Part 31

“1171. A battle was fought at Dublin, between Miles de Cogan and Asgal, son of Reginald, king of the Danes of Dublin. Many fell on both sides, both of the English archers and of the Danes; among whom was Asgal himself, and Hoan, a Dane from the Orkney Isles.”

On this occasion Asgal, or “Hasculph,” is said to have returned to the city with sixty ships. His warriors, say the chronicles, were accoutred, according to the usual custom of the Danes, in armour and coats of mail, and had red circular shields bound with iron. But though these men were “just as steeled in soul as in arms” (homines tam animis ferrei quam armis), and though, as well as their brethern in Limerick and Cork, they fought the fight of desperation in defence of their property and liberties, yet they were not able to withstand the English. Thus these new conquerors succeeded in annihilating the dominion of the Ostmen in Ireland, or rather in the most important cities of that country, after it had lasted above three hundred years.

Nevertheless we must not believe that the Ostmen were even now wholly expelled from Ireland, or that their influence there was entirely at an end. After the taking of Dublin by the English, so many Ostmen still remained in the city that “the Galls of Dublin” continued to have their own separate army, which even seems to have acted pretty independently of the English conquerors. An Irish chronicle (Annals of the Four Masters) states that Mulrony O’Keary, Lord of Carbury, was treacherously slain by the “Dublin Ostmen” in the year 1174, and consequently some years after the taking of Dublin. In the same year the English themselves were forced to obtain the assistance of the “Dublin Ostmen” against the Irish; and it is expressly stated that in a subsequent attack of the Irish on this united Anglo-Norwegian army not far from Dublin, there fell no fewer than “_four hundred_ Ostmen.” The contemporary author, Giraldus Cambrensis, to whom we owe this account, also speaks of the Ostmen, after the conquest of Ireland, as a peculiar and decidedly separate people, who carried on trade and navigation (“gens igitur hæc, quæ nunc Ostmannica gens vocatur,” &c).

Even more than a century afterwards we can still trace many Ostmen in the chief cities of Ireland, where, it seems, they continued to preserve those Scandinavian characteristics which distinguished them from the Irish and English. In the year 1201 a verdict was pronounced by twelve Irishmen, twelve Englishmen, and twelve Ostmen in Limerick, concerning the lands, churches, and other property belonging to the church of Limerick; which shows that the Ostmen were sufficiently numerous there to be placed on an equal footing with the English and Irish. There is in the Tower of London a document of the year 1283, issued by the English king Edward I., ordering that the Ostmen in Waterford (“Custumanni,” Oustumanni, Austumanni?) should, pursuant to King Henry the Second’s ordinance, have, and be judged by, the same laws as the English settled in Ireland, which clearly indicates that the Ostmen at that time still formed a distinct and separate people. We might almost believe that the Ostmen in Waterford had even refused to observe the English laws, or that at least there was a doubt how far these laws could be applied to them; since King Edward found it necessary to enforce Henry the Second’s ordinance, and to enjoin his chief justice and magistrates in Ireland that the three men named in the document should, “like other Ostmen in Waterford,” be judged, and as far as possible (“quantum in vobis est”), punished, according to the laws in force for Englishmen in Ireland. (See the Latin document in the Appendix.) The striking historical account that in the year 1263 the Irish applied to the Norwegian king Hakon Hakonsön, then lying with his fleet on the south-west coast of Scotland, for assistance against the English, will now no longer be inexplicable or improbable; for it is placed beyond all doubt that amongst the Irish who thus in vain implored King Hakon for help, there must have been a number of the Ostmen still living in Ireland, who naturally continued to maintain a connection with their countrymen in the Norwegian kingdoms on the south-west coast of Scotland, until these kingdoms also were destroyed in the middle ages.

But from this time forward the “Ostmen” do not play any prominent part in the history of Ireland. Their political independence was annihilated; and their national characteristics were not sufficiently supported by fresh arrivals from the mother-country, to enable them in the long run to maintain a distinct position in face of the rapidly advancing English nationality. Their descendants continued, nevertheless, to dwell in Ireland; where they gradually became amalgamated partly with the English conquerors and partly with the native Irish. The Irish chronicles point out various clans in Ireland which were either of Norwegian descent, or at all events had been much mixed with Norwegian blood. In the annals and pedigrees of the middle ages we also meet with both laymen and clergy in Ireland bearing Scandinavian names. For instance, in Christ Church in Dublin, built by the Norwegians, canons and monks are spoken of in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries called “Harrold,” “Olof,” “Siwird” (Sivard), “Regenald,” (Ragnvald) “Iwyr,” &c., names entirely unknown in Ireland previously to the arrival of the Norwegians. The often-mentioned Irish chronicler makes use of a highly remarkable expression. In stating that most of the merchants’ families in Dublin in his time (about the year 1650) were descendants of the Norwegian-Irish king Olaf Kvaran, by Brian Boroihma’s (Boru’s) daughter Save, he adds: “and the descendants of that Amlave Cuaran are still in Dublin opposing the Gadelians of Erinn:” whence we clearly see that national distinctions and national disputes between the descendants of the Irish and of the Norwegians, were still very prominent only two hundred years ago, or full six hundred years after the battle of Clontarf (1014).

Even to the present day we can follow, particularly in Leinster, the last traces of the Ostmen through a similar series of peculiar family names, which are by no means Irish, but clearly original Norwegian names; for instance, Mac Hitteric or Shiteric (son of Sigtryg), O’Bruadair (son of Broder), Mac Ragnall (son of Ragnvald), Roailb (Rolf), Auleev (Olaf), Mánus (Magnus), and others. It is even asserted that among the families of the Dublin merchants are still to be found descendants of the old Norwegian merchants formerly so numerous in that city. The names of families adduced in confirmation of this, as Harrold (Harald), Iver (Ivar), Cotter or Mac Otter (Ottar), and others, which are genuine Norwegian names, corroborate the assertion that Norwegian families appear to have propagated themselves uninterruptedly in Dublin down to our times, as living evidences of the dominion which their forefathers once exercised there.

It is thus satisfactorily proved, by notorious facts of the most various kinds, that for more than three hundred years the Norwegians lived according to their own manners and customs, and under their own bishops and kings, in the most important towns of Ireland, which they in part ruled, down to the time of the English conquest (1170); that they were the first who minted coins, and carried on any considerable trade and navigation in Ireland; and lastly, that great numbers of their descendants continued to reside in that country even after it had long been conquered by the English. No impartial person, therefore, will be able any longer to deny that the settlements of the Ostmen, although commenced by the frequent demolition of churches and convents, were ultimately in the most essential matters particularly fortunate for Ireland; since, by introducing trade and navigation to an extent before unknown, they opened for that sequestered country channels of animated communication and intercourse with the rest of Europe and its continually advancing civilization. The Irish towns occupied by the Ostmen, which have continued to be the principal depots for foreign merchandise, and consequently also the central points of intercourse with foreign countries, may with justice be said to be indebted chiefly to that people for their present greatness, wealth, and power.

Nor, on a larger historical survey, will it appear less evident that, as the Norwegians first opened the way for peaceful connections between Ireland and the rest of Europe, so they also facilitated the English conquest. In consequence both of their frequent wars, and of their frequent alliances with Irish kings, party feeling had rather increased than diminished among the Irish chiefs; whilst numerous Irish families, even the greatest in the land, had by degrees become so much mixed with Norwegian blood, that the strength of the Irish as a nation was not a little weakened and divided. This was particularly the case in those districts of the east coast of Ireland where the English or Norman power afterwards obtained its chief seat. Add to this that the Irish, through the long dominion of the Norwegians in their chief towns, and the advantages which they reaped from it, had become more and more accustomed to behold with indifference the sway of strangers in their country; a circumstance which contributed to the powerful support given to the English on their first invasion of Ireland by several of the native chiefs.

It may possibly be said that the Norwegians in Ireland, by thus preparing the way for the Norman or English conquest, rendered a far greater service to England than to subjugated Ireland. But all the chronicles, it must be recollected, bear witness that the Irish were neither strong enough to govern their own country independently, nor capable of keeping pace with the advance of European civilization by means of an active commerce. We have seen that even in later times the same baleful and sanguinary spirit of dissension which weakened Ireland in ancient days is yet scarcely extinct among the original Irish race. It is manifest, therefore, that Ireland, which would otherwise have been divided from the rest of Europe, and devastated by terrible intestine contentions, has been much benefited by being united to so great and powerful a country as England, which has both the ability and the will to promote the true welfare of the Irish people. England will, by degrees, employ the great advantages afforded by the excellent soil and situation of Ireland, and thus conduct that country, torn as it is by all possible distresses and misfortunes, to a happier existence.

SECTION VII.

Conclusion.—Warlike and Peaceful Colonizations.—Resemblances and Differences.—Before and Now.

Denmark and Norway, as is known, are not distinguished by any remarkable extent of fertile and densely-populated country. The whole population in both those kingdoms does not at present amount to three millions; and in ancient times it scarcely seems to have been greater, even when the southern portion of the present kingdom of Sweden still belonged to Denmark.

Nevertheless, Denmark and Norway were able, in ancient times, to send forth great multitudes of people to other countries. Not only were Greenland, Iceland, the Shetland Isles, the Orkneys, and Faroe Isles, colonized from Norway, but also considerable districts in Scotland and Ireland. Many Norwegians, moreover, settled in England and Normandy. At the same time Danes emigrated in great numbers to Normandy, North Holland, and especially England, where they colonized, we may say, the whole of the extensive district to the north of Watlinga-Stræt, or almost half England.

We are not informed that Denmark and Norway were emptied of their population in consequence of these great emigrations, or even that there was any sensible want of inhabitants to supply agricultural labourers and soldiers. In the immediately following centuries Denmark was powerful enough to make the Baltic a Danish lake. We can hardly, therefore, assume, like the monkish chronicles of antiquity, which naturally breathe both fear and hatred of the Scandinavian heathens, that the Norwegians and Danes were merely barbarous Vikings, who procured themselves a footing in the western countries only through brute force. On such grounds we should be perfectly unable to explain satisfactorily how Denmark and Norway, with a proportionately small population, should have been able (without becoming too depopulated) to send out at once such a host of people as were evidently required to take possession, by force of arms, of those rich western lands, and also, it must be observed, to maintain their conquests for centuries. If, instead of blindly following these partial and prejudiced chroniclers, we adhere to what the traces of the nature and importance of the Scandinavian emigrations clearly prove, namely, that from the eighth to the twelfth century, and contemporary with the destructive Viking expeditions, peaceful emigrations from the North constantly took place—which, in reality, were just as effective, perhaps even more so, than the purely warlike expeditions of conquest—this matter will be placed in a far more probable and intelligible point of view. As we have seen, sagacity and the arts of peace, together with navigation and trade, in no slight degree assisted the Danes and Norwegians to procure a footing in the British Islands, and especially in England and Ireland. By perseverance and ability in the occupations of peace as well as war, they were soon enabled to gain the ascendancy in the most important seaport towns; whence, by means of various connections of trade, friendship, and family alliances, they extended their influence and dominion over the adjacent towns and districts. They gradually multiplied themselves, and were joined by fresh immigrants; and thus the foundations were almost imperceptibly laid of Scandinavian colonies, which awaited only the coming of some bold military adventurer to appear as independent, nay, even as dominant states. The great warriors to whom history assigns the honour of the conquests in England and Ireland—and, we may also add, Normandy—would scarcely have been able to obtain them with the generally inferior numbers under their command, had not the Scandinavian merchants, and other peaceful colonists, both opened the way for them, and afterwards supported the conquests they had achieved. It is, on the whole, obvious that the ancient Northmen possessed a very great talent for colonization, which their kinsmen, the English of modern times, seem to have inherited from them.

But as the Scandinavian colonies in the British Islands varied greatly in importance, so also must the effects which they produced have been somewhat different. In Ireland, as well as in Scotland, where the Norwegians met with tribes who, in spite of their apparent Christianity, stood rather below them in civilization, they kept themselves more apart from the natives. In Ireland, especially, they dwelt in their own strongly-fortified towns; where, until late in the middle ages, they maintained their own characteristic language, manners, customs, and laws. But in consequence of this, their Norwegian institutions had no real influence on the development of the national life or institutions of Ireland. At most they merely contributed to facilitate the introduction and establishment of the analogous Anglo-Norman institutions into the Irish cities. In England, on the contrary, where the Scandinavian colonies were far more numerous and powerful than in Scotland and Ireland, the Danish colonists certainly sought, after the Scandinavian fashion, to maintain in the midst of a foreign country their pure Danish laws, manners, and customs. Yet here the Danes, owing to the superior civilization which prevailed among the earlier Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of England, were soon influenced by their language and culture, and became more and more amalgamated with them. Nevertheless the Danes in England were sufficiently numerous and independent to maintain the most important of their free Scandinavian characteristics, which coalesced with, and by degrees visibly impressed themselves upon, the more modern English manners and institutions.

The Danish colonies in England, and the Norwegian colonies in Scotland and Ireland, had so far the same historical importance that they essentially conduced to found a new life, both externally and internally, in the British Islands, partly by extending trade and navigation, partly by subduing, or at least weakening, the power of the Anglo-Saxons, the Scotch, and the Irish, and thus in general preparing for a kindred race (the Normans) the dominion over all these people. It is well known that the Norman sway and the Norman spirit established themselves in Scotland and Ireland far later than in England—a circumstance chiefly owing to the conquests and settlements of the Norwegians in those countries having been far less extensive and important than the Danish conquests in England. Yet that the Danish-Norman spirit predominating in England has been able to maintain to our times its dominion in Scotland and Ireland also, is no slight evidence of the excellent and solid manner in which the Norwegians must originally have prepared the way.

I have shown that the memorials of the great exploits performed by the Danes and Norwegians in the British Islands still appear as fresh and vivid as if they were of modern date. In this respect, the national pride of those nations will find complete gratification. Still, however, it is possible that a general view of the mighty achievements of the ancient Northmen in the western lands may awaken mingled feelings in many a Scandinavian of the present day. The thought may involuntarily arise in him of what the North _was_, when its victorious fleets appeared in the north, south, east, and west, and when Scandinavians exercised dominion far and wide, and what it _is now_—confined within narrow boundaries, menaced from many quarters, and without any preponderating influence on the state of Europe. Beyond the precincts of the North, he will no longer hear his native language, which in former times frequently resounded on foreign shores. The North was forced to shed some of its best and noblest blood; and yet the Northman must now be content, if he can succeed in tracing out, by means of a few words in the popular language, by the names of towns and districts, or by half-erased runic inscriptions on bauta stones, where it was that the “Danish tongue” once prevailed, and where the barrows still rise which cover the race that spoke it.

But such morbid complaints will necessarily vanish when the Scandinavian considers how vividly the ancient power of his race has again displayed itself to the world, and how mighty have been the results of the Norman expeditions; but especially when he ponders on the notorious fact, that the North sent out the flower of its youth and strength, not merely to destroy and plunder, but rather to lay the foundations of a fresher life in the western lands, and thus to impart a new and powerful impulse to human civilization. In our times, besides, it is not chiefly in conquests and the lustre of external greatness that the true happiness and glory of a nation should be sought.

A people, which, like the Scandinavian, have preserved—together with the memorials of former great achievements, and of conquests bringing blessings in their train—enough of the character and courage of their forefathers, not only to maintain the freedom and independence of their country, but also, in comparison with other nations, an honourable place in science and art, cannot justly be said to want either glory or happiness.

APPENDIX I.

DOCUMENT OF EDWARD I., OF THE YEAR 1283,

CONCERNING THE OSTMEN IN WATERFORD AND IRELAND.

(_From a Register in the Tower of London; Patent Roll II. Edward I. Memb. 9. Communicated by Mr. Duffus Hardy._)

“Pro Custumannis[11] Waterfordi in Hibernia. Rex Justiciario suo Hibernie et omnibus aliis Ballivis et fidelibus suis Hibernie ad quos, &c., salutem. Quia per inspeccionem carte Domini Henrici Regis, filii Imperatricis, quondam Domini Hibernie preavi nostri, nobis constat quod Custumanni nostri Waterford legem Anglicorum in Hibernia habere et secundum ipsam legem judicari et deduci debent. Vobis mandamus quod Gillecrist Makgillemory, William Makgillemory, et Johannem Makgillemory, et alios Custumannos de Civitate et Communitate Waterford, qui de predictis Custumannis predicti domini regis preavi nostri originem duxerunt legem Anglicorum in partibus illis juxta tenorem carte predicte habere et eos secundum ipsam legem quantum in vobis est deduci faciatis, donec aluid de consilio nostro inde duximus ordinandum. In cujus, &c. ... v. die Octobr.”

Footnote 11:

This is undoubtedly an old fault in the way of writing or reading for “Oustumannis,” “Austumannis.” That the word is at all events meant to signify the Ostmen is also assumed in Sir John Davies’ “Reports” (fol. 236).

APPENDIX II.

COINAGE OF THE NORWEGIANS IN DUBLIN.

(_See page 338._)

While this work was going through the press, a silver coin, forming an entirely new and highly remarkable contribution to our knowledge of the early Norwegian coinage in the capital of Ireland, was discovered among the collection bequeathed by the late Mr. Devegge to the Royal Cabinet of Coins in Copenhagen. It is represented in the annexed woodcut.

The legend on the obverse is “_Oolaf i divielin_,” or “Olaf in Dublin.” That on the reverse almost seems to be “_Oolafn me feci(t)_,” or “Olaf made me;” in which case the coiner must have had the same Scandinavian name as the king. However this may be, it is clear enough that the coin owes its origin to a Norwegian or Scandinavian king Olaf in Dublin; and, as the stamp shows, it must have been struck in the tenth century. It thus forms a link between the runic coin of Canute in Dublin, and the somewhat later coins of Sigtryg, before described. (See p. 338, _et seq._)

A great number of coins have been mentioned as minted in Ireland by Scandinavian kings named Olaf; but that above delineated is in reality the first, and, as far as is known, the only one on which we can with certainty read “Olaf in Dublin.”

Kings of that name are mentioned in the Irish chronicles in the years 853, 934, 954, 962, &c. (See the list of Norwegian Kings in Ireland, p. 317.)

G. Woodfall & Son, Printers, Angel Court, Skinner Street.

50, ALBEMARLE STREET, LONDON. _April, 1852._

MR. MURRAY’S

GENERAL LIST OF WORKS.

ABBOTT’S (REV. J.) Philip Musgrave; or Memoirs of a Church of England Missionary in the North American Colonies. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._

ABELL’S (MRS.) Recollections of the Emperor Napoleon during the First Three Years of his Captivity on the Island of St. Helena. _Second Edition._ Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._

ABERCROMBIE’S (JOHN, M.D.) Enquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers and the Investigation of Truth. _Thirteenth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._ 6_d._

—— Philosophy of the Moral Feelings. _Eighth Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 4_s._

—— Pathological and Practical Researches on the Diseases of the Stomach, the Intestinal Canal, the Liver, and other Viscera of the Abdomen. _Third Edition._ Fcap. 8vo. 6_s._

ACLAND’S (REV. CHARLES) Popular Account of the Manners and Customs of India, Illustrated with Numerous Anecdotes. Post 8vo. 2_s._ 6_d._