Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

ON THE CONDITION OF THE BRITONS UNDER THE ROMAN

DOMINATION.

PART I.

THERE are few subjects, the proper treatment of which requires more varied information, more tact in discrimination, and more impartiality of judgment, than that of the early history of a people. The main cause of this is obvious the extreme paucity of wellauthenticated historical facts. The materials which constitute the framework that gives at once solidity and symmetry to the historic narrative are clear, undoubted facts, and without these this species of literary composition forfeits the name of history and becomes, for the most part, a figment of the fancy.

Unfortunately for the proper and satisfactory examination of our present subject, we find, on looking over the records of the past, that the above-mentioned indispensable requisites of his tory are in a situation strikingly similar to that of the good followers of the pious Æneas,"

66

"Rari nantes in gurgite vasto."

Since, then, this is the case, our subject is more curious than useful; it belongs more to the antiquarian than to the philosophical historian. We admit there cannot be drawn from it that instruction which is so plentifully afforded by narratives equally interesting but far more valuable, inasmuch as they are faithful records of past events. However, it is pleasant to speculate occasionally; and to see how a difficult topic has been treated by men of clear judgment and ardent curiosity, may not be altogether wanting in instruction.

In attempting to give a brief sketch of Britain under the Roman rule it appears necessary, first of all, to determine, as far as it is practicable, the condition of Britain immediately before and at the period of the Roman invasion, in order thereby to comprehend more fully the relative position of the invaded to the invaders, and by that means see more clearly what is involved in the eventual predominance of the latter over the former, and the subsequent fusion of the two hostile parties. This method of viewing the subject will

enable us to present the Britons in three distinct aspects :

(1) About the time of the Roman invasion; (2) during the time the Romans were endeavouring to establish themselves in the country; (3) from the time of their complete subjugation till the abandonment of the island by the Romans.

1. This first part of our subject is at once the most difficult to treat and the most necessary to be known the for

mer, because of the impenetrable obscurity in which many important questions connected with it are involved; the latter, because on our knowledge of the country and its inhabitants we like an accurate and comprehensive must mainly rely in forming anything notion of the nature of those materials with which the Roman genius and arms had to deal, and which, whatever they may have been, must have modified in a very great degree the future relative position of the conquerors and the conquered.

;

The principal sources of our knowledge of an ancient people are, the recorded deeds and fortunes of that people, or its history strictly so called traditions; religion, laws, manners, and customs; well-defined and distinctive ethnological characteristics; language; and the topographical nomenclature of the country.

In what we shall have to say of the state of the Britons immediately before and at the time of the Roman invasion, we shall freely make use of the labours of others in this interesting field of inquiry, and state, as briefly as possible, the leading views entertained on the subject by the very few authorities which have come within our reach.

The first question which naturally requires consideration is, by what race or races was Britain inhabited previous to the landing of Cæsar? The story of the Trojan origin of the population of Britain may here be merely mentioned as a specimen of the dusky fable in which the history of our country is involved. It is equally amusing and

instructive to see with what dexterity the modest and cautious Camden endeavours to impugn the authenticity of this tale, which no one in the present day hesitates for a moment in regarding as about equal, in point of historical value, to the adventures of "Sinbad the Sailor." He tells us that the origin of the Britons would be placed beyond all dispute, if he could just be certain of the authenticity of the story of Brutus, who was alleged to be the son of Silvius, the grandson of Ascanius, and the greatgrandson of Æneas, who had Jupiter for his father and Venus for his mother. From this very respectable family were the brave Britons descended, according to Geoffrey Ap Arthur of Monmouth. This noble origin was, no doubt, highly gratifying to the patriotism of Geoffrey. Patriotism is a noble and manly sentiment, and in these strange times nothing could be more worthy of modern Britons than to imitate Geoffrey, in spirit at least, by showing the same desire to secure for themselves a glorious destiny among the nations, that he did to establish a splendid origin for the first inhabitants of Britain. The whole story of Brutus, however, is quietly and prudently handed over by Camden to the mercy and concern of the "Society of Antiquaries" (just then established), he deeming himself too weak in judgment to determine a point of so much importance (!) Other accounts of the origin of the early inhabitants of Britain have been given by Welsh poetical histories called Triads, but they are to all appearance of little value in the present inquiry.

Modern investigators have endeavoured to trace the first inhabitants of Britain to a Phoenician origin. The following notice of this theory is taken from Dr. Latham's acute and learned work on "The English Language."

66

"As early as the year A.D. 1676, an opinion was advanced by Aylett "Sammes, in a work entitled Britan"nia Antiqua Illustrata,' that the first "colonisers of Ireland were the mer"chants of Tyre and Sidon. In confir"mation of this opinion the existence "of several Eastern customs in Ireland was adduced by subsequent antiqua"rians. Further marks of an Eastern origin of the Irish were soon found in "the Gaelic dialect of that country; finally, the matter (in the eyes at "least of the national writers) was sa

66

66

66

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

This discovery was, that the speech in Plautus was Irish Gaelic, and consequently that the Irish was Carthaginian and vice versa. Sir Wm. Betham is an advocate for this opinion, both with regard to Ireland and Britain.

We have no means, even had we the ability, to pursue these views farther; although we venture to surmise that Dr. Latham shows a little too much historical scepticism in his estimate of them. Nor perhaps can aught else be said of the great Gesenius, whom Dr. Latham seems to quote in support of his own opinion: for it may be questioned whether Gesenius were sufficiently acquainted with the lingua Hibernica to use such strong language as he does, in opposition to the deliberate opinions of eminent Irish scholars.

However, we gladly turn away from these philological and antiquarian quagmires, and place our foot on more solid ground. This we find in the fact, which seems to be admitted on all hands, that the people whom Cæsar found in the southern part of Britain, on his first arrival there, and of whom he thus speaks, "hominum est infinita multitudo," were a race whose immediate progenitors were the inhabitants of Gallia, now called France. We learn from Cæsar and Tacitus that the buildings, religion, and language of this people were, generally speaking, similar to those of the Gauls; but this statement applies only to the southern Britons; for Cæsar could not speak with accuracy of any but those whom he had seen. the authority of the traditions of these southern Britons, he describes the inhabitants of the interior of the country as extremely rude in their manners, far behind the inhabitants of the coast in point of civilization, and also of a different race. "When he inquired," says Dr. Lingard, "after their origin [that "is, the origin of the tribes inhabiting "the interior], he was told that their "ancestors were the spontaneous pro"duction of the soil: later discoveries "showed that they were Celtæ, and "the descendants of the first colonists "of Britain." On what grounds this last important assertion is made Dr. Lingard does not state.

On

In considering this comparatively

barbarous portion of the inhabitants of Britain, we seem to rest no longer on the firm ground we spoke of above; for we are met by points of considerable difficulty, the chief of which is, that the tribes inhabiting the coast considered those of the interior to be a totally different race.

The fact of the tribes inhabiting the interior being far less civilized than those of the southern and maritime districts, can be sufficiently accounted for on a principle, the truth of which has been corroborated in numerous instances, both in ancient and modern times it is this, that in proportion as the facilities of intercommunication between the different parts of a country become increased, in the same proportion will the dormant energies of that people be called forth. England, at the present moment, is one of the most remarkable cases in point which the world affords. But that which appears most difficult to account for is, the fact of these southern Britons believing those of the interior not only to be of a different race, but also to be the spontaneous production of the soil. The mere existence of this belief is quite enough to induce one to be of opinion that what may for the sake of distinction be called the inhabitants of the northern parts of Britain, were a decidedly different people from those who, in Cæsar's time, dwelt in the southern parts and on the sea coast. The tradition prevailing among the southern Britons, as mentioned by Cæsar, is that they themselves were of Belgic origin; that they had come over to Britain, and had taken forcible possession of the territories adjoining the sea; that they drove into the interior the inhabitants whom they found there; that as regards the origin of the latter they were, as stated above, the children of the land. This shows, at least, that the colonization of Britain was of a much earlier date than the arrival of the Belgic tribes in the south. But the great questions, who were these early colonists, and whence came they, are shrouded in mists which seem impenetrable. Again were the Belga of Celtic or Teutonic origin? have read on this point is confused and unsatisfactory. We quote the opinion of a modern writer on these controverted topics:

All we

[ocr errors]

Upon the whole, the probability seems to be, that although the inhabitants of the inland part of south Britain, at the time of the Roman invasion, were the posterity of a much earlier colonization than that which had peopled the maritime parts of the island, yet both the tribes of the coast and those of the interior were of the same Celtic descent, and all spoke dialects of the same Celtic tongue. We find the evidences of this community of language and of lineage spread over the whole length of the country, from its northern boundary to the channel; for the oldest names of natural objects and localities, even in the portion of this range which is commonly understood to have been eventually occupied by Belgic colonies, are equally Celtic with those that occur elsewhere.

"It is not unlikely that a few settlements may have been effected, in very early times, on the west coast by the Spaniards, and on the east coast by emigrants from the opposite Scandinavian regions; but, with these exceptions, there appears to be little reason to doubt that the whole of what is now called England was first occupied by a Celtic population, which came over in successive swarms from the neighbouring country of Gaul. At any rate, it may be assumed that the first migration from the one to the other took place at a very early period, most probably considerably more than a thousand years before the commencement of our era. The Belgic colonization of the southern coast seems to have been an event of historic memory-that is to say, not yet transformed into the shape of fable-in Cæsar's day; and, therefore, we may suppose it to have happened within two or three centuries preceding that date."

With regard to the origin of the name Britain, numerous, ingenious, absurd, and extravagant have been the conjectures from time to time, as may be seen by consulting Camden and others on the matter. On becoming acquainted with these various etymologies, one by one, we are forcibly reminded of the old saying, "one story is good until another is told." One of the clearest and most sensible derivations of the name Britain which we have met with is the following :-" There can be

little doubt that the element tan, in Britannia, is the same word which we find forming a part of so many names of countries, both ancient and modern, such as Mauri-tan-ia, Aquitan-ia, Lusi-tan-ia, Kur-dis-tan, Afghanis-tan, Kuzis-tan, Louris-tan, Hindos-tan, &c. It appears to signify merely land or country, though it is not, we believe, found in that sense in any existing dialect of the Celtic; and, for anything that is known, it may after all be really Daoine, people, as suggested by Sir William Betham. Bruit, again, is the Celtic term for tin, or metal generally; so that Bruit-tan, or, as smoothed down by the Greeks and Romans, Britannia signifies altogether the metal or tin land-an epithet which would be naturally bestowed upon the country from the circumstance for which it probably first became known to other nations. The meaning of the name is exactly the same with that of the Greek Cassiterides, by which alone the British islands were known to Herodotus."

This cursory view of the early inhabitants of Britain will perhaps suffice for our present purpose, which is not to inquire minutely into the early history of the people, but to endeavour to determine their probable condition about the time of the Roman invasion. The ancient historians afford us but little aid in settling this important point; but, such as it is, it is almost all we possess. The Roman historians all agree in describing the Britons as barbarians. But, as Dr. Lingard remarks, this is a term of indefinite import. In fact, its signification is purely relative to the position in point of civilization occupied by those who use the term, and those to whom it is applied. At all events, its classic meaning should never be lost sight of when it is used with reference to the Britons, or it may mislead. No doubt the Britons were barbarous, in any sense of that term, compared with the proud, refined, and luxurious Romans, to whose superior power and discipline they were at last obliged to yield. Nevertheless, the natives of the south, compared with those of the north, were comparatively civilized. Their dress is said to have been of their own manufacture. What one might suppose to be the "better classes of the Britons (that is,

of the Southern Britons) appeared either in vest and trousers, or else a deeply-plaited tunic of braided cloth, over which was thrown a square mantle. This, considering their age and circumstances, was very respectable indeed. How many of our modern Britons, in this civilized nineteenth century, are not half so decent and comfortable in their attire. Their second finger displayed a ring, an article for which human beings, savage and civilized, ancient and modern, seem to have a peculiar, we had almost said mysterious, predilection. Their ideas of architecture do not appear to have been of a very extended or elegant description. We are told that their huts resembled those of their Gallic neighbours. Cæsar tells us that they made forests to answer the purpose of cities. They cut down a great number of trees, so as to make a large circle; within this they built huts for themselves and stalls for their cattle, of rather a frail and portable kind. According to Cæsar, they must have been great charioteers. In declivities and precipices they could stop their horses on full speed, and immediately check and turn them, run along the pole of the chariot, stand on the yoke, and, with the same rapidity, return to their chariots again. According to Diodorus Siculus, they raised more corn than was required to supply their immediate necessities, and stored it past in the ear, and rubbed out what they required for daily use. But these observations apply only to the Southern Britons. Farther inland, every trace of this comparative civilization and its scanty comforts disappeared. Agriculture and manufactures were nowhere in any shape to be met with; everywhere vast and wild tracts of country, with here and there a patch of pasture. The inhabitants depended for subsistence on the uncertain produce of the chase, the milk and flesh of their own flocks, or the fruits of trees. Living under these circumstances, they were patient of fatigue, hunger, and cold, to a very great degree. Dio Cassius says that they were able to remain immersed to the chin in water for the space of several days. These were the people before whose fierce and sanguinary nature the bravest legions of Rome trembled.

From this meagre, unconnected, and unsatisfactory account, we may at least

infer that the present beautiful country England, intersected as it is in every direction by railways and canals, smiling from one end to the other under the influence of enlightened and systematic agriculture, dotted with prosperous towns, adorned with magnificent villas, splendid palaces, and stately cathedrals the residence of the most enlightened people on earth-was, at the time above alluded to, covered with immense forests and marshes, and that, with the exception of portions of the south, the whole country was little, if at all, removed from a state of savage wildness,

chiefly inhabited by a people of Celtic blood, who, as is evident from the very brief accounts we have received of them, possessed in abundance all the characteristics which ethnographers have attributed to that remarkable racestrong animal and social feelings; violent passions and a strong tendency to quarrel; an almost ineradicable superstition; a courage which could scarcely be daunted, and a power of endurance which no fatigue could subdue ; but, at the same time, a total absence of perseverance, prudence, and solidity of character.

Our Study.

SCENE. A small room; a table, covered with books and writing materials.
PRUDENTIUS, CRITICUS, and FELIX seated round the fire.

PRUDENTIUS.—On my word, Felix, a goodly pile of books for our critical examination. You surely don't want us to read all these in one evening.

CRITICUS.-No! no! he only means you to put the knife into a page of each, like some people who, for mere mischief, will spoil the look of a dish without any intention of eating any of it.

FELIX.-You are both in the wrong, my good friends; some of these books are already acquaintances of yours, Prudentius; with others you, Criticus, have ere now dallied, and in their pleasant company forgot to criticise-while, for the rest, I can do master of the ceremonies to them, and introduce them "to a discerning public."

CRITICUS.-Aye! But don't commence like Sir John Sinclair, when, in the House of Commons, brandishing a cane, saying, "Mr. Speaker, such are my sentiments on this subject,"-rat-a-tat went his cane on the table-" such, I repeat, are my sentiments on the subject,"-rat-a-tat on the table again-" and if any one differ from me, he must be totally and decidedly wrong." Rat-a-tat, rat-a-tat, went his cane, fast and furious, to conclude his oration. You know you have an air of authority about you already, and I hate dogmatism.

FELIX.-Come, Criticus, that is rather severe; but the good Sir John must have looked rather foolish, drumming on the table in that manner, like some one I know in that trick.-Eh! Criticus!

66

PRUDENTIUS.-You have got a tit-for-tat now, I think; or, to be classic, a quid pro quo."

CRITICUS. [Taking up a book.]—Here's a quid for you.
FELIX.-What have you there.

CRITICUS." Lord George Bentinck, a Political Biography, by Benjamin D'Israeli, M.P."

FELIX. "Angels and ministers of grace defend us."

PRUDENTIUS. Be serious for once in your life, Felix, and look at the volume. It is worth reading, were it only to show how friendship hoodwinked a talented man. With much originality of thought, with many brilliant passages-such as the sketch of Sir Robert Peel, which, however, does not do him justice-and with many striking tableaux, the book is, as a whole, a failure. It is too party. I am annoyed at it, for I expected better things from D'Israeli.

FELIX. So did I. I recollected the talent shown in "Coningsby," "Sybil," and "Tancred," and dreamt of something superior to them.

CRITICUS. So did not I. D'Israeli is D'Israeli here, as in all his other books.

« НазадПродовжити »