Part 9 (1/2)

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 sc.r.a.ped 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 cra.s.s 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 Scop or Gleeman's Tale, and the Fight at Finnesburg,” says--”Unfortunately, as of Caedmon and the Codex Exoniensis, there is only a single ma.n.u.script of Beowulf extant, which I take to be of the first half of the eleventh century (MS. Cott. Vitellius A. 15). All ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.scripts, that of Beowulf may, I believe, be conscientiously p.r.o.nounced 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 ma.n.u.script 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 ma.n.u.script of Beowulf is unhappily among the most corrupt of all the Anglo-Saxon ma.n.u.scripts, 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 h.o.a.rd 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 surrept.i.tiously 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 ”pa.s.s 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, Devons.h.i.+re. One authority a.s.signs 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 Yorks.h.i.+re, 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 Ches.h.i.+re. The editor of the ”Imperial Gazetteer” a.s.signs 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 Oxfords.h.i.+re, and Bourne, and the neighbourhood of Barton-on-Humber, in Lincolns.h.i.+re, 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 Lincolns.h.i.+re, but he a.s.signs no reasons for his preference. Brunton, in Northumberland, and, I believe, some other places, have been suggested. The mere ident.i.ty 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 Lancas.h.i.+re, 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 ”pa.s.s 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 const.i.tuted the ”famous pa.s.s 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 h.o.a.rd consisted entirely of silver, and the belief of the workmen that the Roman bra.s.s 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 h.o.a.rds, 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 sh.o.r.es 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, a.s.sembled on the coasts, spread their canva.s.s to the winds, and seek an exile on the sh.o.r.es of Gaul.”

The ”pa.s.s 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 pa.s.sed through the county, and entered Ches.h.i.+re 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 a.s.sembled 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 Lancas.h.i.+re 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 s.h.i.+ps.” 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 leaders.h.i.+p 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 ”pa.s.s 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 c.u.mbrian 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 pa.s.sage of the fords with Athelstan's forces from the south. The ”pa.s.s of the Ribble,” from a topographical and military point of view, may therefore be a.s.sumed 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 doc.u.ment, still I think present topographical nomenclature south of the ”pa.s.s 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 ”pa.s.s of the Ribble,” has been written in various doc.u.ments 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 circ.u.mstances being very common, especially in Lancas.h.i.+re. 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 _u_ in Reuter, Muller, Prussien, 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 Nottinghams.h.i.+re, 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 antic.i.p.ated. Indeed, we find this phonetic subst.i.tution 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 Lincolns.h.i.+re, is sometimes written Bamburgh. Bramber, in Suss.e.x, 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 Ches.h.i.+re, 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 ”pa.s.s 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 towns.h.i.+p 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 h.o.a.rd 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 a.s.sume 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 c.o.c.ker 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 lords.h.i.+p 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 Lancas.h.i.+re, 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_,”