Confessor, he might have been
held, if he had been at home instead of in distant exile, to have had a
preferable right to the throne; but after the death of Eadward the
Confessor his family were looked upon as representing the royal house of
Wessex, and as possessing a legitimate claim upon the allegiance of the
Saxon population, which, had the personal character of Eadgar been
different, might have made him a more formidable opponent to the Norman
Conqueror than he proved to be. The connection of Malcolm with this
family by marriage with his sister was a very important one for him, and
he now combined in his own person advantages which gave him a claim to
the obedience of each of the different races now united under his rule.
In the male line he represented the powerful lay abbots of Dunkeld, and
inherited their influence over the ecclesiastical foundations dependent
upon that monastery. In the female, he possessed the more important
representation of the Scottish royal house who had ruled for a century
and a half over the kingdom of Scotland. His father Duncan had been
recognised for twenty years by the Welsh population of Cumbria or
Strathclyde as their king, and by his mother he was connected with the
Danes of Northumbria and their powerful earl Siward. His marriage with
Ingibiorg gave him a claim to the good-will at least of the Norwegians,
and the Anglic population of Lothian and Northumbria would look upon his
marriage with the daughter of the Aetheling as giving him an additional
right to their steadfast support. The northern province of Moray alone,
whose hereditary rulers were of the same family as Macbeth, would
probably render but an unwilling submission to his authority, and his
rule over them would be little more than nominal.
Of the events of his thirty-five years’ reign, however, very few have
been recorded. The combination of so many advantages in his own person
would naturally lead to a further amalgamation of the different
provinces of the kingdom, with their varied population, into one
monarchy; but this is a silent process, which little attracts the notice
of the chroniclers of the time. The personal character of Margaret, no
doubt, was one to exercise a great influence upon the internal condition
and progress of the people, as we learn to some extent from her life by
Turgot; but this belongs to a different part of our subject, and beyond
a few isolated notices we know really nothing of the internal history of
his reign.
[Sidenote: Malcolm invades Northumbria five times.]
As to external events, Simeon of Durham, whose language, however, is
coloured by an indignant hatred of the Scots on account of their
frequent attacks upon Durham, tells us that Malcolm had ‘five times
wasted the province of Northumbria with a savage devastation, and
carried captive the wretched natives to reduce them to slavery: once in
Eadward’s reign, when Tostig, earl of York, had gone to Rome;’ twice in
the reign of King William the Conqueror; and twice in that of his
successor.[601]
The first we have already noticed. The two next were probably connected
with the claims of the Aetheling; but it is also possible that Malcolm
may now have begun to realise the growing importance of Lothian and its
Anglic population as an integral portion of its dominions, and been not
unwilling to take advantage of the unsettled state of the north of
England to extend to the Tyne the limits of that province which was now
assuming the prominent place it ever after occupied in the future
Scotland. Simeon seems to hint at some such motive, when he accuses him
of being ‘instigated by avarice.’ If this was Malcolm’s real object, his
policy seems to have been, by harassing and devastating the earldom
north of the Tyne, from time to time, to force them to put themselves
under his protection—a policy not unknown to the descendants of a part
of his subjects, when black mail was a familiar term.
During the first three years of the reign of William the Conqueror, he
had little real power or authority beyond the Humber, and it was not
till the end of the year 1069, when he invaded Northumbria, and laid the
country entirely waste with fire and sword, that he may be said to have
actually conquered the country. Previous to that expedition he exercised
a merely nominal authority, through earls of his own appointment, who no
sooner attempted to exercise their functions within the earldom than
they were ere long slain.
It was in Northumbria that the cause of the Aetheling was mainly
supported, and that part of it which was north of the Tyne presented a
tempting field for the incursions of the Scots. On the death of Siward
in 1055 an earl was for the first time appointed who was not of
Northumbrian race. Tostig, the son of Earl Godwine, was appointed earl
by King Eadward, but, after a ten years’ rule, we are told by the Saxon
Chronicle that in 1065 ‘all the thanes in Yorkshire and Northumberland
gathered together, and outlawed their Earl Tostig, and slew all his
household-men that they could come at, both English and Danish, and took
all his weapons at York, and gold and silver, and all his treasures
which they could anyway hear of, and sent after Morkere, son of Earl
Aelfgar (of Mercia), and chose him for their earl,’ which was confirmed
by King Edward. Morkere does not seem, however, to have been accepted by
the Northumbrians beyond the Tyne, as Simeon of Durham tells us that he
transferred that part of the earldom to Osulf, son of Earl Eadulf, of
the line of the native earls, who had been slain in the year 1041. In
the year 1067 King William summoned Earl Morkere to attend him on his
voyage to Normandy, and retained him beside him, and at the same time
sent Copsige, who had been an adherent of Earl Tostig, to govern, as
procurator, that part of the earldom under Osulf; but Simeon tells us
that ‘Osulf, driven by Copsige from the earldom, concealed himself in
the woods and mountains in hunger and want, till at last, having
gathered some associates whom the same need had brought together, he
surrounded Copsige while feasting at Newburn. He escaped through the
midst of confused crowds, but, being discovered while he lay hid in the
church, he was compelled, by the burning of the church, to go out to the
door, where, at the very door, he was beheaded by the hands of Osulf, in
the fifth week of his charge of the earldom, on the fourth of the ides
of March. By and by, in the following autumn, Osulf himself, rushing
headlong against the lance of a robber who met him, was thrust through,
and there perished. At his death Gospatric, the son of Maldred, the son
of Crinan, going to King William, obtained the earldom of the
Northumbrians, which he purchased for a great sum, for the dignity of
that earldom belonged to him by his mother’s blood. His mother was
Algitha, the daughter of Earl Uchtred, whom he had by Algiva, daughter
of King Agelred.’[602] Gospatric, by paternal descent, was nearly
connected and a member of the same house with Malcolm, the king of the
Scots, while the means by which he obtained his earldom ranged him among
the followers of King William, and he thus placed himself in a position
which it was very difficult for him to maintain without alienating from
him either the one or the other. In the following year, therefore, the
Saxon Chronicle tells us that, in 1067, after Whitsunday, ‘it was then
announced to the king that the people of the north had gathered
themselves together and would stand against him if he came. He then went
to Nottingham, and there wrought two castles; and so went to York, and
there wrought two castles, and in Lincoln, and everywhere in that part.
And Earl Gospatric and the best men went to Scotland.’ The same
Chronicle tells us that in the following year, 1068 according to the
Chronicle, but correctly given by Simeon in 1069, ‘King William gave to
Earl Robert (de Comines) the government over Northumberland; but the men
of the country surrounded him in the burgh at Durham, and slew him and
nine hundred men with him. And immediately after Eadgar Aetheling came,
with all the Northumbrians, to York, and the townsmen made peace with
them; and King William came unawares on them from the south with an
overwhelming army, and put them to flight, and slew those who could not
flee, which were many hundred men, and plundered the town, and defiled
St. Peter’s monastery, and also plundered and oppressed all the others,
and the Aetheling went back again to Scotland.’
This unsuccessful attempt seems to have led to a more general
combination of the northern powers in favour of the Aetheling, in which
the aid of Swein, king of Denmark, had been solicited and obtained; and
in autumn ‘came from Denmark,’ the Saxon Chronicle tells in 1069, ‘three
sons of King Svein and Asbiörn Jarl, and Thorkell Jarl, with two hundred
and forty ships, into the Humber; and there came to meet them Eadgar
child and Earl Waltheof, and Maerleswegen, and Earl Gospatric, with the
Northumbrians, and all the country people, riding and walking, with a
countless army, greatly rejoicing; and so all unanimously went to York
and stormed and demolished the castle, and gained innumerable treasures
therein, and slew there many hundred Frenchmen, and led many with them
to the ships.... When the king learned this, he went northward with all
his force that he could gather and completely harried and laid waste the
shire. And the fleet lay all winter in the Humber, where the king could
not come at them. And the king was in the day of Midwinter at York, and
so all the winter in the land.’ Florence of Worcester tells us that
‘King William ceased not, during the whole winter, to lay waste the
land, to murder the inhabitants, and to inflict numerous injuries.’[603]
This devastation of the land, however, does not appear to have extended
beyond the Tyne, or to have affected the districts on the coast; but
what was left undone by William was completed by Malcolm, king of the
Scots, for Simeon of Durham tells us that in the spring of the year
1070, after King William had returned to the south of the Humber, ‘a
countless multitude of Scots marched through Cumbreland, under the
command of King Malcolm, and turning to the east ravaged with fierce
devastation the whole of Teesdale, or the vale of the river Tees, and
the parts bordering it on each side.’ Then, ‘having pillaged Cleveland
in part, by a sudden foray he seized Holderness, and thence savagely
overrunning the territory of St. Cuthbert, between the Tees and the
Tyne, he deprived all of their property, and some of their lives. Then
he destroyed by fire, under his own inspection, the church of St. Peter,
the prince of the apostles, at Wearmouth. He burnt also other churches,
with those who had taken refuge in them.’[604] Whether this inroad was
made as part of the plan for a combined attempt in favour of Eadgar,
which failed the preceding year, and that Malcolm had been too late in
putting his part of it into execution, or whether, as seems more
probable, he thought it a favourable opportunity for carrying out the
policy which he hoped might lead to his extending his frontier to the
Tyne, it seems difficult to say; but Gospatric, who had fled to Scotland
before the approach of King William the preceding year, had now become
reconciled to him, as Orderic of Vital says that while King William had
pursued his foes to the river Tees, he ‘there received the submission of
Waltheof in person, and of Gospatric by his envoys, who swore fealty on
his part,’[605] and he seems to have thought that he might win favour by
acting against Malcolm. Simeon therefore tells us, ‘Having called in
some bold auxiliaries, he made a furious plundering attack upon
Cumbreland. Having done this with slaughter and conflagration, he
returned with great spoil and shut himself with his allies into the
strong fortress of Bamborough, from which making frequent sallies, he
weakened the forces of the enemy.’ Malcolm ‘having heard, while still
gazing on the church of St. Peter as it was being consumed by the fire
of his men, of what Gospatric had committed against his people, scarcely
able to contain himself for fury, ordered his troops no longer to spare
any of the English nation, but either to smite all to the earth, or to
carry them off captives under the yoke of perpetual slavery.’ Simeon
then gives us his usual picture of the barbarity with which such inroads
were carried on by the Scots, and adds as the result, ‘Scotland was
therefore filled with slaves and handmaids of the English race; so that
even to this day, I do not say no little village, but even no cottage,
can be found without one of them.’[606] Simeon inserts the following
tale in his account of this inroad by Malcolm the king of the Scots. He
says that ‘when he was riding along the border of the river (Wear)
beholding from an eminence the cruel exploits of his men against the
unhappy English, and feasting his mind and eyes with such a spectacle,
it was told him that Eadgar Aetheling and his sisters, who were
beautiful girls of the royal blood, and many other very rich persons,
fugitives from their homes, lay with their ships in that harbour. When
they came to him with terms of amity, he addressed them graciously, and
pledged himself to grant them and all their friends a residence in his
kingdom as long as they chose.’ And Simeon afterwards adds, ‘After
Malcolm’s return to Scotland, when Bishop Egelwin was commencing his
voyage towards Cologne, a contrary wind arising soon drove him back to
Scotland. Thither also it bore with a favourable course Eadgar Aetheling
with his companions before named. King Malcolm, with the consent of his
relatives, took in marriage Eadgar’s sister Margaret, a woman noble by
royal descent, but much more noble by her wisdom and piety. By her care
and labour the king himself, laying aside the barbarity of his manners,
became more gentle and civilised.’ But this story, if it has any
foundation at all, appears to be misplaced, and the marriage which
followed it had already taken place. Placed as it is in this year, it is
quite inconsistent with the previous narrative. Simeon had recorded two
years before the flight of Eadgar with his mother Agatha, and his two
sisters Margaret and Cristina, by sea, to Scotland, where he says they
passed the winter. It is therefore in the highest degree improbable that
when Eadgar went in the following year to Northumbria to join the Danes
in seizing the country, he should have taken his mother and sisters with
him, from their secure refuge at the court of Scotland, to join him in
so hazardous an expedition. Then the story as told implies that Malcolm
now heard of these sisters and their charms for the first time; while,
according to Simeon himself, they had already passed a winter with him
in Scotland. The story really belongs to the first flight of Eadgar to
Scotland, with his mother and sisters, in 1068, and not to his return
from Northumbria in 1070, and seems to be the same tale which Fordun
tells, on the authority of Turgot, that King Malcolm, when residing at
Dunfermline, heard of the arrival of Eadgar and his sisters in St.
Margaret’s Bay, and sent messengers to ascertain who they were, who
brought him precisely the same report of the beauty of the sisters, in
consequence of which he invited them to his court, and married
Margaret.[607]
During the early years of the reign of the Conqueror, Scotland had not
only been the refuge of his discontented subjects, and the haven in
which those who unsuccessfully opposed him could at all times shelter
themselves from his vengeance and renew their attempts when opportunity
offered, but its king had afforded the Aetheling three times a refuge at
his court, and had now identified himself with his cause by marrying his
sister. King William therefore felt the necessity of establishing at
once a more definite relation between himself and the Scottish king, and
of convincing him that his power was not to be opposed with impunity. It
was not till the year 1072 that he was able to turn his attention
seriously to this object, but in that year the Saxon Chronicle tells us
‘King William led a naval force and a land force to Scotland, and lay
about that land with ships on the sea-side, and himself with his land
force went in over the ford.’ This was precisely the same disposition of
his forces which Earl Siward had made when he invaded Scotland in 1054,
and no doubt with the same object, that of investing Scone, the capital
of the country. King William, we know, marched with his land army
through Lothian and Stirlingshire, and entered Scotland proper by the
ford over the Forth[608] there, and the only object in sending a fleet
could have been to penetrate into the interior of the country by the
Firth of Tay. We are then told that ‘King Malcolm came and made peace
with King William, and gave hostages and became his man, and the king
went home with all his force.’ Florence of Worcester says that ‘Malcolm,
king of Scots, met him in a place called Abernethiei’[609] or Abernethy
on the Tay, which is quite in accordance with this view. What the
precise nature or extent of the homage was which Malcolm agreed at
Abernethy to render, there are no materials now to determine. When the
possessions of the king of the Scots were confined to the kingdom proper
north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, the expression ‘he became his
man’ would have a definite significance; but after the cession of
Cumbria and Lothian it loses its force, as we cannot tell whether the
homage was paid for the kingdom or for one or both of these outlying
dependencies. The hostage given was, as we are afterwards informed by
the Saxon Chronicle, Duncan, the eldest son of Malcolm by Ingibiorg, his
first wife, who must then have been a boy of about ten years of age.
Simeon tells that on the return of King William from this expedition, he
deprived Gospatric of his earldom, ‘charging him with having afforded
counsel and aid to those who had murdered the earl (Robert de Comines)
and his men at Durham, although he had not been present in person, and
that he had been on the side of the enemy when the Normans were slain at
York’ in the same year; and he adds that, ‘flying therefore to Malcolm,
he (Gospatric) not long after, made a voyage to Flanders; returning
after a little time to Scotland, the king bestowed upon him Dunbar with
the adjacent lands in Lothian.’ [610] King William seems now to have
thought it more politic to place one who had some hereditary claim to
the earldom than a stranger over the Northumbrians, and bestowed
Gospatric’s earldom upon Waltheof, ‘which,’ says Simeon, ‘was his right
by his father’s and brother’s descent, for he was the son of Earl Siward
by Elfleda, daughter of Earl Aldred.’
Eadgar Aetheling appears to have taken refuge, when King William invaded
Scotland, in Flanders; but two years after, when King William went to
Normandy, ‘Eadgar child came,’ the Saxon Chronicle tells us, ‘from
Flanders to Scotland on St. Grimbald’s mass day, or the 8th of July, and
King Malcolm and his sister Margaret received him with great worship. At
that same time Philip, king of France, wrote to him and bade him come to
him and he would give him the castle of Montreuil, that he might then
daily do harm to his enemies. Moreover, King Malcolm and his sister
Margaret gave him and all his men great gifts and many treasures in
skins decked with purple and in pelisses of marten-skin and weasel-skin
and ermine-skin, and in palls and in golden and silver vessels; and led
him and all his ship men with great worship from his dominion.’ No
doubt, in the relation in which Malcolm then stood to King William, his
presence was an embarrassment to him; and as he was not disposed to
assist him himself at this time, he was glad to be relieved from his
difficulty by the king of France discovering that he might make use of
him to annoy the king of England from another quarter. But King Malcolm
was not to be so easily freed from the embarrassment of his presence as
he expected; for we are told that ‘on the voyage evil befell them when
they went out at sea, so that there came on very rough weather, and the
raging sea and the strong wind cast them on the land so that all their
ships burst asunder, and they themselves with difficulty came to land,
and almost all their treasures were lost, and some of his men also were
seized by the Frenchmen; but he himself and his best men went back again
to Scotland, some ruefully going on foot and some miserably riding. When
King Malcolm advised him that he should send to King William over the
sea and pray his peace; and he also did so, and the king granted it to
him and sent after him. And King Malcolm and his sister again gave him
and all his men innumerable treasures, and very worthily again sent him
from their jurisdiction.’ Malcolm was more fortunate the second time.
Eadgar succeeded in reaching the court of King William in safety, where
he was well received, and remained with him.
Malcolm appears now to have turned his attention more to the
amalgamation of the provinces he held, instead of attempting to enlarge
his dominions at the expense of Northumbria, and in the year 1078 he
appears to have invaded the province of Moray. The hereditary ruler of
the province at this time was Maelsnectan, the son of that Lulach who
had borne the title of king for four months, and his son appears under
the Celtic title of ‘Ri Moreb,’ or king of Moray. Malcolm seems to have
been successful in his attempt, as the Saxon Chronicle tells us in an
imperfect notice that ‘in this year King Malcolm won the mother of
Maelslaeht ... and all his best men, and all his treasure and his
cattle, and he himself escaped with difficulty.’ He may have taken
refuge in the remote stronghold of Loch Deabhra in Lochaber, which St.
Berchan tells us had been the habitation of his father Lulach, and here
he died seven years after.[611]
Malcolm appears to have been emboldened by this success and by the
continued absence of King William in Normandy to make another attempt to
extend his frontier to the Tyne, notwithstanding that his son Duncan was
still retained as a hostage at the English Court, as Simeon of Durham
tells us that in 1079 ‘Malcolm, king of Scots, after the Assumption of
St. Mary on the 15th of August, devastated Northumberland as far as the
great river Tyne, slew many, took more prisoners, and returned with
great spoil;’ but when King William returned in the following year to
England, ‘he sent in the autumn his son Robert to Scotland against
Malcolm, but having gone as far as Egglesbreth he returned without
accomplishing anything, and built the new castle on the Tyne.’[612]
Egglesbrech is the Gaelic name of Falkirk,[613] so that Robert
penetrated as far as the river Carron, but did not venture to proceed
farther, and it is probable that he contented himself with repaying the
devastation of that part of Northumbria north of the Tyne by pillaging
Lothian and Calatria, and was forced to retreat by the want of supplies;
and while he protected Northumbria south of the Tyne by the castle he
erected on that river, he virtually surrendered the district north of it
to the incursions of the Scots.
In the year 1085, the same year in which Maelsnectan died, Malcolm
appears to have lost a son, Domnall, probably another son by his first
marriage, who seems to have died a violent death;[614] and two years
afterwards William the Conqueror died and was succeeded by his son
William Rufus. By the death of his great and imposing antagonist Malcolm
seems to have considered himself relieved from the necessity of further
observing any engagements he may have entered into towards the king of
England; and though his eldest son was still retained as a hostage at
the English Court, he had now around him a flourishing band of youthful
sons, the fruit of his union with Queen Margaret, the eldest of whom may
now have been approaching majority, and he may have felt less hesitation
in exposing the son whom he had not seen since he was a boy, and by a
mother whom he had forgotten, to have the consequences of any act of
hostility visited upon him. Accordingly, when in the year 1091 Eadgar
Aetheling had been deprived of the lands which had been given him in
Normandy by the new king, and went to Scotland to his brother-in-law and
to his sister, Malcolm had no hesitation in this time adopting his
cause. As the Saxon Chronicle tells us, ‘While King William was out of
England King Malcolm of Scotland came hither into England and harried a
great deal of it, till the good men who had charge of this land sent a
force against him and turned him back. When King William in Normandy
heard of this he made ready for his departure, and came to England, and
his brother the Count Robert with him, and forthwith ordered a force to
be called out, both a ship force and a land force; but the ship force,
ere he could come to Scotland, almost all perished miserably a few days
before St. Michael’s mass,[615] and the king and his brother went with
the land force. But when King Malcolm heard that they would seek him
with a force, he went with his force out of Scotland into the district
of Lothian in England, and there awaited.[616] When King William with
his force approached, there intervened Count Robert and Eadgar
Aetheling, and so made a reconciliation between the kings, so that King
Malcolm came to our king and became his man, with all such obedience as
he had before paid to his father, and that with oath confirmed. And King
William promised him in land and in all things that which he had had
before under his father. In this reconciliation Eadgar Aetheling was
also reconciled with the king, and the kings then with great good
feeling separated.’ This passage seems very clearly to imply that the
expression ‘and Malcolm became his man’ does not refer to any homage
rendered by Malcolm for the kingdom of Scotland, either on this or the
former occasion, but for land held under the king in England; and
although Malcolm may have considered that he had a hereditary right to
the district of Lothian, and was not inclined to admit its dependence
upon the king of England when he could help it, yet it can hardly be
doubted that when forced to recognise the claims of the king of England
he conceded that Lothian was not an integral part of Scotland but of
England, and, in becoming the king’s man, acknowledged his supremacy
over it.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1092.
Cumbria south of the Solway wrested from the Scots.]
The Chronicle adds, in narrating this reconciliation, ‘but that stood
only a little while;’ and accordingly in the following year King
William, who apparently coveted that part of the Cumbrian territory
which extended from the Solway to the river Derwent and the Cross at
Stanmore, and probably considered that if his right as overlord had been
recognised he might resume any part of it, ‘with a large force went
north to Carlisle and restored the town, and raised the castle and drove
out Dolphin, who had previously ruled the land there, and garrisoned the
castle with his own men, and then returned south hither. And very many
country folk, with wives and with cattle, he sent thither to dwell and
to till the land,’ Dolphin was probably the son of Earl Gospatric, and
held this part of Cumbria under Malcolm, and this was a direct invasion
of his rights, as the kings of Scotland unquestionably were in
legitimate possession of the whole of the ancient British kingdom of
Cumbria, which extended from the Clyde to the Derwent and to Stanmore;
but he appears to have endeavoured at first to obtain redress by
negotiation, for the Chronicle tells us that ‘after this, the king of
Scotland sent, and demanded the fulfilment of the treaty which had been
promised him. And King William summoned him to Gloucester, and sent him
hostages to Scotland, and Eadgar Aetheling afterwards, and the men back
again, who brought him with great worship to the king. But when he came
to the king he could not be held worthy either the speech of the king or
the conditions that had been previously promised him; and therefore in
great hostility they parted, and King Malcolm returned home to Scotland.
But as soon as he came home he gathered his army, and marched into
England, harrying with more animosity than ever behoved him. And then
Robert the earl of Northumberland ensnared him with his men unawares and
slew him. Morel of Bamborough slew him, who was the earl’s steward and
King Malcolm’s gossip. With him also was slain his son Eadward, who
should, if he had lived, have been king after him.’ Simeon of Durham
adds that he was cut off near the river Alne, and that ‘his army either
fell by the sword, or those who escaped the sword were carried away by
the inundation of the rivers which were then more than usually swollen
by the winter rains. Two of the natives placed the body of the king in a
cart, as none of his men were left to commit it to the ground, and
buried it at Tynemouth.’[617]
By some of the Scotch Chronicles Malcolm is said to have been slain at
Inneraldan or the mouth of the river Alne, by others at Alnwick, and to
have been buried at Tynemouth;[618] and thus terminated his long reign
of thirty-five years.[619] The character of Malcolm was variously
regarded by the English and by his own subjects. The English historians,
who had mainly to record his frequent invasions of Northumberland,
regarded him as a man of barbarous disposition and a cruel and pitiless
temper, who delighted to ravage and devastate the northern districts of
England, instigated by avarice; while they attributed any better traits
in his character to the humanising influence of his Saxon consort Queen
Margaret. By his Celtic subjects he was known as Malcolm Ceannmor, or
‘great head,’ and was regarded, according to the testimony of St.
Berchan, as
A king, the best who possessed Alban;
He was a king of kings fortunate.
He was the vigilant crusher of enemies.
No woman bore or will bring forth in the East
A king whose rule will be greater over Alban;
And there shall not be born for ever
One who had more fortune and greatness.
[Sidenote: State of Scotland at Malcolm’s death.]
On his death he left the kingdom in possession for the first time of the
same southern frontier which it ever after retained. It was now
separated from the kingdom of England by the Solway Firth, the range of
the Cheviot Hills, and the river Tweed. From the Solway to the Clyde
extended that portion of Cumbria which still belonged to the Scottish
king; from the Tweed to the Forth, the district of Lothian. From the
Forth to the Spey was Alban or Albania, now called Scotia. Beyond it, on
the north, the province of Moravia; on the west, Airergaidhel or
Argathelia; while beyond these were, on the north, Caithness and the
Orkney Isles forming the Norwegian earldom of Orkney; and, on the west,
the Sudreys or Western Islands still occupied by the Norwegians, though
since the death of Thorfinn belonging nominally to Scotland.
-----
Footnote 548:
1006 Bellum itir firu Albain et Saxanu coromaid for Albanchu co
fargabsat ar an degh doine.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 366.
Footnote 549:
Sim. _de obsessione Dunelm._ Simeon places this war in the year 969,
but Durham was not founded till the year 995, and Malcolm did not
begin to reign till 1005. Mr. Freeman, in his _History of the Norman
Conquest_, vol. i. p. 357, rightly places it in the year 1006. He
says, “If it happened at all, it must have been in this year, the only
one which suits the position of the king, bishop, and earl spoken of.
Ealdhun became bishop in 990, and removed the see to Durham in 995.
Malcolm began to reign in 1004. A Northumbrian earldom became vacant
in 1006. This fixes the date. The authority of Simeon is, I think,
guarantee enough for the general truth of the story, and the silence
of the Chronicles and Florence is not conclusive as to a Northumbrian
matter.” This conclusion of Mr. Freeman is the more striking as he
appears not to have been aware of the passage in the Ulster Annals
placing what is obviously the same event under the year 1006.
Footnote 550:
Olaf Tryggvesson’s Saga, cap. 52.
Footnote 551:
The tract on the Wars of the Gaedhil with the Gaill says that one wing
of Brian’s army consisted of ten mormaers of Brian with their foreign
auxiliaries. The word Gall, here translated ‘foreign,’ usually means
the Northmen, but it seems here used in its general sense of foreign.
Though the Mormaer of Marr is the only one named, the whole force of
Alban was probably here arrayed on Brian’s side.
Footnote 552:
The passage in the tract on the Wars of the Gaedhil enumerates the
auxiliary Galls as those of ‘Insi Ore ocus Insi Cat; a Manaind ocus a
Sci ocus a Leodus; a Cindtiri ocus a h-Airergoedel ocus a Barru ocus a
Coir breathnaibh ocus a Cornbliteoc ocus a Breathnaibh Cillemuine.’ A
copy of a tract on the battle of Cluaintarbh in the author’s
possession gives them thus:—‘Sitric mac Lodar Iarla Innsehorc go
sluagh (with the host of) Innsehorc ocus Oilein Lochlannach (the
Norwegian islands), sluagh (the host of) Innse Cath ocus Maininn,
Scithidh, Lodhusa, Cinntire ocus Oirer Gaoidhil ocus Corbrethnuibh
(district Britons of) Cille Muine ocus Cor na liagog gona
rioghruidhibh (with their kings).’ Though Cath is here ranked among
the islands, it is probable that Caithness is meant, and that the
Irish writer rendered Cathness by Innsi Cath, supposing the
termination ‘ness’ to be Innis. The others are easily recognised
except the two last. Cillemuine is the Irish name of St. Davids, which
implies they were the Britons of South Wales; but who were the
Cornbliteoc of the one list and the Cor na liagog of the other? One
would have expected to find Galloway included, and this district may
be meant, though the author can give no explanation of the name.
Footnote 553:
See for a full account of the battle, the tract on the _War of the
Gaedhil with the Gaill_: edited by Dr. Todd, in the Master of the
Rolls’ series; also Dasent’s _Saga of Burnt Njal_.
Footnote 554:
Orkneyinga Saga. _Collect. de Rebus Albanicis_, p. 340.
Footnote 555:
_Ibid._ p. 346.
Footnote 556:
Earl Gilli had his seat in Colonsay, and as Lewis and Skye were
separately named as sending their quota to the Norwegian forces at
Cluantarbh, it is probable that the islands under his rule consisted
of those lying to the south of the Point of Ardnamurchan. St. Berchan
seems to indicate that King Malcolm had acquired some right over them
when he calls him
Danger of Britons, extinction of Galls,
Mariner of Ile and Arann.
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 99.
Footnote 557:
The Nials Saga tells of Kari Solmundson, that on hearing of the battle
of Cluantarbh he sailed south to Wales. ‘Then they sailed north to
Beruwick and laid up their ships, and fared up into Whitherne in
Scotland, and were with Earl Melkolf that year.’ Beruvik is probably
the bay in the parish of Whitehern now called Port Yarrock.
Footnote 558:
_Orkneyinga Saga_, c. 1. _Saga of Saint Olaf_. _Collectanea de Rebus
Albanicis_, pp. 340, 346.
Footnote 559:
Simeon of Durham gives the following picture of the Durham clergy in
the tenth century. In mentioning the slaughter of the monks of
Lindisfarne, and the escape of the bishop with the body of St.
Cuthbert, he adds that ‘Tradita sibi districtione paulatim postposita,
ecclesiasticam disciplinam odio habuerunt, remissioris vitæ illecebras
secuti. Nec erat qui eos sub ecclesiastica censura coerceret, utpote
cultura Dei destructis monasteriis et ecclesiis pene deficiente.
Seculariter itaque omnino viventes carni et sanguini inserviebant,
filios et filias generantes. Quorum posteri per successionem in
ecclesia Dunelmensi fuerunt nimis remisse viventes, nec ullam nisi
carnalem vitam quam ducebant, scientes nec scire volentes. Clerici
vocabantur, sed nec habitu, nec conversatione clericatum
prætendebant.’—Sim. _Hist. Ec. Dun._ Pref. The step was but a short
one from this state of matters to that of lay possessors of the
benefices. The oldest legend of St. Andrew bears a title which
contains the following: ‘Et quomodo contigerit quod tantæ abbatiæ ibi
factæ antiquitus fuerint quas multi adhuc seculares viri jure
hereditario possident.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 138.
Footnote 560:
A.D. 865 Tuathal mac Artguso primus episcopus Fortrenn et abbas
Duincaillenn dormivit. 873 Flaithbertach mac Murcertaigh Princeps
Duncaillden obiit.—_Ann. Ult._ See Reeves’s _Adamnan_, ed. 1874, p.
cxxiii, for the meaning of ‘princeps.’
Footnote 561:
Fordun calls Crinan ‘Abthanus de Dull et seneschallus insularum.’
There was no such title as Abthanus de Dull, but there was an Abthania
de Dull, consisting of the possessions of that monastery. They were of
great extent, and embraced the whole of the present parishes of Dull
and Fortingall. If this monastery had become secularised, they may
have belonged to the lay abbot of Dunkeld, and if Malcolm had now
re-acquired part of the Western Isles, Crinan may have occupied some
important position in connection with them also.
Footnote 562:
In his history of the kings, Simeon has under the year 1018, ‘Ingens
bellum apud Carrum gestum est inter Scottos et Anglos, inter Huctredum
filium Waldef Comitem Northymbrorum, et Malcolmum filium Cyneth regem
Scottorum. Cum quo fuit Eugenius Calvus, rex Lutinensium;’ but we have
the authority of the Saxon Chronicle for the fact that Huctred was
slain two years before, and that Cnut had made Eric, a Dane, his
successor, while Simeon makes his brother Eadulf Cudel succeed him.
Lutinensium is with reason supposed to have been written for
Clutinensium.
Footnote 563:
Siquidem paulo post, id est, post triginta dies, universus a flumine
Tesa usque Twedam populus dum contra infinitam Scottorum multitudinem
apud Carrum dimicaret, pene totus cum natu majoribus suis
interiit.—Sim. _Hist. Ec. Dun._ c. v.
Footnote 564:
Quo occiso (Ucthredo) frater ipsius Eadulf, cognomento Cudel, ignavus
valde et timidus ei successit in comitatum. Timens autem ne Scotti
mortem suorum quos frater ejus, ut supradictum est, occiderat, in se
vindicarent, totum Lodoneium ob satisfactionem et formam concordiam
eis donavit. Hoc modo Lodoneium adjectum est regno Scottorum.—Sim. _de
Obsess. Dun._
Footnote 565:
The _Annales Cambriæ_ have, in 1015, ‘Owinus filius Dunawal occisus
est,’ which appears to refer to this Owen, and the event is antedated
a few years. Duncan is afterwards called ‘rex Cumbrorum’ by the
English chroniclers, a title he must have borne independently of that
of king of the Scots. Simeon tells us that Aldgetha, daughter of
Uchtred, earl of Northumbria, by Elgifa, the daughter of King
Ethelred, was married to Maldred, son of Crinan Tein, or the thane, by
whom she had Gospatrick, afterwards earl.—Sim. _de Obsess. Dun._ The
hereditary ‘præpositi’ or provosts of the church of Hexham also bore
the title of Tein.—_Priory of Hexham_ (Surtees Soc.), vol. i. p. 4.
There seems no reason to doubt that Maldred was a son of this same
Crinan who was the father of Duncan, and may have been joined with him
in the rule of these southern districts. The name Gospatrick comes
probably from the British Gwas Patrick, the servant of Saint Patrick,
and connects him with Strathclyde.
Footnote 566:
Ultra (Tede flumen) usque ad flumen Forthi magni, scilicet, Loonia, et
Galweya, et Albania tota, quæ modo Scotia vocatur, et Morovia, et
omnes insulæ occidentales oceani usque ad Norwegiam et usque Daciam,
scilicet, Kathenessia, Orkaneya, Enchegal, et Man et Ordas et Gurth,
et ceteræ insulæ occidentales oceani circa Norwegiam et
Daciam.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 154. The names of the districts
and islands comprehended under Norwegia and Dacia are in a very
corrupt form; but a comparison of them with the list of those which
sent their quota to the Danish army at Cluantarbh will throw light on
their identity (see p. 387, note 5). Kathenessia and Orkaneya
correspond with Insicath and Inishore; ‘Man et Ordas et Gurth,’ with
‘Manand, Sgithidh, Lodhusa,’ and ‘Enchegal’ with ‘Airergaidhel.’
In the tract on the Wars of the Gaidhil with the Gaill, Brian is said,
when he became king of all Ireland, to have sent a naval expedition
upon the sea, ‘and they levied royal tribute from Saxan and Bretan,
and Lemnaigh and Alban, and Airergaoidel, and their pledges and
hostages, along with the chief tribute’ (p. 137). Here Saxan and
Bretan represent Loonia et Galweya. Lemnaigh is the district of the
Lennox. Airergaoidel is Argathelia; and all are distinguished from
Alban, or the kingdom proper.
Footnote 567:
A.D. 1029 Maelcolaim mac Maelbrigdi mic Ruadri Ri Alban mortuus
est.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 77.
Footnote 568:
St. Berchan gives Macbeth a reign of thirty years, which, reckoning
from his death in 1058, places its commencement about this time.
Footnote 569:
In the Orkneyinga Saga, Airergaidhel, or at least that part of it
formerly known as Dalriada, appears under the name of Dali or the
Dales, and we are told that Sumarlidi Höldr had possessions in Dali,
and that he and his sons were called the Dalveria aett, or the family
of the people of Dali. This is, however, the Sumarled who appears in
the Chronicle of Man as Somerled Regulus de Herergaidel. His pedigree
is given in the Book of Ballimote. He is there said to be son of
Gillibrigde, son of Gilliadamnain, son of Solaimh, son of Imergi; and
this Imergi, from whom Somerled, slain in 1166, was fourth in descent,
and who therefore must have flourished in the early part of the
eleventh century, was probably the Jehmarc of the Saxon Chronicle.
Caradoc of Llancarvan terms the two kings, kings of Orkney and Ewyst.
How Macbeth came to be called king of Orkney will appear hereafter.
Footnote 570:
1034 Maelcolaim mac Cinaetha Ri Alpan ordan iarthair Eorpa uile
deg.—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 77. Ordan means nobility, dignity.
The Chronicle of 1165 says, ‘Ipse etiam multas oblationes tam
ecclesiis quam clero ea die distribuit’ (_Ib._ p. 131), which may
account for the epithets applied to him.
Footnote 571:
1034 Moelcoluim Rex Scotiæ obiit 7 Kal. Decembri.—_Marianus Scotus._
The later chronicles state that he was slain by treachery at Glammis,
and Fordun adds, by some of the stock of Constantin and Grym; but this
tale is quite inconsistent with the older notices of his death, which
clearly imply that he died a natural death.
Footnote 572:
The Ulster Annals have in 1033 ‘Mac meic Boete meic Cinaedha do
marbhadh la (slain by) Maelcolaim meic Cinaedha.’ It has usually been
assumed that this Boete was the son of Kenneth, son of Dubh, the
predecessor of Maelcolm mac Kenneth, and thus represented a rival
branch of the house; but the dates will not admit of this, and his
father Kenneth must be placed a generation further back. He may either
have been the same Kenneth who was father of Malcolm, thus making
Boete his brother, or the Kenneth, son of Malcolm, who slew
Constantin, son of Cuilein, in 997, and who is supposed by Fordun to
be his illegitimate brother. Fordun tells us that ‘the old custom of
the succession of kings lasted without a break until the time of
Malcolm, son of Kenneth, when, for fear of the dismemberment of the
kingdom, which might perhaps result therefrom, that king by a general
ordinance decreed as a law for ever that henceforth each king after
his death should be succeeded in the government of the kingdom by
whoever was at the time being the next descendant—that is, a son or a
daughter, a nephew or a niece, the nearest then living. Failing these,
however, the next heir begotten of the royal or a collateral stock
should possess the right of inheritance.’—Fordun, _Chron._, Ed. 1872,
B. iv. c. 1. Whether Malcolm actually issued a formal decree to this
effect rests on the authority of Fordun alone, which can hardly be
accepted for the events of this early period. Malcolm seems to have
taken the readier mode of removing from life any competitor who could
claim as a male descendant.
Footnote 573:
Post fratris interitum Ealdulfus comes efficitur Northymbrensium, qui,
cum superbia extolleretur, Britones satis atrociter devastavit: sed
tertio post anno, cum ad Hardecanutum reconciliandus in pace venisset,
interfectus est a Siwardo, qui post illum totius provinciæ
Northanhymbrorum, id est ab Humbra usque Tuedam Comitatum habuit.—Sim.
Dun. _Hist. Con._
As the _Saxon Chronicle_ records the death of Eadulf in 1041, this
places this invasion in 1038.
Footnote 574:
Simeon, _Hist. Ec. Dun._ cxliv. Simeon places this event in the year
1035, upon the death of Cnut, but he also says that it took place when
his son Harold was in the fifth year of his reign and Bishop Eadmund
in the twentieth of his episcopate, which would place it in the year
1040; but this was the last year of Duncan’s reign when he was engaged
in his northern war, and it could hardly have taken place then. It
seems to be obviously connected with Eadulf’s invasion of Cumbria, but
whether it preceded or followed it there is nothing to indicate.
Footnote 575:
A suggestion made by the author in an early work (_The Highlanders of
Scotland_, published in 1837), in which, he believes, the Sagas were
for the first time used in Scotch history, that two kings of Scotland
of the name of Malcolm have been confounded—one who died in 1029, and
Malcolm mac Kenneth who died in 1034, and that the latter was Kali
Hundason—has unfortunately been adopted by Professor Munch in his
_History of Norway_. The author has long since come to the conclusion
that this theory is untenable.
Footnote 576:
It is unnecessary here to enter into any detail of the history of
these three brothers; and how Thorfinn acquired a portion of the
islands as each died. The last of them was Brusi, who is stated in the
Olafs Saga to have died in the lifetime of King Cnut, soon after his
conquest of Norway, that is, about 1029.
Footnote 577:
St. Berchan calls Malcolm Duncan’s grandfather, ‘son of the woman of
Leinster,’ and also ‘son of the cow-breast from the banks of the
Liffey.’ The kings of Leinster are at this time often called kings of
Liffey, and this connection probably gave Duncan a claim on their
assistance.
Footnote 578:
Orkneyinga Saga. _Collect. de Rebus Albanicis_, p. 341. See also Mr.
Anderson’s edition, p. 17.
Footnote 579:
1040 Donnchad rex Scotiæ in autumno occiditur (19 Kal. Sept.) a duce
suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17.
Donnchad regnavit annis 5, hoc est, a missa Sancti Andreæ (14 Novr.)
ad eandem et insuper ad nativitatem Sanctæ Mariæ.—_Chron. Picts and
Scots_, p. 65. By this last festival Marianus means that of the
Assumption, which was on the 15th of August. A poem quoted in the
Orkneyinga Saga says the battle was fought on a Monday. The 19 Kal.
Sept. or 14th of August fell in the year 1040 upon a Thursday, and the
15th on a Friday. Tighernac has under 1040 ‘Donnchadh mac Crinan
Airdri Alban immatura ætate a suis occisus est.’ The later chronicles
all agree that he was slain by Macbeth, in a place called Bothgouanan
near Elgin. This is probably the place now called Pitgaveny; and if
the battle was fought at Burghead, Duncan would retreat upon Elgin.
Footnote 580:
St. Berchan calls Duncan Ilgalrach, and also as Ri Galrach. Galrach
means diseased, and may have given rise to the name Kali.
Footnote 581:
The Chronicle of Huntingdon says, ‘Comes Northumbriæ Siwardus Scotiam
ingressus Maket regem nepotem dicti Malcolmi cum xv. annis regnaret, a
regno fugavit.’
Footnote 582:
Caradoc of Llancarvan calls the two kings Maelbeathe and Jehmarc,
kings of Orkney and Ewyst. See Note ^{569}, p. 397.
Footnote 583:
_Collect. de Rebus Albanicis_, pp. 346, 347.
Footnote 584:
Machbet filius Finlach contulit per suffragiis orationum et Gruoch
filia Bodhe rex et regina Scotorum, Kyrkness Deo omnipotenti et
Keledeis prefatæ insulæ Lochlevine cum suis finibus et terminis.
Cum omni libertate collata fuit villa de Kyrkenes Deo omnipotenti et
Keledeis, aliique omni munere et onere et exaccione regis et filii
regis, vicecomitis et alicujus et sine refectione pontis et sine
exercitu et venatione, sed pietatis intuitu et orationum suffragiis
fuit Deo omnipotenti collata.
Cum summa veneratione et devotione Makbeth rex contulit Deo et Sancto
Servano de Lochlevyn et heremitis ibidem Deo servientibus Bolgyne
filii Torfyny cum omni libertate et sine onere exercitus regis et
filii ejus, vel vicecomitis, et sine exactione alicujus, sed caritatis
intuitu et orationum suffragiis.—_Chr. of St. Andrews_, p. 114, 12.
Gruoch being united with him in the first of these grants rather
points to the family of Bodhe being peculiarly connected with Fife.
Footnote 585:
A.D. 1045 Cath etir Albancho araenrian cur marbadh andsin Crinan Ab.
Duincalland ocus sochaighe maille fris .i. nae xx laech.
Footnote 586:
A.D. 1050 Rex Scottiæ Macbethad Romæ argentum pauperibus seminando
distribuit.—According to the Orkneyinga Saga, Thorfinn, earl of
Orkney, went to Rome in the same year, ‘and saw the Pope, from whom he
obtained absolution for all his sins.’—Mr. Anderson’s edition, p. 43.
This is either another instance of the confusion between Thorfinn and
Macbeth, or they went together for the same purpose.
Footnote 587:
Simeon of Durham says of Earl Eadulf, ‘qui postmodum, regnante
Eadwardo, occisus est a Siwardo, qui post illum totius
Northanhymbrorum provinciæ, hoc est, ab Humbra usque ad Tweodam
suscepit comitatum.’ The Saxon Chronicle, however, says, under 1041,
‘In this year Harthecnut betrayed Earl Eadulf while under his
safeguard, and he was then a belier of his pledge,’ and has no hint of
Siward being concerned in his death, but mentions Earl Siward two
years after, in the first year of King Eadward.
Footnote 588:
This is the combined account of the editions of the Chronicle.
Footnote 589:
A.D. 1054 Cath etir Albancho ocus Saxancho in artoitset moran do
mileadaib.
Footnote 590:
1054 Cath itir fhiru Albain et Saxanu itorcradar tri mile doferaib
Albain et mile coleth di Saxanu im Dolfinn mac Finntuir.—_An. Ult._
The tract ‘Origo et Gesta Sivardi Ducis,’ printed in Langebek’s
_Scriptores_, iii. p. 287, says of this expedition, ‘Exercitum
congregavit, in subsidium Regis usque ad Dunde progrediens, ubi
nunciatum fuit ei, quod homines sui de Northumbreland jam in eum et
suos adeo insurrexerunt, quod Osbertum Bulax filium suum
interfecerant. Comes autem reverti compulsus,’ etc. The tract is not
of much authority. Other authorities state that Siward’s son was slain
in the Scotch war.
Footnote 591:
‘Li quens Syward donc s’accordat
Al rei d’Escoce, u il alat,
Mais Macheden defuit la pes
De guerrier ne fist releis.
_Mon. Hist. Brit._ p. 825.
Footnote 592:
The Saxon Chronicle makes no mention of Malcolm in connection with
this expedition; but Florence of Worcester adds to an account,
apparently taken from the Saxon Chronicle, that it was made ‘jussu
regis,’ that the forces on the one side were ‘Scoti et Normanni,’ on
the other ‘Angli et Dani,’ and that Siward ‘Malcolmum regis Cumbrorum
filium ut rex jusserat regem constituit.’ Macbeth, however, appears in
the Irish Annals as Ri Alban till 1057, and Marianus states distinctly
that he reigned till that year, which is conclusive as to Malcolm not
having been made king of Scotland in 1054. It is remarkable, however,
that in this passage he is not called ‘filius regis Scottorum’ but
‘filius regis Cumbrorum;’ and Simeon seems not to have recognised
Duncan as king of the Scots, for he makes Macbeth the immediate
successor of Malcolm, son of Kenneth, ‘Anno mxxxiiij Malcolm rex
Scottorum obiit, cui Macbethad successit.’ The solution seems to be
that he was established in 1054 as king of Cumbria, and at this time
Lothian seems to have been included in the territories under the rule
of the rex Cumbrorum.
Footnote 593:
Marianus has in 1057 ‘Macfinlaeg occiditur in Augusto;’ and again,
‘Inde Macfinlaeg regnavit annis 17 ad eandem missam Sanctæ Mariæ’
(15th August). Tighernac under 1057: Macbethadh mic Findlaich Airdri
(sovereign of) Alban domarbad do (slain by) Maelcolaim mic Dondcadha,
to which the Ulster Annals add ‘i cath’ (in battle).—_Chron. Picts and
Scots_, pp. 65, 78, 369.
Marianus and Tighernac are contemporary authorities. The later
chronicles add that he was slain in Lumfanan.
Footnote 594:
Marianus has in 1057, ‘Lulag successit et occiditur in Martio;’ and
again, ‘Lulach a nativitate Sanctæ Mariæ ad missam Sancti Patricii in
mense Martio regnavit’ (17th March). Tighernac under the same year,
‘Lulach Rig Albain domarbadh Coluim mic Donchadha per dolum;’ and the
Ulster Annals, ‘Lulach mac Gillcomgan Ardri Albain domarbhadh la
Maelcolaim meic Donchadha i cath’ (in battle).
St. Berchan says of him
And at Loch Deabhra his habitation.
Loch Deabhra is a small lake in the district of Mamore in Lochaber, on
an island in which there was formerly a small castle, called the
castle of Mamore. The glen leading to it is called Glenrie or the
King’s glen.
Footnote 595:
_Collect. de Reb. Alb._ p. 346.
Footnote 596:
The author agrees with Professor Munch (_Chron. Man._ p. 46) in
thinking that the place called Gadgeddli, where Thorfinn is said by
the Saga to have frequently dwelt, was Galloway.
Footnote 597:
1061 Interim rex Scottorum Malcolmus sui conjurati fratris, scilicet
comitis Tostii, comitatum ferociter depopulatus est, violata pace
Sancti Cuthberti in Lindisfarnensi insula.—Sim. Dun. _Hist. Con._
Footnote 598:
The Saxon Chronicle states that in the same year ‘the king came to
Winchester, and Easter was then on the x. Kal. of April,’ that is,
March 23d, but Easter fell on that day in the year 1068.
Footnote 599:
Flor. Wig. _Chron._ ad an. 1068.
Footnote 600:
Fordun’s Chronicle, ed. 1872, vol. ii. p. 202. For the marriage having
taken place here we have the distinct authority of Turgot, in his life
of Saint Margaret, who says that King Malcolm and his queen founded a
church to the Holy Trinity in the place where they were married.
Footnote 601:
Sim. Dun. _de Gest. Reg._ ad an. 1093.
Footnote 602:
Sim. Dun. _de Gestis Reg._ ad an. 1072.
Footnote 603:
Flor. Wig. _Chron._ ad an. 1069.
Footnote 604:
Sim. Dun. _de Gestis Reg._ ad an. 1070.
Footnote 605:
Orderic. Vit. B. iv. c. v.
Footnote 606:
Sim. Dun. _de Gest. Reg._ ad an. 1070. Simeon of Durham died in 1130.
Footnote 607:
See Fordun, _Chronicle_, book v. chap. xiv., ed. 1874, vol. ii. p.
201. The story as here told is too long for insertion, but it is
obviously the same, the scene of it being removed to Scotland. In
consequence of the marriage being placed under this year by Simeon, it
appears in the Chronicle of Melrose and in Fordun under this year, and
in the former also under the year 1067 on the authority of the Saxon
Chronicle.
Footnote 608:
Ailred, in the battle of the Standard, makes Walter l’Espec say,
‘Angliæ victor Willelmus per Laodoniam, Calatriam, Scotiam usque ad
Abernith penetraret.’ The river Avon was the boundary of Laodonia.
Between that river and the Carron was the district called Calatria.
Dufoter de Calateria witnesses a charter of King David I. in the
Glasgow Chartulary, and he appears in the Chartulary of Cambuskenneth
as ‘vicecomes de Strivilyn.’
The ford King William crossed was the great entrance into Scotland
proper, which King Kenneth fortified when ‘vallavit ripas vadorum
Forthin.’
Footnote 609:
Flor. Wig. _Chron._ ad an. 1072.
Footnote 610:
Sim. Dun. _de Gest. Reg._ ad an. 1072.
Footnote 611:
The Ulster Annals have at 1085, ‘Maelsnectai mac Lulaigh Ri Muireb,
suam vitam feliciter finivit.’—_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 370.
Footnote 612:
Sim. Dun. _de Gestis Reg._ ad an. 1079.
Footnote 613:
Falkirk is termed in Latin ‘Varia Capella,’ and is still known to the
Highlanders by the name of Eaglesbreac, or the ‘speckled church.’
Falkirk, or rather Fawkirk, is the Saxon equivalent, and has the same
meaning from A.S. _Fah_, ‘of various colours.’
Footnote 614:
The Ulster Annals have in 1085, ‘Domhnall mac Malcolm Ri Albain, suam
vitam infeliciter finivit.’
Footnote 615:
In the end of September, one of the most stormy months in the Scotch
seas.
Footnote 616:
Mr. Burton considers that the place meant (Lothene) was the district
of Leeds. The author dissents entirely from this, and is surprised
that a writer of his acuteness and sagacity should have adopted this
view. Scotia was still confined to the country north of the Firth of
Forth, which still separated it from Anglia. William the Conqueror,
who made the same preparation, went through Laodonia into Scotia. How
could Malcolm await the king’s approach at Leeds?
Footnote 617:
Sim. Dun. _de Gest. Reg._ ad an. 1093.
Footnote 618:
Interfectus in Inveraldan.—_Chron. St. A._ Fust tue a Alnewyk et
enterrez a Tynmoth.—_Scala. Cron._ _Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 175,
206.
Footnote 619:
Mr. Burton gives Malcolm a reign of forty-six years. He says, ‘He is
the first monarch of whose coronation we hear. The ceremony was at
Scone near Perth—a place which had become the centre of royalty,
though it hardly had the features which make us call a town a capital.
History now becomes precise enough to fix the day of this event as the
25th of April 1057.’ By history Mr. Burton here means John of Fordun,
whose authority ought not to be relied upon for such an event. The
statement is quite incorrect. The first authentic record of a
coronation at Scone is that of Malcolm the Fourth in 1154, and Malcolm
Ceannmor reigned from 17th March 1057-8 to 13th November 1093, the day
on which he was slain, or exactly thirty-five years and nearly eight
months. The author has preferred narrating the events of his reign as
nearly as possible in the words of the Chronicles which record them,
as in fact we know nothing beyond what they tell us. All else is mere
speculation, and adds nothing to our information. Mr. Burton
introduces under this reign some remarks on the effect of the Norman
influences and the feudal system upon Scotland. Excellent as these
observations are, they are here out of place, and belong more properly
to a later period. It was an old notion that feudalism came into
Scotland in the reign of Malcolm, but it will not bear a close
examination, and these influences were in fact very slight in the
kingdom of Scotland proper, which still continued essentially in all
its characteristics a Celtic kingdom till the reign of David the
First, who was the first feudal monarch of Scotland, and when these
influences became permanent. The author must, however, protest against
one statement. Mr. Burton says (vol. i. p. 372), ‘Whether the thanes
had or had not a distinct feudal existence independent of the power of
the Crown to deal with them as official subordinates, it seems clear
that the Abthane was placed among them as a royal officer, deriving
his dignity and power from the Crown, and that it was his function to
see to the collection of the royal dues payable from the landed
estates—something, on the whole, bearing a close resemblance to feudal
holding and its casualties.’ This account of the Abthane Mr. Burton
has too readily adopted from Fordun, without proper examination; for
nothing is more certain than that no such office, either in name or in
reality, ever existed.
CHAPTER IX.
THE KINGDOM OF SCOTIA PASSES INTO FEUDAL SCOTLAND.
[Sidenote: Effects of King Malcolm’s death.]
The death of Malcolm Ceannmor, though his reign had been prolonged for
the unusual period of thirty-five years, was a great misfortune for
Scotland. He united in himself so many claims to the allegiance of the
heterogeneous races under his rule, that a work of consolidation had
been insensibly going on during his reign, while the influence of his
pious and accomplished queen, the Saxon Princess Margaret, equally
advanced their civilisation. His death, followed in four days by that of
his queen, who succumbed to the grief and shock caused by this
unexpected blow, arrested the progress of both, and not only retarded
the advance the kingdom had been making for a period of thirty years,
but threatened its dismemberment, till the accession of David the First
once more united all the races of its population under one vigorous
rule, and the task commenced by his father—the process of consolidation
and advancing civilisation—was again resumed.
It will be necessary for our purpose to notice the events which affected
the population of the country during this interval.
The death of Malcolm raised once more the vexed question of the
succession to the throne, and brought the laws and prepossessions of the
different races, now united under one government, into conflict. Malcolm
appears to have had two brothers, Donald Ban and Melmare, from the
latter of whom the earls of Atholl descended.[620] By his first wife
Ingibiorg, the widow of Thorfinn, earl of Orkney, he seems to have had
two sons, Duncan, who was given up to the king of England as a hostage
in 1072, and Donald, who predeceased him in 1085. By his second wife,
the Saxon Queen Margaret, he had six sons and two daughters. The sons
were Eadward, who was slain with his father at Alnwick; Eadmund;
Ethelred, who appears, while under age, as lay abbot of Dunkeld and earl
of Fife;[621] Eadgar, Alexander, and David.
By the Welsh population of the Cumbrian province belonging to Scotland,
Duncan, as the eldest son of his father, must have been regarded as the
true heir to the throne, and those parts of the kingdom which were
colonised by Norwegians, or under Norwegian influence, must have also
looked to him both on that account and as the son of the Norwegian
Ingibiorg. On the death of Thorfinn, the powerful earl of Orkney who had
brought under his rule both the Western Isles and so many earldoms on
the mainland, while his patrimonial inheritance of the Orkneys, and
probably Caithness, passed to his sons, the other districts, as well as
the Western Islands, reverted to their natural lords, and no doubt
passed under the dominion of Malcolm Ceannmor. The earldoms which lay
within the bounds of the kingdom of Alban, or Scotland proper, became
once more incorporated with it. The great district of Moravia, or Moray
and Ross, fell under the rule of his native Mormaers. The Western Isles,
with Galloway and Argyll, must still to a great extent have been
occupied by Northmen; and the revolution by which Godred Crovan, a
Norwegian, succeeded in driving out the Danish ruler, and taking
possession of the Island of Man some time between the years 1075 and
1080, appears to have led to the Western Isles passing also under his
rule, over which he placed his eldest son Lagman; while the appearance
of Magnus Barefoot, who had recently become king of Norway, with his
fleet in the autumn of the year 1093, and his conquest of the Orkneys
and the Western Isles, led to the latter being for the time transferred
from the rule of Malcolm Ceannmor, who was at the time engaged in
preparing the expedition into England which had, for him, so fatal a
termination, and could not defend these remote possessions, to that of
the king of Norway.[622] In these more remote parts of the kingdom the
claim of Duncan would be regarded with most favour.
Lothian, however, had now become a very important and influential
dependence of the kingdom, and its Saxon population must have looked
with longing eyes to the children of their revered Saxon princess Queen
Margaret as their natural lords. This is clear from the Saxon Chronicle,
which, in recording the death of Eadward, the eldest son of Malcolm by
Queen Margaret, who was slain with his father in 1093, adds ‘who should,
if he had lived, have been king after him,’ and in Lothian the claim of
Eadmund, the next surviving son, would be preferred.
Among the Gaelic tribes which still formed the main body of the
population of the districts extending from the Forth to the Spey, and
constituting the proper kingdom of Scotia, the law of Tanistry must
still have had a powerful influence, and had too recently had full sway
among them to prepare them to accept the succession of a son in
preference to a brother without difficulty; and here Donald Ban, the
brother of Malcolm Ceannmor, must have been regarded as their natural
and legitimate king, while his only competitor in their eyes, Duncan,
being still detained as a hostage at the English court, was in no
position personally to contest the succession with him.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1093.
Donald Ban, Malcolm’s brother, reigns six months.]
The Saxon Chronicle tells us that on Malcolm’s death ‘the Scots,’ by
whom the people of Scotland proper are no doubt meant, ‘then chose
Donald, Malcolm’s brother, for king, and drove out all the English who
were before with King Malcolm.’[623] He appears to have asserted his
claim with great promptitude, for John of Fordun, whom we may now accept
as a fair authority for the events of Scottish history, as being nearer
his own time, and having no longer a theory to maintain at the expense
of its true features, tells us that Donald Ban, the king’s brother,
having heard of the death of Queen Margaret, invaded the kingdom at the
head of a numerous band, and besieged the castle of Edinburgh, while her
body still remained there unburied, and where her sons, whom Fordun
terms the king’s rightful and lawful heirs, still were; but her family,
taking advantage of a thick mist, which of course he considers
miraculous, but is not an unfrequent accompaniment of an Edinburgh day,
brought down her body by a postern on the western side, and conveyed it
safely to the church of Dunfermline, where she was buried.[624] Wynton,
who wrote in the following century, repeats the same story, but says
that it was her son Ethelred who conveyed her body to Dunfermline, which
is probable enough, as that royal seat was situated within the bounds of
his earldom of Fife.[625] Eadgar Aetheling, the queen’s brother, who was
still alive, then gathered her sons and daughters together and brought
them secretly to England for the purpose of being privately educated by
their mother’s relatives.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1093-1094.
Duncan, son of Malcolm by his first wife, Ingibiorg, reigns
six months.]
Donald Ban was, however, not to escape a conflict with Duncan, the
eldest son of the deceased king, for when the news of these events
reached the English court, where he had remained since he had been given
as a hostage when a mere child, and had received his education, he went
to the king, ‘and performed such fealty as the king would have of him,
and so with his permission went to Scotland with the support he could
get of English and French, that is Normans, and deprived his kinsman
Donald of the kingdom, and was received for king.’[626] This took place
after Donald had reigned for six months. By the population of Lothian
and Cumbria, who had probably had enough of Donald and his Gaelic
followers, Duncan would no doubt be received at once; for though the
people of Lothian might have preferred a son of the Saxon queen, and
might not dislike to see him set aside for one of that family, they
would have no hesitation in supporting his cause against that of his
uncle. The Gaelic inhabitants of Scotland proper seem to have been
divided. A party of the Scots appear to have been sufficiently
favourable to him to enable him to expel the intruders, while another
section of the natives rejected him, for we are told by the same
chronicle that ‘some of the Scots afterwards gathered together and slew
almost all his followers, and he himself with few escaped. Afterwards
they were reconciled on the condition that he never again should harbour
in the land either English or French.’[627] Duncan had probably agreed
to hold the whole kingdom as a vassal of the king of England, being
himself by education a Norman, and trusting to his English and Norman
support to maintain him in his position; but he seems to have found that
his only chance of retaining his rule over the districts north of the
Forth was by claiming them as his by hereditary right. There are two
charters by him preserved: one is a grant by Duncan of the lands of
Tiningham and others in East Lothian to Saint Cuthbert, that is, to the
church at Durham, in which he styles himself ‘son of King Malcolm and by
hereditary right king of Scotland,’ It is witnessed apparently by his
brother Eadgar, and with one exception the other witnesses are all
Saxons.[628] He appears also to have granted lands in Fife to the church
of Dunfermline.[629] He is said to have married Ethreda, daughter of
Gospatric, earl of Northumberland, who took refuge in 1067 with Malcolm
Ceannmor, and was made earl of Dunbar, by whom he had a son
William.[630]
The reign of Duncan, however, did not last longer than that of his uncle
Donald; for after he had possessed the throne for six months, the Saxon
Chronicle records in the following year, ‘In this year also the Scots
ensnared and slew their king Duncan, and after took to them again, a
second time, his paternal uncle Donald for king, through whose
machinations and incitement he was betrayed to death.’[631] The Scots
who thus ensnared him were those who inhabited the districts north of
the Tay, the leaders among whom were the men of the Mearns; and Duncan
is said by our oldest chronicles to have been slain by Malpeder MacLoen,
the Mormaer, or Comes as the Mormaers were now called, of the Mearns, at
Monachedin, now Mondynes, in the Mearns or Kincardineshire, where a
large upright monolith rising six or eight feet above the surface may
commemorate the event.[632]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1094-1097.
Donald Ban again, with Eadmund, son of Malcolm, reigned three
years.]
Donald Ban, who thus a second time obtained possession of the throne,
appears to have felt that he could not maintain himself in that position
without neutralising the opposition of the Anglic inhabitants of
Lothian, and with the view of strengthening himself offered to associate
with him one of the sons of Malcolm by Queen Margaret. Eadgar, the heir,
was not likely to surrender his claims for a divided rule with his
uncle, but his brother Eadmund appears to have yielded to the temptation
and joined the party of Donald Ban. It was at the instigation of Donald
Ban and Eadmund that Duncan was slain; and while Donald Ban ruled over
the Scots north of the Firths, Eadmund was no doubt placed over Lothian,
and, as son of their revered princess Margaret, readily commanded their
allegiance.[633] Their joint reign appears to have lasted for three
years, and Lothian thus became again dissevered during that period from
the kingdom of Scotland.
Eadgar Aetheling, however, resolved now to make an effort to place his
nephew Eadgar on the throne; and we are told by the Saxon Chronicle that
in the year 1097, ‘soon after St. Michael’s Mass, or the 29th of
September, Eadgar Aetheling, with the king’s support, went with a force
into Scotland, and in a hard-fought battle won that land and drove out
the king Donald, and in King William’s vassalage set as king his kinsman
Eadgar, who was the son of King Malcolm and of Queen Margaret, and
afterwards returned to England.’ Eadmund, according to William of
Malmesbury, being taken and doomed to perpetual imprisonment, sincerely
repented, and on his near approach to death ordered himself to be buried
in his chains, confessing that he suffered deservedly for the crime of
fratricide.[634] Eadgar thus reunited Lothian with Scotland, and
subjected both to his rule, but it was not till two years after that he
succeeded in taking Donald Ban prisoner, who was blinded and condemned
to perpetual imprisonment at Roscolpin or Rescobie, where he died, and
was buried in Dunfermline.[635]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1097-1107.
Eadgar, son of Malcolm Ceanmnor by Queen Margaret, reigns
nine years.]
In the first year of Eadgar’s reign, Magnus Barefoot, the king of
Norway, again appeared in the Western Sea with his fleet. On the former
occasion he was content with merely subjecting the islands to his
authority as sovereign, without apparently disturbing their local
government. The sons of Earl Thorfinn retained their position as earls
of Orkney, and Godred Crovan remained ruler of the Isles in
subordination to the king of Norway, and died in the year 1095.
According to the Chronicle of Man, he died in Isla after a reign of
sixteen years, and his eldest son Lagman, who had ruled the Isles under
him during his life, went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he died.
The king of Norway then sent a Norwegian named Ingemund to rule the
Isles, but he soon exasperated the islanders by his conduct, and on his
assembling the chiefs of the Isles in the island of Lewis, where he
appears to have had his seat of government, for the purpose of having
himself declared king, they surrounded his house, set it on fire, and he
and his whole retinue were destroyed either by the fire or the
sword.[636]
It was this event which probably led to Magnus’s second expedition, and
he resolved now to bring the islands under his own immediate rule.
According to the Saga ‘he had both a large and vigorous army and
excellent ships. King Magnus went with that army westward over the sea,
and first to Orkney. He took captive the earls Paul and Erlend, and sent
them both east to Norway, but left as a chieftain over the islands his
son Sigurd, and gave a counsel to him. He went with his whole army to
the Sudreys, but when he came there he commenced plundering immediately,
burnt the inhabited places, killed the people, and pillaged wherever he
went. But the people of the country fled to various places, some up to
Scotland or into the fiords or sea lochs, some southward to Satiri or
Kintyre; some submitted to King Magnus and received pardon.’[637] It is
obvious from this account that the objects of King Magnus’s wrath were
the original native possessors of the Isles, and not the Norwegian
Vikings who had settled there, and it is probable that the destruction
of Ingemund and his party arose from an attempt on their part to throw
off the Norwegian yoke.
After the complete subjection of the Isles, Magnus proceeded southwards
to the Isle of Man, and from thence to Anglesea, which he took
possession of after subduing two earls—Hugo the Modest and Hugo the
Stout—who governed it, and slaying one of them. On his return to the
Isles he came to terms with the king of the Scots, by which all the
islands to the west of Scotland, between which and the mainland a
helm-carrying ship could pass, were ceded to him, and it was on this
occasion that he is said to have had his ship drawn across the narrow
isthmus between east and west Loch Tarbert, and included Satiri or
Kintyre in the new kingdom of the Isles. It is probable that Eadgar did
not feel himself sufficiently secure on his throne, and had as yet
acquired too little authority over the remote parts of his kingdom to be
able to resist the Norwegian king, and had no alternative but to buy off
any attack upon the mainland by confirming the cession which his father
had been obliged to make in the last years of his reign; and the Isles
thus became entirely severed from their connection with the kingdom of
Scotland, and were not again united till after the lapse of more than a
century and a half.[638] King Magnus was slain in Ulster in the end of
August in the year 1104, after he had ruled the Isles for six years.
After his death the chiefs of the Isles appear to have endeavoured to
throw off the Norwegian yoke with the assistance of the Irish under a
leader, Donald mac Tadg, who, according to the Annals of Inisfallen,
‘carried war into the north of Ireland, and acquired the kingdom of
Insegall by force’ in 1111;[639] but two years after, Olave, the son of
Hodred Crovan, who had taken refuge with the king of England, recovered
the possession of the now independent kingdom of the Isles, and ruled
over them for forty years.[640]
Fordun tells us that while Eadgar was advancing with his uncle Eadgar
Aetheling, towards Scotland, Saint Cuthbert appeared to him in a dream,
and promised him success if he would take his standard from the church
at Durham and carry it against his foes; and that, having put Donald and
his men to flight, Eadgar then, by the favour of God and the merits of
Saint Cuthbert, happily achieved a bloodless victory, and when
established on the throne granted to the monks of Durham the lands of
Coldingham.[641] That he refounded the monastery of Coldingham, and
granted it to the canons regular of Saint Cuthbert is certain, for the
charters still exist.[642] In these charters Eadgar terms himself king
of the Scots (rex Scottorum), and addresses them to the Scots and Angles
or English (Scottis et Anglis), thus classing his subjects under these
two heads. Only one of the charters contains a list of witnesses. These
are of the same character as those of King Duncan’s charter, and equally
belong to the race of the Angles. Two of them are in part repeated;
Vinget and Aelfric, who witnessed Duncan’s charter, appear also
witnessing this charter as Unioett ghwite and Aelfric Pincerna, and
Eadgar was thus surrounded by a Saxon court. He appears too to have made
Edinburgh his residence, which as a stronghold situated near the western
boundary of Lothian and on the Firth of Forth, was well adapted to be
the seat of a king whose main supporters were in Lothian, and whose
tenure of the northern part of his kingdom was uncertain, and to have
died there on the 13th of January in the year 1107,[643] and was buried
in Dunfermline. There were only three of the sons of Queen Margaret in
life, Ethelred, Alexander, and David.[644] Ethelred was a churchman,
abbot of Dunkeld, and possessed as a further appanage of the earldom of
Fife, but seems to have made no pretension to the throne, and Alexander
appears to have regarded himself as the natural heir; but Eadgar limited
his succession to Scotland proper and its dependencies, and bequeathed
the districts south of the Firths, consisting of Lothian and the
Cumbrian province, to his youngest brother, David, with the title of
Comes or Earl.[645] His motive for making this division of the kingdom
between the two brothers was probably caused by the difficult position
in which the kingdom was placed towards the English monarch, in regard
to his claims of superiority. So far as Lothian was concerned, there was
probably no idea at this period of the history of contesting it, and
both Duncan and Eadgar seem to have purchased the assistance of the
English by a general admission that they held the kingdom under the king
of England. As soon, however, as they had obtained possession of the
throne, they found the necessity of basing their right to the throne, so
far as the districts north of the Firths were concerned, upon their
hereditary title as heirs of its ancient kings, and not upon any
concession from the king of England; but their possession of Scotland
proper as independent kings, of Lothian as vassals of the king of
England, and of Cumbria on an uncertain tenure in this respect, coupled
with the radical diversity in the races which peopled these districts,
and their mutual antagonism, made their position an anomalous one, and
tended to compromise the independence of the monarchy. Donald Ban seems
to have met the difficulty by associating a son of Queen Margaret with
him in his second usurpation; and Eadgar, probably experiencing the same
difficulty during his life, tried to obviate it after his death by
making one brother independent king of the Scots, and placing the
district more immediately affected by the English claims under the rule
of his brother David, who was so far subordinated to Alexander as to
bear the title of earl only. Such seems the natural explanation of this
strange arrangement, by which Alexander’s succession as king was limited
to the kingdom north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, with the
debateable ground extending from the river Forth to the river Esk, and
including the strong positions of Stirling and Edinburgh; while David as
earl obtained the richer districts extending from thence to the borders
of England; and between them lay the earldom of Gospatric of Dunbar.
According to Ailred, within whose lifetime Eadgar died, he was ‘a sweet
and amiable man, like his kinsman the holy King Edward in every way;
using no harshness, no tyrannical or bitter treatment towards his
subjects, but ruling and correcting them with the greatest charity,
goodness, and loving kindness;’[646] and consistently with this
character we find few events recorded in his reign. He gives a very
different character to his brother Alexander. Although, he says, he was
humble and kind enough to the monks and the clergy, he was to the rest
of his subjects beyond everything terrible; a man of large heart,
exerting himself in all things beyond his strength. He was a lettered
man, and most zealous in building churches, in searching for relics of
saints, in providing and arranging priestly vestments and sacred books;
most open-handed, even beyond his means, to all strangers, and so
devoted to the poor that he seemed to delight in nothing so much as in
supporting them, washing, nourishing, and clothing them.[647]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1107-1124.
Alexander, son of Malcolm Ceannmor by Queen Margaret, reigns
over Scotland north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde as king
for seventeen years.]
Alexander seems to have been dissatisfied with the arrangement made by
the deceased king, and the expression in the Saxon Chronicle, coupled
with the charters by which he confirms to the monks of Durham the grants
they had received from Edgar,[648] implies that he was inclined to claim
the whole kingdom as heir to his brother, with the assistance of the
king of England, whose natural daughter Sibylla he afterwards married;
but the hearty support given by the people of Lothian to his brother
David, with the exception of Earl Gospatric, who appears among
Alexander’s adherents, was too powerful to enable him to oppose with
success the partition of the kingdom.
He soon justified that part of the character given him by Ailred which
relates to the monks and the clergy, for besides the usual grants made
by each king to Dunfermline, he, after he had reigned about seven years,
founded a monastery at Scone, the principal seat of his kingdom, and
established in it a colony of canons regular of St. Augustine, whom he
brought from the church of St. Oswald at Nastlay, near Pontefract, in
Yorkshire; and the church which had previously been dedicated to the
Holy Trinity, he placed under the patronage of the Holy Virgin Mary, and
of St. Michael, St. John, St. Laurence, and St. Augustine. The
foundation charter is granted by himself and his wife Sibylla, daughter
of Henry, king of England, as king and queen of the Scots, is confirmed
by two bishops, and the formal consent of six earls and of Gospatric,
who had also the rank of earl, is given to the grant.[649] Four can be
connected with certain districts. These are Mallus of Stratherne, Madach
of Atholl, Rothri of Mar, and Gartnach of Buchan. The older designation
of Mormaer had now passed into that of ‘comes’ or earl, but was still
more of a personal than a territorial title; and we here see Alexander,
king of the Scots, whose kingdom was limited to that of Alban or
Scotland proper, acting with a constitutional body of seven earls, six
of whom represented the older Mormaers of the Celtic kingdom. He also
founded a priory of the same canons in the island of Lochtay for himself
and the soul of his queen Sibylla, which was dedicated to the Virgin and
all saints.[650] In the same year in which Alexander founded the church
of Scone, he found himself obliged to enter upon a struggle for the
independence of the church in Scotland which indirectly involved that of
the kingdom itself. The event which gave rise to this contest was the
death of Turgot, bishop of St. Andrews. The see of St. Andrews had
remained vacant since the death, in 1093, of the last Celtic bishop,
termed in the Ulster Annals Fothudh, high bishop of Alban,[651] and in
the Register of St. Andrews, Modach, son of Malmykel, of pious memory,
bishop of St Andrews.[652] During the troubled time of the contest
between the sons and brother of Malcolm Ceannmor, and during the reign
of Eadgar, there appears to have been no consecrated bishop, but in the
first year of Alexander’s reign, Turgot, who had been Queen Margaret’s
confessor, and was now prior of Durham, was elected to fill the vacant
see on the 20th of June 1107.[653] A difficulty immediately arose as to
his consecration. The bishops of St. Andrews were at the time the sole
bishops in Scotland. The controversy which had existed between Lanfranc,
archbishop of Canterbury, and Thomas, archbishop of York, as to the
rights of their respective metropolitan jurisdiction, had terminated in
an agreement, at the council of Windsor in 1072, which conceded to York
jurisdiction over all the episcopal sees from the Humber to the farthest
limits of Scotland; and the archbishop of York now claimed the right to
consecrate the bishop of St. Andrews. The claim was not without
plausible grounds. The diocese of Wilfrid, the first bishop of York,
after the withdrawal of the Scottish clergy, had extended over the whole
of that part of Scotland which had been subjected to the Northumbrian
rule, and included the entire territory of the subsequent diocese of St.
Andrews, and that of Glasgow; and Lothian at that time annexed to St.
Andrews, and Teviotdale annexed to Glasgow, had belonged to the
bishopric of Lindisfarne. The church of St. Andrews too was founded
after the expulsion of the Columban monks and might be viewed as much an
offshoot of the Northumbrian church as the early Scottish church of
Lindisfarne was of Iona. On the other hand, the church of St. Andrews
claimed to be the representative of an older foundation, and engrafted a
legendary origin upon its true history. The diocese of Galloway had been
founded by the Northumbrians, and as to its subjection to the
metropolitan jurisdiction of York there seems never to have been any
question; but to allow it to extend over Glasgow and St. Andrews might
compromise the independence of the kingdom. Turgot, however, as prior of
Durham, would naturally be disposed to look to York for his
consecration. Alexander had apparently been no party to his election,
and seems hardly to have known thus early in his reign how to extricate
himself from the difficulty, and the matter was settled for the time by
a compromise. Turgot was consecrated at York on 1st August 1109, with
reservation of the rights of both sees.[654] It was probably with a view
to remove this difficulty that Alexander had, before the foundation of
the church of Scone, erected the two additional sees of Dunkeld and
Moray. Turgot, as the first bishop of St. Andrews of Anglic race, seems
to have found his position an uncomfortable one, and experienced
difficulty in exercising his episcopal functions; accordingly, six years
after his consecration, he asked leave to retire to Durham, and died
there on the 31st August 1115. It now became necessary to appoint a
successor. Alexander appears to have wished for an Englishman, and to
have thought that he could best defeat the pretensions of the archbishop
of York by applying to the primate of all England. He accordingly wrote
to Radulf, archbishop of Canterbury, to ask him to recommend a
successor, since, as he averred in old time the bishops of St. Andrews
were wont to be consecrated by the Pope or the archbishop of Canterbury.
This appeal seems to have revived the disputes between York and
Canterbury, which was probably Alexander’s object; and while they
disputed as to who should consecrate the bishop, the see remained again
vacant till the year 1120, when Alexander chose Eadmer, a monk of
Canterbury, to be bishop of St. Andrews, and wrote to the archbishop of
Canterbury to request that he might be sent to Scotland to be
consecrated, who agreed to his appointment, but proposed he should be
sent back to be consecrated. Eadmer went to Scotland, and was elected
bishop by the clergy and people of the land, with the royal assent, but
when it came to consecration the difficulty again occurred, and was
again eventually settled by compromise. Eadmer received the ring from
Alexander, took the pastoral staff from off the altar, and assumed the
charge of the diocese. He, however, found himself quite as uncomfortable
as Turgot had been. The renewed dissensions about the conflicting claims
of York and Canterbury and the rights of St. Andrews retarded his
consecration, and it ended in his returning the ring to Alexander, the
staff to the altar, and leaving Scotland for Canterbury. When he wished,
shortly afterwards, to reclaim his bishopric and return to Scotland,
Alexander refused to receive him. The see again remained vacant, during
which time the archbishop renewed his claim to jurisdiction over the
Scottish bishops, which was supported by Pope Calixtus and steadily
rejected by King Alexander; but on the death of Eadmer in the beginning
of the year 1124, Robert, prior of the monastery of regular canons at
Scone, was elected bishop of St. Andrews, and four years after
Alexander’s death he was, in the reign of his successor, consecrated as
Turgot had been by the archbishop of York, reserving the rights of both
churches.[655]
It was on the occasion of Robert, the prior of his own monastery of
Scone, becoming bishop of St. Andrews, that Alexander I. restored to the
church of St. Andrews the lands called the Boar’s Chase, with many
privileges, accompanied with the strange gift of the royal Arabian
steed, with its trappings and silver shield and spear, which the king
led up to the altar, and a splendid suit of Turkish armour.[656]
Alexander appears also in the same year to have founded a monastery of
canons regular on the small island of Emonia, now called Inchcolm, in
the Firth of Forth.[657] If these foundations amply justify the
character given him of devotion and liberality to the church, that which
Ailred likewise applies to him of being terrible towards his subjects
was probably acquired by the stern manner in which he repressed the
resistance of the Gaelic population of his kingdom, and forced them to
submit to his rule. Fordun tells us that Alexander was surnamed Fers or
the Fierce, and his interpolator Bower adds ‘that he acquired this name
because he had received from his father’s brother, who was earl of
Gowry, at his baptism, according to custom, the lands of Lyff and
Invergowry, near Dundee;[658] that when he became king, he proceeded to
erect a palace at Lyff, but was attacked by certain people of the Mearns
and Moray in the night, who broke in the door, but he was brought
secretly out[659] by his attendant, Alexander Carron, and having taken
ship at Invergowry, he went to the south of Scotland, and having
collected an army, he hastened against the rebels; that he then founded
the monastery of Scone, and bestowed upon it the lands of Lyff and
Invergowry. He then pursued the rebels to the river Spey, and there
finding his enemies collected in great numbers on the opposite bank, and
the river so swollen, and his men unwilling to cross, he gave his
standard to Alexander Carron, who plunged into the stream, was followed
by the army, and his enemies were put to flight.’[660] Wynton
substantially narrates the same tale, but places the king’s palace or
‘maner-plas’ at Invergowry; terms his assailants ‘a multitude of
Scottysmen;’ says that they fled ‘owre the Mownth,’ and removes their
final dispersion from the Spey to the Beauly river, when he adds that
the king
Folowyd on thame rycht fersly
Owre the Stokfurd into Ros;
And that
Quhilk he oure-tuk thame at the last,
And tuk and slwe thame, or he past
Owt off that land, that fewe he lefft
To tuk on hand swylk purpos efft.
Fra that day hys legys all
Oysid hym Alysandyr the Fers to call.[661]
Wynton places the foundation of Scone on his return from the north.
Whether this event really took place or not, it is probably a true
enough indication of what Alexander had to experience from his Gaelic
subjects, and how he dealt with them, and certain it is that the
foundation charter of the monastery of Scone contains a grant of the
lands of Lyff and Invergowry.[662]
Alexander grants three of his charters at Strivelin, Perth, and Scone;
and, in his foundation charter of the latter place, he gives the monks
five dwellings in his principal towns. These are Edwinsburg or
Edinburgh, Strivelin or Stirling, Inverkeithing, Perth, and Aberdon or
Aberdeen. He died at Stirling in full health of body and faculties,
according to Fordun, on the 24th of April in the year 1124, and was
buried at Dunfermline on the day of St. Mark the Evangelist, that is, on
the 25th of April, near his father, in front of the great altar.[663]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1107-1124.
David, youngest son of Malcolm Ceannmor by Queen Margaret,
rules over Scotland south of Forth and Clyde as earl.]
The only son of Queen Margaret now left was David, the youngest. He
appears, while yet a youth, to have accompanied his sister Matilda to
the English court, on her marriage with Henry the First, king of
England, which took place in November 1100, during the reign of Eadgar
over Scotland,[664] and here he was trained, with other young Norman
barons, in all the feudal usages, so as to become, by education and
association with the young English nobility, imbued with feudal ideas,
and surrounded by Norman influences, or, as William of Malmesbury
expresses it, ‘polished from a boy by intercourse and familiarity with
us.’[665] When he reached maturity Henry I. gave him in marriage a rich
young widow, Matilda, daughter and heiress of that Waltheof who was son
of Siward, earl of Northumberland, and himself earl of Northampton, and
had married Judith, the niece of the Conqueror, and was afterwards
beheaded by him. She was the widow of Simon de Senlis, and by her David
obtained during her life the earldom of Northampton and honour of
Huntingdon. David was thus, to all intents and purposes, a Norman baron
when the death of his brother Eadgar placed him, by his bequest, in
possession of almost the entire Scottish territory south of the Firths
of Forth and Clyde, with the title of earl. The districts thus possessed
by him extended, on the east, from the Tweed as far at least as the
Lammermoor range, beyond which was the earldom of Gospatric of Dunbar;
while the district extending from the Esk to the Forth was retained by
King Alexander. On the west his possessions reached from the Solway
Firth to the Firth of Clyde.
Six years after he obtained these lands, he founded, in the year 1113, a
monastery of Benedictine monks of Tyron, at Selkirk, on the banks of the
Ettrick, and his foundation-charter will still further indicate the
extent of his possessions as earl. In this charter he calls himself Earl
David, son of Malcolm, king of Scots, and addressed it to all his
adherents, Normans, Angles, and Scots,[666] and gives the monks the
lands of Selkirk and other lands in Teviotdale, a ploughgate in Berwick,
and a croft in the burgh of Roxburgh, the tenth of his ‘can’ or dues
from Galweia or Galloway, and in addition some lands in his English
lordship of Northampton; and he shows his independent position by adding
that this grant was made while Henry was reigning in England and
Alexander in Scotia, or Scotland proper.[667] Not long after he
refounded the bishopric of Glasgow, to which he appointed John as first
bishop, who had been his tutor. The instrument which records the
restoration of the diocese, and an investigation ordered by Earl David
into the possessions of the see, is still preserved, and may probably be
dated some time between the years 1116 and 1120. In this document it was
stated that ‘in the time of Henry, king of England, while Alexander,
king of Scots, was reigning in Scotia, God had sent them David,
brother-german of the king of Scotia, to be their prince and
leader;’[668] and ‘David, prince of the Cumbrian region, causes
inquisition to be made into the possessions of the church of Glasgow in
all the provinces of Cumbria which were under his dominion and power,
for he did not rule over the whole of the Cumbrian region.’[669] The
kingdom of Cumbria originally extended from the Firth of Clyde to the
river Derwent, including what was afterwards the dioceses of Glasgow,
Galloway, and Carlisle.[670] That portion, however, which extended from
the Solway Firth to the river Derwent, and afterwards formed the diocese
of Carlisle, was wrested from the Scots by William Rufus in 1092, and
was bestowed by Henry the First upon Ranulf de Meschines.[671] David’s
possessions in Cumbria consisted, therefore, of the counties of Lanark,
Ayr, Renfrew, Dumfries, and Peebles, and the inquisition contains lands
in these counties. He was, as we have seen, overlord of Galloway, and
his rule extended also over Lothian and Teviotdale, in the counties of
Berwick, Roxburgh, and Selkirk; for, in a charter by Earl David to the
monks of Durham of the lands of Swinton in Berwickshire, he addresses it
to Bishop John of Glasgow, to Gospatric, Colban and Robert his brothers,
and to his thanes and drengs of Lothian and Teviotdale;[672] and, in
another, Thor of Ednam in Berwickshire calls him his overlord, or the
superior of his lands.[673]
From these deeds we not only learn the extent of David’s possessions,
but we also see that he had attached to himself not only his Anglic
vassals but a large following of Norman barons. Of the witnesses to the
inquisition there are, besides his countess Matilda and his nephew
William, son of his brother Duncan, eight of Anglic race and fourteen
who are Normans. In his foundation charter of Selkirk, besides Bishop
John of Glasgow, his countess Matilda, his son Henry, his nephew
William, and three chaplains, there are eleven Norman witnesses, nine
Anglic, and a solitary Gillemichel to represent the Celtic race. The
native Cumbrians nowhere appear as witnessing his grants, and it seems
plain enough that he had largely introduced the Norman element into his
territories, and ruled over them as a feudal superior basing his power
and influence upon his Norman and Anglic vassals, of whom the former
were now the most prominent both in weight and number.[674]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1124-1153.
David reigns over all Scotland as first feudal monarch.]
On the death of King Alexander in the year 1124, the Saxon Chronicle
tells us that ‘David, his brother, who was earl of Northamptonshire,
succeeded to the kingdom, and had them both together, the kingdom of
Scotland and the earldom in England;’ and thus the southern and northern
districts, which had been severed during the whole of Alexander’s reign,
were once more united under one king, and David founded a dynasty of
feudal monarchs of Celtic descent in the paternal line, and in the
maternal representing the old Saxon royal family, but governing the
country as feudal superiors, and introducing feudal institutions. The
extent to which the feudal and Norman element had already been
introduced into the south of Scotland, while under the rule of earl, by
David, will be apparent when we examine the relation between the Norman
barons who witness his charters and the land under his sway. The most
prominent of those who witness the foundation charter of Selkirk are
four Norman barons, who possessed extensive lordships in the north of
England. The first was Hugo de Moreville, and we find him in possession
of extensive lands in Lauderdale, Lothian, and Cuningham in Ayrshire.
The second was Paganus de Braosa. The third Robertus de Brus, who
acquired the extensive district of Annandale in Dumfriesshire; and the
fourth, Robertus de Umfraville, received grants of Kinnaird and Dunipace
in Stirlingshire. Of the other Norman knights who witness this charter,
and also the inquisition, Gavinus Ridel, Berengarius Engaine, Robertus
Corbet, and Alanus de Perci possess manors in Teviotdale. Walterus de
Lindesaya has extensive possessions in Upper Clydesdale, Mid and East
Lothian, and in the latter district Robertus de Burneville is also
settled. In Scotland proper the character in which David ruled will be
best seen by contrasting his charters with those of his predecessors.
Eadgar, who possessed the whole kingdom north of the Tweed and the
Solway, addresses his charters to all his faithful men in his kingdom,
Scots and Angles. Alexander, who possessed the kingdom north of the
Firths of Forth and Clyde alone, to the bishops and earls, and all his
faithful men of the kingdom of Scotia. A charter granted by David, in
the third year of his accession to the throne, to the monks of Durham,
of lands in Lothian, is addressed to all dwelling throughout his kingdom
in Scotland and Lothian, Scots and Angles;[675] but when we enter
Scotland proper, and compare his foundation charter of Dunfermline with
that of Scone by his predecessor, Alexander I., there is a marked
contrast between them. Alexander grants his charter to Scone, with the
formal assent and concurrence of the seven earls of Scotland; and it is
confirmed by the two bishops of the only dioceses which then existed in
Scotland proper, with exception of St. Andrews, which was vacant, and
the witnesses are the few Saxons who formed his personal attendants,
Edward the constable, Alfric the pincerna, and others.[676] King David’s
charter to Dunfermline, a foundation also within Scotland proper, is
granted ‘by his royal authority and power, with the assent of his son
Henry, and with the formal confirmation of his queen Matilda, and the
bishops, earls, and barons of his kingdom, the clergy and people
acquiescing.’ Here we see the feudal baronage of the kingdom occupying
the place of the old constitutional body of the seven earls, while the
latter appear only as individually witnessing the charter. David’s
subsequent charters to Dunfermline show this still more clearly, for
they are addressed to the ‘bishops, abbots, earls, sheriffs, barons,
governors, and officers, and all the good men of the whole land, Norman,
English, and Scotch:’ in short, the feudal community or ‘communitas
regni,’ consisting of those holding lands of the crown, while the old
traditionary earls of the Celtic kingdom appear among the witnesses
only.[677]
The reign of David I. is beyond doubt the true commencement of feudal
Scotland, and the term of Celtic Scotland becomes no longer appropriate
to it as a kingdom. Under his auspices feudalism rapidly acquired
predominance in the country, and its social state and institutions
became formally assimilated to Norman forms and ideas, while the old
Celtic element in her constitutional history gradually retired into the
background. During this and the subsequent reigns the outlying
districts, which had hitherto maintained a kind of semi-independence
under their native rulers, and in which they were more tenaciously
adhered to, were gradually brought under the more direct power of the
monarch and incorporated into the kingdom. It will be unnecessary for
our purpose to continue further a detailed narrative of the reigns of
the kings of this dynasty who had thus become feudal monarchs, and it
only remains to notice shortly the occasional appearance of the Celtic
element in her constitution, and the fitful struggles of her Celtic
subjects to resist the power which was gradually but surely working out
this process of incorporation and the consolidation of the various
districts which composed it into one compact kingdom.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1130.
Insurrection of Angus, earl of Moray, and Malcolm, bastard
son of Alexander I.]
David had been barely six years on the throne of Scotland when a united
attempt was made on the part of its Gaelic inhabitants to wrest the
districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde from his dominion, and
the further encroachment of the English barons with their feudal
holdings. At the head of this insurrection was Malcolm, a natural son of
the late King Alexander, who probably counted upon the Gaelic population
of Scotland proper preferring to recognise him as his father’s heir in
his limited kingdom, rather than be united with Lothian under the feudal
government of David; and Angus, son of the daughter of Lulach the
Mormaer of Moray, and successor of Macbeth as king of Scotia, for three
months, who on the death of Lulach’s son Maelsnechtan in 1085 had
succeeded to him, according to the Pictish law of succession, as Mormaer
of Moray, or, as it was now termed, Earl. Orderic of Vital gives so
circumstantial an account of this insurrection, that his narrative may
be accepted as substantially true, supported as it is by other
authorities. ‘Malcolm, a bastard son of Alexander,’ he tells us,
‘attempted to deprive his uncle of the crown, and involved him in two
rather severe contests; but David, who was his superior in talent as
well as in wealth and power, defeated him and his party. In the year of
our Lord 1130, while King David was ably applying himself to a cause in
King Henry’s court, and carefully examining a charge of treason which,
they say, Geoffrey de Clinton had been guilty of, Angus, earl of Moray,
with Malcolm and five thousand men, entered Scotia (or Scotland proper)
with the intention of reducing the whole kingdom to subjection. Upon
this Edward, the son of Siward, earl of Mercia in the time of King
Edward, who was a cousin of King David and commander of his army,
assembled troops and suddenly threw himself in the enemy’s way. A battle
was at length fought, in which Earl Angus was slain and his troops
defeated, taken prisoners, or put to flight. Vigorously pursuing the
fugitives with his soldiers elated with victory, and entering _Morafia_,
or Moray, now deprived of its lord and protector, he obtained, by God’s
help, possession of the whole of that large territory. Thus David’s
dominions were augmented, and his power was greater than that of any of
his predecessors.’[678] This account is confirmed by the Saxon
Chronicle, which has in the year 1130, ‘In this year Anagus was slain by
the Scots army, and there was a great slaughter made with him. Thus was
God’s right avenged on him, because he was all forsworn;’ and the Ulster
Annals have in the same year, ‘Battle between the men of Alban and the
men of Moray, in which fell four thousand of the men of Moray, with
their king Oengus, son of the daughter of Lulag, a thousand also of the
men of Alban in heat of battle.’[679] Fordun places the scene of this
battle at Stracathro in Forfarshire.[680]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1134.
Insurrection by Malcolm Maceth.]
This attempt, which ended so fatally for the Gael of Moray, was followed
a few years after by one of the strangest incidents which occur in the
history of Scotland at that period. It is obviously alluded to by Ailred
in his eulogium upon King David, when, on telling us that ‘God gave
David the affection of a son amid scourgings, that he should not murmur
or backslide, but should give thanks amid “scourgings,”’ he adds, ‘These
were his words, when God sent as a foe against him a certain spurious
bishop, who lied and said he was the earl of Moray’s son;’ and again,
‘that the Lord had scourged with the lies of a certain monk that
invincible king who had subdued unto himself so many barbarous nations,
and had, without great trouble triumphed over the men of Moray and the
islands.’[681]
William of Newburgh, however, who had personally known the impostor, if
impostor he was, and had conversed with him, gives us a fuller account
of this strange transaction. He first appears as a monk of the
Cistercian monastery of Furness, which had been founded in the year
1124, as Brother Wymundus. According to William of Newburgh, ‘he
possessed an ardent temper, a retentive memory, and competent eloquence,
and advanced so rapidly that the highest expectations were formed of
him.’ In 1134, Olave, the Norwegian king of Man, granted lands in that
island to Yvo, abbot of Furness, to found an affiliated monastery at
Russin, and Brother Wymund was sent with some monks to fill it; and here
we are told ‘he so pleased the barbarous natives with the sweetness of
his address and openness of his countenance, being also of a tall and
athletic make, that they requested him to become their bishop and
obtained their desire.’ Olave accordingly applied to Thurstan,
archbishop of York, to consecrate him their bishop, and Wymund appears
to have been consecrated by him.[682] He had no sooner obtained this
position than he announced himself to be the son of the earl of Moray,
who had been slain in 1130, and ‘that he was deprived of the inheritance
of his father by the king of Scotland.’ Having collected a band of
followers, who took an oath to him, he dropped his monastic name of
Wymund for his Celtic appellation of Malcolm mac Eth, and began his
career throughout the adjacent islands. His claim appears to have been
recognised as genuine by the Norwegian king of the Isles, and by
Somerled, the Celtic regulus of Argyll, whose sister he married. ‘Every
day,’ says William of Newburgh, ‘he was joined by troops of adherents,
among whom he was conspicuous above all by the head and shoulders: and,
like some mighty commander, he inflamed their desires. He then made a
descent on the provinces of Scotland, wasting all before him with rapine
and slaughter; but whenever the royal army was despatched against him,
he eluded the whole warlike preparation, either by retreating to distant
forests, or taking to the sea; and when the troops had retired, he again
issued from his hiding-places to ravage the provinces.’ In this career
he met one check; for, invading the province of Galloway and demanding
tribute from the bishop, he was encountered by him at the head of his
people when attempting to ford the river Cree; and the bishop ‘having
met him as he was furiously advancing and himself striking the first
blow in the battle, by way of animating his party, he threw a small
hatchet, and, by God’s assistance, he felled his enemy to the earth as
he was marching in the van. Gladdened at this event, the people rushed
desperately against the marauders, and killing vast numbers of them
compelled their ferocious leader shamefully to fly,’ ‘Wymund,’ adds
William, ‘himself used afterwards with much pleasantry and boastingly to
relate among his friends that God alone was able to vanquish him by the
faith of a simple bishop. This circumstance I learnt from a person who
had been one of his soldiers, and had fled with those who had made their
escape. Recovering his forces, however, he ravaged the islands and
provinces of Scotland as he had done before;’[683] till at length the
king, with the assistance of a Norman army, succeeded in taking him
prisoner, and confined him in the castle of Marchmont or Roxburgh.[684]
This took place, as we shall see, in the year 1137.[685]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1138.
David invades England; position of Norman barons.]
In the following year, when King David invaded England at the head of
as large a force as he could bring together from the entire country
under his dominion, for the purpose of supporting the cause of his
niece Matilda, the daughter of King Henry the First, and empress of
Germany, he placed those Norman barons who belonged to the party of
Stephen of Blois, and held possessions under King David as well as in
England, in a position of great difficulty. Their feudal holdings in
Scotland gave David a right as their overlord to their military
service, while their policy in England was to support Stephen in his
opposition to the claim of his niece Matilda to the English throne.
One of the principal of these Norman barons, Robertus de Brus, who had
great possessions in Yorkshire, but had adhered to King David from his
youth, and held under him the extensive district of Annandale,
repaired to the Scottish camp when David had advanced as far as the
Tees, to remonstrate with him, and when he did not succeed, renounced
his fealty to him. It is well worth quoting that part of his speech,
as reported by Ailred, which details the part the Norman barons had
taken in the Scottish events detailed in this chapter. ‘Against whom,’
he says to the king, ‘dost thou this day take up arms and lead this
countless host? Is it not against the English and Normans? O king, are
they not those from whom thou hast always obtained profitable counsel
and prompt assistance? When, I ask thee, hast thou ever found such
fidelity in the Scots that thou canst so confidently dispense with the
advice of the English and the assistance of the Normans, as if Scots
sufficed thee even against Scots? This confidence in the Galwegians is
somewhat new to thee who this day turnest thine arms against those
through whom thou now rulest,—beloved by Scots and feared by
Galwegians. Thinkest thou, O king, that the majesty of heaven will
behold thee, with unmoved eyes, do thy best to ruin those by whom the
throne was gotten and secured to thee and thine? With what forces and
by what aid did thy brother Duncan overthrow the army of Donald and
recover the kingdom which the tyrant had usurped? Who restored Eadgar
thy brother, nay more than brother, to the kingdom? was it not our
army? Thou too, O king, when thou didst demand that part of the
kingdom which that same brother bequeathed to thee at his death from
thy brother Alexander, was it not from dread of us that thou
receivedst it without bloodshed? Recollect last year when thou didst
entreat the aid of the English in opposing Malcolm, the heir of a
father’s hate and persecution, how keenly,—how promptly,—with what
alacrity, Walter Espec and many other English nobles met thee at
Carlisle; how many ships they prepared,—the armaments they equipped
them with,—the youths they manned them with; how they struck terror
into thy foes till at length they took the traitor Malcolm himself
prisoner, and delivered him bound to thee. Thus the fear of us did not
only bind his limbs but still more daunted the spirit of the Scots,
and suppressed their tendency to revolt by depriving it of all hope of
success. Whatever hatred, therefore,—whatever enmity the Scots have
towards us, is because of thee and thine, for whom we have so often
fought against them, deprived them of all hope in rebelling, and
altogether subdued them to thee and to thy will.’
[Sidenote: Composition of king David’s army.]
Ailred tells us that King David’s army was composed not only of those
who were subject to his dominion, but that he had been joined by many of
the people of the Western Isles and the Orkneys still under Norwegian
rule;[686] and the account which he gives of the different bodies of men
which now formed his troops gives us a good idea of the heterogeneous
elements of which the population of Scotland was at this time composed.
The first body of his army was composed of the ‘Galwenses’ or people of
Galloway, who still bore the name of Picts, and who claimed to lead the
van as their right. The second body was led by Henry, King David’s son,
with soldiers and archers, to whom were joined the ‘Cumbrenses’ and
‘Tevidalenses,’ or the Welsh population of Strathclyde and Teviotdale.
The third body consisted of the ‘Laodonenses’ or Anglic inhabitants of
Lothian, with the ‘Insulani’ and ‘Lavernani’ or Islesmen and people of
the Lennox; and the last body or rearguard was led by the king in
person, and consisted of the ‘Scoti’ and ‘Muravenses,’ or the Scots of
the kingdom proper extending from the Forth to the Spey, and the
recently subdued people of Moray. Along with the king were many of the
Norman and English knights who still adhered to him.[687]
During the remaining year of David’s reign he appears to have maintained
his authority with a firm hand and unimpaired over these various races.
We read of no further insurrections on their part against him, and all
attempts to resist the encroachment of the Norman barons, with their
feudal followers, on their territories seem to have been given up,
though probably no great advance was made in the process of amalgamating
these different nationalities into one people. In the last year of his
reign, his only son, Prince Henry, died, leaving three sons, the eldest
of whom, Malcolm, was only eleven years of age. The succession of a
grandson to his grandfather was still a novelty to the Celtic population
of the kingdom, and a greater infringement upon the law of tanistic
succession than had yet been made, while the obstacle to his succession
would be still greater if his grandfather’s death opened the throne to
him while yet a minor. The aged monarch foresaw that after his death a
conflict would once more take place between the laws and customs of the
Teutonic and Celtic races, and lead to a renewed collision between them;
and in order to avert this, he prevailed upon the earl of Fife, who was
the acknowledged head of the constitutional body of the seven earls of
Scotland, to make a progress with the youthful Malcolm through the
kingdom, and obtain his recognition as heir to the throne.
David died in the following year, and, as might have been expected, the
succession of Malcolm was viewed with dislike by the entire Gaelic
population of the country, as well as by those districts more
immediately under the power or influence of the Norwegians, and he had
ere long to contend against the open revolt of the great Gaelic
districts which surrounded the kingdom of Scotland proper. These were,
on the north, ‘Moravia’ or Moray; on the west, ‘Arregaithel’ or Argyll;
and on the south-west corner, separated from Scotland by the Cumbrian
population, was the wild region of Galloway. It is remarkable that,
while the race of native rulers of the first had come to an end in the
preceding reign, we find the two latter suddenly starting into life
under the rule of two native princes—Somerled, ‘regulus’ of Arregaithel,
and Fergus, prince of Galloway, while no hint is given of the parentage
of either. The Norwegians appear to have retained a hold over both
districts till the beginning of the twelfth century, and it is probable
that the native population had now succeeded in expelling them from
their coasts, and that owing to the long possession of the country by
the Norwegians, all trace of the parentage of the native leaders under
whom they had risen had disappeared from the annals of the country, and
they were viewed as the founders of a new race of native lords.[688]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1153-1165.
Malcolm, grandson of David, reigns 12 years.]
On the death of King David, his grandson was at once taken by those who
had acknowledged him as heir, and crowned at Scone, and he is the first
king of whom we have the fact of his coronation at Scone stated on
contemporary authority.[689]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1154.
Somerled invades the kingdom with the sons of Malcolm
Maceth.]
This had no sooner been accomplished, than Somerled, the regulus of
Arregaithel, rose against him in conjunction with his nephews, the sons
of Malcolm mac Eth, and assailed the kingdom at all quarters.[690] The
civil war had lasted three years, when, in the year 1156, Donald, the
eldest son of Malcolm, was taken prisoner at Whitherne, in Galloway, by
some of Malcolm’s adherents, and delivered over to him, when he was
imprisoned in the castle of Marchmont along with his father.[691]
Somerled, however, continued the war, and Malcolm found it expedient to
neutralise the support he received from those who still adhered to the
cause of Malcolm Maceth, by coming to terms with him. Accordingly he
liberated Malcolm in the following year. William of Newburgh tells us
that ‘he gave him a certain province, which suspended the incursion he
had instigated.’ There is good reason for thinking that this province
was the earldom of Ross,[692] a remote district over which King Malcolm
could exercise but little authority; and he may have thought that his
prisoner might expend his turbulent energy there with impunity—a view so
far realised, as William of Newburgh further relates, that ‘whilst he
was proudly proceeding through his subject province surrounded by his
army like a king, some of the people who were unable to endure either
his power or his insolence, with the consent of their chiefs, laid a
snare for him.’ Obtaining a favourable opportunity, when he was
following slowly and almost unattended a large party which he had sent
forward to procure entertainment, they took and bound him and deprived
him of both his eyes, and otherwise mutilated him. ‘Afterwards he came
to us,’ says William of Newburgh, ‘at Byland, and quietly continued
there many years till his death. But he is reported even there to have
said that had he only the eye of a sparrow, his enemies should have
little occasion to rejoice at what they had done to him.’[693] In the
meantime events had occurred which led to a temporary peace between the
king and Somerled. Olave, the Norwegian king of the Isles, had died in
the same year as King David, and his son Godred had succeeded him.
Somerled had married the daughter of Olave, by whom he had a son,
Dugall; and three years after Godred’s accession, when his tyrannical
mode of government had excited great discontent, Somerled took advantage
of it to endeavour to have his son Dugall made king of the Isles. This
led to a naval engagement between Godred and Somerled on the night of
the Epiphany, or 6th of January 1156, in which there was great slaughter
on both sides, and an agreement was made by which the Isles were divided
between them. The contest, however, continued between them, and Somerled
seems to have been glad to make peace with Malcolm in 1159.[694]
The opposition to Malcolm had as yet proceeded from the western
districts over which Somerled ruled, and where the family of Malcolm
Maceth found support, but this had been no sooner quieted by the
conclusion of peace between them and the king, than he was exposed to a
greater danger from the alienation of the Gaelic population of the
kingdom of Scotland proper, and their native rulers, which he appears to
have provoked by his apparent attachment to the king of England. He
could hardly, from his extreme youth, be held responsible for the treaty
in 1157, by which Northumberland and Cumberland were surrendered to the
English monarch, but he had now attained the age of seventeen. In the
previous year he had gone to Chester to meet the king of England for the
purpose of obtaining knighthood at his hand, which, owing to some
difference between them, was refused, but he now passed over to France
and joined the king, who was besieging Toulouse, and served in his army.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1160.
Revolt of six earls.]
In consequence of news which reached Malcolm of the dissatisfaction in
Scotland proper, he returned hastily, and on reaching the town of Perth,
where according to Fordun he had summoned his nobles and clergy to meet
him, he was besieged by Ferteth, earl of Stratherne, and five others of
the seven earls of Scotland, who wished to take him prisoner, but failed
in the attempt.[695] Neither the Chronicle of Melrose nor Fordun tells
us the cause of the failure, but the latter adds that he was by the
advice of the clergy brought to a good understanding with his nobles.
But they soon found that he was prepared to act with vigour, and to show
that he was, though young, capable of reducing all recalcitrant
provinces to his authority.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1160. Subjection of Galloway.]
In the same year he thrice invaded the district of Galloway with a large
army, and brought its inhabitants finally under subjection.[696]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1160. Plantation of Moray.]
According to Fordun, he likewise invaded the district of Moravia or
Moray, ‘removed them all from the land of their birth, and scattered
them throughout the other districts of Scotland, both beyond the hills
and on this side thereof, so that not even a native of that land abode
there, and he installed therein his own peaceful people.’[697] This
statement is probably only so far true that he may have repressed the
rebellious inhabitants of the district, and followed his grandfather’s
policy by placing foreign settlers in the low and fertile land on the
south side of the Moray Firth, extending from the Spey to the river
Findhorn; and here he certainly did grant the lands of Innes and
Etherurecard, extending from the Spey to the Lossie, to Berowald the
Fleming, by a charter granted at Perth on the first Christmas after the
agreement between the king and Somerled.[698]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1164.
Invasion by Somerled. His defeat and death at Renfrew.]
Malcolm had to sustain one other invasion of his kingdom ere he passed
from this earthly scene at the early age of twenty-five. It proceeded
once more from Somerled, who had now become more powerful by the
addition of one-half of the Western Isles, which he held under the king
of Norway, to his possessions on the mainland. What provoked this
invasion we know not, but it proved fatal to himself. Having collected
forces from all quarters, including Ireland, and assembled a fleet of
160 ships, he landed at Renfrew with the intention of subduing the whole
kingdom, but was suddenly attacked by the people of the district and
sustained an unexpected defeat, having been slain with his son
Gillecolm.[699] This took place in the year 1164, nearly two years
before Malcolm’s death, and was attributed by the chroniclers to divine
interposition; but the author of a curious contemporary poem claims the
credit for the merits of Saint Kentigern of Glasgow.[700] The rest of
the country had remained quiet during the few concluding years of
Malcolm’s reign, but he appears to have conciliated its Gaelic
population, and won their regard, for the Ulster Annals tell us that in
1165 ‘Malcolm Cenmor or Greathead, son of Henry the high king of Alban,
the best Christian that was to the Gael on the east side of the sea for
almsgiving and fasting and devotion, died.’[701]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1166-1214.
William the Lyon, brother of Malcolm, reigns forty-eight
years.]
Malcolm was succeeded by his brother William, commonly called the Lyon
King, who was crowned at Scone on Christmas eve of the year 1165, but no
particulars of the ceremony are recorded.[702] His first proceeding was
to claim from the king of England the restoration of Northumberland,
which had been assigned to him as his appanage by his father David, but
had been surrendered along with Cumberland during his brother Malcolm’s
reign in 1157, and we find him invading England in 1173, with an army
consisting mainly of those Highland Scots, whom, Fordun tells, men call
‘Bruti,’ and the Gallwegians.[703] In the following year William was
taken prisoner by the English, when Fordun tells us the Scots and
Gallwegians ‘wickedly and ruthlessly slew their Norman and English
neighbours in frequent invasions with mutual slaughter, and there was
then a most woeful and exceeding great persecution of the English, both
in “Scotia” or Scotland proper and Galloway.’[704]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1174. Revolt in Galloway.]
This account is confirmed by Roger of Hoveden, so far as Galloway is
concerned, where he had been himself sent by the king of England. He
tells us that Uchtred, son of Fergus, and Gilbert, his brother, princes
of the Gallwegians, immediately after the captivity of the king entered
their own land, and expelled the king’s officers from its bounds, slew
the English and Normans whom they found in their lands without mercy,
and took and destroyed the fortifications and castles which the king had
placed in their territory. They even proposed to the king of England to
pass from the dominion of the king of Scots to that of the English
crown. In short, it was a resistance by the Gaelic population to
encroachments of the Norman and English barons, and shows the nature of
the policy adopted by the Scottish king in subjecting these districts to
his authority, and the extent to which it had been carried. The
liberation of William from captivity in the following year arrested the
progress of the insurrection.[705] According to Fordun the king led an
army into Galloway, but ‘when the Gallwegians came to meet him under
Gilbert, the son of Fergus, some Scottish bishops and earls stepped in
between them, and through their mediation they were reconciled; the
Gallwegians paying a sum of money and giving hostages.’[706]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1179.
King William subdues the district of Ross.]
Having thus quieted the Gallwegians, the king resolved to bring the
district of Ross, which lay between the Moray and Dornoch Firths, under
his authority. In the year 1179 he penetrated into that district at the
head of his earls and barons, with a large army, subdued it, and in
order to maintain his authority built two castles—one called Dunscath on
the prominent hill on the north side of the entrance to the Cromarty
Firth, to dominate over Easter Ross, and the other called Etherdover on
the north side of the Beauly Firth, at the place now called Red Castle,
to secure the district called the Black Isle.[707] Though William had
thus for a time brought the northern districts under subjection to the
royal authority, he was not permitted to retain them long without
disturbance, and two years after he had to encounter the assault by a
pretender to the crown, who found his chief support in the Gaelic
population of these districts. This was Donald Ban, who called himself
the son of William Fitz Duncan, and claimed the throne as lineal heir of
Duncan, the eldest son of Malcolm Ceannmor, who had been himself king of
Scotland.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1181. Insurrection in favour of Donald Ban Macwilliam.]
King William had purchased his liberation from captivity in England by
the surrender of the independence of Scotland, and this probably created
great dissatisfaction among the Celtic population of the kingdom north
of the Firths, which finally broke out, in 1181, in a serious attempt to
place the ancient kingdom of Alban with the northern districts under a
separate monarch in the person of Donald Ban, whose descent from the
marriage of Malcolm Ceannmor with the Norwegian Ingibiorg would commend
his pretensions both to the native and the Norwegian leaders. He seems
to have borne the name of Macwilliam, and this is the first appearance
of a family name, which was to become more familiar to the kings of
Scotland in connection with such insurrections. Invited, or at least
encouraged, by a formidable party among the earls and barons of Scotland
proper, he invaded the northern districts with a large force.[708]
Fordun tells us that ‘for the whole time from the capture of the king of
Scots to his liberation, the inhabitants of the southern and northern
districts of the kingdom were engaged in mutual civil war with much
slaughter;’ and this was probably true of the entire period from the
surrender of the independence of the kingdom to its restoration, during
which time Galloway and the districts beyond the Spey were more or less
in insurrection, and a considerable party in Scotland proper were
hostile to the king. On the 1st of January 1185, Gilbert, son of Fergus,
lord of Galloway, died, and a part of the Gallwegians broke out into
rebellion under a certain Gilpatrick; while Roland, the son of Uchtred,
who had been slain by his brother Gilbert, espoused the cause of the
king, and a battle took place between them in which Roland was
victorious. One of the king’s officers, too, Gilcolm the Marescal,
revolted from him and surrendered the king’s castle of Earn or Dundurn,
at the east end of Loch Earn, to the king’s enemies, which shows that
there was a party in Stratherne hostile to him, and infested Lothian
with frequent attacks. As soon as he heard of the defeat of Gilpatrick,
Gilcolm, who is termed by Fordun ‘a tyrant and robber chief,’ and whose
name shows that he was of Gaelic, and probably of Gallwegian, descent,
invaded Galloway with the view of putting himself at the head of the
insurgents, and establishing himself as ruler in those parts of Galloway
hostile to the king; but he, too, was defeated in battle by Roland on
the 30th of September, and perished with many of his followers.[709]
After the defeat of the Gallwegian rebels, and the slaughter of Gilcolm
and his followers, the earls and barons of the kingdom of Scotland
proper appear to have become more reconciled to their legitimate
monarch; and he felt the necessity of either slaying or expelling
Macwilliam, who had now for six years maintained himself in the northern
districts beyond the Spey, and been ravaging and devastating those parts
of the kingdom which adhered to King William, if he would not lose his
crown altogether;[710] but it was not till the year 1187 that he found
himself in a position to advance against him. He then invaded Moravia or
Moray at the head of a large army, and while he remained with the main
body of the army at Inverness, sent his earls and barons with the Scots
and Gallwegians to lay waste the more western parts of the province.
They encountered Macwilliam in the upper part of the valley of the Spey,
encamped on a moor called Mamgarvia, and a battle took place there on
Friday, the 31st of July, in which Macwilliam was slain with many of his
followers.[711] Two years after the independence of Scotland was
restored by Richard the First, king of England, and the relations
between the two kingdoms replaced on their former footing.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1196. Subjection of Caithness.]
The annexation of the district of Ross to the kingdom, and the
suppression of this insurrection, seem, however, soon after to have
brought the people of Caithness into closer contact with the royal
authority. Although nominally held of the Scottish king, Caithness was
possessed as an earldom by the earl of Orkney, who held his other
earldom of the king of Norway, and thus the tie with Scotland was a
slender one. The earl at this time was Harald, who was himself of the
royal family, being son of Madach, earl of Atholl, whose father was a
brother of Malcolm Ceannmor, and he had succeeded to the earldom of
Orkney and Caithness through his mother, Margaret, the daughter of the
Norwegian earl Hakon of Orkney, and his wife was a daughter of Malcolm
mac Eth. According to Fordun, King William led an army into Caithness in
the year 1196. Crossing the river Oikell, which separates Sutherland
from Ross, he killed some of the disturbers of the peace, and subjected
both provinces of the Caithness men—that of Sutherland and of
Caithness—routing Earl Harald, who, says Fordun, had been ‘until then a
good and trusty man, but at that time, goaded on by his wife, the
daughter of Mached, had basely deceived his lord the king, and risen
against him. Then, leaving there a garrison for the country, the king
hurried back into Scotland.’[712] From the Chronicle of Melrose we learn
that in the following year ‘a battle was fought near the Castle of
Inverness, between the king’s troops, who had been probably left as a
garrison there, and Roderic and Thorfinn, son of Earl Harald, in which
the king’s enemies were put to flight, and Roderic slain, with many of
his followers. King William then proceeded with his army to Moray, and
the more remote districts’—that is, as Fordun tells us, the districts of
Sutherland, Caithness, and Ross; ‘and, having taken Earl Harald
prisoner, confined him in the castle of Roxburgh, where he remained till
his son Thorfinn gave himself as a hostage for his father.’[713] Such
are the Scotch accounts of these events; but Roger of Hoveden, a
contemporary English writer, gives a somewhat different account. He says
that, in 1196, King William entered Moray with a great army to drive out
Harald, who had occupied that district, but before the king could enter
Caithness, Harald fled to his ships. The king then sent his army to
Thurso, and destroyed the castle. Harald then came to the king and
submitted, and the king permitted him to retain half of Caithness on
condition he surrendered his enemies to him in Moray, and gave the other
half to Harald, grandson of Rognwald, a former earl of Orkney and
Caithness. The king then returned to his own land, and Harald to Orkney.
In the autumn the king returned to Moray, and went to Invernairn to
receive the king’s enemies from Harald; but after bringing them to the
port of Loch Loy, near Invernairn, he allowed them to escape, on which
the king took him prisoner, and kept him in Edinburgh Castle till his
son Thorfinn was delivered up for him. Harald the younger was afterwards
slain in battle with the elder Harald, who then went to the king and
offered to redeem his lands in Caithness with a sum of money. The king
agreed to give him back the half of Caithness if he would put away his
wife, the daughter of Malcolm Maceth, and take back his first wife,
Afreka, sister of Duncan, earl of Fife; but he refused, on which the
king gave Caithness to Reginald, the son of Somerled, for a sum of
money, reserving the king’s annual tribute.[714] In consequence of an
attack upon Caithness made in 1202 by Harald, in which he drove out
Reginald’s men and made an outrage on the bishop, King William once more
sent his army in the spring of that year to Caithness, but it was unable
to penetrate beyond the border of the country, and as the king was
preparing to follow by sea, Harald met him at Perth under the
safe-conduct of Roger, bishop of St. Andrews, and came to an
understanding with the king, by which he was restored to his earldom on
payment of every fourth penny to be found in Caithness, amounting to
2000 merks of silver.[715]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1211.
Insurrection in favour of Guthred Macwilliam.]
Towards the close of William’s reign he had again to suppress a renewed
attempt by the people of Ross to throw off the yoke by supporting the
claims of the descendants of William Fitz Duncan. Fordun tells us that
‘Guthred, the son of Macwilliam, came about the Lord’s Epiphany (6th
January), by the advice, it was said, of the Thanes of Ross, out of
Ireland into that district, and infested the greater part of the kingdom
of Scotland. But the king’s army was suddenly sent against him to kill
him or to drive him out of the country, and King William himself went
after him, and in the following summer built two towns there; but
Guthred being seized and fettered through the treachery of his own men,
was brought before the king’s son Alexander, at the king’s manor and
place of Kincardine, and was there beheaded and hung up by the
feet.’[716] An old chronicler, Walter of Coventry, represents what
appears to have been the feeling of the Gaelic population towards the
family of Macwilliam, and led to these frequent revolts. ‘This Guthred,’
he says, ‘was of the ancient lineage of the Scottish kings who, with the
support of Scots and Irish, did, as well as his father Domnald, exercise
constant hostilities against the modern kings, now secretly, now openly.
For these modern kings affected more the Normans, as in race, so in
customs, language, and culture, and the Scots being reduced to utter
servitude admitted the Normans only to their friendship and
service.’[717] During the remainder of his reign William had no further
encounter with his Gaelic subjects, and died at Stirling on the 4th of
December 1214.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1214-1249.
Alexander the Second, son of king William the Lyon, reigned
thirty-five years. Crowned by the seven earls]
He was succeeded by his son Alexander, who was then in his seventeenth
year, and was crowned at Scone on the following day. We now learn some
further particulars of the coronation of the Scottish kings, and we are
told by Fordun that the bishop of St. Andrews, the head of the Scotch
Church, and the seven earls of Scotland—the earls of Fife, Stratherne,
Atholl, Angus, Menteith, Buchan, and Lothian—took Alexander, brought him
to Scone, and there raised him to the throne in honour and peace, with
the approval of God and man, and with more grandeur and glory than any
one till then, while all wished him joy and none gainsaid him. So King
Alexander, as was meet, held his feast in state at Scone on that day,
viz., Friday, and the Saturday following, viz., the Feast of St.
Nicholas, as well as the next Sunday.[718]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1215.
Insurrection in favour of Donald Macwilliam and Kenneth
Maceth.]
The young king had barely reigned a year when he had to encounter the
old enemies of the crown, the families of Macwilliam and Maceth, who now
combined their forces, and under Donald Ban, the son of that Macwilliam
who had been slain at Mamgarvia in 1187, and Kenneth Maceth, a son or
grandson of Malcolm Maceth, with the son of one of the Irish provincial
kings, burst into the province of Moray at the head of a large band of
malcontents. A very important auxiliary, however, now joined the party
of the king. This was Ferquhard or Fearchar, called Macintagart, the son
of the ‘Sagart’ or priest who was the lay possessor of the extensive
possessions of the old monastery founded by the Irish Saint Maelrubha at
Applecross in the seventh century. Its possessions lay between the
district of Ross and the Western Sea, and extended from Loch Carron to
Loch Ewe and Loch Maree, where the name of Maelrubha was long venerated
as Saint Maree, and Ferquhard was thus in reality a powerful Highland
chief commanding the population of an extensive western region. The
insurgents were assailed by him with great vigour, entirely crushed, and
their leaders taken, whom he at once beheaded, and presented their heads
to the new king as a welcome gift on the 15th of June, when he was
knighted by the king as the reward of his prompt assistance.[719]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1222.
Subjection of Arregaithel or Argyll.]
Of the districts which still maintained a kind of semi-independence of
the Scottish crown as ancient provinces of Scotland, there now only
remained the extensive region of Arregaithel or Argyll, forming the
entire western seaboard of the country from the Firth of Clyde to Loch
Broom, the northern part of which, however—North Argyll as it was
called—consisting chiefly of the possessions of the ancient monastery of
Applecross, were now brought by their lay possessor Macintagart into
close connection with the crown. The remote and secluded position of
Galloway too rendered it little amenable to the royal authority, and the
Western Isles, one half of which were under the rule of a Norwegian
petty king, and the other half belonged to the family of Somerled, still
belonged to the kingdom of Norway. The attention of King Alexander was
strongly drawn towards the necessity of bringing Argyll under subjection
from the support its people afforded to the families of Macwilliam and
Maceth. The head of the former family was at this time Gillescoph
Mahohegan or Gillespic mac Eochagan, and he appears to have had the
support of Roderic, son of Reginald, Lord of the Isles, and other chiefs
of Argyll.
The account of these transactions is to be found in Fordun and Wynton
alone, but there seems no reason to doubt their authority at this
period. Fordun tells us that ‘during this time,’ that is, in 1221, ‘some
unrighteous men of the race of Macwilliam, viz., Gillespic and his sons
and Roderic, started up in the uttermost bounds of Scotland.’[720]
Alexander was at the time at York, where he was betrothed to the English
king’s eldest sister Joan, as yet a girl; but on his return with his
bride Fordun tells us that ‘having raised an army out of Lothian and
Galloway and other outlying provinces, the king sailed for Argyll, but a
storm having arisen he was obliged to put back, and brought up at
Glasgow in safety but not without danger. In the following year,
however, after Whitsunday, he led back the army into Argyll. The men of
Argyll were frightened. Some gave hostages and a great deal of money,
and were taken back in peace, while others who had more offended against
the king’s will forsook their estates and possessions and fled. But our
lord the king bestowed both the land and the goods of these men upon his
own followers at will, and thus returned in peace with his men.’[721]
Wynton gives the following account of it:—
The kyng that yhere Argyle wan,
That rebell wes till hym befor than;
For wyth his ost thare in wes he,
And athe tuk off thare fewté,
Wyth thare serwys and thare homage,
That off hym wald hald thare herytage:
Bot the ethchetys off the lave
To the lordys off that land he gave.
Oure the Mownth theyne passyd he sene,
And held hys Yhule in Abbyrdene.[722]
This expedition seems to have thus lasted from Whitsunday till near
Christmas, and to have been confined to Argyll south of the Mounth, and
thus was this region also brought under subjection to the crown. The
rebels appear to have taken refuge in Galloway, and here we find them
witnessing a charter in that year of lands in Galloway to the monks of
Melrose. After the abbot of Melrose; Alan son of Roland of Galloway;
Fergus son of Uchtred; Edgar son of Dovenald; Duncan son of Gilbert Earl
of Carrick, all lords of Galloway, appear the following names:—‘Gileskop
Macihacain; Giladuenan son of Duvegal; Gillecrist son of Kenedi; Iwan
son of Alewain; Gillenef Okeueltal; Gilleroth son of Gillemartin; Makeg
son of Kyin; and Gillefakeneshi son of Gillin;’[723] all no doubt fully
justifying Fordun’s epithet of ‘iniquus.’ The only account he gives of
their fate is that ‘God gave them over, with their abettors, into King
Alexander’s hand; and thus the land was no longer troubled by their
lawlessness.’[724] In the following year, while the king was keeping his
birthday at Forfar, John, earl of Caithness, who was son of Earl Harald
the elder, came to him there and purchased back a part of his earldom
which the king had taken from him the previous year on account of his
having been supposed to be privy to the outrage committed by the people
of Caithness on their bishop, Adam, whom they had burned in his own
house.[725]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1235.
Revolt in Galloway.]
Galloway appears to have been still a constant source of disquiet to the
kingdom. Alan, the son of Roland, lord of Galloway and Constable of
Scotland, died in the year 1234, leaving three daughters, who were
married to Norman barons, and one son, considered illegitimate, who
during his father’s lifetime had married the daughter of the king of
Man. The Norman barons divided the territory between them; ‘but,’ we are
told in the Chronicle of Melrose, ‘the inhabitants of that land
preferring one master rather than several, went to our lord the king
with the request that he himself would accept the lordship of that
inheritance, but the king was too just to do this. Thereupon the
Gallwegians were angry above measure, and prepared for war. Moreover,
they devastated with fire and sword some of the royal lands contiguous
to themselves,’ and the king resolved to make a final effort to reduce
it entirely to obedience.
‘In the following year our lord the king,’ says the chronicler,
‘mustered an army, and entered Galloway. Having reached a spot
convenient for the purpose, he determined there to pitch his tents, for
the day was now drawing towards evening. The Gallwegians, however, who
had all day been hiding among the mountains, knew the place better, and,
trusting to their local acquaintance with its difficulties, offered the
king battle. In truth, the place was filled with bogs, which were
covered over with grass and flowers, amongst which the larger portion of
the royal army had involved itself. At the beginning of the battle the
earl of Ross, called Makintagart, came up and attacked the enemies in
the rear, and as soon as they perceived this they took to flight, and
retreated into the woods and mountains, but they were followed up by the
earl and several others, who put many of them to the sword, and harassed
them as long as daylight lasted. On the next day the king, acting upon
his accustomed humanity, extended his peace to as many as came to him,
and so the surviving Gallwegians, with ropes round their necks, accepted
his offer.’[726]
The illegitimate son of Alan, lord of Galloway, however, Thomas, went
over to Ireland with Gilrodh, who incited him to his rebellion, and was
no doubt the Gilleroth, son of Gillemartin, who appears among the
followers of Gillescop Mahohegan, from whence he soon after returned,
bringing with him a fleet and a body of Irish, with the son of one of
their chieftains. ‘The Scots,’ we are told, ‘fled before him, and in
their hasty flight arrived at a piece of water, in which many perished
by means of that accursed army;’ but the bishop of Galloway and the
abbot of Melrose, as soon as they heard of it, went, accompanied by the
earl of Dunbar and his troops, to the district of Galloway, and informed
Gilrodh that he must either make his submission to the king, or engage
the earl’s army in battle. Perceiving his inferiority in numbers,
Gilrodh followed their advice, and the king placed him for some time in
the custody of the before-mentioned earl. Being thus deprived of all
counsel and assistance, the bastard was obliged to sue for the king’s
peace. He was imprisoned for a short time in Edinburgh Castle, and then
the king gave him his freedom; and we hear no more of any resistance to
the royal authority in this quarter, and they seem to have acquiesced in
their incorporation into the kingdom.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1249.
Attempt to reduce the Sudreys, and death of the king at
Kerrera.]
There now remained but one object to be accomplished to complete the
amalgamation of the different outlying provinces of the kingdom occupied
by a Celtic population, and that was to wrest the possession of the
Western Isles from the kingdom of Norway. Alexander first attempted to
obtain the islands by treaty, and sent two of his bishops to Hakon, king
of Norway, to ascertain if he would voluntarily surrender the islands as
having been unjustly wrested from the Scottish crown by Magnus Barefoot;
but Hakon refused, on the ground that Magnus had won them from Godred,
king of the Isles, and that his right to the Isles had been confirmed by
the king of Scots. The king then proposed to purchase the Isles, but
this likewise was refused; and though the negotiations were frequently
renewed, the Scots received no other answer.[727] In the year 1249,
however, Harald, son of Olave, the Norwegian king of Man and the Isles,
died, and was succeeded by his brother Reginald, who began to reign in
the Isle of Man on the sixth of May, and was slain on the thirteenth of
the same month near Russin, in the Isle of Man. The succession was then
claimed by Harald, son of Godred Don, whose father was brother of Olave,
the father of the slain king.[728] Alexander seems to have considered
this a favourable opportunity to endeavour to obtain the Isles by force
of arms, and having collected forces throughout all Scotland, he
prepared for a voyage to the Hebrides, and determined to subdue these
islands under his dominion. According to the Saga, he declared ‘that he
would not desist till he had set his standard east on the cliffs of
Thurso, and had reduced under himself all the provinces which the
Norwegian monarch possessed to the westward of the German Ocean.’[729]
With this view he sent to one of the island kings of the family of
Somerled, and appointed a meeting with him in the islands, when he
endeavoured to persuade him to renounce his allegiance to King Hakon,
and to surrender to him the castle of Cairnburgh, in the Treshinish
Isles, on the west coast of Mull, and three other castles, but without
success, and the further prosecution of his enterprise was arrested by
death. He was seized with severe illness, and having been carried to the
island of Kerrera, on the coast of Lorn, he died there. The Scottish
army then broke up, and removed the king’s body to Scotland. The Saga
reports that the king had seen a vision while lying in the Sound of
Kerrera, in which Saint Olave of Norway, Saint Magnus of Orkney, and
Saint Columba appeared to him, and prophesied evil to him if he would
not abandon his purpose;[730] but how Saint Columba, whose successors
had suffered such evils at the hands of the Northmen, should have
appeared in such company is not explained.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1249-1285.
Alexander the Third, his son, reigned thirty-six years.]
[Sidenote: Ceremony at his coronation.]
King Alexander was buried in the church of Melrose on the 8th of July
1249, and was succeeded by his son Alexander, a boy in his eighth
year.[731] Notwithstanding his extreme youth he was crowned at Scone on
the 13th of July 1249, and Fordun gives us a very graphic account of the
ceremony. Walter Comyn, earl of Menteith, and all the clergy, having
‘joined unto them some earls—viz., Malcolm, earl of Fife, and Malise,
earl of Stratherne, and a great many other nobles—led Alexander, soon to
be their king, up to the cross which stands in the cemetery at the east
end of the church. Here they placed him upon the celebrated coronation
stone, which was covered with silken cloths interwoven with gold, and
the bishop of St. Andrews, assisted by the rest, consecrated him king.’
The boy king then received the homage of the feudal baronage of the
kingdom, and a strange ceremony followed, probably now for the first
time, and intended to mark the cordial acceptance of the king by the
entire Gaelic population as the heir and inheritor of a long line of
traditionary Gaelic monarchs. A Highland sennachy advanced, and,
kneeling before the fatal stone, hailed him as the ‘Ri Alban,’ and
repeated his pedigree according to Highland tradition through a long
line of Gaelic kings, partly real and partly mythic, till he reached
Gaithal Glas, the ‘eponymus’ of the race.[732]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1250.
Relics of Queen Margaret enshrined before the seven earls and
the seven bishops.]
It is probable that the seven earls, though not specifically mentioned
by Fordun, took part in this ceremony, as he tells us that in the
following year, ‘on the 19th of June,’ the king and the queen, his
mother, with bishops and abbots, earls and barons, and other good men,
both clerics and laymen, in great numbers, met at Dunfermline, and took
up, in great state, the bones of the blessed Margaret, sometime queen of
Scots, out of the stone monument where they had lain through a long
course of years, and them they laid with the deepest devoutness in a
shrine of deal set with gold and precious stones;[733] but when we turn
to the Chartulary of Dunfermline, we find from an inquisition taken in
the year 1316, that the enshrining took place ‘in the presence of King
Alexander the Third, the seven bishops, and the seven earls of
Scotland.’[734]
During the earlier years of Alexander’s reign, the Comyns seem to have
held the principal sway in Scotland, at the head of whom was Walter,
earl of Menteith; but when he had reached the age of fourteen, Henry,
king of England, had an interview with him at Rokesburgh, the result of
which was that the bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and the earl of
Menteith, who were at the head of the national party, were disgraced,
and a regency appointed of the earl of Dunbar and others, who were more
favourable to the king of England, for the seven years that would elapse
till Alexander attained majority.[735]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1263.
War between kings of Norway and Scotland for the possession
of the Sudreys.]
During this time no attempt appears to have been made to renew the
contest for the Western Isles, but when the king attained the age of
twenty-one, he announced his intention of subduing the Hebrides if life
were granted to him. The war was commenced by the earl of Ross, the son
of that Macintagart who had proved so important an auxiliary to the
crown, with others of the Ross-shire chiefs, with a kind of guerilla
warfare against the isle of Skye and those other islands which lay
opposite their territories. In the summer of 1262 letters reached the
king of Norway from the kings of the Sudreys complaining of these
hostilities, and warning the king of King Alexander’s avowed intention
of wresting the islands from him by force, upon which King Hakon
resolved to anticipate by an expedition to the Sudreys with a large
force to repress these hostilities, and confirm the island chiefs in
their allegiance to him. He accordingly, in the beginning of 1263,
issued orders for collecting his forces, which were to assemble at
Bergen towards the commencement of summer.
On the 15th of July Hakon sailed with a large fleet, consisting,
according to the Saga, of upwards of 120 sail, and in a few days arrived
in Orkney, and anchored in Elwick harbour in Shapinshay, opposite
Kirkwall. King Alexander was not idle in preparing for the impending
attack. He repaired the fortifications of Inverness, Wigtown, Stirling,
and other castles, and increased their garrisons. He built vessels, and
strongly garrisoned the castle of Ayr, where the chief attack was
expected. On the 10th of August Hakon sailed from Orkney with his fleet,
which had been reinforced, doubled Cape Wrath, swept past Lewis, and
entered the Sound of Skye, where he anchored south of the island of
Raasay. Here he was joined by Magnus, king of Man, and other Norwegian
barons. He then proceeded through the Sound of Mull to Kerrera, where
the forces gathered in the Isles were already assembled. From Kerrera,
he sent 50 ships under the command of King Magnus and some Norwegian
barons, and of King Dugald, of the family of Somerled, to Kintyre, and
15 ships to Bute, while he himself brought up at Gigha. The castles of
Dunaverty in Kintyre and Rothesay in Bute having capitulated, he now
sailed with the whole fleet and anchored in Lamlash harbour in Arran.
King Alexander was stationed with the greater part of his forces at Ayr,
on the opposite mainland, and negotiations now commenced for a peace, in
which the Norwegian endeavoured to get his right to the whole islands
acknowledged, while the Scots merely protracted them till the summer
should pass and the bad weather of autumn set in. In this they were
successful, and it was late in September when they were broken off. King
Hakon then sent 60 of his ships under leaders of Somerled’s family to
sail into Loch Long and ravage the adjacent districts, while he himself
prepared to land with the main force at Largs, to which place the
Scottish king had moved, and was encamped there with his army. A great
storm, however, broke out on the night of the 30th of September, and
lasted two days. Ten of the vessels sent to Loch Long were wrecked, and
the main fleet off Largs suffered greatly.[736]
Of the battle of Largs which followed we have two accounts, one in the
Norse Saga of Hakon IV., the other by Fordun; and it is possible that
while the one makes too light of the Norwegian loss, the other may make
their defeat more complete than it really was. Fordun’s account is that,
‘on the very day that both the kings had appointed for battle, there
arose at sea a very violent storm which dashed the ships together; and a
great part of the fleet dragged their anchors and were roughly cast on
shore whether they would or not. Then the king’s army came against them
and swept down many, both nobles and serfs, and a Norwegian king;
Hakon’s nephew, a man of great might and vigour, was killed. On account
of this the king of the Norwegians himself, sorrowing deeply, hurried
back in no little dismay to Orkney, and while wintering there, awaiting
a stronger force to fight it out with the Scots, he died.’[737] Although
the Saga does not admit that the Norwegians were defeated, it states
that five days after the battle King Hakon departed with his fleet, and
sailed through the Western Isles till he arrived in the Orkneys, where
he remained while the most part of the troops sailed to Norway; and
while the Saga makes the most of the grants he is said on his return to
have made to those Sudreyan kings of the family of Somerled who adhered
to him, and even avers that, ‘in this expedition King Hakon regained all
those provinces which Magnus Barefoot had acquired and conquered from
the Scotch and the Sudreyans,’ it is obvious from the results that the
expedition had in reality failed. King Hakon died in the Bishop’s Palace
at Kirkwall on the 15th of December 1263, and was succeeded by his son
Magnus as king of Norway. The results of the battle of Largs and the
death of King Hakon substantially left the Western Isles at the mercy of
King Alexander; and Fordun tells us that he no sooner heard of King
Hakon’s death than he got a strong army together and made ready to set
out with a fleet towards the Isle of Man. When he had reached Dumfries
on his way, King Magnus of Man met him, and agreed to do homage for his
petty kingdom which he was to hold of him for ever. The king then sent
the earls of Buchan and Mar, and Alan the Hostiary, with a band of
knights and natives, to the Western Isles, ‘where they slew those
traitors who had the year before encouraged the king of Norway to go to
war with Scotland. Some of them they put to flight, and, having hanged
some of the chiefs, they brought with them thence exceeding great
plunder.’[738]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1266.
Annexation of the Western Isles to the crown of Scotland.]
King Magnus of Man died on the 24th of November 1265, and this paved the
way for a treaty between the kings of Scotland and of Norway, by which,
for payment of a sum of 4000 marks and an annual payment to the crown of
Norway of 100 marks, the Isle of Man and all the Sudreys were finally
ceded to King Alexander, the Orkneys and Shetland being excepted; and
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and metropolitan rights of the
archbishop of Drontheim over Man and the Isles reserved. The treaty was
concluded in July 1266, and thus were the Sudreys or Western Isles
finally annexed to the kingdom of Scotland.[739]
Alexander III. had two sons, Alexander and David, and one daughter,
Margaret, who was married to Eric, king of Norway, but in the course of
three years he was left childless. His son David died at Stirling at the
end of June in the year 1281. On the 9th of April 1283 his daughter
Margaret died, leaving an only daughter Margaret, commonly called the
Maid of Norway, and on the 28th of January following died Alexander,
prince of Scotland.
[Sidenote: A.D. 1283.
Assembly of baronage of the whole kingdom at Scone on 5th
February to regulate succession.]
The king immediately summoned the Estates of Scotland to meet at Scone
on the 5th of February, and there they became bound to acknowledge
Margaret, princess of Norway, as the legitimate heir of their sovereign,
‘failing any children whom Alexander might have, and failing the issue
of the prince of Scotland deceased, in the whole kingdom and the island
of Man, and the whole other islands belonging to the kingdom of
Scotland.’ The nobles present will show that the Estates now represented
the entire territory of Scotland. There were the earls of Buchan,
Dunbar, Stratherne, Lennox, Carrick, Mar, Angus, Menteith, Ross,
Sutherland, Fife, and Atholl, of whom four were Norman intruders into
Celtic earldoms, and the earl of Orkney represented the earldom of
Caithness; and there were twenty-four barons, of whom eighteen at least
represented the Norman baronage of the kingdom; while the Celtic element
is represented only by Alexander of Argyll, Angus son of Donald, and
Alan son of Rotheric, the native rulers of Argyll and the Isles.[740]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1285-6.
Death of Alexander the Third.]
King Alexander, thus left childless, married Yolande, daughter of the
Count de Dreux, on the 14th of October 1285, in the hope of obtaining a
male heir to the Crown, but was killed on the 19th of March following,
having been thrown from his horse in the dusk of the evening while
riding from Queensferry to Kinghorn to visit his queen.[741]
[Illustration:
FEUDAL
SCOTLAND
_W. & A. K. Johnston Edinburgh & London._
]
[Sidenote: Conclusion.]
The young Maid of Norway died in Orkney, when on her passage from Norway
to take possession of her kingdom, in the end of September 1290, and
thus terminated the last native dynasty of Scottish monarchs of Celtic
descent in the male line, and Scotland, with her united provinces, her
feudal institutions, and her mixed population, now became a prize to be
contested for between the English monarch, who asserted his right as her
lord paramount, and the various Norman barons who claimed her as their
inheritance through descent in the female line from her native monarchs.
It is with the Celtic portion of her population alone that this work is
now mainly concerned.
-----
Footnote 620:
The first-known earl of Atholl was Madach Comes, who appears as
witness to charters of Alexander I. and David I. He is called in the
Orkneyinga Saga ‘Moddadr, Jarl af Atjoklum,’ and is there said to be
son of ‘Melkolmr, brother of King Melkolf, father of David, who is now
king of Scots’ (chap. lvii.). Melkolf is obviously Malcolm Ceannmor,
and other MSS. read Melmare in place of Melkolmr, which is probably
the true reading, as in the Book of Deer we find Malmori d’Athotla
witnessing one of the charters. Wynton has a curious story that
Malcolm Ceannmor was an illegitimate son of King Duncan, by the miller
of Forteviot’s daughter, and that he had two legitimate brothers. The
latter seems to be well founded, and the former may have been raised
by the partisans of Donald to strengthen his claim upon the throne.
Footnote 621:
In the Chartulary of St. Andrews is a memorandum of a charter by
‘Edelradus vir venerande memorie filius Malcolmi regis Scotiæ Abbas de
Dunkelden et insuper Comes de Fyf,’ confirmed by his brothers Eadgar
and Alexander, because the lands had been granted to him by his
parents ‘in juvenili etate’ (p. 115).
Footnote 622:
For Godred Crovan see Munch’s edition of _Chron. of Man_, pp. 3, 50.
The Magnus Barefoot’s Saga seems to have combined the account of two
expeditions of that king in 1093 and 1098 into one. But the distinct
statement that he conquered the Western Isles during the reign of
Malcolm, and while Godred and his son Lagman were still alive, leaves
no doubt that his first expedition took place in the last year of
Malcolm’s reign.
Footnote 623:
_Sax. Chron._ ad an. 1093.
Footnote 624:
Fordun, _Chron._ B. v. c. xxi. It is usually stated on Fordun’s
authority that Donald Ban had obtained the assistance of Magnus, king
of Norway, who had just conquered the Western Isles, but there is no
expression to this effect in Fordun’s Chronicle. The words ‘auxilio
regis Norwegiæ’ are interpolated by Bower.
Footnote 625:
Wynton, B. vii. c. 3.
Footnote 626:
_Sax. Chron._ ad an. 1093.
Footnote 627:
_Sax. Chron._ ad an. 1093.
Footnote 628:
Duncanus filius regis Malcolumb constans hereditarie rex Scotiæ. _Nat.
MSS. of Scot._, Part i. No. ii. The authenticity of this charter was
at one time doubted, but it is now recognised as genuine. See
_Introduction_, p. viii.
Footnote 629:
_Chart. Dunf._ p. 3. King David I., who remodelled the foundation in
his charter, confirms these lands which had been given by his brother
Duncan. The appearances of Eadgar as a witness to the first charter,
and the expression in this ‘dona Duncani fratris mei’ without
qualification, are a strong indication that he was considered
legitimate. The imputation of bastardy was first made by William of
Malmesbury, and adopted from him by Fordun. It seems to have been the
fruit of subsequent claims by his descendants.
Footnote 630:
_Chron. Cumbriæ_ apud Dug. _Mon._ i. p. 400; but the authority of this
chronicle is not great. William Fitz Duncan is, however, historical.
Footnote 631:
_Sax. Chron._ ad an. 1094.
Footnote 632:
See _Transactions of Ant. Soc._, vol. ii. page 480, for paper by
Professor Stuart ‘on the reign of Duncan the Second.’
Footnote 633:
William of Malmesbury tells us (B. v. § 400) ‘Solus fuit Edmundus
Margaretæ filius a bono degener, qui Duvenaldi patrui nequitiæ
particeps, fraternæ non inscius necis fuerat, pactus scilicet regni
dimidium.’ This statement is confirmed by the Ulster Annals, which
have ‘1094 Donnchadh mac Maelcolaim Ri Albain domarbhadh o braithribh
fein i. o Domnall agus o Etmond (Duncan, son of Malcolm, king of
Alban, slain by his brothers Donald and Edmund) per dolum.’
Footnote 634:
William of Malmesbury, _Hist. Regum_, B. v. § 400. The crime was the
slaughter of Duncan. His language here is not very consistent with his
branding Duncan as a bastard and a usurper.
Footnote 635:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 175. The Scalachronica says that he died
at Dunkeld, and was buried in Iona, which is unlikely, as the Isles
did not then belong to Scotland. The continuation of Tighernac has at
1099, ‘Domnall mac Donnchada Ri Alban do dalladh do braithribh fein.’
Footnote 636:
_Chron. of Man_, ed. Munch, p. 5. The Chronicle inserts an Irishman,
Donald mcTadg, before Ingemund, but his true period was after the
death of Magnus Barefoot in 1103.
Footnote 637:
_Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis_, p. 347.
Footnote 638:
It is obvious that in Magnus Barefoot’s Saga the expeditions made in
the first and in the fifth years of his reign have been confounded
together. Fordun in his Chronicle (vol. ii. p. 213) says in general
terms:—‘While these three—namely Donald, Duncan, and Edgar too—were
struggling for the kingdom in this wise, the king of the Noricans,
Magnus, the son of King Olave, son of King Harold, surnamed Harfager,
sweeping the gulfs of the sea with a host of seamen, subdued the
Orkneys to his dominion, and the Mevanian islands both of Scotland and
England, which indeed for the most part used to belong to Scotland by
ancient right;’ to which Bower adds that it was by the assistance of
Magnus that Donald Ban usurped the throne on the death of his brother
King Malcolm. By all later writers the cession of the Isles is
attributed to him, but in fact the connection between Donald Ban and
the Western Isles is entirely fictitious, and belongs to our spurious
history. The Saga distinctly states that the first agreement was made
with Malcolm Ceannmor himself and not with Donald Ban, and this is
confirmed by the Saga of Hacon IV., which tells us that Alexander II.
sent an embassy to King Haco to ask ‘if he would give up the
territories in the Hebrides which King Magnus Barefoot had unjustly
wrested from Malcolm, predecessor to the Scottish king;’ to which Haco
replied that Magnus had settled with Malcolm what districts the
Norwegians should have in Scotland or in the islands which lay near
it. He affirmed, however, that the kings of Scotland had no
sovereignty in the Hebrides at the time when King Magnus won them from
King Godred.—Johnstone, _Chronicle of Man_, p. 41.
The date of the second expedition is fixed by the Saxon Chronicle,
which places the accession of Eadgar in the year 1097; and in the
following year, 1098, has, ‘Earl Hugh was slain in Anglesey by
Vikings.’
Footnote 639:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 170.
Footnote 640:
_Chron. Man_, ed. Munch, p. 7. The metrical prophecy attributed to
Merlin, which seems to have been written not long after, has some
lines evidently referring to Magnus’s conquest of the Isles, which may
be thus translated (_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 117):—
Scotia will above all bewail the achievements of a famous leader,
Who will annex to himself lands bounded on all sides by the ocean.
The land, widowed of its regal lord, will be vacant
Twice three years and nine months.
Its ancient kings, just, bountiful, and rich,
Graceful and mighty, will Scotia mournfully bewail.
As Merlin says, after victorious kings
The royal sceptre will be deprived of a sovereign’s rule.
Through time to come, Albania, alas! by its own crime subdued,
Will serve a monarch of Anglic race.
That it will breathe again after the death of the miser king
The ancient sibyl in ancient prophecy foretells;
For a northern king of a huge fleet possessed
Will press the Scots with famine, fury, and with sword.
The foreign race at length will perish by the Scoti’s plot,
In battle that Noric chief shall fall.
The Noric chief who acquires lands bounded on all sides by the sea and
reigns six years and nine months is obviously Magnus, and the ‘rex
Angligenus’ Eadgar.
Footnote 641:
Fordun, _Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 214.
Footnote 642:
_National MSS. of Scotland_, Nos. iii. iv. v. and vi. The learned
editor states in his introduction (p. viii.) that he would have
included a fifth charter if the original had not been lost. Copies,
however, exist, and it is printed in Raine’s _North Durham_, Ap. No.
vii. The editor seems to consider that it was a genuine charter; but
the expressions it contains, and especially the names of the
witnesses, seem to the author to mark it out as unmistakably spurious.
Footnote 643:
The Saxon Chronicle has in 1107, ‘In this year also died king Eadgar
of Scotland on the Ides of January, and Alexander, his brother,
succeeded to the kingdom as King Henry granted him.’ The older
chronicles place his death at Dunedin or Edinburgh, and the former
name has by the later chronicles and by Fordun been mistaken for
Dundee. See _Chron. of Picts and Scots_, pp. 175, 181, 289.
Footnote 644:
They appear in this order in the charter of David I., confirming the
previous grants to Dunfermline. ‘Dona Duncani fratris mei, Dona
Eadgari fratris mei, Dona Ethelredi fratris mei, Dona Alexandri regis
fratris mei.’
Footnote 645:
Ailred in his tract ‘De Bello apud Standardum’ makes Robertus de Brus,
in his address to David I., say ‘Quis Eadgarum fratrem tuum, immo
plusquam fratrem, nisi noster exercitus, regno restituit? Tu ipse rex
cum portionem regni quam idem tibi frater moriens delegavit, a fratre
Alexandro reposceres, nostro certe terrore, quidquid volueras sine
sanguine impetrasti.’ What the ‘portio regni’ given to David was will
after appear.
Footnote 646:
Edgarus homo erat dulcis et amabilis, cognato suo Edwardo per omnia
similis, nihil tyrannicum, nihil durum, nihil avarum in suos exercens
sed cum maxima caritate et benevolentia subditos regens.—Ailred,
_Genealogia regum ap. Twysden_, p. 367.
Footnote 647:
Porro Alexander clericis et monachis satis humilis et amabilis erat,
cæteris subditorum supra modum terribilis, homo magni cordis, ultra
vires suas se in omnibus extendens. Erat autem litteratus, et in
ordinandis ecclesiis, in reliquiis sanctorum perquirendis, in vestibus
sacerdotalibus librisque sacris conficiendis et ordinandis
studiosissimus, omnibus etiam advenient bus supra vires
liberalissimus; circa pauperes vero ita devotus ut in nulla re magis
delectari, quam in eis suscipiendis, lavandis, alendis vestiendisque
videretur. (_Ib._)
Footnote 648:
_National MSS._, Nos. viii. ix. and x.
Footnote 649:
_Chart. Scone_, p. 1.
Footnote 650:
_Chart. Scone_, p. 3.
Footnote 651:
A.D. 1093 Fothudh ardepscop. Albain in Christo quievit.—_An. Ult.
Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 370.
Footnote 652:
Modach filius Malmykel vir piissime recordacionis episcopus Sancte
Andree cujus vita et doctrina tota regio Scotam feliciter est
illustrata.—_Chart. St. And._ p. 117.
Footnote 653:
See Haddan and Stubbs’ _Councils_, vol. ii. part i. p. 170, for this
date. Eadgar died on 13th January 1107.
Footnote 654:
Sim. Dun. _Hist. Reg. Angliæ_, ed. Surtees, i. 96.
Footnote 655:
See Haddan and Stubbs’ _Councils_, vol. ii. part i. pp. 189-214, for
the documents connected with this controversy. The principal authority
is Eadmer’s own account coupled with that of Simeon of Durham.
Footnote 656:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 190.
Footnote 657:
Fordun, _Chron._ B. v. c. xxviii. Bower, who was himself abbot of this
monastery, places its foundation in the year 1123, and adds to
Fordun’s account the words ‘non minus mirifice quam miraculose.’ He
explains this expression by telling us that Alexander, crossing the
Queensferry on affairs of state, encountered a great storm, and was
driven by a south-westerly gale upon the island of Emonia, where he
was received by a hermit who served Saint Columba in a small chapel,
and lived upon shellfish and the milk of one cow. Here the king was
obliged by the gale to remain three days, and, in fulfilment of a vow
which he had made in the extremity of his peril, founded the monastery
in honour of Saint Columba.—_Scotichron._ B. v. c. xxxvii. The same
legend was told to the author in the island of Iona, as having
happened there, and the hermit’s cave where Alexander was said to have
been received was pointed out to him on the west side of the island.
Footnote 658:
This gift must have been made during the life of Malcolm Ceannmor, and
the donor been either Donald Ban or Melmare, very probably the former.
Footnote 659:
Per latrinam.
Footnote 660:
_Scotichron._ B. v. c. xxxvi.
Footnote 661:
Wynton, _Chron._ B. vii. c. v.
Footnote 662:
_Chart. of Scone_, p. 2. Mr. Burton seems also (vol. i. p. 387)
doubtful as to the authority for this event, which he appears to think
rests on that of Wynton alone. He terms the assailants ‘a northern
army led by the Maarmor of Ross, assisted by the Maarmor of the
Merne;’ but where he gets these imaginary leaders, or why he converts
the Gaelic title ‘Mormaer’ into the equally barbarous form of
‘Maarmor,’ it is difficult to say. The title of Mormaer had ceased to
be used, and had passed into that of comes or earl before this time.
The Ulster Annals have in 1116, ‘Ladmuinn mac Domhnall hua righ Alban
domarbh do feraibh Moriab’ (grandson of the king of Alban, slain by
the men of Moray). He must have been son of that Domnall who was
killed in 1085, and this fixes the date of this insurrection at 1116.
Footnote 663:
The Saxon Chronicle, which is the oldest authority for the date,
places his death on the 9th of the kalends of May, which was the
preceding day, the 23d of April. The Chronicon Elegiacum has Strivelin
as the place of his death. The St. Andrews Chronicle calls it
Crasleth, and another, which is a corrected version of the same
Chronicle, Strafleth (_Chron. Picts and Scots._ pp. 175, 290); but
these are corruptions of the name Stirling, the Cymric form of which
was Ystrevelyn, and the Gaelic Sruthlinn.
Footnote 664:
Ailred, _Gen. Regum_, makes David say, ‘cum adolescens in regia curia
servirem.’
Footnote 665:
Malmesbury, _Hist. Regum_, B. v. § 400.
Footnote 666:
David Comes filius Malcolmi regis Scotorum omnibus amicis suis Francis
et Anglis et Scotis.—_Chart. Kelso_, p. 1.
Footnote 667:
Henrico regnante in Anglia et Alexandro regnante in Scotia.
Footnote 668:
Tempore enim Henrici regis Anglie, Alexandro Scottorum rege in Scotia
regnante, misit eis Deus David predicti regis Scotie germanum, in
principem et ducem.—_Chart. Glasgow_, p. 4.
Footnote 669:
David vero, Cumbrensis regionis princeps, amore precipue Dei, partim
quoque (ob) religiosi dilectionem et ammonitionem, terras ecclesie
Glasguensi pertinentes, singulis Cumbrie provinciis, que sub dominio
et potestate ejus erant (non enim toti Cumbrensi regioni dominabatur)
inquirere fecit.—_Ib._
Footnote 670:
Cumbria dicebatur quantum modo est, episcopatus Karleolensis et
episcopatus Glasguensis et episcopatus Candidecase.—Palg. _Documents
and Records_, p. 70.
Footnote 671:
See Lives of St. Ninian and St. Kentigern in the series of Scottish
Historians, p. 334. This also appears from a charter by David after he
became king, to Robertus de Brus, of the valley of the Annan, ‘a
divisa Dunegal de Stranit usque ad divisam Randulfi Meschin ... cum
omnibus illis consuetudinibus quas Randulfus Meschin unquam habuit in
Carduill, et in terra sua de Cumberland.’—_National MSS._ No. xix.
Footnote 672:
David Comes Johanni episcopo et Cospatricio et Colbano et Rodberto
fratribus, et omnibus suis fidelibus Tegnis et Drengis de Lodoneio et
de Teuegetedale.—_Nat. MSS. of Scot._ No. xii.
Footnote 673:
_Ib._ No. xiv.
Footnote 674:
No greater mistake has been made in Scotch history than that which
limits Eadgar’s gift to David to Cumbria. Our latest historian, Mr.
Burton, says that Edgar ‘left it as a bequest or injunction that
Cumbria should be ruled by his younger brother David’ (vol. i. p.
387); but this is a very imperfect account of the transaction, and Mr.
Burton seems to have merely adopted the statement of previous writers
without any independent investigation.
Footnote 675:
Omnibus per regnum suam in Scotia et Lodoneia constitutis.—_Nat. MSS.
Scot._ No. xv.
Footnote 676:
_Chart. Scon._ p. 1.
Footnote 677:
_Chart. Dunf._ pp. 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18.
Footnote 678:
Orderic Vital, B. viii. c. xxii. That David was in England in 1130
appears from the Exchequer Rolls, but the trial here referred to took
place, according to Roger de Hoveden, in 1131. Edward Constabularius
witnesses charters of Alexander I. and David I., and in one charter he
calls himself filius Siwardi. As constable he was at the head of the
military array of the Norman and English population.
Footnote 679:
1130 Bellum etir firu Albain et feru Moreb i torcradar iiij. mile do
feraibh Morebh im a righ .i. Oengus mac ingene Luluigh, mile vero
d-feraibh Albain i fritgbuin.—_An. Alt. Chron. Picts and Scots_, p.
371. The Annals of Innisfallen have ‘Slaughter of the men of Muriamh
in Alban.’—_Ib._ p. 170.
Footnote 680:
Fordun, _Chron._ B. v. c. xxxiii.
Footnote 681:
Ailred, _Eulogium Davidis_, apud Pinkerton, p. 447.
Footnote 682:
According to Stubbs (Twysden, p. 713) he was consecrated by Archbishop
Thomas, but Thomas died in 1114, which places the date too early.
Olave’s letter is preserved in the ‘White Book’ at York. It is
addressed to ‘T. eadem gratia Eborum archiepiscopo,’ and requests him
to consecrate a bishop elected from the monks at Furness. By T.
Thurstan is no doubt meant who was archbishop from 1114 to 1140.
William of Newburgh seems to have known nothing certain about his
earlier history. He says he was born ‘in obscurissimo Angliæ loco’ and
acted as scribe to certain monks, without indicating localities. In
his profession, quoted by Stubbs, he says, ‘Ego Wymundus sanctæ
ecclesiæ de Schid,’ or Skye, which brings him from the Isles.
Footnote 683:
Will. Newb. _Hist._ B. i. c. xxiv. It is a pity William of Newburgh
did not name the province he invaded. The scene of this battle is
fixed by local tradition in Galloway, and a stream which flows into
Wigton Bay called Bishop’s burn is said to have become crimson with
blood.
Footnote 684:
1134 Melcolmus capitur et in arcta ponitur in turre Rokesburch
custodia.—_Chron. Melrose_. Tandem capitur et ab eodem rege David in
turre castri de Marchemond arta custodia trucidatur.—Fordun,
_Annalia_, i. Wymund’s clerical character probably saved his life and
consigned him to perpetual imprisonment instead.
Footnote 685:
Mr. Robertson, in his _Scotland under her Early Kings_, propounds a
strange theory with regard to Wymund. He considers that Orderic of
Vital is mistaken in saying that Malcolm, who joined with Angus, earl
of Moray, in 1130, was son of Alexander the First; that Fordun is
mistaken in saying that Malcolm mac Heth was the same person as
Wymund; that the two Malcolms were the same person; and that he was
not the son but the brother of Angus, earl of Moray, their father Heth
being a previous earl and the same person as the Beth Comes who
witnesses charters of Alexander the First. But it is impossible to
deal with authorities in this fashion, and Mr. Robertson’s usual sound
judgment seems on this occasion to have deserted him.
Footnote 686:
Rex Scotorum innumerabilem coegit exercitum, non solum eos qui ejus
subjacebant imperio, sed et de Insulanis et Orcadensibus non parvam
multitudinem accersiens.
Footnote 687:
Ailred, _de Bello apud Standardum_. Fordun, vol. i. p. 444. See also
Fordun, vol. ii. p. 425, note. Richard of Hexham, a contemporary
writer, gives the following account of the army:—‘Coadunatus autem
erat iste nefandus exercitus de Normannis, Germanis, Anglis, de
Northymbranis, et Cumbris, ed Teswetadala, de Lodonea, de Pictis, qui
vulgo Galleweienses dicuntur et Scottis.’—_De Gest. Reg. Stephani._
Footnote 688:
See Fordun, _Chron._ vol. vi. p. 430, note.
Footnote 689:
John of Hexham, _Chron._, ad an. 1153.
Footnote 690:
1153, 6th November. Eo die, apud Scotiam, Sumerled et nepotes sui,
scilicet filii Malcolmi, associatis sibi plurimis, insurrexerunt in
regem Malcolm; et Scotiam in magna parte perturbantes
inquietaverunt.—_Chron. S. Crucis._ See also Fordun, _Annalia_, i.
Footnote 691:
1156 Dovenaldus filius Malcolmi apud Witerne captus est et
incarceratus a turre de Rokesburc cum patre suo.—_Chron. Melrose._
Footnote 692:
1157 Malcolm Machet cum rege Scottorum pacificatus est.—_Chron. S.
Crucis._ He witnesses a charter of King Malcolm to the monastery of
Dunfermline as Melcolm mac Eth, in which he is placed immediately
after Gilbertus Comes de Angus, and before Walterus filius Alani, the
high steward of Scotland before 1160; and soon after King Malcolm
grants letters of protection to the monks of Dunfermline addressed
‘Malcolmo Comiti de Ros et omnibus ministris suis.’—_Chart. Dun._ pp.
24, 25.
Footnote 693:
Will. Newb. _Chron._ B. i. c. xxiv.
Footnote 694:
_Chron. Manniæ._ Munch’s ed., pp. 10, 80.
Footnote 695:
1160 Malcolmus rex Scotorum venit de exercitu Tolose, cumque
venisset in civitatem que dicitur Pert, Fereteatht comes et v. alii
comites irati contra regem quia perrexit Tolosam, obsederunt
civitatem et regem capere voluerunt, sed presumcio illorum minime
prævaluit.—_Chron. Mel._
Wynton gives the following account of it:—
Quhen the kyng Malcolme come agayne,
Off hys legys mad hym a trayne;
A mayster-man cald Feretawche
Wyth Gyllandrys Ergemawche,
And other mayster-men thare fyve
Agayne the kyng than ras belywe;
For caws that he past till Twlows,
Agayne hym thai ware all irows;
Forthi thai set thame hym to ta
In till Perth, or than hym sla.
Bot the kyng rycht manlyly
Swne skalyd all that cumpany,
And tuk and slwe.—B. vii. c. 7.
Whom Wynton means by Gyllandrys Ergemawche it is difficult to say.
William Fitz-Duncan, son of Duncan, king of Scotland, had attached
himself to his uncle David throughout the whole of his career both as
earl and as king, and distinguished himself as a commander in all his
wars. He married Alice de Romellie, heiress of Skipton and Craven, by
whom he had a son William and three daughters. The Orkneyinga Saga
says of William Fitz-Duncan, that ‘he was a good man. His son was
William the Noble, whom all the Scots wished to take for their
king.’—_Coll. de Reb. Alb._ 346. William Fitz-Duncan was dead in 1151,
when a charter was granted of Bolton by ‘Adeliza de Rumelli consensu
et assensu Willelmi filii et hæredis mei et filiarum mearum,’ and
among the witnesses is ‘Willelmo filio meo de Egremont.’ He was
commonly called the Boy of Egremont, and is said to have died under
age, but he may have lived till after 1160. This may have been the
occasion in which the Scots wished to make him their king, and
Wynton’s barbarous name Ergemawche may have been intended for
Egremont.
Footnote 696:
1160 Rex Malcolmus duxit exercitum in Galwaiam ter; et ibidem inimicis
suis devictis federatis, cum pace et sine damno suo remeavit. Fergus
princeps Galwaiæ habitum canonicum in ecclesia Sanctæ crucis de
Ednesburch suscepit.—_Chron. S. Crucis._
Malcolmus rex tribus vicibus cum exercitu magno perrexit in Galweia,
et tandem subjugavit eos.—_Chron. Mel._
Footnote 697:
Fordun, _Annalia_, iv.
Footnote 698:
Account of the Family of Innes (Spalding Club), p. 51.
Footnote 699:
1164 Sumerledus regulus Eregeithel jam per annos xii. contra regem
Scotorum Malcolmum dominum suum naturalem impie rebellans, cum
copiosum de Ybernia et diversis locis exercitum contrahens apud
Renfriu applicuisset, tandem ultione divina, cum filio suo et
innumerabili populo a paucis comprovincialibus ibidem occisus
est.—_Chron. Mel._
Anno m^oc^olx^oiv^o Sumerledus collegit classem centum sexaginta
navium, et applicuit apud Renfriu, volens totam Scotiam sibi
subjugare. Sed ultione divina a paucis superatus, cum filio suo et
innumerabili populo ibidem occisus et.—_Chron. Manniæ._
Footnote 700:
This poem is printed in Fordun, _Chron._ vol. i. p. 449.
Footnote 701:
_Chron. Picts and Scots_, p. 374. The Gael seem to have applied to him
the same epithet of Cenmor, borne by his great-grandfather. There is
preserved in a MS. at Cambridge a supposed vision of a certain cleric
after Malcolm’s death in which he converses with the glorified king.
The original is printed in Fordun, _Chron._ i. 452. When he asks—‘Cur
sic, care, taces?’ the king answers, ‘Pro me loquitur mea vita.’ The
cleric then says, ‘Eger eras longum?’ to which the king replies, ‘Jam
bene convalui.’
He seems to have been sickly for several years, and Fordun says that
after Somerled’s defeat his brother William was made warden of the
kingdom.
Footnote 702:
Fordun, _Annalia_, vii.
Footnote 703:
Per montanos Scotos, quos Brutos vocant et Galwalenses.—Fordun,
_Annalia_, x. Roger of Hoveden, a contemporary writer, has also, ‘Per
Scotos et Galwalenses suos.’ The former may have been the people of
Moray. There is a curious document called Letters-patent by William
the Lyon in 1171, recognising the right of Morgund, son of Gylleclery,
to the earldom of Marr and that of Moray, first printed by Selden, but
its authenticity is too doubtful to be founded on.—See _Acts of Parl._
vi. p. 13.
Footnote 704:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xi.
Footnote 705:
Roger Hoveden, _Chron._ ed. Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 63.
Footnote 706:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xiv. The details of the events in Galloway will be
given in another part of this work.
Footnote 707:
1179 Willelmus rex Scotiæ et David frater suus, cum comitibus et
baronibus terræ cum exercitu magno et valido perrexerunt in Ros,
ibique duo firmaverunt castella, nomen uni Dunscath, et nomen alteri
Etherdover.—_Chron. Mel._ For the identification of these castles, see
_Origines Parochiales_, vol. iii. pp. 458, 529.
Footnote 708:
Benedictus Abbas, or the writer under his name, a contemporary
chronicler, gives the fullest account of this insurrection. He says,
‘Duvenaldus filius Willelmi filii Duncani, qui sæpius calumniatus
fuerat regnum Scotiæ, et multoties furtivas invasiones in regnum illud
fecerat; per mandatum quorundam potentum virorum de regno Scotiæ, cum
copiosa multitudine armata, applicuit in Scotiam, devastans et
comburens totam terram, quam attingebat; et homines fugabat, et omnes
quos capere potuit interficiebat.’ He afterwards says of him, ‘qui
nominabatur Machwilliam; qui etiam dicebat se regia stirpe genitum, et
de jure parentum suorum, ut asserebat, regnum Scotiæ calumniabatur, et
multa et incommoda faciebat sæpe Willelmo regi Scotiæ, per consensum
et consilium comitum et baronum regni Scotiæ.’ William Fitz Duncan
appears with Alice de Rumeli his wife, some time between 1120 and
1140, when he grants a charter in which Thursten, archbishop of York,
is mentioned; and Alice survived him, and grants a charter, witnessed
by her son, the Boy of Egremont, in 1151, who must have been born
between 1130 and 1140.—Dugd. _Mon._ Donald Ban, if really a son, was
either born of a previous marriage with a native Scottish woman, or
was a bastard.
Footnote 709:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xvii.
Anno mclxxxv. Bellum fuit in Galweia inter Rolandum et Gillepatricium
iiij^o non. Julii feria v in quo plures occubuerunt ex parte
Gillepatricii, ipse vero interiit cum multis aliis. Iterum Rolandus
bellum habuit contra Gillecolmum, in quo frater Rolandi occubuit et
Gillecolmus periit.—_Chron. Mel._
Between 1178 and 1180 King William grants a charter to Gilbert, Earl
of Stratherne, and among the witnesses is ‘Gillecolm Marescald.’ A few
years later, but before 1189, the king grants to earl Gilbert the
lands of Maddyrnin, but under this condition, ‘that no part of the
land should ever be sold to Gillecolm Marescall, or his heirs, or any
one of his race, seeing the said Gillecolm forfeited that land for
felony done against the king, in that he rendered up the king’s castle
of Heryn feloniously, and afterwards wickedly and traitorously went
over to his mortal enemies, and stood with them against the king, to
do him hurt to his power.’—_Chart. Inchaffray_, Pref. vi.
The king’s castle of Heryn is no doubt the ‘Rath Erenn in Alban’
mentioned in the Calendars in connection with St. Fillan, and which
has been identified with Dundurn near the parish of St.
Fillans.—_Kalendars of Scottish Saints_, p. 341.
Gillecolm may be the Malcolumb, son of Gillebert, who is mentioned by
Benedictus Abbas as the real slayer of Uchtred.
Footnote 710:
Considerans itaque præfatus Willelmus Rex, quod oporteret eum regnum
Scotiæ amittere, vel prædictum Mach William interficere, vel etiam a
finibus regni sui expellere.—Benedict. Ab.
Footnote 711:
1187 Willielmus rex Scottorum cum magno exercitu perrexit in Mureviam
contra Macwilliam, cumque rex esset apud oppidum Inuernis cum
exercitu, comites Scotiæ miserunt suos homines ad prædandum,
inveneruntque Macwilliam supra moram quæ dicitur Mam Garvia prope
Muref, et mox cum eo pugnaverunt, et Deo opitulante, eum cum multis
aliis interfecerunt pridie Kal. Augusti feria vi.—_Chron. Mel._
Benedictus Abbas says, ‘Et remansit rex in castello quod dicitur
Ylvernis; et misit comites et barones suos cum Scottis et Galwensibus
ad debellandum predictum hostem suum. Cumque profecti essent, orta est
inter principes seditio; quidam enim illorum regem diligebant minime,
quidam vero diligebant. Et hi procedere volebant, sed ceteri non
permiserunt. Cumque contendissent, placuit eis quod principes
exercitus remanerent, et permitterent exploratores, ut cibum caperent.
Elegerunt ergo juvenes bellicosos fere tria millia, quos miserunt ad
quærendum præfatum inimicum. Inter quos familia Rolandi filii Uchtredi
erat.’
In the parish of Laggan, in the western part of Badenoch, are the
farms of Garva mor and Garva beg, which probably indicate the
locality.
Footnote 712:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xxii.
Footnote 713:
1197 Ortum est prælium in Morevia juxta castrum Inuernis, inter
homines regis et Rodericum et Thorfinum filium Comitis Haraldi, sed
Deo procurante, regis hostes in fugam versi sunt, et prædictus
Rodericus cum multis aliis cæsus interiit.
Postmodum idem rex Willelmus cum exercitu suo profectus est in
Moreviam et in ceteras remotiores terræ suæ partes, ubi Haraldum
comitem cepit eumque in castello de Rokesburch observari fecit, donec
Thorfinnus filius ejus se pro patre suo obsidem daret.—_Chron. Mel._
Footnote 714:
Roger Hoveden, vol. iv. pp. 10-12.
Footnote 715:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xxiv. Orkneyinga Saga, cxxxvi.
Footnote 716:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xxvii.
Footnote 717:
_Chron. Lanercost_, p. 371 note. ‘Anno Mccxi. Sed et rex Scotiæ filium
Macwillelmi, Guthred scilicet, persequendo propriosque seductores
destruendo, multorum cadavera inanimata reliquit.’—_Chron. Mel._
Bower amplifies Fordun’s short account, and adds many particulars
which may have some foundation in fact.—_Scotichron._ B. viii. c. 76.
Footnote 718:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xxix. The list of the seven earls corresponds with
that in the foundation charter of Scone by Alexander the First, with
the exception that we have here the earl of Menteith instead of the
earl of Mar. It is obvious that the seven earls represented Scotland
between the Forth and the Spey, with the addition of Lothian.
Footnote 719:
Anno Mccxv. Intraverunt in Moreviam hostes domini regis Scotiæ, sc.
Dovenaldus Ban filius Macwillelmi et Kennauh mac Aht et filius
cujusdam regis Hyberniæ, cum turba malignantium copiosa; in quos
irruens Machentagar hostes regis valide prostravit, quorum capita
detruncavit et novo regi nova munera præsentavit xvii. Kal. Julii
propter quod dompnus rex novum militum ipsum ordinavit.—_Chron. Mel._
For the connection of Macintagart with the church lands of Applecross,
see Dr. Reeves’s paper on Saint Maelrubha in _Pro. Ant. Soc._ vol.
iii. p. 276. Also Fordun, ii. 434, note.
Footnote 720:
Per idem tempus emerserunt quidam iniqui de genere Macwilliam,
scilicet, Gillascoph et filii ejus et Rodoricus, in extremis Scociæ
finibus.—_Annalia_, xlii.
Footnote 721:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xl.
Footnote 722:
Wynton, _Chronicle_, B. vii. c. ix.
Footnote 723:
_Chart. Melrose_, i. 172
Footnote 724:
In the Laws of Alexander II., under the year 1228, is one ‘De judicio
de Gillescop. Dominica proxima ante festum Sancti Dionisii apud
Edinburg in capitulo abbacie judicatum est de Gillescop Mahohegen per
diversos judices tam Galwidie quam Scocie quod quia predictus
Gillescop Mahohegen non duxerit ad diem statutum obsides de quibus
dandis ad nominatum diem et locum ipsemet plegius fuit et alios
plegios invenerat ipse deberet dare Regi vadia unde dominus Rex
pacatus esset aut si ad voluntatem domini Regis vadia dare non posset
ipsemet remaneret in vadium donec obsides promissos dedisset. Et fuit
insuper in gravi misericordia domini Regis.’—_Act. Parl._ vol. i. p.
68.
Footnote 725:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xlii.
Footnote 726:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xliii. _Chron. Mel._ ad an. 1235.
Footnote 727:
These particulars are taken from the Saga of Hakon IV., king of
Norway.
Footnote 728:
_Chron. Manniæ_, Munch’s ed., p. 24.
Footnote 729:
Saga of Hakon IV.
Footnote 730:
Saga of Hakon IV.
Footnote 731:
Anno Domini Mccxlix. Eodem anno inclitus rex Scottorum Alexander, dum
ad sedandas Ergadie partes proficiscitur, grave infirmitate
corripitur, et ad insulam de Geruerei deportatur, ubi perceptis
ecclesiasticis sacramentis, ejus felix anima ex hac luce eripitur et
cum sanctis omnibus, ut credimus, celis collocatur. Corpus vero ejus,
ut ipse adhuc vivus imperaverat ad Melrosensem ecclesiam transportatur
et in ea more regio terre gremio commendatur.—_Chron. Mel._
Footnote 732:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xlviii. This pedigree does not appear in the first
edition of Fordun’s Annals, and was subsequently inserted apparently
from one of the chronicles.—See _Chron. Picts and Scots_, pp. 133-144.
Mr. Burton (vol. ii. p. 23) has taken his account of this coronation
from Bower, and ignored the older account given in the genuine Fordun,
and enters into a discussion as to whether he was crowned and
anointed. This affords a good illustration of the danger of an
uncritical use of authorities. Fordun says nothing as to his being
crowned or anointed, and expressly states that David the Second was
the first king who was anointed or crowned.—_Annalia_, cxlv. Bower
suppresses this passage, and adds the crowning to his account of
Alexander the Third’s inauguration.
Footnote 733:
Fordun, _Annalia_, xlix.
Footnote 734:
In præsentia domini Alexandri regis Scotorum sc. Alexandri tertii,
septem episcoporum et septem comitum Scotiæ.—_Chart Dun._ p. 235. It
appears from a concilium held at Edinburgh between 1250 and 1253, that
the seven bishops were the bishops of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen,
Dunblane, Brechin, Ross, and Caithness.—_Act. Parl._ vol. i. p. 83.
Footnote 735:
_Chron. Mel._
Footnote 736:
So far the account has been taken from the Hakon’s Saga.
Footnote 737:
Fordun, _Annalia_, lv. The Chron. of Melrose confirms this account.
Anno domini Mcclxiii. Haco rex Norwagie cum copiosa navium multitudine
venit per mare occidentale ad debellandum regem Scotie. Sed re vera,
ut ipse H[aco] affirmabat, non eum repulit vis humana sed virtus
divina, que naves ejus confregit et in exercitum suum mortalitatem
immisit: insuper et eos qui tercia die post solempnitatem Sancti
Michaelis ad præliandum convenerant, per pedissequos patrie debellavit
atque prostravit. Quapropter coacti sunt cum vulneratis et mortuis
suis naves suas repetere et sic turpius quam venerant
repatriare.—_Chron. Mel._
Footnote 738:
Fordun, _Annalia_, lvi.
Footnote 739:
In his account of Hakon’s expedition, Mr. Burton, in describing the
Western Isles, states that ‘there was a general division of the whole
into Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the northern
and southern division. The dividing line was at the point of
Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the mainland of
Scotland, so that Iona was included in the Suderies’ (vol. ii. pp. 28,
29). This is an entire mistake, in which Mr. Burton is merely
repeating previous writers. It was first asserted by Dr. Macpherson
without any proof, and adopted by all subsequent writers as a fact;
but it is impossible not to see, from the most cursory perusal of the
Sagas, that they include the entire Hebrides under the name of
Sudreyer or Sudreys, to distinguish them from the Nordureyer or
Orkneys.
Footnote 740:
_Act. Parl._ vol. i. p. 82.
Footnote 741:
A rock on the road between Burntisland and Kinghorn, known as the
King’s Stone, marks the spot where he was killed.
APPENDIX.
REMAINS OF THE PICTISH LANGUAGE.
_The proper names, epithets, and words of the Pictish Language are
mainly taken from the Pictish Chronicle (PC), the Pictish names in
Tighernac (T), the Pictish Legends annexed to the Irish Nennius (IN),
and Adamnan’s Life of Saint Columba (Ad). The Welsh forms of the names
from the Welsh Genealogies annexed to Nennius (WG), and the Book of
Llandaff (BL). The Cornish from the Bodmin Manumissions (BM). The Breton
forms from the Chartulary of Rhedon (CR). The Irish names from the Index
to the Annals of the Four Masters (FM)._
A
ACHIVIR, _PC_; Achiuir, _IN_; father of Talore or Talorc.
AITHICAIN, _T_, 686, epithet of Tolair.
ANIEL, _PC_; Ainel, _IN_; father of Talore or Talorc.
ARCOIS, _PC_; Artcois, _IN_; father of Cimoiod or Cinioiod.
Art enters into Irish names, and Arth into Welsh.
ARDIVOIS, epithet of Deo, _PC_; Deordiuois, _IN_.
ARTBRANNAN, _Ad._ I. 27.
Artbran appears in _FM_ as an Irish name.
B
BARGOIT, _PC_, _IN_, father of Wrad or Uurad.
BEDE, Cruithneach (a Pict), Mormaer of Buchan, _Book of Deer_.
Irish form Beoaidh, _FM_.
BILE, _PC_; File, _IN_; father of Brude.
Welsh form Beli, _WG_. Brude was paternally of British descent.
BLIESBLITUTH, _PC_; Blieblith, _IN_; Pictish king.
BONT, _PC_; Pont, _IN_; epithet of Brude.
BRED, Breth, _PC_, _IN_, Pictish king.
Corn. Brethoc, _BM_; Bret, Britou, _CR_.
Perhaps Irish Breas, FM, showing interchange of T or D for S.
BROICHAN, name of the Pictish Magus, _Ad._ II. 34, 35.
Irish form Brocan, Brogan, _FM_; Welsh Brychan, _BL_.
BRUDE, Bridei, Breidei, Bredei, _PC_; Bruide, Brei, Brete, _IN_;
Bruidi, Bruidhe, _T_; Pictish kings.
Irish form Bruaideach, _FM_.
BUTHUT, _PC_; Buthud, _IN_; father of Breth.
Corn. Budig, _BM_; Welsh Budic, _BL_; Bret. Budic, _CR_.
C
CAILTRAM, _PC_; Cailtarni, _IN_; Pictish king.
CAITMINN, _IN_, name in Pictish legend.
CAL, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
CANAUL, _PC_, _IN_; Pictish king.
Irish equivalent Conall, _An. Ult._
CANATULACHAMA, _PC_; Canutulalima, _IN_.
Probably same as Catinolachan in Pictish legend.
CANONN, _T_, father of Nechtan.
CARTIT, id est, Delg (a pin), id est, Berla Cruithnech, a Pictish word;
_Cormac’s Glossary_.
CARVORST, _PC_; Crautreic Crutbolc, _IN_; Pictish king.
CATHLUAN, _IN_.
An Irish form. Cath enters into Irish names in combination.
CATINOLADAR, _IN_, name in Pictish legend.
CE, _PC_, _IN_, one of seven sons of Cruidne.
CENNALEPH, _PC_; Cenamlapedh, Cennaleph, _IN_; Cendaeladh, _T_.
Ceann, a head, in Irish enters into proper names as in similar form
of Ceannfaeladh, _FM_.
CENNFOTA, _T_; epithet of Nechtan.
Ceann, a head, Fota, long, in Irish.
CINGE, _PC_; Cind, _IN_; father of Cruidne.
CINID, _PC_; Cind, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
CINIOCH, _PC_; Ciniod, _IN_; Cinaetha Cinaed, _T_.
Irish form Cinaedh, _FM_; Cornish Cenoc, _BM_.
CINIOIOD, _PC_; Cimioïod, _IN_.
CINT, _PC_, _IN_, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
CIRCINN, Circin, _PC_; Cirig, _IN_; one of seven sons of Cruidne.
CONGUSA, _T_, father of Talorcan.
Irish form Congus, _FM_.
CRAS, Crus, _IN_; son of Cirigh in Pictish legend.
CRUIDNE, _PC_; Cruithne, _IN_; eponymus of race.
Irish, Cruth, colour, form.
CRUITHNECHAN, _IN_, in Pictish legend.
_Ad._ has (III. 2) Cruithnecan, a priest in Ireland.
CUMASCACH, _T_, son of Aengus.
CUSTANTIN, _PC_, _IN_; genitive Constantin.
Irish form Cu, dog; forms Chon in genitive. Compare Milchu, Milchon.
D
DARGARTO, Doirgart, _T_.
DECTOTREIC, _PC_; Deototreic, _IN_, in list of kings.
Seems to be the Decdric, Deodric, or Deoric, son of Ida, king of
Bernicia, of Nennius.
DENBECAN, _PC_; Oenbegan, Onbecan, Aenbecan, _IN_.
Aen or Oen enters into Irish names, as Oenacan, _FM_.
DEO, _PC_, _IN_.
Diu enters Irish names as Diucolla, Diumasach, _FM_; Deo appears in
two following names.
DEOCILUNON, _PC_; Deocillimon, _IN_.
DEO ORD, _PC_, _IN_.
DERELEI, _PC_, _IN_; Derile, _T_; father of Drust, Nechtan, and
Cinaeth.
Cornish Wurdylic, _BM_; Welsh Guordoli, Gwrtheli, _GW_.
Shows interchange of G and D in Welsh and Pictish.
DIU, _PC_; Tiu, _IN_; brother of Dectotreic.
Seems Saxon Tiu, God of War.
DELEROITH, _T_, father of Findgaine.
DOBUR, fluvius, in Sky, _Ad._
DOMELCH, _PC_; Domnach, _IN_.
Domh enters Irish names, as in Domhnall.
DONNEL, _PC_; Donuel, _IN_; Domnall, _T_; father of Gartnaidh.
Welsh form Dyfnwall; Irish form Domhnall, _FM_.
DREST, Drust, _PC_; Drosto, Druist, Druxst, _T_.
Welsh form Gwrwst or Grwst. Shows interchange of G and D between
Welsh and Pictish.
DROSTAN, _IN_; Drostain, _T_; Drosten on St. Vigeans Stone.
Drostan, son of Cosgrech, nephew of Saint Columba, _Book of Deer_.
Drostan Daerthighe, _FM_.
DUIBERR, PC; Duiperr, _IN_. Latin equivalent, Dives.
Irish form Saoibher, rich, shows interchange of D and S.
DUIDB, _T_, mac Gartnaidh.
Duibh enters into Irish names, _FM_.
E
ELPIN, _PC_, _IN_; Alpin, Alpine, Elphin, _T_.
Welsh form Elfin, _WG_.
ELT. St. Vigeans Stone.
EMCHATH, _Ad._ III. 15.
Irish form Imchadha, father of Ros, _FM_.
ENFRET, _PC_; Enfreth, _IN_; Anfraith, _T_; father of Talorcen.
He was Ainfrid, King of Northumbria.
ENTEFIDICH, _PC_; Enfidaig, _IN_; father of Taran.
ERILICH, _PC_; Arbith, _IN_; epithet of Galanan.
ERP, Erip, _PC_, _IN_, father of Drust and Nechtan.
ERU, _PC_; Ero, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
F
FECIR, _PC_; Feth, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Enters into Urfecir.
FET, _PC_; Feth, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Enters into Urfet.
FIB, Fibaib, _PC_; Fib, _IN_; one of seven sons of Cruidne.
Also name of district of Fib, or Fibh, now Fife.
FINGEN, Fingaine, Findgaine, _P_.
Irish form Finghin, Finguine, _FM_; preserved in Clan Findgaine or
Mackinnons.
FIDACH, _PC_, _IN_, one of seven sons of Cruidne.
Enters into Entefidach. Irish form Fidhach, father of Crimthan mor,
king of Ireland, _FM_.
FLOCLAID, _PC_; Fodla, _IN_; one of seven sons of Cruidne.
Enters into name of Athfotla, now Atholl. Fodla, old name of Ireland,
also epithet of Ollamh Fodla, king of Ireland.
FORTRENN, _IN_, one of seven sons of Cruidne.
Irish word meaning powerful.
G
GAED BRECHACH, _PC_; Gadbre, id est Geis; Gaeth Brethnach, _IN_;
epithet of Guidid.
An Irish form, Gad, an arrow or dart; Breac, speckled; Breathnach,
British; Gadam, to pray; Geis, a prayer.
GALAM, _PC_, _IN_; in list of kings with epithet of Cennaleph, which
see.
GALANAN, _PC_; Galan, _IN_; in list of kings with epithet Erilich.
GANT, _PC_, _IN_, one of thirty Brudes.
GART, _PC_, _IN_, one of thirty Brudes.
Enters into Pictish Gartnaidh and Irish Domingart.
GARTNAITH, Gartnaich, Garthnach, Gartnart, Garnard, Gartnait, _PC_;
Gartnait, _IN_; Gartnaidh, _T_.
Same as Gartney or Gratney among Mormaers and earls of Marr and
Buchan. Welsh form Gwrnerth.
GEDE, _PC_; with epithet Olgudach.
Irish form Gedhe Ollgothach, king of Ireland, _FM_.
GEONA. Primarius Geonæ Cohortis, _Ad._ I. 27.
GEST, _PC_, _IN_, Pictish king.
Enters into Wurgest. Irish form Gusa in Fergusa, etc.
GILGIDE, _PC_; Got, Gud, Caitmin, _IN_.
GNITH, _PC_, _IN_, one of thirty Brudes.
GRID, _PC_; Grith, _IN_; one of thirty Brudes.
GUIDID, _PC_, _IN_; Pictish king.
Seems a Welsh form. Guidge, Guitgen, _WG_.
GURCICH, _PC_; Gurid, _IN_; epithet of Gest.
GURTHINMOCH, _PC_; Gurthimoth, _IN_; epithet of Drest.
GYROM, Girom, _PC_; Giron, _IN_; father of Drest, Gartnaith, and
Cailtram.
I
IM, _IN_, son of Peirnn, in Pictish legend.
IPE. St. Vigeans Stone.
L
LEO, _PC_, _IN_, one of thirty Brudes.
Enters into Morleo. Corn. Loi, _BM_; Bret. Louui, _CR_.
LETHENN, _IN_, in Pictish legend.
LOC, _PC_; Bolc, _IN_; epithet of Gartnaith.
Irish Laoch, a hero.
LOCHENE, _T_; son of Nectan Cennfota.
LUTRIN, _PC_, _IN_; Lachtren, _T_; father of Cinioch.
M
MAILCON, _PC_; Melcon, _IN_; Maelchon, _T_; father of Brude.
Genitive of Mailchu, an Irish form. In Irish Life of Saint Columba
Brude has a son Mailchu.
Compare Milchu in Ireland in Life of Saint Patrick.
MORBET, _PC_; Mor Breac, _IN_; epithet of Nechtan.
Irish Mor, great; Breac, speckled.
MORLEO, _PC_, _IN_, in list of kings.
MUIRCHOLAICH, _PC_; Murtholoic, _IN_; father of Talorg.
Muir or Mur enters largely into Irish names. Compare Murchadh, etc.,
_FM_.
MUNAIT, _PC_; Munaith, _IN_; Moneit, _T_; father of Drest.
MUND, _PC_; Muin, _IN_; one of thirty Brudes.
Enters into Munait.
N
NAMET, _PC_; Navit, _IN_; epithet of Vipoig, termed in Latin lists
Fiacha Albus.
Irish Neimheac, glittering, shining.
NECTON, Nectu, Nechton, _PC_; Nectan, _IN_; Nechtan, _T_.
Irish Nechtan, _FM_; preserved in Clan Neachtan or MacNaughtans.
Welsh form Neithon.
NESANUS CURVUS, _Ad._ II. 20.
Irish form Neasan, _FM_.
O
OLFINECTA, _PC_; Finechta, _IN_.
Irish form Fineachta, _FM_.
OLGUDACH, _PC_; epithet of Gede.
Gedhe Ollgothach, king of Ireland, _FM_.
ONNIST, Unuist, _PC_; Onuis, Uidnuist, Oinuist, _IN_; Aengus, _T_.
Cornish form, Ungust, _BM_; Irish, Aenghus, _FM_. Old Irish form,
Oengus, _Book of Armagh_.
P
PANT, _PC_; Pont, _IN_; one of thirty Brudes.
PEIRNN, _IN_, father of Im, in Pictish legend.
Corn. Perenn, _BM_.
PEANFAHEL, Caput valli, _Bede_.
Welsh form, Penguaul, shows interchange of Gu and F in Welsh and
Irish.
R
RU, _PC_, _IP_, one of thirty Brudes. Also in list of kings.
Compare Rudhruidhe, _FM_.
S
SCOLOFTHE. Scholasticus lingua Pictorum—_Reg. Dun._ c. 85.
Welsh Yscolheic; Gaelic Sgolog.
SIMAL, _T_, son of Druist.
SOLEN, _IN_, in Pictish legend.
Cornish Salenn, _BM_; Irish Sillan, _FM_.
T
TALORE, Talorg, _PC_; Talorc, Talorg, _IN_.
Compare Baitanus nepos Niath Taloirc, _Ad._ I. 14; Niath or Niadh, a
champion in Irish.
TALLORCEN, Talorgen, _PC_; Talorcan, Talorcen, _IN_.
Formed from Talorc, as Drosten from Drust. Compare Irish forms, as
Aidan from Aed, etc. Welsh form Galargan, showing interchange of G
and T.
THARAIN, Taran, _PC_; Tarain, Taran, _IN_. Tarainus de nobili Pictorum
genere, _Ad._ II. 24.
Compare Irish Sarran, father of Cairnech, which in Welsh pedigree is
Caran, showing interchange of T and S between Pictish and Irish; T
and C or G with Welsh.
TARLA, _PC_; Tang, _IN_; Tadg, _T_; father of Canaul.
Irish form, Tadhg, _FM_.
U
UAISNEIMH, _IN_, name of poet in Pictish legend.
UECLA, _PC_; Uetla, _IN_; epithet of Wradech, termed in Latin lists
Feradach Fingel.
UERD, _PC_; Uerb, _IN_; grandfather of Nechtan.
ULEO, _PC_, _IN_, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
ULFA, Ulpha, _IN_, in Pictish legend.
URCAL, _PC_, _IN_, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Irish form Fearghal, _FM_.
URCINT, _PC_, _IN_, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Corn. Wurcant, _BM_; Bret. Uuorcantoc, _CR_; Welsh Gurcant, _BL_,
_WG_.
URCNID, _PC_; Urcind, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Corn. Wurthicid, _BM_.
URFECIR, _PC_; Urfeichir, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
URFET, _PC_; Urfeth, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Corn. Wurfodu, _BM_.
URGANT, _PC_, _IN_, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Corn. Wurgent, _BM_; Welsh Gwrgan, _BL_.
URGART, _PC_, _IN_, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
URGNITH, _PC_; Urgnith, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Welsh Guurgint, _WG_. Irish Feargna, _FM_.
URGRID, _PC_; Urgreth, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
Irish form Feargraidh, _FM_.
URMUND, _PC_; Urmuin, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
URPANT, _PC_; Urpont, _IN_; epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
URUIP, _PC_, _IN_, epithet of one of thirty Brudes.
USCONBUTS, _PC_, _IN_, Pictish king.
UVEN, _PC_; Uuen, _IN_; Eoganan, _Flann_; Uiginius, _Ad._ II. 21. Welsh
Uen, Uein, _WG_.
Irish form Eoghan, Eoghanan, _FM_.
V
VIPOIG, _PC_; Uipoig, _IN_; in Latin lists Fiacha albus.
Fiacha, _FM_; Welsh Guipno, _WG_.
VIROLET, _Ad._ III. 15, son of Emchath.
Irish form Feardalach, _FM_.
VIST, _PC_; Uist, _IN_; Pictish king.
W
WDROST, _PC_; Budros, _IN_; father of Drost.
WID, _PC_; Uuid, _IN_; Fooith, _T_; father of Garnard, Bredei, and
Talorc.
WRAD, _PC_; Uurad, _IN_.
Welsh form Gwriad, _BL_.
WRADECH, Wredech, _PC_; Uuradech, _IN_; Feradach Finleg in Latin lists;
also father of Cinoid.
Irish form Fearadhach, _FM_.
WROID, _PC_; Uuroid, _IN_; Uoret on St. Vigeans Stone; Ferot, _T_;
Corn. Guruaret, Waret, _BM_; Bret. Uuoruuaret, _CR_.
WTHOIL, _PC_; Uuthoil, _IN_; father of Talorc.
WURGEST, Urguist, Wirguist, Wrguist, _PC_; Urges, Urguist, Uurgut,
Uurguist, _IN_.
Corn. Wurgustel, _BM_; Welsh Gurgust, _WG_; Forcus on St. Vigeans
Stone. Compare Forcus filius mac Erc, _Ad._ I. 7; Fearghus, _FM_.
END OF VOL. I.
-------------------------------------------
PRINTED BY T. AND A. CONSTABLE, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY,
AT THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY PRESS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
I.
=Cymric Scotland.=
THE FOUR ANCIENT BOOKS OF WALES containing the Cymric Poems attributed
to the Bards of the Sixth Century. 2 vols. With Maps and Facsimiles.
Price 36s.
II.
=Ancient Gaelic Poetry.=
THE DEAN OF LISMORE’S BOOK. A Selection of Ancient Gaelic Poetry, from a
Manuscript Collection made by Sir James M‘Gregor, Dean of Lismore,
in the beginning of the Sixteenth Century. [Introduction and
Additional Notes.] 1 vol. 8vo, with Facsimiles, price 12s.
III.
=John of Fordun.=
FORDUN’S CHRONICLE OF THE SCOTTISH NATION. With English Translation,
edited with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. 8vo. Price 30s.
IV.
=The Stone of Scone.=
THE CORONATION STONE. Small 4to. With Illustrations in Photography and
Zincography. Price 6s.
V.
=Ancient Chronicles.=
CHRONICLES OF THE PICTS AND SCOTS, and other Early Memorials of Scottish
History. Published by the Authority of the Lords Commissioners of
Her Majesty’s Treasury, under the direction of the Lord
Clerk-Register of Scotland. In 1 vol. 8vo. Price 10s.
[_Nos. III., IV., and V. are out of print._]
ARCHITECTURAL
ARCHÆOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL WORKS
RECENTLY PUBLISHED
BY DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Five Volumes, Royal 8vo, 42s. net each volume, with about
500 Illustrations in each volume._
THE
CASTELLATED AND DOMESTIC
ARCHITECTURE
OF SCOTLAND
FROM THE TWELFTH TO THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
BY
DAVID MACGIBBON AND THOMAS ROSS
ARCHITECTS
[Illustration]
“One of the most important and complete books on Scottish architecture
that has ever been compiled. Its value to the architect, the
archæologist, and the student of styles is at once apparent. It consists
almost exclusively of what may be called illustrated architectural
facts, well digested and arranged, and constituting a monument of
patient research, capable draughtsmanship, and of well-sustained effort,
which do the authors infinite credit.”—_Scotsman._
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_One Volume, 8vo, 21s., with nearly 300 Illustrations._
THE ARCHITECTURE OF
PROVENCE
AND
THE RIVIERA
BY
DAVID MACGIBBON
AUTHOR OF “THE CASTELLATED AND DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE OF SCOTLAND”
[Illustration]
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Two Volumes 8vo, fully Illustrated, 12s. each (sold separately)._
SCOTLAND
IN
EARLY CHRISTIAN TIMES
_THE RHIND LECTURES IN ARCHÆOLOGY—1879 AND 1880._
BY JOSEPH ANDERSON, LL.D.
KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND
[Illustration]
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.—Celtic Churches—Monasteries—Hermitages—Round
Towers—Illuminated Manuscripts—Bells—Crosiers—Reliquaries, etc.
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.—Celtic Medal-Work and Sculptured Monuments, their
Art and Symbolism—Inscribed Monuments in Runics and Oghams—Bilingual
Inscriptions, etc.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_One Volume 8vo, fully Illustrated, 12s._
SCOTLAND
IN
PAGAN TIMES
=The Iron Age=
_THE RHIND LECTURES IN ARCHÆOLOGY FOR 1881_
BY JOSEPH ANDERSON, LL.D.
KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND
[Illustration]
CONTENTS.—_The Iron Age._—Viking Burials and Hoards of Silver and
Ornaments—Arms, Dress, etc., of the Viking Time—Celtic Art of the Pagan
Period—Decorated Mirrors—Enamelled Armlets—Architecture and Contents of
the Brochs—Lake-Dwellings—Earth Houses, etc.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_One Volume 8vo, fully Illustrated, 12s._
SCOTLAND
IN
PAGAN TIMES
=The Bronze and Stone Ages=
_THE RHIND LECTURES IN ARCHÆOLOGY FOR 1882_
BY JOSEPH ANDERSON, LL.D.
KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE
ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND
[Illustration]
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.
_The Bronze and Stone Ages._—Cairn Burial of the Bronze Age and
Cremation Cemeteries—Urns of Bronze Age Types—Stone Circles—Stone
Settings—Gold Ornaments—Implements and Weapons of Bronze—Cairn Burial of
the Stone Age—Chambered Cairns—Urns of Stone Age Types—Implements and
Weapons of Stone.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_One Volume 8vo, fully Illustrated, 15s._
THE
PAST IN THE PRESENT:
WHAT IS CIVILISATION?
BY SIR ARTHUR MITCHELL, M.D., LL.D.
[Illustration]
CONTENTS.
I. The Spindle and Whorl.
II. Craggans and Querns, etc.
III. Beehive Houses, etc.
IV. Cave Life.
V. Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages.
VI. Superstitions.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=William F. Skene.=
Celtic Scotland. A History of Ancient Alban. By WILLIAM F. SKENE,
D.C.L., LL.D., Historiographer-Royal for Scotland. Second Edition,
carefully Revised by the Author, with a new Index to the entire
work. 3 vols. demy 8vo, 45s.
Vol. I. HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY. 15s.
Vol. II. CHURCH AND CULTURE. 15s.
Vol. III. LAND AND PEOPLE. 15s.
“Forty years ago Mr Skene published a small historical work on the
Scottish Highlands which has ever since been appealed to as an
authority, but which has long been out of print. The promise of this
youthful effort is amply fulfilled in the three weighty volumes of his
maturer years. As a work of historical research it ought, in our
opinion, to take a very high rank.”—_Times._
=E. W. Robertson.=
Scotland under her Early Kings. A History of the Kingdom to the close of
the Thirteenth Century. By E. WILLIAM ROBERTSON. 2 vols. demy 8vo,
cloth, 36s.
Historical Essays, in connection with the Land and the Church, etc. By
E. WILLIAM ROBERTSON, Author of “Scotland under her Early Kings.” 1
vol. demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.
=Rev. James B. Johnston.=
The Place-Names of Scotland. By the Rev. JAMES B. JOHNSTON, B.D.,
Falkirk. 1 vol. crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
This book, for which the author has been collecting materials during the
last five years, contains an introduction, general and philological,
followed by a list of the important place-names in Scotland, with
explanations of their meaning, and with their old spellings, each dated
so far as known.
=Lord Cockburn.=
Circuit Journeys. By the late LORD COCKBURN, one of the Judges of the
Court of Session. Second Edition, 1 vol. crown 8vo, 6s.
“One of the best books of reminiscences that have appeared.”—_Morning
Post._
“Delightful alike for its pleasant landscapes; its sound criticisms on
men, law, and books; for its sharp things said in a good-natured
way.”—_Academy._
“Valuable for their topographical descriptions; and they form an
indirect contribution to the social history of Scotland.”—_Scotsman._
=Sir Daniel Wilson.=
The Lost Atlantis and other Ethnographic Studies. By Sir DANIEL WILSON,
LL.D., F.R.S.E. 1 vol. demy 8vo, 15s.
_Contents._—The Lost Atlantis—The Vinland of the Northmen—Trade and
Commerce in the Stone Age—Pre-Aryan American Man—The Æsthetic
Faculty in Aboriginal Races—The Huron-Iroquois: a Typical
Race—Hybridity and Heredity—Relative Racial Brain-Weight and Size.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Two Volumes, Demy 8vo, Illustrated, 25s._
THE HEREDITARY
SHERIFFS OF GALLOWAY
THEIR “FORBEARS” AND FRIENDS
THEIR COURTS, AND CUSTOMS OF THEIR TIMES
WITH NOTES OF THE EARLY HISTORY, ECCLESIASTICAL
LEGENDS, THE BARONAGE AND PLACE
NAMES OF THE PROVINCE
BY THE LATE
SIR ANDREW AGNEW, BART.
OF LOCHNAW
[Illustration]
--------------
EDINBURGH:
DAVID DOUGLAS, 10 CASTLE STREET
1893
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICELANDIC SAGAS, Translated by Sir GEORGE DASENT
--------------
_Two Volumes, Demy 8vo, with Maps and Plans, 28s._
THE NJALA SAGA
BURNT NJAL
FROM THE ICELANDIC OF THE NJAL’S SAGA
BY
SIR GEORGE WEBBE DASENT, D.C.L.
[Illustration: =Graysteel=]
--------------
_Small 4to, with Illustrations, 7s. 6d._
THE GISLI SAGA
GISLI THE OUTLAW
FROM THE ICELANDIC
BY
SIR GEORGE WEBBE DASENT, D.C.L.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Demy 4to, Illustrated, 42s. and 84s._
THE
HISTORY OF LIDDESDALE,
ESKDALE, EWESDALE, WAUCHOPEDALE
AND THE
DEBATEABLE LAND
=Part I. from the Twelfth Century to 1530=
BY
ROBERT BRUCE ARMSTRONG
[Illustration: CRUKILTON CASTLE]
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_One Volume 8vo, Illustrated, 7s. 6d._
SCOTLAND
AS IT WAS AND AS IT IS
BY THE
DUKE OF ARGYLL
[Illustration: ROB ROY’S HOUSE, GLENSHIRA]
A HISTORY OF RACES, OF MILITARY EVENTS,
AND OF THE RISE OF COMMERCE
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Two Volumes 4to, 21s._
ARCHÆOLOGICAL ESSAYS
BY THE LATE
SIR JAMES Y. SIMPSON, BART.
EDITED BY THE LATE
JOHN STUART, LL.D.
AUTHOR OF THE “SCULPTURED STONES OF SCOTLAND”
[Illustration: ANCIENT ORATORY IN THE ISLAND OF INCHCOLM]
1. Archæology.
2. Inchcolm.
3. The Cat Stane.
4. The Magical Charm-Stones.
5. Pyramid of Gizeh.
6. Leprosy and Leper Hospitals.
7. Greek Medical Vases.
8. Was the Roman Army provided
with Medical Officers?
9. Roman Medicine Stamps, etc., etc.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_Two Volumes, Demy 8vo, 19s. 6d._
SOCIAL LIFE
IN FORMER DAYS
CHIEFLY IN THE PROVINCE OF MORAY
=Illustrated by Letters and Family Papers=
BY E. DUNBAR DUNBAR
LATE CAPTAIN 21ST FUSILIERS
[Illustration: THUNDERTON HOUSE.]
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_One Volume, Demy 8vo, price 14s._
EARLY TRAVELLERS
IN SCOTLAND
1295-1689
EDITED BY
P. HUME BROWN
AUTHOR OF ‘THE LIFE OF GEORGE BUCHANAN’
[Illustration]
--------------
EDINBURGH:
DAVID DOUGLAS, 10 CASTLE STREET.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=P. Hume Brown.=
George Buchanan, Humanist and Reformer: a Biography. By P. HUME BROWN.
Demy 8vo, 12s.
“There is, perhaps, no eminent Scotsman who has stood in better need of
an impartial and scholarly biography than George Buchanan; and Mr Hume
Brown is to be congratulated on having in the present volume produced a
model of its kind.”—_Scotsman._
Tours in Scotland, 1677 and 1681. By THOMAS KIRK and RALPH THORESBY.
Edited by _P. Hume Brown_. Demy 8vo, 5s.
A lucky accident having brought these two interesting narratives to
light since the “Early Travellers in Scotland” was published, it was
thought desirable to reprint them uniform with that book.
Scotland Before 1700. From Contemporary Documents. Forming a Companion
Volume to “Early Travellers in Scotland.” By P. HUME BROWN, Author
of “The Life of George Buchanan,” &c. Demy 8vo, 14s.
=Bishop Forbes.=
Kalendars of Scottish Saints. With Personal Notices of those of Alba,
etc. By ALEXANDER PENROSE FORBES, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. 4to,
price £3, 3s. A few copies for sale on large paper, £5, 15s. 6d.
“A truly valuable contribution to the archæology of
Scotland.”—_Guardian._
=Thomas S. Muir.=
Ecclesiological Notes on some of the Islands of Scotland, with other
Papers relating to Ecclesiological Remains on the Scottish Mainland
and Islands. By THOMAS S. MUIR, Author of “Characteristics of Church
Architecture,” etc. Demy 8vo, with numerous Illustrations, 21s.
=Sir Samuel Ferguson.=
Ogham Inscriptions in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. By the late SIR
SAMUEL FERGUSON, President of the Royal Irish Academy, Deputy Keeper
of the Public Records of Ireland, LL.D., Queen’s Counsel, etc.
(Being the Rhind Lectures in Archæology for 1884.) 1 vol. demy 8vo,
12s.
=Miss Maclagan.=
The Hill Forts, Stone Circles, and other Structural Remains of Ancient
Scotland. By C. MACLAGAN, Lady Associate of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland. With Plans and Illustrations. Folio, 31s.
6d.
“We need not enlarge on the few inconsequential speculations which rigid
archæologists may find in the present volume. We desire rather to
commend it to their careful study, fully assured that not only they, but
also the general reader, will be edified by its perusal.”—_Scotsman._
=Prof. Baldwin Brown.=
From Schola to Cathedral. A Study of Early Christian Architecture in its
relation to the life of the Church. By G. BALDWIN BROWN, Professor
of Fine Art in the University of Edinburgh. Demy 8vo, Illustrated,
7s. 6d.
The book treats of the beginnings of Christian Architecture, from the
point of view of recent discoveries and theories, with a special
reference to the outward resemblance of early Christian communities to
other religious associations of the time.
=Patrick Dudgeon.=
A Short Introduction to the Origin of Surnames. By PATRICK DUDGEON,
Cargen. Small 4to, 3s. 6d.
--------------
EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and
are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.
132.18 _Ulster An. sub an._ 682.[’] Added.
136.10 _Wh_ being represented by F;[’] Added.
220.31 Simeon of Durham calls it ‘In [t/T]iningaham,’ Replaced.
221.27 the old name is now restored.[’] Added.
255.35 est Catgabail Catguommed.[’] Added.
267.2 they spared Bruide the brave.[”/’] Replaced.
273.28 Bimudine eiceas cecinit.[’] Added.
292.42 is probably a [c]orruption Restored.
313.14 in whatever part of Erin they used to be.[’] Added.
339.31 By “gentibus[’/”] probably Norwegians are Replaced.
meant.
339.32 do tuitim fri da [h. I/h-I]mhair Replaced.
363.38 [‘]In vii^o anno regni Added.
381.8 the son of his pre[de]decessor Removed.
385.35 a Northumbrian matter.[’/”] Replaced.
387.25 a Cindtiri ocus a h[-]Airergoedel Inserted.
392.36 If thi[s] monastery had become secularised Restored.
396.25 ‘Enchegal[’] with [‘]Airergaidhel.’ Added.
404.37 a regno fugavit.[’] Added.
409.6 son of Finntuir[’] Added.
411.34 meic Donchadha i cath[’] (in battle). Added.
429.26 in the follow[ing] year Inserted.
464.20 as he had done before;[’] Added,
471.36 et regem capere vo[./l]uerunt Restored.
479.36 familia Rolandi filii Uchtredi erat.[’] Added.
482.15 hung up by the feet.[’] Added.
486.15 Gillefakeneshi son of Gillin;[’] Added.
486.37 domini Regis.[’] Added.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CELTIC SCOTLAND, VOLUME I (OF 3) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
