[Note 24-34 ManxSoc vol 22]

NOTE 24, p. 68.— Commissum est navale proelium, etc.

To understand these affairs thoroughly, we subjoin the following exposé. Malcolm MacHeth being, as we have told above, taken prisoner in 1134, and confined in the castle of Roxburgh, where also his son Donald was put in 1156, he was, nevertheless, released by King Malcolm, who even ceded to him some possessions in Cumberland, evidently fearing his father-in-law, the powerful Somerled. Malcolm MacHeth, however, exercised such a tyranny towards his subjects, that they revolted, took him prisoner, put his eyes out, besides inflicted other mutilations, and confined him in the monastery of Bellaland 1 in Yorkshire, compelling him to resume the cowl. Nevertheless Somerled continued to make war against the Scottish king, as well as against Godred, who consequently, having enemies in common with the former, could not avoid coming into friendly relations towards him. Immediately, therefore, after his flight from Man, we find him at the court of King Malcolm, where he witnessed the confirmation of a document in 1159 (Anderson, Dipl. Scot., No. 25) ; in the next year we find him at the court of King Inge in Norway, who seems to have confirmed him in his royal rights, as it is said in the Icelandic annals that in 1160 he got the title of King of the Sudreys. During his stay with King Inge he took a conspicuous part in the battle upon the ice near Oslo, on the 4th of February 1164, where Inge was killed ; he commanded even a wing of Inge’s army, but declared treacherously for the enemy, King Hacon, and thereby might be said to have been the chief cause of Inge’s death. His treason, however, did certainly not bring him the expected fruits, because King Hacon, who no doubt had promised him his assistance, was slain by the partizans of the deceased king the following year, and the victorious party came again in power under their new King Magnus Erlingsson. This party, however, either could not or would not give Godred any assistance, at least not till 1164, when Magnus, being more firmly established on the throne, and crowned (in the month of September), had probably taken Godred into grace and received his homage ; for till this time it appears that Godred remained in Norway, abandoning his kingdom entirely to Somerled, nor is it likely that he would have returned even then, if he had not received the welcome news that Somerled was killed in the battle at Renfrew. The division which is said to have been made in 1156 between Godred and Somerled, and to have caused the ruin of the kingdom, ought perhaps more properly to be said to have been effected between Godred and Dubhgal or Dimgald, the son of Somerled. The islands allotted to Dugald, through this division, were no doubt those which lay nearer to Argyle, and of which, indeed, we find afterwards the descendants of Dugald in possession. 2

1 [Biland.]

2 [The real injury done by Somerled to Man was not so much the possession of the Sudreys, as the interposition of an independent sovereignty between Man and the Northern Hebrides, which thereby weakened its hold on that distant dependency. Though the descendants of Somerled held their possessions in Argyll as feifs of the Scottish crown, they continued to hold the Isles as feuatories of the crown of Norway.]

NOTE 25, p. 70.—Eodem tempore, etc.

The Saint here called Machutus, is now generally called St. Maughold or Magharde ; even in the legend here narrated he is once called Machaldus.

NOTE 26, p. 74.—Sumerledus— Rinfriu

The same tale is told by Fordun and in the Chronica de Mailros, so that there cannot be any doubt of its being true, although the Orkney Saga makes Swein Asleifsson kill Somerled in 1159. This, however, must be a complete mistake. Fordun even adds the day on which the battle took place, viz., the 1st of January ; and the name of his son, Gillecolum. The entry in our Chronicle is an abridgment from that in Chron. de Mailros, where it is expressly stated that Somerled had rebelled against King Malcolm for twelve years. By a mistake, however, the death of King Malcolm is mentioned in the same year Malcolm died in 1165 (December 9)—and perhaps this number ought to be inserted before " eodem anno." Likewise the entry about the comets, taken from Chron. de Mailros, belongs to AD. 1165, not to1166 1

Whence Godred got the " mcegna multitudo armatorum," which he brought from Norway in 1164, is difficult to say. It is not likely that King Magnus, or rather the father and ‘ governor of King Magnus, Erling Skakke, would or could afford to give him much. But the rebel-lion of " Sigurd Markusfóstri " was just put down in Norway, and his troop, consisting chiefly of wild and reckless warriors from the southern borders of Norway, was without employment. Maybe Godred engaged some of these fellows. It is even probable that this was the occasion which brought the Ilusbac or Uspak (grandson of Somerled) mentioned p. 92, to Norway ; it being evident that in the year 1 230, when he was sent to the Sudreys as king, he was very old, while the circumstance of his real birth being for so long unknown or concealed, shows that he must have been carried away from the Isles while yet a child, no doubt by some of the above mentioned warriors, when they went back to Norway, where they must be suppoaed, all of them who returned, to have joined the party of the Birkibeins, to which Uspak is expressly stated to have belonged.

 1 [After the liberation of Malcolm Mac Heth from Roxburgh castle, Somerled seems to have niade his peace with the King of Scotland, but for some unknown cause he again broke out in open rebellion in 1164, landing suddenly on the coast of Renfrew with the whole force of Argyll and the Isles, strengthened by a body of auxiliaries from Ireland. Tradition says that he fell by treachery, together with his son Gillecolum. His followers dispersed on the death of their leader. Thus perished in an obscure skirmish the mighty chieftain of the Oirir Gael or Scottish Scandinavians of the coast, who built up the house of the Lords of Lorn and Argyll on the ruins of the ancient kingdom of the Gall, Gael, or Scandinavian and Gaelic population of the Isles, formerly centered in Man. Burton says that Somerled himself was reputed to be of Celtic origin. The Celtic language prevailed both in Man and the Isles, and on the north-west of the mainland of Scotland —Burton, i. 215-6, ii. 103. Robertson, i. 359.]

NOTE 27, p. 76.—Anno MCLXXI. Henricus rex, etc.

The year should be 1170, as in the Chronicle of Melrose, from which this entry is taken. Our text, however, is in so far more correct than that of the M. Chronicle, as it does not make the coronation-day of young Henry the same as the consecration-day, which is the case in Chron. de Melrose, where the words run thus : " Henricus rex Anglioe fecit coronari Henricum puerum, et in regent apuci Lundonias, xi. kalendas Junii in die dominica consecrari a Rogero," 1 etc. In 1170, the 22d of May was not a Sunday, but a Friday. 2

 1 [Henry, King of England, had his son Henry, yet a boy, crowned and consecrated king, at London, on Sunday the 22d of May.]

2 [Lingard says that he was crowned on Sunday, June 14, 1170.—ii. 153.]

NOTE 28, p. 76.—Vivianus, etc.

This Vivian, Cardinal-priest of St. Stephen, in Monte Coelio, is mentioned in several chronicles. The Chronicle of Melrose mentions his arrival in Scotland in the year 1176, saying of him " conculcans et comminuens omnia quæque, expeditus capere nec impeditus rapere,"—and states, that returning from Ireland in 1177, he held a council of the Scotch prelates at Edinburgh. See moreover Roger Hoveden (Savile, p. 553), and Bromton (Twysden, p. 110), where it is expressly stated that he was sent to visit not only Scotland, Ireland, and the Isles, but also Norway ; to which country, however, he never came. Bromton says that he landed in England the 22d of June 1176, without the consent of the king ; who, therefore, would not allow him to go farther till he had sworn not to do anything against him ; having complied with the request he got letters of safe conduct to Scotland, whence, about Christmas, he visited Man, where he staid a fortnight, continuing his journey to Ireland, where he encouraged the inhabitants of Downshire to hold out against John de Courcy. Afterwards, therefore, as a punishment, he was put into prison by John, but released after a short while, held a council at Dublin, and returned to Scotland, where he is said to have created so great dissatisfaction by his avarice that the Pope was obliged to recall him. 1

1 [Cardinal Yivian Tomasi had been appointed by Pope Alexander III. to settle the dispute raised at the council of Northampton, under Cardinal Petrileone, about the claims of the Archbishop of York to supremacy over Glasgow. —Burton, ii. 74.]

NOTE 29, p. 76.—Anno MCLXXII.

Again the number of the year is wrong, this being evidently 1182. Neither the Reginald here spoken of, nor the " Fogolt " Vicecomes Manniae, named in the next entry, are mentioned anywhere else. This is the first time that the title " Vice-Comes " occurs in the Chronicle, and it is very uncertain what the Norwegian term was for this denomination. In 1223 a " vicecomes de Sky " is mentioned, whence it would seem that each of the greater islands had a " Vicecomes " or governor. Very likely the title existed since the times of Earls Sigurd, and Thorfinn of Orkney, when the Isles were subjected to these earls, and their substitutes who commanded in their names really did so " vice Comitum." In the times, however, of King Godred, the substitute governors ought rather to be called viceroys. Perhaps the Norwegians only called these functionaries sýslumenn (which in Latin is always rendered by ballivi).

NOTE 30, p. 78.—Olavi—utpote decennis pueri.

As it is expressly stated that Olaf was three years old in 1176, when the solemn wedding took place between his father and mother, he must have attained his 14th, not only his 10th year, at his father’s death. From the supplementary narrative, p. 82, we learn that Reginald, if not immediately at his accession, at least sometime afterwards, assigned to Olaf the island of Lewis for maintenance. Very likely he gave him in exchange for the royal power the same appanage, or fief, which he had himself hitherto obtained. In the Icelandic Saga of the celebrated chief and physician Rafn Sveinbiarnarson it is told rather at length, how this Rafn and the bishop-elect Gudmund, sailed from Iceland towards Norway in the year 1202, were driven by storms to Sandey, one of the Sudreys, where they happened to find King Olaf and the bishop, and were compelled by the former to pay a tax, at first calculated at fifty marks, but afterwards, as the Icelanders showed fight, abated to fifteen marks.1 Sandey being no doubt Sandera, one of the southernmost of the long series of islands called Long Island, beginning with Lewis, it is evident that Olaf did not get this island only, but also the others, North-Uist, Harris, South-Uist, Benbecula, etc.,—down to the southernmost point. Reginald, the elder brother, was, according to the Orkney Saga, regarded as one of the most warlike princes in the western parts of Europe at his time ; once, it is stated, he passed three entire successive years in the manner of the ancient sea-kings, always on board his ship, never during the whole period for one single hour living beneath the roof of a house. Our Chronicle entirely omits his participation in the Orkneyan affairs, which however is spoken of by Roger Hoveden under the year 1196 ; and the whole narrative of Hoveden, of these events, is again copied by the writer of our Chronicle in a separate article, bound up in the same MS. vol 2 It is to be observed that Hoveden mentions under one year what really took place in three or four. We shall here briefly enumerate the events in the connexion which appears to be just, after duly comparing the Orkney Saga, the Melrose Chronicle, and Fordun.3 The powerful Orkneyan earl, Harold son of Madadh, Earl of Atholl, had for a long period been on bad terms with King William of Scotland. It is very probable that Harold was one of the six earls who rebelled against King Malcolm in 1160, in order to place William of Egremont, grandson of Duncan, on the throne ; and that he also supported the son of William, Donald Bane, who aspired to the throne, and from 1180-1187 maintained himself in Moray and Ross, till he was killed in the battle of Macgarvey (July 31 , 1187). It is expressly stated that Harold was instigated to hostilities against the Scottish king by his second wife Hoarfiad (Gormiath), daughter of the above mentioned Malcolm Mac Heth, Earl of Moray, alias bishop Wimund. When, therefore, a rival to the earldorns of Orkney and Caithness appeared in the person of Harold the younger (grandson by a daughter of Earl Ragnvald), who had got the title of earl from the Norwegian king about 1175, King William embraced his interests, and gave him the half of Caithness, which of course he must have taken from Harold the elder ; and although it is not said expressly, yet we may safely infer, that from this time incessant or frequent feuds raged between the two rivals. Harold the elder being a staunch partizan of the Norwegian king Magnus, who was supplanted and at last killed in battle by the celebrated Sverrir (1184), it is evident that Harold the younger must have looked for support to the latter, and declared for him, and this was no doubt the principal reason why Harold the elder in 1193 permitted the enemies of Sverrir to collect troops and ships in his dominions, and even afforded them considerable support.3 This force made great mischief in Norway, but was at last totally vanquished by Sverrir in a bloody battle near Bergen (April 3, 1194). And now Earl Harold was severely punished. He was summoned to Norway, and there compelled to submit to the terms dictated by King Sverrir, who entirely detached Shetland from the earldom, annexing it to the crown, and moreover appropriated to himself a great part of the revenues of Orkney. It would even seem that Sverrir, if not immediately, yet shortly afterwards, assigned to his rival the half of Orkney, due to him as the grandson and heir of Earl Ragnvald. Yet though humiliated in this manner, and stripped of a great part of his dominions, Harold the elder, nevertheless, according to Hoveden, daied to occupy Moray, or perhaps rather to keep it in his possession, the occupation having probably taken place before 1195. Profiting, it would seem, by his present distress, King William made an expedition to Moray, nor did Harold venture to resist him, but fled to his ships, while King William penetrated as far as Thurso in Caithness, where he destroyed the earl’s palace. Harold, prevented by storms from crossing over to Orkney, felt compelled to submit to King William as he had submitted to King Sverrir ; but he obtained his forgiveness, and was even permitted to retain the half of Caithness by promising, upon oath, that next time, when the king came to Moray, he should deliver up to him all his enemies,—no doubt the Mac Williams, and give his own son Thorfinn as hostage. As soon, however, as the king had returned, the peace was broken by Harold himself or his men, who penetrated as far as Inverness, before they were routed by the royal forces. King William now went back to the north, and overran Sutherland, Caithness, and Moray, while Harold, as it would seem, frightened, and professing to be innocent of the doings of his son, met the king at Lochloy, near Nairn, bringing the enemies, as stipulated, but for hostages only his two young nephews, not Thorfinn. And even before seeing the king he suffered the enemies to escape, apologising afterwards to the king in a manner which only tended to exasperate him the more. No wonder Harold was severely punished ; the king declared him a felon and breaker of the treaty, to have forfeited what he still held of Caithness, carried him away as prisoner, and had him confined in the castle of Roxburgh, until his son Thorfinn should be delivered up. This was accordingly done, and Harold being exchanged for his son, returned to Orkney, where, however, he was soon visited with new troubles, as his rival, Harold the younger, just coming from Norway with some forces collected there, requested him to give up the half of Orkney, and this being denied, attacked him so suddenly and fiercely that he fled to Man, there to seek for help. Harold the younger, however, followed him. but did not find him at Man, as he had already returned to Scotland, with some auxiliary forces. Harold the younger now also returned to Scotland and waited for his rival at Wick. Nor was it long before Harold the elder appeared, but with a force much larger than expected a battle ensued, in which the younger earl and his men were killed, after having given proofs of the most heroical valour (1198). Harold the elder now recaptured Caithness, and as he could excuse himself as being this time the attacked party, he ventured even to repair to the court of King William, requesting to retain the possession of Caithness for a large sum of money. The king showed himself not indisposed to grant the request, but demanded farther, that Harold should dismiss his wife, the daughter of Malcolm Mac Heth. With this condition, however, Harold could or would not comply, and the negotiations were broken off. King William now addressed himself to King Reginald of Man, offering him the earldom of Caithness for a certain sum of money, and payment of the regular tribute.a Reginald accepted the offer, and collected troops, being also supplied with auxiliary forces from Ireland by his brother-in-law, John of Courcy ; with this army he went to Caithness, and conquered it without any resistance on the part of Harold. In the beginning of the winter, however, he returned home, leaving three lieutenants to defend theconquest ; but Harold, profiting by his absence, caused one of the lieutenants to be put to death by an assassin, and shortly after landed himself at Thurso with a powerful fleet, with the intention to retake his ancestral patrimony. He began with attacking and storming the episcopal palace of Scrabustar (Skarabólstaflr where bishop John of Caithness just happened to be ; and considering this prelate as the principal instigator of the hostilities which he had encountered from the Scotch king, he took a most barbarous revenge, ordering him to be blinded and his tongue to be cut out. This done, he made himself master of the whole of Caithness, severely punishing all adherents of King William, and seizing the possessions of those who fled to save themselves. The King of the Isles, it would seem, now entirely gave up the idea, Or lost the desire, of becoming Lord of Caithness, as the above mentioned lieutenants did not betake themselves to him, but to King William, who henceforth sought revenge and punished the wilful earl in his own name. His first act was to let the unhappy Thorfinn, the earl’s son, who still remained as hostage, atone for the trespasses of his father ; he was blinded and castrated, and shortly afterwards died in prison. In the spring of 1202, King William with a large force went to the North, and encamped at Esteyndale, which then formed the border between Sutherland and Caithness, preparing an expedition across the Pentland Firth to Orkney. The earl, seeing the superior strength of his suzerain, and despairing of success, again sued for peace, which he obtained, as well as the possession of Caithness, on the condition of paying every fourth penny found in the whole earldom, no doubt as an indemnification to King Reginald of Man, who had paid his money without getting the object. Harold, being unable to procure the money from his own means, induced the inhabitants of Caithness, who were anxious themselves to avoid the horrors of war, to pay what was wanted, and thus a sum of 2000 marks in silver was raised, with which the king was satisfied.6 Thus Earl Harold retained Caithness at the cost of the inhabitants, and it does not appear that King Reginald afterwards aspired to the possession of this remote district.7

1 Saga Hrafns Sveinbjarnarsonar, Biskupa Shgur, Copenhagen, 1858, p. 563-564.

2 See Johnstone’s Antiquitates Celto Normannica, p. 49, sqq. , where it is printed. [Also Oliver’s Mon. vol. i. p. 37.]

3 We deem it superfluous here to enter into a minute compte rendu of all the reasons which have induced us to give now one, now another, author the preference, when conflicting with each other. Indeed, the reasons present themselves obviously. Those, however, who want to see them scrupulously explained, we refer to our work, The History of the Norwegian People, vol. iii. pp. 41, 289, 443-454.

4 [These were Olave, Harold’s brother-in-law, and John Halkelson, who sailed from the Orkneys to assist the son of the Norwegian regent, Erling, in placing Sigurd Magnusson upon his father’s throne. The flower of the Orkneys assembled round the banner of Olave, perished with their two leaders, in the disastrous battle of Floravagr.—Robertson, i. 432.]

5 [Tytler, in his History of Scotland, mentions this purchase of Caithness from William, and makes a special exception of the yearly tribute due to the king. Vide also Ayliff’s Calendar of Ancient Charters, p. 336.]

6 [Robertson says 2000 pounds of silver. At Harold’s death, in 1206, his three sons succeeded to his inheritance, Heinrek to Ross, David and John to his possessions in Caithness and Ross, which they divided between them, and upon the death of David, John succeeded to both earldoms. —Robertson, i. 413, 432.]

7 Fordun, i. p. 512 . Roger Hoveden (ap. Savile), p. 767. Orkneyiuga Saga,p. 406-418. Sverr. Saga, ch. 125. Fordun (viii. 62) says that the mutilation of the bishop was not so thoroughly executed as the earl ordered, and that, consequently, the bishop retained the power of speaking and the sight of one eye. This is also more probable than the relation of Orkneyinga Saga, which says that the bishop was really deprived of his tongue and sight, but got them both back by a miracle of Sta. Triduana (in the Saga the name is corrupted into Trollhcena) to whom he offered his prayers. In the letter ‘directed by Pope Innocent III. to the bishop of Orkney (dated Subiaco, September 1, 1202), in which he prescribes the penitence to be undergone by the man who had executed the cruel commands of the earl, there is only mention of the mutilation of the tongue, not of the eyes. —[Burton, ii. 83. Robertson, i. 413, n.]


NOTE 31, p. 84.—Fuitque Olavus catenatus in carcere regis Scotia fere septem annis, etc.

As King William died in 1214, December 4, the time when King Olaf was taken prisoner and sent to William must have been in the course of the year 1208.1 It is therefore very likely that an expedition, undertaken from Norway to the Isles in 1210, on which point our Chronicle is entirely silent, but of which the king’s Saga and the Icelandic annals speak, was partly prompted by the friends and adherents of Olaf, who had now only to look towards Norway for assistance and revenge, Scotland being the accomplice of Reginald. Again, however, the Norwegian and Icelandic relations make no mention at all of the treacherous conduct of King Reginald. The Saga only tells,2 that when the long civil war between the two political factions, the Birkibeins and the Beglings, was happily brought to an end through the treaty of Hvitingsey, in the sumnier of 1208, several of the warriors on both sides, disgusted wish the prospects of peace and tranquillity at home, determined jointly to make a privateering expedition to the Sudreys. The pretext they could or did give for thus attacking a dependency of Norway in the times of peace, is not told : we are therefore left to conjecture ; and, indeed, nothing is more probable than that the chief or pretended object was the chastisement of Reginald, and if possible the deliverance of Olaf. In the year 1 209, according to the annals, the preparations were made, and twelve ships of war were armed. Among the chiefs are four expressly named as belonging to the party of the Beglings, and three as being Birkibeins ; one of these was Uspak, the above mentioned grandson of Somerled, who perhaps intended to try if he could regain some possessions in right of his descent, and who no doubt was the real director of the whole concern. In the year 1209, as we learn from the Ulster annals, the " Mac Somerleds," i.e. , the sons of Reginald, son of Somerled, fought a battle with the men of Skye ; this event also must somehow have been in connexion with the expedition from Norway, which, according to the annals, took place in 1210, or perhaps began in the autumn of 1209,1 ending in 1210. In the saga no more is told of the expedition than that the Norwegians rifled lona, which had till then been held sacred and left untouched ; that afterwards they quarrelled with each other, and separated ; that some of them were killed in different places, and that those who returned were reprimanded severally by the bishops for having conducted them-selves like pirates. It is very singular, and almost inconceivable, that our Chronicle should not say a word of this expedition. It is, however, not unlikely that the fact mentioned under the year 1210, viz., that Angus, the son of Somerled, being killed, with his three sons, is con-nected therewith, and that he fell in a fight with the Norwegians under his nephew Uspak. It is also probable that the Norwegians somehow took part in the devastation of Man by King John of England, of which our Chronicle speaks as happening in the same year (1210). Although the Saga speaks of the expedition from Norway as being of no consequence, yet it seems that it inspired Reginald with a wholesome awe of the Norwegians, which induced him shortly afterwards to repair to Norway with his son Godred, do homage to King Inge, swear the oath of allegiance, and pay the tribute hitherto with-held. All which, however, did not prevent him shortly afterwards, in 1212, doing homage also to King John of England (see his letter dated Lambeth, May 16, 1212, in Rymer, Foedera, i. p. 105),2 though suffering his subjects to commit depredations on the coasts of Ireland and England. But after the death of King John, when his son, King Henry III., was at last established on the throne, and his rival, Louis of France, had left the kingdom, Reginald applied for a safe-conduct for the time, from January 16th to Easter 1218, that he might repair to King Henry, do him homage, and give satisfaction for the committed outrages. The letter was accorded (vide Rymer, Foedera, i. p. 150),3 yet it is not said whether Reginald went then to London or riot. Certain it is, however, . that he did so the following year ; b and then not only offered his services and homage to the king, but also, summoned by the apostolical legate and plenipotentiary Pandolfo, issued a declaration dated Sept. 22, 1219, in which he professed to hold the Isle of Man as a fief of the Papal See, promised to pay a yearly tribute of twelve marks sterling, and acknowleged being invested by the Legate with the possession thereof.4 This curious document, which certainly was in open contradiction with his obligations to Norway, and therefore evidently shows that he refused to acknowledge the suzerainty of the young Norwegian King Hacon (especially as it is expressly said in the document that the Isle of Man did belong to himself with hereditary right, and without any obligation of feudal service to anybody)—is not only preserved in the English archives, and printed in Rymer, Foedera, i. 1 , 156 ; but from another copy, formerly existing in the papal archives, it has also been transcribed in the celebrated collection of documents recording the rights of the Holy See, which was compiled by Cardinal Nicholas of Aragon, and from this compilation again it is given by Raynaldus in the Annales Ecci., ad anno 1219, No. 44. Raynaldus gives also,d for the year 1223 (No. 53), a papal letter dated May 23, 1223, in which the holy Father accepts of the offer made by Reginald, and takes him and his realm into his protection. As for the homage of Reginald offered to the English king, it may be, however, that it was not meant for Man, but for some Irish fiefs, held by him on the condition to guard the coasts and seas against pirates and enemies ; because, on the 24th September 1219, the king directed a letter to the Justiciary and Barons of Ireland for the protection of Reginald (Rymer, i. 1, p. 157); and from letters, likewise given by Rymer, we learn that such fiefs were really given to and accepted by his brother and successor Olaf, without in the least affecting his fidelity to the crown of Norway.a This also explains best the above mentioned words in the Orkney Saga, that Reginald passed three years in the manner of the ancient pirates, not sleeping beneath the roof of a house.


1 [Under date 1208 Johnstone says that Olave was carried to Marchemont castle, and was kept in durance till the death of William in 1214. Robertson says that he was confined ‘in Roxburgh castle—li. 99. The Latin is Castellum puellarsem, which, in the sixteenth century, was the name of Edinburgh castle.]

2 Saga of King Inge, etc. Fornmanna Sögur, ix. 192.

3 [Under 1210 Johnstone notes that the Icelandic annals record the pillage of Iona, and the consecration of Coil, Bishop of the Sudreys, after a vacancy of forty years from the death of Neiuar.]

4 [See Appendix, No. 6. ] C [See Appendix, No. 7. ]

5 [See Appendix, No. 9.] 5 [See Appendix, No. 10.]

6 [See Appendix, No. 8. This document, and No. 13, are here given by Munch as footnotes. -

7 [See Appendix, No. 13. The principal object of this act was to protect the kingdom against attacks from his more powerful neighbours, until their claims had been examined by Rome. It is not a solitary instance in the history of those times, as we see from the cases of Peter of Arragon, of our own King John, and others ; nor would it appear in the same light to the people of that day in which it does to us. For the feudal notions on graduated jurisdiction and corresponding subordination, easily led men to look upon that suzerainty as paramount which, as spiritual, was highest in order ; which, as an immediate delegation from Christ, was most directly derived from God ; and which was the most extensive, as embracing the holders of all other sovereignties in its jurisdiction. Hence, according to the political jurisprudence of the middle ages, we find the Popes not only the supreme judges in matters of faith and morals, but also the recognised arbitrators between other sovereigns, on matters within the sphere of the jurisdiction of those sovereigns, and enforcing their decisions not only by spiritual sanctions, but ‘ also by the temporal power of the sovereigns belonging to the Christian community. History, through many centuries, testifies to the powerful efficacy of this influence of the papal see in the preservation of peace, the protection of the weak, and the enforcement of justice. We see a curious application of the power of this influence in the sanction of the conventions between Norway and Scotland in 1266. (See Appendix, No. 27). Another example of a different character may be found in the answer of Pope Pius II. to Thomas Stanley. Lord of Man. (Appendix, No. 53.)]

8 [As the question raised about the political dependency of Man on England or Norway, is not unimportant, it will be well to refer to several documents published by Dr. Oliver, which, if they have not escaped the researches of Munch, have not received from him the attention due to their importance. February 7, 1205, King John takes Reginald, his lands and people, under his protection Mon. ii. 25. February 7, 1206, John gives to Reginald a safe-conduct to England for fifteen days ; lb. 26. April 28, 1206, John orders the sheriff of Lancaster to assign to the King of Man thirty marcates of land in his bailiwick ; lb. 27. April 29, 1206, John orders his treasurer to pay to the King of Man thirty marks lb. 28. June 17, 1207, John orders the sheriff of Lancaster to assign to Reginald twenty litrates of land in his bailiwick ; lb. 29. On Trinity Sunday, 1212, ten marks were paid by John to Stephen of Oxford, for conducting the King of Man back to his own country ; lb. 30. May 16, 1212, Reginald acknowledges himself liegeman of John, referred to by Munch, p. 185 ; lb. 31. May 16, 1213, John ordered some prisoners, subjects of Reginald, at Porchester and Dover, to be surrendered to the King of Man ; lb. 33. May 16, 1213, John orders his officers in Ireland to assist Reginald against the Norwegian sea-rovers ; lb. 34. At the same time, in return for his homage and service, he grants him a knight’s fee in Ireland, and 100 measures of corn yearly ; lb. 35. January 3, 1214, John forbids his mariners of Ireland, etc., to injure the territory of the King of Man ; Ib. 37. January 16, 1218, Henry III. signified that he had granted letters of safe-conduct to the King of the Isles, that he might render him homage, and amend certain excesses committed by his people against England and Ireland ; lb. 40. This is referred to by Munch, p. 185. September 24, 1219, Henry III. notifies that he had granted safe conduct to Reginald and his men to return home ; that he had done homage, and that they might go safely to transact business in the island. He ordered also two hogsheads of wine, and 120 crannocks of corn, as a fee of one knight, with appurtenances in Ireland, to be given yearly to Reginald lb. 43, 45, 47. November 4, 1220, Henry III notifies to his justices of Ireland that they must protect Reginald against the King of Norway, who is dealing craftily with him, and demands from him undue tribute ; and that they must see to his receiving the wine and corn promised unto him, and the knight’s fee in Ireland ; lb. 58, 60. Surely these relations between the two kings imply something more than would arise from the tenure of a knight’s fee ! On the 12th of April 1228, Henry III. grants letters of safe conduct to Olave to come to England, for the framing of peace between himself and his brother Reginald ; in 1250, to Harold, to come and perform what is due ; and in 1255, to Magnus, -for as long as he remains faithful ; lb. 69, 53, 86.]


NOTE 32, p. 86.—Scristinam filiam Ferkkar Comitis de Ros.

" Scristinam " means " Christinam," as p. 22 " Gillescrist " is written instead of " Gillecirrist." This " Ferkkar " was the powerful Ferquhard Mac Intagart,1 Earl of Ross, whom the Chron. de Mailros calls " Machen-tagar," only narrating that in the year 1215 " 2 intraverunt in Moraviam hostes domini regis Scotiae, scilicet Dovenalcius Ban, filius Macwillelmi, et Kennauh Mac Aht, et filius cuiusdam regis Hiberniae, cum turba malignantium copiosa ; in quos irruens Machentagar hostes regis valide prostravit, quorum capita detruncavit et novo regi nova munera proesentavit, .xvii. hal. Julii, propter quoci domnus rex novum militem ipsum ordinavit." The " Macwilliam " ~ here mentioned must have been the son of Guthred Macwilliam (son of William of Egreniont, grandson of King Duncan and Ingibiorg the daughter of Finn Arneson), who had begun a rebellion in 1211, but in 1212 had been captured by William Cumyn, Earl of Buchan, and put to death (Fordun, viii, 76). " Kennauh Mac Aht," must mean " Kenneth Mac Heath," which shows him to have been son of the other pretender, Malcolm Mac Heth (alias Wimund), and brother-in-law of Earl Harold at Orkney.

1 [Ferquhard Mac-ia Tagart (the son of the priest), was probably descended from one of the Culdee abbots, who becanie mere lay proprietors of the abbey lands, discharging no ecclesiastical functions whatsoever, but supporting from their revenues the community by whom such duties were discharged. Ferquhiard is the first member of his family known as Earl of Ross. This family afterwards rose to importance on the decline of the earls of Orkney. They held Skye and the Nordreys by grant from the Scottish kings, and were inveterate opponents of the little Norwegian population of the islands, who claimed to hold the islands as fiefs from the King of Norway. The fidelity of Ferquhard to the Scottish crown appears to have been rewarded by large grants in Argyll.—Robertson, i. 239 ii. 3, 23, 100.]

2 [Moravia (Moray) was invaded by Donald Bane, son of Mac Willianc and ‘ Kennceught Mac Aht (Kenneth Mac Heth), and the son of an Irish king, with a numerous rabble of marauders, all of whom were at feud with the King of Scotland. Machentagar having attacked and sorely routed these enemies of the king, beheaded them, and presented their heads as a novel offering to the new king, on the 15th of June ; in return for this service, the king created him a new knight.]

3 [The first Donald Bane or Mac William, who rebelled against William the Lion in 1181, was a son of William Fitz-Duncan, or grandson of Duncan, and cousin to the king. He was slain on Mamgarry Moor, near Inverness, in 1187. Godfrey, son of the preceding Mac William, or Donald Bane, rebelled against King William in 1211, and was beheaded in 1212, as stated by Munch. The Mac William or Donald Bane who rebelled against Alexander II. in 1215, and who was slain by Ferquhard, was brother, not son of Guthred or Godfrey. —Robertson, i. 393, 428 ; ii. 3.]

NOTE 33, p. 86.—Pol filius Boke.

This is the Pall Bálkason thus named in the Saga of King Hácon, ch. 166. His father’s name, Bálki, was pronounced,- it would seem, by the Sudreyans, as it would still be in many parts of Norway, with omission of the " l," or in a manner analogous with the English pronunciation of " walk," " talk," etc. By a curious mistake, Johnstone ( p. 150) believes the "princeps Paulus," mentioned p. 68, about the year 1154, to be the same as Paul Bálkason, who must in that case have been 100 years or more of age, when he came to Norway in 1229.

NOTE 34, p. 88.—Alano domino Galwediae.’

This is the celebrated Alan of Galloway, Constable of Scotland, and the most powerful of the Scotch magnates, married to the king’s cousin Margaret of Huntingdon, and possessing large fiefs in Ireland, which he held from King John of England. His brother Thomas, who had become Earl of Atholl through marriage, is mentioned in our Chronicle as " Thomas Comes Etholice " in the year 1228.1

1 [Thomas of Galloway, here called Earl of Athole, was the natural son of Alan, not his brother. On the death of his father, without legitimate male issue, he endeavoured to occupy Galloway, aided by Gilroy and a band of Irish adventurers ; hut he was defeated, and delivered into the custody of John Baliol, who had married Dervorguil, one of his father’s daughters, and languished for upwards of fifty years in the dungeons of Bernard castle. The chronicler has not over-stated the atrocities of the wild Picts of Galloway, for whilst the Scots generally were branded as a blasphemous and unholy people, given to sacrilege, sparing neither churches nor monasteries in their conflagrations, nor women nor children in their slaughters, this palm of barbarity was given to the men of Galloway. Though Christians, they had retained many of the vices and some of this practices of their pagan forefathers. This very Thomas, and his Irish confederates, when striving for the lordship of Galloway, bound themselves to mutual fidelity by each shedding a few drops of his blood into a bowl, to which wine was added, and then lifting-it to their lips in token of inviolable union. Even a century later they are described as little better than naked savages and freebooters. They spoke the Erse tongue, and belonged to the same Celtic race that had peopled Argyll, Inverness, and the north of the Forth ; brave to excess, their manners were cruel and ferocious. They wore the kilt, as their under garment is described as not descending below the knee, leaving the leg downwards wholly bare ; and over their shoulder they wore a rough mantle or leather coat, tanned with the hair on, which, on occasions of ceremony, was exchanged for a scarlet robe. Their hair and beards were allowed to grow to such a length as almost to cover their countenance. In battle they were armed with long spears, pointed with steel, but they were too blunt to do much execution, and often broke at the first thrust. They bore also darts or javelins, and made use of a hooked steel weapon with which they laid hold of their enemies ; and on their arm they carried a shield formed of strong cow hide. No wonder that the Manx should feel indignant with Reginald for exposing their country to be harried by such cruel and ferocious savages.—Lingard, ii. 71 ; ; Burton, ii. 351 ; Robertson, ii. 26-28 ; Tytler, ii. 419,]


Back index next

Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received The Editor
HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2001