Transcriber's Note:
Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully
as possible, including some inconsistencies of hyphenation. Some
changes of spelling and punctuation have been made. They are listed
at the end of the text. The errors listed in the Errata have been
fixed.
Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.
ANCIENT BATTLE-FIELDS.
ON SOME
ANCIENT
BATTLE-FIELDS IN LANCASHIRE
AND THEIR
HISTORICAL, LEGENDARY, AND AESTHETIC ASSOCIATIONS.
BY
CHARLES HARDWICK,
Author of a "History of Preston and its Environs," "Traditions,
Superstitions and Folk-Lore," "Manual for Patrons and Members of
Friendly Societies," &c.
MANCHESTER:
ABEL HEYWOOD & SON, OLDHAM STREET.
LONDON:
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & Co., STATIONERS' HALL COURT.
1882.
TO
GEORGE MILNER, ESQ., PRESIDENT,
AND TO THE COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE
MANCHESTER LITERARY CLUB,
THIS WORK IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY ONE OF ITS FOUNDERS.
CHARLES HARDWICK.
PREFACE.
To the transactions of the Manchester Literary Club (1875-8) I
contributed four papers on "Some Ancient Battle-fields in Lancashire."
These essays form the _nuclei_ of the four chapters of the present
volume. Their original scope, however, has been much extended, and the
evidences there adduced largely augmented. I have likewise endeavoured
to still further fortify and illustrate my several positions, by
citations from well-known, and many recent, labourers in similar or
cognate fields of enquiry.
I am aware that the precise locality of any given battle-field is of
relatively little interest to the general historian, the causes of the
conflict and its political results demanding the largest share of his
attention. Consequently, doubtful topographical features are often
either completely ignored, or but slightly referred to. Such a course,
however, is not permissible to the local student. Scarcely anything
can be too trifling, in a certain sense, to be unworthy of some
investigation on his part. This is especially the case with respect to
legendary stories, and traditional beliefs. Their interest is
intensified, it is true, to the local reader or student, but the lessons
they teach, on patient enquiry, will often be found in harmony with
larger or more general truths, and of which truths they often form apt
illustrations. "Alas!" truly exclaimed "Verax," in one of his recent
letters in the _Manchester Weekly Times_, "it is hard to disengage
ourselves from inherited illusions. They become a part of our being, and
falsify the standard of comparison." Modern science may be able to
demonstrate that many of the conceptions respecting physical phenomena
dealt with in these legendary stories are utterly at variance with now
well-known facts. This may be perfectly true, but human nature is
influenced in its action, quite as much by its faiths, beliefs, and
superstitions, as by the more exact knowledge it may have acquired.
Subjective truths are as true, as mere facts or actualities, as
objective ones. Thomas Carlyle forcibly expresses this when he
asks--"Was Luther's picture of the devil _less a reality_, whether it
were formed within the bodily eye, or without it?" Mr. J. R. Green, in
his "Making of England," says--"Legend, if it distorts facts, preserves
accurately enough the _impressions_ of a vanished time." And these
impressions being emotionally true, whether scientifically correct or
not, have ever been, and will continue to be, powerful factors in the
formation of character, and in the progressive development of
humanity,--morally, socially, and politically. Our predecessors felt
their influence and acted accordingly, and many of the presumedly
exploded old superstitions survive amongst the mass of mankind to a much
greater degree than we often acknowledge or even suspect; although many
of their more repulsive forms may have undergone superficial
transformation amongst the more educated classes.
Referring to superstitious legendary reverence as a marked feature in
the religious characteristics of the seventeenth century, the author of
"John Inglesant, a Romance," places in the mouth of the rector of the
English College, at Rome, in the seventeenth century, the following
words:--"These things are true to each of us according as we see them;
they are, in fact, but shadows and likenesses of the absolute truth that
reveals itself to man in different ways, but always imperfectly, as in a
glass."
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that, in the year 685, "it rained
blood in Britain, and milk and butter were turned into blood."
Of course, educated persons do not believe this _now_; but our
conventionally educated predecessors did, and their conduct was sensibly
influenced by such belief. The Chinese think themselves much superior
personages, in very many respects, to the "barbarian" European, yet the
following paragraph "went the round of the papers" during May, in the
present year:--"The Kaiping coal mines have been closed in deference to
the opinion expressed by the Censor, that the continued working of them
would release the earth dragon, disturb the manes of the empress, and
bring trouble upon the imperial family."
From the very nature of many of the subjects investigated, and the
character of the only available evidence, some of the inferences drawn
in the following pages can only be regarded as probabilities, and others
as merely possibilities, and they are put forth with no higher
pretensions. In such matters dogmatical insistence is out of place, and
I have studiously endeavoured to avoid it.
C. H.
72, Talbot Street, Moss Side, Manchester.
August, 1882.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.--Early Historical and Legendary Battles.
_The Arthur of History and Legend. King Arthur's presumed Victories on
the Douglas, near Wigan and Blackrod._
Historical works are chiefly records of battles, squabbles and intrigues
of diplomatists and politicians. More details now required as to the
domestic habits and conditions of the people, and the degree and kind of
intellectual and moral culture which obtained at any given period of
their history. Progress of man from the savage to a more civilized
condition. Records of many battles survive, the sites of which are
either unknown or involved in the greatest obscurity. Many genuine
historical events are inextricably interwoven with mythical and
traditionary legends. The Roman conquest of the Brigantes. Remains of
some of these conflicts in Lancashire. The narratives of Gildas,
Nennius, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and some others, combinations of historic
truths with a mass of tradition, superstition, and artistic fiction.
Wales the birthplace of much of European mediæval fiction. Views of Sig.
Panizzi, Professor Henry Morley, Mr. E. B. Tylor, and Mr. Fiske. The
Arthurian legends the "source of one of the purest streams of English
poetry." Notwithstanding untrustworthy strictly historical elements,
they enshrine much genuine legendary national faith as well as
superstition. The Rev. John Whitaker's belief in Arthur's historical
verity. Other advocates of this view: Mr. Haigh, Henry of Huntingdon and
Professor Fergusson. Arthur's traditionary tomb at Glastonbury, opened
A.D. 1189. Mr. Haigh's exposition of the fraud then practised. Welsh
traditions thereon. The Rev. R. W. Morgan's views. William of Newbury's
contempt for Geoffrey's fictions. Shakspere's almost total absence of
reference to Arthur. Sir Edward Strachey's comments on the erroneous
geography in Sir Thomas Malory's work. Mr. J. R. Green's views. Sir G.
W. Dasent, on the paucity of trustworthy historic record from about
A.D. 420 to A.D. 730. The deeds of other heroes, especially those of
Urien, of Rheged, assigned to Arthur by the mediæval romance writers.
Doubts as to the authenticity of the authorship and dates of the
composition of the works of Gildas and Nennius discussed. No mention of
Arthur by either Gildas or the Venerable Bede. Mr. Haigh's defence of
the old histories, and his conjectures as to the authors. Nennius says
the second, third, fourth, and fifth of Arthur's twelve great victories
were gained on the banks "of a river called Duglas, in the region
Linuis." The Rev. John Whitaker's contention that these battles were
fought on the Douglas, near Wigan and Blackrod. The archæological and
traditional details advanced in support thereof. Opening of the huge
barrow "Hasty Knoll," and excavations at Parson's Meadow and Pool
Bridge, in the last century, where remains were found, which Whitaker
and others regarded as conclusive evidence that some ancient battles had
been fought in the localities. Derivation of the word Wigan. Geoffrey's
single battle on the Douglas, in which Arthur defeated Colgrin. Mr.
Haigh's arguments respecting the dates of these conflicts. His advocacy
of the Wigan sites, and identification of another battle on "the river
Bassas," _i.e._, Bashall Brook, near Clitheroe. His hypothesis that Ince
is a corruption of Linuis. Probability of the exploits of Cadwallon or
Cadwalla, king of the Western Britons, being inextricably interwoven
with the legendary ones of the heroes of the Arthurian romances. Views
of Lappenberg. Mr. H. H. Howorth and Mr. Haigh on the appropriation by
the Britons and Danes of the deeds and heroes of their enemies or
neighbours. Hollingworth, in his "Mancuniensis," refers to the Roman
conquests in the district by Petilius Cerealis, and afterwards speaks of
Arthur's great victory near Wigan, and gives credence to the legends
about the giant Tarquin, his castle at Manchester, and his combats with
some of Arthur's knights. Bishop Percy on the historical truth
underlying legend in such ancient ballads as "Chevy Chase," and the
confusion of incidents and heroes. Professor Boyd Dawkins on "the date
of the conquest of South Lancashire by the English." Mr. J. R. Green's
views. During the seventh century many sanguinary battles were fought,
the sites of which are now unascertainable. Ethelfirth's great victory
at Bangor-Iscoed. Some of the struggles of this period may have been
absorbed by the romance writers into their stock of Arthurian legends.
The Rev. John Whitaker and Tarquin's castle at Manchester. Sir
"Launcelot du Lake." Martin Mere. Gradual growth of legendary heroic
fiction. Mr. Tylor's view. The Arthurian legends enshrine some of the
oldest Aryan myths, and are the source of some of our noblest poetry.
Sir George Ellis on the foundation of mythic legends. Mr. Fiske on
artistic legendary development. Mr. E. A. Freeman and Mr. Fiske on the
historical and legendary Charlemagne. Some of the deeds of Charlemagne,
probably absorbed into the latter Arthurian legends. Mr. H. H. Howorth
on Saxo-Grammaticus. Historical and legendary Cromwells, Alexanders, and
Taliesens. Mr. Kains-Jackson on Arthurian accretions. Mr. F. Metcalfe on
Alfred the Great and trial by jury. "The famous story of Theophilus."
The Rev. Sir G. W. Cox on the distribution of ancient Aryan mythic
heroes. Historical novels. Opinions thereon of Sir Francis Palgrave,
Dean Milman, Arminius Vámbéry, and Leslie Stephen. Historic and æsthetic
truth distinct but not antagonistic. The ideal and the real, or
subjective and objective truths. Shakspere's treatment in the character
of Macbeth. Artistic truths not necessarily individual or strictly
biographical or historical facts, but result from wider generalisation,
and possess an inherent or subjective vitality of their own. Views of
Thos. Carlyle, Gervinus, R. N. Wornum, Dr. Dickson White, M. Mallet, and
Tennyson. Nennius's tenth battle, said by some, but on very inconclusive
evidence, to have been fought on the Ribble.
CHAPTER II.--The Defeat and Death of King Oswald, of Northumbria, by the
Pagan Mercian King, Penda, at Maserfeld (A.D. 642.)
_The Legend of the Wild Boar, "the Monster in former ages which prowled
over the neighbourhood of Winwick, inflicting injury on Man and Beast."_
The Venerable Bede and the Saxon Chronicle's account of the battle. The
site disputed. Some suggest Winwick, in Lancashire, others Oswestry, in
Shropshire. Dean Howson's suggestion. Different orthographies and
etymologies of the name Maserfeld. The subject phonetically and
topographically considered. Views of Mr. Roberts and Mr. Howell W.
Lloyd. St. Oswald's Well, at Winwick. Its sanctity and legendary
connection with the death of St. Oswald. The inscription on the church
dedicated to St. Oswald. Hollingworth's view, in "Mancuniensis."
Geoffrey of Monmouth's statement that the battle was fought at a place
called Burne. Oswald's previous victory over Cadwalla at Heavenfield.
Bede's narrative, and his relation of the miracles performed by the
Saint's bones, and even the earth taken from the spot on which he fell.
Curious coincidence revealed during the excavations at "Castle Hill,"
Penworthan, in 1856. Penda, not Oswald, the aggressor, consequently the
site of the battle-field may be presumed to be within the Northumbrian
rather than the Mercian territory. Bryn, Brun, or Burne in the Fee of
Makerfield. The great barrow or tumulus called "Castle Hill," near
Newton. Nennius says the battle was fought at Cocboy. Cockedge.
Latchford. Probable etymology. Professor Dwight Whitney on the
difficulties inherent in topographical etymology. Winwick, a place of
victory. At "Winfield" Herman defeated Varus, A.D. 10. Present
appearance of the "Castle Hill." Mr. Baines and Dr. Kendrick's
descriptions. Opening of the tumulus in 1843. Description of its
contents by the Rev. Mr. Sibson and Dr. Kendrick. A burial mound haunted
by the ghost of a "White Lady." Traditionary burial-place of Alfred the
Great. Professor Fergusson and B. E. Hildebrand on the contents of Odin
and Frey's "howes," near Upsala, opened in 1846-7. Similarity to those
found at "Castle Hill." Dr. Robson's description of two burial mounds
opened at Arbury, in 1859-60. The contents consisted of burnt bones and
wood, rude pottery, a stone hammer-head, and a bronze dart. Etymology of
Arbury. The "Mote Hill," at Warrington, removed in 1852. Opinions
respecting the date of this tumulus of Pennant, Ormerod, W. T. Watkin,
and John Whitaker. The Rev. Mr. Sibson thought it a "tumulus or
burial-place, raised after the battle fought at Winwick." Dr. Kendrick's
description of its contents. Christian and Pagan modes of sepulture
contrasted. Description of the latter in "Beowulf," the oldest
Anglo-Saxon poem extant. Date of first erection of a church at Winwick
unknown. The date of the erection of the church at Oswestry. St.
Oswald's church, according to Domesday book held "two carucates of land
_exempt from all taxation_." In 1828, three large human skeletons found
eight or ten feet below the floor of the chancel, uncoffined, and
covered with a heap of large stones. St. Oswald's Well. Opinions of
Baines respecting the saint's wells at Winwick and Oswestry. "Cae Naef,"
or "Heaven's Field," site of Oswald's previous victory over Cadwalla.
Dennis-brook. Sharon-Turner, Camden and Dr. Smith's views of this site.
Some of the Oswestry traditions evidently have reference to Oswald's
previous victory. The dedication of the church to St. Oswald could not
have proceeded from the then British Christians. Contests between the
disciples of Augustine and Paulinus, and the earlier British Church. The
Welsh word "tre" means simply hamlet, homestead. Penda's defeat in the
following year near the river Vinwid. Mr. T. Baines's conjecture as to
the site being near Winwick. The evidence, however, conclusive as to
Winwidfield, near Leeds. Mr. J. R. Green on Oswald's and Penda's policy.
Cromwell's victory at "Red Bank," near Winwick, in 1648. Supposed crest
of Oswald. Rude sculpture of a "chained hog." Baines's legend of a
"monster in former ages, which prowled over the neighbourhood inflicting
injury on man and beast." Other demon-hogs. Mythical monsters,
"harvest-blasters," huge worms, serpents, dragons, and wild boars,
common in the North of England. Several instances cited. Mr. Haigh's
argument as to the site of the poem Beowulf being near Hartlepool,
Durham. Dr. Phene on Scandinavian and Pictish customs on the
Anglo-Scottish Border. Aryan myths of the lightning and the storm cloud.
Mr. Walter Kelly on ancient Aryan personifications of natural phenomena.
Stormy winds, howling dogs or wolves. The ravages of the whirlwind that
tore up the earth, the "_work of a wild boar_." Lancashire superstition
that pigs can "see the wind." Monstrous boar slain in the Greek legend
of the Kalydonian hunt. Origin of modern heraldry. Totems or beast
symbols amongst many ancient as well as modern nations or tribes.
Instances. Views of Mr. E. B. Tylor, the Rev. Isaac Taylor, and others.
The boar favourite helmet crest or totem amongst the Teutonic invaders.
Sacred to the goddess Freya. The "_boar of war_." Illustrations from the
Anglo-Saxon poems Beowulf, the Battle of Finsburgh, the Scandinavian
Edda, and the ancient British poem Gododin. The boar probably the crest
of Penda. St. Anthony's pig. Re-crystallisation of ancient myths around
relatively more modern nuclei. Illustrations from the works of
Keightley, Mackenzie, Wallace, Bishop Percy, Sir John Lubbock, Arminius
Vámbéry, John Fiske, and the Vedic hymns. Origin of modern surnames.
Many beast, bird, or flower symbols. Examples. Shakspere's reference to
the bear symbol of the Earl of Warwick and the boar of Richard III.
"Pitris," or ancestral spirits. Their supposed action in the storm and
the battle-field. Icelandic kindred customs and superstitions. Professor
Gervinus on the importance and conditions of such critical enquiry.
Views of Professor Tyndall and Mr. J. A. Farrar.
CHAPTER III.--Battles in the Valley of the Ribble near Whalley and
Clitheroe.
_Wada's Defeat by King Eardulph, at Billangahoh (Langho,) A.D. 798, and
Contemporary Prophetic Superstitions. The Victory of the Scots at
Edisford Bridge in 1138. Civil War Incidents during the struggle between
Charles I. and the English Parliament._
Wada's defeat recorded in the Saxon Chronicle and by Simeon of Durham.
The Murder of Ethelred (A.D. 794) by Wada and other conspirators. The
murderous and lawless characteristics of the age illustrated.
Sharon-Turner's summary of these characteristics. Superstitious
forewarnings: whirlwinds, lightnings, and fiery dragons. Ravages of
Danish pirates. Treasons and civil wars. The locality of Wada's defeat
undisputed. The names of places still retained, with only such phonetic
changes as philologists anticipate. A probable ancestor of Wada
mentioned in the "Traveller's Tale." The Legend of St. Christopher.
Other chieftains referred to in the same poem: "Hwala, once the best."
and Billing who "ruled the Wœrns." Watling-street. Wade and his boats.
Beautiful scenery in the Ribble valley around the battle-field. Tumuli.
One superficially opened by Dr. Whitaker, without result. When the mound
was entirely removed in 1836, the remains of a buried chieftain
(probably Alric son of Herbert) were discovered. Tradition concerning
the battle. Two other "lowes" or "mounds," apparently tumuli, on the
opposite bank of the river. Some confusion in the descriptive references
to these mounds. Observations of Dr. Whitaker, Canon Raines, Mr. Abram
and others. Second visit of the present writer to the locality in 1876.
Curious circular agger. Supposed ancient artificial grout at "Brockhole
Wood-end." Geological phenomena. Possibly the "lowes" outliers of the
partially denuded glacial "drift." Further excavations necessary.
Probable direction of the battle. Dr. Whitaker's argument as to the
southern boundary of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria discussed. Mr.
J. R. Green on Anglo-Saxon bishoprics. King Eardulph dethroned. Other
superstitious warnings attendant thereon. Patriotism and rebellion. The
fight at Edisford Bridge in 1138. The Bashall Brook the "Bassus"
according to Mr. Haigh. Bungerley "hyppingstones." Capture of Henry VI.,
after the battle of Hexham in 1464, by the Talbots of Bashall and
Salesbury. Civil war incidents during the struggle between Charles I.
and the English Parliament. Cromwellian traditions respecting the
destruction of Clitheroe and Bury castles. Captain John Hodgson's
details of Cromwell's march by Clitheroe and Stonyhurst to the great
battle at Preston.
CHAPTER IV.--Athelstan's great Victory at Brunanburh, A.D. 937, and its
connection with the great Anglo-Saxon and Danish Hoard, discovered at
Cuerdale in 1840.
Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian invasions of Britain. First arrival of the
Danes, A.D. 787. The Anglo-Saxons and Ancient British inhabitants
Christians, the Scandinavians Pagans. Savage warfare of the period.
Progress of the invasion. Ella, king of Northumbria and Ragnar Lodbrog.
The real and mythic Ragnar. Halfden's settlements in Northumbria.
Athelstan succeeds to the throne of Wessex and its dependencies.
Submission of the Welsh and Scots. Marriage of Editha, Athelstan's
sister, to Sihtric, king of Northumbria. Sihtric's relapse into paganism
and repudiation of his queen. Sudden death of Sihtric. Athelstan's
vengeance falls upon his sons by a former wife, Anlaf and Godefrid, the
former of whom fled to Ireland, and the latter sought refuge with
Constantine, king of the Scots. Athelstan dominant king of all Britain.
Revolt of the Scottish king and his defeat. Powerful combination of
Athelstan's enemies. Their defeat and rout at Brunanburh. Difficulty as
to the exact date of the battle. British Christian chiefs, as on
previous occasions, espoused the cause of the pagan invaders, and fought
against their hated rivals of the party of St. Augustine. Defeat of
Athelstan's two governors, Gudrekir and Alfgeirr. Athelstan's arrival at
Brunanburh. Anlaf's stratagem in the guise of a harper. Similar story
related of King Alfred. Improbability of both being historically true.
Mr. T. Metcalfe's doubts on the subject. Anlaf's midnight assault of
Athelstan's camp frustrated. Details of the great battle. Total rout of
Anlaf and his allies. Five "youthful kings" and seven of Anlaf's earls
slain. Flight of Anlaf to Dublin. Importance of the victory. The famous
Anglo-Saxon poem. Claims to the title of first king of England
discussed. The causes of the site of the battle being at the present day
merely conjectural. The influence of the battle after Danish and
Norman-French conquests. Suppression of evidence. Henry of Huntingdon's
views on the subject. Mr. D. Haigh on the destruction of ancient Runic
inscriptions by the disciples of Augustine and other Christian
missionaries. Archbishop Parker's labours in the saving of Anglo-Saxon
MSS. from destruction in the sixteenth century. John Bale's account in
1549 of the wholesale destruction of MSS. during his day. Thorpe, Dr.
Grundtvig, and J. M. Kemble's testimony to the ignorance of the
Anglo-Norman copyists. The great "Cuerdale find" in May, 1840. Mr.
Hawkins's description of the treasure. Its great value at the time of
its deposit. The latest coins minted a short time previously to the
great battle of Brunanburh. Dr. Worsaae's analysis of the "hoard."
Various places suggested as the probable site of the battle: Colecroft,
near Axminster, Devonshire; near Beverley, and at Aldborough, Yorkshire;
Ford, near Bromeridge, Northumberland; Banbury, Oxfordshire; Bourne,
Brumby, and the neighbourhood of Barton-on-Humber, Lincolnshire. A
Bambro', a Bambury, and some other places have likewise found advocates.
Their respective claims discussed. The present writer's position that
the Cuerdale hoard was buried owing to the disastrous defeat of the
allies under Anlaf near the "pass of the Ribble." The tradition
respecting its burial and non-disinterment. The three fords at the
"pass," at Cuerdale, Walton, and Penwortham, opposite Preston. Evidence
of the coins. Discovery of Roman remains at Walton, in 1855. Revival of
the tradition. The hoard at Cuerdale all silver. Finds of Roman hoards
not uncommon in the county. Other battles known to have been fought in
the neighbourhood. Two great Roman roads, and some vicinal ways pass
near the locality. From the positions of the belligerents, the "pass of
the Ribble" a very probable site of the conflict. The certainty of its
having taken place in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria. Anlaf, the
Dane, ruling chief of Dublin, head of the Confederacy. The ports of
Ribble and Wyre suitable for the landing of his vessels, and for his
after escape to Dublin. From a topographical and military point of view,
"the pass of the Ribble" a very probable site of the conflict. The name
Brunanburh, in some presumedly corrupted form, very common. Examples.
Name of place of conflict variously written by the older historians.
Doomsday book defective in South Lancashire, in consequence of its
ravaged condition; still many corrupted names remain to furnish
important etymological evidence in favour of the author's position.
These evidences and readings in old maps and deeds discussed in detail.
Origin of the names Brindle (Brunhull, in Saxton's map); Bamber
(Brunber), Brownedge (Brunedge). Mr. Weddle's view that Weondune is a
mistake for Weordune. Origin of the names Wearden and Cuerden.
Etymological and philological evidence considered. Probable modern
remains of Ethrunnanwerch in Etherington and Rothelsworth. Other names
of places in Lancashire which require consideration. Proofs that the
battle was fought not far from the sea shore and not in the interior of
the country. Other evidence of Athelstan's connection with the district.
His grant of Amounderness to the Cathedral church at York, A.D. 930. The
Harleian MSS. "Mundana Mutabilia," of the early part of the seventeenth
century. Tumulus named "Pickering Castle," near Roman vicinal way.
Etymological origin of the word "Pickering" discussed. "Pickering
Castle," a probable corruption of "Bickering Castle," or the castle or
tumulus of the battle-field. Ancient stone coffin in Brindle
church-yard. Discovery of Ancient British burial urns at "Low Hill,"
near Over Darwen, in 1867. Ancient traditions respecting a battle in the
neighbourhood of Tockholes in Roddlesworth valley. Concluding remarks in
support of the view that the country south of the "Pass of the Ribble"
is the most probable site of Athelstan's great victory. More recent
battles in the neighbourhood. Bruce's foray in 1323, Cromwell's victory
in 1648, and Milton's sonnet thereon. The number of troops engaged.
Legends connected with the battle. The Siege of Preston under Wells and
Carpenter in 1715. March of the "Young Pretender," in 1745. Doggrel
ballad: "Long Preston Peggy to Proud Preston went."
APPENDIX.
The disposal of St. Oswald's remains. The dun bull, the badge of the
Nevilles. The Genesis of Myths. Anglo-Saxon Helmet.
ERRATA.
On page 51, line 21, insert marks of quotation (") after--"_or without
it_."
Transpose the note on page 65, beginning--"_Bosworth, in his Anglo-Saxon
Dictionary_," to page 64, and place the * after "_massacre, etc._," at
the end of the sixth line from the bottom of the text.
Transpose the note commencing on page 64 to page 65.
For "_Downham_ IN _Yorkshire_" (page 143, fourteenth line from the
bottom), read "_Downham_ INTO _Yorkshire_."
CHAPTER I.
EARLY HISTORICAL AND LEGENDARY BATTLES.
THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY, LEGEND, AND ART. KING ARTHUR'S PRESUMED VICTORIES
ON THE DOUGLAS, NEAR WIGAN AND BLACKROD.
It has often been remarked, and with some truth, that our standard
historical works, until very recent times at least, contained little
more than the details of battles, the squabbles and intrigues of
diplomatists and politicians, and the pedigrees of potentates, imperial
or otherwise. Now-a-days we seek to know more of the domestic habits and
conditions of the mass of the population, and the degree and kind of
intellectual and moral culture which obtained amongst a people at any
given period of their history. But man's advance from the savage to his
present relatively civilized condition has been one of fierce and
sanguinary strife, and the piratical and freebooting instincts which he
inherited, along with some of his nobler attributes and aspirations,
from his remote ancestors, are by no means extinguished at the present
time, although, in their practical exhibition, they may generally assume
a somewhat more decorous exterior. Still, courage and physical
endurance, however rude and uncouth in outward aspect, as well as
heroism of a higher mental or moral order, ever possessed, and ever will
possess, a strange and uncontrollable fascination; and the associations,
social, political, or religious, attendant upon the more prominent of
the bloody struggles of the past, excite, in a most powerful degree, the
emotional as well as the imaginative elements of our being. This is
notoriously the case when any special interest is superinduced, national
or provincial. "All men naturally feel more interested in the historical
associations of their own race than they do in those of any other
portion of mankind. The soil daily trodden by the foot of any reflecting
being,--the locality with whose present struggles, progress or decay, he
is practically acquainted,--whose traditions and folk-lore were first
fixed in his memory and his heart, long before more exact knowledge or
cultivated judgment enabled him to test their accuracy or correctly
weigh their value,--must possess historic reminiscences not only capable
of commanding his attention, by exciting in the imaginative faculty
agreeable and healthy sensations, but of teaching him valuable lessons
in profound practical wisdom."[1]
It might be said, without much exaggeration, that if the soil could be
endowed with vocal utterance, we might learn that the surface area of
the earth which has _not_ sustained the shock of battle at some period
of the world's history is not very much greater than that which has felt
the tread of armed men in deadly conflict. In the early historic and
pre-historic times, when clan or sept fought, as a matter of course,
against clan or sept, for the privilege of existence or the means to
secure it; or when baron or other chieftain "levied private war" against
his neighbour, from ambition, passion or greed, numberless fierce and
bloody struggles must have taken place of which no record has been
preserved.
The _names_ of many important ancient battle-fields have been handed
down to the present time, the sites of which are either utterly unknown
or involved in great obscurity. Some genuine historical events have been
so inextricably interwoven with the mythical and traditionary legends of
our forefathers, that it is now impossible to detect with exactness the
residuum of historical truth therein contained. The battle-fields and
all authentic record of the battles themselves amongst the inhabitants
of Britain prior to the Roman conquest are, of course, utterly lost in
the gloom of the past. Nay, we know, with certainty, very few even of
the sites of the struggles of the Britons with the victorious Roman
legions. The locality we now denominate Lancashire was, at that time,
inhabited by the Volantii and the Sistuntii, Setantii, or Segantii, and
was included in the "country of the Brigantes," a numerous and warlike
tribe which frequently "measured blades" with the imperial troops. There
exists, however, no record to inform us where any specific conflict took
place, notwithstanding the numerous archæological remains which attest
the after-presence of the conquerors. Yet we know on the best authority
that the Brigantes espoused the cause of the Iceni, who inhabited the
Norfolk of the present day, and were defeated by Ostorius Scapula, in
the reign of Claudius. Soon after the death of Galba, an insurrection
broke out amongst them, headed by a chief named Venutius, who had
married the Brigantine queen, Cartismandua, a woman infamous in British
history as the betrayer of the brave but unfortunate Caractacus. This
royal lady likewise played false with her husband, but Fortune refused
to smile on her second perfidy. She escaped with difficulty to the
territory occupied by her Roman allies, and Venutius remained master of
the "country of the Brigantes," and for a considerable time successfully
resisted the progress of the imperial arms. Petilius Cerealis, however,
in the reign of Vespatian, after a sanguinary conflict, added the
greater portion of the Brigantine territory to the Roman province. The
final conquest was effected about the year 79, by Julius Agricola, in
the reign of Domitian. Remains of stations established by him are
numerous in Lancashire. On Extwistle Moor, about five miles to the east
of Burnley, and about the same distance south of Caster-cliff, a Roman
station, near Colne, are the remains of two Roman camps and three
tumuli. The sites are marked in the ordnance map. A few years ago, in
company with my friend, the late T. T. Wilkinson, I visited this
locality and inspected the remains. In the transactions of the Historic
Society of Lancashire, for 1865-6, I described and figured an ancient
British urn, taken from one of these tumuli. It was in the possession of
the late Mr. R. Townley Parker, of Cuerden, the owner of the estate. In
the same paper I have described and figured British remains, including
about ten cremated interments and a bronze spear-head, found in a mound
on the Whitehall estate, contiguous to Low Hill House, near Over Darwen,
the property of Mr. Ellis Shorrock. Similar tumuli have been opened in
several other places in the county, to which further reference will be
made. From these remains it is not improbable some of the struggles of
the Brigantes with the imperial legions took place in these localities,
or they may have been ordinary burial places of distinguished chieftains
and their relatives.
After the departure of the Roman legions and their attendant
auxiliaries, history becomes inextricably allied to, and interwoven
with, legend and romance. The marvellous narratives of the elder
"historians," such as Gildas, Nennius, and Geoffrey of Monmouth, may
have some substratum of fact underlying an immense mass of tradition,
superstition, and artistic fiction. In the endeavour to unravel this
complicated web, much ingenuity and valuable time have been expended,
with but relatively barren results, at least so far as the so-called
"strictly historical element" is concerned. Mr. E. B. Tylor, in his
"Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of
Civilization," referring to the value of "Historical Traditions and
Myths of Observation" to the ethnologist, says--"His great difficulty in
dealing with them is to separate the fact and the fiction, which are
both so valuable in their different ways; and this difficulty is
aggravated by the circumstance that these two elements are often mixed
up in a most complex manner, myths presenting themselves in the dress
of historical narrative, and historical facts growing into the wildest
myths." The reputed deeds of Arthur and his "Knights of the Round Table"
have not only given birth to our most famous mediæval romances, but they
have furnished the laureate with themes for several of his more
delightful poetic effusions. Professor Henry Morley, in his "English
Writers," regards Geoffrey's work as "a natural issue of its time, and
the source of one of the purest streams of English poetry." Indeed, it
appears to be the opinion of many scholars, including Mr. J. D. Harding,
Rev. T. Price, and Sig. Panizzi, late chief librarian of the British
Museum, that the entire European cycle of romance "originated in Welsh
invention or tradition." The last named, in his "Essay on the Narrative
Poetry of the Italians," prefixed to his edition of Boiardo and Ariosto,
distinctly states that "all the chivalrous fictions since spread through
Europe appear to have had their birth in Wales." Mr. Fiske, of Harvard
University, in his "Myths and Myth-makers," referring to the Greek
tradition concerning the "Return of the Herakleids," says "it is
undoubtedly as unworthy of credit as the legend of Hengist and Horsa;
yet, like the latter, it doubtless embodies a historical occurrence."
Such may likewise be the case with some of the battles known from
tradition to the early story-tellers, poets, or romance writers, who
crystallized, as it were, all their floating warlike legends around the
names of Arthur and his knights. Our mediæval ancestors, with very few
isolated exceptions, innocently accepted Geoffrey's wild assertions as
sober historical facts, notwithstanding the gross ignorance and
falsehood patent in many passages, and the childish superstition and
credulity which characterise others. Indeed, only about a century ago,
the Rev. Jno. Whitaker, the historian of Manchester, placed so much
faith in the statements of Nennius and Geoffrey, that he regarded their
Arthur as a really historical personage, and he fixed the sites of
several of his presumed exploits in the county of Lancaster. There may
undoubtedly have existed, nay, there probably did exist, a British
chieftain who fought against Teutonic invaders during some portion of
the two or three centuries occupied in the Anglo-Saxon conquest, whose
name was Arthur, but his deeds, whatever may have been their extent or
character, have been so exaggerated and interwoven with far more ancient
mythical stories, and confounded with those of other warriors, that his
individuality or personality, in a truly _historical_ sense, is
apparently lost.
Indeed, Mr. Haigh expressly says--"There was another Arthur, a son of
Mouric, king of Glamorgan, mentioned in the register of Llandaff." In
his "History of the Conquest of Britain by the Saxons," by altering the
time of the "coming of the Angles" to A.D. 428, "in accordance with a
date supplied by the earliest authority," and of the accession of Arthur
to A.D. 467, "in accordance with a date given by other authorities," he
contends that "all anachronisms--involved in the system which is based
upon the dates in the Saxon Chronicle and the Annals of Cambria,--have
disappeared one after another; every successive event has fallen into
its proper place; the Saxon Chronicle and the Brut have been proved
accordant; and the result is a perfectly connected and consistent
history, such as has never yet been expected, vindicating the truth of
our early historians, and showing that authentic materials formed the
substance of their Chronicles." In another place he contends that, by
adapting his chronology, "a foundation of historic truth" is discovered
"in stories which have hitherto been looked upon as mere romances."[2]
Notwithstanding this conviction, Mr. Haigh does not assume that all the
legendary lore which has attached itself to the name of Arthur is of
this character. Referring to the traditionary tomb of the hero, he thus
fearlessly exposes the mediæval imposture which sought to demonstrate
the truth of the legend:--"An ancient sepulchre, intended by those who
were interested in the search to prove itself the sepulchre of Arthur,
was opened in A.D. 1189 (the last year of Henry II. and most probably
the first of Abbot Henry de Soilly, under whom the search was made), in
the cemetery at Glastonbury. There was on the one hand a superstition
that he was not dead, and on the other a tradition that he was buried at
Glastonbury; and it was the policy of Henry II. to establish the truth
of the latter; and a search was ordered to be made in a spot which was
sure to be crowned with success by the discovery of an interment. It was
recognized as a sepulchre; indeed, distinctly marked as such by the
pyramids (tapering pillar-stones), one at either end,--objects of
curious interest on account of their venerable antiquity; and William
of Malmsbury, thirty years before, (at a time when no suspicion that
Arthur was buried there existed at Glastonbury), had recorded his belief
that the bodies of those whose names were written on the monuments were
contained in stone coffins within. To prove that this was the sepulchre
of Arthur, nothing more was necessary than to forge an inscription,
which might impose upon the credulity of the twelfth century, but which
the archæological science of the nineteenth must condemn. The cross of
lead, which served to identify the remains of Arthur and his queen is
lost, but a representation of it has been preserved, sufficiently to
show that its form and character were precisely such as were usual in
the twelfth century, such as those discovered in the coffins of Prior
Aylmer (who died A.D. 1137), and of Archbishop Theobald (who died A.D.
1161), and in the cemetery of Bouteilles, near Dieppe, present. The
pyramids appear to have resembled the Bewcastle and Ruthwell monuments;
their age is determined by the names of King Centwine and Bishop
Hedde,[3] inscribed on the smaller one; to have been the close of the
seventh, or the beginning of the eighth century; and as the skeleton of
a man and a woman were found in coffins hollowed out of the trunks of
oak trees, it is probable that they were those of Wulfred and Eanfled,
whose names occur in the inscription on the larger one."
Welsh traditions and writers ignore the Glastonbury legend, and regard,
in some way or other, Arthur as a being exempt from ordinary mortality.
The Rev. R. W. Morgan, in his "Cambrian History," says,--"His farewell
words to his knights--'I go hence in God's time, and in God's time I
shall return,' created an invincible belief that God had removed him,
like Enoch and Elijah, to Paradise without passing through the gate of
death; and that he would at a certain period return, re-ascend the
British throne, and subdue the whole world to Christ. The effects of
this persuasion were as extraordinary as the persuasion itself,
sustaining his countrymen under all reverses, and ultimately enabling
them to realise its spirit by placing their own line of the Tudors on
the throne. As late as A.D. 1492, it pervaded both England and Wales.
'Of the death of Arthur, men yet have doubt,' writes Wynkyn de Worde, in
his chronicle, 'and shall have for evermore, for as men say none wot
whether he be alive or dead.' The aphanismus or disappearance of Arthur
is a cardinal event in British history. The pretended discovery of his
body and that of his queen Ginevra, at Glastonbury, was justly
ridiculed by the Kymri as a Norman invention. Arthur has left his name
to above six hundred localities in Britain."
Mr. Haigh, whilst maintaining the substantial historical veracity of
Arthur's invasion of France, nevertheless adds: "When we consider how
miserably the history of the Britons has been corrupted, in the several
editions through which it has passed, we cannot expect otherwise than
that the Brut should have suffered through the blunders of scribes, and
the occasional introduction of marginal notes, and even of extraneous
matter into the text, in the course of six centuries. Such an
interpolation, I believe, is the story of an adventure with a giant,
with which Arthur is said to have occupied his leisure, whilst waiting
for his allies at Barbefleur; and I think the reference to another
giant-story (not in the Brut), with which it concludes, marks it as
such. But I am convinced that the story of the Gallic campaign is a part
of the original Brut, and is substantially true."
Dr. James Fergusson, in his learned and elaborate work on the "Rude
Stone Monuments of all Countries," although stoutly contending for the
historical verity of the victories ascribed to Arthur by Nennius,
somewhat brusquely rejects the Lancashire sites, because, on his visit
to the localities indicated by Whitaker and others, he found no
megalithic remains to support his ingenious hypothesis respecting
battle-field memorials. He says "I am much more inclined to believe that
Linnuis is only a barbarous Latinization of Linn, which in Gaelic and
Irish means sea or lake. In Welsh it is Lyn, and in Anglo-Saxon Lin,
and if this is so, 'In regione Linnuis' may mean in the Lake Country."
However, he confesses he can find no river Duglas in that district, and
in another sentence he regards the nearness of the sea to Wigan as an
objectionable element on military grounds. I hold a contrary view. A
defeated commander near Wigan had the great Roman road for retreat
either to the north or south, besides the vicinal ways to Manchester and
Ribchester. The objection, moreover, is valueless, from the simple fact
that battles _have_ been fought in the localities, as is attested both
by historic records and discovered remains.
Henry of Huntingdon, who wrote in the earlier portion of the twelfth
century, regarded Arthur as a genuine historical character, and
attributed the then ignorance of precise localities of the twelve
battles described by Nennius to "the Providence of God having so ordered
it that popular applause and flattery, and transitory glory, might be of
no account."
William of Malmsbury, in the twelfth century, although evidently aware
of the legendary character of the mass of the Arthurian stories, seems,
however, to have had some confidence that a substratum of historic truth
underlying or permeating the mass, might, with skill and diligence,
eventually be extracted. Probably a few years before Geoffrey's work
appeared, he writes--"That Arthur, about whom the idle tales of the
Bretons (_nugæ Britonum_) craze to this day, one worthy not to have
misleading fables dreamed about him, but to be celebrated in true
history, since he sustained for a long time his tottering country, and
sharpened for war the broken spirit of his people."
It is a remarkable circumstance that Shakspere, who has availed himself
so profusely of the old historic and legendary records, as well as of
the popular superstitions, with two trivial exceptions, which merely
prove his acquaintance with the traditional hero, never refers to
Arthur. The exceptions are so slight and even casual that they seem
rather to confirm the probability that the great poet, in the main,
endorsed the opinion of William of Newbury as to Geoffrey's presumed
_historical_ verities. This critical monk, in the latter portion of the
twelfth century, indignantly exclaims: "Moreover, in his book, that he
calls the 'History of the Britons,' how saucily and how shamelessly he
lies almost throughout, no one, unless ignorant of the old histories,
when he falls upon that book can doubt. Therefore in all things we trust
Bede, whose wisdom and sincerity are beyond doubt, so that fabler with
his fables shall be straightway spat out by us all." The fact that the
story of "Lear" is given pretty fully in Geoffrey's work in no way
affects this conclusion, as Shakspere, in the construction of his plot,
has followed an older drama and a ballad rather than the _soi-disant_
Welsh historian. One allusion by Shakspere to Arthur is in the second
part of "Henry IV." (Act 3, Scene 2), where Justice Shallow says: "I
remember at Mile-end Green (when I lay at Clement's Inn, I was then Sir
Dagonet in Arthur's Show)," &c. The other is in Act 2, Scene 4, of the
second part of King Henry IV., when Falstaff enters the tavern in
Eastcheap singing a scrap of an old ballad, as follows: "'_When Arthur
first in court_'--Empty the jordan--'_And was a worthy king_'--[Exit
Drawer.]--How now, Mistress Doll?"
Sir Edward Strachey, in his introduction to the Globe edition of Sir
Thomas Malory's "Morte D'Arthur," confesses that it is impossible to
harmonise the geography of the work. This, however, is a very ordinary
condition in most legendary stories, literary or otherwise. Speaking of
the renowned Caerleon on Usk, he says--"It seems through this, as in
other romances, to be inter-changeable in the author's mind with
Carlisle, or (as written in its Anglo-Norman form) Cardoile, which
latter, in the History of Merlin, is said to be in Wales, whilst
elsewhere Wales and Cumberland are confounded in like manner. So of
Camelot, where Arthur chiefly held his court, Caxton in his preface
speaks as though it were in Wales, probably meaning Caerleon, where the
Roman amphitheatre is still called Arthur's Round Table." Other
geographical elements in the work are even more unsatisfactory. There
is, indeed, a Carlion and a Cærwent referred to in the Breton
lai d'Ywenec, and the latter is said to be "on the Doglas," and was the
capital city of Avoez, "lord of the surrounding country." Even, if the
scene of the Breton romance be presumed to be in the present
Monmouthshire, where we yet find the names Caerleon and Caerwint, still
we have a claimant in the Scottish Douglas, as well as in the Lancashire
river of that name.
Mr. J. R. Green, in his recently published work, "The Making of
England," says, "Mr. Skene, who has done much to elucidate these early
struggles, has identified the sites of" (Arthurian) "battles with spots
in the north (see his 'Celtic Scotland,' i. 153-154, and more at large
his 'Four Ancient Books of Wales,' i. 55-58); but as Dr. Guest has
equally identified them with districts in the south, the matter must
still be looked upon as somewhat doubtful." The doubt is increased by
the fact that Hollingworth, Mr. Haigh, the Rev. John Whitaker, and
others, as well as local tradition, with equal confidence have
identified some of the struggles with the Lancashire battle-fields now
under consideration.
Dr. Sir G. Webbe Dasent, in his review of Dr. Latham's Johnson's
Dictionary, referring to the struggles of the ancient Britons with their
Anglo-Saxon invaders, has the following very pertinent observations:--
"After the Roman legions left the Britons to themselves, there is
darkness over the face of the land from the fifth to the eighth century.
Those are really our dark ages. From 420, when it is supposed that
Honorius withdrew his troops, to 730, when Bede wrote his history, we
see nothing of British history. Afar off we hear the shock of arms, but
all is dim, as it were, when two mighty hosts do battle in the dead of
night. When the dawn comes and the black veil is lifted, we find that
Britain has passed away. The land is now England; the Britons
themselves, though still strong in many parts of the country, have been
generally worsted by their foes; they have lost that great battle which
has lasted through three centuries. Their Arthur has come and gone,
never again to turn the heady fight. Henceforth Britain has no hero, and
merely consoles herself with the hope that he will one day rise and
restore the fortunes of his race. But, though there were many battles in
that dreary time, and many Arthurs, it was rather in the every day
battle of life, in that long unceasing struggle which race wages with
race, not sword in hand alone, but by brain and will and feeling, that
the Saxons won the mastery of the land. Little by little, more by
stubbornness and energy than by bloodshed, they spread themselves over
the country, working towards a common unity, from every shore....
Certain it is that for a long time after the time of Bede, and therefore
undoubtedly before his day, the Celtic and Saxon kings in various parts
of the island lived together on terms of perfect equality, and gave and
took their respective sons and daughters to one another in marriage."
The Arthur of romance is, in fact, the artistic creation of writers of a
later age, or, indeed, of later ages, than the conquest of Britain by
the Anglo-Saxons, and not of contemporary historians, bardic or
otherwise. The British chieftain who fought against Ida and his Angles
in the north of England, and whose territory, including that of
subordinate chieftains or allies, is believed at one time to have
extended from the Clyde to the Ribble, or even the Dee, with an
uncertain boundary on the east, is named Urien of Rheged, the district
north of the Solway estuary, including the modern Annandale. He is the
great hero of the Welsh bard Taliesin. Amongst his other qualities the
poet enumerates the following: "Protector of the land, usual with thee
is headlong activity and the drinking of ale, and ale for drinking, and
fair dwelling and beautiful raiment." Llywarch Hen, or the Old, another
Keltic poet, who lived between A.D. 550-640, incidentally mentions
Arthur as a chief of the Kymri of the South, thus, as Professor Henry
Morley puts it: "What Urien was in the north Arthur was in the south."
This may well account for the geographical discrepancies referred to by
Sir Edward Strachey. Llywarch Hen was present at the bloody battle in
which his lord, Geraint (one of the knights introduced into the
succeeding romances), and a whole host of British warriors perished. The
said bard likewise brought away the head of Urien in his mantle, after
his decapitation by the sword of an assassin. In the early English
metrical romance, "Merlin," a Urien, King of Scherham, father of the
celebrated Ywain, is mentioned as the husband of Igerna's third daughter
by her first husband, Hoel. Urien, of Rheged, is mentioned, however, in
the same romance as one of the competitors with Arthur for the crown of
Britain. In Sir Thomas Malory's "Morte D'Arthur," a "King Uriens of
Gore" is introduced. "Gore" is evidently the Peninsula of Gower, in
Glamorganshire, South Wales. These, however, are merely some of the
geographical discrepancies referred to by Sir Edward Strachey; but such
discrepancies, owing to the intermixture of several legends, under the
circumstances, are inevitable, and are in themselves evidences of the
lack of unity in the original sources from which the romance writers
drew their materials.
Nennius's "History of Britain" was written, according to some
authorities, at the end of the eighth century. Others ascribe it, in the
condition at least in which we have it at present, with more
probability, to the end of the tenth. Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was
published in the twelfth. He professes, indeed, to have, to some extent,
translated from an ancient manuscript, brought by "Walter, Archdeacon of
Oxford," out of Brittany. This, however, notwithstanding Geoffrey's
deliberate assertion, is doubted and even flatly denied by many
competent judges. Be this as it may, no such document is otherwise known
or indeed referred to by any reliable authority. If it ever existed,
from its inherent defects, it can to us possess little strictly
historical value, whatever amount of truthful legendary or traditional
matter it may have furnished to the author of the so-called "Historia
Britonum." Referring to the too common habit of regarding mere tradition
as reliable history, Mr. Fiske, in his review of Mr. Gladstone's
"Juventus Mundi," justly exclaims: "One begins to wonder how many more
times it will be necessary to prove that dates and events are of no
_historical_ value unless attested by nearly contemporary evidence."
Now, one of the most significant facts in connection with this
investigation is that neither Bede nor Gildas makes any mention of
Arthur. Mr. Stevenson, in the preface to his edition of Gildas's work,
in the original Latin, says, "We are unable to speak with certainty as
to his parentage, his country, or even his name, or of the works of
which he was the author." The title of the old English translation,
however, is as follows: "The Epistle of Gildas, the most ancient British
author: who flourished in the yeere of our Lord, 546. And who, by his
great erudition, sanctitie, and wisdome, acquired the name of
_Sapiens_." Bede was born in the year 673, and died in 735. The Rev. R.
W. Morgan (Cambrian History) says, "The genuine works of Aneurin--his
'British History,' and 'Life of Arthur,'--are lost; the work of Gildas,
which at one time passed for the former is a forgery by Aldhelm, the
Roman Catholic monk of Malmesbury." If ever Arthur lived in the flesh it
must have been in the fifth or sixth centuries, and yet, as I have
previously observed, these writers make no reference whatever to the
renowned king and warrior. So that, even if we grant the earlier assumed
date to the work of Nennius, about three centuries must have elapsed
between the performance of his deeds and their earliest known record! In
Geoffrey of Monmouth's case the interval is no less than seven hundred
years! Mr. John R. Green ("The Making of England") says: "The
genuineness of Gildas, which has been doubted, may now be looked upon as
established (see Stubbs and Haddan, 'Councils of Britain,' i. p. 44).
Skene ('Celtic Scotland,' i. 116, note) gives a critical account of the
various biographies of Gildas. He seems to have been born in 516,
probably in the north Welsh valley of the Clwyd; to have left Britain
for Armorica when thirty years old, or in 546; to have written his
history there about 556 or 560; to have crossed to Ireland between
566-569; and to have died there in 570.... Little, however, is to be
gleaned from the confused rhetoric of Gildas; and it is only here and
there that we can use the earlier facts which seem to be embedded among
the later legends of Nennius." Mr. Haigh, however, contends that an
"earlier S. Gildas" was a relative of Arthur, and was born about A.D.
425. He says--"He had written, so a British tradition preserved by
Giraldus Cambrensis" [twelfth century] "informs us, noble books about
the acts of Arthur and his race, but threw them into the sea when he
heard of his brother's death;" [at the hands of Arthur] "and this
tradition he says satisfactorily explains--what has been made the ground
of an argument against the genuineness of the works ascribed to him--his
studied silence with regard to Arthur." Mr. Haigh likewise conjectures
that "Nennius's History of the Britons" was written by St. Albinus, from
contemporary records which had been carried to Armorica (Brittany), and
subsequently lost. However, neither traditions first recorded seven
centuries after the events transpired, nor "lives" of early British
saints, are considered very trustworthy historical authorities. It
requires very little knowledge of the state of literature, either in
England or elsewhere, during these long periods of time, to remove any
lingering doubt as to the purely legendary character of much of the
contents of these books, even if we grant, as in the case of the
Venerable Bede, that the authors themselves honestly related that which
they honestly, however foolishly, believed to be true. Singularly
enough, according to Spurrell's dictionary, the modern Welsh word
_aruthr_ signifies "marvellous, wonderful, prodigious, strange, dire,"
which is not without significance.
Nennius says:--"A.D. 452. Then it was that the magnanimous Arthur, with
all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons.
And though there were _many more noble than himself_, yet he was twelve
times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror." He then
informs us that the second, third, fourth, and fifth of these battles
were fought on the banks of a "river by the Britons called Duglas, in
the region Linuis." Some copies give "Dubglas," which has been
identified with the little stream Dunglas, which formed the southern
boundary of Lothian. The Rev. John Whitaker, however, contends that the
Douglas, in Lancashire, is the stream referred to. He advances, amongst
much conjectural matter, the following archæological and traditional
details, in support of his position:--
"The name of the river concurs with the tradition, and three battles
prove the notice true.[4] On the traditionary scene of this engagement
remained till the year 1770 a considerable British barrow, popularly
denominated Hasty Knoll. It was originally a vast collection of small
stones taken from the bed of the Douglas, and great quantities had been
successively carried away by the neighbouring inhabitants. Many
fragments of iron had been also occasionally discovered in it, together
with the remains of those military weapons which the Britons interred
with their heroes at death. On finally levelling the barrow, there was
found a cavity in the hungry gravel, immediately under the stones, about
seven feet in length, the evident grave of the British officer, and all
filled with the loose and blackish earth of his perished remains. At
another place, near Wigan, was discovered about the year 1741 a large
collection of horse and human bones, and an amazing quantity of
horse-shoes, scattered over a large extent of ground--an evidence of
some important battle upon the spot. The very appellation of Wigan is a
standing memorial of more than one battle at that place.[5] According to
tradition, the first battle fought near Blackrode was uncommonly bloody,
and the Douglas was crimsoned with blood to Wigan. Tradition and remains
concur to evince the fact that a second battle was fought near Wigan
Lane, many years before the rencontre in the civil wars.... The defeated
Saxons appear to have crossed the hill of Wigan, where another
engagement or engagements ensued; and in forming the canal there about
the year 1735, the workmen discovered evident indications of a
considerable battle on the ground. All along the course of the channel,
from the termination of the dock to the point at Poolbridge, from forty
to fifty roods in length, and seven or eight yards in breadth, they
found the ground everywhere containing the remains of men and horses. In
making the excavations, a large old spur, carrying a stem four or five
inches in length, and a rowel as large as a half-crown, was dug up; and
five or six hundred weight of horse-shoes were collected. The point of
land on the south side of the Douglas, which lies immediately fronting
the scene of the last engagement, is now denominated the Parson's
Meadow; and tradition very loudly reports a battle to have been fought
in it."
The rev. historian of Manchester, referring to the statements in
Nennius, thus sums up his argument:--
"These four battles were fought upon the river Douglas, and in the
region Linuis. In this district was the whole course of the current from
its source to the conclusion, and the words, '_Super flumen quod vocatur
Duglas, quod est in Linuis_,' shows the stream to have been less known
than the region. This was therefore considerable; one of the cantreds or
great divisions of the Sistuntian kingdom, and comprised, perhaps, the
western half of South Lancashire. From its appellation of Linuis or the
Lake, it seems to have assumed the denomination from the Mere of
Marton," [Martin] "which was once the most considerable object in it."
The Rev. R. W. Morgan, in his "Cambrian History," locates the Arthurian
victories as follows:--"1st, at Gloster; 2nd, at Wigan (The Combats), 10
miles from the Mersey. The battle lasted through the night. In A.D.
1780, on cutting through the tunnel, three cart loads of horse-shoes
were found and removed; 3rd, at Blackrode; 4th, at Penrith, between the
Loder and Elmot, on the spot still called King Arthur's Castle; 5th, on
the Douglas, in Douglas Vale; 6th, at Lincoln; 7th, on the edge of the
Forest of Celidon (Ettrick Forest) at Melrose; 8th, at Cær Gwynion; 9th,
between Edinburgh and Leith; 10th, at Dumbarton; 11th, at Brixham,
Torbay; 12th, at Mont Baden, above Bath."
Geoffrey of Monmouth refers but to one battle on the banks of the
"Duglas." This he fixes at about the year 500. He tells us that "the
Saxons had invited over their countrymen from Germany, and, under the
command of Colgrin, were attempting to exterminate the whole British
race.... Hereupon, assembling the youth under his command, he marched
to" [towards] "York, of which when Colgrin had intelligence, he met him
with a very great army, composed of Saxons, Scots, and Picts, by the
river Duglas, where a battle happened, with the loss of the greater part
of both armies. Notwithstanding, the victory fell to Arthur, who pursued
Colgrin to York, and there besieged him."
Mr. Daniel H. Haigh, one of the latest advocates of the genuine
historical veracity which underlies much of the Arthurian traditions,
places, as we have previously observed, Arthur's coronation A.D. 467, or
about 32 years earlier than the usually received date. He says--"The
river Douglas, which falls into the estuary of the Ribble, is certainly
that which is indicated here;" [the second, third, fourth, and fifth
victories referred to by Nennius] "and although it was one of Arthur's
tactics to get round his adversaries, so as to be able to attack them
when least expected (which will account for the scene of this conflict
being considerably to the west of the direct line from London to York),
it is extremely improbable that he would have gone so far north as the
Douglas in Lothian, when his object was to attack Colgrin at York. The
reading which the Paris MS. and Henry of Huntington give is, I believe,
correct, and represents Ince, a name which is retained to this day by a
township near to this river, a little more than a mile to the south-west
of Wigan, and by another about fifteen miles to the west, and which may
possibly have belonged to a considerable tract of country.[6]... Neither
the Brut nor Boece mention more than one battle at this time; but the
latter says that Arthur 'pursued the Saxons, continually slaughtering
them, until they took refuge in York,' and that 'having had so frequent
victories he there besieged them;' and these expressions may well imply
the four victories, gained in one prolonged contest on the Douglas, and
another on the river Bassas, _i.e._, Bashall brook, which falls into the
Ribble near Clithero, in the direct line of Colgrin's flight to York."
If, therefore, the historical hypothesis be accepted, the Lancashire
sites for these battles would seem as probable as any of the many others
suggested.
From the remains described by Whitaker, it appears certain that some
great battles in early times have been fought on the banks of the
Douglas, traditions concerning which may have served for the foundation
of the after statements of Nennius and others. There are some recorded
historical facts which countenance this view. The British warrior, king
of the Western Britons, Cadwallon or Cadwalla,[7] with his ally, Penda,
defeated and slew Edwin, King of Northumbria, uncle of St. Oswald, in
the year 633, at Heathfield.[8] Where Heathfield is we have no perfectly
satisfactory evidence.[9] The Brit-Welsh poet, Lywarch Hen, or the Old,
a prince of the Cumbrian Britons, celebrated his praises in song. He
says--
Fourteen great battles he fought,
For Britain the most beautiful,
And sixty skirmishes.
It is by no means improbable that some of Cadwalla's exploits, mythical
as well as real, have become inextricably interwoven with the legendary
ones of the heroes of the Arthurian romances. Singularly enough a
paragraph in Geoffrey of Monmouth's work would seem to countenance this.
In book 12, chapter 2, of his so-called "History of Britain," he refers
to negotiations being entered into and afterwards broken off, in the
year 630, by Cadwalla and Edwin, while their armies lay on the opposite
banks of _the river Douglas_, the scene of the presumed Arthurian
victory over Colgrin in the year 500, according to the same authority.
This circumstance is not without significance, as the legendary Arthur
has evidently absorbed no inconsiderable portion of the reputations, in
the North of England, of Urien of Rheged, and other veritable British
warriors. Indeed, Lappenberg says--"The Welsh historians adopted the
policy of _purloining from a successful enemy_, and skilfully
transferring to his British contemporaries, if not to _imaginary
personages_, the object and reward of his battles, the glory and
lastingness of his individuality in history;" and, as illustrations of
this practice, Mr. Daniel H. Haigh, in his "Conquest of Britain by the
Saxons," adds, "Thus, Cœdwealha, Ine, and Ivar are claimed by them as
Cadwaladyr, Inyr, and Ivor." Mr. Haigh, notwithstanding his faith in the
substantial accuracy of much of the contents of the works of doubtful
authority, says--"The peace which Ambrosius established was broken in
the following year, A.D. 444. The Brut says nothing of this affair; it
rarely records the defeats of the Britons." And, similarly, the Saxon
chronicle is equally reticent in the opposite direction!
Indeed, this weakness is not exclusively an attribute of either British
or Anglo-Saxon historians or romance writers. Mr. H. H. Howorth, in his
able essay on "The Early History of Sweden," in Vol. 9 of the
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, lucidly expounds the
character of the contents of the professedly Danish History by
Saxo-Grammaticus. He says--"He had no scaffolding upon which to build
his narrative. He had to construct one for himself in the best way he
could, and to piece together the various fragments before him into a
continuous patchwork. His was not a critical age, and we are not
therefore surprised to find that his handiwork was exceedingly rude. A
piece of the history of the Lombards by Paul and Deacon, and another
taken from the Edda, are thrust in after narratives evidently relating
to the ninth century, when Ireland had been more or less conquered by
the Norsemen. Icelanders are introduced into the story a long time
before the discovery of Iceland. Christianity is professed by Danish
kings long before it had reached the borders of Denmark. The events
belonging to one Harald (Harald Blatand) are transferred to another
Harald who lived two or three centuries earlier, and the joints in the
patchwork narrative are filled up by the introduction of plausible
links." He afterwards adds--"The other important fact to remember is
that our author was patriotic enough to lay under contribution, not only
materials relating to Denmark, but to _transfer to Denmark the history
of other countries_. To appropriate not only the traditions of the
Anglo-Saxons, the Lombards, and the common Scandinavian heritage of the
Edda, but also the particular histories of Sweden and Norway, and that a
good deal of what passes for Danish history in his pages is not Danish
at all, but Swedish, and relates to the rulers of Upsala, and not to
those of Lethra; topographical boundaries being as lightly skipped over
by the patriotic old chronicler, whose home materials were so scanty, as
chronological ones." It is, under such circumstances, vain to expect
reliable historical evidence of the identity of locality or the names of
the real warrior chiefs who commanded in many of the presumed Arthurian
battles and adventures, some of them being evidently mythical or
artistic creations. Whitaker's "large old spur, carrying a stem four or
five inches in length, and a rowel as large as a half-crown," does not
seem to indicate so early a date as the Anglo-Saxon conquests in
Britain. Mr. Thomas Wright, in his "Celt, Roman and Saxon," referring to
spurs of the Roman, Saxon and Norman periods, says--"Amongst the
extensive Roman remains found in the camp at Hod Hill were several spurs
of iron, which resembled so closely the Norman prick-spurs, that they
might easily be mistaken for them. I suspect that many of the
prick-spurs which have been found on or near Roman sites, and hastily
judged to be Norman, are, especially when made of bronze, Roman. As far,
however, as comparison has yet been made, the _Roman and the Saxon spurs
are shorter in the stimulus_ than those of the Norman." Spurs with long
_stimuli_ or large rowels do not appear to have been in use until some
time after the Norman Conquest. This, however, does not necessarily
affect the antiquity of the whole of the remains referred to, which, of
course, may have been deposited at different periods.
Hollingworth, in his "Mancuniensis," written in the earlier portion of
the seventeenth century, seems to have been aware of the existence of a
tradition that referred to several bloody battles fought in Lancashire
in some portion of the mysterious "olden time." He, however, assigns
them to the period of the Roman conquest, to which I have previously
referred. If the incidents in the Arthurian "romances" are no more
historically tenable than those in the Iliad or the Odyssey, and as the
Roman invasions of the Brigantine territory are undoubted, the elder
Manchester historian's conjecture as to the time of the conflicts
indicated by the tradition and the remains found near Wigan and
Blackrod, may possibly be preferred to that of his successor, as the
more probable of the two. Indeed, as has been previously observed, the
romance writers and story-tellers have evidently absorbed and modified
the historical traditions of many antecedent periods. Hollingworth
says--
"In Vespatian's time Petilius Carealic" (Petilius Cerealis) "strooke a
terror into the whole land by invading upon his first entry the
Brigantes, the most populous of the whole province, many battailes, and
bloody ones, were fought, and the greatest part of the Brigantes were
either conquered or wasted." Hollingworth, indeed, does afterwards refer
to a battle near Wigan, in which he says Arthur was victorious. His
words are--"It is certaine that about Anno Domini 520, there was such a
prince as King Arthur, and it is not incredible that hee or his knights
might contest about this castle (Manchester) when he was in this
country, and (as Nennius sayth) he put the Saxons to flight in a
memorable battell neere Wigan, about twelve miles off."
Bishop Percy, in his introduction to the ancient ballad of
"Chevy-Chase," says--"With regard to its subject, although it has no
countenance from history, there is room to think that it had some
foundation in fact.... There had long been a rivalship between the two
martial families of Percy and Douglas, which, heightened by the national
quarrel, must have produced frequent challenges and struggles for
superiority, petty invasions of their respective domains, and sharp
contests for the point of honour, which would not always be recorded in
history. Something of this kind we may suppose gave rise to the ancient
ballad of the HUNTING O' THE CHEVIAT." He afterwards adds "the tragical
circumstances recorded in the ballad are evidently borrowed from the
BATTLE OF OTTERBOURN, a very different event, _but which after times
would easily confound with it_.... Our poet has evidently jumbled the
two events together."
During the seventh century many sanguinary encounters must have taken
place in Lancashire, many of which are unrecorded, and the sites of
others utterly forgotten. Professor Boyd-Dawkins, in a paper, entitled
"On the Date of the Conquest of South Lancashire by the English," read
before the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, referring to
the subjugation of what he aptly terms the "Brit-Welsh" of Strathclyde,
(or the north-western part of the present England and the western
portion of the lowlands of Scotland), by Ethelfrith, the powerful
Northumbrian monarch, says that Chester was "the principal seat" of
their power in that district. The whole of Lancashire, at this period,
it would appear, was unconquered by the Angles or English. Under the
date 607, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says--"And this year Ethelfrith led
his army to Chester, and there slew numberless Welshmen: and so was
fulfilled the prophesy of Augustine, wherein he saith, 'If the Welsh
will not be at peace with us, they shall perish at the hands of the
Saxons.' There were also slain two hundred priests who came to pray for
the army of the Welsh." The death of these ecclesiastics, said to be
monks of Bangor-Iscoed, was celebrated in song by a native poet.
Florence of Worcester, referring to this battle, says Ethelfrith "first
slew _twelve hundred_ British priests, who had joined the army to offer
prayers on their behalf, and then exterminated the remainder of this
impious armament." This is evidently an antagonistic priestly
exaggeration, although other authorities state that the monastery at
Bangor, at one time, contained 2,400 monks. This powerful body of
Brit-Welsh Christians, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth, "disdained
subjection to Augustine, and despised his preaching." Hence the strong
clerical antipathy which characterised the conflict. Chester was utterly
ruined, and is said to have remained desolate for about two centuries.
Mr. Boyd Dawkins says--"In all probability South Lancashire was occupied
by the English at this time, and the nature of the occupation may be
gathered from the treatment of the city of Chester. A fire, to use the
metaphor of Gildas, went through the land, and the Brit-Welsh
inhabitants were either put to the sword or compelled to become the
bondsmen of the conquerors."
Mr. J. R. Green ("The Making of England") traces Ethelfrith's march
through Lancashire to his victory at Bangor-Iscoed. He says--"Though the
deep indent in the Yorkshire shire-line to the west proves how
vigorously the Deirans had pushed up the river valleys into the moors,
it shows that they had been arrested by the pass at the head of the
Ribblesdale; while further to the south the Roman road that crossed the
moors from York to Manchester was blocked by the unconquered fastnesses
of Elmet, which reached away to the yet more difficult fastnesses of the
Peak. But the line of defence was broken as the forces of Ethelfrith
pushed over the moors along the Ribblesdale into our southern
Lancashire. His march was upon Chester, the capital of Gwynedd, and
probably the refuge place of Edwine."
The more northern portion of the county was not subdued till about half
a century afterwards, when Cumberland and Westmoreland were absorbed
into the Northumbrian kingdom by Ecfrith (670-685). Mr. J. R. Green, in
the work referred to, says--"The Welsh states across the western moors
had owned, at least from Oswald's time, the Northumbrian supremacy, but
little actual advance had been made by the English in this quarter since
the victory of Chester, and northward of the Ribble the land between the
moors and the sea still formed a part of the British kingdom of
Cumbria. It was from this tract, from what we now know as northern
Lancashire and the Lake District, Ecgfrith's armies chased the Britons
in the early years of his reign."
Some severe struggles must have taken place during this period; and,
therefore, it is by no means improbable that a portion, at least, of the
remains on the banks of the Douglas, referred to by the Rev. John
Whitaker as evidence of Arthur's historical existence, may pertain to
the struggles of the Brit-Welsh and their Angle or English conquerors of
the seventh century. This confusion of names and dates is a common
feature in the folk-lore of all nations and periods, but in none is it
more strongly developed than in the Arthurian romances. The author of
the metrical "Morte D'Arthur," after describing the victory of the hero
over his rebellious nephew, Modred, at "Barren-down," near Canterbury,
tells us that the barrows raised on the burial of the slain were still
to be seen in his day. Barham Down is still covered with barrows, which
recent examination has demonstrated to be the remains of a Saxon
cemetery, and not a battle-field.
Bangor-Iscoed, the Bovium, and, at a later period, the Banchorium, of
the Romans, is situated on the river Dee, some fourteen miles south of
Chester. Sharon Turner laments the destruction of its magnificent
library at the sacking of the monastery, which he regarded as an
"irreparable loss to the ancient British antiquities." Gildas, the
quasi-historian, is said to have been one of its abbots. The Brit-Welsh
commander during this struggle was Brocmail, the friend of Taliesin,
who, in his poem on the disastrous battle, says--
I saw the oppression of the tumult; the wrath and tribulation;
The blades gleaming on the bright helmets;
The battle against the lord of fame, in the dales of Hafren;
Against Brocvail[10] of Powys, who loved my muse.
Sharon Turner says the precise date of this battle is uncertain. The
Anglo-Saxon chronicle says it was fought in the year 607, and the Annals
of Ulster in 612. Other authorities assign dates between the two.
The Rev, John Whitaker seems to have had not only a perfect faith in the
historical existence of Arthur, but also of his famous knights of the
"table round." Following tradition he locates at Castle-field,
Manchester, the legendary fortress of "Sir Tarquin," a gigantic hero, to
whose prowess several of Arthur's doughty knights had succumbed, before
he himself fell beneath the stalwart arm of "Sir Lancelot du Lake."
Whitaker regards Lancelot's patronymic, "du Lake," as referable to the
Linius which gave the name to the district, according to the hypothesis
previously advanced.
It is scarcely necessary to say that, notwithstanding all this
ingenuity, Sir Tarquin, Sir Lancelot, and their knightly compeers, are
as much creatures of the imagination as the heroes of any acknowledged
work of fiction, such as the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" of Homer, or the
novels of Scott, Thackeray, Lord Lytton, and Dickens.
The _gradual growth_ of what are generally regarded as the _spontaneous_
products of the imagination, in the region of art, is well expressed in
Mr. Tylor's admirable work on "Primitive Culture." He says--"Amongst
those opinions which are produced by a little knowledge, to be dispelled
by a little more, is the belief in the almost boundless creative power
in the human imagination. The superficial student, mazed in a crowd of
seemingly wild and lawless fancies, which he thinks to have no reason in
nature nor pattern in the material world, at first concludes them to be
new births from the imagination of the poet, the tale-teller, and the
seer. But little by little, in what seemed the most spontaneous fiction,
a more comprehensive study of the source of poetry and romance begins to
disclose a cause for each fancy, an education that has led up to each
train of thought, a store of inherited materials from out of which each
province of the poet's land has been shaped and built over and peopled.
Backward from our own times, the course of mental history may be traced
through the changes wrought by modern schools of thought and fancy upon
an intellectual inheritance handed down to them from earlier
generations. And through remote periods, as we recede more nearly
towards primitive conditions of our race, the threads which connect new
thought with old do not always vanish from our sight. It is in large
measure possible to follow them as clues leading back to that actual
experience of nature and life which is the ultimate source of human
fancy."
Perhaps no finer illustration, at least in English literature, of the
truthfulness of this position can be cited than the Arthurian
art-products with which I am dealing. In them we have embodied thoughts
and fancies of the earlier myth-makers of our common Aryan race, legends
and quasi-historical traditions of mediæval times, the more artistic
romances of a relatively recent and more highly-cultured period, and,
lastly, the lyrics of Morris and others, and the splendid capital which
worthily crowns this truly historic _literary_ column, in the
exquisitely felt and gracefully wrought "Idylls of the King," by the
laureate of the Victorian age, Alfred Tennyson. The last named says--
Lancelot spoke
And answered him at full, as having been
With Arthur in the fight which all day long
Rang by the white mouth of the violent Glem:
And in the four wild battles by the shore
Of Douglas.
(_Idylls, p. 162._)
Referring to the parentage of the Arthurian legends, in the essay
prefixed to his "Specimens of Early English Metrical Romances," Mr.
George Ellis says--"Although Geoffrey's 'British Chronicle' is justly
regarded as one of the corner-stones of romantic fiction, yet its
principal, if not sole effect, was to stamp the names of Arthur, Merlin,
Kay, and Gawain with the character of historical veracity; and thus to
authorise a collection of all the fables already current respecting
these fanciful heroes and their companions. For not one word is to be
found in that compilation concerning Sir Lancelot and his brothers; Sir
Tristram; Sir Ywain; Joseph of Arimathea and the Sangrael; the round
table with its perilous seat; and the various quests and adventures
which fill so many folio volumes. These were subsequent additions, but
additions _apparently derived from the same source_. The names, the
manners of the heroes, and the scenes of their adventures, were still
British; and, the taste for these strange traditions continuing to gain
ground for at least two centuries, the whole literature of Europe was
ultimately inundated by the nursery-tales of Wales and Armorica, as it
had formerly been by the mythology of Greece and Egypt."
Of course there sometimes _is_, and there oftener _is not_, recognisable
historical or biographical fact at the basis of so-called historical
novels, poems, or plays, but the difficulty of separating the one from
the other is generally insurmountable, and the labour bestowed thereon
often profitless. This is especially the case where quasi-history has
become inextricably interwoven with faded nature-myths and more modern
artistic inventions. Mr. Fiske, in the work previously quoted, has the
following very pertinent remarks on this subject:--
"I do not suppose that the struggle between light and darkness was
Homer's subject in the 'Iliad' any more than it was Shakespeare's
subject in 'Hamlet.' Homer's subject was the wrath of the Greek hero, as
Shakespeare's subject was the vengeance of the Danish prince.
Nevertheless, the story of 'Hamlet,' when traced back to its Norse
original, is unmistakably the quarrel between summer and winter; and the
moody prince is as much a solar hero as Odin himself. (See Simrock, Die
Quellen des Shakespeare, I., 127-133.) Of course Shakespeare knew
nothing of this, as Homer knew nothing of the origin of Achilleus. The
two stories are therefore not to be taken _as sun-myths in their present
form_. They are the offspring of other stories which were sun-myths.
They are stories which conform to the sun-myth type.... The sun and the
clouds, the light and the darkness, were once supposed to be actuated by
wills analagous to the human will; they were personified and worshipped
or propitiated by sacrifice; and their doings were described in language
which applied so well to the deeds of human or quasi-human beings, that
in course of time its primitive import faded from recollection. No
competent scholar now doubts that the myths of the Veda and the Edda
originated in this way, for philology itself shows that the names
employed in them are the names of the great phenomena of nature. And
when once a few striking stories had thus arisen--when once it had been
told how Indra smote the Panis, and how Sigurd rescued Brynhild, and how
Odysseus blinded the Kyklops--then certain mythic or dramatic types had
been called into existence; and to these types, preserved in the popular
imagination, future stories would inevitably conform.... In this view I
am upheld by a most sagacious and accurate scholar, Mr. E. A. Freeman,
who finds in Carlovingian romance an excellent illustration of the
problem before us."
The Carlovingian romance thus cited is, indeed, almost an exact
counterpart of the Arthurian one, with the certainly very important
exception that we can appeal to reliable history in the former case to
prove our position, while the mythical gloom of legend and tradition
obscures so much of the probable historical facts in connection with the
latter that our path is beset with difficulties which cannot be solved
otherwise than by analogical inference. History informs us of the acts
and deeds of Karl der Gross, a German by birth, name, race, and
language. This warrior, who conquered nearly the whole of Europe and
founded one of the most important dynastic houses in mediæval times, was
born about the year 742, in the castle of Silzburg, in Bavaria, and died
in 814 at Aachen, now called Aix-la-Chapelle. On the other hand, as Mr.
Fiske says, "the Charlemagne of romance is a mythical personage. He is
supposed to be a Frenchman at a time when neither the French nation nor
the French language can properly be said to have existed; and he is
represented as a doughty crusader, although crusading was not thought of
until long after the Karolingian era. He is a myth, and what is more he
is a solar myth--an _avatar_, or at least a representative of Odin in
his solar capacity. If in his case legend were not controlled by
history, he would be for us as unreal as Agamemnon.... To the historic
Karl corresponds in many particulars the mythical Charlemagne. The
legend has preserved the fact, which without the information supplied by
history we might perhaps set down as a fiction, that there was a time
when Germany, Gaul, Italy, and part of Spain formed a single empire. And
as Mr. Freeman has well observed, the mythical crusades of Charlemagne
are good evidence that there _were_ crusades, although the real Karl had
nothing whatever to do with one."
In the old ballad legend of Sir Guy, of Warwick, this chronological
confusion is equally apparent. One of the earlier stanzas says--
Nine hundred twenty yeere and odde
After our Saviour Christ his birth,
When King Athelstone wore the crowne,
I lived heere upon the earth.
And yet this same legendary hero slays Saracens and other "heathen
pagans" during the crusades some three centuries afterwards. The "Scop"
or Geeman's song, and others, exhibit similar instances of this
confusion of personages and dates.
Saxo Grammaticus, the Danish historian, has, like Geoffrey of Monmouth,
mingled so much legendary and irrelevant matter with his genuine
material, that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to
distinguish one from the other. Mr. H. H. Howorth, in the work
previously quoted, referring to Harald Hildetand, "the most prominent
figure in Scandinavian history at the close of the heroic period,"
says--"Although Saxo's notice of him is long, it will be found to
contain scarcely anything about him. It is filled up with parenthetical
stories about other people, referring doubtless to other times
altogether, while the stories it contains about his exploits in
Aquitania, and Britain, and Northumbria, show very clearly, as Müller
has pointed out, that he has confused his doings with those of another,
and much later, Harald, probably Harald Blaatand (_Op. Cit._ 366, note
3). It is only when we come to the close of his reign that we have a
more detailed and valuable story. This is the account of the famous
fight at Bravalla, of which we have two recensions, one in Saxo and the
other in the Sogubrot, and which have preserved for us one of the most
romantic epical stories in the history of the north. The story was
recorded in verse by the famous champion Starkadr, whom Saxo quotes as
his authority, and whom he seems closely to follow. Dahlman has, I
think, argued very forcibly that the form and matter of this saga as
told by Saxo is more ancient, and preserves more of the local colour of
the original than that of the Sogubrot (Forsch, etc., 307-308). And yet
the story as it stands is very incongruous, and makes it impossible for
us to believe that it was written by a contemporary at all. How can we
understand Icelanders fighting in a battle a hundred years before
Iceland was discovered, and what are we to make of such champions as Orm
the Englishman, Brat the Hibernian, etc., among the followers of Harald?
It would seem that on such points the story has been somewhat
sophisticated, perhaps, as in the Roll of Battle Abbey, names have been
added to flatter later heroes."
It is a recognised element in popular tradition or folk-lore, that the
deeds of one historic or mythological hero are sure, when he is
forgotten, to be attributed to some other man of mark, who, for the time
being, fills the popular fancy. I am, therefore, inclined to think that
the imaginary victories of Arthur on the continent of Europe in the
sixth century, as recorded in Geoffrey's tenth book, owe their origin
mainly to the real ones of Karl der Gross in the ninth. Geoffrey, or his
Breton authority, had three centuries of tradition to fall back upon,
time amply sufficient for mediæval myth makers and romance writers to
torture them to their own purposes. Instances of this re-crystallisation
of several stories, mythical and otherwise, around the name of a single
hero, by the vulgar, may be found in relatively modern history. There
is, in the region of traditional lore, in various parts of England, a
mythical Cromwell, as well as the two well-known historical personages
of that name. In whatever part of the country stands a ruined castle or
abbey, or other ecclesiastical edifice, the nearest peasant, or even
farmer, will assure an inquirer that it was battered into ruin by Oliver
Cromwell! Here the Secretary Cromwell, of Henry the Eighth's reign, and
the renowned Protector, of the following century, are evidently
amalgamated. Indeed, the redoubted Oliver seems to have absorbed all the
castle and abbey-destroying heroes of the national history, old Time
himself included. There is a weather-worn statue on the triangular
bridge at Croyland, erected in honour of King Ethelbald, the founder of
the neighbouring abbey now in ruins, which is popularly supposed to be
an effigy of Cromwell, and by some the bridge is likewise named after
him. It is, however, more than probable that the neighbouring ruin is
alone responsible for this nomenclature. A similar fate has befallen
Alexander the Great in the East. Arminius Vámbéry, in his "Travels in
Central Asia," says--"The history of the great Macedonian is invested by
the Orientals with all the characteristics of a religious myth; and
although some of their writers are anxious to distinguish Iskender Zul
Karnein (the two-horned Alexander), the hero of their fable, from
Iskenderi Roumi (the Greek Alexander), I have yet everywhere found that
these two persons were regarded as one and the same." There is likewise
a mythical as well as an historical Taliesin (the Welsh poet), but they
are generally confounded by the populace.
Mr. C. P. Kains-Jackson, in "Our Ancient Monuments and the Land around
them," referring to the huge rock, named "Arthur's Quoit," Gower,
Llanridian, Glamorganshire, says--"The reason why the name of Arthur
should attach to the Titantic boulder represented in our engraving does
not readily appear. The name has probably come by that process of
accretion which has caused every witty cynicism to be attributed to
Talleyrand, or, in another way, every achievement of the Third Crusade
to Richard Cœur de Lion, and every contemporary woodland exploit to
Robin Hood. No name from Druidical times attaching to the monument, the
local tradition joined to the rock the name of the only man whose
legendary repute and fame at all admitted of a super-human feat of
strength being attributed to him."
Mr. Frederick Metcalfe, in his "Englishman and Scandinavian,"
says--"Then again our old institution, trial by jury, to our immortal
King Alfred, the people's darling, it has been assigned, along with
other tithings, hundreds, and a host of other inventions and
institutions, which, we are persuaded, he would have been the first to
repudiate. Indeed, he has become a sort of Odin to some antiquaries, on
whom everything bearing the stamp of remote antiquity was gathered, the
invention of names amongst the rest."
The same writer, referring to the "famous story of Theophilus,"
says--"The legend, as we have said, ran through Europe in various
shapes, and was fitted to all people imaginable. It is referred to in
one of Ælfric's homilies (_i._ 448), while in an Icelandic legend Anselm
and Theophilus are thus blended. Now we know that Eormenric, who died
370, Attila, 453, Gundicar of Burgundy, 436, and the Ostrogothic King
Theordoric or Dietrich, 536, become contemporaries and merge one into
another in heroic mythus. But one is hardly prepared to find Dietrich of
Bern and Theophilus of Sicily getting confused into one. But so it is.
Amongst the Wends it has become a popular story, and is told of Dietrich
(Theodoric of Verona), who among the peasantry is transmuted into the
Wild Huntsman."
Mr. W. St. Chad Boscawen, in his learned lecture on "A Chaldean
Heliopolis," at Manchester, in December, 1881, after referring to the
manner in which Berosus "had resort to an ingenious literary fiction to
preserve the continuity of the narrative in his history of Chaldea,
which he claimed to have based on documentary evidence, extending back
over fifteen myriads of years," says--"The daily recurring war of day
and night, which had belonged to the nomadic age, now became national
wars and combats of Samson, Shamgar, and Gideon, the solar heroes,
against the dark forces of the Philistine and Midianite. But in this
period of the heroic age--the 'once upon a time' of the Chaldean
story-teller, the nation was not one consolidated whole; it was the age
of polyarchy. The beginning of Nimrod's kingdom was not one capital
city, it was the tetrapolis of Babel, Akkad, Erech, and Calrech, and
each city was a little kingdom. So each city had its hero. The giant
Isdubar was the hero of Erech; Sargon the Moses of Chaldea--the hero of
Aganne; Etanne and Ner, of Babylon. In the labours and wars of these
heroes we saw the labours and wars and struggles of the city kingdom,
but lit with the lustre of divinity which shone forth from the age of
the gods and clothed with its brightness the characters in the heroic
age. But, in time, as the nation became consolidated, all became blended
and absorbed into the great national hero, Isdubar, the great king."
The Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, in his "Mythology of the Aryan Nations,"
successfully shows that the principal materials of the Arthurian legends
are identical with those which underlie the Hindoo, Grecian, Teutonic,
and other common Aryan myths. He contends that Arthur is a solar hero,
of the same type as Phoibus Chrysâôr, or Heracles, or Bellerophon, or
Perseus, or Achilleus, or Sigurd; and he illustrates this position by
the citation of numerous instances in which their common original is
clearly perceptible, notwithstanding the great modification, especially
in costume and morals, to which the original materials have been
subjected. A single instance of this uniformity, but an important one,
will suffice for the present purpose. The peculiar form as well as the
name of the supernatural weapon of Indra, the Vedic _lightning_ god,
has undergone many changes in its progress through the mythical lore of
the various Aryan nations, and yet its identity is rarely, if ever,
doubtful. It is the "Durandal" of Roland; it is Arthur's famous sword
"Excalibur," as well as the similar weapon which no one could draw from
the "iron anvil-sheaf embedded in stone" except himself. It is the sword
of the maiden drawn by Balin, after Arthur had failed in the attempt. It
is the "Macabuin," the weapon of the Manx hero, Olave of Norway; it is
Odin's sword "Gram," stuck in the roof-tree of Volsung's hall. It is the
sword of Chrysâôr; it is that of Theseus, and that of Sigurd. It is very
palpably the spear (Gûngnir) which Odin lent, in the form of a reed, to
King Erich, in order to ensure him the victory in a battle against
Styrbjörn. The reed in its flight is said to have assumed the form of a
spear and _struck with blindness_ the whole of the opposing army. It is
the arrow with which Apollo slew the Python; it is the lance of St.
George, the patron saint of England; it is the "sword of sharpness" of
"Jack-the-Giant-Killer;" nay, it is the relatively humble magic cudgel
of popular Norse story, which, like Thor's hammer, voluntarily returned
to the lad's hand on the completion of the rascally innkeeper's
well-merited castigation.
So fascinating are the so-called "historical novels" of such men as Sir
Walter Scott and the late Lord Lytton, such "historical plays" as
Shakspere's, and the popular ballads and other lyric narratives of great
historical events, that _some_ of the most permanent impressions on the
mind of the studious, and _many_ on that of the relatively non-studious
sections of mankind, have been derived therefrom. Indeed, there are
persons who roundly assert that "good historical novels" convey to the
ordinary reader a better idea of the manners and customs and general
aspect of society, as well as of the idiosyncrasies, or special
characteristics, of distinguished individuals, than historical works of
a more definite and presumedly more reliable character. Those who
entertain these views, however, as a rule, are not themselves historical
students in its higher or more legitimate sense, but merely dabblers in
history with an æsthetic object. Besides, if the hypothesis be a sound
one, these "historical novelists" must themselves be more fully and
accurately informed concerning all the hard elements of fact and
individual feeling with which they deal than their rivals (which,
unfortunately, they never or rarely are), or how could they, by any
human process, produce their presumedly more truthful artistic
"counterfeit presentments?" The late Lord Lytton, in the preface to the
third edition of his novel, "Harold, the last of the Saxon Kings,"
expressly says "It was indeed my aim to solve the problem how to produce
the greatest amount of _dramatic effect at the least expense of
historical truth_."
On the other hand, Sir Francis Palgrave denounces "historical novels" as
the "mortal enemies to history," and Leslie Stephen adds, "they are
mortal enemies to fiction" likewise. The latter writer contends, under
such conditions, one of two evils necessarily results, notwithstanding
the fact that perhaps an isolated exception or two might be cited in
opposition: "Either the novel becomes pure cram, a dictionary of
antiquities dissolved in a thin solution of romance, or, which is
generally more refreshing, it takes leave of accuracy altogether and
simply takes the plot and the costumes from history, but allows us to
feel that genuine moderns are masquerading in the dress of a bygone
century." Dean Milman, in his review of Ranke's work on the Papacy,
referring to the scene in the conclave on the elevation of Sixtus V. to
the Papal chair, which, he says, Gregoria Leti "has drawn with such
unscrupulous boldness," adds, "All the minute circumstances of his (the
Pope's) manner, speech, and gesture is like one of Scott's happiest
historical descriptions, but, we fear, of no better historical authority
than the picture of our great novelist."
The false impressions often formed of actual fact from implicit reliance
on artistic fiction, as authority in such matters, is admirably
illustrated in a passage in "Travels in Central Asia," by Arminius
Vámbéry. After journeying from Tabris to Teheran, he says--"It is a
distance of only fifteen, or perhaps we may rather say of only thirteen
caravan stations; still, it is fearfully fatiguing, when circumstances
compel one to toil slowly from station to station under a scorching sun,
mounted upon a laden mule, and condemned to see nothing but such drought
and barrenness as characterise almost the whole of Persia. How bitter
the disappointment to him who has studied Persia only in Saadi, Khakani,
and Hafiz; _or still worse_, who has received his dreamy impressions of
the East from the beautiful imaginings of Goethe's 'Ost-Westlicher
Divan,' or Victor Hugo's 'Orientales,' or the magnificent picturings of
Tom Moore."
If, under circumstances so favourable as those attendant upon such a
"Dryasdust" historical student as Sir Walter Scott, historical truth is
violated or perverted as often as it is illustrated, it is painful to
reflect what must have resulted when solar and other myths, miraculous
legends and traditions of pagan times, have become interwoven with the
faith and morals of Christianity, and the pomp and pageantry of mediæval
chivalry! Leslie Stephens asserts that "'Ivanhoe,' and 'Kenilworth,'
and 'Quentin Durward,' and the rest are, of course, bare, blank
impossibilities." "No such people," he declares, "ever lived or talked
on this planet." He is willing to allow that some fragments of genuine
character may be embedded in what he terms "the plaster of Paris;" but
he insists that "there is no solidity or permanence in the workmanship."
If this be true, how has history fared at the hands of such craftsmen as
Geoffrey of Monmouth, Archdeacon Walter Map, Sir Thos. Malory, and a
whole host of mediæval romance writers, with their King Arthur, Sir
Lancelot, Sir Galahad, their magicians, sorcerers, giants, dragons, and
other monsters? History, in its highest, indeed its only legitimate,
sense, most unquestionably has suffered to a much greater extent than
can be conceived, except by those who have patiently plodded amongst the
details of a portion at least of its dim and dusty, and oft-times
doubtful, raw material. But, on the other hand, to the novelist or the
poet _historical_ truthfulness in the incidents of which his plot is
composed, or _biographical_ truthfulness in the characters delineated,
is simply surplusage, if it be nothing worse, _æsthetic_ or artistic
verities having no necessary foundation thereupon. It is this æsthetic
ideal, evolved from _general_ rather than _individual_ truths, this
poetic element, which lies at the root, and, indeed, furnishes the
_raison d'être_, the very life-giving blood, of such art products as
those under consideration. Hamlet, Lear, Imogen, Ophelia, Cordelia,
Oberon, Elaine, Sir Galahad, Achilleus, Arthur, _et hoc genus omne_,
possess an inherent subjective vitality and truthfulness of their own,
drawn from the universal and everlasting fountains of human emotion,
passion, and psychical aspiration, however little realistic, individual,
or strictly historic value the learned may place on the legends of Saxo
Grammaticus and Geoffrey of Monmouth, or the myths of our common Aryan
ancestors. Thos. Carlyle, in "Sartor Resartus," aptly asks--"Was
Luther's picture of the devil _less a reality_, whether it were formed
within the bodily eye, or without it?" Dean Milman, in his essay on
"Pagan and Christian Sepulchres," referring to the "two large mounds
popularly known as the tombs of the Horatii and the Curiatii," on the
Appian way, near Rome, says--"Let us leave the legend undisturbed, and
take no more notice of those wicked disenchanters of our old belief."
Yet he feelingly and truthfully adds--"They will leave us at least the
poetry, if they scatter our history into a mist." Truly the æsthetic
element, if in itself worthy, will ever survive the destruction of the
presumed historical verity with which it may have been for ages allied.
Who now believes in the historic truthfulness of the reputed deeds of
the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece and Rome? And yet the æsthetic
beauties of Homer, Æschylus, Virgil, and Ovid are none the less admired
and enjoyed. Mr. Philip Gilbert Hamerton, in his Life of J. M. W.
Turner, when commenting on the lack of "topographical," and other
realistic truthfulness, both in colour and details, in many of the great
landscape painter's finest productions, thus aptly deals with the
difference between æsthetic and literal truthfulness--"It is with these
drawings as with the romances of Sir Walter Scott: a time comes in the
life of every intelligent reader when he perceives that Scott was not,
and could not be, really true to the times he represented, except when
they approached very near his own; but a student of literature would be
much to be pitied who was unable to enjoy 'Ivanhoe' after this
discovery. So when we have found out the excessive freedom which Turner
allowed himself; when we have discovered that he is not to be trusted
for the representation of any object, however important--that his
chiaroscuro, though effective is arbitrary, and his colour though
brilliant is false; when we have quite satisfied ourselves, in a word,
that he is a poet, and not an architectural draughtsman, or an imitator
of nature, is that a reason why we should not enjoy the poems? There is
a wide difference, I grant, between the pleasure of real belief and the
pleasure of confessed imagination: the first belongs to imaginative
ignorance, and is only possible for the uncritical; the second belongs
to a state of knowledge, and is only possible for those in whom the
acquisition of knowledge has not deadened the imaginative faculties.
Show the 'Rivers of France' to a boy who has the natural faculties which
perceive beauty, but who is still innocent of criticism, he will believe
the drawings to be true, and think as he dreams over them that a day may
come when he will visit these enchanting scenes. Show them to a real
critic, and he will not accept for fact a single statement made by the
draughtsman from beginning to end, but he will say--'The poetic power is
here,' and then he will yield to its influence, and dream also in his
own way--not like the boy, in simple faith, but in the pleasant
make-belief faith which is all that the poet asks of us."
This æsthetic truthfulness, in contradistinction to literal historic
fact, is admirably expressed by Macaulay in an entry in his journal, in
August, 1851. He says--"I walked far into Herefordshire," (from Malvern)
"and read, while walking, the last five books of the 'Iliad,' with deep
interest and many tears. I was afraid to be seen crying by the parties
of walkers that met me as I came back; crying for Achilles cutting off
his hair; crying for Priam rolling on the ground in the court-yard of
his house; mere imaginary beings, creatures of an old ballad maker who
died near three thousand years ago."
Lord Byron wrote under the influence of the traditions of his youth or
of his classical college education, and not as the true poet, when he
said--"I stood upon the plain of Troy daily for more than a month, in
1810; and if anything diminished my pleasure it was that the blackguard
Bryant had impugned its veracity." On the contrary, I felt no such lack
of pleasurable emotion when I first gazed on the Thames at Datchet, or
on the withered trunk of "Herne's Oak," or on the Trossachs and Loch
Katrine, or on the Rialto or the Ducal palace at Venice, or on
the Colisseum or the adjacent ruins of the "lone mother of dead
empires," because the mere _historical_ verity of Jack Falstaff's
unwieldly carcase, or of Shakspere, Otway, Byron or Scott's ideal and
semi-historical personages, never once entered into my mind. It was
sufficient for me that the scenes before me were those which were
contemplated and portrayed by the great dramatists and the great
novelist and the great poet. For the time being, thanks to the law of
mental association, to my imagination their characters were as real
personages as was necessary for the fullest appreciation and enjoyment
of the ideal of their artistic creators, and anything more, _being
unnecessary_, might have been intrusive, or even _impertinent_, in the
original and non-metaphorical meaning of that somewhat abused word.
Byron spoke more to the purpose in the opening stanzas of the fourth
canto of "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage," when, after lamenting the fate of
Venice, and recalling the glories of her past history, he exclaims:--
But unto us she hath a spell beyond
Her name in story and her long array
Of mighty shadows whose dim forms despond
Above the dogeless city's vanish'd sway;
Ours is a trophy which will not decay
With the Rialto; Shylock and the Moor
And Pierre can not be swept and worn away--
The keystones of the arch! Though all were o'er,
For us repeopled were the solitary shore.
He adds, with more significant meaning:--
The beings of the mind are not of clay;
Essentially immortal, they create
And multiply in us a brighter ray
And more beloved existence.
Dr. Gervinus says--"Shakspere's representations of the passionate, the
prodigal, the hypocrite, are not portraits of this or that individual,
but _examples of those passions elevated out of particular into general
truth_, of which, in real life, we may find a thousand diminished
copies, but never the original in the exact proportions given by the
poet." And so it is with the æsthetic truth embodied in artistic
creations of a plastic or pictorial character. No one acquainted with
art products of its class imagines that the colossal statue recently
erected in Germany to the memory of Hermann, or Arminius, the conqueror
of the Roman legions under Varus (A.D. 9), is an absolute every-day
portrait-likeness of that not very morally scrupulous "hero and
patriot;" or that the faces, figures, costumes, and other accessories,
in the "Last Supper" of Da Vinci, or the "Cartoons" of Raffaelle,
represent, _historically_ or _de facto_, the scenes as they actually
occurred. Though conventionally called "historical pictures," they
are emphatically creations of the imaginations of the artists,
notwithstanding their historic basis, and consequently the great truths
that pervade them, and for which they are justly admired, are of an
artistic or æsthetic, and not of a strictly historic, character.
Notwithstanding this general lack of historic truthfulness we,
nevertheless, do gain valuable knowledge of a psychological,
ethnological, and even of a strictly historical character from stories
of the mythical and legendary class; but much of that knowledge pertains
to the age and its mental associations in which the story-tellers or
other artistic exponents themselves lived. In the Arthurian romances we
find an immense amount of historic truthfulness with reference to the
habits of thought, costume, and religious sentiment, which obtained in
and about the twelfth century; but which truths are utterly untrue, as
applied by the writers, to the fifth and sixth, the era in which Arthur
and his Christian knights, magicians, and giants are presumed to have
been corporal existences. The same may be said of much of Bede's, and,
indeed, of most other early chronicles. Although we may refuse our
assent to the improbable and miraculous stories therein narrated, we
feel convinced, in Bede's instance especially, that the writer is
thoroughly in earnest, and honest in his work, and that he, at least,
correctly describes the manners, customs, faiths, superstitions, and
legendary history prevalent at the period in which he lived. This view
is now the one generally accepted by the best historians and
ethnological and psychological students. Mr. Ralph N. Wornum, in his
"Epochs of Painting Characterised," says--"Ancient opinions are of
themselves facts, and the history of any subject is indeed imperfect
when the ideas of early ages regarding it are altogether overlooked, for
the impressions and associations made or suggested by any intellectual
pursuit are, as one of its effects, a part of the subject itself." Mr.
Tylor, in the work already quoted, says--"The very myths that were
discarded as lying fables prove to be sources of history in ways that
their makers and transmitters little dreamed of. Their meaning has been
misunderstood, but they have a meaning. Every tale that was ever told
has a meaning for the times it belongs to. Even a lie, as the Spanish
proverb says, is a lady of birth. ('_La mentira es hija de algo._')
Thus, as evidence of the development of thought as records of long
passed belief and usage, even in some measure as materials for the
history of the nations owning them, the old myths have fairly taken
their place among historic facts; and with such the modern historian, so
able and so willing to pull down, is also able and willing to rebuild."
M. Mallet, in his "Northern Antiquities," referring to the
semi-historical romances of the Scandinavians, says--"It is needless to
observe that great light may be thrown on the character and sentiments
of a nation, by those very books, whence we can learn nothing exact or
connected of their history. The most credulous writer, he that has the
greatest passion for the marvellous, while he falsifies the history of
his contemporaries, paints their manners of life and modes of thinking
without perceiving it. His simplicity, his ignorance, are at once
pledges of the artless truth of his drawing, and a warning to distrust
that of his relations."
Dr. A. Dickson White, in his treatise on "The Warfare of Science,"
forcibly illustrates the absolute necessary harmony of all truth,
subjective and objective, although we may not always possess sufficient
insight to perceive it. He says--"God's truths must agree, whether
discovered by looking within upon the soul, or without upon the world. A
truth written upon the human heart to-day, in its full play of emotions
or passions, cannot be at any real variance even with a truth written
upon a fossil whose poor life ebbed forth millions of years ago."
Professor Gervinus, in his "Shakespeare Commentaries," has skilfully
analysed the distinction between historic and æsthetic truth. He
says--"Where the historian, bound by an oath to the severest truth in
every single statement, can, at the most, only permit us to divine the
causes of events and the motives of actions from the bare narration of
facts, the poet, who seeks to draw from these facts only a _general
moral truth, and not one of facts_, unites by poetic fiction the action
and actors in a distinct living relation of cause and effect. The more
freely and boldly he does this, as Shakespeare has done in 'Richard
III.,' the more poetically interesting will his treatment of the history
become, but the more will it lose its historical value; the more truly
and closely he adheres to reality, as in 'Richard II.,' the more will
his poetry gain in historic meaning and forfeit in poetic splendour."
Shakspere so thoroughly felt and understood this, that in the
construction of his plot, and even in the determination of the
specialities of the characters of Macbeth and his indomitable wife, he
has selected his incidents from more than one epoch in early Scottish
history. The famous murder scenes in the first and second acts, so far
as they are "historically" true, are drawn from the assassination of a
previous king, Duffe, in 971 or 972, by Donwald, captain of the castle
of Fores, whose wife is the "historic" original of the "æsthetic" Lady
Macbeth of the tragedy, and not the spouse (if he had one) of the
chieftain who, history simply says, "slew the king [Duncan] at
Inverness," in an ordinary battle in 1040.
Professor Gervinus adds--"It is a common pride on the part of the poets
of these historical plays, and a natural peculiarity belonging to this
branch of the art, that truth and poetry should go hand in hand. It is
more than probable that 'Henry VIII.' bore at first the title so
characteristic in this respect--'All is True.' But this truth is
throughout, as we have seen, not to be taken in the prosaic sense of the
historian, who seeks it in the historical material in every most minute
particular, and in its most different aspects; it is only a higher and
universal truth which is gathered by a poet from a series of historical
facts, yet which from the very circumstance that it springs from
historical, true and actual facts, and is supported and held by them,
acquires, it must be admitted, a double authority, that of poetry and
history combined. The historical drama, formed of these two component
parts, is therefore especially agreeable to the imaginative friend of
history and the realistic friend of poetry."
It will thus be seen that there is no necessary antagonism between
individual, or historic, and ideal, or æsthetic, truth. Their respective
lines of action may be divergent, but they are, when thoroughly
understood, both in harmony with the great central and "eternal verity"
which embodies all truth. The only danger to be guarded against by the
historic or æsthetic student arises from the too common habit of
confounding the one with the other.
Tennyson, in his "Queen Mary," says--
The very Truth and very Word are one,
But truth of story, which I glanced at, girl,
Is like a word that comes from olden days,
And passes thro' the peoples: every tongue
Alters it passing, till it spells and speaks
Quite other than at first.
Nennius speaks of a tenth battle fought and won by Arthur on the banks
of the river Trat Treuroit, or Ribroit. This has been identified by
commentators as the Brue, in Somersetshire, and the Ribble, in
Lancashire; but the evidence advanced is not very conclusive in favour
of either locality. Mr. Haigh prefers Trefdraeth, in the island of
Anglesea, as the place indicated.
[Illustration]