A.D. 306, Constantius dies at York, and Constantine, his son, "a.s.sisted by all who were about, but especially by Eroc, King of the Alemanni, a.s.sumes the empire." Now Eroc had accompanied Constantius as an ally (_auxilii gratii_); so that there were Alemanni in Yorkshire, as well as Franks in Middles.e.x, with powers, more or less, approaching those of independent populations; at any rate, in a different position from the mere legionary Germans, of whom further notice will soon be taken.
In Julian"s reign the Picts, Scots, and Attacotti hara.s.s the South Britons. This is on the cotemporary and unexceptionable evidence of Ammia.n.u.s Marcellinus. And the same cotemporary and unexceptionable evidence adds the _Saxons_ to his list of devastators--"Picti, _Saxonesque_, et Scoti, et Attacotti Britannos aerumnis vexavere continuis." Mark the word _continuis_.
The _Alemanni_ of Britain are noticed by the same writer in a pa.s.sage which must be taken along with the notice of the Alemanni under Eroc.
"Valentinian placed Fraomarius as king over the Buccin.o.bantes, a nation of the Alemanni, near Mentz. Soon afterwards, however, an attack upon his people devastated their country (_pa-_ _gum_, _gau_). He was then translated to Britain, and placed over the Alemanni, _at that time flourishing both in numbers and power_, as tribune."
We may now ask what foreign elements were introduced into Britain by the Roman legions; since nothing is more certain than that the Roman armies consisted, but in a small degree, of Romans. The Not.i.tia[11] Utriusque Imperii helps us here; indeed it may be that it supplies us with a complete list of the imperial forces in all their ethnological heterogeneousness. Some of the t.i.tles of the regiments and companies (_alae_, _numeri_, _cohortes_) are unexplained: several, however, are taken from the country of the soldiers that composed them.
The list gives us settlers in Britain of Germanic, Gallic, Iberic, Slavonic, Aramaic, and Berber extraction.
GERMANS.
_Tungricani._--Either soldiers who had distinguished themselves in the parts about Tongres, or true Tungrian Germans, under a Praepositus, and stationed at Dubris (_Dover_).
_Tungri._--True Tungrian Germans. At Borcovic.u.m. A cohort.
_Turnacenses._--Either soldiers who had distinguished themselves in the parts about Tournay, or true Tournay Germans, under a Praepositus, and stationed at Lema.n.u.s (_Lymne_).
_Batavians._--A cohort stationed at Procolitia.
GAULS.
_Nervii._--A numerous cohort under a Prefect at Dictum.
_Nervii._--A cohort at Aliona.
_Nervii._--A cohort at Virosidum. How far these were Gauls, or, if Gauls, of unmixed blood, is uncertain. During the wars of Caesar, the brave nation of the Nervians was said to have been exterminated.
Such was not the case. Portions of it remained. At the same time, the reduction was so great, and the subsequent influx of Germans from the Lower Rhine was so considerable, that the soldiers in question were, probably, as much Roman and German as Gallic.
_Morini._--Gauls from the parts about Calais. A cohort, stationed at Glann.o.banta.
_Galli._--A cohort at Vendolana.
IBERIANS.
_Hispani._--A cohort. Stationed at Axellodunum.
SLAVONIANS.
_Dalmatae._--Cavalry. Stationed at Brannodunum.
_Dalmatae._--A cohort, at Praesidum.
_Dalmatae._--A cohort, at Magna.
_Daci._--A cohort, at Amboglanna.
_Thraces._--A cohort, at Gabrosentum.
_Thaifal(?)_--Cavalry. Perhaps German, but more probably Slavonians, infamous for the turpitude of their habits.
ARAMaeANS.
_Syri._--Cavalry.
BERBERS.
_Mauri._--Under a Prefect, at Aballaba.
If we ask what proportion these foreign and miscellaneous elements in the Roman Legions of Britain bore to the true Romans, we wait in vain for an answer. This is because the const.i.tution of the other portions of the army is unknown. Who (for instance) composed the _Fortenses_, the _Stablesiani_, the _Abulci_, and numerous other companies? Perhaps, Romans; in which case the proportion of Syrian, Slavonian, and other non-Roman elements is diminished. Perhaps, Syrians, Slavonians, or Germans; in which case it is increased. That the above-named troops, however, belonged to the ethnological divisions which are denoted by the names, is in the highest degree probable. It is also probable that the list may be increased; thus the _Pacenses_, the _Asti_, the _Frixagori_, and the _Lergi_, although there are doubts, in every case, about the reading, and still greater about the signification, have reasonably been thought to have been regiments, or companies, named from the localities where they were levied; but, as already stated, these localities are doubtful.
As blood foreign to both the British and Roman was introduced into Britain, so was British blood introduced elsewhere. All the foreign stations of the British troops are not known; but that there was, at least, one in each of the following countries is certain--Illyric.u.m, Egypt, Northern Africa. The history of foreign blood in Britain, and of British blood in foreign countries are counterpart questions.
The lines of Roman road are the best _data_ for ascertaining the parts of our island where the mixture of Roman and foreign blood was greatest: since it is a fair inference that those districts which were the least accessible were the most Keltic. These are North Wales, Cornwall and Devonshire, the Wealds of Suss.e.x and Kent, Lincolnshire, and the district of Craven. On the other hand, the pre-eminently Roman tracts are--
1. The valleys of the Tyne and Solway, or the line of the wall and rampart which divided South Britain from North.
2. The valley of the Ouse, or the parts about York.
3, 4. The valleys of the Thames and Severn.
5. Cheshire and South Lancashire.
6. Norfolk and Suffolk.
The Roman blood, then, in Britain seems to have been inconsiderable, even when we cla.s.s as Roman everything which was other than British.
That the language, however, was chiefly Latin--more or less modified--is what we infer from the a.n.a.logies of Gaul and Spain. The history, too, of four centuries of civilization and corruption is Roman also. That there was a bodily evacuation of Britain by the Romans, a concealment of treasures, and a migration to Gaul, rests upon no authority earlier than that of the Anglo-Saxon writers, some five centuries later. The country was rather a theatre for usurpers and rebels; none of whom can be shewed to have either left the island, or to have been exterminated by the Anglo-Saxon invasion--an invasion to which, in a future chapter, an earlier date, and a more gradual operation than is usually a.s.signed will be attributed.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] Niebuhr"s Lectures, p. iii, 312.
[11] Referred to some time between the reigns of Valens and Honorius.
CHAPTER VII.
VALUE OF THE EARLY BRITISH RECORDS.--TRUE AND GENUINE TRADITIONS RARE.--GILDAS.--BEDA.--NENNIUS.--ANNALES CAMBRENSES.--DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRONICLES AND REGISTERS.--ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.--IRISH ANNALS.--VALUE OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES.--QUESTIONS TO WHICH THEY APPLY.
Not one word has. .h.i.therto been said about the early traditions of either Briton or Gael. No word, either, about their early records. Nothing about the Triads, Aneurin, Taliessin, Llywarch Hen, and Merlin on the side of the Welsh; nothing about the Milesian and other legends of the Irish. Why this silence? Have the preceding investigations been so superabundantly clear as to lead us to dispense with all rays of light except those of the most unexceptionable kind?
It is an unusual piece of good fortune when this happens anywhere; and a.s.suredly it has not happened on British or Irish ground as yet. Or has the evidence of such early records and traditions been incompatible with the doctrines of the previous chapters, and, on the strength of its inconvenience, been kept back? If so, there has been a foul piece of disingenuousness on the part of the writer. But he does not plead guilty to this. He attaches but little weight to the evidence of the early British records; and the contents of the present chapter are intended to justify his depreciation of them.
The writer who a.s.serts that the oldest work in any language is of such antiquity as to be separated from the next oldest by any very long interval--by an interval which leaves a wide chasm between the first and second specimens of the literature which no fragments and no traces of any lost compositions are found to fill up--makes an a.s.sertion which he is bound to support by evidence of the most cogent kind. For it is not always enough to shew that no intrinsic objections lie against the antiquity of the work in question. It may be so short, or so general in respect to its subject as to leave no room for contradictory and impossible sentences or expressions. It is not enough to shew that there were no reasons against such a literature being developed; since it is difficult to say what conditions absolutely forbid the production of a work stamped by no very definite characteristics. Nor yet will it suffice to say that the preservation of such a work is probable. All that can be got from all this is a presumption in its favour. The great fact of a work existing without giving this impulse to the production of others like it, and the fact of the same means of preservation being wholly neglected in other instances, still stand over. They are not conclusive against certain positions; but they are circ.u.mstances which must be fairly met; circ.u.mstances which if one writer overlook, others will not; circ.u.mstances which the critic will insist on; and circ.u.mstances which, if the dazzle of a paradox, or the appeal to the innate and universal sympathy for antiquity keep them in the background for a while, will, sooner or later, rise against the author who overlooked them.