Part 30

That Ireland should have remained for so long a period and to so great an extent unconnected with the neighbouring nations, was undoubtedly caused partly by its remote situation, partly by the indolence of the Irish and the disinclination so general among the Celts to traverse the sea, to which an old author (Giraldus Cambrensis) expressly alludes. It must partly also be ascribed to the peculiar hostile position which the Irish were obliged to assume towards the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, and Franks; since these people having gradually conquered the Celtic countries, France and England, naturally only awaited a favourable opportunity to make themselves masters of Celtic Ireland also. According to this we might even, perhaps, regard the isolation of Ireland as a necessary system of self-defence adopted by the Irish.

But no sooner were the Norwegians and Danes settled in the chief cities of Ireland, than Irish trade and navigation obtained an extent and importance before unknown. An active commerce was opened with England and Normandy through the numerous and influential Scandinavian merchants settled in those countries, as well as, of course, with the mother countries of Scandinavia. In Ireland, therefore, as well as in England, Arabian coins, minted in countries near the Caspian Sea, are here and there found buried, which have evidently been imported by Scandinavian merchants. The Sagas mention regular trading voyages to Ireland from Norway, and even from Iceland; where there was, for instance, a man named Rafn, who was commonly called Rafn Hlimreksfarer (Eng., _Limerick trader_), on account of his regular voyages to Limerick (Limerick being called by the old Northmen, Hlimrek). The Sagas further mention, under the head of Ireland, “Kaupmannaeyjar” (Eng., _the merchant islands_), probably what are now called “Copeland Islands,” on the north-eastern coast, where there may have been a sort of rendezvous for the ships of Scandinavian merchants. The Icelandic and Norwegian ships brought fish, hides, and valuable furs to the English and Irish coasts; whence, again, they carried home costly stuffs and clothes, corn, honey, wine, and other products of the south.

These accounts of the old Northmen, respecting their commerce in Ireland, are far from being unsupported. The Welsh author, Giraldus Cambrensis, who visited Ireland during the English conquest, whilst the Ostmen were still living there in considerable numbers, says in plain words that they had settled near the best harbours in Ireland, where they built themselves towns, and that they had by no means come to the country as enemies, but with the design of carrying on a peaceful trade. He adds that for this reason the Irish chiefs, who clearly saw the importance and advantages of commercial connections with other countries, had not at first in any way opposed the establishment of these foreign towns in their country; but that, after the Ostmen had very much increased, and after their towns had become well fortified, the old dissensions between them and the Irish revived.

In perfect accordance with this are the statements of the Irish themselves respecting the many Scandinavian merchants in the towns of the Ostmen. An old Irish manuscript relating to the battle of Clontarf (“Cath Chluana Tarbh”) states that, after the battle, “no Danes were left in the kingdom, except such a number of artisans and merchants in Dublin, Waterford, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick, as could be easily mastered at any time, should they dare to rebel; and these King Brian very wisely permitted to remain in these seaport towns, for the purpose of encouraging trade and traffic, as they possessed many ships, and were experienced sailors.” Duald Mac Firbis also says in his chronicles that in his time (1650) “most of the merchants in Dublin were the descendants of the Norwegian-Irish king, Olaf Kvaran.”

That the Norwegians and Danes must really have possessed themselves of the Irish trade, and given it a new impulse, clearly appears from the circumstance that the Norwegian kings in Ireland were the first who caused coins to be minted there. One of these coins, which formerly belonged to the Timm’s collection in Copenhagen, but which is now in the collection of M. von Römer, in Dresden, seems (according to the opinion of that distinguished numismatologist C. J. Thomsen, of Copenhagen) to have been minted by a Scandinavian king of Dublin, as early as the eighth or ninth century. It is an imitation of the ancient Merovingian coins, and has a remarkable inscription on the obverse, half in runes and half in Latin letters, but which can scarcely be read otherwise than “Cunut u Dieflio,” or, Canute in Dublin.

The Old Northmen call Dublin “Dýflin,” whence the surrounding district also obtained the name of “Dýflinarskiri,” as appears in the Sagas. This legible inscription encircles the bust of a royal warrior, clad in scale armour. On the reverse are seen the letters ENAE, and under them two figures, both turning their faces upwards in the same direction, and each extending a very large hand, whilst in their other hands, joined together, they hold a ring, as if they were taking an oath on the holy ring. They are, besides, represented as standing before, or sitting on, an elevated platform (perhaps an altar?), under which is a mark (∾) like the letter S placed on its side. These figures probably contain an allusion to some treaty concluded between an Irish king and the Scandinavian king Canute.

By the kindness of Mr. C. F. Herbst, of Copenhagen, I have been enabled to give a woodcut of this silver coin, the only one of its kind, and never before copied. The drawing was made from a cast taken in Dresden. If the preceding explanation, which is certainly by no means far-fetched, be the right one, we shall consequently have a proof that other Scandinavian kings, besides Olaf the White, the first-mentioned in the Sagas, reigned at a very early period in Dublin, if only for a short time. But all the rest of the Norwegian coins minted in Ireland are of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. They are of silver, and undoubtedly coined in various towns of Ireland besides Dublin, as in Limerick, Cork, Waterford, and several other towns where the Ostmen had settled.

The most remarkable of all are the Dublin coins, especially those with the legend “Sihtric rex Dyfl,” or, Sigtryg king of Dublin. It is true that there were several kings of Dublin of this name in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries; but the coins alluded to, to judge from the impressions, all of which are imitations of contemporary Anglo-Saxon dies, and especially of those of King Ethelred the Second, must for the most part have belonged to Sigtryg, surnamed “Silkbeard,” who reigned in Dublin at the close of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh century, and who was one of those who fought the battle of Clontarf against Brian Boru. It is very remarkable that on Sigtryg’s coins, as well as on several of the Danish coins minted in the north of England, we find not only the Latin title “Rex,” but also the Scandinavian “Cununc” (king), as, for instance, on the annexed coin (in Mr. C. F. Herbst’s collection), which has never before been copied:—

On the obverse is the legend “Sihtric cunuic dyn,” or Sigtryg king of Dublin; and on the reverse, “Byrhtmer mo on Vin;” whence we see that the coiner had an Anglo-Saxon name, and was certainly an Anglo-Saxon, particularly since he is said to have been “on Vin,” that is, of Winchester. Among the coiners’ names on the Norwegian-Irish coins, we meet, indeed, with several Scandinavian names, such as Stirbirn (Styrbjörn), Azcetel (Asketil), Ivore (Ivar), Colbrand, Tole (Tule), and Oadin (Odin?); whence we may reasonably conclude that the Norwegians in Ireland soon learned to coin, and were not, therefore, always compelled to avail themselves of foreign coiners. But most of Sigtryg’s coiners were Anglo-Saxons; and not a few of his coins are, like that above delineated, even struck by coiners in England; as, for instance, in “Efrweec,” or “Eofer (wick)” (York), “Veced” (Watchet, in Somersetshire), “Vilt” (Wilton), “Vint” (Winchester), and “Luni” (London). This admits of two explanations; either that these comers at Sigtryg’s request minted coins for him, or that Sigtryg, who at one time was driven from his kingdom, resided in some at least of the above-named places, and caused coins to be minted there(?). The origin of several coins minted in Dublin about Sigtryg’s time by the Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred the Second—as well as by the Danish-English king Canute the Great, and which for the most part are struck by the same Dublin coiner, Færemin, who minted most of Sigtryg’s own coins—is involved in no less obscurity. Although history is silent, we might be almost tempted to believe that Ethelred and Canute were acknowledged by Sigtryg as his liege lords, or that possibly they ruled in Dublin for a short time; but in weighing these probabilities it must be remembered that neither Ethelred nor Canute calls himself on these coins king of Dublin, but simply “Rex Anglorum,” or king of the English.

The great number and variety in which Sigtryg’s coins appear, and the comparatively good stamp that distinguishes them from the rest of the Norwegian-Irish coins, seem to show that the years of Sigtryg’s reign must have been a period very favourable to Scandinavian trade and power in Ireland. In later times the Norwegian-Irish coins became worse, as the coiners did not confine themselves to imitating coins of the older Norwegian-Irish kings, and of the later English kings, Canute the Great, Hardicanute, Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, and others, but even copied copies to such a degree that the stamp and inscriptions of the original coins were very frequently not to be recognised. Of the coins current in Ireland in the last half of the eleventh, and in the whole of the twelfth, century, pretty large quantities have been dug up, both in and out of Ireland, and particularly in the neighbouring Isle of Man.

It must, however, be regarded as very doubtful how far this deterioration of the coins affords any reasonable confirmation of the justness of the usual conviction among the Irish, that after Sigtryg’s time, or rather after his defeat in the battle of Clontarf, the power of the Norwegians in Ireland was completely broken. For, in that case, we might expect, among other things, that the victorious Irish kings, during the long period of more than a hundred and fifty years, which elapsed from the time of the battle of Clontarf until the English conquest of Ireland, would have minted their own coins. But during the whole of this period there are very few coins that can possibly be regarded as having been minted for native Irish kings. For the rest, the whole of the coins minted in Ireland, from the commencement of minting there (at latest in 950) till the English conquest (1171), seem to owe their existence exclusively to the kings and bishops of the Ostmen, who ruled in the most important trading towns of Ireland[10].

Footnote 10:

See Appendix, No. II.

SECTION VI.

The Battle of Clontarf.—Power of the Ostmen after the Battle.—Their Churches and Bishops.—Their Land and Sea Forces.—The English Conquest.—Remains of the Ostmen.—Their Importance for Ireland.

The cause of the battle of Clontarf, so celebrated in song and legend, or, as it is called in the Sagas, “Briánsbardagi” (Brian’s battle, after King Brian, who fell in it in 1014), is not precisely known. All that we are acquainted with is, that Brian, who was connected by very close ties of relationship with the Norwegian royal family in Dublin, had long availed himself of the assistance of the Norwegians to subdue other Irish princes, until, at length, after gaining victories in that manner, he came to a rupture with King Sigtryg of Dublin. The prospects of Sigtryg, and of the Norwegian power in Ireland, seem really to have been threatening enough; at least it is said that Scandinavian warriors hastened in numbers to Sigtryg’s assistance from the Scandinavian kingdoms in England, the Isle of Man, the Syder Isles, and Orkneys. From the last, in particular, came Jarl Sigurd the Stout, with a chosen force, in the midst of which waved a flag with the image of Odin’s holy raven. Sigurd’s own mother had woven this raven, which, with fluttering wings, had often before led the warriors to victory and glory.

This time, however, the raven was checked in its flight. After many of the standard bearers had been killed, Sigurd Jarl himself took the flag from the staff, and wrapt it about his body. He seemed to foresee, what really happened shortly afterwards, that the raven-flag would be his winding-sheet. The Norwegians were at length forced to give way, even if the battle was not so entirely lost as the exaggerated Irish accounts represent. The Scandinavian auxiliaries withdrew to their ships, and King Sigtryg retired with the remnant of his army to Dublin.

But, as the Irish chronicles contain nothing about Sigtryg and his men having been afterwards expelled from Dublin, or about the Norwegian dominion there having been entirely destroyed, we cannot conclude from them that the power of the Ostmen in the rest of the Irish cities was annihilated in consequence of Sigtryg’s defeat in the battle of Clontarf. It would, besides, have been singular enough if the power of the Norwegians in Ireland had been perfectly destroyed so early as the year 1014, since it was just after that time that the Northmen in the neighbouring countries acquired their greatest power by means of their victories. Instead of the Norwegian influence in Ireland having ceased, we not only find, long after this battle, King Sigtryg of Dublin fighting bravely with his Ostmen, though at times with varying fortune, against several Irish kings and chiefs, but we further behold the Ostmen displaying a very remarkable degree of strength and independence in various places in Ireland.

About five-and-twenty years after the battle of Clontarf (say the Irish chroniclers themselves), Sigtryg, king of the Ostmen in Dublin, and Donat (Dunan), their bishop, built, in the middle of that city, the church of the Holy Trinity, also called Christ Church. That the Ostmen should then have founded one of the principal churches of Dublin, which even lay without their own town (Ostmantown), in the very heart of ancient Dublin, is highly significant. After the church was built, Bishop Donat presented several relics to it, amongst which are mentioned “pieces of the clothes of King Olaf the Saint.” The great respect in which the name of the Norwegian Saint Olaf was held in Dublin is also manifest from the circumstance that a church consecrated to St. Olave, or, as the Irish common people gradually corrupted the name, to “Tulloch” (compare the name of Tooley Street in London, corrupted from St. Olave Street), was to be found there till at least far into the sixteenth century. This church adjoined the northern end of Fishshamble Street, near Wood-Quay; but originally, perhaps, it was just outside the city.

In the same year (1038) that Christ Church was, partly through the exertions of Bishop Donat, erected in Dublin, he likewise built the chapel of St. Michael. Half a century later (1095) another “Ostman” built Saint Michan’s Church in the “Ostmen’s” town in Dublin; and about the same time the cathedral in Waterford, dedicated to the Holy Trinity, was founded and erected by the Ostmen there.

The “Ostmen” in Ireland thus possessed not only their own churches, but likewise, as the Irish records also mention, their own bishops, who were consecrated in England by the archbishop of Canterbury; whilst the Irish bishops were consecrated in Ireland itself by the Irish archbishop of Armagh. The Dublin “Ostmen’s” first bishop Donat, or Dunan, died in the year 1074, and was buried in Christ Church, to the erection of which he had himself so considerably contributed. After him, by desire of the Dublin king Godred, or Godfred, another “Ostman,” Patrick, was chosen bishop of the Ostmen in Dublin, but perished by shipwreck on his voyage home from Canterbury (1084). He was succeeded by the “Ostman” Donat O’Haingly (+1095); whose cousin, Samuel O’Haingly, previously a monk in the convent of St. Alban’s in England, afterwards filled the see of the “Ostmen” in Dublin until the year 1121. His successor, Gregorius, was the first of these Ostmen’s bishops in Dublin who was made archbishop. This probably arose from the circumstance of the “Ostmen” in the other Irish towns having in the meantime obtained bishops, who were now to have a common superior in the Archbishop of Dublin. In the year 1096 the “Ostmen” in Waterford are said to have obtained a bishop, Malchus, who is stated to have been a native of Ireland. In the year 1136 Waterford had an “Ostman” named Toste (Tuistius, or Tostius) for its bishop. A few years later (1140) Gille, or Gilbert, the “Ostmen’s” bishop of Limerick, died; after whom the “Ostmen” chose a certain Patrick. In the year 1151 the “Ostman” Harald, bishop of Limerick, died, and was succeeded by his countryman Thorgils (“Thorgesius”). Twenty years previously (1131) the death of the “Ostman” Everard, or Eberhard, abbot of the convent of St. Mary, near Dublin, is mentioned; which confirms, what is indeed almost a matter of course, that the Ostmen, who had their own churches and bishops, must also have had their own convents partly filled with Scandinavian monks and abbots. At length, in the year 1161, Gregorius, archbishop of Dublin, died; and from his time until the present Dublin has constantly been the seat of one of Ireland’s principal archbishops. But precisely because this archbishopric was originally founded by Ostmen, or foreigners, the archbishop of Dublin did not afterwards become the primate of all Ireland, as, from the importance of Dublin, we might otherwise have expected. That dignity, on the contrary, has constantly been reserved for the genuine old Irish archbishopric of Armagh, in the north-east of Ireland. Even Gregorius’ successor in the archiepiscopal see is said to have been consecrated in Dublin by the archbishop of Armagh. It has lately been discovered (compare P. Chalmers in the Journal of the Brit. Archæol. Assoc., Oct., 1850, p. 323, &c.) that these archbishops of Dublin not only administered their own diocese, but, at least at times, acted as superintendents of the Norwegian bishoprics in the Isle of Man and the Sudreyjar. There is a letter of Pope Honorius of the beginning of the thirteenth century, from which it appears that the archbishop of Dublin at that time consecrated a bishop of Man and the Sudreyjar, a privilege which in more ancient times belonged to the archbishops of York, and afterwards (from 1181 to 1334) to the archbishops of Trondhjem. It is quite certain that this was a result of the lively intercourse which undoubtedly took place between the successors of the Ostmen in Ireland and their near kinsmen in the Norwegian kingdoms in Man and the Sudreyjar.

It was, above all, a very fortunate circumstance for the independence of the Irish Ostmen that such powerful Norwegian kingdoms continued to exist on the west coast of Scotland. From these they could usually obtain assistance in their battles with the Irish; and by means of them they also kept up a constant connection with their Norwegian fatherland. That they were able to maintain their peculiar independent position in Ireland for more than a century after the Danish dominion in England had ceased to exist, was clearly not so much owing to their military skill and compact force, in comparison with the internal dissensions and perfect want of union among the Irish, as to the considerable wealth and power which they constantly derived from their extensive trade and navigation, and the influence which by such means they must necessarily have exercised in Ireland. The Irish chronicles and pedigrees teach us that friendly connections and reciprocal marriages increased more and more between the Irish and the Ostmen, both in Ireland and Norway, so that the Irish aristocracy became mixed in a considerable degree with Norwegian blood. We also learn from the same documents that the Ostmen and their kings constantly continued to ally themselves with Irish princes, whose power they often essentially contributed to support. The Irish king Konofögr gained a naval battle in Ulfreksfjord against Einar, jarl of Orkney, because, as it is stated, the Norwegian Viking, Eyvind Urarhorn, had joined the former with his ships. When King Magnus Barfod of Norway undertook his expedition to Ireland, he concluded an alliance with Myrjartak, King of Connaught (_O. N._, “Kunnáktir”), whose daughter, Biadmynja, was married to Magnus Barfod’s son Sigurd. But when Magnus fell in Ulster (in 1103), Sigurd abandoned Biadmynja. Yet the connections formed in Ireland by Magnus through this expedition produced important results for Norway. An Irishman named Harald Gille came forward and passed himself off for a son of that monarch by an Irishwoman; and after proving his descent by walking over red-hot iron, actually became king of Norway, and left its throne as an inheritance to his family.

The Ostmen settled in Dublin and other places in Ireland were more and more induced to form connections with native Irish princes, nay, even sometimes to submit to them, as the support which they derived from their own country continually decreased during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Shortly after the battle of Clontarf, Christianity was introduced into the Scandinavian North, and thus an end was put to the Vikings’ expeditions, which had hitherto incessantly brought colonists and auxiliary forces into Ireland. Even the reinforcements which the Ostmen were able to obtain from their countrymen in Man, the Sudreyjar, and the Orkneys, were naturally not so important as before; since on these islands also Christianity gradually annihilated the bold Viking spirit of the people.

Under such circumstances it is surprising that Godfred (or Godred) Merenagh, king of the Ostmen in Dublin, had in the year 1095 a naval force of not fewer than ninety ships in the harbour of Dublin; and that the land forces of the Ostmen in that city were proportionately powerful. The Irish chronicles mention many battles in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in which the Dublin Ostmen brought numerous warriors into the field, and in which they often suffered very considerable loss, without, however, being entirely annihilated or driven out of the town. Even in the year 1167, and consequently a hundred and fifty years after the battle of Clontarf, a great meeting of the Irish people was held by Athboy of Tlactga, at which, the Irish themselves say, _thousands_ of the first Ostmen in Dublin were present.

That this account is not exaggerated, and that the number of Ostmen in Dublin, as well as in the other Irish cities, was really very considerable at the close of the twelfth century, is clearly shown by the notorious fact, that when the English, under Earl Strongbow and Miles de Cogan, obtained, in the years 1170 and 1171, a firm footing in Ireland, the Ostmen in Dublin, Limerick, and Cork, were able to offer a very powerful resistance. Respecting the conquest of Dublin by the English we find the following statement in the “Dublin Annals” (by O’Donovan):—

“The year 1170. The Danes of Dublin were treacherously slaughtered in their own garrison by Mac Morough and the English; and they carried away their cattle and their riches. Asgal, the son of Reginald, king of the Danes in Dublin, fled from them.