Chapter II

_Critical Estimate of the Result of Norman Feudalism
on the Civilisation of Scotland._

THIS important question demands a careful examination, inasmuch as it has usually been treated from one exclusive standpoint. It has been repeatedly stated in the preceding pages that the Angles or Saxons had occupied a portion of the country in the south-east since the middle of the sixth century, and that they had partly mingled with the Celtic inhabitants in that region. But it has been often averred that from about the beginning of the twelfth century onward into the thirteenth, there was a great influx of Normans and Saxons from England into Scotland. The real historic question is,――how far and in what form was the subsequent civilisation of Scotland indebted to this latter class of settlers? Several historians have boldly asserted that Scotland owes all her civilisation to these Norman and Saxon nobles, adding by way of evidence, that the Celts never showed any disposition to follow an industrious occupation or to congregate in towns; but that these Norman and Saxon nobles were men of exalted virtue and marked ability, and therefore the veritable originators of Scottish civilisation.¹ Before accepting this view, let us test its historic truth.

¹ _Chalmers’ Caledonia_, Volume I., pages 460, 495‒614, 775;
Burton’s _History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 85, 86;
C. Innes’ _Sketches of Early Scotch History_, pages 10, 11;
_Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_, Volume I., Preface, page 27;
_Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis_, Preface, pages 9, 10.

Seeing that the Saxons had occupied an important and extensive district of Scotland for upwards of four centuries, whatever customs and essential characteristics of political and social organisation which specially belonged to them, must have been in full operation in the south-east of Scotland centuries before the Norman conquest. Thus, at the outset, the real question becomes limited to the Normans alone, and without entering into unnecessary details, I will present the requisite historic facts and the real issue, in so far as Scotland is concerned.

The Normans were originally of the same race as the people noticed in the preceding pages under the name of Norsemen. Commencing their plundering raids about the end of the eighth century, they first seized the Shetland islands and then the Orkneys. Afterwards hordes of them proceeded to the Western Islands, plundered and destroyed the monastery of Iona, slew the monks and the inhabitants of the island. They occupied themselves in work of this description for many years, infesting and desolating the coasts of Scotland. Afterwards they effected a lodgment in Caithness and in other parts of the north, and in the Western Isles. Ultimately, however, except in the Shetland and Orkney Islands, and a portion of Caithness, they have left comparatively few traces of their civilisation on the mainland of Scotland, save the traditions associated with their heathen customs and their extreme cruelty.

Many other hordes swarmed off from the original hives in Scandinavia, which proceeded on plundering expeditions in different directions and to different countries, where they engaged in work similar to that indicated in the above paragraph. They made many raids into Gaul (France), plundered the country, and with ruthless cruelty slew all the people who offered any resistance to them. At first entering the mouths of the rivers with their vessels, they landed and spread devastation and suffering on every hand. Then, encouraged by their success and prompted by their savage propensities, they extended the range of their operations. They entered the mouth of the Seine with their vessels, proceeded inland and ravished the country on every side, and constantly threatened Paris. Under the leadership of their great hero Rollo, their raids and devastations had become so fierce and unbearable that King Charles of France granted to Rollo by treaty a tract of territory to be held as a feudal fief. After some natural demur on the part of the conquering hero, at last Rollo rendered due homage to his Lord Superior by kissing King Charles’ great toe. Rollo then gave the name of Normandy to the territory thus ceded to him, and he became the first Duke of Normandy.

Concerning the internal condition of this province after Rollo obtained possession of it, there is very little reliable information. It is said that the land was sold by auction amongst Rollo’s followers; and no doubt the Normans soon became the only land-owners. Rollo added the district of Bessin to his province, and in 927 he resigned the government in favour of his son. Five years later, the hero who founded the Dukedom of Normandy, expired at an advanced age. His son, who succeeded, was called William Longsword, but he was not a strong ruler. He was basely assassinated in December 942, on the Flemish side of the river Somme. Longsword was succeeded by his natural son, Richard the Fearless, his mother being Esprota, a Breton woman of great attractions, but of unknown lineage. His enemies made the fact of his illegitimate birth a ground for disputing his right of inheritance, and Richard was soon in the midst of trying difficulties. He was sometimes hard pressed in his struggles with the neighbouring princes, but he ultimately succeeded in holding his ground. Richard’s wife Emma had no children, but he had natural children by Gnenora, a woman of unknown lineage; her children were declared illegitimate by the Church, and Richard then married her according to the form of the Church, and thus his children became legitimised. Richard the Fearless died in 996, and was succeeded by his son, who was called Richard the Good.

Richard the Good was not long seated on the ducal throne when he had to face a threatening movement of the peasants under his sway. This class mainly consisted of the ancient Gaulish or Celtic inhabitants, who had since the fall of the Roman Empire, and the successive invasions of the Franks and the Normans, suffered grievous oppression. The Normans had begun in earnest to assume and to exercise all the functions of a military and ruling class. They had begun to erect baronial castles, and the swarms of illegitimate children of the successive Dukes, which required to be provided with lands, continually increased the number of petty and despotic lords. At last their oppression of the poor peasantry passed the limits of human endurance, and the sons of toil then thought of trying issues with their ruthless oppressors. As might have been expected, only an imperfect notice of the rising has been preserved, from which it appears that the grievances of the peasants were these: “The nobles do us naught but ill, and we gain no profit from our labours. Our days are spent in toil and fatigue, our cattle and horses are seized for dues and services, and our goods wasted by continual suits. We have no safety against our lords, and no oath is binding on them. Why should we not shake off all this evil? Are we not men as they? Dare we to do and dare again; a good heart is all we want. Let us then unite, and if they should make war upon us, have we not thirty or forty hardy peasants ready to fight with club and flail to each knight? Let us only learn to resist, and we shall be free to cut our own firewood, to fish and to hunt, and to do our will, in river, field, and wood.” They resolved to form a commune to discuss their common wrongs and the means of resistance.¹ As far as can be ascertained from imperfect indications and circumstances, it seems that the peasants obtained some slight relief.

¹ _Roman ♦de Rou._

♦ “de ea Rose” replaced with “de Rou”

Under the government of Richard the Good the Norman power increased, and he died in 1026. He was succeeded by his son Richard; but he soon became involved in a dispute with his brother Robert, about the latter’s share of the Dukedom, and the possession of the castle of Falaise. At last they came to an agreement and met on friendly terms, but immediately after Richard died. It was reported that his brother Robert had poisoned him;¹ be that as it may, Robert then mounted the ducal throne. He became known as Robert the “Magnificent.” One day when looking around him from the cliffs of Falaise Robert observed an exceedingly attractive young woman washing clothes in the neighbouring brook, and he fixed his eyes and his heart on her. She was Harlotta, daughter of a tanner of Falaise, and in due time she gave birth to William the Conqueror. Of course he was an illegitimate child, and was sometimes called “the bastard;” but no one is accountable for his own birth, as no one was ever consulted on that point. It may, however, be observed that two of William’s lineal progenitors were the sons of women of humble and unknown lineage; and it is more than probable that these two women, and also the graceful and attractive Harlotta herself, were all of Celtic descent. It therefore follows according to the law of natural descent, and the well known law of sexual selection, that William the Conqueror was three-fourths Celtic and only one fourth Norman. This phenomena, if carefully examined, might perhaps explain why the Normans so soon disappeared from the world as a distinct race.

¹ Crowe’s _History of France_, Volume I. pages 87, 88. 1858.

Robert the Magnificent attempted to invade England when the great Canute was on the throne, but he completely failed. He went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and died when returning home in 1035. His natural son, William, then ascended the ducal throne; but the nobles of Normandy rebelled against him, and for many years he only held a wavering and perilous sway. At last, with the assistance of his Lord Superior, Henry I. of France, the conspiracy of his nobles was overthrown. But then the men of Alençon revolted, and William marched towards their town to subdue them: as he approached, they spread skins over the walls and beat upon them, shouting, “Hides for the tanner, plenty of work for the tanner.” This insult stung William to the core, and he swore by “the splendour of God, that he would deal with them as with a tree whose branches were cut off with a pollarding axe.” The town shortly after fell, and William then ordered that thirty-two of the citizens should be brought before him; and by his orders their hands and feet were cut off, and the dismembered limbs were thrown over the castle walls as emblems of his vengeance. The garrison were terrified, craved mercy, and at once surrendered.¹

¹ Crowe’s _History of France_, Volume I., page 91.

The character of the feudal government of Normandy may be indicated thus:――The Duke assumed all the functions of a King and ruled with the advice of a few of his nobles selected by himself. The nobles in possession of land were under feudal obligations to him, which they took every opportunity to cast off. Their rank was derived partly from Norse descent, and partly from relations with the ducal family; and thus they were kept in a sort of subordination by self-interest and by the strong arm of the Duke. It was mainly the energy and the decision of the Duke which kept the province from dismemberment; the attempts of his nobles to obtain independence led to continual quarrels, which were only checked by ruthless bloodshed. There was also the wild love of excitement inseparably associated with the life of idle and uncultured men, which often manifested itself in deeds and scenes of the utmost ferocity, and continually issuing in outbursts of anarchy at home, or in expeditions to foreign lands in search of plunder and new excitement. The people who lived and toiled under this military aristocracy were kept in absolute dependence on their lords, though possibly some of them may have still retained a faint remembrance of their former freedom.¹

¹ Freeman’s _Norman Conquest_, Volume V., page 482; _The
Normans in Europe_, by A. H. Johnson, M.A., pages 103, 104.
1884.

War was the fundamental principle of Norman Feudalism and the essential condition of Norman organisation and life. William the Conqueror understood this very well, and looked out for a field to give it scope. He had fixed his eye on England long before he actually invaded it; and he prepared for the grand effort with a caution and deliberation, and an astuteness and craft which were truly amazing. He either obtained a promise from Edward the Confessor, his cousin, that he should succeed to the English throne on Edward’s death, or he pretended that he received it; and in 1064, an accident caused by the weather enabled William to meet Harold under the most favourable circumstances for himself; and it was reported that Harold became his man, promised to marry his daughter, to place Dover in his hands, and to support his claim to the English throne on Edward’s death. Edward died in 1066, and the Witan elected Harold King of England. William was enjoying himself hunting in the forest of Rouen when tidings of Harold’s election reached him. He then affected the utmost astonishment, and at once vehemently denounced Harold as a perjured man, planned a very plausible claim for himself, and appealed to Christendom. He was especially careful to obtain the sanction of the Pope; and he informed his holiness that he was undertaking a great missionary work, “which should purify the corrupted Anglo-Saxon State and Church, and bring England more closely under the sway of Rome.” All the turbulent Normans, needy and landless nobles, petty knights and adventurers, hastened to join his army, which consisted of a motley assemblage.¹

¹ Few of the higher nobles of Europe joined William’s invading
army; indeed, it has been stated that a number of his
own Norman nobles did not join his army, but remained in
Normandy.

He defeated and slew Harold the English king, and if there had been no more resistance, then in that case, the Conqueror might have been merciful, but he never hesitated to sacrifice any number of human lives if they stood between him and his end; possibly he would have slain every man in England rather than relinquish his hold of the country. He gave some examples of the length to which he was prepared to go, as when he reduced the whole of the territory between the Tees and the Humber to a waste, and it remained for many years untilled. Toward the close of his career difficulties and failures thickened around him. In 1079 his own son, Robert, fought against him, and wounded and unhorsed his father. In 1087 William engaged in a war with the King of France, and after burning the town of Hantes he was riding over the ruins when his horse stumbled and he fell fatally injured. He was carried to Rouen, and declared his wishes before he expired. To his eldest son, Robert, Normandy was given; William Rufus, his second son, he named as his successor to the throne of England; and to Henry, his third son, he left 5,000 pounds of silver. Whenever his sons heard what their respective shares were, they all immediately departed before their father expired――Robert to Normandy, Rufus to England, and Henry to grasp his treasure. More inhumane and disgraceful conduct of sons toward their dying father it would be difficult to conceive. The remains of the Conqueror were stripped and disgracefully dispoiled, and hurried without decent burial into the grave, while the owner of the soil exacted his price for it before he allowed the remains to be interred.¹ Thus ended the career of William the Conqueror, the greatest of all the Normans. His intellectual powers were excellent, his natural sagacity and strength of will were striking features of his character; he had also the faculty of commanding and of organising; but morally and humanely he stood on an extremely low level. Indeed, this lack of humanity was the black and the degrading characteristic of the Normans from the beginning to the close of their career in Europe.

¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., pages 183, 184; _The Normans
in Europe_, by A. H. Johnson, pages 155, 180.

It has often been stated, and is still occasionally repeated, that the Normans had attained to a higher stage of civilisation than the people whom they conquered and subjugated in England. There is no difficulty in understanding how this view originated, or how it continued to be favourably received and strongly maintained. The first and most important result of the Conquest was the transference of the ownership of the greater part of the land of England to the Normans, who were a military and ruling aristocracy. Thus they almost at once became the absolute masters of the people, assumed the functions of government, and constantly endeavoured to maintain their position as the hereditary owners of the land, the hereditary legislators, and rulers of the people. The Normans introduced the claim of the divine right of kings, and exercised it themselves to an enormous extent in every direction. They covered England with castles, not for the protection of the people and their property, as in former times, but to enable each individual noble to oppress the people in his own district with impunity. They depopulated large tracts of the country to make forests for mere sport to themselves.

I have stated in preceding pages that war was the fundamental principle of Norman feudalism, and that morally and humanely the Conqueror himself stood on an extremely low level; the circumstantial evidence of this will now be adduced. What are the chief distinctions between civilised and uncivilised life? 1, So far as yet ascertained the pursuit and slaughter of wild animals is one of the most primitive and characteristic traits of savage life; 2, Extreme cruelty and a disregard of human life are features usually associated with tribes living in a savage state; 3, An utter disregard of the rights and of the lives of other men, whether this be exhibited by the head of a dukedom or the aristocracy under him, or by both acting together, must afford unimpeachable evidence that such a community is still in a low stage of civilisation.

Let us carefully examine if any of the above characteristics of life befit William the Conqueror and his Norman aristocracy as they exhibited themselves in Normandy and in England in the eleventh century. The Conqueror himself was so destitute of human culture that when he was not engaged in war or in scheming the overthrow of his enemies, no other form of amusement was brutal enough to satisfy his rude propensities but the pursuit and slaughter of wild animals. After he had subdued the people of England, and had leisure to enjoy himself, he then discovered that the natural and existing ranges were not sufficient for his favourite amusement. What was he to do? Did the Conqueror think that the rights and the homes of the people of England should be considered in preference to the gratification of his own extreme passion for sport? No, he never did. On the contrary, he ordered that in Hampshire thirty-six parishes should be destroyed, thirty-six churches pulled down, the whole of the inhabitants evicted from their homes, and the country utterly depopulated for thirty miles round, and all this was merely to make space for the Conqueror’s New Forest, in which he might satisfy his appetence for sport in full measure. The Conqueror’s son, King Rufus, greatly increased the forests, and in the early part of the twelfth century there were sixty-seven forests, thirty chases, and seven hundred and eighty-one parks, which were full of wild animals, specially and carefully preserved, and to be pursued and slaughtered only by the Normans.

It is unnecessary to detail the many acts of ruthless cruelty inflicted under the direction of the Conqueror himself. The cutting off of the hands and feet of thirty-two men for a ♦trivial offence, a mere joke, affords a characteristic example of his cold and revengeful nature. It is recorded that, on his death-bed, he said――“No tongue can tell the deeds of wickedness I have perpetrated in my weary pilgrimage of toil and care.” He was unquestionably an irresponsible and cruel despot, and in the words of a contemporary record I close my remarks on him:――“Alas! that any man should be so proud, so raise himself up, and account himself above all men! May the Almighty God show mercy to his soul, and grant him forgiveness of his sins.”¹

♦ “trival” replaced with “trivial”

¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., pages 188‒190; Freeman’s
_History of the Norman Conquest_, Volume IV. toward the end;
Volume V., pages 6‒52, Note C., pages 747‒759.

In the preceding pages the internal government of Normandy under the Normans was twice referred to, and it appeared that the people under this military aristocracy were sorely afflicted by the continual recurrence of internal war and bloodshed among the local nobles. Indeed, war was the breath of life and the bread of life to the Normans, insomuch that they could not exist anywhere without it. They understood the requisite conditions of their own existence very well; and if at any time there was no war for them, then in that case, they had ample and carefully prepared substitutes in their great forests and preserves, and to these they returned, like the primitive savages, to the pursuit and slaughter of wild animals.

Thus it inevitably appears on every side that the Norman aristocracy were morally and socially in a comparatively low stage of culture and civilisation. That the ruder propensities and the lower passions were still rampant amongst them to an enormous degree, that they had not yet learned to respect the very rudiments of the rights of mankind, and consequently they were utterly callous to the people under them. They had no adequate conception of justice whatever, apart from the special interest of their own class, nor of truth, “for no oath was binding on them.” Hence Norman feudalism instead of being an advanced stage of society, shows an almost total absence of the fundamental and essential elements upon which progress and civilisation proceed.

Still it is quite true that the Norman Conquest produced great effects upon the English people, and in many directions influenced the subsequent history and progress of England. This, however, was not a consequence of any superiority of Norman civilisation at the time of the Conquest, but the very reverse. Very briefly the historic and social phenomena may be indicated thus:――The Norman Conquest created new historic conditions and relations in Britain. But owing to the uncivilised and ruthless character of the chief agents engaged in the military and the political processes of the creation of these new historic conditions, an enormous amount of cruel suffering was inflicted upon the great body of the English people. After two or three generations, which were strikingly marked by fierce outbursts of internal anarchy and bloodshed, and excessive oppression of the people, the new historic conditions, slightly modified, assumed what may be called their normal equilibrium. These new conditions were in some directions favourable to progress and civilisation, and in other directions an opposite tendency was often manifested. Considered externally, the Conquest created new historic relations between England and France, and it would require a long and careful discussion to determine whether these new relations were favourable or unfavourable to the internal development and the civilisation of England. This historic phase of the Conquest is of great interest, and much could be said on both sides of the subject. Considered internally, I can only notice one or two points which were permanent in their operation. The Conqueror introduced arrangements admirably calculated to strengthen the hands of the King. His aim was to limit the power of the feudal nobles and render them dependent upon the Crown; and in this he succeeded. He concentrated the ends of the threads of the local powers in the supreme power of the King; and the Kings of England soon became strong enough to hold the feudal nobles well under the control of the executive. Thus England was saved from many of the worst features of Norman Feudalism; although in succeeding ages the great power concentrated in the hands of the Kings of England, was sometimes used for mischievous purposes. Touching the effect of the Conquest on the body of the English people, its tendency was no doubt oppressive for many generations. “That the result of the Norman Conquest was the social thrusting down of the great mass of Englishmen, there can be no doubt.”¹ In fact, they were partly thrust down by the transference of the land to the Norman aristocracy, and the introduction of feudal forms of land tenure.

¹ Freeman’s _History of the Norman Conquest_, Volume V., page
476.

But it is a singular historic phenomenon that Norman Feudalism, with its worst features, was introduced into Scotland long after William the Conqueror was in his grave. This manifested itself in anarchical outbursts of internal war among the nobles of Scotland, similar to those which had occurred among the Norman nobles in Normandy in the eleventh century. Norman Feudalism was not forced upon Scotland by invasion or open conquest; it was introduced by the Scottish kings, partly owing to personal associations and circumstances, and partly owing to a misapprehension of the real nature and tendency of the system, which for several generations they fostered. The ultimate result of their policy was this:――1, The continuity of the progressive movement of the kingdom was in some districts dislocated by the introduction of Norman Feudalism. 2, Then the system ran its natural course, and the nobles reduced the power of the kings almost to a nonentity, rendered the functions of the executive ineffective, and sometimes totally inoperative. They frequently rebelled against the kings, and involved the kingdom in all the miseries of civil war. They often fought among themselves and created disorder and anarchy in endless forms, frustrated the development of every branch of peaceful industry, and inflicted untold suffering upon the people. Thus the development of the natural resources of the country, and the progress and the civilisation of the nation were greatly retarded for several centuries.