No More Learning

At
Silchester the Forum was a rectangular plot of two acres, with streets
running along all its four sides. It contained a central open court,
nearly 140 feet square, surrounded on three sides by corridors or cloisters
with rooms-presumably shops and lounges-opening into them; on the
fourth side was a pillared hall, 270 x 58 feet in floor space, decorated
with Corinthian columns, marble lined walls, statues and the like, and
behind this hall a row of rooms which probably served as offices for the
town authorities and the like. The Caerwent Municipal Buildings were
very similar: so (as far as we can tell from imperfect finds) were those
at Cirencester and Wroxeter. They are indeed examples of a type
which was represented in most large towns of the western Empire and
in Italy itself. (iii) Both towns had in addition small temples in
different quarters within the walls and at Silchester a small building
close to the Forum is so similar in every detail to the early Christian
church of the western “ basilican " type, that we can hardly hesitate to
call it a church. (iv) Both towns, again, seem to have had Public Baths:
those at Silchester covered an area of 80 by 160 feet in their earliest
form and in later times were much extended. Both again had more
direct provision for amusements. At Silchester an earthen amphitheatre
stood outside the walls : at Caerwent there are traces of the stone walls
of one inside the ramparts. (v) Of dwelling-houses and shops and the
like both towns had naturally no lack. The private houses are built
like most of the private houses in the Keltic part of the Empire, in
fashions very dissimilar from anything at Pompeii or Rome, but are
fitted in Roman style with mosaics, hypocausts, painted wall-plaster
and the like. They are specially noteworthy as being properly “ country
9
a
:


## p. 375 (#405) ############################################

Roman Britain: Towns, Country Houses
375
houses,” brought together to form a town perforce, and not “ town
houses” such as could be used to compose regular rows or terraces or
streets. Even the architecture thus declares that the town life of these
cantonal chef-lieux, though real, was incomplete.
The civilisation of the towns appears to have been of the Roman
type. Not only do the buildings declare this: inscriptions, and, in par-
ticular, casual scratchings on tiles or pots which can often be assigned to
the lower classes, prove that Latin was both read and written and spoken
easily in Silchester and Caerwent. Whether Keltic was also known, is
uncertain : here evidence is totally lacking. But it may be observed
that if Keltic was understood, one would expect to meet it, quite as
much as Latin, on casual sgraffiti, while the total disappearance of
a native tongue can be paralleled from southern Gaul and southern Spain
and is not incredible in towns. Nor do the smaller objects found at
Silchester and Caerwent shew much survival of the Late Keltic art which
prevailed in Britain in the pre-Roman age and which certainly survived
here and there in the island. But while Romanised, these towns are not
large or rich. It has been calculated that Silchester did not contain
more than eighty houses of decent size, and the industries traceable there
-in particular, some dyers' furnaces—do not indicate wealth or capital.
The Romano-British towns, it seems, were assimilated to Rome. But
they were not powerful enough to carry their Roman culture through
a barbarian conquest or impose it on their conquerors.
From the town we pass to the country. This seems to have been
divided
up among estates commonly (though perhaps unscientifically)
styled “villas. ” Of the residences, etc. which formed the buildings of
these estates many examples survive. Some are as large and luxurious
as any Gaulish nobleman's residence on the other side of the Channel.
Others are small houses or even mere farms or cottages. It is difficult,
on our present evidence, to deduce from these houses the agrarian
system to which they belonged, save that it was plainly no mere slave
system. But it is clear from the character of the residences and the
remains in them that they represent the same Romanised civilisation as
the towns, while a few chance sgraffiti suggest that Latin was used in
some, at least, of them. A priori, it is not improbable that, while the
towns were Romanised, the countryside remained to some extent Keltic
or bilingual. But all that is certain as yet is that scanty evidence
proves some knowledge of Latin. These country houses were very
irregularly distributed over the island. In some districts they abounded
and included splendid mansions : such districts are north Kent, west
Sussex, parts of Hants, of Somerset, of Gloucestershire, of Lincolnshire.
Other districts, notably the midlands of Warwickshire or Buckingham-
shire, contained very few “ villas” and indeed, as it seems, very few
inhabitants at all. The Romans probably found these latter districts
thinly peopled and they left them in the same condition.
CH. XIII.


## p. 376 (#406) ############################################

376
Roman Britain: Villages, Roads
-
9
>
Besides country houses and farms, the countryside also contained
occasional villages or hamlets inhabited solely by peasants; such have
been excavated in Dorsetshire by the late General Pitt-Rivers. These
villages testify, in their degree, to the spread of Roman material civilisa-
tion. However little their inhabitants understood of the higher aspects
of Roman culture, the objects found in them-pottery, brooches, etc. -
are much the same as those of the Romanised towns and “ villas” and
are widely different from those of the Keltic villages, such as those
lately excavated near Glastonbury, which belong to the latest pre-Roman
age.
The province was, on the whole, well provided with roads, some of
them constructed for military purposes, some obviously connected with
the various towns: whether any of them follow lines laid out by the
Britons before A. D. 43 is more than doubtful. In describing them, we
must put aside all notion of the famous “ Four Great Roads” of Saxon
times. That category of four roads was a medieval invention, probably
dating from the eleventh or twelfth century antiquaries, and the names
of the roads composing it are Anglo-Saxon names, some of which the
inventors of the “Four Roads" plainly did not understand. If we
examine the Roman roads actually known to us, we discern in the
English lowlands four main groups of roads radiating from the natural
geographical centre, London, and a fifth group crossing England from
north-east to south-west. The first ran from the Kentish ports and
Canterbury through the populous north Kent to London. The second
took the traveller west by Staines (Pontes) to Silchester and thence by
various branching roads to Winchester, Dorchester, Exeter, to Bath, to
Gloucester and south Wales. A third, known to the English as Watling
street, crossed the Midlands by Verulam to Wall near Lichfield (Leto-
cetum), Wroxeter, Chester (Deva) and mid and north Wales: it also,
by a branch from High Cross (Venonae) gave access to Leicester and
Lincoln. A fourth, running north-east from London, led to Colchester
and Caister by Norwich and (as it seems) by a branch through Cambridge
to Lincoln. The fifth group, unconnected with London, comprises two
roads of importance. One, named “Fosse” by the English, ran from
Lincoln and Leicester by High Cross to Cirencester, Bath and Exeter.
Another, probably called Ryknield street by the English, ran from the
north through Sheffield and Derby and Birmingham (of which Derby
alone is a Roman site) to Cirencester and in a fashion duplicated the
Fosse. There were also other roads—such as Akeman street, which
crossed the southern Midlands from near St Albans by way of Alchester
(near Bicester) to Cirencester and Bath—which must be considered as
independent of the main scheme. But, judged by the places they served
and by the posts along them, the five groups above indicated seem the
really important roads of southern or non-military Roman Britain.
The road systems of Wales and of the north were military and can


## p. 377 (#407) ############################################

A. D. 286–296] Roman Britain : Roads, Sea Communications 377
best be understood from a map. In Wales, roads ran along the south
and north coasts to Carmarthen and Carnarvon, while a road (Sarn
Helen) along the west coast connected the two, and interior roads-
especially one up the Severn from Wroxeter and one down the Usk-
connected the forts which guarded the valleys: these roads, however,
need further exploration before they can be fully set out. In the north,
three main routes are visible. One, starting from the legionary fortress
at York, ran north, with various branches, to places on the lower Tyne,
Corbridge, Newcastle (Pons Aelius), Shields. Another, diverging at
Catterick Bridge from the first, ran over Stainmoor to the Eden valley
and the Roman Wall near Carlisle. A third, starting from the legionary
fortress at Chester (Deva) passed north to the Lake country and by
various ramifications served all that is now Cumberland, Westmorland
and west Northumberland. Several of these roads appear, as it were,
in duplicate leading from the same general starting-point to the same
general destination, and no doubt, if we knew enough, we should find
that one of the two routes in question belonged to an older or a later
age than the other.
Communications with the Continent seem to have been conducted
chiefly between the Kentish ports and those of the opposite Gaulish
littoral, and in particular between Rutupiae (Richborough, just north of
Sandwich) and Gessoriacum, otherwise called Bononia, now Boulogne.
There was also not infrequent intercourse between Colchester and the
Rhine estuary, to which we may ascribe various German products found
in Roman Colchester, though not elsewhere in Roman Britain. On
occasion men also reached or left the island by long sea passages. Troops,
it appears, were sometimes shipped direct from Fectio (Vechten, near
Utrecht), the port of the Rhine, to the mouth of the Tyne in North-
umberland, while traders now and then sailed direct from Gaul to Ireland
and to British ports on the Irish Channel. The police of the seas was
entrusted to a classis Britannica, which intermittent references in our
authorities shew to have existed from the middle of the first century
(that is from the original conquest or soon after) till at least the end of
the third century. Despite its title, the principal station of this fleet
was not in Britain but at Boulogne, and its work was the preservation of
order on either coast of the Straits of Dover,
This fleet appears to
have been a police flotilla rather than a naval force, but for once it
emerged into the political importance which fleets often assume. About
286 a Menapian (i. e. probably, Belgian) by name Carausius became com-
mandant, possibly with extended powers to cope with the increasing
piracy; he set himself up as colleague to the two reigning emperors,
Maximian and Diocletian, enlarged his fleet, allied himself with the sea-
robbers, and in 289 actually extorted some kind of recognition at Rome.
But in 293 he was murdered and his successor Allectus was crushed by
the Emperor Constantius Chlorus in 296. Carausius was apparently an
CH. XIII.


## p. 378 (#408) ############################################

378
Roman Britain
(A. D. 300-380
able man.
But in his aims he differed little from many other pretenders
to the throne whom the later third century produced : his object was
not an independent Britain but a share in the government of the
Empire. His special significance is that he shewed, for the first time in
history, how a fleet might detach Britain from its geographical connexion
with the north-western Continent. Twelve centuries passed before this
possibility was again realised.
The preceding paragraphs have described the main features of
Roman Britain, civil and military, during the main part of its existence.
In the fourth century, change was plainly imminent. Barbarian sailors,
Saxons and others, began, as we have seen, rather earlier than 300
to issue from the other shores of the German Ocean and to vex the
coasts of Gaul and probably also those of Britain. Carausius in 286
or 287 was sent to repress them. After his and his successor's deaths,
some change, the nature of which is not yet quite clear, was made
in the classis Britannica, and we now hear hardly anything more of it
.
A system of coast defence was established from the Wash to the Isle
of Wight. It consisted of some nine forts, each planted on a harbour
and garrisoned by a regiment of horse or foot. The “British Fleet,"
so far as Britain was concerned, may have been divided up amongst
these forts or may have been entirely suspended. But it is difficult to
make out (owing to the general obscurity) whether the change was
made in the interests of coast defence or as a preventive against another
Carausius. The new system was known—from the name of the chief
assailant-as the Saxon Shore (Litus Saxonicum).
Whatever the step and whatever the motive, Britain appears for
a while to have escaped the Saxon pillages. During the first years of
the fourth century, it enjoyed indeed considerable prosperity. But no
Golden Age lasts long. Before 350, probably in 343, the Emperor
Constans had to cross the Channel and drive out the raiders-not Saxons
only, but Picts from the north and Scots (Irish) from the north-west.
This event opens the first act in the Fall of Roman Britain (343–383).
In 360 further interference was needed and Lupicinus, magister armorum,
was sent over from Gaul. Probably he effected little: certainly we read
that in 368 all Britain was in evil plight and Theodosius (father of
Theodosius I), Rome's best general at that time, was despatched with large
forces. He won a complete success. In 368 he cleared the invading
bands out of the south: in 369 he moved north, restoring towns and forts
and limites, including presumably Hadrian's Wall. So decisive was his
victory that one district—now unfortunately unidentifiable—which he
rescued from the barbarians, was named Valentia in honour of the then
Emperor of the West, Valentinian I. For some years after this Britain
disappears from recorded history, and may be thought to have enjoyed
comparative peace.
Such is the account given us by ancient writers of the period circa
:
2


## p. 379 (#409) ############################################

A. D. 380—410]
Roman Britain
379
a
343–383. It sounds as though things were already“ about as bad as they
could be. ” But a similar tale is told of many other provinces, and yet the
Empire survived. When Ausonius wrote his Mosella in 371, he described
the Moselle valley as a rich and fertile and happy countryside. Britain
had no Ausonius. But she can adduce archaeological evidence, which is
often more valuable than literature. The coins which have been found
in Romano-British “ villas,” ill-recorded as they too often are, give us a
clue. They suggest that some country houses and farms were destroyed
or abandoned as early as 350 or 360, but that more of them remained
occupied till about 385 or even later. It is not surprising to read in
Ammianus that about 360 Britain was able to export corn regularly to
northern Germany and Gaul. The first act in the Fall of Roman
Britain contained trouble and disturbance, no doubt, but few disasters.
The second act (383 to about 410) brought greater evils and of a new
kind. In 383 an officer of the British army, by birth a Spaniard, by
name Magnus Maximus, proclaimed himself Emperor, crossed with many
troops to Gaul and conquered western Europe: in 387 he seized Italy:
in 388 he was overthrown by the legitimate Emperors. Later British
tradition of the sixth century asserted that his British troops never
returned home and that the island was thus left defenceless. We cannot
verify this tradition. But we have proof, both that Britain was sore
pressed and that the central government tried to help it. Claudian
alludes to measures taken by Stilicho, prime minister to the then Emperor
Honorius, about 395-8. Archaeological evidence shews that the coast-fort
of Pevensey (Anderida) was repaired under Honorius, and that a fort was
built high on the summit of Peak, overhanging the Yorkshire coast half-
way between Whitby and Scarborough, by an officer of the same period
who is known to have been in Britain a little after 400. These efforts
were in vain. Troops--not necessarily legionaries though Claudian
calls them legio-had to be withdrawn for the defence of Italy in 402.
Finally, the Great Raid of barbarians who crossed the Rhine on
the winter's night which divided 406 from 407 and the subsequent
barbarian attack on Rome itself cut Britain off from the Mediterranean.
The so-called “ departure of the Romans” speedily followed. This
departure did not mean any great departure of persons, Roman or
other, from the island. It meant that the central government in Italy
now ceased to send out the usual governors and other high officials and
to organise the supply of troops. No one went: some persons failed to
a
come.
How far the British themselves were responsible for, or even agreeable
to, this sundering of an ancient tie is, even after the latest inquiries, not
very certain. The old idea that Britons and Romans were still two
distinct and hostile racial elements has, of course, been long abandoned
by all competent inquirers—for reasons which the preceding pages will
have made evident. But we have the names of three usurpers who tried
CH, XIIJ.


## p. 380 (#410) ############################################

380
Roman Britain: Saxon Conquest [A. D. 300–446
:
:
to seize the imperial crown in Britain (406–11), Marcus, Gratian
and Constantine, and it seems that, as Constantine went off to seek a
throne on the Continent, the Britons left to themselves set up a local
autonomy for self-protection. Unfortunately, our ancient authorities are
less clear than could be wished, especially on the chronology of these
events. One thing which seems certain is that Britain did not conceive
herself as breaking loose from the Empire and that in the years to come
the Britons considered themselves “Romans. ” If we may believe Gildas,
they even appealed for help to Aëtius, the Roman minister, in 446.
The attacks of the “Saxons” had begun before 300 and though
at first their brunt fell more heavily on the Gaulish than on the British
coasts, they were felt seriously in Britain from about 350 onwards.
At first, they were the attacks of mere pillagers : later, like the later
attacks of the barbarians elsewhere, they became invasions of settlers.
When exactly the change took place, is unknown, nor is it clear what
incident gave the stimulus. It seems probable, however, that the
Britons of the early fourth century, harassed by attacks of all kinds,
adopted the common device—even more familiar in that
age
than in
any other—and set a thief to catch a thief. The man who set is named
in the legends Vortigern of Kent; the thieves who were set, are called
Hengest and Horsa. We need not attach much weight to these names,
nor can we hope to fix a precise date. But the incident is sufficiently well
attested and sufficiently probable to find acceptance, and it obviously
occurred early in the fifth century. It had the natural result. The
English, called in to protect, remained to rule: they formed settle-
ments on the east coast and began the English invasion. But they
began it under conditions altogether different from those which
attended the barbarian conquests on the Continent. The English were
more savage and hostile to civilisation than most of the continental
invaders ; on the other hand, they were far less overwhelmingly
numerous. The Romano-British culture was less strong and coherent
than the civilisation of Roman Gaul, but the Britons themselves—at
least those in the hills-were no less ready to fight than the bravest of
the continental provincials. The sequel was naturally different in the
two regions.
The course of the invasion is a matter for English historians. But
part of it depends on Romano-British archaeology. This seems to
contradict violently the chronology which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
sets out in suspiciously precise detail. We know that Wroxeter was
burnt and we have evidence that the burning occurred soon after (if
indeed it was not before) A. D. 400. We must treat this evidence
cautiously, since not a fiftieth part of the site has yet been explored.
But at Silchester, which has been all uncovered, the spade has told us
that the town was abandoned (not burnt), and as a limit for the date,
we find no coins which need be later than about A. D. 420. The same


## p. 381 (#411) ############################################

Roman Britain : Saxon Conquest
381
absence of fifth century coins may be noted on other sites which have
been sufficiently explored to yield trustworthy testimony. It would
seem as if the invaders, entering Britain on its eastern and least defensible
side, were able, like the Romans four centuries earlier, rapidly to sweep
over the lowlands, but were not able to maintain their hold. Thus for
several generations this region became a debatable land, where neither
Romano-British city life could safely endure nor the English take firm
hold and settle. In the long confusion, the Romano-British civilisation
of the lowlands perished. The towns, burnt or abandoned, lay waste
and empty. Even Durovernum (Canterbury), presumably the capital of
Vortigern, whom the legend mates with a Saxon wife, ceased to exist,
and at the healing springs of Aquae Sulis (Bath) the wild birds built their
nests in the marsh which hid the ruins. The country houses and farms
perished even more easily: not one is known in which we can trace
English inhabitants succeeding to British. The old native tribal areas
and the Roman administrative boundaries were alike lost: to-day we
have no certain knowledge of any of them. The Roman speech vanished;
the Romano-British material civilisation, and the house plans and house-
furniture, hypocausts and mosaics, even the fashions of brooches and
pottery, vanished with it. Only the solid aggeres of the roads remained
still in use, and in these, too, there were gaps and intervals. All else
was but the scattered débris of a ruined world.
Meanwhile the Romanised Britons, in losing the lowlands, lost their
towns and all the apparatus of town life. They retired into the hills,
to Wales and to the north the later Strathclyde—and there, in a region
where Roman civilisation had never established itself in its higher forms,
they underwent an intelligible change. The Keltic element, never quite
extinct in those hills and reinforced perhaps by immigrations from
Ireland, reasserted itself afresh. Gradually, the remnants of Roman
civilisation were worn down : the Keltic speech reappeared and, as a
sequel, the Late Keltic art was strong enough to pass on an artistic
legacy to the Middle Ages.
CH. XIII.


## p. 382 (#412) ############################################

382
Bede's account of the Conquest
[4504477
(B)
TEUTONIC CONQUEST OF BRITAIN.
According to Bede, who wrote his Ecclesiastical History about a. d. 731,
the Teutonic invasions of Britain began during the joint reign of Marcian
and Valentinian III, that is, between the years A. D. 450 and 455. Bede
states that the invaders came from three powerful nations, the Saxons,
Angles and Jutes. From the Jutes came those who occupied Kent and
the Isle of Wight with the adjacent coast of Hampshire, from the
Saxons came the people of Essex, Sussex and Wessex, and from the
Angles the East Anglians, Middle Anglians and Northumbrians. He
adds that the Saxons were sprung from the Old Saxons and that the
Angles came from a district called Angulus, which lay between the
territories of the Jutes and those of the Saxons, and was said to be still
unoccupied in his day. The leaders of this invasion, according to Bede,
were two brothers named Hengest and Horsa, from the former of whom
the Kentish royal family claimed to be descended. They were summoned
in the first place by the British king Wyrtgeorn (Vortigern) to defend
him against the assaults of his northern foes, and received a reward in
territory in return for their assistance, but a quarrel soon broke out on
account of the alleged failure of the king to redeem his promises. The
Saxon Chronicle amplifies Bede's account by mentioning certain battles,
the result of which was to transfer Kent to the possession of the invaders.
Of these events, however, a far more detailed account is furnished by
the Historia Brittonum known by the name of Nennius, which narrates
that the British nobles were treacherously massacred by Hengest at
a conference, and that the king himself was captured and only released
on the cession of certain provinces.
After this a heroic resistance was
offered to the invaders by the king's son Vortemir.
The Saxon Chronicle is our only authority for two stories dealing
with the early history of the kingdoms of Sussex and Wessex. The
foundation of the former kingdom is attributed to a certain Aelle, who
is said to have landed in 477. This person is mentioned by Bede as the
first king who gained a hegemony (imperium) over the neighbouring
English kings, though he gives no account of his exploits and assigns no
date for his reign. The foundation of the kingdom of Wessex is attri-
buted in the Chronicle to a certain Cerdic and his son Cynric, who are
said to have arrived about forty years after Hengest and to have


## p. 383 (#413) ############################################

375–630]
Other accounts. Probable date
383
eventually established their position after a number of conflicts with
the Britons. This story is connected, according to the same authority,
with the occupation of the Isle of Wight, which is said to have been
given by Cerdic to his nephews Stuf and Wihtgar (530).
It is difficult to determine how much historical fact underlies these
stories. Little value can be attached to the dates given in the Saxon
Chronicle. It is clear too that we have to deal with an aetiological
element, especially in the West Saxon story. Indeed this story is the
most suspicious of the three. In making Cynric the son of Cerdic the
account is at variance even with the genealogy contained in the Chronicle
itself, while it is also very curious that Cerdic, the founder of the kingdom,
bears what appears to be a Welsh name.
The only reference to the invasion which can be regarded as in any
way contemporary occurs in an anonymous Gaulish Chronicle' which
comes to an end in the year 452. It is there stated that in 441-2
after many disasters the provinces of Britain were subdued by the Saxons.
This date would appear to be irreconcilable with that given by Bede
for the arrival of Hengest, and the discrepancy has given rise to a
good deal of discussion. Yet another date 428-9 is given by an entry
in the Historia Brittonum, the source of which cannot be traced.
The difference in all these cases is of comparatively little moment.
Some scholars however hold that the invasions began at a much earlier
time, during the latter half of the fourth century. The authority
of the passage in the Historia Brittonum which states that the
Saxons came in 375 can hardly be upheld. More importance is perhaps
to be attached to the fact that part of the coast of Britain is called
Litus Saxonicum in the Notitia Dignitatum, which was drawn up in the
early years of the fifth century; as this may indicate that Saxon
settlements had already taken place in this island. Yet if this be so
these Saxons must have been subject to the Roman authorities. Whether
they had any connexion with Hengest's invasion we have no means of
determining
The first reference to the Saxons occurs in a work dating from the
middle of the second century A. D. , namely the Geography of Ptolemy
(11. 11. $ 8), in which they are said to occupy the neck of the Cimbric
Peninsula (presumably the region which now forms the province of
Schleswig), together with three islands off its west coast. The Angles
are mentioned half a century earlier by Tacitus in his Germania (cap. 40).
No precise indication is given of their position, but they are clearly
represented as a maritime people and the connexion in which their name
1 This Chronicle is printed by Mommsen in M. G. H. Tom. IX. He ascribes
its authorship to a monk of the south of France, perhaps of Marseilles, owing to
the commendation of Bishop Proculus contained in it. There are other references
to Britain in this Chronicle, which are apparently original, including a notice of
victories won by Maximus over the Picts and Scots.
CH. XIII.


## p. 384 (#414) ############################################

384
The Invaders. Early notices
occurs would suggest the Baltic coast, though Tacitus appears to have
little knowledge of that region. Such indications as are given are
perfectly compatible with the traditions of later times, which place the
original home of the Angles on the east coast of Schleswig. To the
Jutes we have no reference earlier than the sixth century.
The Saxons no doubt belonged to the same stock as the Old Saxons
of the Continent. In the fourth century we find this people settled in
the district between the lower Elbe and the Zuiderzee. According to
.
their own traditions they had come thither by sea, and certainly we have
no evidence of their presence in that region during the first century,
when it was well known to the Romans and frequently traversed by
their armies. Whether the Saxons who invaded Britain came from the
peninsula or from the region west of the Elbe cannot be decided with
certainty, but since they appear to have been practically indistinguishable
from the Angles the former alternative seems more probable. In any
case they were a maritime people and their piratical ravages are frequently
mentioned from the close of the third century onwards.
The Angles, on the other hand, are never mentioned by Roman
writers from the time of Tacitus until the sixth century, when they
were settled in Britain. In their case however we have certain heroic
traditions which appear to have been preserved independently both in
England and Denmark. These traditions centre round an old king
named Wermund and his son Offa, of whom the latter is said to have
won great glory in a single combat, the scene of which was fixed by
Danish tradition at Rendsburg on the Eider. From him the Mercian
royal family traced their descent, while the royal family of Wessex
claimed to derive their origin from a certain Wig the son of Freawine,
both of whom according to Danish tradition were governors of Schleswig
under the kings above mentioned. The date indicated by the genealogies
for the reigns of these kings is the latter half of the fourth century.
It is a much debated question whether the Jutes who settled in
Britain came from Jutland. In the course of the sixth century we hear
twice of a people of this name which came into conflict with the Franks,
probably in western Germany, but it is by no means impossible that
this also was a case of invasion from Jutland.
The same
probably occurs also in connexion with the heroic story of Finn and
Hengest, with regard to which our information is unfortunately very
defective.
We have no satisfactory evidence of any linguistic differences between
the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. The divergencies of dialect which appear
in our earliest records are at first only slight and such as may very well
have
grown up
after the invasion of Britain. The language as a whole
must be pronounced homogeneous, its nearest affinities being with the
Frisian dialects. Nor with regard to customs or institutions have we
any evidence of a distinction between the Angles and Saxons. On the
name


## p. 385 (#415) ############################################

Language of the Invaders.
Their civilisation
385
other hand the Kentish laws exhibit a marked divergence from those of
the other kingdoms, in respect of the constitution of society, a diver-
gence which can scarcely have come into existence subsequent to the
invasion. We have no information with regard to the characteristics
of the Hampshire Jutes.
It
may be doubted whether all those who took part in the invasion
of Britain belonged to the three nationalities which we have been
discussing. The attempts made from time to time to trace the presence
of settlers belonging to other peoples cannot be pronounced successful,
and when Procopius speaks of Frisians inhabiting our island together
with Angles and Britons it is possible that he may mean either the
Jutes or the Saxons. Yet considering the numbers which must have
been required for such an undertaking, it is highly probable that the
invading forces were augmented by adventurers from all the regions
bordering on the North Sea, perhaps even from districts more remote.
With regard to the state of civilisation attained by the maritime
Teutonic peoples at the period when these settlements took place, a good
deal of information is afforded by their earliest cemeteries in this country
as well as by others on the opposite side of the North Sea. Amongst
the latter perhaps the most important is that of Borgstedterfeld near
Rendsburg, where the remains found shew much affinity to those
discovered in this country. Much is also to be learnt from the great
bog-deposits at Thorsbjaerg and Nydam in the east of Schleswig, the
latter of which appears to be only slightly earlier than the cemetery of
Borgstedterfeld. In a district slightly more remote, at Vi in Fyen, a
still larger deposit has been found dating from about the same period.
Among the most interesting objects found at Nydam were two clinker-
built boats about seventy feet long which are preserved practically
complete. A very large number of weapons were also found in this and
the other deposits. At Nydam were found 550 spears and 106 swords,
a large number of which bear the marks of Roman provincial workshops.
At Vi was discovered a complete coat of mail containing twenty thousand
rings. Fragments of such articles together with silver and bronze helmets
were found at Thorsbjaerg. This deposit also yielded some articles of
clothing in a fair state of preservation, among them cloaks, coats, long
trousers and shoes. Taken together the evidence of the various deposits
shews conclusively not only that the warriors of the period were armed
in a manner not substantially improved upon for many centuries
afterwards, but also that certain arts, such as that of weaving, had been
carried to a high degree of perfection.
The form of writing employed by the invaders of Britain was the
Runic alphabet. The origin of this is uncertain, but it was widely used
by the inhabitants of Scandinavian countries from perhaps the fourth
century A. D. until late in the Middle Ages. A few early inscriptions
have been found in Germany. In England itself we have scarcely any
C. MED. H. VOL. I. CH. XIII.
25


## p. 386 (#416) ############################################

386
Archaeological and Literary evidence
inscriptions dating from the first two centuries after the invasion, but
in the seventh century the Mercian kings engraved their coins with it,
and about the same time and perhaps down to the end of the eighth
century it was used on sepulchral monuments in Northumbria as well as
on various small articles found in different parts of the country.
It may be noted that inscriptions in the same alphabet were found in
the deposits at Thorsbjaerg and Nydam and also on one of the two
magnificent horns found at Gallehus in Jutland, which perhaps represent
the highest point reached by the art of the period.
Apart from this archaeological evidence a considerable amount of
information may be derived from the remains of ancient heroic poetry.
For although these poems, as we have them, date only from the seventh
century, there is no reason for supposing that the civilisation which they
portray differs substantially from that of a century or two earlier. The
weapons and other articles which they describe appear to be identical in
type with those found in the deposits already mentioned, while the dead
are disposed of by cremation, a practice which apparently went out of
use during the sixth century. The poems are essentially court works,
and scanty as they unfortunately are, they give us a vivid picture of the
court life of the period with which they deal. This period is substantially
that of the Conquest of Britain, namely, from the fourth to the sixth
century, but it is a remarkable fact that these works never mention
Britain itself and very seldom persons of English nationality. The
scene of Beowulf is laid in Denmark and Sweden and the characters
belong to the same regions, while Waldhere is concerned with the
Burgundians and their neighbours. Many of these characters can be
traced in German and Norse literature, and the evidence seems to point
to the existence of a widespread court poetry which we may perhaps
almost describe as international.
Concerning the religion of the invading peoples little can be stated
with certainty. Almost all that we know of Teutonic mythology comes
from Icelandic sources, and it is difficult to determine how much of this
was peculiar to Iceland and how much was common to Scandinavian
countries and to the Teutonic nations in general. The English evidence
unfortunately is particularly scanty. However there is little doubt that
the chief divinity among the military class was Woden, from whom
most of the royal families claimed to be descended. Thunor, presumably
the Thunder-God, may be traced in many place-names and Ti (Tiw) is
found in glosses as a translation of Mars. All these deities together
with Frig have left a record of themselves in the names of the days of
the week. The East Saxon royal family claimed descent from a certain
Seaxneat who appears to have been a divinity. There is evidence also
of belief in elves, valkyries and other supernatural beings.
On their forms of worship we have scarcely any more information.
In Northumbria at any rate there seems to have been a special class of


## p. 387 (#417) ############################################

Religion. Calendar. Agriculture
387
priests who were not allowed to bear arms or to ride except on mares.
Sanctuaries are occasionally mentioned, but we do not know whether
these were temples or merely sacred groves. A number of religious
festivals are also recorded by Bede, especially during the winter months.
It may be remarked in passing that the calendar appears to have been of
the “modified lunar” type with an intercalary month added from time
to time. The year is said to have begun-approximately, we must
presume—at the winter solstice. There are some indications however
which suggest that at an earlier period it may have begun after the
harvest.
There is no doubt that the invading peoples possessed a highly
developed system of agriculture long before they landed in this country.
Many agricultural implements have been found among the bog-deposits
in Schleswig. Representations of ploughing operations occur in rock-
carvings in Bohuslän (Sweden) which date from the Bronze Age, at least
a thousand years earlier than the invasion. All the ordinary cereals
were well known and cultivated, though on the other hand the system of
cultivation followed in this country was probably a continuation of that
which had previously been employed here. There is no evidence that
the heavy plough with eight oxen was used before the invasion by the
conquerors. The water-mill doubtless first became known to them
in Britain, and for ages afterwards it failed to oust the quern. In
horticulture the advance made was very great: the names of practically
all vegetables and fruits are derived from Latin, and though the
knowledge of a few of their names may have filtered through from the
Rhine provinces, there can be little doubt that the great bulk were first
acquired in this country.
These considerations bring us to the much disputed question as to
what became of the native population. The insignificance of the British
element in the English language is scarcely explicable unless the invaders
came over in very large numbers. On the other hand, many scholars
have probably gone too far in supposing that the native population was
entirely blotted out. British records say that they were massacred or
enslaved. In later times, i. e. in the eleventh century, the number of
slaves in England was not great, but it is not safe to infer that such was
the case four or five centuries earlier. Indeed the little evidence that
we have on this question suggests that in some districts at least they
were a very numerous class. There can be little doubt at all events that
the first invasions were essentially of a military character. Attempts
have been made to trace in various quarters settlements of kindreds
especially from the occurrence of place-names with the suffixes -ingas,
-ingatun, etc. , but the evidence is at best exceedingly ambiguous.
Among the Scandinavians who took part in the great invasion of 866
we can trace various grades of officials (corlas, holdas, etc. ) between whom
the land appears to have been partitioned, and although we have no
CH. XIII.
25-2


## p. 388 (#418) ############################################

388
Probable nature and course of the Invasion (552–866
a
contemporary evidence of what took place in the Saxon invasion, there
is a prima facie probability that a similar course was followed. To the
present writer it seems incredible that so great an undertaking as the
invasion of Britain should have been accomplished without the employ-
ment of large and organised forces. The earliest records we possess
furnish abundant evidence for the existence of a very numerous military
class of different grades, while the provincial government appears to
have been vested in the hands of royal officials and not in popular bodies.
From archaeological evidence and from the character of local
nomenclature we can to a certain extent determine the area occupied
by the invaders at various periods, although very much remains to be
done in these fields of investigation. Thus the practice of cremation is
found in early cemeteries in the valley of the Trent and in various parts
of the Thames valley as far west as Brighthampton in Oxfordshire,
but there is scarcely any evidence for its employment further to the
west. In local nomenclature again changes may be observed—thus
the proportion of place-names ending in the suffix -ham to those ending
in the suffix -ton decreases as we proceed from east to west. So far
as the evidence is at present collected it would seem to indicate that
the eastern and south-eastern counties, together with the banks of the
large rivers for some distance inland, shew an earlier type of Saxon
nomenclature than the rest of the country. But it is highly probable
that as in the case of the invasion of 866 a much larger area was
ravaged by the invaders than was actually settled by them at first.
The account of the invasion given by Gildas, vague as it unfortunately
is, points distinctly to the same conclusion. He speaks in the first place
of a time when the country was harried far and wide, when the cities
were spoiled, and the inhabitants slain or enslaved. Then came a time
when the natives under Ambrosius Aurelianus began to offer a more
effective resistance, from which time forward war continued with varying
success until the siege of Mons Badonicus. From the time of that
siege until the date when Gildas wrote, the Britons had had no serious
trouble from the invaders, though faction was rife among themselves.
Unfortunately he supplies us with no means of dating the course of
events with certainty except that apparently the period of comparative
peace had lasted forty-four years. The Cambrian Annals date the siege
of Mons Badonicus in 518, but they also date in 549 the death of Maelgwn
king of Gwynedd who is mentioned by Gildas as alive. The majority
of scholars accept the latter of these dates and reject the former, placing
the date of the siege towards the end of the fifth century. The evidence
of Gildas then on the whole leads us to conclude that the Conquest of
Britain may be divided into two distinct periods. The first occupied
some fifty years from the beginning of the invasion, while the second can
hardly have begun much before the middle of the sixth century.
Among the invaders themselves a number of separate kingdoms


## p. 389 (#419) ############################################

552–688] The English kingdoms. Growth of Wessex
389
arose.
It is commonly held that these kingdoms were the outcome of
separate invasions, but no evidence is forthcoming in favour of such a
view, and it seems at least as likely that several of them arose out of
subsequent divisions, as was the case after the Scandinavian invasion in
the ninth century. The kingdoms which we find actually existing in
our earliest historical records are ten in number: (1) Kent, (2) Sussex,
(3) Essex, (4) Wessex, (5) East Anglia, (6) Mercia, (7) Hwicce, (8) Deira,
(9) Bernicia, (10) Isle of Wight. There are traces also of a kingdom
in the district between Mercia, Middle Anglia, East Anglia and Essex
—perhaps Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire—while from Lindsey we
have what appears to be the genealogy of a royal family. There is no
clear evidence that Middlesex and Surrey were separate kingdoms at any
time, though (if certain disputed charters are genuine) the latter was
under a ruler who styled himself subregulus in the latter part of the
seventh century. The balance of probability is in favour of the view
that both these provinces originally formed part of Essex.
We have already mentioned that little value is to be attached to the
dates given for the foundation and early progress of the kingdom of
Wessex. They are apparently quite incompatible with the testimony of
Gildas. Moreover that part of the story which relates to the Isle of
Wight is difficult to reconcile with Bede's account, since it altogether
ignores the existence of Jutish settlements in this quarter. According
to Bede the Isle of Wight retained a dynasty of its own until the time
of Ceadwalla (685-688), by whom it was mercilessly ravaged. The
Chronicle states, as we have seen, that the island was given by Cerdic to
his nephews Stuf and Wihtgar and barely mentions the devastations of
Ceadwalla. Further, according to Bede, the greater part of the coast
of Hampshire was occupied by Jutes. These likewise are ignored by
the Chronicle, which seems to imply that the West Saxon invasion
started from this quarter. In view of these difficulties some scholars
have been inclined to suspect that the annals dealing with the early
part of the West Saxon invasion are entirely of a fictitious character,
and that the West Saxon invaders really spread from a different quarter,
perhaps the valley of the Thames, and at a later date than that assigned
by the Chronicle. It is to be hoped that in the future archaeological
research may throw light on this difficult question.
The difficulties presented by Gildas cease when we reach the middle
of the sixth century. From this time onwards, although we have no
means of checking them, the entries in the Chronicle may be records
of real events which took place approximately at the times assigned to
them. The first entry of this series is the account of a fight between
Cynric and the Britons at Salisbury in 552: the second records a
similar conflict in 556 at Beranburg, which has been identified with
Barbury Camp near Swindon. In 560 Cynric is said to have been
succeeded by Ceawlin, who in 568 had a successful encounter with
CH. XIII.


## p. 390 (#420) ############################################

390
The Hwicce. .
Mercia. Deira
[571-615
Aethelberht king of Kent. In 571 another prince apparently West
Saxon, by name Cuthwulf, fought with the Britons at a place called
Bedcanford, commonly supposed to be Bedford, and gained possession
of Bensington, Aylesbury, Eynsham and perhaps Lenborough. If we are
to trust this entry it would seem to mean that Buckinghamshire and
Oxfordshire were conquered by the West Saxons at this time. In 577
Ceawlin and another West Saxon prince named Cuthwine are said to
have fought against the Britons at Deorham (identified with Dyrham
in Gloucestershire) and gained possession of Bath, Cirencester and
Gloucester.
Ceawlin is the first West Saxon king mentioned by Bede. The same
historian states that he was the first English king after Aelle, whose
overlordship (imperium) was recognised by the other kings. We need
not doubt that the records of his victories have some solid foundation,
About a century later we find in the basins of the Severn and Avon, in
Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and part of Warwickshire, the kingdom
of the Hwicce with a dynasty of its own which lasted down to the time
of Offa. This kingdom can hardly have come into existence before
Ceawlin's successful westward movements, but we have no information
as to its origin, as to the date when it was separated from Wessex, or
whether its dynasty was a branch of the West Saxon royal family.
In the basin of the Trent both north and south of that river lay the
Mercian kingdom, the name of which seems to imply that it grew out
of frontier settlements. Its royal family traced its descent from the
ancient kings of Angel, but we do not know whether the kingdom
itself was due to an independent movement, or whether like that of the
Hwicce it was an offshoot from one or more eastern kingdoms. The
first king of whom we have any definite record is a certain Cearl who
flourished early in the seventh century and married his daughter to the
Northumbrian king Edwin. Eventually the kingdom of Mercia absorbed
all its immediate neighbours, Lindsey, Middle Anglia and Hwicce,
together with parts of Essex and Wessex. In the sixth century however
it was probably of comparatively limited extent. Chester appears to
have remained in possession of the Britons until about the year 615,
and it is scarcely probable that the western districts of the Wreocensaete
and Magasaete, corresponding to the present counties of Shropshire and
Herefordshire, were occupied until still later.
To the north of the Humber we find the two kingdoms of Deira and
Bernicia. Concerning the former, which appears to have coincided with
the eastern half of Yorkshire, we have very little information. The first
king of whom we have record is a certain Aelle who was reigning at the
time when Gregory met with English slave-boys in Rome (585–8).