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.

HAROLD--(On the morn of the battle of Senlac or Hastings)--Our guardsmen

have slept well since we came in?

LEOFWIN.-- * * They are up again

And chanting that old song of Brunanburg,

Where England conquer'd.

_Tennyson's Harold._

Upwards of three centuries had elapsed since the departure of the Roman

legions from Britain, and the presumedly first regularly organised

invasion of the island by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, when a new

enemy of the same Teutonic blood and language appeared upon her shores.

The country had been but partially conquered by the first Teutonic

invaders. Picts and Scots held their own in Ireland and that portion of

Great Britain to the north of the estuaries of the Clyde and the Forth.

The Britons were not only masters in old Cornwall and in a more extended

territory than is now included in the present principality of Wales,

but they remained dominant in Strathclyde and Cumberland, which

comprised the lands on the western side of the island between the Clyde

estuary and Morecambe Bay. Christianity had become the recognised

religious faith of both the Britons and the Teutons, but the newly

arrived kinsmen of the latter were still worshippers of Odin, and

marched to battle with his sacred "totem" or cognizance, the "swart

raven" emblazoned on their banners. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, under the

date 787, says--"This year king Bertric took to wife Eadburga, King

Offa's daughter; and in his days first came three ships of Northmen, out

of Hœretha-land [Denmark.] And then the reve rode to the place, and

would have driven them to the king's town, because he knew not who they

were: and they there slew him. These were the first ships of Danish men

which sought the land of the English nation." These three ships landed

in Dorsetshire, and the gerefa or reve, named Beaduheard, of Dorchester,

supposed them to be contraband traders rather than pirates. This mistake

cost him his life, as well as the lives of the whole of his retinue.

The conflicts which followed for many years afterwards between these

heathen pirates and their Christianised kinsmen were characterised by

deeds of remorseless atrocity as well as of indomitable valour. Truly,

every now relatively civilized nation has had to pass through what may

not be inaptly termed its Bashi-Bazouk stage of culture before from it

evolved its present more highly developed intellectual and moral human

features. Mr. Jno. R. Green ("Short History of the English People,")

sums up the more prominent characteristics of this internecine strife as

follows:--

"The first sight of the Danes is as if the hand of the dial of history

had gone back three hundred years. The same Norwegian fiords, the same

Frisian sandbanks, pour forth their pirate fleets as in the days of

Hengest and Cerdic. There is the same wild panic as the black boats of

the invaders strike inland along the river reaches, or moor round the

river islets, the same sights of horror--firing of homesteads, slaughter

of men, women driven off to slavery or shame, children tossed on pikes

or sold in the market-place--as when the English invaders attacked

Britain. Christian priests were again slain at the altar by worshippers

of Woden, for the Danes were still heathen. Letters, arts, religion,

governments disappeared before these Northmen as before the Northmen of

old. But when the wild burst of the storm was over, land, people,

government reappeared unchanged. England still remained England; the

Danes sank quietly into the mass of those around them; and Woden yielded

without a struggle to Christ. The secret of this difference between the

two invasions was that the battle was no longer between men of different

races. It was no longer a fight between Briton and German, between

Englishmen and Welshmen. The Danes were the same people in blood and

speech with the people they attacked; and were in fact Englishmen

bringing back to an England that had forgotten its origins the barbaric

England of its pirate forefathers. Nowhere over Europe was the fight so

fierce, because nowhere else were the combatants men of one blood and

one speech. But just for this reason the fusion of the Northmen with

their foes was nowhere so peaceful and complete."

[Illustration: MAP 3.]

The chief Danish ravages for nearly a century were confined to the

southern coast and the coast of East Anglia. In 855, the Chronicle

says--"The heathen men for the first time remained over winter in

Sheppey." In 867, it records that "this year the Danish army went from

East Anglia over the mouth of the Humber to York, in North-humbria. And

there was much dissention among that people, and they had cast out their

king Osbert, and had taken to themselves a king, Ælla, not of royal

blood; but late in the year they resolved that they would fight against

the army, and therefore they gathered a large force, and fought the army

at the town of York, and stormed the town, and some of them got within

and there was an excessive slaughter made of the North-humbrians, some

within, some without, and the kings were both slain, and the remainder

made peace with the army."

Some writers say that Ælla was put to death with the most frightful

tortures in revenge for similar cruel treatment, on his part, of his

conquered foe, Ragnar Lodbrock, by the three sons of that somewhat

mythical hero, named Halfden, Ingwar, and Hubba, who commanded the

expedition. The story runs that Ragnar, being taken prisoner by Ælla,

was thrown into a dungeon, and bitten to death by vipers. This Ragnar,

however, has proved so troublesome to northern scholars, that many

regard him as a mythical personage, belonging to an earlier, or what

they term the "heroic period." Scandinavian reliable _history_ only

dates from about the middle of the ninth century. Ælla usurped the

Northumbrian throne in the year 862, and Mr. J. A. Blackwell, in his

edition of Mallett's "Northern Antiquities," says "Ragnar's death is

placed by Suhm, who has brought it down to the latest possible epoch, in

794, and by other writers at a much earlier period." Some of the deeds

attributed to this hero are unquestionably mythical. From the "Death

Song," said to have been written by him, but which Mr. Blackwell regards

as more probably the composition of a Skald of the ninth century, we

learn that Ragnar succeeded, like Indra, Perseus, St. George, and other

solar heroes, in conquering a monster serpent that held in captivity

Thora, the daughter of a chieftain of Gothland, and received the lady in

marriage, as the reward of his prowess. In order to protect himself

against the serpent's venom, it is said that Ragnar "put on shaggy

trousers, from which circumstance he was afterwards called Lodbrok

(_Shaggy-brogues_)." Be this as it may, Ingwar, his presumed son, on the

defeat of Ælla and Osbert, ascended the Northumbrian throne, and the

Danes remained masters of the situation, until the partition of the

kingdom between Godrun and Alfred the Great gave them peaceful

possession of the territory. In the year 876, Halfden, a famous Danish

viking, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, "appropriated the lands

of Northumbria; and they thenceforth continued ploughing and tilling

them." Consequently, from this period, the great mass of the men of

Scandinavian blood in Northumbria must be regarded rather in the light

of emigrants or settlers than roving pirates, although, doubtless, with

them the sword was always ready to supersede the ploughshare whenever

the arrival of a fleet of their buccaneering relatives on the coast

afforded an opportunity for a successful foray on the lands of their

Anglo-Saxon neighbours.

On the death of Edward the Elder, in the year 925, the "right royal"

grandson of the Great Alfred, the "golden haired" Athelstan, succeeded

to the kingdom of Wessex and its dependencies, which included the whole

of England south of the Humber and the Mersey, with the exception of

Cornwall and East Anglia, and the "overlordship" of the whole of the

Anglo-Saxon and Danish rulers, as well as those of the Welsh and Scots,

whose kings rendered him homage and acknowledged him the legitimate

successor to his father Edward, whom they regarded as "their Father,

Lord, and Protector." Edward the Elder was, at the time of his highest

prosperity, unquestionably the most powerful "Bretwalda" or "overlord"

that had ruled in Britain since the departure of the Romans.

Soon after Athelstan's succession, however, the kings of the present

Principality, or North Wales, as the whole country from the Severn to

the Dee was then called, rebelled against the authority of the hated

fair-haired Sassenach. Athelstan instantly attacked Edwall Voel, king of

Gwynnedd, and wrested the entire sovereignty of his dominion from him.

He, however, on the submission of the other Welsh princes, and their

performance of homage to him at his court held at Hereford, generously

restored it to him. Afterwards the country between the Severn and the

Wye were added to Mercia, and a heavy tribute was imposed on all the

revolted Welsh monarchs. Twenty pounds weight of gold and three hundred

pounds of silver were to be yearly paid into the treasury, or, as it was

then styled, the "Hoard" of the "King of London." To this was to be

added an annual gift of twenty thousand beeves and the swiftest hounds

and hawks that the country possessed.

The Cornish Britons, or West Welsh, as they were then termed, were

afterwards subdued, and thus all Britain south of the Humber and the

Mersey again acknowledged Athelstan's supremacy or "overlordship."

In the year 925, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle informs us that Athelstan and

Sihtric (or Sigtryg), king of the North-humbrians, "came together at

Tamworth, on the 3rd before the Kalends of February; and Athelstan gave

him his sister." But this marriage failed to secure the proposed future

alliance between the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon sovereigns. The Dane,

who had embraced Christianity, relapsed into the faith of his

forefathers and returned his wife to her former home. Sihtric's death,

however, intervened between the repudiation of Queen Editha, who

afterwards became Abbess of Tamworth, and the vengeance of Athelstan,

which fell upon Anlaf and Godefrid, sons of Sihtric by a former

marriage. Anlaf fled to Ireland, on the east coast of which the Danes

held the supreme authority, and his brother sought refuge with

Constantine, king of the Scots. Referring to these events the

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says--"A. 926. This year fiery lights appeared in

the north part of the heavens. And Sihtric perished; and king Athelstan

obtained the kingdom of the North-humbrians. And he ruled all the kings

who were in the island; first, Howel, king of the West-Welsh; and

Constantine, king of the Scots; and Owen, king of the Monmouth people;

and Aldred, son of Ealdulf, of Bambrough: and they confirmed the peace

by pledge, and by oaths, at the place which is called Eamot, on the 4th

before the Ides of July; and they renounced all idolatry, and after that

submitted to him in peace."

But the peace was not of very long duration, for the king of the Scots

raised the standard of revolt, and the old Chronicler, or perhaps a

successor, tells us that in the year 933, "Athelstan went into Scotland,

as well with a land army as with a fleet, and ravaged a great part of

it." This defeat of the Scottish king for a time restored Athelstan's

dominion, but the peace which followed was, four years afterwards,

broken by a powerful combination of Athelstan's enemies, which shook the

"overlordship" of the English monarch to its foundation, and threatened

the safety of his inherited kingdoms. The Scots, the Cumbrian Britons,

the North and West Welsh, entered into a league with Anlaf of Dublin and

the Danish chiefs of Northumbria and their Scandinavian allies to lower

the prestige of the English monarch, and to seat the son of Sihtric on

the throne of his ancestors. This fierce conflict culminated in the

great battle of Brunanburh, in the year 937, in which, after a

desperate two days' struggle, the confederate forces of his enemies were

utterly routed, and Athelstan reigned supreme monarch to the end of his

kingly career.

There is some difficulty in determining the exact date of this

celebrated engagement. Sharon-Turner gives it as 934. Worsaae in his

"Danes and Norwegians in England," says 937. Ethelwerd's Chronicle says

939. Sharon-Turner refers to the fact that one MS. of the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle gives the date 937, notwithstanding which he prefers 934. Dr.

Freeman in his "Old English History" adheres to 937, which seems to be

the most probable date.

We find that British Christians, as on previous occasions, espoused the

cause of the heathen Danes, rather than fraternize with their hated

Anglo-Saxon rivals, the disciples of Augustine and Paulinus. Thus many

elements combined to render this battle one of the bloodiest and most

destructive ever fought on British soil. The great struggle did not take

place immediately on the arrival of Anlaf and his allies. Athelstan's

two governors, Gudrekir and Alfgeirr first confronted the invaders. The

former was slain and the latter fled to his sovereign, with the news of

their discomfiture. Athelstan, with wise forethought, tried the effect

of diplomacy, if only for the purpose of gaining sufficient time for the

assembling of all his forces before staking his sovereignty upon the

issue of a single battle.

The authorities, contemporary or nearly so, for the details of this

decisive campaign, although meagre in comparison with those of more

recent struggles, are nevertheless fuller than usual for the period. We

have the poem in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a notice in Ethelwerd's

Chronicle, and some Scandinavian accounts, notably Egil's Saga.

Sharon-Turner, however, regards the northern authorities as not entitled

to implicit reliance, as their great object was the laudation of Egil

and Thorolf, Scandinavian mercenaries in the pay of Athelstan, who, they

contend, mainly contributed to the victory by the annihilation of the

"disorderly Irish" contingent.

Athelstan, when his diplomatic _finesse_ had answered his purpose,

suddenly appeared at Brunanburh, and pitched his camp in front of the

enemy. It is related that Anlaf, taken by surprise, imitated Alfred's

stratagem, and entered the royal camp in the disguise of a harper. He

was admitted into the presence of Athelstan, who was ever liberal in his

patronage of poets and musicians, and the Danish king played, sang, and

danced before the assembled chieftains, at a banquet, in the enjoyment

of which he found them engaged previously to the holding of a council of

war. On his dismissal a purse, filled with silver groats, was given to

him as a reward for his services. Anlaf's observant military eye had

detected the weakest point in his adversary's position, and the exact

locality in which the royal tent was pitched, and he determined to

surprise the camp by a sudden night attack, and either slay or carry off

the king a prisoner. One false step, however, robbed him of the

advantage his daring had gained. On leaving the enemy's lines, he was

observed by a sentinel, who had formerly served under him, to bury the

king's gratuity, which he disdained to appropriate to other use, in a

hole in the earth. This aroused the soldier's suspicion, and Athelstan

was informed of the circumstance. The king, in the first instance, was

disposed to treat the man somewhat harshly, and demanded why the

information as to the identity of the pretended itinerant minstrel had

not been communicated to him before his departure. To this the faithful

soldier replied, "Nay, by the same oath of fealty which binds me to

thee, O king, was I once bound to Anlaf; and had I betrayed him, with

equal justice mightest thou have expected treachery from me. But hear my

counsel. Whilst awaiting further reinforcements, take away thy tent from

the spot upon which it now stands, and thus mayest thou ward off the

blow of thine enemy." This advice Athelstan followed, and shortly

afterwards the Bishop of Sherborne arrived with his contingent, and

pitched his tent in the locality vacated by his royal master, which

circumstance cost him his life during the night surprise which followed.

We have Alfred's harper story on the authority of Ingulf and William of

Malmesbury, the former of whom was born in 1030, and the latter in 1095

or 1096, so that they were recording events which had transpired between

one and two centuries before their own adult experience. The Anlaf tale

is too exact a counterpart of the one related about Alfred, not to

suggest doubt as to its veracity; or, if it be a veritable incident in

the life of the Scandinavian warrior, the doubt will have to be

transferred to the story related of his Saxon predecessor. It is not

very probable so transparent an artifice would succeed a second time,

especially when played upon such a clear-headed chieftain as Alfred's

grandson.[35] But, however Anlaf gained his information, the night the

attack took place, Adils, a Welsh prince, detected the strategy of

Athelstan. After the death of the Bishop of Sherborne, he and Hyngr (a

chieftain described in Egil's Saga as a Welshman, but whose name,

Sharon-Turner thinks, sounds very like a Danish one), led the attack on

the main body of the English army. But Athelstan was prepared, and

Thorolf and Alfgeirr's detachments were instantly opposed to them.

Alfgeirr was soon overpowered and fled, on perceiving which Thorolf

threw his shield behind him, and hewed his way with his heavy two-hand

sword through the opposing mass until he reached the standard of Hyngr.

A few moments decided the fate of that chieftain. Thorolf ordered Egil,

though weakened by the defeat and flight of Alfgeirr, to resist Adils,

but to be prepared to retreat to the cover of a neighbouring wood, if

necessary. Adils, mourning the death of his colleague, at length gave

way, and the preliminary nocturnal combat ended. After a day's rest,[36]

Egil led the van of the Anglo-Saxon army, and Thorolf opposed the

"irregular Irish," which formed part of Anlaf's own division, and

extended to the wood previously mentioned. Turketal, the English

chancellor, a man of stalwart proportions, who commanded the citizens of

London, and Singin of Worcestershire, were opposed to Constantine, king

of the Scots, while Athelstan, at the head of his West Saxons,

confronted Anlaf in person. Thorolf attempted to turn the enemies'

flank, when Adils rushed from his ambush in the wood, and countered the

movement. Egils saw with dismay Thorolf's banner retreating. He knew by

this that he must have fallen; and, rushing to the spot, he rallied the

scattered band, successfully renewed the attack, and, in Sharon-Turner's

words, "sacrificed Adils to the manes of Thorolf." The Councillor

pierced the enemy's centre, heedless of the arrows and spears which

fastened on his armour. Constantine and he met and fought hand to hand

for some time, and Singer slew the prince, his son, who fought valiantly

by his father's side. This vigorous and successful onslaught produced a

panic among the Scots, and correspondingly elated the English. In the

meanwhile Athelstan and his brother, Edmund, the Atheling, were engaged

with the main body of the enemy under Anlaf. The grandson of the Great

Alfred and the presumed grandson of Radnor Lodbrog contended both for

dominion and renown. In the midst of the fight Athelstan's sword-blade

snapped near the handle. Another was supplied to him, it was said, by

miraculous agency, which saved his life. At length the tremendous

struggle, which lasted throughout the day, was brought to a close by

Turketal chasing the Scots from the battle-field, and turning Anlaf's

flank. Immense slaughter ensued; the enemy's ranks began rapidly to

thin; the English shouted "victory!" and Athelstan, profiting by the

auspicious opportunity, ordered his banner to the front, and by a

determined and well-directed onslaught, broke the enemy's now enfeebled

ranks. They fled in various directions, and, according to Egil's saga,

"the plain was filled with their bodies." Anlaf and his immediate

followers narrowly escaped to their ships and embarked for Ireland.

Sharon-Turner says--

"Thus terminated this dangerous and important conflict. Its successful

issue was of such consequence, that it raised Athelstan in the eyes of

all Europe. The kings of the continent sought his friendship, and

England began to assume a majestic port amid the other nations of the

west. Amongst the Anglo-Saxons it excited such rejoicings that not only

their poets aspired to commemorate it, but the songs were so popular,

that one of them is inserted in the Saxon Chronicle as the best memorial

of the event."

The following is Dr. Giles's literal rendering of this remarkable poem

into modern English:--

A. 937.--Here Athelstan, king,

of earls the lord,

of heroes the bracelet giver,

and his brother eke,

Edmund etheling,

life-long glory

in battle won

with edges of swords

near Brunanburh.

The board-walls they clove,

they hewed the war-lindens,

Hamora lafan'

offspring of Edward,

such was their noble nature

from their ancestors,

that they in battle oft

'gainst every foe

the land defended,

hoards and homes.

The foe they crushed,

the Scottish people

and the shipmen

fated fell.

The field 'dæniede'

with warriors' blood,

since the sun up

at morning tide--

mighty planet--

glided o'er grounds,

God's candle bright,

the eternal Lord's--

till the noble creature

sank to her settle.

There lay many a warrior

by javelins strewed;

northern men

over shield shot;

so the Scots, eke,

weary, war-sad.

West Saxons onwards

throughout the day,

in bands,

pursued the footsteps

of the loathed nations.

They hewed the fugitives

behind, amain,

with swords mill-sharp.

Mercians refused not

the hard hand-play

to any heroes

who, with Anlaf,

over the ocean,

in the ship's bosom,

this land sought

fated to the fight.

Five lay

on the battle-stead,

youthful kings,

by swords in slumber laid:

so seven, eke,

of Anlaf's earls;

of the army countless,

shipmen and Scots.

There was made flee

the North-men's chieftain,

by need constrained,

to the ship's prow

with a little band.

The bark drove afloat;

the king departed,

on the fallow flood

his life preserved.

So there, eke, the sage

came by flight

to his country north,

Constantine,

hoary warrior.

He had no cause to exult

in the communion of swords.

Here was his kindred band

of friends o'erthrown

on the folk-stead,

in battle slain;

and his son he left

on the slaughter-place

mangled with wounds,

young in the fight.

He had no cause to boast,

hero grizzly haired,

of the bill-clashing,

the old deceiver;

nor Anlaf the moor,

with the remnant of their armies;

they had no cause to laugh

that they in war's works

the better men were

in the battle-stead,

at the conflict of banners,

meeting of spears,

concourse of men,

traffic of weapons,

that they on the slaughter-field

with Edward's

offspring played.

The North-men departed

in their nailed barks--

bloody relic of darts--

on roaring ocean,

o'er the deep water,

Dublin to seek;

again Ireland

shamed in mind.

So, too, the brothers,

both together,

king and etheling,

their country sought,

West-Saxons' land,

in the war exulting.

They left behind them,

the corse to devour,

the sallowy kite

and the swarthy raven

with horned nib,

and the dusky 'pada,'

erne white-tailed,

the corse to enjoy,--

greedy war-hawk,

and the grey beast,

wolf of the wood.

Carnage greater has not been

in this island

ever yet

of people slain,

before this,

by edges of swords,

as the books say--

old writers--

since from the east hither

Angles and Saxons

came to land,--

o'er the broad seas

Britain sought,--

mighty war-smiths

the Welsh o'ercame;

earls most bold

this earth obtained.

Some of the MSS. of the Chronicle have the following additional

reference to the battle:--

"A. 937. This year King Athelstan and Edmund his brother led a force to

Brunanburh, and there fought against Anlaf; and Christ helping, had the

victory; and they there slew five kings and seven earls."

Simeon, of Durham, says one of these five monarchs was "Eligenius, an

under-king of Deira," or the eastern portion of the then kingdom of

Northumbria.

Athelstan died in 940, and, in the following year, the Chronicle says

his successor "Edmund received king Anlaf at baptism." In 942, it

says--"This year King Anlaf died." There were, however, two other

chieftains of the same name, who flourished somewhat later.

Historians are scarcely, even at the present day, unanimous in their

views as to what monarch ought to be regarded as the first "king of

England." Some say Egbert; but his authority rarely if ever extended

over the whole of the country now so named, and a very large proportion

of it was merely a kind of nominal "over lordship," which carried with

it very little governing influence, and, such as it was, it was held on

a very precarious tenure. Others contend that the distinction belongs to

Alfred the Great. Yet Alfred, though beloved by all the English-speaking

people in the land, was compelled to share the territory with his Danish

rival, Gothrun. Sharon-Turner says--"The truth seems to be that Alfred

was the first monarch of the _Anglo-Saxons_, but Athelstan was the first

monarch of _England_." He adds--"After the battle of Brunanburh,

Athelstan had no competitor; he was the _immediate Sovereign of all

England_. He was even _nominal_ lord of Wales and Scotland." This seems

to be the true solution of the query.

It is a most remarkable circumstance that the site of this great

victory, notwithstanding the magnitude of the contending armies and the

importance of its political and social results, was, until recently, at

least, absolutely unknown, and it cannot yet be said that the true

locality has been demonstrated with sufficient clearness to entirely

remove all doubt. Many places have been suggested on the most frivolous

grounds. The question where is, or was, Brunanburh is still sounding in

the ear of the historical student, and echo merely answers "Where?" Yet

I think I have made the nearest approach to the solution of this

problem, in the "History of Preston and its Environs," that has yet been

attempted, and further investigation enables me to add considerably to

the evidence there adduced.

It is, perhaps, necessary that some attempt should be made to determine

the cause or causes why the site of so important a victory, celebrated

in the finest extant short poem in the Anglo-Saxon tongue, and so

important in its political results, should have become lost both to the

history and tradition of the English victors. At first sight there

appears something singularly exceptionable in the fact. But a closer

inspection of the details of what may be termed the Anglo-Saxon period

of conflict with their Scandinavian enemies, Danish, Norwegian, or

Norman-French, soon removes this impression, the sites of many other,

almost equally important struggles, and notoriously some of those in

which the Great Alfred was engaged, having been subjected to similar

doubt, if not oblivion.

In the first place it must not be forgotten that after the death of

Athelstan, the Danish invasions were renewed, and, after various

successes and defeats, the Scandinavian monarchs, Sweyn and Canute,

before the end of the tenth century, ruled despotically over all

England. Even the temporary restoration of the Anglo-Saxon dynastic

element, in the person of Edward the Confessor, in consequence of his

Norman-French connection and early education, did little to remove the

pressure of the foreign yoke, in the provinces at least; and what

influence it may have exerted was speedily eradicated by the decisive

victory of William the Norman, near Hastings, in the middle of the

following century. Conquest, in those days, meant subjugation to the

extent of a deprivation of all rights--at least all political

rights--and many social privileges, and absolute serfdom for the great

mass of the population. Consequently it was the policy of the conquerors

to ignore, and, as far as possible, enforce the ignorement of all past

glorious achievements of the ancestors of the subjugated peoples.

Doubtless, tradition would still, with its tenacious grasp, retain some

recollection of the great exploits of their forefathers, and, in secret,

the people would cherish their memory with a more intense love, on

account of the persecution to which its open expression would be

subjected. But in those days there were no printing presses, nor

journalism, local or metropolitan. The people could not read, and even

the nobles, in the main, like old King Cole, in the song, because he

could afford to salary a secretary, "scorned the fetters of the four and

twenty letters, and it saved them a vast deal of trouble." Now, these

secretaries were almost, if not entirely, ecclesiastics; and they were

likewise the only literary, or learned men, existing during the period

to which I refer. These ecclesiastics, in different monasteries, kept

records of the general events of the period in which they lived, of a

very meagre character, and devoted more time and space to matters

ecclesiastical, as might reasonably be anticipated. Again, when the

Danish and Norman warriors obtained the supreme power, it is easy to

understand that the ecclesiastical domination was speedily transferred

to their clerical _confreres_; and, of course, whatever obscurity rested

on the details of previous victories or glories of the subject race,

would be intensified rather than lessened, by any action of theirs, even

supposing (which is anything but probable), that they themselves

possessed much authentic information respecting such events. Subsequent

writers, of course, dealt largely in mere conjecture, on the flimsiest

of evidence; and, as they sometimes differ so widely from each other, or

as they are so obscure in their topographical definitions and

nomenclature, little is derivable from their labours of value to the

modern historian and antiquary. Consequently, although there are many

references to the great battle itself, both in the several chronicles,

the poem to which I have referred, and in some Scandinavian sagas,

written in honour of two of their warriors of the free-lance, or Dugal

Dalgetty class, who fought on the side of the English monarch, the site

of the great conflict has remained doubtful to the present time.

Henry of Huntingdon, who wrote in the earlier portion of the twelfth

century, referring to the twelve presumed victories of Arthur, accounts

for the then loss of their sites in the following characteristic

fashion--"These battles and battle-fields are described by Gildas,"

[Nennius,] "the historian, but in our times the places are unknown, the

Providence of God, we consider, having so ordered it that popular

applause and flattery, and transitory glory, might be of no account."

The clerical historian seems to have thoroughly understood the motives

of his predecessors in the destruction of the records of a heretical or

pagan race.

Mr. Daniel H. Haigh, in his "Conquest of Britain by the Saxons,"

referring to the absence of Runic inscriptions in the south of England,

and their partial preservation in the Northumbrian kingdom, has the

following pertinent observations:--

"The first missionaries, St. Augustine and his brethren, used all their

endeavours to destroy every monument of Runic antiquity, because runes

had been the means of pagan augury, and of preserving the memory of

pagan hymns and incantations; for, knowing how prone the common people

were to their ancient superstitions (of which even after the lapse of

twelve centuries many vestiges still remain), and how difficult it would

be to teach them to distinguish the use of a thing from its abuse, they

feared that their labours would be in vain so long as the monuments of

ancient superstition remained. So every Runic writing disappeared; and

we may well believe, that records which to us would be invaluable,

perished in the general destruction. In the first instance S. Gregory

had commanded that everything connected with paganism should be

destroyed; but afterwards, in a letter to S. Milletus, he recommended

that the symbols only of paganism should be done away with, but that the

sanctuaries should be consecrated and used as churches. These

instructions were in force when S. Paulinus evangelized Northumbria; and

we cannot doubt that the work of destruction would be effectively done

under the auspices of a prince whose police was so vigorous as we are

informed that Eadwine's was. But after his death, and the flight of S.

Paulinus, the restoration of Christianity in Northumbria was effected by

missionaries of the Irish school, whose fathers in Ireland had pursued

from the first a different policy, by allowing the memorials of

antiquity to remain, and contenting themselves with consecrating

the monuments of paganism, and marking them with the symbols of

Christianity. Under their auspices Runic writing was permitted, for we

can trace its use in Northumbria to the very times of S. Oswald, whilst

every vestige has disappeared of the Runic records of an earlier period.

Mercia received its Christianity from the Irish school of Lindisfarne,

and we have runes on the coins of the first Christian kings, Peada and

Œthelræd."

But for the zealous labour of Archbishop Parker, in the sixteenth

century, even few of the remaining Anglo-Saxon MSS. would have been

preserved to the present day. John Bale, writing in 1549, says--"A great

number of them that purchased the monasteries reserved the books of

those libraries; some to scour their candlesticks, some to rub their

boots, some they sold to grocers and soapsellers, some they sent over

sea to the book-binders, not in small numbers, but at times whole ships

full, to the wondering of foreign nations." Religious and political

rancour has too often consigned to destruction the archives and

monuments of hated rivals. Cardinal Ximines, somewhat earlier, committed

to the flames an immense mass of valuable Arabic MSS. and, not long

afterwards, Archbishop Zumarraga committed a similar act of insensate

vandalism on the picture-written national archives of Mexico. Our

mediæval historians, indeed, have themselves much to answer for in this

direction. Strype says that Polydore Vergil, having, by licence from

Henry VIII., when writing his history, procured many valuable books from

various libraries in England, on its conclusion, piled "those same books

together, and set them all on a light fire."

Mr. Frederick Metcalf ("Englishman and Scandinavian") waxed wrath as he

contemplated the irreparable loss sustained through the ignorance and

fanaticism of our forefathers. He exclaims--"Cart loads of Old English

mythical and heroic epics, finished histories in the vernacular, heaps

of pieces teeming with sprightly humour, with vivid portraiture, with

precious touches of nature, may or may not have been destroyed by the

Danes, by the Normans, in their contempt for everything Anglo-Saxon, by

insensate scribes in want of vellum--who scraped out things of beauty to

make room for their own doting effusions, or pasted the leaves of MSS.

together to make bindings--by the Reformers, by the Roundheads, by fire,

by crass folly."

Independently of wilful neglect or active destruction, the Anglo-Norman

transcripts of previous Anglo-Saxon MSS. now existing are not only

rarities, but wretchedly deficient, owing to both accidental damage, and

the carelessness, or ignorance, of their monkish transcribers. Thorpe,

referring to the only existing early MS. of the poem "Beowulf," in his

preface to his work on the "Anglo-Saxon Poems of Beowulf, the Scôp or

Gleeman's Tale, and the Fight at Finnesburg," says--"Unfortunately, as

of Cædmon and the Codex Exoniensis, there is only a single manuscript of

Beowulf extant, which I take to be of the first half of the eleventh

century (MS. Cott. Vitellius A. 15). All manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon

poetry are deplorably inaccurate, evincing, in almost every page, the

ignorance of an illiterate scribe, frequently (as was the monastic

custom) copying from dictation; but of all Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, that

of Beowulf may, I believe, be conscientiously pronounced the worst,

independently of its present lamentable condition, in consequence of the

fire at Cotton House, in 1731, whereby it was seriously injured, being

partially rendered as friable as touchwood. In perfect accordance with

this judgment of the manuscript and its writer is the testimony of Dr.

Grundtvig, who says--'The ancient scribe did not rightly understand what

he himself was writing; and, what was worse, the conflagration in 1731

had rendered a part wholly or almost illegible.' Mr. Kemble's words are

to the same effect--'The manuscript of Beowulf is unhappily among the

most corrupt of all the Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, and corrupt they all

are without exception.'"

My attention was first called to the probable site of Athelstan's great

victory at Brunanburh, when dealing with the "great Cuerdale Find," of

May, 1840. Mr. Hawkins, vice-president of the Numismatic Society, who

devoted much attention to the contents of this remarkable chest, says

"the hoard consisted of about 975 ounces of silver in ingots, ornaments,

etc., besides about 7,000 coins of various descriptions." From my own

knowledge many of the coins and some of the ornaments were never seen by

Mr. Hawkins. Referring to this subject, in the "History of Preston," I

say--"Many of the coins unquestionably found their way surreptitiously

into the hands of collectors; consequently there is some difficulty in

determining the precise number discovered. It is pretty generally

believed, however, that the chest originally contained about ten

thousand coins." These coins were all of silver. "Many of the silver

rings and smaller bars were, likewise, 'appropriated' before any record

of the 'find' was made."

The collection contained numismatic treasures both of English and

foreign mintage, and all were coined antecedent to the great battle,

although the most modern amongst them date within a very few years of

that event. Dr. Worsaae, the celebrated Danish antiquary, speaking of

this "find," says--"To judge from the coins, which, with few exceptions,

were minted between the years 815 and 930, the treasure must have been

buried in the first half of the tenth century, or about a hundred years

before the time of Canute the Great."

My position, therefore, is that this great treasure chest was buried

near the "pass of the Ribble," at Cuerdale, opposite Preston, during

this troubled period, and probably on the retreat of the confederated

Irish, Scotch, Welsh, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Danish armies, after their

disastrous defeat by the English under Athelstan, at the great battle of

Brunanburh, in 937, which may not inaptly be styled, on account of its

magnitude and important results, the Waterloo of the tenth century.

Various places have from time to time been suggested as the probable

locality of the conflict, but upon the very slenderest of evidence. Some

say Colecroft, near Axminster, Devonshire. One authority assigns the

following reason for this site--"Axminster is _supposed_ to have derived

its present name from a college of priests, founded here by Athelstan,

to pray for the souls of those who fell in the conflict, and who were

buried in the cemetery of Axminster; there were five kings and eight

earls amongst them." A claim has been advanced for Beverley in

Yorkshire, for a similar reason. But the founding of a monastery, or

other expression of thanksgiving for a victory, does not necessarily

indicate the locality of the conflict. William the Conqueror did

certainly found Battle Abbey on the site of his great victory; but such

a practice is by no means of ordinary occurrence, and without

corroborative evidence is valueless. Camden thought the battle was

fought at Ford, near Bromeridge, in Northumberland. Skene, in his

"Celtic Scotland," prefers Aldborough, on the Ouse, and regards the huge

monoliths, known as "the devil's arrows," as memorials of the victory.

Gibson and others suggest Bromborough, in Cheshire. The editor of the

"Imperial Gazetteer" assigns Broomridge, no doubt on Camden's authority,

and Brinkburn, in the Rothsay district, in Northumberland, or some

other, as probable sites of the battle. Brinkburn is said to be the

"true situation of Brunanburh," in "Beauties of England and Wales." The

name was written in 1154, by John of Hexham, Brincaburgh. Banbury, in

Oxfordshire, and Bourne, and the neighbourhood of Barton-on-Humber, in

Lincolnshire, and a Bambro', a Bambury, and some other places have

likewise found advocates.

Dr. Giles, in his annotation of Ethelwerd's Chronicle, fixes Brunanburh

at Brumby, in Lincolnshire, but he assigns no reasons for his

preference. Brunton, in Northumberland, and, I believe, some other

places, have been suggested. The mere identity of the name Brunanburh,

in some corrupted form, though important, is insufficient, without

corroborative evidence, simply because the names of so many places, in

various parts of the country, admit of such derivation. There are

several even in Lancashire, to which I shall afterwards call attention.

Localities on the east, the south, and the west coasts of England have

each found advocates, some, certainly, on very slight grounds. Mr.

Weddle, of Wargrove, near Warrington, in his essay on the site, in 1857,

pertinently reminds the investigator that the very "uncertainty of the

whereabouts of the battle-field" is a good reason why it should be

sought for "in some place half-forgotten." Such being the case, I may,

without much presumption, after studying the subject now for five and

twenty years, adhere to my previously suggested solution of this great

historical and topographical enigma.

The available evidence is very diversified in its character, and may be

dealt with under several distinct heads. In the first place I will

endeavour to show why I maintain that the discovery of the long buried

treasure at Cuerdale, in 1840, has furnished the key by which we may

probably unlock the mystery.

From its great value in the tenth century, the evidence of recent

mintage at the time of its deposition, and the vast number of rare and

foreign coins, many of which were struck by Scandinavian kings or jarls,

all lead to the conjecture that the treasure had not originally belonged

to some private individual or inferior chieftain. It must not be

forgotten that coin was first made "sterling" in the year 1216, before

which time Stowe says rents were mostly paid in "kind," and money was

found only in the coffers of the barons.

The great probability, therefore, appears to be that some powerful

monarch, or confederacy, owned the chest, and that its burial near one

of the three fords at the "pass of the Ribble" was caused by some signal

discomfiture or military defeat, in order to prevent its falling into

the hands of the enemy. Its non-recovery afterwards would naturally

result from the slaughter of the parties acquainted with the precise

locality of its deposit in the disastrous riot attendant upon so great

victory as that achieved by Athelstan at Brunanburh. Tradition had,

however, preserved the memory of its burial, but the exact site was

unknown. It was popularly thought, however, that it could be seen from

the hill on which the church of Walton-le-dale stands, and which

overlooks all the three fords which constituted the "famous pass of the

Ribble." The late Mr. Barton F. Allen, of Preston, remembered that in

his youth a farmer ploughed a field which had remained in pasture from

time immemorial, in hope of finding the treasure. At the time I came

upon the Roman remains, near the great central ford, 1855, I was

surprised to learn a rumour was abroad that we had "come on't goud" at

last. This resulted from the fact that the Anglo-Danish hoard consisted

entirely of silver, and the belief of the workmen that the Roman brass

coins, found at the time, from their colour, when polished, were golden

ones. I therefore contend that these facts (taken in conjunction with

the more important one, that the date of the deposit, as demonstrated by

the coins themselves, coincides with that of Athelstan's great victory),

indicate, in a very high degree, the probable connection of the two

events. The burial of treasure, in times of great disaster, was a very

ordinary occurrence during the Roman dominion in Britain, and was not

unusual with their successors, the Anglo-Saxons and Danes. Two hoards,

one found at Walmersley, to the north of Bury, and the other at Whittle,

near the present presumed site of Athelstan's victory, to the south of

the Ribble, from the date of the coins, coincide with the time of the

defeat of the usurpers Carausius and Allectus, commanders of the Roman

fleet stationed to protect the shores of Britain from the ravages of

Saxon pirates. Later the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says--"A. 418, this year

the Romans collected all the treasures that were in Britain, and some

they hid in the earth, so that no one has since been able to find them;

and some they carried with them into Gaul." Ethelwerd's Chronicle

furnishes further details--"A. 418. In the ninth year also, after the

sacking of Rome by the Goths, those of Roman race who were left in

Britain, not bearing the manifold insults of the people, bury their

treasures in pits, thinking that hereafter they might have better

fortune, which never was the case; and, taking a portion, assembled on

the coasts, spread their canvass to the winds, and seek an exile on the

shores of Gaul."

The "pass of the Ribble" is marked on the old map, published by Dr.

Whitaker, with the crossed swords, indicative of a battle having been

fought there, but this, though not unimportant in most cases, is of

little value as evidence in favour of my hypothesis, inasmuch as, from

its geographical position, it has, of necessity, often been the site of

military conflicts, several of which are recorded in both local and

other historical works.

The site now suggested agrees best, in a topographical sense, with the

various descriptions of the conflict, the primary object of the war, and

the necessary movements of the several combatants engaged. The great

Roman road from the north passed through the county, and entered

Cheshire at Latchford near Warrington. This road would serve both the

invading Scots and Athelstan, and his army of West Saxons, Mercians, and

other allies. A Roman road, from the Ribble and Wyre, called

"Watling-street," crossed the country to York and the eastern coast. We

have distinct information that Anlaf's great object was the re-conquest

of the kingdom of Northumbria, and that, in the first instance, success

crowned his efforts. Athelstan's two governors, Gudrekir and Alfgeirr,

were defeated, and the former slain. His colleague fled to his sovereign

with the tidings of their discomfiture. The grandson of the Great Alfred

immediately assembled his army and marched northward to confront in

person his successful rival and his powerful allies. It appears,

therefore, nearly absolutely certain that the struggle took place in

Northumbria, or on its border, and, consequently other localities

outside this region may almost be said to be "not in the hunt." Anlaf

was the ruling chief of Dublin, and the virtual organizer and head of

the confederacy. One wing of his army, according to Egil's saga, "was

very numerous, and consisted of the disorderly Irish." The coast of

Lancashire being part of the then Danish kingdom of Northumbria, was, in

every respect, adapted for the landing of this portion of the invading

army. Hoveden, Mailros, and Simeon of Durham certainly say that Anlaf

commenced the warfare by "entering the Humber with a fleet of 615

ships." This, however, may refer merely to the "_fleets of the warriors

from Norway and the Baltic_," who joined in the confederacy. If Anlaf

himself commanded this expedition in person, then he must have deputed

the leadership of his "disorderly Irish" to one of his lieutenants. From

an inspection of the map it will be found, after the defeat of Gudrekir

and Alfgeirr, that the "pass of the Ribble," from a military point of

view, was one of the most probable places at which the junction of the

allies would take place. The Cumbrian Britons and the North and West

Welsh could easily, by good Roman roads, join the Scottish monarch, as

well as Anlaf's Irish troops and the warriors from Norway and the

Baltic, at this spot, and dispute the passage of the fords with

Athelstan's forces from the south. The "pass of the Ribble," from a

topographical and military point of view, may therefore be assumed as

very probably the site of the conflict.

I have previously referred to the fact that the name Brunanburh, in any

corrupted form, is of little value in the present investigation without

very strong supporting evidence, simply because so many localities have

equal claim to it. The name itself is likewise variously written by the

older writers when referring to the battle. It is termed "Bellum Brune,"

or the "Battle of the Brune," in the _Brut y Tywysogion_, or the

"Chronicle of the Princes of Wales," and the "_Annales Cambria_." Henry

of Huntingdon calls the locality Brunesburh; and the name is variously

written by Geffrei Gaimar as Brunewerche, Brunewerce, and Brunewest.

Ethelwerd, a contemporary chronicler, calls the place Brunandune. The

author of Egil's saga calls the site Vinheid. Simeon of Durham says the

battle was fought near Weondune or Ethrunnanwerch, or Brunnan byrge.

William of Malmesbury gives the name Brunsford, and Ingulph says

Brunford in Northumbria. Notwithstanding the very important fact that

the southern portion of the county of Lancaster suffered so much in the

raids of Gilbert de Lacy and his soldiery after the Norman conquest, and

the consequent non-productive character of much of the territory at the

time of the Domesday survey, which caused very few names of places to be

recorded in that valuable historical document, still I think present

topographical nomenclature south of the "pass of the Ribble" sufficient

to identify the locality from etymological evidence equal or superior in

value to that yet advanced in favour of any other site. The word

_brunan_ means simply, in modern English, springs, and burh refers to

any work of military defence of an artificial character. _Brun_ has been

corrupted, according to the conjectures of the authorities which I have

previously cited, into _Burn_, _Brom_, _Brum_, _Broom_, _Bran_, _Ban_,

_Bourne_, _Brink_, and _Brin_.

The name of the parish of Brindle, to the south-east of the "pass of the

Ribble," has been written in various documents during the past few

centuries, Burnhull, Brinhill, Brandhill, and, after becoming Brandle

and Bryndhull, ends in its present Brindle. Now, burn and brun are

acknowledged to be identical, the metathesis, as philologists term it,

or transposition of the letter _r_ under such circumstances being very

common, especially in Lancashire. We say brid for bird, brun for burn,

brunt for burnt, brast for burst, thurst for thrust, and some others.

Birmingham is often called "Brummigem." Indeed, Taylor, the "Water

Poet," in his account of Old Parr, writes it "Brimicham." The short _u_

with us is ofttimes sounded nearly like _i_, as in burst, burn, etc.,

like the German _ü_ in Reüter, Müller, Prüssien, etc. Hence the

interchangeability of brin for brun, of which the following are

examples: The Icelandic Brynhildr, of the Eddaic poems, is the Brunhild

of the Nibelungenlied; Brinsley, in Nottinghamshire, is sometimes

written Brunsley; Burnside, near Kendal, was once Brynshead; Brynn, the

seat of Lord Gerrard, between Wigan and Newton-in-Mackerfield, was, as I

have shown in a previous chapter, anciently written Brun; and, in

addition, I have recently seen, in Herman Moll's atlas, published in

1723, this same Brindle, south of Ribble, written Brunall, and, what is

still further corroborative, in Christopher Saxton's much earlier map,

published in Camden's "Britannia," it is written Brundell, while Bryne

and Burnley are spelled as at present. _Bryn_ or _bron_ signifies a

little hill, or the slope of a hill. As _burh_ sometimes signifies a

hill or eminence, as well as a fortification, the interchange of the

British _bryn_ with its Teutonic neighbour is in no way remarkable, but

rather what might have been anticipated. Indeed, we find this phonetic

substitution in Bernicia (the northern portion of Northumbria), the

British equivalent being Bryneich. _Brunan_, as I have before said,

signifies springs. Brindle church is situated on the slope of a hill,

and the district, as a personal visit, or a glance at the six-inch

ordnance map, will show, is remarkable for its numerous "wells," from

which pure water issues from the surface of the ground. Dalton springs,

Denham springs, and the well-known Whittle springs are in the

neighbourhood, and one hamlet is named Manysprings.

In addition to Brindle we have Brinscall and Burnicroft, and Brownedge

or Brunedge within the district. Between what I will now term Brunhull

and Brunedge, we have the hamlet Bam_ber_, now termed Bamber Bridge.

Baumber, in Lincolnshire, is sometimes written Bamburgh. Bramber, in

Sussex, in Herman Moll's map (1723) is written Bamber, and in the

Domesday survey Branber. Bromley, sometimes written Bramley, in Kent, is

Brunlei, in the Domboc, and Bromborough, in Cheshire, is written

Brunburgh, in Herman Moll's map. Hence if _bam_ be likewise a corruption

of brun, we have Brunberg, with Brunhull and Brunedge in immediate

contiguity. The Rev. Jno. Whitaker and the Rev. E. Sibson say _bam_

signifies war. This is a very significant corruption, if a great battle

were fought in its neighbourhood. Other authorities say _bam_ means a

"beam, a tree, a wood." This might imply that a fortification or

stockade occupied the spot, or it might mean the fort in the wood, or in

the neighbourhood of the wood, like the Welsh Bettws-y-coed. In Egil's

saga "the wood" is often referred to in the detailed description of the

battle. We have yet Worden-wood, Whittle-le-woods, Clayton-le-woods, and

some others contiguous.

Kemble, in his (appendix) list of "patronymical names," which he regards

as "those of ancient Marks," has two references, from the "Codex

Diplomaticus," to "Bruningas," but he gives no conjecture as to the

locality of its modern representative.

Mr. C. A. Weddle, of Wargrove, near Warrington, in 1857, when advocating

the claims of Brunton, in Northumberland, after summing up the various

names mentioned by the old writers, and referring to their evident

corruption and variation, says--

"Two of them in particular, _Weardune and Wendune_, I have never seen

noticed by any modern writer, yet _Weardune appears to me the most

important name_, if Brunanburh be excepted, and EVEN THIS IS NOT MORE

SO. As to Wendune it is evidently a mistake in the transcribing for

Werdune, the Anglo-Saxon _r_ being merely _n_, with a long bottom stroke

on the left."

Mr. Weddle finds a Warden Hill, about two miles from the farm-house in

"Chollerford field," in the neighbourhood of Brunton. This he considers

as very conclusive evidence in favour of the locality being the

Brunanburh of which we are in search. If such be the case, the existence

of Wearden, or Worden, in the immediate neighbourhood of Brunhill,

Bamber, and Brunedge, must unquestionably be more so, and especially

when taken in connection with the large amount of corroborative evidence

with which it is surrounded. The term Weardune is sometimes written

Weondune, which, after the correction of the _n_, as suggested by Mr.

Weddle, is Weorden. The ancient seat of the Faringtons, of Leyland and

Farington, is variously written Werden, Worden, and Wearden, and it is

pronounced by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood Wearden at the

present day. It must have been a place of some importance in the time of

the Roman occupation. Many coins, and a heavy gold[37] signet ring,

bearing the letters S P Q R, have been found there. The place is

situated near the great Roman highway, and, if Anlaf's troops covered

the "pass of the Ribble" near Brunhull, Brunburh and Brunedge, Wearden

is precisely the neighbourhood where Athelstan's forces, coming from the

south, would encamp in front of them. Dr. Kuerden, upwards of two

centuries ago, describes the northern boundary of the township of

Euxton-burgh as the "Werden broke." Mr. Baines states that there is in

Leyland churchyard "a stone of the 14th century, covering all that

remains of the Weardens of Golden Hill." It is highly probable that the

present Cuerden is itself a corruption of Wearden. The prefix Cuer is

found in Cuerden, Cuerdale (where the great hoard was found), and

Cuerdley near Prescot, and in no other part of England. The names in the

locality, as I have previously said, are not recorded in the Domesday

survey, but the Norman-French generally represented the English sound

_w_ by _gu_. Philologists regard the consonants _c_, _q_, _ch_, and _g_,

as "identical" or "convertible," consequently, if I assume the initial

_C_ in Cuerden to be equivalent to _G_, we have a Norman-French method

of writing Wearden. That _cu_ was used to represent the sound of our

_w_, is demonstrated by a reference to the survey itself, for in the

Domesday record, Fishwick, now a portion of the borough of Preston, and

situated on the opposite bank of the Ribble to Cuerdale, is actually

written Fiscuic. Leland, too, in his Itinerary, spells the river Cocker

indifferently with the initials C, G, and K. The district in the parish

of Leyland, anciently styled _Cunnolvesmores_, is sometimes found

written _Gunoldsmores_.

Simeon of Durham says the battle was fought near Weondune, or

_Ethrunanwerch_, or Brunnan byrge. I have never seen any attempt to

identify this Ethrunanwerch with any modern locality in any part of the

country. There is no such name to be found now, nor anything suggestive

of it, in a gazetteer of England and Wales, and I therefore presume that

it has either entirely disappeared or become so altered as to be

unrecognizable. Consequently, if I fail in an attempt to identify it,

not much injury will result therefrom. The termination _werch_ presents

no difficulty. It is evidently _worth_, as in Saddleworth, Shuttleworth,

etc., and could easily give place to some other suffix indicating

residence or occupation, or even locality. The prefix Ethrunan is more

difficult to deal with, and I should perhaps not have attempted its

solution, if I had not seen on a map the name Rother applied to one of

the head waters which, uniting near Stockport, form the Mersey. This

stream is generally called the Etherow.[38] This is the nearest approach

to Ethrunan that I have been able to meet with. If _rother_, by a kind

of metathesis, is an equivalent to _ether_, perhaps I can detect two

distinct remains of the word Ethrunanwerch, in the neighbourhood of

Wearden. On the ordnance map we have, about a mile from Werden Hall,

Rotherham Top, and a stream, recently diverted for the purpose of the

Liverpool water supply, named the Roddlesworth. This word implies a

place on the bank of a stream, and as the _d_ and _th_ are phonetic

equivalents, it may be read Rothelsworth or Ethrunlesworth; indeed, Mr.

Baines expressly says, "Withnall, or Withnell, also a part of the

lordship of Gunoldsmores, containing Rothelsworth, a name derived from

Roddlesworth, or Mouldenwater, a rapid stream." On the one-inch to the

mile ordnance map there is a name which preserves the form of the first

part of the word without the transposition, or metathesis, to which I

have referred. Not far from Worden Hall is a small hamlet named

"Ethrington." The fact that these names exist in the neighbourhood

strengthens the probability that the etymology is not altogether

fanciful, and consequently lends support to the presumption that the

locality suggested may be the true site of Athelstan's great victory.

I have said that there are several places in Lancashire, even, which

answer to Brunan or Brun. The following are amongst the number: On the

Wyre, near the commencement of the Roman agger or "_Danes' Pad_,"

as it is locally termed, which led from the Portus Setantiorum

of Ptolemy to York, is a place named Bourne, written in the Domesday

survey Brune. Bourne Hall is situated upon a "dune" or hill, which

commands a relatively recently blocked up channel of the Wyre.

Therefore Brunnandune or Brunford would strictly apply to it.

Bryning-with-Kellamergh, near _Warton_, in the parish of Kirkham, is

described in a charter of the reign of John, as Brichscrach _Brun_ and

Kelmers_burgh_. In the time of Henry III. it is described as Brininge.

Not far from Rochdale is a spot named "Kildanes," near Bamford. The site

is not much more than two miles from a place named Burnedge or Brunedge.

There is a Burnage between Manchester and Stockport. Burnley is situated

on the river Burn, generally, however, called the Brun. This

demonstrates how utterly impossible it is to identify the locality by

the name Brunanburh. The Manchester, Rochdale, and Burnley sites are too

far from the seashore. The fine old poem, describing the battle, says

emphatically--"There were made flee the Northman's chieftain, By need

constrained, To the ship's prow, With a little band. The bark drove

afloat--The king departed--On the fallow flood his life he preserved."

And, again, the poem says--"The Northmen departed In their nailed barks;

Bloody relic of darts; On roaring ocean, O'er the deep water, DUBLIN to

seek; Again Ireland shamed in mind." And further--"West Saxons onwards

Throughout the day, In numerous bands, Pursued the footsteps of the

loathed nations." I therefore contend that, in this particular, as well

as those already disposed of, the "pass of the Ribble" answers to the

locality of the struggle, as described by contemporary authority. Where

this topographical feature is wanting, I hold it to be fatal. The ships

of Anlaf might be attending the army in the estuaries of the Ribble or

Wyre, and to them the defeated and routed forces would, of course,

repair with headlong speed, after crossing the fords, the defence of

which they had so gallantly, if unsuccessfully, attempted. During this

hasty retreat, I contend it is highly probable the great Cuerdale hoard

was deposited, and, owing to death, or other disaster, the precise

locality could not be determined in after times, although the tradition

of its deposition remained. There is plenty of analagous evidence in

support of such a conjecture, to some of which I have already referred.

In the seventh volume of "Collectania Antiqua," Mr. Charles Roach Smith,

referring to the then recent discovery near the Roman station,

"Procolitia," near the great Roman Wall, of an enormous mass (15,000) of

Roman coins, weighing about 400 pounds, says he regards the hoard as

part of the money set apart for the payment of the troops occupying the

adjoining castrum, which, _owing to some sudden panic in the reign of

Gratian_, was concealed in the well or fountain dedicated to a local

divinity, Conesstina. The Saxon Chronicle, as well as Ethelwerd, as I

have already stated, refer to the burying of treasure under similar

circumstances. The former says--"This year (A.D. 418) the Romans

collected all the treasures that were in Britain, and some they hid in

the earth, so that no one has since been able to find them, and some

they carried with them into Gaul."

Athelstan's connection with Preston and its neighbourhood, at the head

of his army, is attested by stronger evidence than mere tradition. In

the year 930 he granted the whole of the hundred of Amounderness to the

cathedral church at York. He is said to have "_purchased_" the territory

with his own money, a somewhat remarkable financial operation for a

conquering king in the tenth century, in Anglo-Saxon and Pagan Danish

times. But perhaps a previous grant to the church at Ripon influenced

him in this matter.

In the early part of the seventeenth century lived one William Elston,

who, in a MS. entitled, "Mundana Mutabilia, or Ethelestophylax," now in

the Harleian collection in the British Museum, placed upon record the

following interesting particulars relative to this monarch--"It was once

told me by Mr. Alexander Elston, who was uncle to my father and sonne to

Ralph Elston, my great grandfather, that the said Ralph Elston had a

deede or a copy of a deede in the Saxon tongue, wherein it did appear

that king _Ethelstan lying in camp in this county upon occacon of

warres_, gave the land of Ethelston vnto one to whom himself was

Belsyre." (godfather).

The township of Elston, in the parish of Preston, formerly written

Ethelstan, is situated on the north bank of the Ribble a little above

Cuerdale and Red Scar.

To the south of Brindle and the east of Worden, near Whittle Springs, is

a large tumulus, and the hill side on which it is situated has the

appearance of having been, at some time, disturbed by human agency. A

Roman vicinal way, from Wigan to Blackburn, or Mellor, where it joins

the main highway from Manchester to Ribchester, passes near it. Remains

of this road were discovered near Adlington not many years ago. Another

ancient road, probably of similar origin, leaves the main Roman military

way from Warrington to Lancaster at Bamberbridge, and running in the

direction of Manchester, crosses this in its neighbourhood. This tumulus

is named "Pickering Castle;" which has an important significance.

Tumuli are often termed "castles." We have the "Castle Hill" near

Newton-in-Mackerfield, and the "Castle Hill" at Penwortham, near

Preston. The tumulus near to "Whittle Springs" is very similar to these

in appearance, and may, on excavation, prove to be a sepulchral mound.

Pickering, according to the method of interpretation adopted by John

Mitchell Kemble, in his "Saxons in England," should indicate the "Mark"

of a sept or clan bearing that name, like the Faringas as at Farington,

Billingas as at Billington, and many others. But there is not the

slightest reference by any writer of such a name ever holding property

in the neighbourhood, and Mr. Kemble places the Pickering, in Yorkshire,

only among the probable instances, as he had never met with any account

of a Saxon family or mark answering to it. As the letters _P_ and _V_

are interchangeable sounds, "vikingring" has been suggested as the

original form of the word. Dr. Smith, in his annotations to Marsh's

"Lectures on the English Languages," speaks of the "Danes being led by

the vikings, the younger sons of their royal houses." As the old poem

says--"Five kings lay on the battle-stead. Youthful kings By swords in

slumber laid. So seven eke Of Anlaf's earls, Of the army countless."

This interpretation seems not improbable; yet it may be no more than an

accidental coincidence rather than a legitimate derivation. As _P_ and

_B_ are equally interchangeable consonants, I am inclined to think that

"Bickering Castle" may have been the original name of the tumulus.

_Bicra_, in the modern Welsh, means to fight, from whence our word

_bickering_. In this case, _ing_ meaning field, the interpretation would

be the "Castle of the Battle-Field." There is some good analogy in

support of this view. Mr. Thos. Baines, in his "Lancashire and Cheshire:

Past and Present," says--"The _Peck_forton Hills extend from Beeston

Castle to the Dee. On one of them _Bicker_ton Hill, 500 feet high, is a

strong camp with a double line of earthworks. One front overlooks the

plain of Cheshire. The earthwork is called the "Maiden Castle." Not far

from Bickerton Hill is Bickley, where, according to Ormerod, certain

brass tablets were recently discovered, recording a grant of the freedom

of the city of Rome to certain troops serving in Britain in the reign of

Trajan, A.D. 98-117, some of whom may have been stationed in the

neighbourhood where the tablets were found. We have in Lancashire the

township of Bickerstaffe, and an adjoining wood named Bickershaw.

Bickerstaffe was anciently written Bicker_stat_ and Bykyr_stath_. Stadt,

stad, or stead means a station or settlement. Thus we have battle-wood

and battle-stead. We have seen that the old poem says--"Five kings lay

on the _battle-stead_, youthful kings, by swords in slumber laid."

Besides, we find Bicker and Bickering in Lincolnshire, and Bickerton in

both Northumberland and the East Riding of Yorkshire. Whatever this may

be worth, it is most desirable that this tumulus should be dug into, for

remains might, and probably would, be found which could throw

additional light upon the subject of the present investigation.

In the yard of Brindle Parish Church, beneath the chancel window, is an

ancient stone coffin, with a circular hollow for the head of the corpse.

Nothing further is known respecting it, beyond that it was dug up

somewhere in the neighbourhood, and had been removed to its present

position with a view to its preservation.

In 1867 I examined the Ancient British burial mound and its contents,

then recently discovered in the park land attached to Whitehall, and

contiguous to that of Low Hill House, the residence of Mr. Ellis

Shorrock, at Over Darwen, and contributed a paper respecting it to the

Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Historic Society. In that

paper I say--"I heard that there is a tradition, yet implicitly relied

on, which speaks of a battle fought in the olden time somewhere in the

neighbourhood of Tockholes in the Roddlesworth valley, and stories that

remains, including those of horses, have been found, which are believed

to confirm it. Respecting this I may have something to say in a future

paper." What I have to say is this: that if a severe struggle took place

near the tumulus to which I have referred, the routed army, following

the Roman vicinal way to Ribchester, would pass by the locality, which

is not far distant. This adds another link in the chain of evidence by

which I have sought to demonstrate that the _most probable_ site of

Athelstan's great victory at Brunanburh is that which I have indicated

near the famous "pass of the Ribble," to the south of Preston, and that

the great Cuerdale hoard of treasure was buried on the bank of the

stream, during the disastrous retreat of the routed confederate armies.

In the appendix to the "History of Preston and its Environs," published

in 1857, after discussing Mr. Weddle's objections to a Lancashire site,

I concluded with the following words--"These reasons, in conjunction

with those advanced in the second chapter of this work, induce the

author to prefer the locality, in the present state of the evidence, as

the _most probable_ site of the 'battle of the Brun.'"

Although the evidence advanced in its favour on the present occasion is

considerably in excess of that previously obtainable, I still merely

reassert my previous conviction, without dogmatism, that, on weighing

the whole of the evidence yet adduced, I am justified in maintaining

that the site I name is the _most probable_ which has yet been

suggested; indeed, there is very little reliable evidence in favour of

any other. But, in conclusion, I again reiterate what I wrote

twenty-five years ago, when dealing with the Roman topography of the

county, that "no permanent settlement of so difficult a question ought

to be insisted upon, until every means of investigation and all the

resources of logical inference have been fairly exhausted."

I have already said that the neighbourhood of Preston and "the pass of

the Ribble," as might have been expected from its topographical

position, and consequent strategical importance, has been the scene of

many known conflicts. Robert Bruce, in 1323, burned the town, but

ventured no further southward. Holinshed says he "entered into England,

by Carlisle, kept on his way through Cumberland, Westmoreland, and

Lancaster, to Preston, which town he burnt, as he had done others in the

counties he had passed through, and, after three weeks and three days,

he returned into Scotland without engaging."

Dr. Kuerden, writing shortly before the guild of 1682, laments the

destruction of documentary evidence relating to this famous Preston

festival during the turmoil of civil war. After enumerating the dates of

those still preserved, in his day, in the Corporation records, he

says--"These are such as doth appeare within the Records and Gild Books,

that yet remain extant and in being, though some I conceive to be

omitted, as one Gild in Henry 6th dayes occasion'd, as I conceive, in

those distractions and civil wars betwixt the Houses of Lancaster and

York; another Gild Merchant omitted to be kept in K. H. 8th dayes,

occasioned, as may be thought, by the Revolutions at that time in Church

affayres; the next that are wanting may be through the loss of Records

in K. Edw. 3rd dayes [_sic._] wheras the Scottish army burnt the

Burrough of Preston to the very ground." Kuerden is in error with

reference to the king's reign in which this disaster occurred; Bruce's

foray took place in the reign of Edward II.

In the "History of Preston and its Environs," p. 50, I say--"A tradition

still remains that Roman Ribchester was destroyed by an earthquake;

another that it was reduced to ashes in the early part of the

fourteenth century, during the great inroad of the Scots under Bruce.

Both are highly improbable. Had Roman Ribchester remained a place of any

importance till the period referred to, it could scarcely have failed to

have attracted the notice of some of the elder chroniclers or

topographers. True, the _Saxon village_ may have shared the fate of

Preston, in the celebrated foray of our northern neighbours, and hence

the tradition! An earthquake in England, of sufficient magnitude to bury

a Roman 'city,' (to use the elder Whitaker's emphatic style,) '_must_'

have found some one to record it. Other facts, however, demonstrate that

this tradition can have no better foundation than the vague conjecture

of ignorant peasants; who, on first discovering remains of ancient

buildings beneath the soil, naturally attributed their subterranean

location to the action of some earthquake, in that mysterious period

usually denominated the 'olden time.'" In Leland's day, the remains of

the Roman temple dedicated to Minerva were believed to have been

connected with Jewish religious rites and ceremonies, from the simple

fact that they knew of no other non-Christian sect with whom to

associate them.

At the commencement of the campaign in 1643 between Charles I. and the

Parliament, General Fairfax, from his head quarters at Manchester,

ordered an attack upon Preston, then garrisoned by the king's troops.

The town was at that time fortified by "inner and outer walls of brick,"

no vestige of which now remains, although it was recently not very

difficult to trace their site. The command was entrusted to General Sir

John Seaton. Captain Booth led the attack, and scaled the outer wall.

The garrison defended the inner wall with great valour, "with push of

pike," until Sir John Seaton, having stormed the defences on the eastern

side, entered the town by Church-street, when they were overpowered, and

the Parliamentary army obtained complete possession of the town, but not

before the mayor, Adam Morte, and his son, had fallen in the conflict.

Colonel Rosworm, the celebrated Parliamentary engineer, afterwards

refortified the town. Shortly afterwards Major-General Seaton and

Colonel Ashton marched from Preston, with the view to relieve Lancaster,

then besieged by the Earl of Derby. The earl drew off his troops on

their approach, and falling suddenly on Preston, in its then defenceless

state, stormed the works in three places. After an hour's severe

fighting the place surrendered. Lord Derby secured the magazine, and

destroyed the military works, fearing the place might again fall into

the enemy's hands.

In August, 1664, a smart little struggle took place at Ribble Bridge,

which Colonel Shuttleworth thus describes in his dispatch--"Right

Honourable,--Upon Thursday last, marching with three of my troops upon

Blackburn towards Preston, where the ennemie lay, I met eleven of their

colours at Ribble Bridge, within a mile of Preston, whereupon, after a

sharp fight, we took the Lord Ogleby, a Scotch Lord, Colonel Ennis, one

other colonel slaine, one major wounded, and divers officers and

soldiers to the number of forty in all taken, besides eight or nine

slaine, with the losse of twelve men taken prisoners, which afterwards

were released by Sir John Meldrum upon his coming to Preston the night

following, from whence the enemy fled."

Four years afterwards, Cromwell achieved his great victory over the Duke

of Hamilton and the Marquis of Langdale. Reference has been made, in the

previous chapter, to the rapid march of the Parliamentary forces from

Skipton, by Clitheroe, to Stonyhurst, where they encamped on the evening

of August 16th, 1648. Some difference respecting the then famous

"Covenant" prevented Langdale's forces from combining heartily with

those of the Duke. His English troops were encamped on Ribbleton Moor,

to the east of Preston. Hamilton's Scotch forces were widely scattered.

Some of his advanced horse lay at Wigan; his main army occupied Preston,

while his rear, under Monro, were in the neighbourhood of Garstang.

Short work was made, notwithstanding the great numerical superiority,

with such discipline and divided councils, by a soldier of Cromwell's

calibre. In the words of Thomas Carlyle, he "dashed in upon him, cut him

in two, drove him north _and_ south, into as miserable ruin as his worst

enemy could wish." "The bridge of Ribble" was fiercely contested. When

the Parliamentary troops, with "push of pike" (Cromwell's equivalent for

the modern phrase "at the point of the bayonet"), at length prevailed,

the duke's army retreated over the Darwen, which joins the Ribble in the

immediate neighbourhood. Night put an end to the conflict. Before

daylight the Royalist army decamped, but was hotly pursued, through

Chorley, Wigan, and Warrington, into the midland counties, and rapidly

destroyed. The Duke of Hamilton was taken prisoner at Uttoxeter, and a

similar fate befel Langdale at Nottingham.[39]

This victory is celebrated as one of Cromwell's greatest military

achievements, by Milton, in his famous sonnet:--

TO THE LORD GENERAL CROMWELL.

Cromwell, our chief of men, who, through a cloud

Not of war only, but detractions rude,

Guided by faith and matchless fortitude,

To peace and truth thy glorious way has plough'd,

And on the neck of crowned Fortune proud

Hast reared God's trophies and his work pursued,

WHILE DARWEN STREAM WITH BLOOD OF SCOTS IMBUED,

And Dunbar field resound thy praises loud,

And Worcester's laureat wreath. Yet much remains

To conquer still; Peace hath her victories

No less renown'd than War; new foes arise

Threat'ning to bind our souls with secular chains:

Help us to save free conscience from the paw

Of hireling wolves, whose gospel is their maw.

The number of the troops engaged in this short but brilliant campaign is

stated variously by different authorities. There is an entry in the

records of the Corporation of Preston which says "Decimo Septimo die

Augustie, 1648, 24 Car,--That Henry Blundell, gent., being mayor of this

town of Preston, the daie and yeare aforesaid, Oliver Cromwell,

lieutenant-general of the forces of the Parliament of England, with an

army of about 10,000 at the most, (whereof 1500 were Lancashire men,

under the command of Colonel Ralph Assheton, of Middleton), fought a

battail in and about Preston aforesaid, and over-threw Duke Hamilton,

general of the Scots, consisting of about 26,000, and of English, Sir

Marmaduke Langdale and his forces, joined with the Scots, about 4,000;

took all their ammunition, about 3,000 prisoners, killed many with very

small losse to the parliament army; and in their pursuit towards

Lancaster, Wigan, Warrington, and divers other places in Cheshire,

Staffordshire, and Nottinghamshire, took the said Duke and Langdale,

with many Scottish earls and lords, and about 10,000 prisoners more, all

being taken [or] slayne, few escaping, and all their treasure and

plunder taken. This performed in less than one week."

Captain Hodgson notices the plundering propensities of the enemy, but,

as we have seen in the previous chapter, he entertained no higher an

opinion of his Lancashire allies, with respect to their "looting"

proclivities. His estimate of the numbers of the army of the Parliament

is somewhat less than that in the Corporation record. He says--"The

Scots marched towards Kendal, we towards Rippon; where Oliver met us

with horse and foot. We were then betwixt eight and nine thousand; a

fine smart army, and fit for action. We marched up to Skipton; and the

forlorn of the enemy's horse was come to Gargrave, and took some men

away, and made others pay what money they pleased; having made havock in

the country, it seems intending never to come there again."

Cromwell, in his despatch "to the Honourable William Lenthall, Esquire,

Speaker of the House of Commons," dated "Warrington, 20th August,

1648," of course attributes all the honour and glory to the Almighty,

yet, modestly enough, he claims some credit as due to the Parliamentary

army, if it rested merely upon the disparity in the number of the

combatants. He says--"Thus you have a Narrative of the particulars of

the success which God hath given you; which I could hardly at this time

have done, considering the multiplicity of business, but truly, when I

was once engaged in it, I could hardly tell how to say less, there being

so much of God in it; and I am not willing to say more, lest there

should seem to be any of man. Only give me leave to add one word,

showing the disparity of forces on both sides, that you may see, and all

the world acknowledge, the great hand of God in this business. The Scots

army could not be less than twelve thousand effective foot, well armed,

and five thousand horse; Langdale not less than two thousand five

hundred foot, and fifteen hundred horse; in all Twenty-one-Thousand: and

truly very few of their foot but were as well armed if not better than

yours, and at divers disputes did fight two or three hours before they

would quit their ground. Yours were about two thousand five hundred

horse and dragoons of your old Army; about four thousand foot of your

old Army; also about sixteen hundred Lancashire foot, and about five

hundred Lancashire horse; in all about Eight thousand Six hundred. You

see by computation about two thousand of the Enemy slain; betwixt eight

and nine thousand prisoners; besides what are lurking in hedges and

private places, which the County daily bring in or destroy."

Notwithstanding the great social and political importance of this

victory, and the renown of the general by whom it was achieved, whose

very name is yet associated in the minds of some with every odious moral

feature, and, in the judgment of others, with the highest English

statesmanship, unselfish patriotism, and sincere religious conviction,

the amount of legendary story which it has left behind is singularly

limited. I have heard of several localities in Lancashire, and some

neighbouring counties, where tradition records that Oliver Cromwell once

visited the district and slept in some specified house or mansion,

although there exists not the slightest reliable evidence that Oliver

was ever in the neighbourhood. This, in some instances, I fancy, may be

accounted for by the fact that Cromwell's name has become a typical or

generic one, and has done duty for nearly a couple of centuries with the

public generally, for every commander, either generals or subordinate

officers, belonging to the Parliamentary armies.

One tradition, however, was well-known in my youthful days. The mound

planted with trees on "Walton Flats" was always regarded as "the grave

of the Scotch warriors." The place was rather a solitary one at night,

and some superstitious fear was often confessed by others than children,

when passing it after nightfall. It was in this mound, in 1855, whilst

looking for remains of the said "Scotch warriors," that I came upon

evidences of Roman occupation. Faith in the legend was attested when

one of the workmen informed me that he had found in the mound a

halfpenny with the figure of a Scotchman in the place of Britannia, on

the reverse. I found it to be a Roman second brass coin, the military

costume of a soldier suggesting to the labourer a kilted Highlander.

Although at various times relics of the fight have been picked up, they

are now extremely rare. The flood waters of the Ribble have occasionally

dislodged human bones, including skulls, from the banks, and these are

almost universally, if somewhat vaguely, associated with "Scotch

warriors," but without any definite notion as to the period or cause of

their presence in the neighbourhood. I remember, many years ago,

suggesting to a very old man employed on a rope-walk near the south bank

of the river, that, as a number of English, including some Lancashire

men, were slain in the great battle in 1648, it was possible a portion

of the bones might belong to them. He did not deny the _possibility_;

but simply remarked that he had never heard the remains attributed to

any but the aforesaid "Scotch warriors;" and he was evidently, from his

point of view, too "patriotic" to entertain, himself, the slightest

doubt on the subject.

A Protestant minister of Annandale, a Mr. Patten, who accompanied the

Stuart army, and published a "History of the Rebellion" in 1715,

condemns the Jacobite leaders for not defending the "Pass of the

Ribble." The approach to the old bridge down the steep incline from

Preston was by a lane, which was, he says, "very deep indeed." This lane

was situated about midway between the present road and the hollow, yet

visible, by which the Roman road passed to the north. He adds--"This is

that famous lane at the end of which Oliver Cromwell met with a stout

resistance from the King's forces, who from the height rolled down upon

him and his men (when they had entered the lane) huge large millstones;

and if Oliver himself had not forced his horse to jump into a quicksand,

he had luckily ended his days there." Commenting on this passage in the

"History of Preston," I say--"Notwithstanding Mr. Patten's political

conversion _afterwards_, and his horror of the 'licentious freedom' of

those who 'cry up the old doctrines of passive obedience, and give hints

and arguments to prove hereditary right,' he appears to have retained

all the antipathy of a Stuart partizan to the memory of Oliver Cromwell.

Yet the loyalty of 1648 became rebellion in 1715, when Mr. Patten's head

was in danger. Such is the mutation of human dogmatism."

Cromwell, in a letter to the Solicitor-General, "his worthy friend,

Oliver St. John, Esquire," shortly after the battle, relates an incident

which illustrates one of the phases of religious thought amongst our

Puritan ancestors, and which is by no means extinct at the present time.

He says--"I am informed from good hands, that a poor godly man died in

Preston, the day before the fight; and being sick, near the hour of his

death, he desired the woman that cooked to him, to fetch him a handful

of grass. She did so; and when he received it, he asked, whether it

would wither or not, now it was cut? The woman said 'yea.' He replied,

'So should this Army of the Scots do, and come to nothing, so soon as

ours did but appear,' or words to this effect, and so immediately died."

Thomas Carlyle's old Puritan blood is up, as he contemplates the

possibility of some adverse critic citing this story as evidence of

Cromwell's intellectual weakness, or, at least, of his proneness to

superstition. He almost fiercely exclaims--"Does the reader look with

any intelligence into that poor old prophetic, symbolic, Death-bed scene

at Preston? Any intelligence of Prophecy and Symbol, in general; of the

symbolic Man-child _Mahershalal-hashbaz_ at Jerusalem, or the handful of

Cut Grass at Preston--of the opening Portals of Eternity, and what

departing gleams there are in the Soul of the pure and the just?

Mahershalal-hashbaz ('Hasten-to-the-spoil,' so called), and the bundle

of Cut Grass are grown somewhat strange to us! Read; and having sneered

duly,--consider."

In August, 1651, Colonel Lilburne defeated the Earl of Derby at

Wigan-lane, in which engagement the gallant Major-general Sir Thomas

Tildesley fell. On the day previous to the battle, a skirmish took place

between the Royalists and the Parliamentary troops at the "pass of the

Ribble." In his letter to Cromwell, Lilburne says--"The next day, in the

afternoone, I having not foot with me, a party of the Enemies Horse fell

smartly amongst us where our Horses were grazing, and for some space put

us pretty hard to it; but at last it pleased the Lord to strengthen us

so as that we put them to flight, and pursued them to _Ribble-bridge_,

(this was something like our business at _Mussleburgh_), and kild and

tooke about 30 prisoners, most Officers and Gentlemen, with the loss of

two men that dyed next morning; but severall wounded, and divers of our

good Horses killed."

ANNO DOMINI 1715. "Time's whirligig" hath brought about strange changes.

A "Restoration" and a "Glorious Revolution" have passed across the

stage. The faithful followers of the dethroned Stuarts, the "royalists"

of the last century, have been transformed into the "rebels" of this.

The partizans of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, styled the "Elder

Pretender," after a successful march from Scotland, arrived at Preston,

and took possession of the town.

The "Chevalier" was proclaimed king. Brigadier Macintosh was anxious to

defend the "pass" at Ribble-bridge, but, as the previous fortifications

of the town had been destroyed, it was determined instead to barricade

the entrance to the principal streets. The town was besieged for two

days by Generals Wills and Carpenter. After a brave defence,

notwithstanding the incompetency of "General" Forster, the partizans of

the Stuart were compelled to surrender at discretion.[40]

In 1745, Prince Charles Edward, or the "Young Pretender," as he was

styled, marched from Scotland on his way to Derby, through Preston; and

again, a little more expeditiously on his return therefrom.

Mr. Robert Chambers says--"The clansmen had a superstitious dread, in

consequence of the misfortunes of their party at Preston, in 1715, that

they would never get beyond this town; to dispel the illusion, Lord

George Murray crossed the Ribble, and quartered a number of men on the

other side." A single repulse could scarcely justify such foreboding.

The name of the Ribble had evidently become associated with previous

disasters, as well as with the relatively recent surrender of the Scotch

and English forces under Forster, Derwentwater, and Macintosh in 1715.

Considering the many exquisite poetical effusions which the misfortunes

of the Stuarts added to Scottish literature, it is surprising that

nothing, but some of the veriest doggrels in relation thereto, can be

met with on the southern side of the border. "Brigadier Macintosh's

Farewell to the Highlands" is beneath criticism, and "Long Preston Peggy

to Proud Preston went" is not much better. In May, 1847, a story

appeared in "New Tales of the Borders and the British Isles." It is

introduced by the first stanza of the ballad. The scene is laid at

Walton-le-dale and Preston, 1815. It is a sad jumble of fact and

fiction. It confounds with one another events in the campaigns of 1715

and 1745, and illustrates, to some extent, the confusion of history and

artistic fiction discussed in the preceding pages of this work. Peggy,

who, in her old age, after a somewhat profuse indulgence in ardent

spirits, had still some remains of a handsome face and fine person,

frequently sung the song of which she was the heroine, five and twenty

years after the occurrence of the events which gave rise to it.[41]

APPENDIX.

THE DISPOSAL OF ST. OSWALD'S REMAINS.

Mr. John Ingram, in his "Claimants to Royalty," referring to the defeat

of Don Sebastian, King of Portugal, in 1578, by the Moors, says--"After

the fight, a corse, recognised by one of the survivors as the king's,

was discovered by the victorious Moors, and forwarded by the Emperor of

Morocco as a present to his ally, Philip the Second of Spain. In 1583,

this monarch restored it to the Portuguese, by whom it was interred with

all due solemnity in the royal mausoleum in the church of Our Lady of

Belem." It thus seems that Dean Howson's conjecture, referred to at page

62, is, at least, not without precedent.

THE DUN BULL, THE BADGE OF THE NEVILLES.

Mr. W. Brailsford, in "The Antiquary" (August, 1882), referring to the

marriage which united the properties of the Bulmers and the Nevilles, in

1190, says--"The dun bull, which is the badge of the Norman Nevilles,

was in reality derived from the Saxon Bulmers, though it has been

thought by some antiquarian searchers to have had its origin from the

wild cattle which, once on a time, like those still existing at

Chillingham, roamed in the park here, then and at a later date."

THE GENESIS OF MYTHS.

When the preceding pages were nearly all in type, I ordered a copy of

the then just published essay entitled "Myth and Science," by Signor

Tito Vignoli, in which the gradual development of mythic thought and

expression is expounded with great clearness and precision. He says, p.

87-93:

"Doubtless it is difficult for us to picture for ourselves the psychical

conditions of primitive men, at a time when the objects of perception

and the apprehension of things were presented by an effort of memory to

the mind as if they were actual and living things, yet such conditions

are not hypothetical, but really existed, as any one may ascertain for

himself who is able to realise that primitive state of mind, and we have

said enough to show that such was its necessary condition.

"The fact becomes more intelligible when we consider man, and especially

the uneducated man, under the exciting influence of any passion, and how

at such times he will, even when alone, gesticulate, speak aloud, and

reply to internal questions which he imagines to be put to him by absent

persons, against whom he is at the moment infuriated; the images of

these persons and things are, as it were, present and in agitation

within him; and these images, in the fervour of emotion and under the

stimulus of excitement, appear to be actually alive, although only

presented to the inward psychical consciousness.

"In the natural man, in whom the intellectual powers were very slowly

developed, the animation and personification effected by his mind and

consciousness were threefold: first of the objects themselves as they

really existed, then of the idea or image corresponding to them in the

memory, and lastly of the specific types of these objects and images.

There was within him a vast and continuous drama, of which we are no

longer conscious, or only retain a faint and distant echo, but which is

partly revealed by a consideration of the primitive value of words and

their roots in all languages. The meaning of these, which is now for the

most part lost and unintelligible, always expressed a material and

concrete fact, or some gesture. This is true of classic tongues, and is

well known to all educated people, and it recurs in the speech of all

savage and barbarous races.

"_Ia Rau_ is used to express _all_ in the Marquesas Isles. _Rau_

signifies _leaves_, so that the term implies something as numerous as

the leaves of a tree. _Rau_ is also now used for _sound_, an expression

which includes in itself the conception of _all_, but which originally

signified a fact, a real and concrete phenomenon, and it was felt as

such in the ancient speech in which it was used in this sense. So again

in Tahiti _huru_, _ten_, originally signified _hairs_; _rima_, _five_,

was at first used for _hand_; _riri_, _anger_, literally means _he

shouts_. _Uku_ in the Marquesas Isles means _to lower the head_, and is

now used for _to enter a house_. _Kùku_, which had the same original

name in New Zealand, now expresses the act of diving. The Polynesian

word _toro_ at first indicated anything in the position of a hand with

extended fingers, whence comes the Tahitian term for ox, _puaátoro_,

_stretching pig_, in allusion to the way in which an ox carries his

head. _Toó_ (Marquesas), to put forward the hand, is now used for _to

take_. _Tongo_ (Marquesas), to grope with extended arms, leads to

_protongo tongo_, _darkness_. In New Zealand, _wairua_, in Tahiti

_varua_, signifies soul or spirit, from _vai_, to remain in a recumbent

position, and _rua_, two; that is _to be in two places_, since they

believed that in sickness or in dreams the soul left the body.[42]

Throughout Polynesia, _moe_ signifies a recumbent position or to sleep,

and in Tahiti _moe pipiti_ signifies a double sleep or dream, from

_moe_, to sleep, and _piti_, two. In New Zealand, _moenaku_ means to try

to grasp something during sleep; from _naku_, to take in the fingers.

"We can understand something of the mysterious exercise of human

intelligence in its earliest development from this habit of symbolizing

and presenting in an outward form an abstract conception, thus giving a

concrete meaning and material expression to the external fact. We see

how everything assumed a concrete, living form, and can better

understand the conditions we have established as necessary in the early

days of the development of human life. This attitude of the intelligence

had been often stated before, but in an incomplete way; the primitive

and subsequent myths have been confounded together;" [See ante, p.p. 44,

et seq., et 116.] "and it has been supposed that myth was of

exclusively human origin, whereas it has its roots lower down in the

vast animal kingdom.

* * * * *

"Anthropomorphism, and the personification of the things and phenomena

of nature, and their images and specific types, were the great source

whence issued superstitions, mythologies, and religions, and, also, as

we shall presently see, the scientific errors to be found among all the

families of the human race.

"For the development of myth, which is in itself always a human

personification of natural objects and phenomena in some form or other,

the first and necessary foundation consists, as we have abundantly

shown, in the conscious and deliberate vivification of objects by the

perception and apprehension of animals. And since this is a condition of

animal perception, it is also the foundation of all human life, and of

the spontaneous and innate exercise of the intelligence. In fact, man,

by a two-fold process, raises above his animal nature a world of images,

ideas, and conceptions from the types he has formed of various

phenomena, and his attitude towards this internal world does not differ

from his attitude towards that which is external. He personifies the

images, ideas, and conceptions, by transforming them into living

subjects, just as he had originally personified cosmic objects and

phenomena.

* * * * *