Antuiquity, name and inhabitants of Dublin

**

The History of the City of Dublin.** **

Chap. I.**

Of the antiquity, name, and inhabitants of the city of Dublin, before the year 1171, when it became subject to the power of the English; and of the new colony at that time introduced. **

SECT. I.**

To point out the precise time, when the city of Dublin was first built, would be a vain attempt, and not reasonably to be expected; especially if it be considered that few cities are laid out all at once, but from the advantages of trades, the residence of Kings, navigation and convenient ports, natural situation, or other advantageous circumstances, they receive a gradual growth and increase; so that what is only a mean village now, may in future ages be a large, and populous city, of which the world affords us many instances. The antient Irish were at no trouble in erecting and fortifying cities, or in providing for themselves habitations of solid and lasting materials: their houses were built of twigs and hurdles, and covered with sedge or straw; and their cities were like those described by Caesar among the Britons, their ancestors, namely, “a thick wood, inclosed within a ditch and rampart, and made for a place of retreat.

Tarah in Meath was for ages the principal residence of the Monarchs of Ireland, where they held their solemn festivals and conventions upon all extraordinary occasions, and to which of course there was a vast confluence of the nobility and gentry at stated times; and yet so slight were the buildings there for the reception of such multitudes, that at present the leaft ruins or foot-steps of any antient pile there do not appear.

Roderick O’Connor, king of Conaught, is reported to have been the first person in Ireland, who erected a castle of lime and stone at Tuam, and that so late as the year 1161, which was looked upon as such a novelty then, that it got the name of *the wonderful castle. *Yet it is not to be denied, but that cities were built and fortified in Ireland long before the arrival of the English, as Dublin, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford and Cork; but we are indebted for those works to the labours of foreigners, the Ostmen or Danes, many of whom settled here early on the score of traffick, though they did not come hither in an hostile way till about the be ginning of the ninth century.

Though Strabo (who wrote his Geography in the reign of Augustus Caesar, about the time of the christian era) mention Ireland, yet he is entirely silent in regard of Dublin. But we cannot justly infer from his silence, that there was no such place existed at that period. Every reader of Strabo must have observed, that his acquaintance with those remote parts was but superficial, for he places Ireland at the north of Britain, if we rightly understand his words; nay, he ingenuously confesseth, that what he relates of Ireland he has taken from the testimony of witnesses not worthy of credit.

The earliest account: we meet of Dublin, in any authentick writer, is in Ptolemy, who flourished in the reign of Antoninus Pius, about the year of Christ 140, and calls it Eblana Civitas (at least his translator Maginus of Padua so renders it) and he places it under the same parallel with the present subject of our inquiry. This, without having recourse to fable, gives Dublin a just claim to an antiquity of more than fifteen hundred years. For unquestionably it must have existed for a considerable time before Ptolemy wrote, or he could not immediately have come to the knowledge of it.

The historians of Ireland take notice of it in a short time after Ptolemy. For there having been many sharp battles fought between Con Ceadcathach (in latin Quintus Centimachus) [Conn of the Hundred Battles, KF] ]king of Ireland, who began his reign A. D. 177, and Mogha Nuagad, king of Munster; a peace was at length made between them, which produced a new division of the kingdom; whereby the fourth part, bounded by a chain of little hills, extending from the High-Street of the city of Dublin in various branches through the kingdom to Galway, and called Aifgir [?KF] Rieda, fell to the share of Mogha Nuagad, and from thence was called Leth-Mogha, or Mogha’s share, and all northward of those bounds was allotted to Conn, and called Leth-Quin, or Conn’s portion.

This bipartite division was made about the year 191; but it did not subsist longer than a year, when it was overturned by the ambition of Mogha Nuagad who thought himself over-reached in the partition; because the half of the harbour of Dublin, which he observed to be commodious for trafficking and fishing, did not fall within his allotment; to recover which he again commenced hostilities, and fell in the attempt.

Joceline also, in his life of St. Patrick, mentions Dublin in the following manner:

“St. Patrick, departing from the “borders-.of Meath, directed his steps towards Leinster, and having passed the river Finglas, he came to a certain hill almost a mile distant from Ath-Cliath, now called Dublin, and casting his eyes round the place, and the circumjacent country, he is reported to have broke out into this prophecy: That small village shall hereafter be an eminent city; it shall increase in riches and dignities, until at length it shall be lifted up into the throne of the kingdom.”

But this Monk soon forgets himself, and, in the next chapter save one, introduces St. Patrick into the noble city of Dublin, of which Alphin Mac-Eochaid was king. The former part of this quotation must certainly be foisted into the manuscript of Joceline for the sake of the prophecy for no writer could be os negligent as to utter such manifest contradictions within the compass of a single page: besides, the fact contradicts Ptolemy’s account, who some centuries before St. Patrick gave it the appellation of a city.

The next antient authority concerning Dublin, is king Edgar’s charter, called Oswald’s-law, dated at Gloucester in the year 964; the preface to which runs thus in English:

“By the abundant mercy of God, who thundereth from on high, and is King of kings, and Lord of lords, I EDGAR, king of the English, and emperor and lord of all the kings of the islands of the ocean, which lie round Britain, and of all the nations included in it, give thanks to the omnipotent God, my King, who hath so greatly extended my empire, and exalted it above the empire of my ancestors, who though they obtained the monarchy of all England, from the reign of Aethelstan, who, first of all the kings of the English, by his arms, subdued all the nations inhabiting Britain, yet none of them ever attempted to stretch its bounds beyond Britain. But divine Providence hath granted to me, together with the empire of the English, all the kingdoms of the islands of the Ocean, with their fierce kings, as far as Norway, and the greatest part of Ireland, with its most noble city of Dublin;* *“all which by the most propitious grace of God, I have subdued under my power.”

Some writers have called this charter in question; but they are such, who repine that the English should have any footing here at all; not duly reflecting, what happiness they enjoy under the mild administration of the best of laws*, compared with the misery they suffered *while their own rude customs prevailed.

The Saxon annals relate, “that the power of Edgar was so great, by the means of a considerable fleet and army which he supported, that the kings of Wales, Ireland, and the isle of Man,* *were obliged to swear allegiance to, and acknowledge him for their sovereign:” which might have given rise to those expressions in his charter relating to his conquest of a great part of Ireland.

That some of the Anglo-Saxon kings had a dominion over the city of Dublin, and perhaps over other parts of Ireland, seems to be clearly evinced, by a coin of king Ethelred, next successor but one to Edgar, the legend on the reverse of which expresseth the mint-master’s name, and the place where it was struck to be at Dyfelin.

Now Ethelred could not assume this mark** **of sovereignty, of minting money within the dominions of a prince, who did not acknowledge him as his superior lord and this casts some light over the before-recited charter of king Edgar.

‘Tis certain that the Danes, under princes of their own, held the actual government of Dublin during the reigns of both these princes yet it is no way improbable, that they held that city by homage and tribute, though no mention is made of it by historians. This circumstance elucidates all the difficulties in Edgar’s charter, the Saxon annals, and the coin of Ethelred before mentioned, which is at present in the possession of a gentleman of the physico-historical society. Thus far of the antiquity of the city of Dublin. **

SECT II**

This city has been known by various names. The Irish called it:

Drom-Choll-Coil, i.e. *the brow of a hazel-wood, *from an abundance of those trees growing about it. But this name must have prevailed before, (by the great increase of buildings, and confluence of inhabitants) it merited the character of a city. The other names, since appropriated to it, are all founded on much the same reason. The Irish to this day call it Ath-Cliath, i.e. *the ford of the hurdles; *and Bally-Ath-Cliath, i.e. a town on the ford of hurdles For, before the river Liffey was imbanked by quays, people had access to it by means of hurdles laid on the low and low and marshy of the town adjoining the water, from which hurdles, it took those names, and not from the foundations of it having been laid on piles or hurdles, as some have asserted.

We have observed before that it was called Eblana by Ptolemy upon which word, Mr. Baxter has a conjecture, not indeed unsatisfactory, that the word Eblana has been maimed, and that the true reading is Deblana, which proves to be the termination of two British words, *dur *and lhun, i.e. *black-water, *or a black-channel, the bed of the Liffey in this place having been boggy, and consequently the water black.

It is certain that antient geographers have often truncated the initial letters of proper names of places. For instead, instead of Pepiacum, and Pepidii in Wales, Ptolemy writes Epiacum and Epidii; and for Dulcinium, now called Dolcigno, in Dalmatia, he has Ulcinium, and Pliny, Olchinium. The inhabitants of Fingal (In the county of Dublin, to the north of that city.) call this place Divelin, and the Welch, Dinas-Dulin, or the city of Dulin, to this day. **

SECT. III.**

Who were the original inhabitants of Dublin, is a matter both as uncertain and obscure as the time in which it was built: at best, we are under the disagreeable necessity of founding our reasonings on conjecture. The Blanii, Eblani, or Deblani, (according to Mr. Baxter’s notion, before mentioned) inhabited the tract of country, now comprehending the city and county of Dublin, and a considerable part of the county of Meath.

It is probable they were antient natives, and either gave the name of Eblana to the city, or took their names from their situation in or near it. But from what country this colony came hither, is a matter rather to be guessed at, than ascertained.

It seems to be the most satisfactory opinion, that they came from that part of Britain, called Wales, on account of its proximity, the almost identity of languages, and the close conformity of ancient religious rites and ceremonies of both people.

The same reasons are given by Tacitus, why the Gauls peopled Britain. Hence is it probable, that the northern, and north-eastern Irish derive their origin from the north of Britain. It cannot however be denied, but other colonies might have, on unknown accounts, arrived here from more remote parts, at different periods, as the Milesians, for instance, from Spain. That the Danes, under the denomination of Ostmen or Easterlings, built the city of Dublin, or at least fortified and inhabited it, it is agreed on all hands; hands; but at what time is not so clear as could be wished.

Some alledge, that they founded it about or before the time of the incarnation, while others transfer that event to the 9th century. Be it as it may, we must leave the fact undetermined, since history has given us no certain light into the matter. We may indeed with safety conjecture, that it was built and inhabited first by the Irish, as a village, or small fishing town; but that the Welch and Ostmen, at different periods, finding its situation commodious for trade, made a settlement for that purpose.

If Edgar’s charter be allowed of any weight (and there seems to be no reason to controvert its authenticity) we may reasonably suppose, that that monarch strengthened the old British colonies in Ireland, by encouraging a new race of Britons to settle among them. Henry II. pursued the same political steps. For upon the submission of the Irish potentates to him, in 1172, he early the year following by charter dated at Dublin, granted to his subjects of Bristol, his city of Dublin to inhabit, and to hold of him, and his heirs for ever, with all the liberties and free customs, which his subjects of’ Bristol then enjoyed at Bristol, and through all England.

This charter is the foundation of the liberties of the city of Dublin, which were afterwards enlarged and confirmed by king John, and other succeeding monarchs, and by divers acts of parliament, yet extant in the Rolls-office*, *of which more hereafter.

To Chapter II. Harris Contents.