cristoraul.org |
 |
HISTORY OF THE ANGLO-SAXONS.
FRANCIS PALGRAVE
CHAPTER I.
Page Ancient population of Britain—political State of the Provinces
under the Romans—Formation of the States of Modern Europe, under the Tyrants of
the Lower Empire—Tyrants of Britain—Invasions of the Saxons, Scots, and Picts—Britain
finally separated from the Empire
CHAPTER II.
Heftgist and Horta; their supposed transactions with Vortigem—Progress
of the Invaders—Conquest of Britain by the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons—Kingdoms
founded by them— Kent, Sussex, Wessex, East Anglia, Essex, Deira, Bernicia, Mercia—Subjugation
of the Britons
PART TWOCHAPTER VII.
Alfred,‘ The wisest man in England’—Literature and cultivation of the
Anglo-Saxons—The Runes—The Latin alphabet, introduced by the Roman
Missionaries—Difficulty of explaining Runic Inscriptions—Art of writing not
much practised, and comparatively of small importance—Use of -visible symbols
in legal transactions instead of written instruments—Poetry,
extemporaneous—Historical poetry of the Anglo-Saxons—Scarcity of
Books—Printing—Possible decay of Literature and Science
CHAPTER IX.
Works translated by Alfred, or under his direction—Bede, Orosius,
Boethius, St. Augustine, &c.—Encourages Travellers—His Embassy to the
Syrian Christians in Hindostan— Prudent management of
his affairs—Alfred’s character—Its imperfections and merits—Alfred’s Laws—His
principles of Legislation
CHAPTER X.
Edward the Elder—Succession contested by Ethelwald,
son of Ethelbald—Edward prevails—Ethelfleda, the ‘Lady
of Mercia’—Mercia occupied by Edward—Submission of Northumbria and East Anglia
— Danes, Scots, Britons, acknowledge Edward’s Supremacy—Athelstane—His
character—His Wars against the Britons—Reduction of West Wales and of the City
of Exeter—All Britain South of the Humber submits to him—Sihtric,
King of Northumbria, married to Athelstane’s sister—Commotions in Northumbria after the death of Sihtric—Scots
and Danes unite against Athelstane—They are defeated
in the great battle of Brunnaburgh—Athelstane’s reputation—Alliances of his Family with
Foreign Princes—Elgiva married to Charles the Simple, King of France—Expulsion
of the Carolingian Dynasty by the Capets
CHAPTER XI.
Edmund—Revolution in Northumbria, which raised Olave to the
Throne—Treaty by which Britain was divided between Edmund and his
Competitor—Death of Olave—Edmund reduces Northumbria—Cumbria, or
Strath-Clyde—Retrospect of the History of the Cumbrian Britons—Donald, King of
Cumbria, expelled by Edmund, and his Kingdom granted to Malcolm —Extinction of
the Cumbrian Britons—Death of Edmund—Edred—Constitution of the Anglo-Saxon
Empire —Revolt of Northumbria—Eric raised to the Throne— Edred reduces
Northumbria, and converts the Kingdom into an Earldom
CHAPTER XII.
Accession of Edwy—Alteration in the aspect of Anglo-Saxon
History—Dunstan, his character and influence—Celibacy ef the Clergy— Establishment of the Benedictine Order—Dissensions between the
Partisans of the Menke and the Secular ox married Clergy—Elgiva—Dunstan’s
intemperate conduct —He is banished from England—The Monkish Faction* occasion
a Revolt in favour of Edgar—Edwy deprived of his Dominions north of the
Thames—Cruel treatment of Elgiva —Death of Edwy—Accession of Edgar—Promotion of
Dunstan to the Archbishopric of Canterbury—Edgar’s bounty to the Clergy—His
government—Edgar’s triumph on the Dee—Origin of the Feudal System—Tenures of
Land—Ewh —Aidermen —
Edgar’s Feudal Supremacy — Division of Northumbria—Lothian granted to
Kenneth—Defects of Edgar’s character
CHAPTER III
Death of Edgar—State of Parties—Edward the Martyr and Ethelred
respectively supported by the Partisans and Adversaries of Dunstan — Edward’s
Party prevail—Dunstan’s opponents killed by the falling of the building at
Caine— Murder of Edward by Elfrida—Accession of Ethelred the Unready—Danes
renew their attacks—The Dane-Geld— Ethelred marries Emma of Normandy—Massacre
of the Danes on St. Brice’s Day—Sweyne’s Invasion—Ethelred abandons England to him—Death of Sweyne—Restoration
of Ethelred—Canute continues to occupy the North—Death of Ethelred—Division
of tile Country between Canute and Edmund Ironside—Murder of the latter—Reign
of Canute—Succession of Harold Harefoot and
Hardicanute
CHAPTER XTV.
Edward the Confessor—State of Parties—Influence of Godwin and his
Family—Earldoms held by them—Edward’s Norman favourites—Siward and Leofric,
Earls of Northumbria and Mercia, oppose Godwin—Disturbances occasioned by
Eustace, Count of Boulogne—Commotions in the Country—Godwin takes the Field
against the King’s party—He and his Family are outlawed—Visit of William of
Normandy—Godwin returns, and is restored to power—Death of Godwin—Questions
concerning the succession—Edward the Outlaw son of Ironside, called to England
by the Confessor, and acknowledged as Heir to the Crown—His untimely
death—Edward appoints William of Normandy as his Successor—Death of Edward.
CHAPTER XV.
Harold assumes the Crown—His authority not recognised throughout all the
realm—William prepares to invade Eng- .land— AasernWy «f the Norman Baronage at Idflebonne— The Pepe
sanctions WHUam’s enterprise—Equipment of the Norman
Fleet—Harold marries A^itha, the sister of Edwin and
Morcar—Tostig incites HardldHarfager to attack Harold
—He Norwegian Expedition—Battle of Stamford Bridge— Harfager and Tostig slain—Sailing of the Norman Fleet —Landing of the Norman Army—Harold
marches to attack William—Preparattonsfor the
conflict—Bettie of Hastings— Tradition of the escape of Harold
CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT POPULATION OF BRITAIN. POLITICAL STATE OFTHE PROVINCES UNDER THE
ROMANS. FORMATION OF THE STATES OF MODERN EUROPE UNDER THE TYRANTS OF THE LOWER
EMPIRE. TYRANTS OF BRITAIN. INVASIONS OF THE SAXONS, SCOTS, AND PICTS. BRITAIN
FINALLY SEPARATED FROM THE EMPIRE.
According to a very ancient tradition, which, although not possessing
scriptural authority, is grounded upon scripture, the Cymri, as they are still called in their own language, are descended from Gomer, the
common ancestor of all the Celtic tribes; Britain having fallen to their
lot, when the ‘islands of the Gentiles’ were divided amongst the ‘children of
Japhet, every one after his tongue, after their families in their nations.’
Many nations have two or more designations; a name or names employed by
foreigners, and a name which more properly belongs to them. Thus the people
whom we know as Bohemians, call themselves Czecki;
and the Hungarians call themselves Magyar. I mention these examples in
order that you may understand how it happens that the ‘Cymri’
are usually denominated Britons in our books, this latter name having
been given to them by the Romans ‘Prydain’ or Britain, the country in
which they were found. In common English speech they are denominated Welshmen,
a term formed from the old English or Saxon Wilisc,
an adjective signifying anything foreign or strange; corresponding literally,
both in etymology and application, with the Latin Peregrinus. Hence Italy is the Welschland of the modem Germans, and
their Welschers are the Italians:—foreigners
to them, as the Britons were to the old English or Anglo-Saxon invaders. Such
double or concurrent appellations are very common; and if their existence be
kept in mind, you will be saved from much perplexity in your studies of history.
The people inhabiting the southern parts of the island, had, when the
Romans first visited Britain, passed over more recently from Belgic Gaul, and
differed from the Cymri in race, being of the Teutonic family of nations. But the lines of demarcation between the Celts and the
Teutons were not then so well defined as in subsequent times. The distinctions
which now characterise the progeny of Adam have been continually increasing,
since the children of men were first scattered abroad on the face of the earth.
And the more we ascend in history, the more apparent are the traces of that
unity which subsisted, when we were all of one speech and one language, in the
plain of Shinar.
Like all the other Gentiles, the Britons had abandoned the worship of
the Almighty, and believed in false Gods, to whom they offered human
sacrifices. They were so infatuated as to think that the favour of their idols
could be obtained by slaying men and women. And this they did most cruelly;
inclosing the victims in huge figures of wicker-work, and burning the wretched
sufferers alive. The Druids were the priests of the Britons, and probably the
lawgivers of the people. Amongst other rites, we are told that they used to cut
the mistletoe, with great ceremony, on the sixth day of the moon, employing for
that purpose a sickle of pure gold. The oak is said to have been venerated
amongst them; but, beyond a few particulars which have been preserved by Greek
and Roman writers, we know little concerning their tenets. The doctrines of the
Druids were not reduced into writing, but preserved by oral tradition; and when
the Druidical priesthood was extinguished, their lore was lost, excepting the
few vestiges which may be collected from the compositions of the British Bards,
and the proverbial triads of the Cymri.
The temples in which the Britons worshipped their Deities, were composed
of large, rough stones, disposed in circles; for they had not sufficient skill
to execute any finished edifices. Some of these circles are yet existing; such
is Stonehenge, near Salisbury: the huge masses of rock may Still be seen there,
grey with age; and the structure is yet sufficiently perfect to enable us to
Understand how the whole pile was anciently arranged. Stonehenge possesses a
stem and savage magnificence. The masses of which it is composed are so large,
that the structure seems to have been raised by more than human power. Hence, Choir-gaur was fabled to have been built by giants, or otherwise constructed by magic art.
All around you in the plain, you will see mounds of earth or ‘tumuli,’ beneath
which the Britons buried their dead. Antiquaries have sometimes opened these
mounds, and there they have discovered vases, containing the ashes and the
bones of the primeval Britons, together with their swords and hatchets, and
arrow-heads of flint or of bronze, and beads of glass and amber; for the
Britons probably believed, that the dead yet delighted in those things which
had pleased them when they were alive, and that the disembodied spirit retained
the inclinations and affections of mortality.
The Cymric Britons, though they lived in an island, had no boats or
vessels except coracles, framed of slight ribs of wood covered with hides.
These frail barks are still used by the Welsh fishermen on the Wye; and it may
be remarked that the Celtic tribes in general have never taken to the sea,
whilst the Teutons seem always to have enjoyed the dangers of the ocean. But
the valour of the Britons was displayed on land: they were brave and sturdy
warriors; and when they went forth to combat, they rode in chariots, with
blades of scythes fixed to the axle-trees of the wheels. Engaged in battle,
they urged their horses to their utmost speed, and the sharp edges of the
scythes mowed down the enemy. But the prowess of the Britons was of little use
or profit, for they were always quarrelling amongst themselves; and it was in
consequence of these dissensions that they were at last subdued by the Romans.
If the Britons had made common cause, the Romans might not have prevailed
against them: but the Insular tribes or nations were divided and disunited;
envious of each other; and when one tribe was conquered, the others delighted
in the misfortunes of their countrymen, and then the same fate befell than in
their turn. The moral deduced from the fable of the bundle of sticks may be
applied with equal truth to families or nations.
Julius Caesar was the first civilized stranger who attacked the island;
but his incursions were confined to the southern coast, and the Roman dominion
did not attain its full extent in Britain until Cnaeus Julius Agricola took the
command.
It does not appear that the Romans ever conquered the more remote parts,
beyond the Firths of Forth and Clyde: the wall constructed by Lollius Urbicus,
in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and extending from Caerriden to Alcluid, or Dunbarton, was erected for the purpose
of protecting the Roman provinces against the inroads of the unsubdued
tribes,—who, under the names of Caledonians and Picts, inhabited the fastnesses
beyond. Other fortifications of the same description, between the SolWay Firth and the Tyne, constructed by Adrian and
Severus, constituted a second line of defence, stretching from sea to sea.
Castles and towers,—Burgi, as they were called by the
Romans,—ranged along these walls; and these fortresses were constantly
garrisoned by armed men. The stations were so near to each other, that if a
beacon was lighted on any one of the bulwarks, the warriors who garrisoned the
next station were able to see and to repeat the signal almost at the same
instant; and the next onwards did the same; by which token they announced that
some danger was impending. So that, in a very short time, all the soldiers who
guarded the line of wall could be assembled. The coast was protected with equal
care against any invading enemy; and the ancient maritime stations, Garianonum and Portus Rhutupis,
may be instanced as fine specimens of Roman skill and industry. The Romans also
fortified many strong cities in different parts of the island, which they
surrounded by lofty ramparts. These ‘colonies,’ or ‘municipia,’ were peopled
with Roman inhabitants, who came hither from Italy, accompanied by their wives
and children; and within the circuit of the fortifications, they built temples,
and palaces, and baths, and many other splendid structures, living in great
luxury and delight. Frequently it happens, that when workmen are employed in
digging the foundations of new erections in modem towns, occupying the site of
Roman cities, such as Gloucester, Cirencester, and Colchester, they find
beautiful tesselated pavements, composed of coloured
stones, arranged in elegant patterns, the adornments of the Roman palaces,
though now they lie at a great depth below the surface of the ground. And
often, you may see the marks of the fire by which the dwellings themselves were
ruined, in the sieges which the cities sustained.
Many of our Roman cities have become entirely wasted and desolate—Silchester is one of these. Corn-fields and pastures cover
the spot once adorned with public and private buildings, all of which are now
wholly destroyed. Like the busy crowds who inhabited them, the edifices have
sunk beneath the fresh and silent green-sward; but the flinty wall which
surrounded the city is yet firm, and the direction of the streets may be
discerned by the difference of tint in the herbage; and the ploughshare turns
up the medals of the Caesars, so long dead and forgotten, who were once the
masters of the world.
The Britons, or at least those tribes who inhabited the vicinity of the
Roman colonies, soon adopted and emulated the customs of their masters, for
evil as well as good. They learnt to speak the Latin language, adopted Latin
names, clad themselves in rich raiment, and vied with the Romans in every
luxury of corrupted Rome. In the earlier stages of the Roman conquests, the
native Princes were, according to the usual custom of nations calling
themselves civilized, when they deal with those whom they term savages, treated
with merciless severity by the conquerors, for daring to struggle against their
power. Boadicea, bleeding beneath the scourge, and Caractacus, or Caradoc,
driven in fetters by the scoffing lictor, are familiar examples of this
unrelenting tyranny. But this harshness was not always exerted; and other
British princes were allowed to retain their dominions beneath the Roman
supremacy. Cogidumnus, who appears, from an inscription discovered at
Chichester, to have reigned in or near Sussex, the ancient territory of the
Regni, may be quoted as one of these tributary governors. In such a country,
the native population, having a ruler of their own race and blood placed over
them, were probably less oppressed than in those parts where they were
immediately beneath the rod of the Roman masters. But in other districts, and
particularly towards the eastern side of the island, it should seem as if the
British nobility and aristocracy had been entirely swept away, and the land
allotted out to the Roman colonists, under whose power the British cultivators
of the soil passed into a state of praedial slavery or villainage.
When we speak of the ‘Roman empire,’ we are apt to consider it as a
consolidated power. We see only the imperial standard, and contemplate only the
majesty of Rome. But the real state of things under the dominion of the Eagle
may in some measure be understood, by considering the present condition of the
provinces and dominions subdued by the Russians, and added to the dominion of
the Czar. In some parts are flourishing cities, Odessa for example, peopled by
the conquering race, speaking their language and governed by their laws. In
others (as in the Crimea generally) the Russians have become the owners of the
soil, and the ancient rulers, the Tartar Mirzas and Khans, have been expelled;
but the conquest has not displaced the ancient Tartar peasantry, who retain
their former customs, and, as yet, are not greatly affected by the influence of
the Lords to whom they belong. A third class will consist of such provinces as
Mingrelia, where the ancient rulers remain in their seats, though entirely
controlled by a governor appointed by the Autocrat, beneath whose military sway
the kingdom is allowed to subsist. Furthermore, a fourth class may be placed in
provinces like Esthonia and Livonia, which retain
their former mixed government, though the ancient line of princes has become
extinct, and the sovereignty is vested in the Russian Emperor. In Esthonia there is a Land-tag composed of nobles and
deputies of the towns. This assembly exists in a state of respectable
debility—not so strong as to excite the jealousy of the emperor,—nor so weak as
to be entirely ineffective. By the Land-tag, laws may be enacted
concerning local regulations or affairs of the province. Some taxes are
apportioned by its power. Yet, at the same time that the Autocrat of all the Russias tolerates die existence of the Land-tag, his
ukases, issued from St. Petersburg, may overturn all the legislation thus
exercised; and he is, in theory, if not in practice, the uncontrolled master of
the lives and fortunes of the Esthonian people, who, if he should think fit to
act the Despot, have no resource against his supreme authority. Lastly, in the
so-called kingdom of Poland, there exists, by the grant and concession of the
emperor, a ‘Diet,’ formed, in part, out of the original legislature possessed
by the country when independent—but Russianized, remodelled, restricted, and
reformed having a sufficient degree of consequence to prevent the Polish nation
from, being amalgamated into one mass with the Russians, and yet entirely
incompetent to limit the Emperor’s power, except so far as a discreet or
benevolent Sovereign may think it just or expedient to give way to the opinion
of his subjects, when respectfully expressed.
Now if the Russian government were subverted, the Cities, to which I
have alluded, would still retain a portion of the organization which they have
received. In the Provinces overspread by the Russians, the ancient races would
regain their ascendency, though they would probably retain (particularly in
military discipline) many vestiges of the policy imparted by their late rulers.
The third class of Provinces, or those whose dependant sovereigns are governed
by the Court of St. Petersburg, would reappear in their primitive form, except
so far as their Shahs or Sultans might think fit, as they probably would, to
adopt such customs and principles’ as should tend either to enhance the
splendour of their court, or to increase the authority which they would then
enjoy, released from Russian supremacy. In the fourth class, in Esthonia and in Poland, the Land-tag and the Diet
would gain in power, and acquire more consistency; and, under favourable
circumstances,— assuming, for instance, that these legislatures continued to
exist quietly, until the towns became opulent and the serfs free,—they might
become substantial checks upon the prerogatives of any monarch by whom the
country should be ruled.
All these suppositions are made upon the hypothesis of a mere
dissolution of the Russian empire; but if that dissolution were followed by an irruption of some much less civilized nation, say the Monghul Tartars, the features of the older dominion would
be much more obscured; many of the laws and customs of the invaders would be implanted
by them: and the Russian laws and modes of government would be kept down by the
customs of a wild nomadic people; and yet the general relation of the parts of
the empire towards each other would remain the same, unless it should happen
that in any district all the ancient inhabitants were violently expelled.
The parallel between the Russian empire and the Roman empire will not
hold good in any of its minor details: but in the general outline it is
tolerably accurate; and I introduce it in this place, in order that the young
reader may understand how the Roman provinces were circumstanced, at the dawn of
the history of modem Christendom.
The colonial policy of Rome sustained considerable alterations in form,
between the age of Agricola and the fifth century; but the main principles
remain unchanged. Taking the reign of Constantine as a middle point of
development, though not exactly of time, the whole Roman Empire was then
divided into four great ‘Prefectures’ or governments, Britain being included in
the jurisdiction of the Prefect of the Gauls, who held his court at Treves, and
afterwards at Arles. The Prefectures were divided into ‘Dioceses.’—Britain was
a Diocese—and the Dioceses into ‘Provinces,’ subjected to Presidents, or
Consulars, and Vicars, or Vicepresidents, each in
their degree invested with the various powers of judicial government and civil
policy. The military command of the provinces was principally entrusted to the Comites each having his own district or territory.
From the reign of Constantine, these functionaries held a conspicuous rank in
the state. The Comes, or Companion of Augustus was only his confidential
friend; but the companions of the Caesar were gradually erected into a
dignified order, and the title became at length a designation both of military
and civil dignity. Besides the military Comites,
there were others in every department of the government. The title was
particularly bestowed upon the attendants of the Imperial Court. There was a
Count of the physicians, a Count of the wardrobe, a Count of the treasury, and
a Comes stabuli, or Count of the stable, from
whose station one of the proudest titles of the European monarchies was
derived.
The Cities enjoyed considerable privileges, and possessed a distinct
political existence. The riding body, termed the Curia, was composed of
Senators or Decurions: but, besides the main corporation, each city contained
various colleges, companies, or guilds, of traders and artificers; and if I
were a Freemason, which I am not, I should perhaps be able to ascertain whether
the ‘Lodge of Antiquity’ at York, is, as the members of the craft pretend, a
real scion from the Roman stock, subsisting through so many changes.
The most absolute authority was vested in the Roman emperor,—Louis the
Fourteenth’s saying, L'état c’est moi; is only another
version of the Lex Regia, an Edict, by which, according to the theory of the
civil law, all the powers of the state had been concentrated in the person of
the Imperial Majesty. As to the Lex Regia, it is certain that no such edict was
ever passed or made by the Roman Senate, but the Emperors acted as if it had;
and a legal fiction, believed by government, and which no subject can dare to
dispute, has quite as much validity as if it were the truth itself, and
sustained by the most lawful authority. The Prefects and other Governors were,
practically, and in their own departments, as despotic as the Emperor himself;
yet a species of controlling power existed in the provincial councils or
assemblies. The constitution of these senates cannot be precisely defined. Some
few particulars, however, may be collected. Deputies, or Magistrates, from the
cities attended them. The great landed proprietors had also seats; and perhaps
the Bishops were admitted after the establishment of Christianity. The Councils
assembled in course, and at stated times of the year, unless any emergency
arose, in which case they were summoned by the rescript of the Emperor. If
local regulations only were required, the councils were authorized to enact
ordinances; but in matters of importance, and especially if the Provincials needed
the redress of any grievance, they could only address their petitions to the Emperor.
The Prefect could not give his assent to such requests, and the Legates to whom
the bills were entrusted, resorted for that purpose to the Presence-Chamber,
or, according to the pompous phraseology of Byzantium, the sacred consistory;
and then the Sovereign, if he thought fit, acceded to their request.
In point of form, this proceeding was very similar to that adopted by
the Cortes of Castile, the States-general of France, and the Parliament of
England. In all these assemblies, the subjects pray to the King for redress,
and the answer to their petition constitutes the basis of the Fuero, Law,
Ordinance, or Statute. But the members of the Roman provincial councils could
not employ any of those useful ways and means for obtaining the attention of
the sovereign, which render the deceit and humble language of supplication
virtually equivalent to a command. The Councils had no control over the
supplies. With the exception of the aurum coronarium, a benevolence, voluntary in name, but
compulsory by inveterate custom, taxation resulted from the arbitrary decree of
the Emperor; and to the edict by which the Caesar imposed a tribute upon the
world, the assent of the provincials was neither expected nor required. The
sovereign had nothing to hope from their gratitude; the minister had nothing to
fear from their displeasure. An impeachment, under the entire management of the
Prefect, was the only power of judicature which the Councils possessed; and the
laws which had been enacted upon their request, might, at any time, be revoked
or rescinded by the sovereign will and irresponsible declaration of the
Emperor. In many parts of the empire, such as Narbonensian Gaul, these councils appear to have been engrafted upon the institutions
subsisting among the conquered nations before they were subdued.—Was this the
case in Britain?—The question is interesting, but difficult of discussion. It
is sufficient to observe, that such local legislatures, however qualified their
powers might be, contributed to keep alive a feeling of national or independent
existence, and prevented those minor spheres of action, the provinces, from
being merged in the vast orb of the empire. And, transmitted through the middle
ages, they became one of the elements, at least, out of which the Parliaments,
States-general, and other legislative assemblies of modern Europe were
gradually formed.
The real power of the Roman state, however, was in the sword; and we
must now consider the station assigned to those by whom the sword was wielded.
When the Roman republic subsisted in full vigour, the soldiers were rewarded
toy grants of land. An estate was allotted to the veteran, and he became
entitled to the rents and profits as his retiring pay, instead of receiving a
stipend from the treasury. Such policy was wise and considerate. It was right
that the public should enable those whose strength had been worn out in the
service of their country, to enjoy the quiet and comfort of repose in their old
age: the boon was the discharge of a just debt, and at the same time this act
of justice added greatly to the security of the commonwealth. The grey-headed
warrior, who had served the republic with honour, was bound to his allegiance
toy gratitude. He taught obedience and loyalty to his son, and encouraged the
youth to walk in the same path, and to hope for the same reward; so that, when
his time of toil and danger should be fulfilled, he also might become the
peaceful citizen of the state which he had defended.
But another character was soon imparted to these donations. Civil wars
arose amongst the Romans; and the Generals who obtained the victory, treated
the allies and subjects of Rome with die same severity which they had used
towards their enemies. Sylla, and afterwards Augustus, confiscated or seized
the lands of several of the Italian cities, and divided these possessions
amongst the soldiers who had fought in their service against other Romans. It
was a sad day when the poor people of Mantua were compelled to quit die farms
which they cultivated, and to give up their fields and their vineyards to the
insulting stranger. I have mentioned Mantua, because we have the clearest
description of the afflictions of this city in the ninth eclogue of Virgil. For
thus was that great poet deprived of his little patrimony and reduced to the
greatest distress, and compelled to seek his sustenance in the great city of
Rome, where the talents which had been given to him, became the means of
raising him to imperishable fame.
The grants made to the soldiers who had served the Triumvirate, were
not, like the donations which had in the elder time been bestowed upon the veterans,
the well-earned reward of honourable valour. Gifts received in recompense for
services performed in civil war, were, in truth, a recompense for evil-doing;
and instead of encouraging the people to defend their country, the military
were excited to hatred and dissension. All departure from justice is as foolish
as it is wrong, and the Romans afforded full proof of this maxim. It became an
easy step to bestow land upon the Barbarians, in the expectation that they
would become useful allies to the emperors. This was one of the principal
causes of the decline of the empire, because the provinces were filled with
inhabitants adverse to the wellbeing of the state; who served the sovereign
merely for profit, and who opened the path to their kinsmen, the implacable
enemies of the Roman name. The Romans acted like a man who, being afraid of
robbers, hires the brother of the depredators to stand as sentinel before his
door.
First, these donations were made at the expense of other barbarians; but
before the reign of Diocletian, the Liuti or ‘People,’ as they are
emphatically called, both by themselves and the Romans—the latter merely
changing the term into Laeti—ere domiciled throughout the empire upon
the ‘Latic’ lands, of which they received possession by the writ or rescript of
the emperor. Two German tribes, the Quadi and the Marcomanni, were thus
rewarded by the possession of lands in Britain. The progeny of the Tungrians, who, brought over as allies by Agricola, warred
against the Caledonians, became the owners as well as the defenders of the
wilds which they subdued. The word Liuti, or Laeti, is purely
German, but it was extended from the Teutonic auxiliaries to all others of the
same class. This is the usual progress of language, and we exemplify it in many
cases; for instance, by giving the name of Hussars, which originally
signified Hungarians, to all light cavalry, mounted and armed like the original
Hungarian troops of that description. The Lati were also called Gentiles (a
translation of their former name). And upwards of forty of those barbarian
legions, some of Teutonic origin, and others Moors, Dalmatians, and Thracians,
whose forefathers had been transplanted from the remotest parts of the empire,
obtained their domicile in various parts of our island, though principally upon
the northern and eastern coasts, and in the neighbourhood of the Roman walls.
The donations of these Laetic lands had
branched abusively out of the general system of defence; which, with few
exceptions, was founded upon the principle of paying the soldier by giving him
land. Thus the March or border countries were granted almost exclusively to the
‘Limitanean’ soldiery, upon conditions which have
been well described as containing the germ of the ‘feudal tenures.’ The valleys
and passes of the mountains, and the banks of the great frontier rivers, were
tilled by the martial husbandmen, who could only secure their harvests by
warding off the incursions of the enemy. Such land could not be alienated to a
non-military owner. The property descended from the father to the son, and the
son at the age of eighteen years was compelled to gird himself with the
baldrick, and to join the legion to which his parent belonged.
The ‘Limitanean’ soldiers, as their name imports,
continued settled on the borders; but in the same manner, or nearly so, were
all the other Roman legions rooted and fixed in the interior of Britain. After
the establishment of the imperial government they were not, like our regiments
in the colonies, changed and removed from time to time, but permanently
established on and in the island. The son of the veteran was compelled to
follow the profession of his father. Military service was an imperative obligation
upon all of military race. The soldiery constituted not only an ‘Estate’
distinct from the rest of the people, but also a ruling Caste, from whose will
the sovereign power was derived.
Perhaps there was never any community in the world, civilized or semi-civilized,
in which the succession to the supreme authority was so utterly without law or
rule as the Roman empire. Good fortune was the only standard of
legitimacy.—Aurelian, a sturdy Dacian, is hailed as emperor by the legions on
the shore of the Danube. Quintilian is recognized by the voice and suffrage of
the legions of Rome, and the approbation of all Italy; but Aurelian prevails,
and he is considered as the lawful possessor of the Roman world.
The General who could only retain a Province or a Diocese, is called a
Tyrant; that is to say, an illegal Pretender. But let an example be selected,
and the justice of such a title will entirely disappear.—Gaul and Spain and
Britain, or the Prefecture of the Gauls, were erected into a flourishing empire
by Posthumus, the ‘Tyrant,’ who denied obedience to Gallienus, the ‘Emperor’ of
Rome. Posthumus had been called to the government by the voice and affection of
the people, and accepted by the legions. And if the palsied Senate, assembled
on the Capitol, branded this change of government as a rebellion, the ‘Court of
Treves’ might very reasonably question the rights devolving upon Gallienus, a
son who enjoyed his dignity merely because he allowed his father Valerian to
languish, during nine years, in hopeless captivity; or, ascending a degree
higher in the pedigree, they might impugn the title of Valerian, and inquire by
what meant the legions of Rhaetia had acquired the authority of imposing him
upon the dioceses of the east or the prefectures of the west.
CARAUSIUS
From the history of Avitus, who, after being saluted as emperor by the
legions at Toulouse, was invested with the imperial purple by the ‘Honorati’ of Arles, we may estimate the share which the
provincial legislatures possessed in the nomination of the provincial
‘Tyrants’. The soldiers elected the Emperor, the Council ratified the election;
and in the eye of reason, it may appear that these Sovereigns, who are
stigmatized as usurpers, had, perhaps, a better title than the rulers who are
considered as legitimate, merely because they were recognized at Rome.—What was
the Roman Senate Certainly it bore an honoured and venerable name; but the
Patricians who trembled in the chairs of Cato and Cicero were the mere
creatures and nominees of the Emperor; whilst the provincial assemblies participated
in all the feelings and opinions of their countrymen, and virtually represented
the wealth and respectability of the land. Unconscious of the ends which they
were destined to accomplish, the Provincial Emperors may be considered as the
precursors of the barbarian dynasties. The revolutions sustained by the
provinces under their government gave an impulse, which ultimately caused the
kingdoms of modern Christendom to spring out of the fourth great monarchy of
the Gentiles.
PROVINCIAL TYRANTS—
CARAUSIUS
The political ancestry of the ancient monarchs of Anglo-Saxon Britain,
must therefore be sought amongst the sovereigns, who are expunged from the
regular series of the Caesars, and put at the bottom of the page by the
chronologists of the empire. Britain was said to be singularly fertile in
Tyrants or, in other words, the opulent province made strong efforts to detach
itself from Rome, and to acquire independence. But the history of these tunes
is extremely imperfect. The jejune and feeble writers of the Augustan history
afford our chief materials; and though we know that the first of these British
Tyrants was slain by his competitor Probus, we are not able to tell his name.
Carausius obtained a more durable ascendency. He was a Menapian by birth. The nation whence he originated had been
divided by its migrations into several colonies: one was settled in Hibernia,
another was found in the islands of the Rhine; and the Menapia,
or Menevia, of Britain, now St David’s, seems also to
have belonged to these tribes. Carausius was born in Britain, according to an
authority which we are at present compelled to receive with some hesitation,
and opposed to the Roman writers, who call him the ‘foster son of Batavia.’
Yet, for the credit of Richard of Cirencester, the writer to whom I allude, it
may be remarked that the some uncertainty prevails with respect to many of the
Emperors, and most of the Tyrants. The contradictory statements of contemporary
writers were evidently occasioned, not so much from incorrect information, as
from the difficulty of finding accurate language. In one narrative, perhaps,
the individual is described according to his race; in another according to his
local birthplace; in a third, according to his political domicile; just as
Napoleon might be described as an Italian, a Corsican, or a Frenchman.
Carausius, perhaps himself a pirate, had been accustomed to the sea from his
earliest youth; and he was raised, by his valour and talent, to the command of
the navy destined to repress the incursions of the Franks and Saxons, and other
barbarians, Who ravaged the shores of Britain and of Gaul. In this station,
dark suspicions arose respecting his collusion with the enemy; and it being
anticipated that he would throw off his allegiance to Diocletian and Maximian,
the Emperors who: then ruled, orders were sent from Rome to put Carausius to
death. But he evaded the fatal messenger; and the wealth which he had earned by
his exploits, as well as the reputation which he gained in his victories,
persuaded the British legions and auxiliaries to hail him as Augustus, and. to
bestow upon him the imperial diadem.
Maximian, who made some fruitless attempts to rid himself of this rival,
was repelled with disgrace. The Emperor of Britain—whose dominions included
Boulogne, and the adjoining coast of Gaul—used every exertion to maintain his
sovereignty; he built vessels of war, and raised great forces, inviting to his
service the barbarians against whom he had fought, and to whose native courage
and maritime skill was now added the regular discipline of the Roman soldier.
The numerous medals struck by Carausius are no inadequate tokens of the wealth
and splendour which graced his reign; and the inscriptions and devices with which
they are impressed, display the pomp and state which he assumed in his island
empire. Ruling in Britain, Marcus Aurelius Valerius Carausius, for he had
borrowed these impressive names, was ranked as the ‘brother’ of Diocletian and
Maximian. The fleets of Carausius sailed triumphant; and from the columns of
Hercules to the mouths of the Rhine, his standard ruled the seas. When
Constantius was associated to the purple, he prepared to dispossess Carausius
of his dominions; and by a bold and fortunate enterprise, the British fleet
stationed at Boulogne was compelled to surrender. Constantius then prepared for
the invasion of Britain; but in the meanwhile, domestic conspiracies had
arisen, and Carausius was slain at York by the dagger of Allectus,
his friend and minister, who succeeded to the imperial dignity.
MAXIMUS
The details of the succession of the provincial emperors, so improperly
called ‘Tyrants,’ who either ruled in Britain alone, or in Britain as a part of
the prefecture of the Gauls, must be omitted until we arrive at the reign of
Maximus, an able and fortunate general. By some historians, he is described as
a Briton, and yet as allied to the imperial family. He disputed the empire with
Gratian; and the Bretons of Armorica, or the Lesser Britain, in Gaul, believed
that their nation sprang from the flower and youth of this island, who
accompanied him in this enterprise. The exploits of Maximus belong rather to
the general history of the Roman empire, than to the particular history of
Britain. It is sufficient to observe, that, after his death at Aquileia,
Theodorus reannexed the province of Britain to his dominions, which he
transmitted to his son Honorius, his successor in the empire of the west But
the authority acquired by the ‘Robber of Richborough,’
as Maximus is termed by Ausonius, was not entirely lost to his posterity. And
if we consult the genealogies of the Cymri, we shall
find there were princes reigning in Britain, long after the extinction of the
Roman power, who traced their descent from Maxen-Wledig,
Maximus the Emperor, and who were proud to consider him as their ancestor.
When the Empire began to decline, the Romans, as well as the Romanized
Britons, were incessantly exposed to the hostility of the Picts. These were
originally Britons, who, living beyond the Roman frontier, had continued in the
enjoyment of their independence, and whose primitive rudeness was unaffected by
the civilization which the Roman conquests had imparted to their brethren.
Tamed animals are always persecuted by the wild creatures of their own species,
and the Picts bore the greatest antipathy to their ancient kinsmen. The first
inroads of the Picts were easily repelled. But when the Scots arrived from the
opposite coast of Erin, the union of the forces of these barbarians enabled
them to pursue their operations with great success. The united hordes of the Picts
and the Scots ruched from the North like a torrent; attacked and plundered
London and though this invasion was repelled by Theodosius, still the northern
districts were never afterwards reduced to order and tranquillity.
The Scots were the relatives of the Cymri,
being another branch of the great Celtic nation, and who, at a period far
beyond all authentic history, bad established themselves in Hibernia, Erin,
or Ireland. Hence, that island, from its predominant population, was
generally called Scotia, or Insula Scotorum,
by the writers of the sixth and seventh centuries. This is a circumstance which
has often been forgotten, but it is of great importance to recollect it, for
the name of Scotia, or Scotland, as applied to the northern portion of Britain,
is comparatively of modern origin. These Irish Scots appear to have begun by
spreading themselves in straggling settlements on the coast of Argyle and the
neighbouring shores, forming little clans, or even families, not owing
obedience to any common chieftain, and without any regular government. The land
was sterile, the Pictish population thin and scanty, and
therefore the original inhabitants do not appear to have opposed the Scottish
settlements. Reuda, who arrived with rather a large
train of followers, seems to have been the first who acquired any permanent
authority amongst the British Scots; and from him they are said to have been
called Datreudini or Dalriads.
But the princes afterwards governing these nations, claimed to be descended
from Fergus, the son of Ere, who, with his brother, Lourn,
reigned towards the close of the fifth century. There was probably a flux and
reflux of population; and the history of these tribes is much clouded by fable.
But the main facts are satisfactorily established; and there is no reason to
doubt but that the Scots had emigrated from Ireland, and obtained a small tract
of country, as before described. Another colony was settled, though at what
period is uncertain, in the country called Galloway: here they appear also to
have been blended with the Picts, perhaps some of the tribes who had assisted
in the war.
We must now advert to another nation, destined to effect an entire
alteration in the fortunes of Britain. Carausius had been brought to notice,
and afterwards raised to power, by his warfare against the Franks and Saxons,
Teutonic tribes, who much infested the coasts of Britain and of Gaul. They were
repelled, but his successes had only a transient effect upon the power of the
enemy; and the name of the Saxon shore given to the coast of Britain from Branodunum or Brancaster, in Norfolk, to the portus Adurni (perhaps Pevensey)
in Sussex, is a proof of the ascendency which the associates of the Franks had
obtained. This district, in the last ages of the Roman empire, was placed under
the command of a military Count, called ‘Comes litoris Saxonici’. It has been supposed that this shore was
so called merely because it was open to the incursions of the Saxons; but it is
most probable that they, like the Scots, succeeded in fixing themselves in some
portion of the district; for it appears a strange anomaly, that a country
should be named, not from its inhabitants, but from its assailants; and in the ‘Littus Saxonicum’ of Gaul,
afterwards included in Normandy, they had obtained a permanent domicile not far
from Baieux.
Either flocking from these settlements, or passing from beyond the sea,
the Saxons joined the Picts and the Scots in their great invasion. The victory
of Theodosius produced a temporary calm; but he was compelled to follow the
host of the pirates to the extremity of the British islands, and the distant
Orcades were drenched with Saxon gore.
Whilst these events were taking place in Britain, hordes of barbarians
continued pouring into Gaul and Italy. The Roman emperors, Arcadius and
Honorius, were compelled to abandon Britain to its fate. Marcus and Gratian, successively
hailed as Emperors by the British legions, passed away like shadows. Constantine,
who was raised from the ranks by his well-omened name, and promoted to the
Imperial dignity in Britain, obtained more considerable, though transient
power. At length the connexion between Britain and Rome was entirely severed.
Britain broke, as it were, into various independent and rival communities—and
the sovereigns contended amongst themselves for the empire, whilst the hosts of
the enemy were thickening around them.
As far as we can judge, two great parties prevailed in the southern
tracts of our island. A Roman party, headed by Aurelius Ambrosius, a chieftain
of imperial descent, who claimed, or acquired the Imperial dignity; and
another, supporting the cause of the too famous Vortigern. During these
contentions, the Scots and the Picts continued their predatory warfare, and
reduced the country to the greatest misery. Any degree of union amongst the
Britons might have enabled them to repel their enemies. The walls of the cities
fortified by the Romans were yet strong and firm. The tactics of the legions
were not forgotten. Bright armour was piled in the storehouses, and the serried
line of spears might have been presented to the half-naked Scots and Picts, who
could never have prevailed against their opponents. But the Britons had no
inclination to lift the sword, except against each other. Humbly and pitifully
imploring the Romans for help, they lost all courage, except for faction, when
the Romans could not comply, but left them to their own resources. The most
ancient historian of this disturbed and lamentable period, is Gildas, himself
the son of a British king, and he bears a most forcible testimony against his
countrymen. The British kings were stained with every viceruling,
not for the protection, but for the spoil of their subjects,—and their
misconduct soon involved both kings and people in one common ruin.
CHAPTER II,
HENGIST AND HORSA, THEIR SUPPOSED TRANSACTIONS WITH VORTIGERN—PROGRESS
OF THE INVADERS—CONQUEST OF BRITAIN BY THE JUTES, ANGLES, AND SAXONS—KINGDOMS
FOUNDED BY THEM—KENT, SUSSEX, WESSEX, EAST ANGELA, ESSEX, DEIRA, BERNICIA,
MERCIA—SUBJUGATION OF THE BRITONS
The ‘three tribes of Germany’—the Jutes, the Angles, and the Saxons, by
whom Britain was subdued, seem originally to have constituted but one nation,
speaking the same language, and ruled by Monarchs who all claimed their descent
from die deified Monarch of the Teutons, Woden or
Odin. They frequently changed their position on the firm land of Europe, as the
stream of population rolled forward, impelled by the secondary causes, prepared
and destined to act in fulfilment of the decree by which the enlargement of
Japhet had been foretold.
The Jutes, together with their neighbours the Angles, dwelt in the
peninsula of Jutland, or the ‘Cimbric Chersonesus,’ and in the adjoining Holstein, where there is still a district
called Anglen. That, in fact, is the real Old England; and, properly
speaking, our ‘Old England’ is New England, though now we give that name to a
Province in America. The Saxons were more widely dispersed. Ptolemy places them
in the Cimbric Chersonesus, near the
Jutes and Angles; but they afterwards occupied a much larger extent, from the
Delta of the Rhine to the Weser. After the migration of the Saxons to Britain,
the name of Old Saxons, was given to the parent stock. One very large body of
Saxon population occupied the present’ Westphalia; but the tribes by whom
Britain was invaded, appear principally to have proceeded from the country now
called Frieseland; for of all the continental
dialects, the ancient Frisick is the one which
approaches most nearly to the Anglo-Saxon of our ancestors.
It is necessary, however, to remark, that the name ‘Saxon’ appears
rather to have been intended to denote a confederacy of tribes, than to have
originally belonged to any one nation.— Learned men have sought for the
etymology of the term in the ‘Seax’ or short sword, a weapon with which they
were armed. These and other suppositions, upon which I have not room to enlarge,
are, however, after all, only ingenious sports and fancies. We possess but a
very small number of authentic facts concerning the early history of the
barbarian nations of the West; and, though the general outline of their
position upon the ethnographical map can be understood with tolerable
precision, yet we must be always uncertain concerning the details.
Whilst Vortigern was contending with Aurelius Ambrosius, two Jutish Ealdormen,
or Chieftains, Hengist and Horsa, arrived in the Isle of Thanet with three
keels or vessels, and a small train of chosen followers. According to some of
the Chroniclers, Vortigern invited Hengist and Horsa as his allies. Others
represent them as exiles from their native land. All seem to agree that the
Jutes warred successfully against the Picts and Scots; and that, in order to
reward their services, the Isle of Thanet was bestowed upon them, in the
manner, which, as I have before described, was practised by the Romans in
favour of their Laetic or Gentile auxiliaries. The
land was given to the Jutes as their pay.
It is said by some writers, that Vortigern married Rowena, the daughter
of Hengist. She was very beautiful; and when introduced by her father at the
royal banquet of the British King, she advanced gracefully and modestly towards
him, bearing in her hand a golden goblet filled with wine. Young people, even
of the highest rank, were accustomed to wait upon their elders, or those unto
whom they wished to show respect, and therefore the appearance of Rowena as the
cup-bearer of the feast was neither unbecoming nor unseemly. And when Rowena
came near unto Vortigern, she said, in her own Saxon language,—'Was heal, hlaford Conuin’ —which means
‘Health to thee, my Lord King’. Vortigern did not understand the salutation of
Rowena, but the words were explained to him by an interpreter. ‘Drinc heal’—‘Drink
thou health,’—was the accustomed answer, and the memory of the event was
preserved in merry old England by the wassail-cup—a cup full of spiced wine or
good ale, which was handed round from guest to guest, at the banquet and the
festival. Well, therefore, might Rowena be recollected on high tides and
holidays, for the introduction of this concomitant of good cheer.
The expectations of the Jutes increased with their power. Further
demands were made upon the Britons—an increase of reward—a larger territory.—Refusal
provoked hostility; the Jutes joined with the Scots and Picts, and ravaged
Britain from East to West. An interval of ill fortune ensued, during which the
Jutes were compelled to leave the island, but they speedily returned with
greater force. They craved peace from the Britons, and a banquet was held to
celebrate the pacification. The treacherous Hengist instructed his companions
to conceal their short swords beneath their garments. At the signal, which he
gave by exclaiming, ‘Nimed cure saxes,’
they drew their weapons. The British Nobles were slain; Vortigern was taken
prisoner, and the Jutes gained possession of Kent, and extended their dominion
over a considerable portion of the adjoining country.
These details have been told so often, that they acquire a kind of
prescriptive right to credit; but I believe that they bear no nearer relation
to the real history of Anglo-Saxon England, than the story of Aeneas, as
related by Virgil, does to the real history of the foundation of Rome. Nothing
can be more unlikely than that Vortigern should have invited over these
implacable enemies of Britain, ‘the Dragons of Germany,’ as they are called by
the bards, for the purpose of warring against the Scots and Picts, with whom
they or their kinsmen had been so recently allied. We may seek for the
groundwork of the narrative, in the historical ballads of the Anglo-Saxons, in
which their early enterprises were commemorated. And even the names of Hengist and Horsa seem only to be epithets derived from their standard, the
snow-white Steed, which still appears as the ensign of Kent in England, as it
anciently did in the shield of the ‘Old Saxons’ in Germany’.
Connecting the history of the Jutes with antecedent events, it appears
most agreeable to probability, that their landing was the result of such a
piratical expedition as had so often harassed Britain in the Roman ages. Their
acquisition of the Isle of Thanet from the British King may perhaps be
credited. As I have observed, it was a grant in the nature of those which the
Romans made to the Liuti, yet not so much as the price of aid to be
obtained from the threatening colony, as for the purpose of warding off further
hostility.
Thanet is now divided from the rest of Kent by a narrow rill, crossed by
an arch of the smallest span. The rill was then a channel, nearly a mile in
width; and in this Isle, the Jutes, possessing the command of the sea, could
well maintain themselves against their disunited enemies. Several years,
however, of constant warfare elapsed before‘ Cantwara Land’ or Kent, became their dominion; and Eric, the son of Hengist, appears to
have been the first real King of the country; for he, and not his father Hengist,
was honoured as founder of the Kentish dynasty. From the spear which he
wielded, or the vessel which bore him over the waves, he was surnamed ‘Aesc’ or
Ash-tree; and Aescingas, or Sons of the Ash-tree, did
the Kings of Kent, his descendants, call themselves so long as their dynasty
endured. When Aesc was fairly settled in his rich and fertile kingdom, he laid
down the sword: his son and his son’s son lived equally in peaceful obscurity.
Ethelbert, fourth in descent from Aesc, gave great splendour to the state; but
Kent soon sunk into the condition of a dependent principality, beneath the sway
of its more powerful rivals and neighbours. No portion of our island has
continued more truly Anglo-Saxon than ‘Cantwara Land’.
The fairhaired Kentish yeoman bears in his
countenance the stamp of his remote ancestry; and the existence of the good
kind tenure in Kent, or the custom whereby the land becomes divisible among all
the children, instead of descending to the eldest, is a singular proof of the
steadiness or good fortune which enabled the Kentish men to assert their
franchises, when all England yielded io the Norman sway.
Whilst the Jutes were conquering Kent, their kindred took part in the
war. Ship after ship sailed from the North Sea, filled with eager warriors. The
Saxons now arrived—Ella and his three sons landed in the ancient territory of the
Regni. The Britons were defeated with great slaughter, and driven into the
forest of Andreade, whose extent is faintly indicated
by the wastes and commons of the Weald.
A general confederacy of the Kings and ‘Tyrants’ of the Britons was
formed against the invaders, but fresh reinforcements arrived from Germany; the
city of Andreade-Ceastre was taken by storm, all its
inhabitants were slain, and the buildings razed to the ground, so that its site
is now entirely unknown. From this period, the kingdom of the South Saxons was
established in the person of Ella; and though ruling only over the narrow
boundary of modern Sussex, he was accepted as the first of the Saxon Bretwaldas,
or Emperors of the Isle of Britain.
Encouraged, perhaps, by the good tidings received from Ella, another
band of Saxons, commanded by Cerdic and his son Cynric, landed on the
neighbouring shore, in the modern Hampshire. At first they made but little progress.
They were opposed by the Britons; but Geraint, whom the Saxon Chroniclers
celebrate for his nobility, and the British Bards extol for his beauty and
valour, was slain. The death of the Prince of the ‘Woodlands of Dyfhaint,’ or Damnonia, may have
been avenged, but the power of the Saxons overwhelmed all opposition; and
Cerdic, associating his son Cynric in the dignity, became the King of the
territory which he gained. Under Cynric and his son Ceaulin,
the Saxons slowly, yet steadily gained ground. The utmost extent of their dominions
towards the North cannot be ascertained; but they had conquered the town of
Bedford; and it was probably in consequence of their geographical position with
respect to the countries of the Middle and East Saxons, that the name
of the West Saxons was given to this colony. The tract North of the
Thames was soon lost; but on the South of that river and of the Severn, the
successors of Cerdic, kings of Wessex, continued to extend their
dominions. The Hampshire Avon, which retains its old Celtic name,
signifying the Water, seems at first to have been their boundary. Beyond
this river, the British Princes of Damnonia retained
their power; and it was long before the country as far as the Exe became a
Saxon March-land, or border.
About the time that the Saxons under Cerdic and Cynric were successfully
warring against the Britons, another colony was seen to establish itself in the
territory or kingdom which, from its geographical position, obtained the name
of East Saxony; but whereof the district of the Middle Saxons, now Middlesex,
formed a part. London, as you well know, is locally included in Middle Saxony;
and the Kings of Essex, and the other Sovereigns who afterwards acquired the
country, certainly possessed many extensive rights of sovereignty in the city.
Yet, I doubt much whether London was ever incorporated in any Anglo-Saxon
kingdom; and I think we must view it as a weak, tributary, vassal state, not
very well able to resist the usurpations of the supreme Lord or Suzerain, Aescwin, or Ercenwine, was the
first King of the East Saxons. His son Sleda was
married to Ricola, daughter to Ethelbert of Kent, who
afterwards appears as the superior, or sovereign of the country; and though Sleda was King, yet Ethelbert joined in all important acts
of government. This was the fate of Essex—it is styled a kingdom, but it never
enjoyed any political independence, being always subjected to the adjoining
Kings.
Thus did the Jutes and the Saxons resort to Britain; and now came the
Angles—and in such numbers, that Old England was almost emptied of its
inhabitants; and the district continued very thinly peopled, even in the days
of Venerable Bede. The tribes dwelling in the adjoining tracts did not occupy
the country, although they continued pouring forth their colonies into many
other parts of the world; nor was it replenished by the progeny of the Angles
who had been left behind. And this circumstance is worthy of note, because it
shows how little the movements or multiplication of mankind are regulated by
those uniform theories of population which, on paper, exhibit so much plausibility,
and ingenuity. Some of these Angles first conducted by unknown chieftains, and
apparently divided into two great tribes, the North-Folk and the South-Folk,
acquired the eastern part of the island, afterwards denominated East Anglia, of
which the modern counties of Norfolk and Suffolk constitute the greatest part.
Here they were almost separated from the rest of Britain; for a wide expanse of
marshes bounded their territory towards the West; and these watery wastes being
connected with each other by numerous shallow streams, in many places expanding
into meres and broads, the country had nearly the appearance of a peninsula. At
the isthmus where these natural defences ended, the East Anglians cast up a very strong fortification, consisting of a deep moat and a lofty
rampart. In the middle ages it was often called the ‘Rech dyke’, or Giants
dyke: the common people attributed it to the Fiend. The heath through which the
rampart extends, not having been subjected to cultivation, the Devil’s Dyke is
yet very entire, and is one of the most remarkable monuments of its kind. But
the marshes have been drained, and Croyland and
Thorney no longer rise like islands in the midst of a marshy lake; though still
the nature of the fen countries is not entirely altered; and the traveller can
easily picture to himself the ancient the floods. Uffa was the first of the East Anglian Chieftains who acquired the title of a King,
within the boundaries which I have thus described. And as the Kings of Kent
were known as Aescingas, so were the
Sovereigns of East Anglia distinguished by the patronymic of Uffingas, or sons of Uffa.
But their annals have been almost wholly lost; and the history of East Anglia
is nearly a blank in the Chronicles of England.
The British kingdoms of Deyfyr and Bryneich (latinised into Deira and Bernicia), extending
from the Humber to the Firth of Forth, were divided from each other by a
forest, occupying the tract between the Tyne and Tees; and which, unreclaimed by man, was abandoned to the wild-deer.
Properly speaking, this borderland does not seem originally to have belonged to
either kingdom; but, in subsequent times, the boundary between Deira and
Bernicia was usually fixed at the Tyne. The Trans-humbrane countries were exposed at an early period to the attacks of the Jutes and
Saxons. Some chroniclers say, that Octa and Ebusa,
sons of Hengist, conquered a portion of e cthountry.
At the onset, the invaders made little progress. The Britons of the neighbouring Reged and Strath-Clyde, governed by valiant Princes,
the descendants of the Roman Maximus, appear to have possessed more unity than
their brethren in the South; and their efforts supported the population of
Deira and Bernicia, in resisting their enemies. The scale was evenly poised
until the English Ida landed at the promontory called Flamborough-Head, with
forty vessels, all manned with chosen warriors. Urien, the hero of the Bards,
opposed a strenuous resistance, but the Angles had strengthened themselves on
the coast. Fresh reinforcements poured in; and Ida, the ‘Bearer of Flame,’ as
he was termed by the Britons, became the master and Sovereign of the land which
he had assailed. Ida erected a tower or fortress, which was at once his castle
and his palace; and so deeply were the Britons humiliated by this token of his
power, that they gave the name of the Shame of Bernicia to the structure
which he had raised. Ida afterwards bestowed this building upon his Queen,
Bebba, from whom it was, or rather is, denominated Bebban-Burgh, the Burgh or fortress of Bebba, commonly abbreviated into Bamborough.
The massy keep yet stands; and the voyager, follow the course of the Abbess of
St. Hilda, may yet see
King Ida’s castle huge and square
From its tall rock look grimly down,
And on the swelling ocean frown.
Ida’s dominions were intersected by tracts still belonging to the
Britons, who ultimately yielded to the invaders. In Deira, the progress of the
Angles, or English, was slow: York, it is true, had been plundered by the
Saxons, and Archbishop Sampson compelled to take refuge in Armorica or Brittany;
but until the 559 accession of Ella, Deira is not known to have been subjected
to an English king. Ella was not of the same family as Ida. Both were children
of Woden; but Ida was descended from the fifth son of
the fabled monarch, whilst Ella traced his ancestry to Baldeg,
the sixth son, from whom the kings of Wessex were also descended. Ida had
twelve sons. Six of these are said to have reigned in succession after him, one
after another. This statement seems to be improbable; and I should rather think
that they took distinct principalities, or portions of the kingdom. Ella, king
of Deira, appears to have compelled the sons of Ida to become tributary to him.
And the two houses of Bernicia and Deira continued, during several years, in a
state of rivalry and hostility. Deira ultimately prevailed in the person of
Edwin.
The two states were now usually known by the collective name of Northumbria.
Though not united into one community, they were generally governed by one
monarch; and the kingdom became, for a time, the most powerful in Anglo-Saxon
Britain.
The country adjoining the English settlements of East Anglia and Deira,
and which bordered on the lands of the British tribes, obtained the name of the
March, or boundary. The English chieftains who settled in it, seem originally
to have considered themselves as freed from any control, A.D. 585; but Creoda, their first
king, A.D. 593, who appears to have been the Ruler of the Middle Angles, must
have been a vassal under the supremacy of Northumbria. Penda, a fierce and
valiant warrior, cast off this allegiance, A.D. 626, the March or Mercia was
now established as an independent state, A.D. 655; and though more than once
reduced to subjection, either by Northumbria or by Wessex, its sovereigns continued
to extend their dominions at the expense of the Britons, until at length,
having acquired all the midland parts of Loegria, the
Britons of Cambria were exposed to their constant hostility. That a portion of
the dominions of Wessex passed into Mercia, has been already noticed. London
was afterwards wrested by the Mercians from the West Saxons, and the
geographical extent of the state perhaps exceeded any other of the Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms. But Mercia never became compact. The population was greatly mixed;
the Britons approached nearly to the number of the English, and the chieftains,
or Ealdormen, who ruled the minor states of which it was composed, possessed
great power; so that the kingdom contained within it the seeds of disunion and
decay.
In this manner were formed the states of the so called Heptarchy, an
erroneous term, but one which has become so familiar by usage, that there is
some difficulty in discarding it from history. It must, however, be rejected,
because an idea is conveyed thereby, which is substantially wrong. At no one
period of our history were there ever seven kingdoms independent of each
other. And if we include those kingdoms which were subservient to larger
states, the number must be increased. The nephew of Cerdic ruled the Isle of
Wight with regal title. In Mercia, the chieftain of ‘Hwiccas’, had as much authority in his good city
of Worcester, as the king of Essex had in London. But, however divided, the
nations, whom we term Anglo-Saxons, were thus possessed of the best parts of
Britain; whilst the Cymri were driven to the western
side of the island, and principally those districts where the natural
fortifications of moors and mountains, and lakes and woods, enabled them to
withstand their invaders.
Part of the Britons retained possession of Strathclyde and Cumbria,
extending from Alcluyd, now called Dunbreton, or Dunbarton,—the Dun or fortress of the
Britons,—to the southern borders of Lancashire; whilst the ridge of mountains,
not unaptly termed the British Apennines, separated them from Northumbria.
Another great mass of British population continued in possession of Damnonia or Devonshire, with its dependency, Cernaw or Cornwall, which countries the Saxons called West
Wales. Here the Britons, although their enemies were daily gaining ground upon
them, still dreamt that they retained the monarchy of Britain, until
Cadwallader, sumamed ‘Bhendyged,’
or the Blessed, resigned his crown, and went to Rome, where he died, a penitent
and a pilgrim. Many of the Britons fled beyond sea to Armorica: those who
remained behind seem to have consisted chiefly of the peasantry. The Britons
then took their stand beyond the Exe, and afterwards beyond the Tamar, until at
length they submitted to the English ascendency, and lost every trace of
national power.
Lastly, the noblest of the Britons maintained themselves in Cambria, or
Wales. The Anglo-Saxons, and particularly the Mercians, more than once overran
their country; but the Cymri defended themselves
amidst their fastnesses. They detested the Saxons, and would neither conform to
the Saxon customs nor the Saxon laws. The Romanized Britons of Loegria appear to have united more readily to their
invaders. I apprehend that they possessed less nationality; and sometimes even
national prejudices are the safeguards of independence. In the kingdoms or
principalities of the Western Cymri, of which,
according to a nomenclature of perhaps later origin, the states of Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys, and Gwent, were the most important, the
old lines or dynasties of Princes continued unbroken: many subsist in the
nobility and gentry of Wales at the present day; and the whole body of the
people continued in possession of their native soil, and unmingled with the
stranger. Yet, though unconquered, they were overshadowed by the supremacy of
the Anglo-Saxon sceptre: they bent before the Anglo-Saxon throne, and rendered
tribute to the Anglo-Saxon Kings. Thus did the dominion of the Britons passed away:
thus were the British people either banished from their own country, or reduced
into vassalage. And the island, from the ‘Pictish sea’
to the shore of the Channel, became the inheritance of the Anglo-Saxons, who
caused their own language, and their own customs and laws, to become paramount
in Britain.
CHAPTER III.
HENISM OF THE ANGLO-SAXONS—DEITIES WORSHIPPED. THEM ORIGIN OF THE
PAPAL AUTHORITY. POPE GRERGOY UNDERTAKES THE CONVERSION OF ANGLO-SAXON BRITAIN—MISSIONS
OF AUGUSTINE AND PAULINUS—TEMPORAL EFFECTS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY
-ETHELBERT OF KENT AND EDWIN OF NORTHUMBRIA. CONVERSION OF THOSE
KINGS—FOUNDATION OF THE SEES OF CANTERBURY AND LONDON.
Amongst the heathen, we may discern several shades or
gradations of delusion. Some nations, like the Mexicans, have so entirely
renounced the Divine assistance, as to be allowed to fall into absolute
devil-worship; knowingly and wittingly worshipping the sources of evil, and
attempting to propitiate the demons whom they adore, by actions which they must
confess to be crimes. Others have erred, not so much by denying the Almighty,
as by bestowing his attributes upon his creatures, to whom they have rendered the
worship due to the Creator. The sun going forth in his course, the moon walking
in brightness, and the starry host of heaven, have all received the honour appertaining
only to the powers by whom they were framed. Nor has this idolatry be confined
to inanimate objects; for the lawgivers, the rulers, and the warriors of the
people, have been deified by the ignorance or fraud of their subjects or disciples.
This sin against the Divine Majesty may exist in fact, although not
acknowledged in form. Whenever any veneration is rendered to human virtue, any
respect paid to human wisdom, or any confidence placed in human power, in such
a manner as to render us unmindful that our talents are the free gifts of
Providence, we err, even as if we offered the hecatomb to Apollo, or burnt the
incense before Baal.
The religion of the Anglo-Saxons, in general, —it is
not in our power to distinguish between the particular tribes,—was evidently a
compound of the worship of the celestial bodies, or Sabaism,
as it is termed, and of hero-worship; and the Anglo- Saxon names of the days of
the week enable us to give a compendium of their creed.
Sunnandaeg and Monandaeg, or Sunday and Monday, scarcely
need a version. It must be remarked, however, that, contrary to the mythology
of the Greeks and Romans, the Sun was considered by all the Teutons as a
female, and the Moon as a male deity. They had an odd notion that if they
addressed that power as a Goddess, their wives would be their masters.
The third day of the week, following the two great
festivals of Sun-day and Moon-day, was known amongst many of the German nations
by the name of Dings.tag or the Court-day, the
popular tribunals being then held. But the Anglo-Saxons called it Tiues-doeg, or Tuesday. Some learned men suppose
that Tiues is the Tuisco noticed by Tacitus as a deity, whom the Teutons praised in their hymns, and
from whom the Teutonic nations were named. Others identify him with Tyr, one of
the twelve companions of Odin, much venerated in the North.
Wodnesdaeg, or Wednesday, was consecrated to the great Woden,
or Odin, The worship of this Hero was common to all the Teutons. He was
their King, from whom their science and lore had been derived—the song of the
bard and the incantation of the sorcerer had been taught by Odin—and all the
Princes and Rulers of the Anglo-Saxons claimed, as I have before observed, to
be considered as his progeny. In the Scandinavian Sagas, or romances, Odin
appears as the leader by whom the ‘Asi,’ or Northmen, were conducted to the
shores of the Baltic from their original clime, perhaps the neighbourhood of
the Black Sea; and the learned historians of Sweden and Denmark, by the
ingenious device of supposing that there were three Wodens or Odins at different periods, have contrived to reduce the adventures ascribed
to him to a kind of consistent chronology. Woden must, however, be considered merely as a mythological creation; and though it
is very probable that there is some authentic foundation for the historical
character of the ‘Furious One,’—such being the meaning of his name,—yet it is
quite impossible to analyse the elements of which it is composed.
Thor, the patron deity of Thorsdag, or Thursday, follows in the rank
immediately after Odin. Thor, like the Roman Jove, to whom the same day was
assigned, was worshipped as the Thunderer; his
thunderbolt was a hammer, which he wielded with irresistible force; and many
tales and fables are told of his achievements and battles against Giants and
Demons.
Freya was the wife of
Odin, and gave her name to Freua-dag, or
Friday. She was the Venus of the North.
Lastly came Sater, from whom Saturday was named. He was represented as standing upon a fish, and he held a bucket in
his hand, so that he appears to have been a Water deity.
Besides the before-mentioned Deities, many others
received their share of honour. Saxnote, the
son of Odin, was venerated by the old Saxons of Germany, and probably by their
kinsmen in Britain, almost as highly as Odin himself; and from him the Kings of
Essex were descended. On the Continent, the Slavonians, who spread themselves
into Europe out of Asia, at a later period than the Teutons, had possessed
themselves of the shores of the Baltic, where the old Saxons dwelled. The
Russians are Slavonians; but this great nation consisted of many tribes, and
the wild people who advanced as far as the Elbe were also called Slavo-Winidi, Vendi, or Vandals. Their mythology had
some affinity to the system which now prevails amongst the Hindoos.
Their idols were often many-headed, and covered with symbols. The Slavonians or
Vandals adopted some of the Teuton Gods from their Saxon neighbours: the latter
equally borrowed from the Slavonians; and Saeter appears to have been one of these foreign deities.
In Britain, especially in Deira, the Angles appear to
have united their own idolatry to the ministration of a druidical hierarchy.
This flexibility of opinion was not the result of unsteadiness. Ignorantly
worshipping, and knowing not how to seek the truth, they felt the insufficiency
of their belief, and yearned for a better creed. Rocks, and running streams,
and green trees, were considered as objects requiring libations and sacrifices.
Not that the Anglo-Saxons believed that stocks and
stones, or the water, could listen to them; but they offered their prayers
beneath the shadows of the forest, or on the banks of the rushing torrent, as
being the places more particularly haunted by the Elves, or subordinate Deities
who filled this sublunary globe, though unseen to mortal eye. Yet,
notwithstanding these and many other similar delusions, the Teutonic nations
retained some faint reminiscences of the truths revealed or shadowed to the
Patriarchs. Possibly the week of seven days, as used by them, may be considered
as one of these vestiges. They had a very firm conviction that the soul did not
perish with the body. Of their conception of the essence of the Divine Being,
the Anglo-Saxon language affords a singular testimony, for the name of God signifies
Good. He was goodness itself, and the author of ah goodness. Yet the idea of
denoting the Deity by a term equivalent to abstract and absolute perfection,
striking as it may appear, is perhaps less remarkable than the fact, that the
word Man, which they used, as we do, to designate a human being, also
signified Wickedness; showing how well they were aware that our fallen nature
had become identified with sin and corruption. They held the doctrine, that
this visible world was to be judged and destroyed, preparatory to a new and
happier state of being. Though wild, and ferocious towards their enemies, they
were less corrupted than the more polished Greeks and Romans. They were
faithful, chaste, and honest—turning towards the light, and seeking amendment.
The ground was good; and when the sower cast the
seed, it brought forth an abundant harvest.
Whilst the Jutes, the Angles, and the Saxons were
establishing their temporal dominion in Britain, the means of imparting to them
the saving truths of the Gospel were preparing by the intervention of Gregory,
who then held the station of Bishop or Patriarch, or, as his office is now more
usually termed, of Pope of Rome.
The possession of the Roman Bishopric gave great rank
and pre-eminence to the Prelate by whom this dignity was enjoyed. After the Romans,
and the nations constituting the Roman empire, had been converted to
Christianity, it appeared expedient, that, when the Bishops of the different
cities and provinces were assembled for the purpose of deliberating on the rule
and government of the church, certain Prelates amongst them should be appointed
to preside and keep order in these councils of the Clergy. And this duty was
assigned to the Bishops, sometimes called Patriarchs, whose chairs or ‘Cathedra’ were placed in the mother, or principal churches of the most important Dioceses;
for this latter term, which is now exclusively applied to ecclesiastical
divisions, was used according to the imperial nomenclature—as I have before
observed—to denote one of the classes of the temporal governments into which
the empire was divided. The first, or Primate, of the Cathedral Bishops, was
the Patriarch of Rome, who was complimented with an honorary precedence over
other Bishops, because Rome was anciently the capital of the whole empire.
Constantinople, or New Rome, had a Patriarch, who also possessed the rank of a
President; because that city, when the empire was divided, became the capital
of the Empire of the East. Jerusalem was the seat of a Patriarch, out of
respect to the Holy City; Antioch and Alexandria, as the chief cities of Asia
Minor and of Africa, also possessed Prelates, invested with the Patriarchal
dignity; and many other cities enjoyed the same honour.
Bishops derive their order and spiritual functions
from the Apostles. But the arrangements relating to the places where they are
fixed, and to the endowments of their sees, form, a part of the civil
government of the church; and as they are not essentially connected with, her
doctrines, they may be altered by competent authority. The Church of Rome
perverted many human institutions into articles of faith; and the pre-eminence
assigned to the ‘Chair of St. Peter,’ unconnected as it was with anything
except the temporal government of the empire, became the origin and source of
the vast dominion which the Popes afterwards assumed over the other churches of
the Christian world.
Pope Gregory had become much interested in the welfare
of the Anglo-Saxons, in consequence of an incident which happened to him at an
earlier period of his life. It chanced that about he passed through the market
at Rome, where certain dealers had just arrived from foreign parts with various
kinds of merchandise. Amongst other articles, there were slaves for sale, like
cattle. This wicked traffic had existed from time immemorial; and though Christianity
had alleviated the lot of the slave, it had not succeeded in breaking his
bonds. Gregory, therefore, could .only pity the captives; and he was
particularly interested by the appearance of some poor little lads, who stood
trembling in the expectation of being consigned to a new master. They were
beautiful children, with ruddy cheeks and blue eyes, and their fine yellow
tresses flowing in long curls upon their shoulders. Long hair, in those days,
was a token of dignified birth. Only kings and nobles were accustomed to allow
of its growth: persons of an inferior or servile class were closely shorn.
Gregory must, therefore, have felt an additional motive for compassion, since
he perceived that these children had sustained some great reverse of
fortune—and their sufferings must be comparatively much more poignant than if
they had been accustomed to privation and labour. Hie father of the boys had probably
been killed in war; and the children, brought up in ease and comfort, were now
exposed to hopeless captivity, passing from the tender care of their parents to
the power of a merciless task-master in a strange land.
‘To what nation do these poor boys belong?’ was the
question which Gregory asked of the dealer. ‘They are Angles, Father.’ ‘Well
may they be so called, for they are as comely as angels; and would that, like
angels, they might become Cherubim in Heaven! But from which of the many provinces
of Britain do they come?’ ‘From Deira, Father.’ ‘Indeed,’ continued
Gregory, speaking in Latin, ‘De ira Dei liberandi sunt’. From the wrath of God they are to be
delivered. And when, on asking the name of their king, he was told it was Ella,
or Alla, he added, that Allelujah,
praise ye the Lord, ought to be sung in his dominions.
This conversation may appear trifling ; but it was
destined to produce the most important effects. The state of Britain having
been introduced to the notice of Gregory, he brooded over the thought, and
determined to proceed hither in the character of a missionary. Impediments
arose, which prevented him from carrying this design into effect, but the
impression continued firm in his mind; and when he became Pope of Rome, he
despatched Augustine to fulfil the task, the accomplishment of which he had so
earnestly desired.
At this period, Kent was governed by Ethelbert, a
monarch of great power and ability, who had compelled the other sovereigns of
the island, whether Britons or Anglo-Saxons, to acknowledge him as their superior.
He had married a princess named Bertha, the sister of Charibert, king of Paris.
This lady was a Christian; and, by permission of her husband, she had caused a
deserted church, built by the Romans in the neighbourhood of Canterbury, to be
repaired and fitted up for divine service. Ethelbert, therefore, was not
altogether unacquainted with the character and functions of Augustine and his
forty companions, who, when they had landed in the Isle of Thanet, sent a messenger
to him, soliciting an interview. Still he had a strange opinion that they might
be magicians; and, by a still stranger idea, he fancied they were less likely
to be able to hurt him by their enchantments, if he received them in the open
air.
Augustine and his companions proceeded to the
appointed place, and advanced towards the king, chanting the Litany, and
praying earnestly for the Divine blessing and protection:
For ever hallowed be this morning fair,
Blest be the unconscious shore on which ye tread,
And blest the Silver Cross, which ye, instead
Of martial banner, in procession bear;
The Cross preceding Him who floats in air,
The pictured Saviour!—By Augustine led,
They come—and onward travel without dread,
Chanting in barbarous ears a tuneful prayer,
Sung for themselves, and those whom they would free!
Rich conquest waits them The tempestuous sea
Of ignorance, that ran so rough and high,
And heeded not the voice of clashing swords,
These good men humble by a few bare words,
And calm with fear of God's divinity.
Ethelbert did not at first yield much attention to the
Missionaries. He excused himself from attending to their exhortations; but he
received the Priests with kindness, and allowed them free liberty to preach to
the people. Ethelbert himself soon became a listener and a convert; and within
a short period, all the inhabitants of Kent were convinced of their folly in
worshipping Thor and Woden, the idols of their
ancestors.
So earnestly indeed did the men of Kent listen to
Augustine, that upwards of ten thousand of them were baptized on one
Christmas-day. And we have yet a friendly and confidential letter, addressed by
Pope Gregory to Eulogius, his brother Patriarch of
Alexandria, containing an account of the joyful success attending the missionaries
who had laboured amongst the English, ‘in the most remote parts of the world.’
He speaks nearly in the same tone which we should now adopt, if relating the
fruits of a mission in Polynesia.
Ethelbert was extremely anxious to afford to Augustine
and his companions the means of performing divine worship with decency and
solemnity; and he surrendered, to them his own palace, that they might live
therein, and erect a church adjoining: at the same time, he bestowed many ample
possessions for the maintenance of the priests who were to become its
ministers. This church is now the Cathedral of Canterbury. The present structure,
though ancient, is of date long subsequent to the age of Augustine. After a
great fire, which consumed the cathedral in the eleventh century, it was
rebuilt by Lanfranc, and other portions are of yet later periods. Still the
Cathedral retains its original consecration; and venerable as the fabric
appears to the eye, it acquires a greater title to our respect, when we
recollect how long the spot has been hallowed by the worship of the Lord.
Sebert, the king of the East Saxons, was the nephew of
Ethelbert, being the son of his sister Ricola, and
the Christian missionaries therefore obtained an easy access into his
dominions. London was still noted for its opulence; its fame was diffused far
and wide; and the city was the resort of merchants from all parts of the world.
I say, still, because it had been equally pre-eminent in the Roman times. And
the great confusion consequent upon the Saxon conquest had scarcely injured the
prosperity of London, which has continued increasing from the time of the
Romans till the present day.
London was quite unlike the great metropolis which we
now inhabit. Its extent was confined to what is now termed ‘ the city,’ then
surrounded by a wall, built, as it is supposed, about the age of Constantine,
and of which a few fragments are existing. All around was open country. Towards
the north-east a deep marsh,—the name is yet preserved in Moorfields,—extended
to the foot of the Roman ramparts. On the western side of the city, and at the
distance of nearly two miles, the branches of a small river which fell into the
Thames formed an island, so overgrown with thickets and brushwood, that the
Saxons called it ‘Thorney’ or the ‘Isle of Thorns’. The river surrounding
Thomey crept sullenly along the plashy soil; and the spot was so wild and desolate,
that it is described as a fearful and terrible place, which no one could
approach after nightfall without great danger. In this island there had been an
ancient Roman temple, consecrated to Apollo. And Sebert, perhaps on account of
the seclusion which Thomey afforded, resolved to build a church on the site,
and he dedicated the fabric to St Peter the Apostle. This Church is now
Westminster Abbey; the busy city of Westminster is old Thomey Island, that seat
of desolation ; and the bones of Sebert yet rest in the structure which he
founded. Another great church was built by Sebert, in the city of London, upon
the ruins of the heathen temple of Diana. This church is now St. Paul’s
Cathedral; and Mellitus being appointed the first Bishop by Ethelbert and
Sebert, the succession has continued to the present day.
During the lifetime of Augustine, the Anglo-Saxons to
the North of the Humber continued strangers to Christianity. Their conversion
took place under the reign of Edwin, who, after many vicissitudes of fortune,
attained the supreme dignity, and became the Bretwalda or Emperor amongst the
Kings of the island of Britain.
Edwin had married Ethelburgha,
the daughter of Ethelbert; and at the request of Eadbert, her brother—who
succeeded to the kingdom of Kent, upon the death of Ethelbert—he had permitted
Paulinus, a missionary despatched by Justus, Archbishop of Canterbury, to enter
his dominions. Paulinus was received with courtesy, and his conduct continued
to command the respect which, at first, had been yielded to his station.
Instead of injudiciously urging the object of his mission, he waited until the
way should open before him. About this time, Cwichelm,
the King of Wessex, unable to withstand the power of Edwin, treacherously
attempted to destroy him by assassination (A.D. 625-626). Eomer, the agent
chosen for this nefarious purpose, approached the throne of Edwin in the
character of an Ambassador; and when the King stretched forth his hand to
welcome the stranger, the latter drew his sword, and attempted to transfix the
King.—But Edwin’s faithful Thane, Lilia, whose keen eye had caught the gesture
of the murderer, threw himself between his master and the point of the weapon.
Yet so fierce and fell was the thrust, that it passed through the body of the
Thane; and though Edwin’s life was saved, he received a dangerous wound. Amidst
this alarm, Ethelburgha was seized by the pangs of
childbirth, and the mother, as well as the infant, appeared in the greatest
danger. The prayers of Paulinus were offered for the queen and her babe: they
both recovered; and twelve of the royal household, as well as the infant, were
baptized by Edwin’s permission and request.
Edwin himself still hesitated: he was about to engage
in war with Cwichelm, for the purpose of punishing
his treachery. He asked Paulinus for a sign, and declared, that, should he
succeed against his enemies, he would adopt the Christian faith.
As soon as Edwin recovered from his wounds, he
collected his forces, marched against the men of Wessex, and inflicted a signal
punishment upon all who had conspired against him. On his return, he performed
his vow in part: he abjured idolatry; no longer did he sacrifice to the false
Gods whom he had adored; and he anxiously laboured to put himself in the right
way. Much of his time he passed in discussion with Paulinus, and also with his
Counsellors and Nobles, but more in communing with his own heart, in solitude,
in reflection, and in prayer.
Edwin was one day alone in his chamber, being in that
state of imperfect conviction, when the feelings of religion, alloyed by human
doubts, impart more distress than comfort to the soul,—Paulinus suddenly
entered, placed his hand upon Edwin’s head, and announced a great deliverance
from his enemies. The appearance of Paulinus, his attitude, and the
intelligence which he thus communicated, corresponded with a foreboding or
presentiment which Edwin had received, probably by a dream, when in exile at
the court of Redwald, King of the East Angles; and Paulinus, availing himself
of the impression thus created, earnestly exhorted Edwin to acknowledge that
Power by whom he had been protected and rescued from temporal danger. Edwin now
began to yield the assent which he had so long delayed; and he declared unto
Paulinus, that he would receive the sacrament of baptism, provided the wise Lawgivers
of his kingdom would sanction his conversion, and also adopt Christianity.
Edwin had even yet only a wavering faith: humanly
speaking, however, his conduct was palliated by the circumstances in which he
was placed. The Kings of the Anglo-Saxons did not possess a despotic authority.
They were forced to act by the advice of their Nobles, many of whom were
Sovereigns in their territories, though the Vassals of the King; and if the
Northumbrian chieftains had continued contumaciously averse to Christianity,
Edwin would not only have been unable to protect the Missionaries, but he might
himself have been in danger of losing his crown, and perhaps his life. And that
the course so adopted was prudent, may be understood by the ready assent given
by Paulinus, to the proposition which Edwin had thus made.
Edwin, therefore, convened his Nobles and
Counsellors—and craved their advice upon the important question which he
propounded: each was to give his opinion separately from the rest, and each was
asked by the King to declare his mind concerning Christianity.
The first who spoke was the High Priest of the Heathen
Gods, Coifi by name, who acknowledged the utter
vanity of those idols which he had served. He had found that these imaginary
Deities could not reward the good; we must suppose that he equally acknowledged
their want of power to punish the evil doer; and he concluded by declaring,
that if any better doctrine could be taught to him he would adopt it without
hesitation or delay. Then spoke another of the Nobles, who, addressing himself
to Edwin, compared the present life of man to the flight of a swallow:—whence
it comes we know not, nor whither it proceeds: our human existence is a gleam
in the midst of darkness. “We know nothing of our origin,” said he, “nothing of
our end; and if this new doctrine can teach us anything certain of our destiny,
well is it worth that we should follow its law”
All the other Nobles and Counsellors delivered opinions
to the same effect: not a dissentient voice was heard; and Grift, the High
Priest, proposed that the Heathen places of worship should be destroyed, or
burnt with fire.—But who is to execute this task?—The High Priest answers, that
he himself will set the example of destroying the pristine objects of idolatry.
From the tone he which the question was put and
answered, it is probable that seme danger was apprehended from the auger of the
people, and Coifi began his work in such a manner, as
to show the most complete abandonment of the Heathen law. According to die
ritual of Beira, a Priest could not bear a weapon, or ride on a horse. Coifi girt himself with a sword, and grasped a lance in his
hand, and mounting one of the royal steeds, he galloped to the temple of ‘Godmundinghsun.’
This place of worship appears to have been encircled
by several concentric enclosures, like the morais of
Polynesia, and as soon as Cods came within reach of the fane, he hurled his
spear against its walls. When the people first saw him sally forth, they
thought some sudden insanity had seized him. How much mere must they have been
astonished at this act!—Yet no opposition was offered; within a very short
space of time, the fabric was levelled to the ground, and after the lapse of so
many centuries, its name, but slightly altered, continues to attest the truth
of the history.
Baptism was then performed by immersion, and so
general and so fervent was the zeal of the Northumbrians, that Paulinus was employed
during thirty-six successive days, from morning to night, in baptizing the
eager multitude.
Before a century had elapsed, Christianity was firmly
and sincerely believed throughout Anglo-Saxon Britain; and, in the state of
society which then prevailed, the establishment of the true religion became the
means of conferring the greatest temporal advantages upon the community. A
large proportion of the population consisted either of slaves, or of churls or
villains, who were compelled to till the ground for the benefit of their
masters. These classes immediately gained the comfort of rest, one day in
seven; and they whose labour had hitherto been unremitted, without any pause,
except when fainting nature sunk under incessant toil, could now expect the
Sabbath of the Lord, as a day of holiness and of repose. So strictly did the
temporal laws protect the observance of the seventh day, the right and privilege
of the poor, that the master who compelled his slave to work on the Sunday, was
deprived of the means of abusing his power,—the slave obtained his freedom.
A tenth part of the produce of the land was set apart
for the maintenance of the clergy, and the support of the destitute. Charity,
when resulting from the unaided impulses of humanity, has no permanence.
Bestowed merely to relieve ourselves from the painful sight of misery, the
virtue blesses neither the giver nor the receiver. But, proceeding from the
love of God, it is steady and uniform in its operation, not wayward, not
lukewarm, not affected by starts and fancies, and ministering to more than the
bodily wants of those who are in need.
Paupers, such as we now see, then rarely existed. Bad
as it was, the system of slavery had given a house and a home to the great mass
of the lowest orders. And the laws, which placed the middling classes under protection,
and at the same time under the control of the more powerful, prevented all such
as really belonged to society, from experiencing any severe privations in those
years when the people were not visited by any particular misfortunes. But mankind
were then subjected, to many calamities, which have been moderated in our
times. If crops failed, and the earth did not bring forth her fruit, vessels
arrived not from distant parts, laden with com. Hunger wasted the land. Sickness
and pestilence followed, and thinned the remnant who had been left. Families
were broken up, and the survivors became helpless outcasts; for the people of
each country raised only as much grain as was sufficient for their own use, and
could not supply their neighbours. War often produced still greater miseries.
In all these distresses, the spirit of Christianity constantly urged those who
were influenced by this enduring spring of action, to exert themselves in
affording relief;—to clothe the naked and feed the hungry,—to visit the
sick—and bury the corpses of the departed.
The higher or ruling orders saw, in the plain letter
of the Bible, the means of amending the rude and savage laws which had governed
their forefathers; and religion also afforded the means of improving the whole
fabric of the state. In addition to their piety, the clergy were the depositaries
of all the learning of the age. All the knowledge which distinguishes
civilization from savage life was entrusted to them. Admitted into the supreme
Councils of the Realm, they became an Order, possessing acknowledged rights
which could not be lawfully assailed. And though they may occasionally have
attempted to extend their privileges beyond their proper bounds, yet, in a monarchy,
the existence or any one Rank or Order invested with franchises which the King
must not assail, is in itself a strong and direct protection to the privileges
of all other ranks of the community. Powerful as the nobles may have been, it
is doubtful whether they could have maintained their ground, had they been
deprived of the support which they derived from the Bishops and Abbots, who
stood foremost m the ranks, amongst the Peers of the monarchy. Many a blow
which would have cleft the helmet, turned off without harm from the mitre; and
the crozier kept many an enemy at bay, who would have rushed without
apprehension upon the spear.
To the successors of the Anglo-Saxon prelates, we
mainly owe the preservation of the forms and spirit of a free government,
defended, not by force, but by law; and the altar may be considered as the
corner-stone of the ancient constitution of the realm.
CHAPTER IV
ROYAL DIGNITY NOT
EXISTING AMONGST THE SAXONS AND JUTES BEFORE THEIR ARRIVAL IN BRITAIN. KINGS. MORYAL
AUTHORITY AMONGST THE BARBARIANS HOW DEDUCED FROM THE ROMAN AUTHORITY—CLOVIS—BRETWALDAS OR
EMPERORS OF BRITAIN—ELLA—CEAWLIN—ETHELBERT—EKDWALD—EDWIN OSWALD—OSWIO—RISE OF
THE KINDOM OF MERCIA—ETHELBALD—OFFA—DECLINE OF MERCIA, AND RISE OF WESSEX
If by the royal dignity we are to understand a permanent
authority, enabling the Sovereign to give laws to his subjects in time of
peace, to command them to follow him in time of war, and to impose taxes or
tributes upon the nation at all times, such an authority was wholly unknown to
the Jutes, Angles, and Saxons, before they settled in Britain. Their chieftains
were called Ealdormen or Aldermen in plain English, Eldermen, a title originally employed to denote only
the very highest of the chieftains,—Cerdic and Cynric, or Hengist and
Horsa,—but which was afterwards given by courtesy to almost every person in command.
It was common to all the Teutonic nations; but those who adopted the Latin
language translated the title into Senior, the origin of the Seigneur, Señor,
and Signore of the French, Spaniards, and
Italians.
To return to our Anglo-Saxon and Jutish Aldermen—they
constituted a kind of ruling Caste or Tribe, all sons of Woden,
perhaps anciently invested with sacerdotal functions—the priests, as well as
the lawgivers and leaders of the, nation. Collectively as a Caste, and
individually over their own immediate followers and retainers, they possessed
great dominion and influence; but there was no political power of any wide extent,
vested in any one individual, excepting during hostilities. A chieftain was
then elected to lead the nation, but his rule expired with the urgency which
had given it birth, and all the Aldermen were alike again. Such was the
government of the old Saxons, but among others of the Teutonic nations, the
authority of the chieftains had greatly extended. The Romans not infrequently
bestowed the title of ‘Rex’ upon the leaders who had submitted to them, and who
were by no means unwilling to purchase an increased authority over their
subjects, by compromising their own political independence. Instances of this
practice are found as early as the time of Julius Caesar, and they afford a
curious exemplification of die course pursued by the Romans in the days of
their strength. When the empire decayed, grants of similar titles were the
result of the weakness of the imperial power. Clovis may be our example. He was
the conqueror of the Gauls; he had come in by right of the sword; and yet he
was happy to receive the consular diploma and the purple robe from Anastasius,
the Emperor of the East; and, invested with the imperial insignia, he rode in
state, scattering gold and silver as he paced on his steed, whilst he was
hailed as Augustus by the surrounding multitude. Hem was policy on both
sides;—Anastasius, by conferring such dignities upon Clovis, kept himself in
the position of a superior; and Clovis, by accepting his dignity from
Anastasius, not only obtained a firm hold upon his conquered subjects, the
Romanized inhabitants of Gaul, but laid the foundation for a dominion over his
own Frankish warriors, of a far different nature from that possessed by his
fur-clad ancestors in the forests of Germany.
' The Anglo-Saxon Aldermen, who, on the other side of
the North Sea, were balanced by the authority of very many others, all as good
as themselves, felt themselves in great measure relieved from that check, when
they settled in Britain. Their power had ample verge and room to expand. The
chieftains accompanying the captains of the expeditions, were principally
younger branches belonging to the family, who were contented to accept a share
of the conquest with a subordinate authority. Cerdic thus bestowed the Isle of
Wight upon his nephews, who held it as a subordinate kingdom, which subsisted
until the reign of Alfred under monarchs of its own. All the powers of the
British kings were assumed by the Saxon victors. The conqueror entered into the
palace, encircled his shaggy locks with the diadem, threw the Dalmatica over his shoulder, and became entitled to the
riches and ample domains of the British sovereigns. The very word ‘Cynge’ or King, as exclusively appropriated
to the sovereign, seems to have been derived from a Celtic term, Cen, or Cean, signifying Head, or Chief. I am compelled to differ
from my friends and contemporaries, who are now employed upon the history of
England, and to declare my opinion, that the Teutonic dialects do not offer any
satisfactory etymology. This, however, is of little consequence; it is
sufficient to know that word, ‘King’ gradually became restricted to denote a
sovereign power; whilst the chieftains, now subordinate, because their compeers
had been raised above them, and who held the smaller districts, retained the
old title of ‘Aldermen’ which continued applied to them until the Danish
conquests. There were certainly exceptions either way. At one period we read of
five Kings of Wessex being killed in battle, who could only have been minor
chieftains; yet these irregularities in the state nomenclature were not so numerous
as to derogate from the general rule.
. But there was a prouder honour than that of King;
for the title of ‘Bretwalda’, Ruler or Emperor of Britain, placed the
possessor as much above the Kings, as each King was above his Aldermen.
That Ella, who first assumed the title of Bretwalda,
must have obtained this dignity in consequence of his dominion over the
Britons, is easily proved by inspection of the map; for the South Saxons and
the Jutes had then alone established themselves; and it would have been
preposterous in Ella to have founded so wide a claim merely on his supremacy
over this narrow angle of the island. The title was evidently assumed in
imitation of the Roman imperial authority, whether as exercised by the
legitimate Emperors or the British Tyrants; and the idea of such a supremacy is
wholly foreign to any species of government existing amongst the Saxons before
they came to Britain. It was exerted with as much show of Roman style and
splendour as could be attained. The coin of the Bretwalda, rudely copied from
the medal of Carausius, exhibits the wolf and twins, the ensigns of old Rome;
and the Roman ensign, borne before him, demonstrated the rank which he had
claimed, and which he endeavoured, with more or less success, to extend, not
only over the Britons, but over all the other nations of the island.
Ella,—Ceawlin of Wessex,—and Ethelbert of Kent,
successively held this dignity. Redwald of East Anglia obtained it; but whether
in the lifetime of Ethelbert, or after his decease, is somewhat uncertain. I
incline to the latter supposition. From Redwald, the Empire passed to Edwin of
Northumbria.— His authority extended over every part of Britain which was
inhabited either by the Cymri, or by the English and
Saxon natives. The Menavian islands, or Man and Anglesea, were equally subjected to his power; and the name
by which we denote the latter, meaning the ‘island of the English,’ is thought
to have been derived from the colonies transplanted there by Edwin: but the
Britons must have returned again, for the English colonies disappeared amidst
the races by whom ‘Mona, the mother of the Cymri’ was
possessed.
Penda, the Mercian, resisted or rebelled against the
authority of Edwin; and allying himself with Cadwallader, the King of the
Western Britons, they marched their forces against the King of Northumbria.
Edwin was overpowered by their numbers and slain in the battle of Heathfield;
and Northumbria became, for a time, the prey of the victors
Oswald, the nephew of Edwin, who united in his own
person the claims of the families both of Deira and Bernicia, regained all that
his uncle had lost. Britain acknowledged him as ‘Emperor;’ and the title was
given to him in such a maimer as io show that it was equivalent to that of
Bretwalda. He ruled supreme, over all the nations and provinces of the island,
divided, according to the expression of Bede, into four nations: the Angles,
the Picts, the Cymri, and the Scots. Oswald’s
virtues, perhaps, assisted in enabling him to acquire this dominion. Humble and
lowly-minded, full of piety and active charity, the qualities which caused him
to be canonized after his death, obtained the love and veneration of his
subjects when living; and the epithet of ‘Bounteous-hand,’ bestowed upon him by
the Britons, is a singular testimony of respect shewn to a ‘Sassenagh’
Sovereign.
Oswald, like Edwin, fell in battle with the Mercians; and
the miracles supposed to be worked in the field of Maserfelth,
were accepted as testimonies of the sanctity ascribed to the Northumbrian King. Oswio, the brother of Oswald, after some interval—for
his authority over the Northumbrian kingdoms was disturbed and contested even
by his own son—obtained the dignity of Bretwalda, like his predecessor; and the
Picts and Scots, as well as the other natives of Britain, acknowledged his
supremacy.
I have said that the Bretwaldas are to be considered
as the successors of the Roman Emperors, or Tyrants. But the remark mast be
extended; and we may affirm, that when and so soon as the royal authority
became: developed amongst any of the barbarians who settled on Roman ground,
all their Kings took upon themselves, as far as they could, io govern according
to the spirit of the Roman pokey, and agreeably to the maxima prevailing in the
decline of the empire, and declared in the imperial law. At the same time, this
copy of the Roman majesty was very rude and inartificial. The edifice was the
handy-work of unskilful artists working by eye, and in coarse materials. The ‘Witan’ (Sages), and ‘Hadgifa’ (Givers of Counsel),
of the Anglo-Saxon and other of the barbaric kingdoms, used the codes and
codicils and rescripts of the Emperors, even as their church architects
attempted to imitate the models afforded by the sacred structures of imperial
Rome. Yet, though the column be disproportioned, and the capital rude, and the
moulding misshapen, we must acknowledge that the cathedral of Charlemagne would
never have assumed its characteristic form, if the architect had not sought a
prototype in the Basilica of Constantine.
This assumption of power was not unchecked or
uncontrolled. Whilst the Kings of the barbaric nations were striving to clothe
themselves with an imperial authority, the people, or, to speak more correctly,
the communities or bodies of people which they governed, strove equally to
maintain their old Germanic freedom; and the nobles, in particular, were fully
able to resist all coercion from the royal power. Some of the rights claimed by
the monarch were, perhaps mere pretensions: others were contested; and, at the
same time, whatever prerogatives the King possessed as an ancient Germanic
chieftain, were still enforced by him, to the utmost of his might.
The infusion of Roman or Romanized doctrines into the
administration of the monarch, did not derogate from the full exercise of all
the laws and legal customs of the barbarians, which the Teutonic warriors
considered as their birthright and best privilege. Taking all these things together,
we must consider the practical government of the State as resulting from two
opposite principles, often discordant, and sometimes entirely hostile to each
other—a Roman law which the King endeavoured to introduce into the administration
of the state—and a Germanic law, upon which that Roman law was imposed; and by
adverting to these circumstances, many of the problems of history may be
solved.—Thus, in the kingdom of the Franks, the ‘Comites’
and ‘Duces’ (such being the titles by which the subordinate chieftains were
distinguished,) appear sometimes as hereditary, and sometimes as deriving their
authority from the sovereign. Now, if it be assumed that the sovereign, in
continuation of the Roman policy, delegated his power to local governors—but
that these local governors were usually the old heads or rulers of the subordinate
nations or tribes, this contradiction will disappear. By accepting the royal
diploma or commission, the Senior accumulated the royal jurisdiction upon his
own, and they became inseparably blended when, in process of time, the distinction
between his rights as a Teutonic chieftain, and his duties as the king’s officer were neglected or forgotten. This may be illustrated by a familiar
comparison:—supposing the Lord-lieutenancy of Merionethshire had been
invariably granted, since the reign of Henry VIII, to the Wynns—from father to
son; and that when the male line ceased, the office was equally continued in
the female line: that we had no regular record or register relating to such
appointments; and that the country was in great turbulence and warfare:—under
these circumstances, the Wynns and the people of Merionethshire might very
naturally be induced to suppose, that all the powers of the Lieutenancy were
inherent in the descendant of Owen Gwynedd, and that they belonged to him by
inheritance, like his estates, independently of the will of the King of
England. No monarch of Northumbria, after Oswio, possessed
the title of Bretwalda; and, in the course of his reign, he sustained a great
loss of dominion. He slew Penda and subdued Mercia: and, without doubt,
declared in his manifestoes, that it was a just war, which he had undertaken
for the purpose of reducing the ancient dependency of his Northumbrian crown.
But the conquest profited not to Oswio. The Mercian
Nobles or Ealdormen submitted with an
ill will: they concealed Wulfere, Penda’s son; and in
less than a year, Wulfere was King of the Mercians
and Middle Angles—for the two nations continued distinct Wulfere extended his conquests into Wessex; and the title of King of all the ‘Australian
Regions,’ shows that he possessed the authority of a Bretwalda in all the
island south of the Humber.
Northumbria was on the wane; and ‘Ethelbald the Proud’ greatly increased the power and fame of the Mercian kingdom. The
Mercians continued pressing against the Britons who inhabited Powys and Gwynnedd, and Ethelbald waged an
obstinate warfare against them. Over his own race, Ethelbald claimed the rights of a Bretwalda, and at one period all the kings of the
English were subject to the supremacy of the ‘King of Britain.’ Ethelbald was not wise in his power. His authority over the
West Saxons was accompanied by so many acts of vexation and oppression, that
Cuthred, and his people, resolved to make a desperate effort for the purpose of
relieving themselves from a yoke which had become intolerable. At Burford, the
two sovereigns met in battle. Ethelbald’s army
consisted of his own people, the Mercians, the men of Kent, the East Saxons, and
the East Angles. Cuthred’s troops were led on by Ethelhun,—the presumptuous
Alderman, as he is called in the Chronicles—bearing the Golden Dragon, the
ensign of Wessex. Ethelhun had recently been at war with his Lord, Cuthred; but
Cuthred defeated him, and they were good friends again; and Ethelhun was
strenuous in his sovereign’s cause. The conflict was extremely obstinate and
bloody, but at length Ethelhun and Ethelbald engaged
in single combat. Hitherto, Ethelbald had found no
equal in prowess; but now his strength foiled him, and he betook himself to
shameful flight: not long afterwards he was slain by treachery, and his
dominion passed to Beorred the Tyrant, who usurped
his throne.
Beorred fully deserved the epithet of Tyrant, taken in its worst sense. He appears to
have been one of the many Aldermen, whose dominions were united beneath the
Mercian crown. He governed the people according to his will, and not according
to law. And when his intrusive government had become so oppressive, that the
Mercians could bear it no longer, the whole people, gentle and simple, rose as
one man; and, expelling Beorred, they elected or
recognized Offa as their king. Offa was a Patrician of the right royal line of Mercia,
being descended from Wibba, the son of Creoda; but be
had been compelled to take refuge with the king of Hwiccas,
who probably; was his kinsman. The historical romances of the Anglo-Saxons
celebrated two Monarchs of the name of Offa. The first was the son of Wahrmund or Truth Mouth, being the name which the Franks spell as ‘Pharamond’.
Wahrmund and Offa redly do appear in the genealogies of the Kings of Mercia.
And the tales of the Northmen repeat the same fables concerning Varmund Vitri, or
the Wise and Olaf, or Uffa Litilate, or the Meek, which had become
consecrated by the lays of the Scandinavian Scallds.
Offa the Second is fabled to have been miraculously restored from deformity and
debility, to symmetry and vigour; and his marriage with the fair but profligate
Druda is accompanied by all the machinery of romance. These fictitious Offas must not be confounded with the true one; and it is
difficult to discover any slender vestiges of truth which may exist amongst
these fables.
Offa’s right to the crown of Mercia was joyfully
acknowledged. Clergy and laity crowned him as King, and he speedily extended
his power, far beyond the boundaries which Mercia had possessed under his
predecessors. Against the Britons, ‘Offa the Terrible’ was particularly successful.
These people had been slowly reduced. Occasionally they rallied in great
strength; but the English were steady in their plans of conquest, and the
kingdom, or principality of ‘Ferreggs,’ now called
Herefordshire, but to which the Anglo-Saxons gave the name of Hecana, had been gained, by the Mercians before the
reign of Wulfhere. Offa continued to advance in the same direction. Fair and
fertile Powysland was almost wholly subjugated by
him. Flying from Pengwern, now called Shrewsbury, the
princes of this country were compelled to fix their residence in the Halls of Mathraval, whilst the best and most valuable part of their
dominions was planted with Saxon colonies. To secure these acquisitions, Offa
cast up a vast entrenchment, reaching from the neighbourhood of Chester to the
Wye. ‘Clawdh Offa,’ or Offa’s Dyke, it is called by
the Welshmen to the present day. The Britons, however, did not submit tamely to
the invader. Issuing from their mountain fastnesses, they continually, though
unavailingly, attacked the English Mercians, who, on their part, retaliated by
ravaging the British territory. During one of these incursions, a memorable
battle took place at Rhuddlan. Cafradoc, King of Gwinnedd, or North Wales, was slain, together with the
flower of the British youth and nobility. The British bards mourned this defeat
by composing a lament, entitled ‘Morva Rhuddlan’: the strain is often played
upon the harp in Wales; and we may yet listen to the rich and plaintive melody,
which, to us Saxons, commemorates the victory of the Mercian Offa.
Upon the conquests of Offa and his predecessor it is
necessary to make one important observation, namely, that the political
subjugation of Powys and the adjoining countries did not necessarily lead to
the total expulsion of the British tribes. English colonists were partially
introduced; but the British peasantry continued to dwell upon the soil, though
the domain was transferred to other lords; and so numerous were they, that the
country continued British in appearance even until the reign of King John,
when, in common language, Hereford was still considered to be in ‘Wales’.—In
fact, the whole of this border was held and peopled nearly as we see
Monmouthshire at the present day. The mass of the people are Cymric speak their
ancient British language, and continue to give the ancient denomination of
Gwent to the lands on which they dwell. But the higher orders, the gentry and
the clergy and the magistrates, are almost wholly of English race; and the
county is an integral part of the realm of England.—Very many of the territories
ruled by the Anglo-Saxons had thus a double aspect; Anglo-Saxon, if you
considered them as a state; British, if you viewed the pop lacy by which they
were filled: and by recollecting this circumstance, we may reconcile and
explain many seeming anomalies and contradictions in our history.
The results of these conflicts seem to have confirmed
the authority of Offa over the Britons of Cambria, who became the vassals of his
crown. Offa lived to accomplish the subjugation of all the Anglo-Saxon states,
south of the Humber. Kent was conquered in open battle. The West Saxons, after
losing part of their territories, submitted by compromise. The East Saxons were
subdued; and the great and opulent city of London, with the ‘Pagus’ of Middlesex, had been annexed to Mercia, perhaps by
the voluntary submission of the inhabitants.
East Anglia was acquired by deliberate treachery. (A.D.
792). Ethelbyrht, the King of this country, was
desirous of marrying one of Offa’s daughters; and he proceeded with much pomp
to the court of the Mercian King, who usually resided at Tamworth, for the
purpose of obtaining her hand. It was most usual in those days for kings and
princes to woo by deputy; and the old Romances, whose fictions often afford the
best representations and memorials of the manners and customs of real life,
describe the scenes which ensued. If one king sought the daughter of another,
he would send ambassadors—grave men—old soldiers—or learned clerks;—when they
arrived, they inspected the young princesses, who stood up all in a row, and
made a report of the appearance and character of the damsels to their master.
The eldest, they might say, was distinguished by her beauty, the second by her
wit, but the youngest by her modesty and discretion. Ethelbyrht thought it best to judge with his own eyes, though caution ought to have
suggested, that some harm might ensue to him. The once-powerful kingdom of East
Anglia had rapidly declined; its history is nearly a blank in our annals. Even
the names of the greater number of its monarchs are lost; and we can only
surmise, that from the death of Redwald, it had usually submitted to the
reigning Bretwalda. Offa asserted his supremacy, and many dissensions bad
arisen between him and Ethelbyrht. But the latter
relied upon the honour of a king; and he proceeded without doubt or hesitation
to the palace of his intended father-in-law.
Cwendritha, the queen of Offa, was cruel and crafty. ‘You have your old enemy in
your power, —quoth she to Offa—him whose kingdom you
have so long coveted’.—The Mercian, easily yielding to advice which agreed with
his wishes, caused the young and valiant Ethelbyrht to be beheaded, and then despatching a powerful army against the East Angles,
he took possession of the country. Neither the ‘Giant’s dyke,’ nor the rivers
and waters of their frontier could enable them to withstand their enemy.
An Anglo-Saxon King was not always certain that his
son would succeed him in his dominions. The royal authority was vested in the
royal families; but no individual of such family had any determinate or
absolute right. The new King was generally designated by toe assent of the
nation; and if the son of the late King was not able to exercise toe functions
of royalty, the brother of the deceased monarch, or even some more remote relation,
was called to the throne. Such a mode of succession was not unwisely adapted to
the exigences of the age. An Anglo-Saxon King, in the earlier times, was the
chief-justice or magistrate of his people in time of peace. He was also their
commander-in-chief, both by land and sea, in time of war; and ill would the
affairs of the nation have been sped, had they been entrusted to an infant mind
or an infant hand. In cases, however, where the heir was approaching to mature
age, the deviation from lineal succession, though often practised, was less
expedient; nor could it be pleasing to a father to anticipate the exclusion of
his son, from the dignity which he himself had possessed.
Offa, therefore, adopted a scheme, not hitherto
employed in England, though many examples had been found in foreign nations. He
summoned a great council; and, with the assent and concurrence of the prelates
and nobles of Mercia, Ecgfrith, his son, was associated to him in the royal
dignity. So long as Offa lived, Ecgfrith was styled King of Mercia; he sat by
the side of his father, and he succeeded to the throne without opposition after
Offa’s demise.
Whilst Charlemagne claimed for himself the title of
the most powerful of the kings of Eastern Christendom, he addressed Offa in the
same manner, as the most powerful of the kings of the West. He uses the titles
interchangeably, and as if he wished to imply that Offa was to be considered as
his compeer in authority; and in this and many other notices preserved
concerning Offa, we can ascertain that he attained great celebrity and fame.
His regal palace at Tamworth Town has been long since levelled to the ground,
and the entrenchments, faintly raised above the grass, just enable us to trace
the site of the royal residence. But the medals coined by Offa, and which in
beauty and workmanship excel those of any other Saxon monarch, afford a proof
of the cultivation of those arts whose progress is favoured by opulence and
tranquillity. The prosperity of Mercia was, however, of very short duration.
The welfare of the country was not founded upon right government and justice.
It was a tower built upon the sand; and after the death of Offa, upon whose personal
character the vigour of the government, during his long reign of forty years,
had principally depended, the splendour of Mercia declined, and the fortunes of
its rival, Wessex, prevailed.
Where lineal succession, that is to say, the rule that
the son of a king takes the dignity which had been held by his father, is fully
stablished, it has the good effect of preventing most of those disputes which
gives rise to civil wars. It is easy to tell whom is the eldest son of the late
king. No doubt can arise about that fact. But it is not easy to determine who
is the bravest or the wisest candidate or competitor, because the electors, in
such a case, will ascribe all the requisite qualifications to that prince from
whom they expect the greatest favours. Hence, all persons are now agreed that,
if you have a King, it is best that the dignity should be inheritable according
to primogeniture; that the eldest son should take the crown in preference to
the youngest brothers, and also in preference to his uncles. For, by this
means, all the disputes are avoided, and if the heir be deficient in wisdom, he
may perhaps be provided with good ministers, by whose advice he can be guided.
As I have before observed, this rule of lineal
succession did not Where lineal ancient
prevail among the Saxons. And therefore cases of contested successions occasionally
arose between the members of royal family. Properly speaking, the Witenagenot, the assembly of Sages, or Great
Council, has the right of election or nomination. But if a dispute arose, the
knot was usually cut by the sword. When Beortric,
King of the West Saxons, was raised to the throne, his succession was opposed
by Egbert, the son of Alchmund, who claimed a better
title to the dignity. But Egbert had few partisans; and in order to save his
life, he took refuge in the dominions of Offa. Such a Pretender, stationed in
the adjoining kingdom, might well alarm Beortric; and
he despatched ambassadors to Offa, with two earnest requests, —that he, Offa,
would be pleased to bestow upon Beortric the hand of
his daughter Eadburgha in marriage and that Offa
would also kindly surrender up the rebel Egbert to the just vengeance of his
rightful sovereign.—Offa assented without any hesitation to the first request;
he well knew that he would gain, by ridding himself of his daughter. The second
request was denied; yet Offa’s protection was withdrawn from the Pretender.
Egbert was compelled to fly from Britain, and he took up his residence in
France, where he continued during the whole of Beortric’s reign. These years of exile, however, woe not years of misfortune. France,
governed by Charlemagne, then excelled all the other states of Western
Christendom in good order and civilization. And our ancient historians have
remarked, that it was well, that Egbert should have been thus disciplined by
adversity before he exercised the wide dominion which he afterwards attained.
Eadburgha, the Queen ef Beortrie,
had inherited all the cruelty and ambition of her father, Offa. Constantly did
she labour to excite jealousy between the king and his subjects. She became
hateful to all, and she returned that hatred; and when she could not wreak her
vengeance in any other manner, she had recourse to poison. Having prepared a
mortal potion, which she intended for the bane of one of the noblemen who
attended the court, it chanced that Beortric drank of
the cup, and died. The crime could not be concealed: Eadburgha was degraded from her station, and banished; and the men of Wessex, not
contented with the punishment inflicted upon the criminal, determined to
abolish the rank which she had possessed; they decreed, that thenceforward the
consort of the king should neither be called Queen, nor sit on the throne, nor
be in any wise associated to the royal dignity. Eadburgha fled to France, disgraced, but wealthy, for she had carried off great store of
gold. In that country she sank into the most abandoned profligacy: miserable
poverty followed. From France she wandered to Italy. During the last years of
her life, she was a common beggar in the streets of Pavia. Thus ended the line
of Offa.
Beortric having perished by the wickedness of his Queen, as I have before
described, the vacant throne was filled by Egbert, who returned from France,
and succeeded without any domestic opposition; and having concluded a peace
with the Mercians who had taken up arms against him, he had full leisure to
establish himself in his kingdom. The first nine years of his reign are nearly
a void in all the authentic chronicles; but in those narratives which are less
trustworthy, the vacant space is partly filled up by the account of a
parliament held at Winchester, in which Egbert decreed, that South Britain
should take the name of ‘England.’ It is tolerably clear, that, in consequence
of the greater preponderance of Angles the nations whom we usually term
Anglo-Saxons, were often called English; but our country was not denominated
England till a much later period, and the parliament of Egbert is a pure fable.
According to the usual course of policy amongst the
Anglo-Saxons, Egbert pursued the Britons with fierce hostility; yet I believe
that it was not for the purpose of expelling them from the country, but rather
to reduce them into a state of sou tributary subjection. The Britons of the West
opposed a strenuous, but unavailing resistance (809-814). Great was the
slaughter on both sides; but Egbert prevailed; he was equally successful
against those who dwelt on the northern shore of the estuary of the Severn; and
lastly, all, or the greater part of, modern Wales submitted to his authority.
We must now direct our attention to Kent, of which Alchmund,
the father of Egbert, had been King; and, as it should seem, after the line of the Aescingas had failed. If you ask me how, and when,
and in what manner, Alchmund was placed upon the
throne; I cannot answer these questions, otherwise than by telling you that the
Anglo-Saxon Sovereigns in general, but more particularly those of Wessex, were
accustomed to provide for their sons by settling them in what the French term ‘apanages’;
that is to say, by granting them some smaller kingdom or state, which they held
in due subjection to the elder royal branch; just as, in private life, a
nobleman, when his son comes of age, surrenders to him a decent property on
which he can marry and settle, and bring up his children, until he succeeds to
the principal estates of the family.
Alchmund, then, was one of those Kinglets—or Roitelets as the French term them; and, as I suppose, (but recollect, that this is only
my hypothesis,) he had been appointed king in Kent by the power of Wessex. But
before and during his time, there were many other kings of Kent, some of whose
dominions were, perhaps, not more extensive than the ‘Lathes’ into which the
country is divided. This petty state was in great confusion; and after the
reign of Alchmund, one Eadbert, surnamed Pren or
Prynne, obtained the kingdom. The ancestry of Eadbert is not known; some people
think that he was a priest or monk, who, having quitted his church or
monastery, exchanged the clerical tonsure for a crown. The Mercians, as you
have heard, had already been the conquerors of Kent; and Cynewulf, the King of
the Mercians, who had succeeded to Ecgfrith, the son of Offa, resolved to gain
possession of the country, which he attacked with a powerful army. Eadbert Pren
could not make any defence: the ‘Men of the Marsh’ or Meracwara,
supposed to be the inhabitants of the neighbourhood of Romney, betrayed him
into the power of his enemies. Eadbert is accused of great tyranny; but he was
treated with a degree of cruelty which no tyranny could justify. The Meracwara put out his eyes, and struck off his hands; and,
thus blinded and maimed, the agonized captive was loaded with chains and fetters,
and conducted into Mercia.
Cynewulf had erected a church or monastery at Winehecombe, and on the day when the fabric was
consecrated, has heart inclined to mercy. Cynewulf manumitted the captive
Eadbert before the altar, in the presence of the applauding multitude; but
there his clemency terminated. He took the crown of Kent and placed it on his
own head; and then he grasped the sceptre in his hand, and proclaimed himself
to be King of the country, which was now subjected to the dominion of Mercia.
Kent continaed thus subjugated during several years,
though the Mercians frequently appointed ‘Under Kings’ or dependent Sovereigns,
who governed the land as vassals of the Mercian crown; the first sovereign of
this description after the Mercian conquest, being Cuthred, the brother of
Cynewulf who received the country as an apanage.
Under the earlier Bretwaldas, the greater Anglo-Saxon
powers had been pretty nearly balanced; but Northumbria, as I shall shortly
have occasion to explain to you, was now in the last stage of weakness and
disunion; and the kings in this country were entirely out of the field. A
fierce rivalry prevailed between Wessex and Mercia; they divided all Britain south
of the Humber. I say ‘all Britain’ because all the British princes were
subjected to one or other of them. It was clear that either would brook no
rival; and, under Egbert, the fate of Mercia was speedily decided. Having
defeated Beornwulf, king of Mercia, in a great battle
at Ellandune, now called Wilton, he marched a very large body of troops into
Kent, under the directions of his son, Ethelwulf, or ‘Noble Wolf’, and other
experienced warriors, the Alderman Wulfhard, and Alstane,
bishop of Sherburn, who thus joined in commanding an army; a strange, but not
unusual employment for a churchman in those turbulent times. As soon as the
army of Wessex had occupied Kent, Baldred, the Mercian ‘Subregulus’ or ‘Under king’ fled beyond the
Thames, and the inhabitants of the country unanimously declared in favour of
Egbert. Surrey, Sussex, and Essex followed the example of Kent. They all
considered that Egbert was their rightful king by descent and blood, and that
they had been wrongfully separated from the dominion of his ancestors; and I
present this fact to you prominently, because it is one of those which show how
zealously the old English or Anglo-Saxons were attached to the families of
their sovereigns. Egbert, upon acquiring possession of Kent and adjoining
countries, acted according to the policy which I have before noticed. He
granted these dominions to his son Ethelwulf as an apanage; the latter held
them until his accession to his father’s throne; and, thereupon, the apanage
passed to Ethelwulf’s son, Athelstane. The mode of
descent, therefore, if the Danish invasions, of which I shall shortly speak,
had not unsettled the kingdom, would have been nearly like that of the
principality of Wales, which is held by the heir-apparent for the time being of
the English crown.
These prosperous events were followed by another
acquisition of power. (821-823). The East Anglians,
who after the murder of Ethelbyrht had become the subjects
of Mercia, threw off this hateful supremacy; but Beornwulf,
who had usurped the throne, of Mercia, asserted his intention of regaining the
authority, however unjust, which his predecessors had acquired. Thus harassed,
the king of the East Angles and his people placed themselves under the
protection of Egbert, requesting his aid and protection against the Mercian
power; in other words, they became his vassals; and it is worthy of notice,
that the chronicle expresses their submission in the terms employed in the
official acts, by which the subjects of the Carolingian empire recognised the
authority of their sovereign. Egbert most willingly accepted their homage, and
promised to afford them that protection which their submission had earned, for
in all such cases the obligation was reciprocal.
Beornwulf was a stout warrior. His name means ‘Bear-wolf,’ and, I almost suspect
that, as amongst the North American Indians, the appellations of the
Anglo-Saxon. chieftains were sometimes given to them in mature age, from the qualities
which they possessed, or of which they wished to be thought the possessors. Beornwulf showed great pugnacity; and, collecting a
powerful army, he invaded East Anglia, denouncing vengeance against King and
people; but they encountered him with equal obstinacy, and Beornwulf fell in the conflict. Ludica, who can be traced as an
Alderman in Mercia, was raised to the throne; but he also was slain by the East Anglians. Upon the death of Ludica,
the choice of the Mercian chieftains fell upon Wiglaf, Alderman of the Hwiccians, a collateral kinsman of Offa; but before he
could collect his forces, Egbert advanced into Mercia, and expelled him from the
kingdom. Wiglaf was now a fugitive: he wandered from place to place, and
concealed himself in the wastes of Croyland, where he
sought to escape the vengeance of the victor. But about two or three years
afterwards, Egbert, moved by pity, restored the kingdom to him, to be held in
tributary subjection.
By the conquest of Mercia, Egbert had become Lord of
all the States south of the Humber; and he now marched his forces against the
Angles of Deira and Bernicia. Unable to resist the invader, the Northumbrians,
and their king Eanred, proffered their homage to Egbert, and became his
tributaries. About the same time, Swithred, King of
the East Saxons, was expelled by the conqueror. The Britons north of Severn, in
other words, occupying the territory of the modern Welch, were utterly subdued;
and Egbert became fully established in the state and honour of the eighth
Bretwalda, or supreme Emperor of the Island of Britain.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
PAPERBACKITALY AND HER INVADERS (THOMAS HODGKIN )
|
||
ITALY AND HER INVADERS The Visigothic Invasion
|
Hunnish,Vandal and Herulian Invasions
|
Ostrogothic Invasion. Imperial Restoration
|
| PAPERBACK | ||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
George
Finlay, (1799-1875), British historian
and participant in the War of Greek Independence
(1821-32) known principally for his histories
of Greece and the Byzantine Empire.
 |
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE REFORMATION BY JAMES C. ROBERTSON |
||
 |
THECOURT AND REIGNOF FRANCIS THE FIRST,King of FranceSOFT COVER387�PAGES |
Edici�n Kindle |
||
 |
de�JOHN CODMAN ROPES�(Author),�Cristo Raul�(Editor) |
|
A HISTORY OF THE PAPACY FROM THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROMEMANDELL CREIGHTON |
A History of the Popes from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome. A.D. 1378-1525 Jewels of the Western Civilization Book (COMPLETE SET) |
THE GREAT SCHISM. A.D.1378-1414THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE. A.D.1414-1418.THE PAPAL RESTORATION. A.D. 1444�1464THE ITALIAN PRINCES. A.D. 1454-1517.THE GERMAN REVOLT |
George Grote's History of GreeceFROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE CLOSE OF THE GENERATION CONTEMPORARY WITH ALEXANDER THE GREAT. |
|||||||
VOLUME I. |
|||||||
VOLUME II. |
|||||||
VOLUME III. |
THE AGE OF THE DESPOTS AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WESTERN COLONIES |
||||||
VOLUME IV. |
|||||||
VOLUME V. |
|||||||
VOLUME VI: |
|||||||
VOLUME VII: |
|||||||
VOLUME VIII. |
THE SOCRATIC AGE |
||||||
VOLUME IX. |
FROM THE RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND TO THE PEACE OF ANTALCIDAS |
||||||
VOLUME X. |
|||||||
VOLUME XI. |
B.C. 394-336. TIMOLEON THE CORINTHIAN AND PHILIPS THE MACEDON |
||||||
VOLUME XII. |
ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES |
||||||
| HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE | ||||||||||||||||
|
| EBOOKS |
Greece Under the Romans. B.C. 146 - A.D. 716 |
The History of the Byzantine Empire from 765 to 1057 |
The History of the Byzantine Empire, from A.D. 1057 to A.D. 1453 |
History of India. |
|
From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century |
|
From the Sixth Century B. C. to the Mohammedan Conquest, Including the Invasion of Alexander the Great |
|
From the Mohammedan Conquest to the reign of Akbar the Great. A.D .712-1555 |
|
From the Reign of Akbar the Great to the Fall of the Moghul Empire |
|
From the first European Settlements to the Founding of the English East India Company |
|
The European Struggle for Indian Supremacy in the Seventeenth Century |
|
From the Close of the Seventeenth Century to the Present Time |
EBOOKS |
THE HISTORY OF CHARLEMAGNE |
Life of Alcuin.A.D. 735-804 |
ABELARD AND THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY OF UNIVERSITIES |
EARLY HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THE END OF THE FIFTH CENTURY. VOLUME II. THE FOURTH CENTURY |
THE CHRISTIAN CLERGY OF THE FIRST TEN CENTURIES. THEIR BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EUROPEAN PROGRESS |
A HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THEORY IN THE WEST.VOLUME. II.THE POLITICAL THEORY OF THE ROMAN LAWYERS AND CANONISTS FROM THE TENTH CENTURY TO THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY |
A HISTORY OF MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THEORY IN THE WEST.VOLUME V.THE POLITICAL THEORY OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY |
THE LIFE OF SALADIN AND THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM |
MEDIEVAL FRANCE FROM THE REIGN OF HUGUES CAPET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY |
LIFE AND TIMES OF FRANCESCO SFORZA, DUKE OF MILAN, WITH A PRELIMINARY SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF ITALY |
THE STORY OF THE GOTHS FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE END OF THE GOTHIC DOMINION IN SPAIN |
The History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic Kings |
THE LIFE OF PIZARRO, with some account of his associates in the Conquest of Peru |
THE RISE OF PORTUGUESE POWER IN INDIA,1497-1550 |
VASCO DA GAMA AND HIS SUCCESSORS. 1460-1580 |
HISTORY OF ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO. A.D. 1680-1888 |
HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1861-1865 |
AN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE COLONIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA |
The Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II |
A HISTORY OF THE MODERN WORLD. 1815-1910. VOLUME 1 |
A HISTORY OF THE MODERN WORLD . 1815-1910. VOLUME 2 |
History of the Ottoman Empire |
 |
 |
 |
