Chapter XIII: William the Lion--1165–1214 (2)

Few materials remain for estimating the personal character of William beyond the actions ascribed to him in the chronicles of the period. Newbridge, perhaps a prejudiced authority, contrasts him unfavourably with his brother Malcolm, regarding many of his misfortunes in the early part of his career as punishments for his addiction to worldly pleasures, and attributing the comparative peace and prosperity of his later years--meaning the period of Richard’s reign--to the beneficial effects of his marriage with Ermengarde de Bellomont.[510] He was a great man, however, in the opinion of the archdeacon of Brecknock, Giraldus Cambrensis, and worthy of praise in many things, one blot only resting upon his glory--throughout the whole length and breadth of Scotland his will alone decided the disposal of church patronage, expressly imitating, in this respect, the policy of the English kings, stigmatized by the archdeacon as “the enormous abuses of the Norman tyranny in England.”[511] Giraldus wrote in the spirit of a churchman of the twelfth century; but it must at least be admitted that it tells not a little for the energy of William’s character, that in his contest with the Church of Rome, in the very zenith of her power, he was successful; neither legate nor pope bending him from his purpose, though they launched anathemas at his head, and were supported by Henry, at that time feudal overlord of Scotland. But though high-spirited and impetuous, even to rashness, in his youth and manhood, William appears to have been broken down by repeated attacks of illness as he advanced in life; and the reckless knight-errant, who rushed upon seven times his numbers at Alnwick, grew into an over-cautious sovereign, who aroused the discontent of his subjects, and risked the newly recovered independence of his kingdom, by his inordinate dread of the consequences of a rupture with England. Some allowance may be made for his anxiety to carry out the policy of his grandfather, and re-annex to the Scottish crown the appanage of his early years, which his brother had resigned at Chester; but from the comparative ease with which his successor crushed every rebellion within a few years of his accession, firmly established the royal authority over the whole mainland of Scotland, and vindicated on every occasion the liberties of his crown and kingdom, it is very evident that William carried his caution too far; and though circumstances may have been more favourable to his son, the temporizing policy of William towards the close of his life must have increased, rather than diminished, the difficulties of his situation. From the use of the lion rampant upon his seal, a device which has since become the well-known cognizance of Scotland, he was very frequently known as “William the Lion;” and the names of _Rufus_ and _Garw_--or the Rough--have also been applied to him, indicating, apparently, some distinguishing feature in his character, or personal appearance.[512] By his marriage with Ermengarde de Bellomont, he left four children; an only son, Alexander, who succeeded to the throne, and three daughters, Margaret, Isabella, and Marjory. Margaret, the eldest, was married to Hubert de Burgh, and left an only daughter, Magota, who died apparently at an early age. Isabella became the wife of Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk; and Marjory, who appears to have been celebrated for her beauty, which made a deep impression upon the susceptible heart of Henry the Third, was subsequently united to Gilbert the Mareschal, Earl of Pembroke, both the younger princesses dying without issue.

The lengthened reign of William was the era of the more complete development of David’s changes in church and state; and Scotland, at the opening of the thirteenth century, was fast progressing towards the condition of a thoroughly feudalized kingdom in her more settled portions. Traces of her earlier institutions, however, were still abundant; the more lenient custom, for instance, of the allodial system, by which the property of the felon was not confiscated but descended at once to the heir, was confirmed as the general law of Scotland, the strict feudal theory being, in other words, relaxed in favour of “ancient custom;” though where the homicide, or cattle-lifter, escaped the penalty of the crime by flight, his property reverted to the lord, the heir only succeeding on the death of the forfeited proprietor. Even sedition against the king did not disinherit the heir, if the property was not held directly of the crown; but for treason against the royal person both life and lands were irretrievably forfeited. Another concession in favour of “ancient custom,” perhaps, is traceable in the permission granted to the kindred of a murdered man to take full legal vengeance on the homicide, even when under the protection of “the king’s peace,” if they could prove that their consent had not been obtained to compromise the feud; though, from the wording of the law in question, this relaxation of the royal power of pardoning the highest offences, may have been confined to the case of a murdered witness. In most other respects the usual feudal customs were generally established; the charter was required as a necessary document for every freeholder--a stringent enactment being levelled against all who were convicted of forging such evidence of rights to which they were not entitled; and the Visnet was fast becoming the recognised law of the land. Galloway alone formed an exception, in this point, to the rest of Scotland, retaining her ancient code; no Galwegian being judged by “the verdict of the neighbourhood,” except at his especial demand; but very strict rules were laid down for its substitute, “the wager of battle,”--a fine of _ten cows_ being enacted for speaking during the progress of a judicial combat; he who raised his hand, or made a sign, being “at the king’s mercy.” The fines assessed at Dumfries by “the Judges of Galloway,” appear, indeed, to have been heavier than in Scotland proper; and the regulations about collecting the king’s _Can_ in this turbulent province, are marked with a degree of severity which seems to point to a state of society in which the royal imposts were still regarded as unwelcome novelties, all recusants being mulcted in _a hundred cows_, and bound to pay one-third more than the original demand. Agriculture was still a subject of legislation, and the regulations of David, which discouraged pasturage, were repeated; the barons and greater clergy being exhorted “to live like lords and masters upon their own domains, not like husbandmen and shepherds, wasting their lands and the country with multitudes of sheep and cattle, thereby troubling God’s people with scarcity, poverty, and utter _hership_.” Constant travelling with a retinue unnecessarily large, was also a social feature which it was still necessary to discountenance; as well as _sorning_, or living at free quarters; and unnecessary exaction of _herbary_, or food and lodging for the night; the repetition of David’s laws on all these points displaying the tenacity with which the native baronage clung to the habits of an earlier age, the sole difference noticeable in the later enactments of William pointing to one of those changes from a simpler state of society, which the progress of civilization is sure to introduce upon “the good old times”--the herbary which, in the time of David, was to be given “for the sake of charity,” in the reign of his grandson was to be duly recompensed--_with pence_.[513]

But though the regulations of David still continued to be the groundwork of the Scottish constitution, certain modifications were introduced by William which tended still further to increase the power of the crown. In the fifteenth year of his reign, “on the Monday before the festival of St. Margaret” in 1180, in one of these great assemblies of the whole Frank-tenantry of the kingdom, lay and ecclesiastical, in which the germs of future parliaments are traceable, and which, on this occasion, was held at Stirling, it was agreed that, for the future, none were to hold ordinary courts of justice, or a court of ordeal, whether “of battle, iron, or water,” except in the presence of the sheriff, or of one of his serjeants; though, if the official, after due summons, failed to attend, the court might be held in his absence. At the same time, the four great pleas, which had been removed from the jurisdiction of burgh provosts and baron baillies in the reign of David, were reserved absolutely for the crown.[514] Seventeen years later, in 1197, perhaps in consequence of abuses in the exercise of authority, these minor courts were further regulated by an ordinance passed in a similar “Parliament” held at Perth, and attended by “the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Thanes, and Community of the Realm;” in which the great barons were pledged to give no support to law-breakers, whether their own followers or others, and to take no money for remission of judgment after sentence had been duly passed; all failing in their duty, in either of these points, being condemned to forfeit for ever their right to hold a court.[515] The regulations of David about the great royal _moots_, and about the sheriffs’ courts, were also modified at some period of William’s reign; and it was ordered that two great assemblies were to be held yearly at Edinburgh and Peebles, at which every freeholder was bound to attend, unless prevented by sickness, or other sufficient cause. In every province the sheriff was to hold a court every forty days--in this particular following the Norman, or Frank, rather than the Saxon custom; but bishops, abbots, earls, and probably the greater barons who enjoyed “the rights and custom of an earl,” were now excused from personal attendance, appearing by their Seneschals or Stewards, and only being bound to attend in person upon the court of the royal justiciary, or of his deputy.[516] Henceforth the privilege of a “Regality” was confined to the greater barons or clergy, upon whom it was conferred by royal favour; a sure sign of the progress of order, and of the royal authority. It may be remarked that a Regality in the feudal period was generally on some frontier; or was a district made over to some powerful noble to control, as he best might, by the strong hand; and in England, the sole provinces of this description were the _Palatinates_ of Chester and Durham, the former on the Welsh frontier, the latter upon the borders of that turbulent Northumbrian province which, at one period, could be scarcely reckoned as an integral, or settled, portion of either England or Scotland. David probably interfered but little with the privileges of the ancient earls within their immediate possessions, limiting his innovations upon their earlier duties and prerogatives to the introduction of the royal _Vicecomes_: but William was enabled to advance a step further; the royal authority was becoming firmer, and was now made paramount throughout the settled portion of Scotland, except where the greater barons or higher clergy were specially privileged; though the right to execute within the precincts of his own barony the homicide taken “red-hand,” or the robber captured with the stolen cattle, still remained the privilege of every baron who claimed the jurisdiction of “pit and gallows.”

In pursuance of his usual line of policy, William also carried out the ecclesiastical and commercial measures of his predecessors, ordering the general payment of tithes and dues throughout the kingdom, defining the means by which his edicts were to be put in force, and assimilating the dioceses of Aberdeen and Moray to the model bishoprics of Glasgow and St. Andrews.[517] More than this he appears to have been unable to effect, for the church lands in the sees of Brechin and Dunblane were still in the possession of great lay feudatories, disinclined as yet to restore the property to the bishops, and too powerful to be rendered discontented by any overprompt measures of alienation. Even in Dunkeld the chapter was not as yet provided for; Ross was in a chronic state of rebellion during the greater part of this reign; and Caithness was at this time hardly more than a nominal province of Scotland. Only one religious foundation is ascribed to William, the monastery of Arbroath, which he dedicated to the memory of Thomas à Becket, with whom he is sometimes said to have been on terms of familiar intimacy at the English court in his earlier years; and from the date of this tribute to the memory of the martyred archbishop, which was completed and endowed within a very few years after the king’s return from captivity, it would certainly appear as if William had been very much impressed at the time by the peculiar circumstances of his capture.[518]

Though David may be regarded unquestionably as the founder of the Scottish burghs, many were indebted to William for the earliest charters confirmatory of their original privileges. Monopoly was, as usual, ensured to the privileged class within the walls, no one being allowed to sell the produce of his lands or flocks except to burgesses;[519] commerce, thus forbidden to the nobility, was confined to the burgher class; and the result was the same all over Europe. There is not a trace amongst the Teutonic people, in early times, of that broad line of distinction which grew up in a later age between the soldier and the merchant, the man of arms and the man of commerce--though the few actual trades, or rather handicrafts, of the period, were probably confined to the unfree. “Biorn the merchant” was the son of a king, and the spirit of commerce was strongly developed amongst the early Northmen. But the burghers claimed it as their exclusive privilege, and their monopolies were fostered and encouraged, stringent laws prohibiting the _upland_ nobility from entering into competition with the freemen within the walls; and accordingly they soon grew to despise pursuits in which they were thus precluded from engaging. No such restrictions existed in Italy, and her merchants were amongst the noblest in the land. Elsewhere the exclusive monopolies of a _Roturier_ class very much contributed to stamp commerce, in the Middle Ages, as a pursuit generally confined to the low-born. David’s commercial, like his religious, foundations were principally to the southward of the Forth--his views were directed towards Northumberland--and though many of his burghs were planted to the northward of that river, and particularly in the forfeited province of Moray, it is from the confirmatory charters of William that their existence is first discovered. Not a few additions were also made by William to the number of Scottish burghs--foremost in importance to future ages the bishop’s burgh of Glasgow--and Galloway, Scottish Cumbria, and the northern and eastern coasts of Scotland proper, were studded with commercial garrisons. Berwick still appears to have monopolized the foreign trade, and its importance may be best appreciated by the clause inserted in one of the treaties between John and William, engaging the English king to stop the further progress of the castle at Tweedmouth, which had evidently been intended to aim a fatal blow at the most flourishing emporium of Scottish commerce.[520] But it was upon the northern and eastern coasts of _Scotia_ proper, and upon that portion of the northern coast which had been reclaimed from _Moravia_ by the establishment of Inverness, that the progress and advancement of the kingdom were most marked in William’s reign. David’s favourite residences appear to have been generally in the south and centre of his kingdom, but William was often in the north, and many of his charters are dated from Forfar and Aberdeen, and from the Moray burghs of Nairn, Forres, Elgin, and Inverness. The latter burgh was a thorough garrison, and in return for certain privileges which its inhabitants enjoyed over other burgesses, they were bound to keep in good repair the ditch and rampart, which the king had thrown up around the town. Most of the great families which are still to be found in this quarter--Chisholms, Roses, Bissetts now represented by the Frasers, and others--are of Scoto-Norman origin, descendants of the auxiliaries planted in, by the Scottish kings, “in the times of eld,” to defend the lands they had won from the supporters of Mac Heth, or Mac William; their names, though they have long been enrolled most worthily in the ranks of “Scottish Highlanders,” yet recalling the time in which the ancient house of Moray was finally crushed by the power of the rival house of Atholl; and when the hereditary earldom of Macbeth was the real _march_ of royal Scotland towards the north, held by the disciplined valour of the Normans. Inverness was the key of the lowlands of Moray, and in many respects an outpost of civilization, from which, in the next reign, the royal power extended still further over the north and west. The views of David were turned southwards, and he never ceased to hope that the ancient territories of the Northumbrian Ealdormen might yet be numbered amongst the appanages of the Scottish crown. But William, in his later years, if the Scottish version of his secret treaty with John is correct, was ready to waive his claims upon Northumberland; and as the unsubstantial vision of the fair English earldom faded from his sight, he may have directed his attention more exclusively to his own kingdom, and have inaugurated that wiser line of policy which, in the course of his son’s reign, united the whole of the Scottish mainland in loyal obedience to the king.

END OF VOL. I.

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Amm. Marc._ l. 28, c. 8. In a treatise, “de situ Britanniæ,” palmed off upon Richard of Cirencester, the district beyond the northern wall is erected into a province, and called _Vespasiana_, a name which in itself is a palpable blunder of the age which attributed every Roman relic in Scotland to the time of Agricola. The work abounds in internal evidence of its falsity. Vespasiana is said to have received the name in honour of the Flavian family, and in compliment to Domitian “in whose reign it was conquered” (l. 2, c. 6, s. 50), and with _Mæata_ to have been lost under Trebellius, the successor of Lucullus, who had been put to death by Domitian (l. 2, c. 2, s. 16): but of these two provinces, which must have been created by his own father-in-law, Tacitus, writing during the reign of Trajan, displays a profound ignorance. Valentia again, the creation of Theodosius, about 369, is said to have been made a consular province by Constantine, who died two and thirty years before! (l. 1, c. 6, s. 3.) Such are a few specimens of the stupid blunders of its fabricator Mr. Bertram.

[2] _Nen. Geneal._ The See of Dôl, in Brittany, dates its rise from the flight of Bishop Samson from York.

[3] _Nen. Geneal._--_Llywarch_, _Marwnad Urien_ and _Taliesin_, quoted by _Carte_, vol. i. p. 209, and by _Turner, Ang. Sax._, bk. 2, c. 4. A translation of the latter poem will be found in _Camb. Reg._ v. 3, p. 433, fully justifying the regrets of Turner “that any historical poem should be translated into verse.” A tract of hill and moor, stretching from Derbyshire into Scotland, is often known in the early chroniclers as “Desertum,” the waste or desert. The battle in which Ida fell was probably the famous “battle of Badon,” which, according to Taliesin, “avenged the blood of the lords of the north,” and Urien was, I suspect, the “good and valiant uncle,” for opposing whom Gildas blames Maelgwn Gwynnedd.

[4] _Tigh._ 502, 574. _Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, App. 2, p. 435. _Bed. Ecc. Hist._, l. 3, c. 3. According to Beda, the grant of Iona was made by the Pictish king, and the question is a matter of dispute--as what question in early Scottish history is not? Dr. Reeves, the learned editor of Adamnan, is inclined to a compromise, Conal granting, and Bruidi confirming, the grant.

[5] _An. F. M. (O’Donovan)_, 554, and Note; and _Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, _passim_. The great family of the _Hy Nial_ supplied the _Ardrighs_ or kings paramount of Ireland, uninterruptedly from the dawn of authentic history, until their power was shaken by the Northmen. The northern branch was subdivided into the _Cinel Eogan_ and _Cinel Conal_, more familiarly, but less accurately, known as Tyrone and Tirconnell; the southern into _Clan Colman_ and _Siol Aodh Slane_.

[6] _Tigh._ 563. _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 3, c. 4, 5, 26. _Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, l. 1, c. 37; l. 2, c. 35. _Craig Phadrick_ is supposed by Dr. Reeves to represent the _Rath_ of Bruidi. The southern Picts had been already converted by Ninian, a British bishop, according to Beda (l. 3, c. 4); and if the conjecture is correct which assigns this conversion to the early part of the fifth century, it must have been effected during their temporary occupation of the province of Valentia. If reliance can be placed on traditional chronology, the migration of _Cynedda Gwladig_, the ancestor of the “noble tribes” of Wales, from _Manau Guotodin_--supposed to mean the “Debateable Land” between Picts, Scots, Angles, and Britons [_Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, p. 371, d.]--must have taken place about the same period, and was caused, probably, by the encroachments of the Picts.

[7] _Beda_--as above.

[8] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 5, c. 24. _Tigh._ 717. The foundation of Abernethy is ascribed by the chronicle of the Picts to a Nectan, who lived 300 years before this reign, but I suspect the later builder of the “stone church” was the real founder. Innes (Ap. ii, v.) quotes from the book of Paisley, “In illa ecclesiâ (Abernethy), fuerunt tres electiones factæ quando non fuit nisi unus solus episcopus in Scociâ. Tunc enim fuit ille locus principalis regalis et pontificalis per aliqua tempora tocius regni Pictorum.” As the “primacy” originally vested in Iona, passed subsequently to Dunkeld and St. Andrews, neither of which were in existence before the early part of the ninth century, it may be inferred that, during the intervening period, it remained with Abernethy. It was usually vested in the _Cowarb_, or representative of the original founder; and its leading privileges were the _Lex_, or right to _Can_ and _Cuairt_--tribute and free quarters--and other dues.

[9] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 3, c. 1, 3.

[10] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 2, c. 5; l. 3, c. 24; l. 4, c. 2, 12. _Edd. Vit. Wilf._, c. 19. The _tenero adhuc regno_ of Eddius is changed by Malmesbury (_de Gest. Pont._) into _teneram infantiam reguli_, an expression scarcely applicable to Egfrid, who was twenty-five when he ascended the throne. Thus inaccuracies creep into history.

[11] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 4, c. 26. _Nen. Geneal. Tigh._ 686. _An. Ult._ 685. According to Nennius, no Saxon tax-gatherer ever again took tribute from the Picts. Tribute and a foreign bishop--or abbot--were the true tests of dependence at this period. _Tulachaman_ seems to have been the place often known as _Rath-inver-aman_--“the fort at the mouth of the river Almond,” where vestiges of it are I believe still traceable. _Dun Ollaig_ was probably a place at which Talorcan of _Atholl_ was killed some years later.

[12] _Tigh._ 726, 728, 729. _An. Ult._ 728. _Bed. Hist. Ecc. Contin._ 740, 750.

[13] _Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, p. 370, note A, p. 435.

[14] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 1, c. 34. _Uladh_ may be said to have had three meanings--1. Legendary Uladh, the northern kingdom of Ireland answering very nearly to modern Ulster; 2. Historical Uladh, the province lying to the eastward of Lough Neagh, and the rivers Bann and Newry; 3. Uladh proper, the southern and principal portion of the historical province, answering to the diocese of Down. The other historical divisions were, _Iveagh_ on the south-west, answering to the diocese of Dromore, and _Dal-Araidhe_ on the north, the “district of the _Airds_,” or hill-country, equivalent to the diocese of Connor. _Dalaraide_ must not be confounded with _Dalriada_. It was gradually restricted to the northern portion, known as _Tuisceart_ or the north.

[15] _Tigh._ 723, 726, 734. _An. Ult._ 730, 732, 733, 735, 742. I have touched very slightly upon the annals of Dalriada, a very vexed question, which bears about as much upon the general history of Scotland, as the early annals of Sussex might do upon the general history of England.

[16] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 1, c. 34; l. 2, c. 4. _Nen. Geneal._

[17] _Caledonia_, b. 2, c. 2. One of the localities in which a battle was fought during the Northumbrian civil wars in this century is called by _Sim. Dun._, _Eildon_; by the Saxon chronicler, _Edwin’s Cliff_. Edwin’s _burgh_ in Lothian has long supplanted any earlier name which the locality may have borne, but upon the borders of Selkirk forest, and in the neighbourhood of the Catrail, the British _Eildon_ has long outlived the Anglian monarch’s _Cliff_.

[18] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 2, c. 20; l. 3, c. 1, 24. _Tigh._ 631, 632. _Nen. Geneal._ Egfrid gave to St. Cuthbert Carlisle, with a circuit of fifteen miles, Creke with three miles--in short, all the open country in the north of Cumberland which was thus interposed between that district and Strath Clyde; whilst his donations of South Gedlet and Cartmel “with its Britons,” in the north of Lancashire, together with his grants on the Ribble and elsewhere to Wilfrid, shew that the greater part of Lancashire must have intervened between the Britons of English Cumbria and North Wales. Manchester and Whalley, or Billingaheth, were also in the Northumbrian territories. _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 1, c. 9. _Hist. St. Cuth._, p. 69. _Edd. Vit. Wilf._, c. 17. _Chron. Sax._ 798, 923. Nennius states that Cadwallader died of the great plague in Oswy’s reign, which can only refer to the pestilence of 664, though he has been purposely confounded with the West Saxon Ceadwalla, who died at Rome in 688. In spite of the assertion of Gildas, that all the records of his countrymen had perished, it was maintained that he had written a history and then destroyed it (_Gild. Capit._ 20); and Walter Mapes, bringing a book (as he said) from Brittany, where no other copy has ever been found, gave it to Geoffrey of Monmouth to translate. The work is called in Welsh the _Brut Tyssilio_, and is attributed to a certain Tyssilio living in the seventh century, who writes familiarly of _Scotland_, _Moray_, and _Normandy_, and brings the “Twelve Peers of France” to Arthur’s Coronation! Granting the existence of these Twelve Peers, how could Tyssilio, living in the seventh century, have been familiar with the institution of Charlemagne, who died in the ninth? In the nineteenth century the _Brut_ has been “done into English” with some very marvellous notes, in which the curious inquirer will find Cæsar refuted by Tyssilio, and Homer corrected by Dares Phrygius!

[19] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 4, c. 26; l. 5, c. 12, 23; _Do. contin._, 750. _Sim. Dun._, 756.

[20] I allude to the _Lex Aodh Fin_, meaning, apparently, the right of Aodh and his family to _Can_ and _Cuairt_, which were amongst the leading privileges of royalty. The following may explain the succession at this period--

Fergus Feredach
| |
Fergus /--------------\ /-------------\
| Angus Bruidi Kenneth Alpin
/--------------------\ d. 761 761–3 763–75 775–8
Eoganan---d. Constantine Angus | =============
| 789–820 820–34 Talorcan Bargoit Conal MacTeige
| | | 778–82 | 784–9
Alpin Drost Eoganan | /-------------\
| 834–6 836–9 Drost Feredach Bruidi
Kenneth 782–4 839–42 842–3
843

[21] _Innes_, bk. 1, art. 8. _Caledonia_, bk. 2, c. 6, p. 302, note A, with other authorities cited by both. The marriage of Kenneth’s grandfather with a sister of Constantine and Angus rests solely on tradition, but it appears the most probable solution of his peaceful accession to the throne. The examples of Talorcan, son of _Eanfred_, perhaps also of his cousin Bruidi son of _Bili_, which is a British name, shews that the alien extraction of the father was no bar to the succession of the son. Such a succession would be exactly in accordance with the old custom mentioned by Beda, that “in cases of difficulty” the female line was preferred to the male; _i.e._, a near connection in the female line to a distant male heir. From not attending to the expression “in cases of difficulty,” the sense of Beda’s words has been often misinterpreted.

[22] The name of Heathored occurs as the last amongst the bishops of Whithern in _Flor. Wig. App._, and his predecessor Badwulf is alluded to by _Sim. Dun._ under 796. The topography of Galloway and the language once spoken by the Galwegians (who acknowledged a _Kenkinny_--_Cen-cinnidh_--not a _Pen-cenedl_) distinguish them from the British race of Strath Clyde--the _Walenses_ of the early charters as opposed to the _Galwalenses_. Beda, however, knew of no Picts in the diocese of Candida Casa (_v. Appendix K_), and consequently they must have arrived at some later period, though it would be difficult to point with certainty to their original home. Some authorities bring them from Dalaraide, making them _Cruithne_ or Irish Picts; and the dedication of numerous churches in Galloway to saints popular in the north-east of _Uladh_ seems to favour their conjecture. The name of Galloway is probably traceable to its occupation by _Gall_, in this case Anglian strangers.

[23] _An. Ult._ 793, 813. _Sim. Dun._ 793. _Innes_, Ap. No. V. _Myln, Vit. Ep. Dunk. Ford_, l. 4, c. 12. This is the earliest historical appearance of the _Vikings_ on the Scottish coasts. The name has no connection with _king_, being derived from _Vik_ a bay, _Viking_ a baysman. By northern law, every freeman was bound to be enrolled in a _Hafn_, and to contribute towards building and manning a ship for the royal service, the office of _Styresman_ being always hereditary in the family of an _Odal-Bonder_. Thus, the royal ship, authorized to kill, burn, and destroy in lawful warfare, sailed from the _Hafn_, whilst the rover on his own account, stigmatized in “degenerate days” as a pirate, put off from the _Vik_ or open bay. He was as little likely to sail from a royal _Hafn_, as a Highland chieftain bent upon a _creagh_ to issue from the royal castle of Inverness. Hence perhaps the name.

[24] It must always be remembered, that the change of name from _Pict_ to _Scot_ was originally merely the substitution of one arbitrarily applied name for another--a change in the names used by chroniclers and annalists, not by the people themselves. The names of _Picti_ and _Scoti_ may be compared with those of _Germani_ and _Alamanni_, given arbitrarily to the people who called themselves by names which have now become _Deutsch_ and _Schwabe_.

[25] _Cæs. de B. G._, l. 1, c. 16; l. 2, c. 4; l. 3, c. 17; l. 5, c. 11, 22, 25, 54; l. 6, c. 32; l. 7, c. 4, 32, 33,63. _Tac. Germ._, c. 12, 42. _Am. Marc._, l. 31, c. 3. _Bed. Hist. Eccl._, l. 5, c. 10. _Vergobretus_ is evidently the Latin form of _Fear-go-breith_, “the Man of law,” the _Breithimh_, _Brehon_, or _Breen_; the Celtic judge, _Toshach_, is derived from the same root as the Latin _Dux_; the Thessalian Τάγος and the German _Toga_ bear the same meaning. It is the title that appears on several of the early British coins under the Latin form of _Tascio_.

[26] _Cæs de B. G._, l. 6, c. 10, 11. The _factio_ was evidently the result of Celtic _policy_, not of Celtic _temperament_, as has been too often represented. The policy may have gradually influenced the temperament rather than the temperament the policy.

[27] _Cæs. de B. G._, l. 7, c. 88; l. 8, c. 12.

[28] “Legibus æduorum, iis qui summum magistratum obtinuerent excedere ex finibus non liceret.”--_Cæs. de B. G._, l. 7, c. 33.

[29] “Convictolitanem, qui per sacerdotes more civitatis ... esset creatus.”--_Cæs. de B. G._, l. 7, c. 33.

[30] Some such a character still exists in Japan, which is under the divided rule of _two_ emperors; one a sacred puppet, nominally the head of the empire, but practically kept aloof from all mundane matters; the other known as the _Ziogoon_, or general, and the real ruler of the empire. This example of a _double head_ to an empire certainly bears some resemblance to the divided authority of the old Celtic system, or rather to what that divided authority might have become under certain circumstances.

[31] δημοκρατοῦνταί τε ὡς πλήθει is the expression of Dio (in _Severo_). Strabo (l. 4, p. 197) describes the Gallic states as Aristocracies, annually choosing “in ancient times”--_i.e._, before the Roman Conquest--a ruler ἡγημόνα, and a general στρατηγὸν; in other words, a _Vergobreith_ and a _Toshach_.

[32] _Leg. Gwyn._, l. 2, c. 18. The words of Bruce’s charter (_Thanes of Cawdor_) are “Ita tamen quod terra quam Fergusius dictus Demster tenet ibidem respondeat eidem Willelmo (Thano de Calder) de firma quam reddere consuevit.” It is doubtful whether _Vercingetorix_ was a name or a title, like _Brennus_. _Cynghed_ in Welsh means a _convention_; gorsez _cynghed_ cynnal, a convention held upon urgency. _Ver-cinget-o-rix_ might thus mean “the man chosen king in the convention.” The authority of the Anglo-Saxon princes, sometimes known as _Bretwaldas_, probably resembled that of the earlier Celtic Toshach--they were supreme _Heretogas_ rather than supreme _kings_. Cæsar calls Vercingetorix _Imperator_; commander-in-chief.

[33] The verses ascribed to Columba will be found in the various “Chronicles of the Picts,” of Innes, Pinkerton, and the “Irish Version of Nennius,” _J. A. S._ The _rev_ in Mu_rev_, Fort_rev_ is probably to be derived from _reim_ or “realm,” the names meaning “the realms along the sea (Murray, _Muireim_ or Armorica), and along the Forth.” _Ath_-Fodla is equivalent to “Fodla _on this side_ of the Mounth,” exactly answering to the situation of Atholl, immediately to the southward of the Grampian range. Northwards of Atholl the country is still known as _Badenoch_, “the district of the groves,” a name singularly inapplicable to its present state, answering probably to _Fidach_. _Fodh_, a word evidently derived from the same source as the Scandinavian _Odh_, and meaning “earth, land,” is probably at the foot of _Fodhla_ (_Fodh-lad_), or _Fo’la_, which seems to have answered amongst the Gael very much to _Gwlad_. _Fodh_ also means “learning in Gaelic.” The close connection between “mystic lore,” or “divination,” and the possession of land, was not confined to the Gael; it thoroughly pervaded the early Scandinavians.

[34] _Camb. Descr._ l. 1, c. 4. _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 19, 20. _Innes_, “_Sketches, etc._,” p. 365 _et seq._ In the middle of the seventeenth century, the second son of the Earl of Argyle was fostered by Campbell of Glenurchy, ancestor of the Breadalbane family. “In the Lowlands,” says Mr. Innes, “the practice was evidently common under the civil law.” In fact, fosterage was not peculiar to the Highlanders and Celtic people in particular, though, like many other old customs, it remained in force amongst them long after it had disappeared elsewhere. By Ini’s Law (63), the _fosterer_ was one of the three dependants whom the Gesithcundman might take with him under any circumstances. The system was admirably adapted for implanting the members of a dominant amongst a subordinate race, who, in the course of a few generations, must have thus become united in the ties of interest and affection with the ruling “caste.” No such ties bound the _villein_ to his feudal lord; and the evils and advantages arising out of each system were totally different. It was this custom which above all others tended to render the Anglo-Norman lords “beyond the pale,” _Hibernis Hiberniores_. As much devotion was shewn to a _Geraldine_ as to a _MacArthy_.

[35] _Adam._ _Vit. St. Col._, l. 3, c. 5. It was the _Vergobreith_, not the _Toshach_, who was “consecrated” by the Druids, _v._ p. 28, n. †. Giraldus Cambrenses has left an extraordinary description of the barbarous rites with which the inauguration of the princes of Cinel Conal was celebrated. He wrote from hearsay, and very probably heightened the colouring of a picture that was exaggerated in the first instance; for he fully participated in that rooted antipathy which seems to have long existed between the Welsh and the Irish. Still the words of Ailred shew that certain barbarous ceremonies on such occasions lingered amongst the Scottish Gael in the twelfth century, shocking the more fastidious ideas of David after he had “rubbed off his Scottish rust.” “Unde et obsequia illa quæ a gente Scottorum in novella regum promotione more patrio, exhibentur ita exhorruit ut ea vix ab episcopis suscipere cogeretur” (_Twysden_, p. 348). The conspicuous part still assigned at coronations to the Scottish “Stone of Destiny” is as well known as are the numerous tales and fables connected with it. In his “Essay on Tara” Mr. Petrie impugns the identity of the stone in St. Edward’s chair with the genuine _Lia Fail_, upon which the Ardrighs of Ireland were inaugurated at Tara; where, in his opinion, the mystic stone of the “Tuath de Danan” still remains in spite of the claims of the Dalriads and the fables of the Connaughtmen. It indeed seems extraordinary that a small and migratory tribe from the north of Antrim should have been permitted to carry off with them the “sacred stone” of the Irish kings, and I am inclined to look upon the Scottish _Lia Fail_ as the stone upon which the _Pictish_ kings and their successors were consecrated, its only migration, unless it was removed from _Dunfothir_ to _Scone_, having been undertaken at the order of Edward the First; though after the Gaelic people of Scotland had identified their own ancestry with that of the MacAlpin line of princes the _Lia Fail_ necessarily became mixed up with the supposed wanderings of the latter.

[36] The early Frank kings used to migrate in this way from _manor_ to _manor_, and the custom long prevailed amongst the Scandinavians. It was the origin of the “_sorning_,” a word derived from the same source as the French _sejourner_, and “_Waldgastnung_,” so often prohibited in the old laws of Scotland and the north. The Anglo-Saxons were perfectly well acquainted with the same custom, and lands were held for a certain number of “night’s _feorm_”--so many nights’ free quarters _originally_,--the name of the tenure being at length permanently transferred to the _tenant_ and _tenement_. Hence our words _Farmer_ and _Farm_.

[37] Most of the materials for this sketch have been taken from “Martin’s Western Isles,” the “Irish Annals,” and the “Works of the Irish Archæological Society,” particularly the “Hy Fiachrach,” where the subject is ably illustrated by Mr. O’Donovan in _Appendix L_. The “Circuit of Murketagh” contains an interesting account of the manner in which hostages and tribute were exacted, and the different methods of proceeding with kinsmen, allies, and rivals. The theory of _Tanistry_ extended to ecclesiastical offices, and we meet with _Tanist_ bishops and _Adbhar_ abbots; the former signifying, apparently, the successor _actually_ chosen, the latter one _eligible_ to be chosen. Thus, and in many other ways, the old Celtic principle of division appears to have gradually pervaded their branch of the church. Even the careful separation of sacerdotal _authority_ from practical _power_ seems to have clung to the Gaelic people for some time after their conversion; for while the Hy Nial for centuries monopolized the supreme power, the _Primacy_ was the exclusive appanage of the Clan Colla, _a race excluded from the throne_.

[38] A king of Atholl was amongst the rivals who succumbed to Angus (_Tigh._ 739), and from the foundation of Dunkeld and St. Andrews by Constantine and the second Angus, it may be gathered that the provinces connected with those monasteries were “in the crown.” In the Irish annals _Fortreim_ is latterly almost synonymous with the kingdom of the Picts. Its capital, _Dun-Fothir_, was evidently the Scottish _Tara_, and _Dundurn_ in the north perhaps the Scottish _Cashel_. Moray and Mærne seem to have long been the leading subdivisions of the north, but it would be difficult to name the corresponding divisions of the south. Abernethy appears to have been connected with Strathearn, Dunkeld with Atholl, and St. Andrews with Fife.

[39] _Lodbroka Quida. Str._, 12. The epithet of “the Hardy” is applied to Kenneth in the _Duan_. The old chronicle continues to apply the name of _Pictavia_ to Scotland proper, or _Alban_, and _Saxonia_ to the Lothians; whilst the Ulster annals call the MacAlpin dynasty “Kings of the Picts” to the close of the century.

[40] _Innes App._, No. 3.

[41] This expression, the “laws of Aodh,” may have found its way into the chronicle without the transcriber being aware of its meaning. In the Irish annals the _lex Patricii_ or _lex Columbæ_ alludes to the right of visitation and other dues belonging to the representatives or _Cowarbs_ of those saints; and the confirmation of the “lex Aodh Fin” by the Gael may mean the recognition of the claims of his descendants, the MacAlpin family, to _Can_ and _Cuairt_ over the provinces of the Picts. Royal _law_ was identical with royal _supremacy_.

[42] Their first arrival, or rather permanent settlement, is placed by the _An. Ult._ in 839. The district of _Fingall_ may derive its name from _Fine_ gall, “the stranger clans,” as well as from _Fin_-gall, “the white strangers.”

[43] The Fingall are sometimes supposed to have been Norwegians and the Dugall Danes, a fanciful distinction apparently, as Thorstein Olaveson was king of the Dugall (_An. Ult._ 874), and his father Olave was undoubtedly a Norwegian. The Hy Ivar, chiefs of the Dugall, were undoubtedly a Danish race, for the Northmen who slew Elli at York in 867 were Dugall, and known as _Scaldings_ or _Skioldungr_ of the royal race of Denmark. _An. Ult._ 866. _Twysden_, p. 70.

[44] _A. F. M._, 847, 849, 850, 851. Olave “took hostages from every clan, and tribute from the Gael.”

[45] _Innes App._, No. 3. _An. Ult._ 865, 869, 870, 872. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, 866. _Ware. Antiq. Hib._, c. 24. Ivar was unquestionably the Inguar of early English history, and perhaps Olave was the Ubba; for in the Langfedgatel quoted by Lappenberg (_Eng. under Ang. Sax._, vol. i., p. 114, n. 4), Olave is substituted for Uffo, evidently the same name as Ubba. The _Chron._ 3 ascribes the death of Olave to Constantine, whilst the Landnamaboc says he was killed in Ireland.

[46] _An. Ult._ 856. Laxdæla Saga and Landnamaboc in _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 65 to 69. The _Gallgael_ must be distinguished from their rivals the _Oirir-Gael_, or Gael of the coasts (_i.e._, of _Argyle_). Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, pt. 2, c. 2) considers them to have been identical, on the strength of a passage which, I think, scarcely bears him out. When the fleet of Turlough O’Connor ravaged Tir Conal and Inch Eogan in 1154 (A. F. M.), the clan Eogan sent to hire “Longus Gallgaidhel, Arann, Cinntire, Manann et Cantair Alban” ships of the Gallgael, Arran, Kintyre, Man, and “the coasts of Alban,” _i.e._ Oirir-Gael. Gallgael must here mean the Islesmen. The Orkneyinga Saga (_Antiq. Celt.-Scan._, p. 180) calls the Caithness men Gaddgedlar or Gallgael; in short, it was the name of the two races when blended, and in later days there was a continual struggle for superiority between the Oirir-Gael and the Gallgael--represented by the families of Somarled and of the later kings of Man,--in which the former were ultimately successful, uniting at length under one head the dominion of Argyle and the Isles. There is a slight discrepancy in the accounts of Ketil contained in the Sagas. He was leader of the Gallgael when Harfager was an infant, and appears to have succeeded Godfrey MacFergus, whose name betokens a mixed descent, and who died in 853 (_A. F. M._, 851). The Gallgael possessed the islands before the time of Harfager.

[47] _Ekkialsbakka_, according to Mr. Skene “the Mounth;” according to Johnstone, the Ochil Hills, appears to be rightly translated by Mr. Laing (_Heimskringla_, vol. 1., p. 291); “the banks of the Ekkial, or Oikell, a river which still marks the limits of Sutherland, the ancient _Sudrland_ of the Orkney Jarls.

[48] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._ (_Landnamaboc_), p. 20, 21.

[49] _Chron. Sax._ 875. Halfdan was a brother of Ivar. According to _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 2, c. 13, he was driven from Northumbria very soon after he settled there, and perished miserably, slain by “his own people.” He was probably the Albdan Toshach of the Dugall, who was killed in battle by the Fingall in 877 at Loch Cuan, or Strangford Lough. _An. Ult._ 876.

[50] Compare _An. Ult._ 874 with _Chron._ 3, _Innes’ Ap._ “Thorstein ruled as king over these districts, Caithness and Sutherland, Ross, Moray, and more than the half of Scotland”--_Landnamaboc_. “Thorstein at length became reconciled with the King of Scots, and obtained possession of the half of Scotland, over which he became king.”--_Laxdæla Saga_ (_Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 66 to 69). Such were the results of Thorstein’s victory, which were evidently admitted by the old chronicle in its brief notice, “Normanni annum integrum degerunt in Pictavia.” The half of Scotland plainly refers to the ancient territories of the Northern Picts.

[51] This account of the wars of Sigurd and Thorstein is taken from the Sagas already quoted, the Ulster annals and Chron. 3 in Innes’s Appendix. They must have occurred between the deaths of Olave, about 871, and of his son in 875; and the decisive conflict between the Picts and Dugall in 875, when the former were defeated with great slaughter (_An. Ult._), the battles of Dollar and Coach-Cochlum, two years before the death of Constantine, _i.e._, in the same year; and finally the death of Oistin or Thorstein MacOlave, placed by the Ulster annals under the same date, all mark the year 875 to have been the era of his brief triumph. All accounts agree that Thorstein perished by unfair means. “He was betrayed by the Scots and slain in battle.”--_Landnamaboc._ “The Scots did not keep the treaty long, but betrayed him in confidence”--_Laxdæla Saga._ These authorities are confirmed by the Ulster annals, which record the death of Thorstein Olaveson _per dolum_.

[52] _Innes’, App._ 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 8. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 16. Macpherson, in his “Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History,” explains the _Werdofatha_ of the Register of St. Andrews and Wynton to mean _Wem-du-fada_, “the long black cave,” in which Constantine is supposed to have suffered the cruel death of “the spread eagle.” The period of this reign is easily ascertained. Under the first year the Chronicle No. 3 places the death of Malsechnal, king of Ireland; and as that king died on Tuesday 20th November (_A.F.M._), his death must have occurred in 863. The same chronicle records the death of Aodh MacNial, king of Ireland, which happened in 879, under the second year of Eocha and Cyric (Grig), thus placing their accession, and consequently the death of Constantine’s brother Aodh, in 878. As the reign of Aodh lasted for only a year, that of his brother must have begun in 863 and ended in 877.

[53] Cyric (or Ciric, the same as the French St. Cyr) was the original name, which has been corrupted into Grig, Girg, and Gregory the Great. It seems to be a different name from _Gregor_, which is apparently the Scandinavian _Griotgar_. Eccles Girg or Grig is the modern _Cyrus_kirk. Dundurn or Dunadeer, in the Garioch, appears long to have held the same place amongst the Northern Picts as Dunfothir or Forteviot in the South, _i.e._, it was the capital of the leading province. _Caledonia_, bk. 3, c. 7, p. 383, note I.

[54] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 16. _An. Ult._ 877. Eocha is described as the _alumnus_ of Cyric, who was evidently the real king of Scotland for the time.

[55] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 9. It was probably to the gratitude of the monks, the only chroniclers of the age, that Cyric was partly indebted for some of his posthumous fame as Gregory the Great, an universal conqueror. The line of Aodh appears to have been connected with _Atholl_, which may account for the deposition of Dunkeld from its prominent position.

[56] _Innes_, Ap. 3. The title of _Civitas Regalis_ is given to Scone early in the next reign. The _palatium_, or royal residence of Kenneth, was at Forteviot, the ancient Pictish capital.

[57] _Innes_, Ap. 3 and 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 9. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 17, 18; l. 11 c. 40, 59. Wynton, Fordun, and the _Chron. Ryth._ at the end of the _Chron. Mel._--the same evidently as that quoted by Wynton--agree in giving eighteen years to Cyric, and placing his death at Dundurn, Dornedeore, or Dunadeer, in the Garioch. The reigns of the three kings extended over twenty-two years, from 878 to 900, the dates in the Ulster annals of the deaths of Aodh and Donald; and as Eocha reigned for eleven years (_Chron._ 5), Donald must have succeeded in 889. The Chron. No. 3 places an eclipse on St. Ciric’s Day (16th June) under the ninth year of Eocha and Cyric. This actually occurred on 16th June 885, in the _eighth_ year of their reign; and allowing for the trifling inaccuracy of a year, it is evidently the eclipse referred to. From confounding St. Ciric with St. Siriac, on whose day (8th August 891) an eclipse also happened, both Pinkerton and Chalmers have misdated all these reigns.

[58] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _An. Ult._ 899. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 20. Either this king, or one of his predecessors, must have been the sufferer at Mundingdene, a mile south of Norham, when the obedience of Guthred, son of Hardicanute (rather a mythical personage), to the dictates of Abbot Edred’s vision, in restoring the lands of St. Cuthbert between Tyne and Wear to the Church, was rewarded by the intervention of the Saint in behalf of the sacred territory, when it was invaded by a band of Scots, who were miraculously engulphed in the yawning earth! _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 2, c. 14. _Leland_, vol. i. p. 329. It is a pity the miracle was not repeated a few years later, when Reginald Hy Ivar divided these very lands amongst his pagan followers. What with the _sac_, _soc_ and _infangthief_, granted by Guthred in the ninth century, the fine of 96 Anglo-Norman pounds, and the near vicinity of the Scots to St. Cuthbert’s territory, the story affords a very fair specimen of the inventions by which the monks occasionally tried to give a title to lands which they often really possessed rightfully, though without legal proof of such right. A miracle or a victory, especially if either were at the expense of the Scots, lent an air of sanctity or authority to the fabrication, which it would have been impious or unpatriotic to doubt.

[59] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _An. Ult._ 903. As the annals call the victors “the men of Fortren,” I have rendered the _Sraith Eremi_ of Pinkerton’s version of _Chron._ 3, Strathearn.

[60] _Innes_, Ap. 3. It probably resembled those meetings of the Anglo-Saxon _Witan_, at which the ecclesiastical _Dooms_, so often preceding the secular _Dooms_ in the Anglo-Saxon laws, were promulgated, and may have had some reference to the recent elevation of the See of St. Andrews to the primacy.

[61] _An. Ult._ 871. According to this authority, Constantine “_procured_” the death of Artga.

[62] _An. Ult._ 876, 877. _An. Camb._ and _Brut y Tywys_, 880. _Caradoc, Hist. Wales_, p. 38. _Caledonia_, vol. i., bk. 3, c. 5, p. 355. Chalmers gives the name of Constantine to their first leader, whilst, according to Caradoc, Hobart was their chief when they reached Wales. To some old tradition of this migration, and to the encroachments of the Galwegians, the _Inquisitio Davidis_ probably alludes:--“Diversæ seditiones circumquaque insurgentes non solum ecclesiam et ejus possessiones destruxerunt verum etiam totam regionem vastantes ejus habitatores exilio tradiderunt” _Reg. Glasg._ In fact it would appear as if a Scottish party had dated its rise from the days of Kenneth MacAlpin, and secured a triumph by the expulsion of its antagonists, on the accession of Eocha to the Scottish throne, and by the election of Donald in the reign of the second Constantine.

[63] _Innes_, Ap. 3. Donald and Eocha, or Eogan, were the invariable family names (with only one exception) of the princes of Strath Clyde, until the extinction of the race in the time of Malcolm II.