網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Caractacus is represented to have delivered, is, of course, an invention of Tacitus, but is suitable enough to the character and circumstance; and we may, perhaps, say the same of the expression of surprise, “that the possessors of palaces in Rome should envy him a cottage in Britain," which has been introduced from some other source. Dr. Henry is very full in his detail, taken chiefly from Tacitus; other compilers vary in their narratives, but Mr. Hume has, I think, judiciously compressed the whole into a single sentence. The monkish historians have a succession of three kings after the death of Arviragus, called Marius, Coillus and Lucius, who are represented as remaining in peace, attentive to the welfare of their subjects, and regularly paying their tribute to Rome, and we have a pompous account of the conversion of Lucius, the last of them, to Christianity, which is adopted with modifications by Dr. Lingard. This tale, however, is, in many points, inconsistent, and is completely at variance with every thing we learn from other sources and is also omitted by Gildus, a British writer, whose silence may be considered as decisive of its falsehood. From the time of Caractacus to the year 84, A. D. we have interesting details of the war with Boadicea, of the reduction of the Brigantes and Silures, and of the campaigns of Agricola, all omitted, as I have observed before, by the monkish historians, but recorded by Tacitus, of whose veracity there is strong internal evidence, though he might be disposed to magnify the exploits of his father-in-law, Agricola. For thirty years after, during the reigns of Nerva and Trajan, we know nothing of the state of Britain. Nor, indeed, for a much longer period have we any satisfactory information. The brief narrative of Eutropius, the abridgment of Dio, by Xiphilinus, and the lives of some of the Roman Emperors, supply a few circumstances, and it is supposed that the country was, in general, quiet and improving, because it has supplied few materials for the historian. The inference, however, is hardly justifiable. The Britons might be unable to resist with effect; but they were, in all probability, a distinct people, under their own petty Kings, neither speaking the language, nor adopting the VOL. I.

customs of their conquerors. Some of the hardy youths enlisted in the Roman service, and were sent to foreign regions, where they became completely alienated from their country; and a few might, in the towns, attain to some privileges, but the great body were an oppressed, and most probably a discontented people, kept in submission by a strong military force, and compelled to yield the produce of their labours.

Because the Romans built temples and fortified walls and castles, and made military roads, it by no means follows that the natives were advanced in civilization, for we have no traces of it in any respect. If, indeed, we would form a judgment of the Britons, during the period of Roman sway, we should think of the Irish from the time of Henry the Second to that of Elizabeth, or even much later; or of the Caribs in the West Indies, or of the natives of South America in the Spanish and Portuguese settlements. The groans of the Britons then, if we believe Gildes, that such were uttered to the Romans, must have proceeded from a few favoured adherents, inhabitants of London or York, Verulam, or some Roman towns, who, perhaps, dreaded the population at home, as much as the Scots and Picts; but Zozimus, a general historian, at the latter period of the Roman empire, "whose fidelity," according to Dr. Priestly, in his lectures on history, "is not easily to be called in question," relates that the people in general, armed themselves, asserted their independence, and might have protected themselves effectually, if their internal divisions had not been in favour of the enemy. This Zozimus held different civil offices under the younger Theodosius, about the commencement of the fifth century, and left a history of Roman affairs in six books; in the five last of which he details public events from the death of Diocletian to the second siege of Rome by Alaric. He, of course, did not live long after the time under consideration, though very distant from the scene of action, and the important events that took place so much nearer to him, would, probably, attract more of his attention. He has, however, mentioned some circumstances respecting the state of Britain at variance with the more common accounts. All

4 S

do not think of this writer, however, with equal approbation-for Gibbon speaks of him as credulous and partial; and he has been charged by others with prejudice against the Christian Emperors, especially against Constantine the Great. Gildas lived at a later period, but was a native of the country, and had, of course, some advantages. He was born in 520, and be came a monk at Bangor, but travelled much, and wrote his work De Excidio Brittanniæ in 564, when living in Bretagne, then called, Armonia. This work is still in existence. These are the two leading authorities. Nermius of the same abbey, who lived about a century later, or according to Nicholson, not till the ninth century, has left a history of Britain, enlarged upon by Geoffrey of Monmouth, or the Welsh bard, whom Geoffrey is said to have translated, but whose work has not been found, which history is so romantic and so much at variance from what we derive from other sources, that it is now deemed of little authority; though made use of by Mathew of Westminster and the other compilers, down almost to the present day.

The Venerable Bede is said to have been born in 672, and to have died in 735, being nearly three centuries after the events recorded. He spent his life in the monastery of Jarrow, near the mouth of the river Lyna, and wrote an ecclesiastical history, in which he gives an account of the state of Christianity in Britain, from its introduction to the year 731. In this he occasionally mentions other circumstances, but when we consider the length of time which had elapsed, the distant and retired situation in which he lived, and the prejudices by which, as a Saxon he must have been influenced, we can neither be surprised that the information he gives about the Britons is scanty, or much disappointed at the manifest appearance of credulity and superstition. Indeed, in all that respects the Britons, he seems to depend on Gildas, and therefore adds nothing to his authority. Mr. Turner has further gleaned from the history of the Goths by Jornandes, himself a Goth, who flourished in 540, and from Claudian, the poetic panegyrist of Stilicho. Some incidental circumstances may be mentioned in some other compilations, but nothing of importance. The ac

count as it may be collected from the British writers is that in the year 420, the Britons in consequence of the enmity of the Goths, Picts, and Norwegians sent to Rome for aid, when a legion was sent which repelled the enemy and raised a wall of sods from sea to sea for the protection of the Britons; that this wall proving to be of no use, the Romans being again sent for in the following year, 421, returned, and then built a stone wall with many castles; after which they bid farewell to Britain, as not likely to return. In 434, the Romans are again represented as leaving Britain, and soon after follows an account of the letter, much spoken of in British history, which was entitled the "Groans of the Britains." In the year 435, according to the same account, Guithelin, archbishop of London, is represented as having gone to the King of Armonia, and procured from him his brother Constantine and 2000 soldiers. This Constanntine was chosen King and was father of Constans, Ambrosius and Uthra Pendragon.-On Constantine's being murdered by a Pict in 445, Vortigena, a man of rank, called a Consul, procuring the advancement of Constans, who had been a monk, to the throne, with an expectation of influencing his measures. Not satisfied, however, with this power, Vortigena procures the assassination of Constans and his own elevation to the throne, and his tyranny obliged him to seek the aid of the Saxons in 449. This story is compounded from Gildas, Bede, and Rennius. Mr. Warrington, in his history of Wales, seems to have given credit to it; and a late improved edition, (as it is called), of Goldsmith's History of England, seems to follow Rennius' whole series of Kings, without any expression of doubt.

Mr. Hume, the philosopher, who could reject the well-attested facts on which Christianity is founded, adopts that portion which rests on the authority of Gildas, omitting the episode of Constantine from Rennius, and fixes the departure of the Romans in the year 448, in which he varies from all other writers on the subject I have been able to consult. takes nearly the same course, but differs in dates; he fixes the first departure of the Romans in 410, their final one after rebuilding the wall in 426

Rapin

verus.

and the coming of the Saxons in 449, which last date seems generally agreed upon. Dr. Henry, referring to the same authority, repeats much of the story more in detail, and appears to me to render it inconsistent by mingling accounts which can scarcely be reconciled. Thus following Zosimus, he tells us of the spirit with which the Britons repelled their northern invaders, and then he adopts Gildas's tale of their cowardice and despair. He indeed makes them at different periods. Thus, the Roman troops depart first in 412, and are followed by the other Romans in 414. On this occasion the Britons act with spirit. In 416 they obtain the aid of a legion which repels the enemy and assists them in repairing Antoninus's wall of turf; thus reconciling it to previous history, whilst Gildas, as appears from Turner, speaks of it, as if it were an original undertaking. In 418 a legion comes again and stays a year, during which it repairs (accommodating as before) the stone-wall of SeIn 420 the Romans take their final departure, and then we have the whole of Gildas's account of the dreadful state of the Britons, for which he quotes Bede, not considering that he might, with equal propriety, quote every other of the many compilers who copied Gildas, without adding in the least to the authority. In giving this, he seems to tell us more than his original, from whatever source he may have got it; and in 446 brings the Britons to that state in which they applied to Etuis. In 449 a council of British kings takes place; Vortigern, sovereign of the Silures, acts the part of universal monarch, and recommends to make application to the Saxons, which is immediately carried into execution. Dr. Lingard adheres chiefly to Zozimus; he does not, indeed, entirely omit the application to Altius or Agitius, but makes it the act of a small party, and says nothing of the groans of the Britons; whilst Turner exposes the inconsistency of Gildas's account with that of Zozimus, supported by gleanings from other works, and rejects it almost with contempt, applying to him what Dr. Johnson said of Ossian-" If we have not searched the Magellanic regions, let us however forbear to people them with Patagons; if we know little of this ancient period,

let us not fill the vacuity with Gildas." Mr. Turner fixes the final departure of the Romans in 409, on which the Britons asserted and maintained independence. For the division of Britain under the Romans, he infers, that there were thirty independent republics governed by chief magistrates, a senate, and other officers. These states quarrelled with one another; kings, or tyrants, were established, and at last one tyrant, Gwrtheyrn, or Vortigern, predominated over the rest, though Ambrosius, or as the Welsh bards call him, Emrys Wledig, is represented as a successful rival. Mr. Turner, on the authority of a Welsh chronology, fixes 426 for the acquired ascendancy of Vortigern, leaving a period of twentythree years from his being chief monarch to the invitation of the Saxons. Such is the uncertainty attached to this period of history, that we can scarcely move a step with satisfaction, and we have no writer on whom we can depend. So also with respect to the introduction of Christianity into Britain, there is no consistency-in the want of an original account conjecture has followed conjecture, and the obscure riddles of the Welsh bards have been recorded as authority. Nor do we appear to have more certainty when we enter upon the Saxon times. "Our further progress," says Mr. Turner, "must be very cautiously made; we are treading among the broken monuments of our ancestors and the ancient Britons, and the feeble light we can obtain, throws but a small and faint circle of rays into the damp and dreary gloom of time, which is corroding them. Sometimes the scanty illumination presents to us the relics distorted by the shades it creates and cannot remove; with all our care we may often give a delusion, when we think we have traced a reality." Gildas and Bede continue our chief authorities, the Saxon chronicle and the Welsh poems supplying occasional information. Of the Saxon horde succeeded horde till eight kingdoms were founded, the Britons offering constant, though ineffectual resistance. After the defeat, and almost total expulsion of the Britons, Christianity, and with it the barbarous literature of the day, was soon introduced among the victorious Saxons; numerous monasteries were founded by their weak

and superstitious kings; and some inhabitants of these monasteries have, in their account of them, related what they knew concerning the events of those times. But Mr. Hume has observed, respecting them, "that they lived remote from public affairs, considered the civil transactions subordinate to the ecclesiastical; and besides, partaking of the ignorance and barbarity which were then universal, were strongly infected with credulity, with the love of wonder, and with a propensity to imposture." To repeat instances of this ignorance is unnecessary at present. Nor can we repose confidence in the relations of men, who were devoted to a power, whose repeated encroachments were the cause of frequent disturbances; men, who have done every thing they could to defame those who had sense and courage sufficient to withstand their innovations, whilst they praise in the most extravagant terms all those who were the instruments of papal tyranny; men, who to bigotry and superstition, united ignorance and credulity. Thus, we find these monks abusing the un

fortunate Edwey, whilst his brother, Edgar, who supported them is extolled as a pious and virtuous man, as well as a great king, though they themselves record actions inconsistent with the former part of the character. This subject has lately been brought into notice by the work of Lingard, who, in a more guarded manner than his predecessors on the same side, has laboured to establish the misconduct of Edwey, and to vindicate the interference of the clergy. But it is time to stop. Whether the subject be ever renewed or not, the chief object is attained, to show that the early history of our country is so obscure and uncertain, that little that is recorded can be relied on; that the modern compilers, deriving their information from the same authority, widely differ among themselves, and that our details, whenever entered upon, can be regarded as little, if at all, better than romances. Yet men who reject Christianity for its deficiency of evidence, do not hesitate to receive these vague accounts, as entitled to credit.

RECOLLECTIONS OF 1803.

To the Editor of the Dublin University Magazine.

Sir,-In the last number of your Magazine, I have read, with deep interest, the article entitled "The Discovery of Emmet's Insurrection." Of some of the transactions of the night of the 23d July, 1803, I was myself a witness. I knew some of the principal victims of that night, and, as a Dublin yeoman, I was actively employed-I ought rather say, was ready to be actively employed, had my services been demanded.

I am not of the class of mawkish sentimentalists, who would bury in oblivion every recollection of such events as these; and would "breathe not the name" even of the principal traitor.On the contrary, if punishment of crime be intended rather to warn others, than to visit with vengeance the guilty individual, how can such warning be more effectually given, than by recalling public attention to historical events, not growing out of accident, but generated in the same systematic disaffection to English connexion and English law, for so many centuries prevalent in Ireland, and at this day not less prevalent than ever? But, if a warning of this nature may be salutary to the governed, occasions may occur, where even governors may, if they will, reap benefit from it. And in this view, the case of Emmet's insurrection is of peculiar weight. The project* of a wild enthusiast to seize, in a time of tranquillity, with the aid of a few hundred undisciplined and illarmed ruffians, the castle of Dublin, the seat of His Majesty's government, situate in the heart of a great city, this would seem so preposterous as only to excite a smile. But yet, if it be true,

that his Majesty's government was so circumstanced on the 23d of July, 1803, that in ten minutes it might have been surprised even in its head-quarters, its guard overpowered, its principal members massacred or imprisoned, its arsenals and its treasury seized, its functions usurped, and all its powers wielded (for a time at least) by an able and successful desperado, supported by four-fifths of the population-if all this was even possible, under a Tory government and a Pitt administration, and not five years after the rebellion of 1798, and with a strong garrison, and three thousand loyal and disciplined yeomanry within sound of its alarmbell-if this were barely possible then, who shall say that the lesson may not be studied with advantage by the present government of Ireland, and at the present day? I do not indeed expect that advice offered through your pages, will be received with complacency, but facts will speak for themselves; and if they be doubted, as coming through the medium of a Conservative Journal, inquiry may at least be excited, and that will be enough.

Now, as to facts; my own recollection agrees in general with your narrative. For it is a matter of no essential importance that your narrator is (I believe) mistaken in saying, that the mangled body of the lamented Lord Chief Justice was brought into the castle. He was removed, while yet alive, from the scene of murder, to a watch-house, situate hard by in Vicar's street, as the nearest public place.And it was here stretched on the bare boards, and in the very agonies of death, that in controuling the natural

* Yet the project itself was not original. See Harris's History of Dublin. The apparent inadequacy of the means makes Emmet's attempt seem ridiculous: yet such as they were, if his infuriated partizans had not been diverted for a few minutes from their main object, by the irresistible temptation of murdering one, attractive to them in so many ways, as an aged and defenceless man, a nobleman and a judge, who shall say what might have resulted?

« 上一頁繼續 »