|
Interpolations in Bede's Ecclesiastical History and
Other Ancient Annals
Affecting the early history of Scotland and Ireland
IT is a well-known fact that most writers who have
dealt with the early history of Scotland state that Scotia, the
ancient name of this country, was a name applied to Ireland only till the
eleventh century. This is the opening sentence of a pamphlet recently
published, entitled, " Ireland not the Hibernia of the Ancients," in which
an attempt has been already made to controvert
such a belief. But as the idea that Ireland was at one
time peopled by Scots, and therefore called Scotia, is to a great extent
based on Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England, a further attempt will
be made in the following pages to prove that Scotland was the only Scotia,
by showing that this work is largely interpolated for the purpose of
making people believe that Scotia was once a name for ireland. This will
be done by comparing it with the writings of later historians who have
copied most of it nearly verbatim. Even were the work as it now exists
taken into consideration, it would be seen that its information regarding
the question at issue is contradictory and unreliable.
The Venerable Bede, author of the
history before us, was born in the year 673. There being some uncertainty
regarding the place of his birth, it will be necessary to endeavour to
ascertain its true situation, especially as it has a close relation to the
subject on hand, for it is possible he may be found to have been born near
the Firth of Forth. William of Malmesbury says: "Britain contains in its
remotest parts, bordering Scotia, the place of Bede’s birth and education.
Through the district runs the river Wira, of no mean width, and of
tolerable rapidity." [Bede’s Miscellaneous Works, by Giles, viii, i. pref
p. xlvi,] This is taken by modern writers to refer to the borden of
present Scotland, and the river Wear in England. The ancient British name
of the Forth, however, was Werid, [Skene’s Celtic Scotland, vol. iii. p.
45.] and there are reasons for believing that this is one of the many
instances of the transference of the history of places in the south of
Scotland to England on account of the similarity of the ancient names of
rivers, towns, &c., in the diflerent countries. In several cases this
appears to have been done designedly, as an opportunity will afterwards be
taken to show. Meanwhile it will be sufficient to say, that incidents
which Fordimn narrates as having taken place on the north bank of the
Forth, are transferred in an apparently interpolated passage in one of
Simeon of Durham’s works, to the banks of the Wear in England. [Ibid.,
vol. i. pp. 422, 423.] It may be remembered also that the mistake in
Ptolemy’s map of Scotland, affects all the country between the Wear in
Fngland and the Tay in Scotland, as noticed in "Ireland not the Hibernia
of the Ancients."’ The altusion in the above quotation from William of
Malmesbury's Chronicle to the remotest region of Britain, bordering on
Scotia, supports the belief that he is referring to the Forth when
he speaks of the river Wira. It is well known from authentic records that
in this historian’s life—time (the twelfth century) the name of Scotia was
confined to the country North of the Forth. Bede’s birthplace should
therefore be looked for in the neighbourhood of the Firth of Forth. Two
writers, Langen and Engelnussius, state that Bede was born in Saxony in
Germany. [Bede’s MiscelIoueous Works,
by Giles, vol. i, pref, pp. cvii, and cviii.]
They have in all likelihood seen it mentioned somewhere that he was born
in Saxonia, which was no doubt quite true, but this was a diflerent place
from Saxoriy in Germany. It evidently refers to the district called
Saxonia by the Pictish Chronicle, Tighernach’s Annals, and the Annals of
Ulster, which is pretty nearly comprehended in the Lothians of the present
day. This harmonises with William of Malmesbury’s reference to the place
of Bede’s birth, and confirms the belief that it was near the Firth of
Forth.
The monastery in which Bede spent
the most of his life was situated in the same neighbourhood. Malmesbury,
writing of the place of his birth and education, adds: "This region,
formerly exhaling the grateful odour of mnonasteries, or glittering with a
multitude of cities built by the Romans, now desolate through the ancient
devastations of the Danes, or those more recent of the Normans, presents
but little to allure the mind. Here is the river Were, of considerable
breadth and rapid tide; which, running into the sea, receives the vessels
borne by gentle gales on the calm bosom of its haven. Both its banks have
been made conspicuous by one Benedict, who there built churches and
monasteries—one dedicated to Peter, the other to Paul." Bede himself is
quoted by Malrnesbury [Chronicle, Bohn’s Translation, p. 56.] as saying
that he was born within the possessions of the monastery of the Apostles
Peter and Paul which is at Wearmouth, and, after spending some time under
the care of Abbots Benedict and Ceolfrid, he passed the remainder of his
life at the said inonastery. Dr Skene [Celtic Scotland, vol. 1 p. 192.]
points out that Bede, in his "Lives of the Abbots of Wearmouth," quotes a
letter of one of the Abbots, in which he says that the monastery of
Wearmouth was in Saxonia; and he adds that this name remained till a late
period attached to the most northern part of the Saxon territory in
Britain. Hector Boeth ins, or Boece, says that Betfe, during the latter
part of his life, lived at Mailros, an Abbey in Scotland, where there was
a community of monks. Dempster, in his Historia
Ecclesiasticus
getis Sotorum
to a certain extent corroborates this. There is good
reason for believing, as will be afterwards shown, that the Mailros of the
ninth and preceding centuries was situated nearer the Firth of Forth than
the Melrose of the present day, and if so, Boece’s notice would harmonise
with William of Malmusbury’s and Bede’s own word regarding the monastery
in which he spent the later years of his life. All these references, it
will be seen, have points of agreement, and they lead to the belief that
the Venerable Bede was born and spent the most of his days in the
neighbourhood of the Firth of Forth. He died in the year 734.
If the "Ecclesiastical History of
the English," as it is now puldish were to be considered as all the
original production of’ Bede, it would be a truly wonderful work for the
time and country in which he lived. That it is largely interpolated,
however, is borne out by several circumstances. The most cogent of these
is the silence of the later English annalists regarding events which are
treated of in Bede's work at great length. These writers all quote from
the Ecclesiastical History frequently, and praise Bede highly, but they
omit all notice of several important incidents which the later ancient
English historians would assuredly have referred to if they had had a
place in the genuine work of Bede. Roger
Wendover even quotes the work always
under the title of the "History of the English"
only; and a minute comparison of his history and Bede’s shows that most of
the ecclesiastical notices in the work have been engrafted with the
original history after Wendover’s time. This does not much concern us at
present, however, but if English writers care to take the trouble of
comparing the two works, word by word, they would be astonish to find to
what an extent the early ecclesiastical history of their country had been
tampered with.
As none of the original manuscripts
of Bede’s work seem to be extant, it is now difficult to trace all the
interpolations; but the first version in modern English, which was
published in 1565, immediately after the Reformation in England and
Scotland, was issued under the auspices of’ a priesthood who cannot
be regarded as free from the suspicion
of having tampered with other
works
than that of the Venerable Bede. It was dedicated to
Queen Elizabeth, and the following passage occurs in the dedication: "In
this history Your Highness shall see in how many and weighty points the
pretended reformers of the Church in your Grace’s dominions have departed
from the pattern of that sound and catholic faith planted first among
Englishmen by holy St Angustine our apostle, and his virtuous company,
described truly and sincerely by Venerable Bede, so called in all
Christendom for his passing virtues and rare learning, the Author of this
history."
In analysing the passages in the
Ecclesiastical History relating to Scotland and Ireland, an endeavour will
be made to separate the genuine from the spurious, though this may
not
always be successful. Notwithstanding this, we hope to be able to show
that Bede’s Scots were the inhabitants of north-eastern Scotland,
and that this district was the country known to him by the name of Scotia.
To accomplish this the passages referred to will be compared with parallel
ones in the Saxon Chronicle, and the works of Gildas, Ethelwerd, Florence
of Worcester, Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, and Roger of
Wendover. This will throw additional light on the Ireland-Scotia
controversy, and probably lead to a settlement of it. Considered along
with the proofs already produced, and those to follow, they point clearly
to the fact that Ireland never was called Scotia or Scotland.
It may be as well to say that
several of those later annals are interpolated as well as Bede’s work.
Separate estimates of their value in this respect will be afterwards
given, in producing the testimony they afford on the question at issue.
Suffice it to say, in the meantime, that Florence of Worcester’s Annals,
and Henry of Huntingdon’s History (this latter being first printed in
England along with Bede’s work), are very largely interpolated. Henry of
Huntingdon affirms that he had relied principally on Bede’s information in
writing his history, but he does not generally copy it literally, except
in the interpolated passages. The others are very sparsely interpolated;
Gildas and Ethelwerd being apparently almost entirely free from this
plague.
Roger of Wendover’s work is the most
valuable for the purpose on hand, as although it has been interpolated
with the view of identifying Hibernia with Ireland, or perhaps written
after the former name had been transferred from Iceland, it seems to have
escaped being tampered with in order to connect the Scots and Scotia with
Ireland. This is perhaps owing to an original manuscript of the work which
had escaped the hands of the manipulators of early Scottish history having
been discovered at a late date.
In the comparison, the translations
of the works named, published in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library, have been
principally used, as they are accessible to the majority of readers. Of
course Ireland nearly always appears in the original editions as Hibernia,
but the translated name has been used, in order to avoid confusion between
the ancient and modern Hibeinia, and to show which country it is supposed
to refer to by the translators.
A FABRICATED CHAPTER
The first chapter of the
"Ecclesiastical History" is entitled: "Of
the situation of Britain and Ireland, and of their ancient
inhabitants." At the beginning of it, we are told that Britain was
formerly called Albion; and a description of that country is then given.
After which the following passages occur:—
"This island at present,
following the number of the books in which the Divine Law was written.
contains five nations, the English. Britons, Scots, Piets, and Latins,
each in its own peculiar dialect cultivating the sublime study of Divine
truth. The Latin tongue is, by the study of the
Scriptures, become common to all the rest. At first this island had no
other inhabitants but the Britons, from
whom it derived its name, and who, coming over into
Britain, as is reported, from Armorica, possessed themselves of the
southern parts thereof. When they, beginning at the
south, had made themselves masters of the greatest part of the island, it
happened that the nation of the Picts, from Scythia, as is reported,
putting to sea, in a few long ships, were driven by the winds beyond the
shores of Britain. and arrived on the northern coasts of Ireland, where,
finding the nation of, the Scots, they begged to be allowed to settle
among them, but could not succeed in obtaining their request.... The
Picts, accordingly, sailing over into Britain, began to inhabit the
northern parts thereof....Now the Picts had no wives, and asked them of
the Scots; who would not consent to grant them upon any other terms, than
that when any difficulty should arise, they should choose a king from the
female royal race rather than from the male; which custom, as is well
known, has been observed among the Picts to this day. In process of
time, Britain, besides the Britons and the Picts, received a third nation,
the Scots, who, migrating from Ireland under their leader, Reuda, either
by fair means, or by force of arms, secured to themselves those
settlements among the Picts which they still possess. From the name of
their connnander, they are to this day called Dalreudins; for in their
language, Dal signifies a part. Ireland, in breadth, and for wholesomeness
and serenity of climate far surpasses Britain.... it is properly the
country of the Scots, who, migrating from thence, as has been said, added
a third nation in Britain to the Britons and the Pits. There is a very
large gulf of the sea, which formerly divided the nation of the Picts from
the Britons; which gulf runs from the west very far into the land, where,
to this day, stands the strong city of the Britons, called Alcluith. The
Scots, arriving on the north side of this bay, settled themselves there!
As the information given above will be found to be
contradicted by more reliable testimony, it
seems probable that the greater part of this chapter is
fabricated. Only one of the ancient English
annalists, besides Bede, appears to take
notice of these events, and that one is the least
trustworthy on such a subject,
namely, Henry of Huntingdon.
Something similar appears in copies of the Saxon
Chronicle, but these are known to be of a late date. It is awanting in the
earliest manuscript extant. But this is not the
greatest objection to these passages; and it is questionable whether a
single line of the whole chapter be genuine or not. Albion, for
instance, is not mentioned as the ancient name of Britain
by any trustworthy writer, and Alban or Albany is
confined in authentic records and the Celtic legends to a part of
Scotland. The word English (Anglorum), too, used twice in this chapter, is
riot likely to have been a word used by Bede to designate the Anglo-Saxon
inhabitants of England in his day. It was an ambiguous word then; and it
will be found to occur generally, if not only, in
the fabricated passages of the Ecclesiastical History.
in addition to this, it was not till the eighteenth
century that Riada and his colony of Scots appeared in the pages of
historians of Ireland. "
Kennedy, whose genealogical dissertation on the family of’ Stuart was
published at Paris in 1705, and, though brief, is the most accurate work
known on Irish history, as he generally quotes
manuscript page and column, first laid open the fact that a colony of
Scots, under Riada, settled in Pictland." [Pinkerton’s
Enquiry, vol. ii. p. 63.] After quoting the words of
Kennedy regarding Riada’s settlement in Britain,
Pinkerton adds: ‘In both these passages he gives no authorities, though he
commonly produces them. [Ibid., p. 64. a
Ibid., ] he then treats at some ]ength of O'Connor’s allusion to
the settlement of Riada in Britain, and sums up with these words: "All
this is given as usual wjthout an authority or reference. The
circumstances of Mr O’ Connor’s tale are also discordant," &c. Ritson [Annals
Caledonians, &c., vol ii. p. 12.] says: "
No such expedition, nor even such a person as Riada, or Reuda, is ever
noticed by Tigernach, or Flannus a Monasteroo (Flan of Bute), is quoted by
Usher or O’Flaherty, or in the Ulster Annals, or any other ancient or
authentic monument". It is not noticed by Clyn, an Irish annalist of the
fourteenth century, who was acquainted with Bede’s History, and quotes it.
If it had been mentioned there in Clyn's life—time, he would scarcely have
ignored altogether such an important episode in his countrys annals. If
the ancient Irish writer's knew nothing of this expedition of Scots where
did Bede learn about it?
it may be remarked here also that Ireland (Hibernia) is
not said in this first chapter to have have any other name. This would
have been a strange omission on the part of Bede, who lived at the very
time when the country is alleged to have also been called Scotia or
Scotland; and, if this had been the case, it would have been still more
wonderful to find, that throughout the whole of the Ecclesiastical
History, even interlopated as it is, it is never distinctly affirmed that
Ireland was ever called Scotia. Speaking of the forged writings which form
the ground—work of Boece’s History of Scotland, Innes says: It is a great
advantage to truth that the most part of the forgers of pretended old
writings were, by the permission of providence, generally so extremely
ignoramit, and frequently of so little sense or judgment, that even almost
in every passage of their inventions, one may discover anachronisms,
contradictions, and other marks of their forgery." [Eesay
i., p. 304.]
A GENUINE CHAPTER: ONLY ONE ROMAN WALL KNOWN TO BEDE.
The next chapter which concerns the presemit subject,
is the twelfth chapter of Book I. The. substance of this chapter is copied
by most of the ancient annalists; and it appears to be almost, if not
altogether, the genuine work of Bede. it is entitled: "The
Britons being ravaged by the Sects and Picts, sought succour from the
Romans, who, comming a second time, built a wall across the Island; but
the Britons being again invaded by the aforesaid enemies, were reduced to
greater distress than before." The materials for this chapter are taken
from a work by Gildas, a preceding British writer; but several important
additions are made to them in the Ecclesiastical History. For instance,
after calling the Picts and Scots transmarine, or foreign, nations, as his
predecessor had done, Bede adds:
"We call these foreign nations, not on account of their
being seated out of Britain, but because they were remote from that part
of it which was posessed by the Britons; two inlets of the sea bring
between them, one of which runs in far and broad into the land of Britain,
from the Eastern Ocean, and the other from the Western, though they do not
reach so as to touch one another. The eastern
has in the midst of it
the city Guidi. The Western has on it, that is,
on the right hand thereof, the city Alcluith, which in their language
signifies the rock Cluith, for it is close by the river of that name."
Again, after giving Glides’ aceount of the arrival of
the Romans, the defeat of the enemies, and the
buildnig of a turf wall, Bede adds:
However, they drew it (the wall) for many miles between
the bays or inlets of the seas, which we have spoken of; to the end that
where the defence of the water was wanting, they might use the rampart to
defend their borders from the irruptions of the enemies. Of which work
there erected, that is, of a rampart of extraordinary breadth and height,
there are evident remains to he seen at this day. It begins at about two
miles’ distance from the monastery of Abercurnig, on the west, at a place
called in the Pictish language, Peanfahel, but in the English tongue
Penneltun, and running to the westward, ends near the city Aleluith."
Then, after paraphrasing his predecessor’s narrative of
another visit of the Roman troops, and the driving of the Scots and Picts
again beyond the seas, he continues to depend on Gildas in stating that
the Romans resolved to leave the country for ever, but before doing so
they helped the natives to build a stone wall from sea to sea. After this
another addition of Bede’s’ is found to this effect: "This famous wall,
which is still to be seen, is not far from the trench of Severus, and was
built at the public and private expense, the Britons also lending their
assistance. It is eight feet in breadth, and twelve feet in height, in a
straight line from east to west, as is still visible to beholders." Still
adhering closely to Gildas’ narrative, Bede finishes this twelfth chapter
by stating that the Picts and Scots now occupied all the northern and
farthest part of the island, as far as the wall.
The most of this chapter was evidently written by Bede:
and no writer of his time would have penned such
words as quoted above had there been a people called Scots living in
Ireland, and so predominating there as to cause that country to be called
Scotia. The part of the chapter which appears not to be genuine, is only
that small portion referring to the building of the turf wall. There are
several objections which might be urged against its authenticity, but the
only one that need be noticed is the occurrence of the word English
(Anglorum) in it; and it may be added that none of the other ancient
annalists countenance this passage except Henry of Huntingdon, into whose
work all the interpolations found in the Ecclesiastical History have been
copied.
It has been sometimes stated that Bede takes notice af
three wails built by the Romans in Britain, but a diligent examination of
the Ecclesiastical History reveals the fact that he knew only of one, the
wall of Antoninus, between the Firths of Forth and Clyde. Three walls are
spoken of in the Ecclesiastical History: the one, built by Severus, and
the other two which have just been noticed; but the passage referring to
one of these has been shown to be, in all likelihood, an interpolation,
and the other two walls were evidently built on or near the same site.
According to Bede, the stone wall was not far from the trench which
accompanied the rampart., or turf wall, of Severus. In the fifth chapter
he alludes to the building of this wall in these words: "After many
great and dangerous battles, he (Severus)
thought fit to divide
that part of the island, which he had
recovered from the unconquered
nations, not with a wall, as some
imagine, but with a rampart. For a wall is made of stones, but a rampart
with which camps are fortified to repel the assaults of enemies, is made
of sods cut out of the earth, and raised above the ground all round like a
wall, having in front of it the ditch whence the sods were taken." Then in
the eleventh chapter he alludes to it again thus: "In the year 402
. . . . the Romans ceased to rule in Britain
....They resided within the rampart, which, as we have mentioned, Severus
made across the island," which shows that he is speaking of a wall between
the Firths of Forth and Clyde, for it is now well known that the Roman
occupation of the country extended thus far from the time of Antoninus
till the Romans left the island. The phrase, not far from the trench of
Severus, may mean that the stone wall spoken of by Bede was erected at
some short distance. from Severus’ rampart, and likely to the south of it;
but it is straining the meaning of the words to identify the stone wall
with Hadrian’s, between the Tyne and Eden, in the north of England, as
some writers have done. It is an undoubted fact that Bede’s account of the
building of the stone wall is not in accordance with the evidence of the
stones of the wall itself and Roman history; but it is less in accordance
with the evidence supplied by the stones of Hadrian’s wall and other
circumstances. The reason for this is plain. The references to these works
in Roman writers are scanty and vague; and the traditions of five or six
hundred years at such a period were not to be depended upon.
That Bede and all the early English annalists, whose
works we are comparing, always write about one Roman wall only is beyond
doubt, and that wall is apparently no other than the one between the
Firths of Forth and Clyde. A sufficient explanation of their ignorance of
the wall in the north of England is furnished by Chalmers: [Caledonia,
vol. 1. p. 185, note.] "From the opinions
of Dio and Herodian, it appears probable that only the wall of Antonine
existed at the epoch of Severus’ invasion; and that Hadrian’s wall, being
no longer necessary, had become ruinous." Whether this is the right reason
or not for Beds’s silence regarding the wall in the north of England, and
it should be remembered that he spent most, if not all his life, at a
great distance away from it, it is at least certain that on and after this
Bede speaks only of one wall, that which he describes in this twelfth
chapter.
The city mentioned by Bede as situated in the midst
of the eastern ocean, has been sometimes identified with Leith or
Queensferry: and in the translation before us its situation is said not to
be known. Dr Skene has identified it with Inchkeith, which exactly suits
Bede’s description; and it is quite possible there may have been a small
town there at the time referred to. Besides the name of the island
confirms this, for lnchkeith might easily be regarded as a corruption of
Inis-Guidi, or the Island Guidi. Few names of that period have reached us
with less change. |
