The Project Gutenberg eBook of Celtic Scotland

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

A history of ancient Alban. Volume 1 (of 3), History and ethnology

Author: W. F. Skene

Release date: July 23, 2023 [eBook #71258]

Language: English

Original publication: United Kingdom: David Douglas, 1886

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71258

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 ***

Transcriber’s Note:

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.

Footnotes have been collected at the end of each chapter, and are linked for ease of reference.

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.

Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will navigate the reader to the corresponding entry in the corrections table in the note at the end of the text.

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 the Solway

43

A.D.    80. Third summer; ravages to the Tay

45

A.D.    81. Fourth summer; fortifies the isthmus between Forth and Clyde

46

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 wall between the Tyne and the Solway

60

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. Establishment of the Roman province in Scotland

76

A.D.    162. Attempt on the province by the natives

79

A.D.    182. Formidable irruption of tribes north of wall repelled by Marcellus Ulpius

79

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. Situation of the hostile tribes

82

Roman roads in Scotland

86

Severus’s wall

89

A.D.    287. Revolt of Carausius; Britain for ten years independent

91

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 other Picts

94

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 devastation of province by Picts and Scots

105

A.D.    396. Repelled by Stilicho, who sends a legion to guard the northern wall

105

A.D.    402. Roman legion withdrawn; second devastation of province

106

A.D.    406. Again repelled by Stilicho, and army restored

107

A.D.    407. Constantine proclaimed Emperor. Withdraws the army from Britain; third devastation by Picts and Scots

108

A.D.    409. Gerontius invites Barbarians to invade empire. Termination of Roman Empire in Britain

111

CHAPTER III.

BRITAIN AFTER THE ROMANS.

Obscurity of history of Britain after the departure of the Romans

114

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 Britain and Ireland

164

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 conquers Deira, and expels Aeduin

239

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 as king of the Picts

242

A.D.    633. Battle of Haethfeld. Aeduin slain by Caedwalla and Penda

243

A.D.    634. Battle of Hefenfeld. Osuald becomes king of Northumbria

244

A.D.    635. Battle of Seguise, between Garnait, son of Foith, and the family of Nectan

246

A.D.    634. Battle of Calathros, in which Domnall Breac was defeated

247

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 Brude, son of Bile

262

A.D.    684. Ireland ravaged by Ecgfrid

264

A.D.    685. Invasion of kingdom of Picts by Ecgfrid; defeat and death at Dunnichen

265

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 throne of the Picts

314

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 Scots

393

A.D.    1034-1040. Duncan, son of Crinan, and grandson of Malcolm, king of Scotia

399

A.D.    1040-1057. Macbeth, son of Finnlaec, king of Scotia

405

A.D.    1054. Siward, Earl of Northumbria, invades Scotland, and puts Malcolm, son of King Duncan, in possession of Cumbria

408

A.D.    1057-8. Lulach, son of Gilcomgan, king of Scotia

411

A.D.    1057-8-1093. Malcolm, eldest son of King Duncan, king of Scotia

411

Malcolm invades Northumbria five times

417

A.D.    1092. Cumbria south of the Solway Firth wrested from the Scots

429

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 Ingibiorg, reigns six months

437

A.D.    1094-1097. Donald Ban again, with Eadmund, son of Malcolm, reigned three years

439

A.D.    1097-1107. Eadgar, son of Malcolm Ceannmor by Queen Margaret, reigns nine years

440

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

447

A.D.    1107-1124. David, youngest son of Malcolm Ceannmor by Queen Margaret, rules over Scotland south of the Forth and Clyde as earl

454

A.D.    1124-1153. David reigns over all Scotland as first feudal monarch

457

A.D. 1130. Insurrection of Angus, Earl of Moray, and Malcolm, bastard son of Alexander I.

460

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 years

469

A.D.    1154. Somerled invades the kingdom with the sons of Malcolm mac Eth

469

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 Renfrew

473

A.D.    1166-1214. William the Lyon, brother of Malcolm, reigns forty-eight years

474

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 the Lyon, reigned thirty-five years. Crowned by the seven earls

483

A.D.    1215. Insurrection in favour of Donald Macwilliam and Kenneth Maceth

483

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 king at Kerrera

488

A.D.    1249-1285. Alexander the Third, his son, reigned thirty-six years. Ceremony at his coronation

490

A.D.    1250. Relics of Queen Margaret enshrined before the seven earls and the seven bishops

491

A.D.    1263. War between the kings of Norway and Scotland for the possession of the Sudreys

492

A.D.    1266. Annexation of the Western Isles to the Crown of Scotland

495

A.D.    1283. Assembly of the baronage of the whole kingdom at Scone, on 5th February, to regulate the succession

496

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 islands south of Ardnamurchan Point

”

68

The four Kingdoms

”

228

The Kingdom of Alban

”

340

The Kingdom of Scotia

”

396

Feudal Scotland

”

496

INTRODUCTION.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mountain chains.

In each of these great districts natural boundaries are again found exercising their influence on the subordinate political divisions.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. See Book i. chap. i. infra.

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.

3. Haec autem (Hibernia) proprie patria Scotorum est.—Bede, Hist. Ec. B. i. c. i.

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.

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.

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 Tyndrum and Cairndrum at the part whence the Tay flows; the Drummond hills at the source of the Spey where the range divides Badenoch from Lochaber; Achadrum 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.

7. Provinciis septentrionalium Pictorum, hoc est, eis quae arduis atque horrentibus montium jugis ab australibus eorum sunt regionibus sequestratae.—B. iii. c. iv.

8. Montes qui dividunt Scotiam ab Arregaithel.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 135.

9. Quos utrosque Dorsi montes Britannici disterminant.—Adamnan, B. ii. c. 47.

10. The essays contained in the appendix are of peculiar value, and well deserve the consideration of historians.

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.

12. Burton’s Hist., vol. i. Preface, p. v.

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.

14. Roy, Military Ant., p. ix.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

19. Orphei Argonaut. v. 1171, ἢν νήσοισιν Ἰέρνισιν ἆσσον ἵκωμαι.

20. Herodot. iii. 115.

21. Aristot. De Mundo, iii.

22. Polyb. iii. 87.

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.

24. Strabo, Geog. Lib. ii.

25. Cæs. De Bello Gall. v. 12-14.

26. Strab. Geog. Lib. iv.

27. Diod. Sic. v. 21.

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.

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

Litora ponti

Scuta Brigantas

Colla catenis

Ultra noti

Et cæruleos,

Dare Romuleis,

Jussit, etc.

30. See chap. ii. note [63].

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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.)

37. Valerius Flaccus (A.D. 70) says—

Caledonius postquam tua carbasa vexit

Oceanus.—(Argon. 1. 7.).

38. Statius (A.D. 96) has the following line in his panegyric upon Vettius Bolanus—

Quanta Calydonios attollet gloria campos.

(v. 2. 140.)

39. Triginta prope jam annis notitiam ejus Romanis armis non ultra vicinitatem Sylvæ Caledoniæ propagantibus.—(Plin. iv. 30.)

40. A Caledoniæ promontorio Thulen petentibus bidui navigatione perfecto excipiunt Hebudes insulæ quinque numero.—(Solinus, Polyhistor. c. 22.)

41. Ibid.

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.

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.

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.

45. Paullatimque discessum ad delenimenta vitiorum, porticus et balnea et conviviorum elegantiam.—TACIT. in Vit. Ag., c. 21.

46. Novas gentes aperuit.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

THE FIVE EBUDŒ

OF PTOLEMY

Compared with

THE ISLANDS

South of

ARDNAMURCHAN POINT

W. & A.K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

64. This seems to be the town mentioned by Bede, Ec. Hist. B. i. c. 12, ‘Orientalis (sinus) habet in medio sui urbem Giudi.’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

72. Et adversus Britannos quidem Calphurnius Agricola missus est.—(Capitolin. Mar. Aur. 8.)

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.)

74. Dio, 75, 76, 77; Herodian, iii. 7; Capitolin. Clod. Alb. c. 9; Eutropius, viii. 18.

75. From Magh, a plain. The same word seems to enter into the name Vacomagi.

76. Colonel Gurwood’s Speeches of the Duke of Wellington, vol. ii. p. 729.

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.

78. These camps are as follows—viz., Wardykes, near Keithock; Raedykes, near Stonehaven; Normandykes, on the Dee; and Raedykes, on the Ythan.

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.

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.

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).

82. Aurel. Victor. de Caes. 39; Eutrop. ix. 21; Orosius, vii. 25.

83. Eumenius, Paneg. Const. c. 12. Eutrop. ix. 22.

84. Eumen. Pan. Const. Caes. c. 6. Mamert. Pan. Max. Herc. c. 11, 12.

85. Comp. Eumenius, ‘prolixo crine rutilantia,’ with Tacitus, ‘rutilae Caledoniam habitantium comae.’

86. Non dico Caledonum aliorumque Pictorum silvas et paludes.—Eumen. c. 7.

87. Appian. Alex. Hist. Rom. Præf. 5. Eumen. Pan. Const. cc. 9-19.

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.

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.

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.

91. Hoc tempore (364) ... Picti Saxonesque et Scoti et Attacotti Britannos ærumnis vexavere continuis.—Ammian. Mar. xxvi. 4.

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.

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.

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.

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.

96. Incursantes Pictos et Scotos Maximus strenue superavit.—Prosper. Aquit. Gratian. iv.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 drive back Picts and Scots, and garrison wall.

First devastation of Picts and Scots. Britons apply for 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 — stationed ‘per lineam valli.’

Roman troops sent, who fortify southern wall.

407

Constantine withdraws Roman army.

Roman troops withdrawn, ‘never to return.’

Picts seize up to wall.

Break through wall and ravage.

409

Gerontius invites Barbarians.

Honorius frees province.

Provincials take courage and repel them.

Provincials raise and repel invaders.

Vortigern invites Saxons.

CHAPTER III.

BRITAIN AFTER THE ROMANS.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

102. Hibernia is first mentioned as being also called Scotia by Isidore of Seville in 580.

103. Procop. Bell. Goth. iv. 20. (A.D. 540-550.)

104. Steph. Byzant. De Urbibus (A.D. 490).

105. Exceptis diversorum prolixioribus promontoriorum tractibus, quæ arcuatis oceani sinibus ambuitur.—Hist. Gild. § 3.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.’

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.

112. Ab aquilone; strictly north-north-east.

113. Pro indigenis.

114. See Fordun, Chron. vol. ii. p. 380, note.

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.

116. Ut perhibent.

117. Bede, Hist. Ec. i. § 7.

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.

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.

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.

121. See Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, Pref. pp. xviii-xxiii.

122. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 6.

123. Ibid. p. 410.

124. Liber Hymnorum, i. pp. 97, 105.

125. Ib. p. 117.

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.

127. Mailcon is the genitive form of Mailcu. It is the same name as Milchu, the Dalaradian king who held St. Patrick in slavery.

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.

129. Adamnan, Vit. Columbæ, ed. 1874, p. 174.

130. 580 Cendaeladh rex Pictorum mortuus est.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 67.

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.

132. Scotorum a circione, Pictorum ab aquilone.

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.

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.

135. Bede, Hist. Ec. B. i. c. 1.

136. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 18.

137. Feargus mor mac Earca cum gente Dalriada partem Britanniæ tenuit et ibi mortuus est.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 66.

138. The tripartite life of St. Patrick contains an account of the conversion of Erc and his people by St. Patrick.—Ib. p. 17.

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.

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.

141. Ib. p. 82.

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.

143. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 83.

144. Reeves’s Adamnan, ed. 1874, p. 81.

145. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 60.

146. Reeves’s Adamnan, ed. 1874, p. 264.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

157. Placuitque omnibus cum suo rege Vortigerno ut Saxonum gentem de transmarinis partibus in auxilium vocarent.—B. i. c. xiv.

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.

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.

160. Tribunus Cohortis Primæ Novæ Armoricæ Grannona in Litore Saxonico.—Not. Imp.

161. This has been well shown by Kemble, Saxons in England, vol. i. p. 10.

162. This was first observed by Sharon Turner in his History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. i. p. 105.

163. Theodosii xviii (A.D. 441) Britanniæ usque ad hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latæ in ditionem Saxonum rediguntur.

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.’

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.’

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.

167. ‘Id est Cat Coit Celidon,’ the battle of the wood Celidon.

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.

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.

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.

171. A.D. 537, Gueith Camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruere.—An. Cam., Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 14.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

177. Reeves’s Adamnan, ed. 1874, pp. 15, 136. Adamnan was born in 624.—Ib. p. 244.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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:—

1st, 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.

2d, 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.

3d, 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.

4th, 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

5th, Applying these laws, the generic terms do not show the existence of a Cymric language in the districts occupied by the Picts.[282]

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.

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.

186. Strabo, Geog. Lib. iii. 4.

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.

188.

Αὐτὰρ ὑπ’ ἄκρην

Ἰρὴν ἣν ἐνέπουσι κάρην ἔμεν Εὐρωπείης

Νήσους θ’ Ἑσπερίδας τόθι κασσιτέροιο γενέθλη,

Ἀφνειοὶ ναίουσιν ἀγαυῶν παῖδες Ἰβήρων.

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.

190. Sed summum contra sacram cognomine, dicunt quam Caput Europae, sunt Stanni pondere plenae Hesperides: populus tenuit quas fortes Iberi.—Prisc. Per.

191. Cave Hunting, by W. Boyd Dawkins, M.A., 1874, p. 191.

192. See The Beauties of the Boyne, by Sir William R. Wilde, 1850, p. 228, for an account of the Irish skulls.

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.

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.

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.

196. This account of these legendary colonies is abridged from Keating, who takes it from the Book of Conquests.

197. Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, p. 30.

198. See Irish Nennius, p. 221.

199. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 45.

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.

201. O’Curry, Lectures on MS. Materials, p. 223.

202. O’Curry’s Lectures on Manners and Customs of Ancient Irish. Introduction by Professor Sullivan, p. lxxii.

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.’

204. B. iii. c. iii. where he distinguishes between ‘Septentrionalis Scottorum provincia,’ and the ‘Gentes Scottorum, quæ in australibus Hiberniæ insulæ partibus morabantur.’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.’

212. Æneas the Lacedæmonian is obviously the Fenius Farsadh of the other legend.

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.

214. There is a native fort in the island of St. Kilda called Dunfhirbolg.

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.

216. See Chron. Picts and Scots, pp. 4 and 24.

217. Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, p. 319.

218. 602 Cath Cuile Cail in quo Fiachaidh mac Baedan victor erat.

608 Bass Fiachach chraich mic Baedan la Cruithnachu, p. 68.

219. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 52.

220. The word is Ruirig, plural of Ruire, a champion, a knight; also Dominus, a lord.

221. Bede, Ec. Hist. B. i. c. xv.

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.

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.

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.’

225. Mannert, Geographie, iii. 330.

226. Zeuss inclines to the latter view; see Nachbarstamme, p. 938.

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.

228. Bede, Vit. Sanct. Ab. Mon. im Uyramutha, c. 14.

229. Adam of Bremen (i. 3) says that the Saxons first had their habitations on the Rhine, and thence passed over to Britain.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

235. Reeves’s Adamnan (ed. 1874), pp. 174-176.

236. Verbo Dei a Sancto per interpretem recepto (B. i. c. 27).

Verbum vitae per interpretatorem sancto praedicante viro (B. ii. c. 33).

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.

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.

239. Quidam cum tota plebeius familia (B. ii. c. 33).

240. Ibidemque quidam repertus senex, Emchatus nomine, audiens a Sancto verbum Dei prædicatum, et credens, baptizatus est (B. iii. c. 15).

241. Acceptisque eorum uxoribus et filiabus in conjugium, omnes earum linguas amputaverunt, ne eorum successio maternam linguam disceret.

242. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 160.

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.

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.

245. Sequitur in eodem latere, et littore occidentali, Gallovidia.... Ea magna ex parte patrio sermone adhuc utitur.—Buchanan, Rerum Scoticarum Hist., Lib. ii. 27.

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.

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.

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.

249. The names of the primary colours which enter into the composition both of names, persons, and places will illustrate this:—

Gaelic.

Welsh.

Ban

Finn

}

white

Cán

Gwyn

}

white

Breac

Brit

}

speckled

Brych

Brith

}

speckled

Ciar

Dubh

}

black

Du

black

Glas

green

Glas

green, blue

Gorm

blue

Gwrm

brown

Liath

grey

Llwyd

gray

Dearg

Ruadh

}

red

Coch

Rhudd

}

red

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

Cul

}

back

Cefn

Trwm

Cil

}

back

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.

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.

251. The tribes are Vacomagi, Vernicomes, Taexali.

252.

Sluind Aed fortren Ferna.

Name Aed, the powerful of Ferna.

Angus Culdee, Feliré at 31st Jany.

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.

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.

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.

256. Brev. Ab., Pars Hyem. f. xxii.

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.

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.

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.

260. The Manumissions in the Bodmin Gospels, from which the Cornish forms are taken, have Wurgustel and Ungust among the names.

261. Chron. Picts and Scots, pp. 45, 319, 329.

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.

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.

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.

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).

266. In the Welsh poems the name Tawi is also applied to the Tay.

267. Ubi et ipsa Britannia plus angustissima de oceano in oceano esse dinoscitur.—Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia.

268. In Welsh Tad is father, Map son.

269. In Latin ‘sacellum’ (see Zeuss, Grammatica Celtica, p. 10). Can this refer to the building called Arthur’s O’on?

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.

271. Eddi, Vita S. Wilfridi apud Gale, pp. 70, 71.

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.

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.

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.

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.

276. Diefenbach, in his Celtica, vol. i. p. 23, is of this opinion. He says, ‘Aber gehört völlig beiden Sprachaesten an.’

277. Mr. Bannister, in his Glossary of Cornish Names, has no Abers, but an Appledor.

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 Grampians,’ 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.

279. Perhaps Pennan, the modern name of a headland at the Moray Firth, may be an exception, but we have not its old form.

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.

281. As in Fothuirtabhaicht now Forteviot, Fothurdun now Fordun, Fothenaven now Finhaven.

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.

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.

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]

THE

FOUR KINGDOMS

W. & A.K. Johnston, Edinburgh & London.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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  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.

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]

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.

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.

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.  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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.).

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.

287. Chron. Picts and Scots, pp. 40, 45, 126.

288. Ibid. pp. 319, 328, 329.

289. Brude mac Bile and Talorcan mac Ainfrait. This will appear afterwards.

290. M‘Lennan, Primitive Marriage, p. 129.

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.

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.

293. 584 Mors Bruidhe mac Mailchon Righ Cruithneach.—Tigh.

294. 599 Bas Gartnaidh regis Pictorum.—Tigh.

295. In the Latin lists this king is confounded with the older Nectan, and called the son of Irb and the founder of Abernethy.

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.

297. A.D. 606 Bas Aedhan mac Gabhrain anno xxviii. regni sui, aetatis vero lxxiv.—Tigh.

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.

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.).

300. In the foundation charter of Holyrood by David I., he called it ‘Ecclesia Sancti Crucis Edwinesburgensis.’ Simeon of Durham calls it Edwinesburch.

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.

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.

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.

304. Bas Cinaetha mac Luchtren regis Pictorum.—Tigh.

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.

306. Viro strenuissimo de regio genere Merciorum.—Ib.

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.

308. Bede, Hist. Ec. B. iv. c. 1.

309. Adamnan, Vit. Col. Book i. c. 1.

310. 632 Cath la Cathlon et Anfraith qui decollatus est, in quo Osualt mac Etalfraith victor erat et Catlon rex Britonum cecidit.—Tigh.

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.

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.

313. Iisdem finibus regnum tenuit.—B. ii. c. v.

314. Pink. Vit. SS. p. 30. Adamnan, Vit. S. Col. B. iii. c. vi.

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.

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.

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.

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.

319. Bede, Hist. Ec. B. iii. c. iv. Tighernac has at 632 ‘Inis Metgoit fundata est,’ but he antedates Anglic events three years.

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.

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.

322. 642, recte 645, Cath Ossueius inimun (between him) et Britones.

323. Bede, B. iii. c. xvi.

324. Ib. c. xvii.

325. Bede, B. iii. c. xxiv.

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.’

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.

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.

329. 658. Mors Gureit regis Alocluaithe.—An. Ult.

330. A.D. 653 Bass Ferich mac Totalain et Ectolairg mac Fooith regis Pictorum.—Tigh.

331. A.D. 657 Bas Tolarcain mac Ainfrith Ri Cruithne.—Tigh.

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.

333. Bede, B. iii. c. xxv.

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.

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.

336. Wilfrido administrante episcopatum Eboracensis ecclesiæ, necnon et omnium Nordanhymbrorum, sed et Pictorum, quousque rex Osuiu imperium protendere poterat.—B. iv. c. iii.

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.

338. 672 Expulsio Drosto de regno.—Tigh.

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.

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.

341. Bredei reigned twenty-one years, and died in 693, which places the beginning of his reign in this year.

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.

343. A.D. 680 Obsessio Duinbaitte.—An. Ult. A.D. 681 Obsessio Duin Foither.—Ib.

A.D. 682 Orcades deletæ sunt la Bruidhe.—Tigh.

344. The genealogy is given in the Tract on the Men of Alban.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 316.

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.

346. A.D. 683 Obsessio Duinatt et Duinduirn.—An. Ult.

347. Bede, Hist. Ec. B. iv. c. 26. A.D. 685. Saxones Campum Breg vastant et ecclesias plurimas in mense Junii.—An. Ult.

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.

349. 686 Cath Duin Nechtain xxo 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.

350. See the N. S. A., vol. ii. p. 146, for the tradition of the battle and a notice of these stone coffins.

351. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 402.

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.

353. Et nunquam addiderunt Saxones Ambronum ut a Pictis vectigal exigerent.—Nennius Con. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 11.

354. Distructumque regni statum, quamvis intra fines angustiores, nobiliter recuperavit.—B. iv. c. xxvi.

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.

356. A.D. 693 Bruidhe mac Bile rex Fortrend moritur et Alpin mac Nechtain.—Tigh.

357. Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, p. 408.

358. A.D. 694 Obsessio Duin Fother.—An. Ult. A.D. 697 Tarachin ar na scriss as a flaithius (driven from the lordship).—Tigh.

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.

360. 706 Brude mac Derile mortuus est.—Tigh.

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.

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.

363. 694 Domnall mac Avin rex Alochluaithe moritur.—Tigh.

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.

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.

366. 701 Destructio Duin Onlaigh apud Sealbach. Jugulatio generis Cathboth.—An. Ult.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

370. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 421.

371. Martyrology of Donegal at 16th March.

372. Bede, Hist. Ec. B. v. c. xxi.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

378. 717 Expulsio familiæ Iæ trans dorsum Britanniæ a Nectono rege.—Tigh.

379. 724 Clericatum (N)echtain regis Pictorum, Druxst post eum regnat.—Tigh.

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.

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.

382. 722 Beli filius Elfin moritur.—An. Cam. Bili mac Elphine rex Alochluaithe moritur.—Tigh.

723 Clericatus Selbaigh regis Dalriada.—Tigh.

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.

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.

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.

386. 733 Eochach mac Eochach ri Dalriada et Conall mac Concobair mortui sunt.—Tigh.

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.’

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.

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.’

390. Cath etir mac Aengusa et mac Congusa sunt Brudheus vicit Talorcum fugientem.—Tigh. 732 Nechtan mac Derili mortuus.—Tigh.

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.

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.

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.

394. 740 Eratque rex eorum Eadberctus occupatus cum suo exercitu contra Pictos.—Bede, Chron.

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.

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.

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.

398. 741 Percussio Dalriatai la Aengus mac Ferguso.—An. Ult.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

405. 760 Dunnagual filius Teudubr moritur.—An. Cam.

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.

407. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 138.

408. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 183.

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.

410. 763 Bruidhi Ri Fortchernn (Fortren, An. Ult.) mortuus est.—Tigh.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

415. Sim. Dun. 775 Rex Pictorum Cynoth ex voragine hujus cœnulentæ vitæ eripitur.

775 Mors Cinadhon regis Pictorum.—An. Ult.

416. Elpin rex Saxonum moritur.—An. Ult.

417. 782 Dubhtolargg rex Pictorum citra Monoth periit.—An. Ult.

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.

419. 807 Jugulatio Conall mac Taidg o Conall mac Aedain i Ciunntire.—An. Ult.

420. Sim. Dun. Hist. Regum, ad an. 793.

421. Sim. Dun. Hist. Reg., ad an. 794.

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.

423. See Dr. Todd’s War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill, Int. p. xxx, for a good account of these names.

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.

425. 820 Custantin mac Fergusa rex Fortren moritur.—An. Ult.

825 Martre Blaimhicc meic Flainn o Gentib in Hi. Coluim Cille.—An. Ult.

426. 834 Aengus mac Fergusa rex Fortrenn moritur.—An. Ult.

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.

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.

429. Cujus filius Kynadius successit in regno patris qui viio 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.

430. Qui anno xiio 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.

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.

432. Iste occisus est apud Fertheviot, secundum quosdam Sconam, a Scottis.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 151.

433. Septimo anno regni sui, reliquias Sancti Columbæ transportavit ad ecclesiam quam construxit.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 8.

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.

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.

436. Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis, p. 66.

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.

438. Chron. Picts and Scots, pp. 403, 404.

439. Ib. p. 84.

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.

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.

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.

443. The Annals of Ulster have at 865 Tuathal mac Artguso primus episcopus Fortrenn et abbas Duincaillenn dormivit.—Ib. p. 391.

444. Hic mira caliditate duxit Scotos de Argadia in terra Pictorum.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 174.

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.’

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.

447. Chron. Picts and Scots, pp. 163 and 202.

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.

449. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 83. The translation is slightly altered.

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.

451. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 424.

452. Ibid. Alii ex Scotis Anglisque collectis.—Boethii Hist. Fol.

453. Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, p. 309.

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.

455. See ante, p. 302.

456. This is shown in the Tract on the Coronation Stone, p. 35.

457. In hujus tempore jura ac leges regni Edi filii Ecdach fecerunt Goedeli cum rege suo in Fothuirthabaicth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

464. 872 Artgha rex Britannorum Sratha-Cluaidhe consilio Constantini filii Cinaedo occisus est.—An. Ult.

465. The descent of these kings is given in the Welsh Genealogies attached to Nennius.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 15.

466. Ib. p. 85.

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.

468. And oft ge hergode on Pehtas and on Stræcled Wealas.—Sax. Chron. ad an. 875.

Ast crebrius inducunt Pihtis bellum Cumbrisque.—Ethelwerd Chron.

469. Collect. Reb. Alb. pp. 66, 69.

470. Normanni annum integrum degerunt in Pictavia.—Pict. Chron. 875 Ostin mac Amlaiph regis Nordmannorum ab Albanensibus per dolum occisus est.—An. Ult.

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.

472. 876 Constantin mac Cinaeda rex Pictorum moritur.—An. Ult.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

485. A.D. 900. Domhnall mac Constantin Ri Alban moritur.—An. Ult. The later chronicles transfer his death to Forres, in Morayshire.

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.

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.

488. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 136.

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.

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.

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.’

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.’

493. Munch, Chronicle of Man, p. 33.

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.

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.

496. 912 Reingwald rex et Oter Comes et Oswl Cracabam irruperunt et vastaverunt Dunbline.—Sim. Dun.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

502. Flor. Wig. Chron. ad an. 937.

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.

504. Johnstone, Ant. Celto-Scandicæ, p. 32.

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.

506. Hacon the Good’s Saga.

507. Et in senectute decrepitus baculum cepit et Domino servivit et regnum mandavit Mail(colum) filio Domnail.—Pict. Chron.

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.

509. Cum exercitu suo Malcolaim perrexit in Moreb et occidit Cellach.—Pict. Chron.

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.

511. 949 In this year came Olaf Cuaran to Northumberland.—Sax. Chron.

‘In viio 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.

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.

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.

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.

515. Classi Sumerlidionum occisi sunt in Buchain.—Pict. Chron.

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.’

517. Dubh is an epithet meaning black. The version of the Pictish Chronicle in the Irish Nennius calls him Cinaed vel Dubh.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

526. 977 Amlaim mac Illuilb Ri Alban domarbadh la Cinaeth mic Maelcolaim.—Tigh.

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.

528. Chron. Joh. Wallingford, ap. Gale, p. 545. Some of the sentences are imperfect in the original.

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?

530. Orkneyinga Saga and Olaf Tryggvasonar Saga. See Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis, pp. 330-333, and Mr. Anderson’s edition.

531. A.D. 1020. Findlaec mac Ruaidhri Mormaer Moreb a filiis fratris sui Maelbrigdi occisus est.—Tigh.

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.

533. See Wars of the Gaedhil with the Gaill, pp. 271, 272.

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.

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.

536. Nials Saga in Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis. Dasent’s Saga of Burnt Njal.

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.

538. A.D. 989 Gofraigh mac Arailt, Ri Insi-Gall domarbh in Dalriatai.—An. Ult.

539. A.D. 995 Cinaeth mac Malcolaim Ri Alban a suis occisus est. Tigh. (per dolum—An. Ult.)

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.

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.’

542. A.D. 997 Cath etir Albancho itorchair Constantin mac Cuilindain Ri Alban et alii multi.

543. Interfectus a Kynnet filio Malcolmi in Rathinveramon.—Chron. Picts and Scots, pp. 175, 289.

544. Fordun’s Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 168.

545. A.D. 997 Maelcolaim mac Domnall Ri Breatan Tuaiscert moritur.—Tigh.

546. A.D. 1005 Cath etir firu Alban imonetir itorcair Ri Alban .i. Cinaed mac Duib.—An. Ult.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

548. 1006 Bellum itir firu Albain et Saxanu coromaid for Albanchu co fargabsat ar an degh doine.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 366.

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.

550. Olaf Tryggvesson’s Saga, cap. 52.

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.

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.

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.

554. Orkneyinga Saga. Collect. de Rebus Albanicis, p. 340.

555. Ibid. p. 346.

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.

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.

558. Orkneyinga Saga, c. 1. Saga of Saint Olaf. Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis, pp. 340, 346.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

567. A.D. 1029 Maelcolaim mac Maelbrigdi mic Ruadri Ri Alban mortuus est.—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 77.

568. St. Berchan gives Macbeth a reign of thirty years, which, reckoning from his death in 1058, places its commencement about this time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

578. Orkneyinga Saga. Collect. de Rebus Albanicis, p. 341. See also Mr. Anderson’s edition, p. 17.

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.

580. St. Berchan calls Duncan Ilgalrach, and also as Ri Galrach. Galrach means diseased, and may have given rise to the name Kali.

581. The Chronicle of Huntingdon says, ‘Comes Northumbriæ Siwardus Scotiam ingressus Maket regem nepotem dicti Malcolmi cum xv. annis regnaret, a regno fugavit.’

582. Caradoc of Llancarvan calls the two kings Maelbeathe and Jehmarc, kings of Orkney and Ewyst. See Note [569], p. 397.

583. Collect. de Rebus Albanicis, pp. 346, 347.

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.

585. A.D. 1045 Cath etir Albancho araenrian cur marbadh andsin Crinan Ab. Duincalland ocus sochaighe maille fris .i. nae xx laech.

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.

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.

588. This is the combined account of the editions of the Chronicle.

589. A.D. 1054 Cath etir Albancho ocus Saxancho in artoitset moran do mileadaib.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

595. Collect. de Reb. Alb. p. 346.

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.

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.

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.

599. Flor. Wig. Chron. ad an. 1068.

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.

601. Sim. Dun. de Gest. Reg. ad an. 1093.

602. Sim. Dun. de Gestis Reg. ad an. 1072.

603. Flor. Wig. Chron. ad an. 1069.

604. Sim. Dun. de Gestis Reg. ad an. 1070.

605. Orderic. Vit. B. iv. c. v.

606. Sim. Dun. de Gest. Reg. ad an. 1070. Simeon of Durham died in 1130.

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.

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.’

609. Flor. Wig. Chron. ad an. 1072.

610. Sim. Dun. de Gest. Reg. ad an. 1072.

611. The Ulster Annals have at 1085, ‘Maelsnectai mac Lulaigh Ri Muireb, suam vitam feliciter finivit.’—Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 370.

612. Sim. Dun. de Gestis Reg. ad an. 1079.

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.’

614. The Ulster Annals have in 1085, ‘Domhnall mac Malcolm Ri Albain, suam vitam infeliciter finivit.’

615. In the end of September, one of the most stormy months in the Scotch seas.

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?

617. Sim. Dun. de Gest. Reg. ad an. 1093.

618. Interfectus in Inveraldan.—Chron. St. A. Fust tue a Alnewyk et enterrez a Tynmoth.—Scala. Cron. Chron. Picts and Scots, pp. 175, 206.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.’

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

A.D. 1249-1285.

Alexander the Third, his son, reigned thirty-six years.  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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

FEUDAL

SCOTLAND

W. & A. K. Johnston Edinburgh & London.

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.

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.

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).

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.

623. Sax. Chron. ad an. 1093.

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.

625. Wynton, B. vii. c. 3.

626. Sax. Chron. ad an. 1093.

627. Sax. Chron. ad an. 1093.

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.

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.

630. Chron. Cumbriæ apud Dug. Mon. i. p. 400; but the authority of this chronicle is not great. William Fitz Duncan is, however, historical.

631. Sax. Chron. ad an. 1094.

632. See Transactions of Ant. Soc., vol. ii. page 480, for paper by Professor Stuart ‘on the reign of Duncan the Second.’

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.’

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.

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.’

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.

637. Collectanea de Rebus Albanicis, p. 347.

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.’

639. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 170.

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.

641. Fordun, Chronicle, vol. ii. p. 214.

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.

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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.)

648. National MSS., Nos. viii. ix. and x.

649. Chart. Scone, p. 1.

650. Chart. Scone, p. 3.

651. A.D. 1093 Fothudh ardepscop. Albain in Christo quievit.—An. Ult. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 370.

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.

653. See Haddan and Stubbs’ Councils, vol. ii. part i. p. 170, for this date. Eadgar died on 13th January 1107.

654. Sim. Dun. Hist. Reg. Angliæ, ed. Surtees, i. 96.

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.

656. Chron. Picts and Scots, p. 190.

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.

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.

659. Per latrinam.

660. Scotichron. B. v. c. xxxvi.

661. Wynton, Chron. B. vii. c. v.

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.

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.

664. Ailred, Gen. Regum, makes David say, ‘cum adolescens in regia curia servirem.’

665. Malmesbury, Hist. Regum, B. v. § 400.

666. David Comes filius Malcolmi regis Scotorum omnibus amicis suis Francis et Anglis et Scotis.—Chart. Kelso, p. 1.

667. Henrico regnante in Anglia et Alexandro regnante in Scotia.

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.

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.

670. Cumbria dicebatur quantum modo est, episcopatus Karleolensis et episcopatus Glasguensis et episcopatus Candidecase.—Palg. Documents and Records, p. 70.

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.

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.

673. Ib. No. xiv.

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.

675. Omnibus per regnum suam in Scotia et Lodoneia constitutis.—Nat. MSS. Scot. No. xv.

676. Chart. Scon. p. 1.

677. Chart. Dunf. pp. 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18.

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.

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.

680. Fordun, Chron. B. v. c. xxxiii.

681. Ailred, Eulogium Davidis, apud Pinkerton, p. 447.

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.

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.

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.

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.

686. Rex Scotorum innumerabilem coegit exercitum, non solum eos qui ejus subjacebant imperio, sed et de Insulanis et Orcadensibus non parvam multitudinem accersiens.

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.

688. See Fordun, Chron. vol. vi. p. 430, note.

689. John of Hexham, Chron., ad an. 1153.

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.

691. 1156 Dovenaldus filius Malcolmi apud Witerne captus est et incarceratus a turre de Rokesburc cum patre suo.—Chron. Melrose.

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.

693. Will. Newb. Chron. B. i. c. xxiv.

694. Chron. Manniæ. Munch’s ed., pp. 10, 80.

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.

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.

697. Fordun, Annalia, iv.

698. Account of the Family of Innes (Spalding Club), p. 51.

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 mocolxoivo 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.

700. This poem is printed in Fordun, Chron. vol. i. p. 449.

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.

702. Fordun, Annalia, vii.

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.

704. Fordun, Annalia, xi.

705. Roger Hoveden, Chron. ed. Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 63.

706. Fordun, Annalia, xiv. The details of the events in Galloway will be given in another part of this work.

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.

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.

709. Fordun, Annalia, xvii.

Anno mclxxxv. Bellum fuit in Galweia inter Rolandum et Gillepatricium iiijo 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.

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.

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.

712. Fordun, Annalia, xxii.

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.

714. Roger Hoveden, vol. iv. pp. 10-12.

715. Fordun, Annalia, xxiv. Orkneyinga Saga, cxxxvi.

716. Fordun, Annalia, xxvii.

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.

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.

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.

720. Per idem tempus emerserunt quidam iniqui de genere Macwilliam, scilicet, Gillascoph et filii ejus et Rodoricus, in extremis Scociæ finibus.—Annalia, xlii.

721. Fordun, Annalia, xl.

722. Wynton, Chronicle, B. vii. c. ix.

723. Chart. Melrose, i. 172

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.

725. Fordun, Annalia, xlii.

726. Fordun, Annalia, xliii. Chron. Mel. ad an. 1235.

727. These particulars are taken from the Saga of Hakon IV., king of Norway.

728. Chron. Manniæ, Munch’s ed., p. 24.

729. Saga of Hakon IV.

730. Saga of Hakon IV.

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.

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.

733. Fordun, Annalia, xlix.

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.

735. Chron. Mel.

736. So far the account has been taken from the Hakon’s Saga.

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.

738. Fordun, Annalia, lvi.

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.

740. Act. Parl. vol. i. p. 82.

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

“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”

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

CRUKILTON CASTLE

EDINBURGH: DAVID DOUGLAS

One Volume 8vo, Illustrated, 7s. 6d.

SCOTLAND

AS IT WAS AND AS IT IS

BY THE

DUKE OF ARGYLL

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”

ANCIENT ORATORY IN THE ISLAND OF INCHCOLM

CONTENTS.

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

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’

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 meant.

Replaced.

339.32

do tuitim fri da [h. I/h-I]mhair

Replaced.

363.38

[‘]In viio    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 ***

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 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. 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.

Table of Contents

CELTIC SCOTLAND: A HISTORY OF Ancient Alban

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

BOOK I. HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY.

CHAPTER I. ADVANCE OF THE ROMANS TO THE FIRTHS OF FORTH AND CLYDE.

CHAPTER II. THE ROMAN PROVINCE IN SCOTLAND.

CHAPTER III. BRITAIN AFTER THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER IV. ETHNOLOGY OF BRITAIN.

CHAPTER V. THE FOUR KINGDOMS.

CHAPTER VI. THE KINGDOM OF SCONE.

CHAPTER VII. THE KINGDOM OF ALBAN.

CHAPTER VIII. THE KINGDOM OF SCOTIA.

CHAPTER IX. THE KINGDOM OF SCOTIA PASSES INTO FEUDAL SCOTLAND.

APPENDIX.

REMAINS OF THE PICTISH LANGUAGE.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE